For months now I've been trying to define and articulate one particular thing about the Bush administration that's always disturbed me, and I've finally figured it out:  it's the lack of outrage.  It came to me when I was reading TPMMuckraker, specifically the post about political interference by Vice President Cheney's office in getting several pages of the CDC's congressional testimony that referred to climate change and it's effect on human health removed from the report.  I kept wondering if President Bush knew about Cheney's plans to censor the remarks beforehand, and if so did he approve?  Maybe he didn't find out until afterwards, so what was his reaction?  

Excerpts from a Raw Story report on Bush's "News" conference:

On Saturday, President Bush tried to pin the blame on Congress for soaring energy prices and said lawmakers need to lift long-standing restrictions on drilling for oil in pristine lands and offshore tracts believed to hold huge reserves of fuel.

"It's time for members of Congress to address the pain that high gas prices are causing our citizens," the president said. "Every extra dollar that American families spend because of high gas prices is one less dollar they can use to put food on the table or send a child to college. The American people deserve better."

Bush acknowledged it could take years before opening the Continental Shelf to oil drilling would result in increased U.S. production. But, he said, at least it would put the nation on the right track toward reducing its reliance on imported oil.

"I readily concede it won't produce a barrel of oil tomorrow, but it will reverse the psychology," Bush told a White House news conference.

I wonder what the resignation of the worst president in recent memory would do for the nation's psychology?

Via the Huffington Post, "It has been rumored by some time that the U.S. Army has had to lower its standards to get enough recruits for its expanded war-fighting needs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now firm evidence has emerged, and it is not pretty."

The intro:

Republican Presidential candidate John McCain's foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, is right when he says "Once again, we have seen that Senator Obama is a perfect manifestation of a September 10th mindset."  That is to say, Senator Obama in no way shares the beliefs and views the right considers part of the post-September 11th mindset they now hold, and thank God for that.

Damn Obama and his September 10th mindset!  He obviously doesn't know 9/11 changed everything.  Thank goodness the Right gets it.  It's hard to believe in this day and age Obama would still believe in stuff like this:

Some things I didn't see addressed in the other diaries about Dole's critique of Scott Mclellan and his book:

I've had some pro-Hillary diaries running through my mind lately and not sure if anyone here is interested at the moment.  This is not me being condescending; I'm really asking.  Any pro-Hillary supporters still trolling the DKos diaries these days?  

Poll response is just fine.

Update:  sorry, it won't let me complete poll... best I can do for now it seems.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

In case you hadn't heard, from Think Progress:

Last night, Karl Rove appeared on Fox News’s "The O’Reilly Factor" to discuss President Bush’s interview with NBC and accusations that the network distorted Bush’s comments. Rove and guest host Laura Ingraham quickly attacked NBC’s ethics:

INGRAHAM: Yes, well, Karl, this follows on, you know, on primary nights, big nights, when you’re with Brit and everybody here. Over at NBC, they have a couple of their, you know, commentator types Matthews and the like, sitting next to Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams. I mean, there is no line between news and commentary. It’s all blurred.

Rove added that the "journalistic standards of MSNBC, which are really no standards at all," are now "creep[ing] into NBC."

Four quick points I couldn't turn into diaries on their own.

What does it take to invalidate a presidential election?  Is it on a state by state basis, with each state having different procedures?  I'm thinking Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004.  The Left will be watching the elections like a hawk for stuff like this... what if they actually find something, film something, download something and so on?  And if they find it after the fact?  If there is some sort of statute of limitations on alleged voter fraud, or does that too vary by state?

I ask because it will be very, very difficult for the right to take the White House this fall, which leads me to the other side of the coin:  what if President Obama or Clinton discover illegal activities done by the previous administration in an attempt to steal the election?  They'd almost have to cheat to win.  What if they use the telecoms and warrantless wiretaps to spy on particular Democrats in crucial races?  What if the Justice Department knew about it and covered it up?

Your thoughts?  I don't want to wait til October to find the answers to these things so if you've got some thoughts or info hit the comments section.  

I distinctly remember when a liberal blogger went to some sort of conservative gathering a few years ago and blogged about what he or she saw.  This blogger made a critical observation:  that when denouncing the left, these conservatives weren't speaking against liberalism but liberals.  Simply put, there is no place for progressives in their version of America.  That's why Wright's remarks are getting more converage than Hagee's:  hating America is taboo.  Hating Americans is not.  It's perfectly acceptable to hate Americans, as long as you hate the right ones.  

A lot of the reactions to the ABC debate among bloggers touched upon the MSM's larger dysfunction as well, mainly the form of nepotism that goes on within this their little click.  Bill Kristol's appointment to the NY Times is a prime example.  Forget what it says about the NY Times hiring one of its biggest and relentless critics.  What does it say about Bill Kristol accepting such an appointment at a newspaper he supposedly despised?  Kristol's either a liar or a sell-out; probably a little of both.

If the reward for being wrong about everything the past four years is a cushy job at an agency like the NY Times then what exactly is the incentive for reporters to do their job well?  

Well, we can all rest easy now; the Obama 'elitist' controversy has been resolved.  Apparently it's not Barack Obama who's an elitist, but everyone else in the world, especially the ones who criticize him.  It's true; his supporters told me so.  Barack said nothing wrong; it's everyone else's fault for not reading his mind.  Obama doesn't mean everything he says; just the stuff that won't hurt him politically.  Anyone who says otherwise is an elitist, and probably a racist too.

The biggest blame goes to Hillary Clinton however, for capitalizing on Barack's bad choice of words.  What does she think this, an election?  Holding a presidential candidate accountable has no place in a presidential election.  Doesn't she realize every time she criticizes Obama she gives McCain ammunition to use against him in the general election?  How dare she interfere with the anointed one's destiny to breeze into the White House unopposed?  Doesn't she know she's supposed to let Obama bash her all he wants without responding, to ignore his mistakes and missteps?  Sure, Obama's attacks on her help McCain too, but Hillary's electability doesn't matter.  The decision's been made; she won't be allowed in the White House.

There were a lot of gems from Vice President Cheney's interview with Martha Raddatz of ABC News.  This one I think deserves more attention though:

Cheney: "A belief that somehow we can walk away from Iraq, and it won't have lasting consequences --"

Raddatz: "Are you talking about Barack Obama?"

Cheney: "I'm talking about any candidate for high office who believes the solution to our problem in that part of the world is to walk away from the commitments that we've made in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere."

What "commitments we've made in Iraq" is he talking about?

Recently I was reviewing some of the writings about the Unitary Executive theory, particularly those of John Yoo.  If a President is indeed enpowered to do whatever is necessary to protect the country without consulting congress then the question becomes who gets to decide what is and is not necessary to protect the American people?  I presume supporters of the Unitary Executive would reply it's the President and the President alone who has such broad authorities, and that's the truly scary part.

Think about some of the rhetoric the Right's been spewing forth since September 11th.  What would happen if one of those people were given the means to enact such visions?  Another world war, nuclear holocausts, converting the Muslims to Christianity, mass executions, carpetbombing Mecca, and so forth.  What if a President decides to bomb Iran to protect America from the threat of Islamo-terrorists?  What if they decide it's necessary to shut down the New York times and censor the press to keep sensitive info from leaking to our press and thus our enemies?  

Is the Right really saying a President would legally be able to unilaterally make such decisions and execute them on their own?

You remember the flag pin idiot on the Dan Abrams show recently - Republican Kingston from Georgia, was it? - who, after belatedly realizing that he himself was without a lapel pin and therefore a terrorist, noted that the right likes to question the Democrats' patriotism just to mess with them?  The importance of this admission cannot be underscored.  Besides the obvious, it is also an insight into another tactic of the right:  controlling the debate.  They are addressing Obama by his middle name for the exact same reason.

It seems that Judge Roy Moore got a gig posting at World Net Daily after his 10 Commandments publicity stunt down in Alabama failed so miserably a few years ago.  In his latest column Moore weighs in on the presidential primaries and discusses what he thinks the candidates' priorities should be.  Here's an excerpt:

[Greetings.  This was meant as a slap at the right, people like Ann Coulter who purposely call Obama "Hussein" and people like the McCain supporter who called Hillary the Bitch.  It was NOT directed at the Left or any one of you.  It was supposed to create outrage at the people who decide the future of our country on such things.  Instead I have accidentally created a mess, and for that I apologize.]

[Greetings #2.  Again, I simply had no idea that y'all would take terms like Barack Osama and Hillary as the B@tch to be MY terms.  I thought it was a given that these were absurdities uttered by the Right, not by us.  These were NEVER meant to be my words.  Absolutely not I would never and if you've ever read me before you know that.  This was meant to mock the Right, nothing else.]

Studies showing that negative attacks, even when proven false, still have a lasting impact, albeit a dimished one, worry me to a point.  I find myself doing a doubletake sometimes when Barack Obama is repeatedly referrred to as B. Hussein Obama by prominent conservatives.  Same with Mrs. Clinton, aka the Bitch.  How do people who do not have the luxury or interest to immerse themselves in politics, blogs and life beyond Joe Klein and Bill O'Reilly react to such things?