• See if you can tell the difference between John McCain and George Bush as they offer their thoughts on the economy.
• Via John Cole:

  Bob Schieffer, on Face the Nation, responding to John Kerry stating that McCain has completely changes his position on a large number of issues:

  "Are you attacking John McCain’s integrity?"

  Once again, McCain’s base comes through, ignoring McCain’s changing positions on torture, tax cuts, immigration, offshore drilling...

• Good news from the chairman of the NRSC:

  The outlook for the GOP is so grim that party leaders have readily conceded there is no chance they can regain control of the Senate in 2008, even though Democrats' current majority is slim, 51-49.

  "If you have an R in front of your name, you better run scared," said Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, who says the party will do well if it holds its losses to three or four seats.

• Howard Dean calls the New York Times hit job on the planning and organization of the Democratic National Convention a load of crap (okay, he doesn’t use the word "crap").
• Vets for Freedom, the 527 that pretends they aren’t supporting any particular presidential candidate even though Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham were on their advisory board, and despite the fact that their messages have often mirrored those of the McCain campaign, has a new set of  stay the course "finish the job" in Iraq ads coming out. The ads will be running in Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia, but a spokesman assures us that those states weren’t chosen because they are crucial ones for John McCain, but because of "the heightened interest in the election in those states will give it a larger audience."   Uh huh.
• And finally, in case you missed it, here's George Bush expressing his concern about skyrocketing gas prices:

  Q You must be the most excellent expert on oil business.

  THE PRESIDENT: Yes. (Laughter.) Look where our price is. (Laughter.)

  Q Well, actually, I'm suffering high gas prices.

  THE PRESIDENT: You are?

There are places in America worth saving for future generations for their pure, stunning beauty alone. One of those most magical places started deep in the earth's crust, in fact some future components were laid down in ancient seas half a billion years ago. The layers were taken down, eventually passing near the grinding fiery boundary of two, long vanished tectonic plates. Over incomprehensible stretches of time and under unimaginable pressure, dollops of granite and other minerals were baked out of the mix and accumulated in growing, city-sized lumps soft as taffy. They would begin a journey so long that single human lifetimes would barely rate as a spark in comparison. Far above, on the surface of a changing planet, the dinosaurs would rise from the ashes of a devastating extinction event, reign uncontested for tens of millions of years, before they would perish. Through it all the patient plutons rose, bobbing elegantly up through denser rock like grand waxen blobs in a lava lamp, each solidifying in its own unique way.

As chance would have it, when the massive chunks were still creeping higher through the cooling rock around them, a large swath of underlying earth the size of a small state recoiled and bunched up, thrusting them ever closer to the light. Still pressed under miles of overlaying rock, each chunk began to assume it’s final rigid shape. Fierce erosion consumed the weighty burden above and the blocks lurched upward. As the pressure dramatically lessoned and the stone cooled for the last time, they were each fractured and shattered by huge branching cracks taller than mountains. By ten million-years ago, all that lay between them and the surface was a relatively thin layer of gravel and soil. Water and ice would take over, two of nature's most prolific sculptors, but even for nature, the pieces being forged here were built for giants.

Over geological time, a cluster of  a dozen or so colossal blocks burst out of the ground and were alternately cut with torrents of running water and carved by rivers of ice. One after another grinding glaciers wound through and around the monuments, enormous sheets of solid igneous rock were sliced away from their original block, pulverized into sand and pebbles, and transported out of the growing valley. When the ice last melted, the towering angular faces left behind had been buffed and polishing to a glossy granite sheen.

       
Left: uplift beginning 10mya increases the rate of erosion of a large region, rivers and creeks flow faster and begin to cut deeply around the hills creating a rugged, hilly valley. Center: Ice Ages come and go, each one filling the valley anew with relentless rivers of ice and rock. Right: The last glaciar begins to melt and the polished plutons are revealed. (Click image to enlarge. Source)

The first humans to venture into the region some 10,000 years ago were greeted by a breathtaking vista. They found a lush green carpet of giant redwoods, black oak, ponderosa pine populated by browsing megafauna, nestled between monumental spires and rippling walls reaching nearly three thousand feet above the valley floor. Along the both rims, smaller hanging valleys end abruptly fifty stores above the ground. Water pours out of the passes in between the rocks into space and falls for hundreds of feet, splashing noisily into pools shrouded in mist and highlighted by rainbows come to earth. One of the last inhabiting groups of Native Americans, the Miwok, called it Awoonie, because the valley walls resembled a "gaping bear’s mouth". But today we call it by another local name: Yosemite.

I defy anyone to adequately describe in mere words the scale and beauty of this place. Two massive formations that immediately draw the eye stand eternal guard over the Valley: Half Dome and El Capitan. Both these majestic sentries are exfoliation domes. Like their smaller brethren nearby, they started out as individual plutons millions of years in the making, formed under immense pressure miles beneath the earth. In the comparatively new low pressure conditions of the surface, they formations slowly inflate, shrugging off megaton sized veneers of solid rock along onion layer like fault lines which are then lazily eroded by wind and water. The process often leaves a pile of jumbled debris near the base called talus. What we see, when we stand transfixed by an illusory frozen, monumental glory, is but a snapshot of an active, evolving rocky exterior driven in part by a creaking, at times shrieking, interior as pockets of stony pressure are violently relieved.

El Capitan juts out of the steep valley rim like a massive fist of granite. Like the entire valley, El Cap beckons seductively to the explorer in us all, our inner hunter-gatherer, our ancestral trekker. Of course a number of people get hurt every year following that inner voice, but it's easy to see why! It's just a hypnotic, delightful place, as though nature had constructed a cornucopia of rugged winding trails littered on all sides with rocky jungle gyms built with derived, bipedal primates in mind. What climbers and hikers call "The Nose" of El Cap follows that sweeping leaning edge for three-thousand exhilarating feet above the valley floor.

Last week a two man climbing team reclaimed their speed climbing record for the Nose with a time of two hours, forty-three minutes, and thirty-three seconds:

NYT -- Florine and Yuji Hirayama on Wednesday morning set a speed record on the Nose, the most famous route on the most famous wall in the world’s rock-climbing Mecca. Their ascent shaved 2 minutes 12 seconds off the previous record set in October by the German brothers Thomas and Alexander Huber.

Which means they were ascending the three thousand feet of steep to dead vertical to slightly overhanging rock at an average rate of almost twenty feet a minute. You can see what it looks like staring straight down into the emerald abyss near the top of the Nose in the thumbnail right. The hand, beaten and grimy from thousands of feet of climbing is mine; except it took my two partners and I almost three full days to complete the same route. It's easy to get gripped when you're up there, but there are also moments when the view surpasses spectacular in more ways than I can articulate. And while I’ve described mostly the summer Yosemite, I’m told that Yosemite in Winter, dressed in soft white snow and gleaming icy lace, can bring tears to the eyes no matter where you look.

That's a big part of what make places like Yosemite so worth preserving. Anyone who has explored them from a hiking trail, through the lens of a camera or the eye of an artist, or from a hawk's perch on the side of the wall thousands of feet off the valley floor will agree; they are in their own way more spectacular than any manmade firework show and some are as impressive a display of our national heritage as any Revolutionary Battlefield. From all the members at Daily Kos, to all our allies here in the US and across to the world, we hope your summer weekend is going great no matter if you're enjoying our nation’s scenic parks or unique historical sites.

Remember Freakonomics, the book co-authored by University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt?  The central argument of the book is that people respond to incentives, and are willing to cheat if the incentives to do so outweigh the consequences.  A lot of attention has been given to the book's controversial contention that crime dropped in the 1990s because many would-be criminals were aborted post Roe v Wade.  Less attention has been given the reasons that the book cites as cause of increased crime previous to that point: a push for rights of the accused, concern that punishments being handed out were being too tough on blacks and Hispanics, and the "liberal ethos" of the time.  

Naturally, a book that makes such statements is in for an argument... from the right. This Chicago School tome has been singled out as being too liberal, and denying the righteous power of the free markets.

The response is Freedomnomics, by former University of Chicago economist John R. Lott, jr. If Lott's name sounds familiar, it may be because his theory about why crime dropped is explicitly mentioned -- and dismissed -- in the pages of Freakonomics.  Lott, the author of More Guns, Less Crime cited statistics that purported to show that where there were more concealed weapons, crime fell. This book was very important to the debate on that issue. It helped kick start drives that had been stalled at that point, and gave those in favor of carry laws a big academic stick, filled with graphs and charts, with which to beat their opponents. It also secured Lott a spot with the American Enterprise Institute.

Unfortunately, Lott's thesis had two problems:  

1. Other people were unable to find the results he cited when looking at the same numbers, leaving many people to believe that he had gotten to his conclusions through the application of a great deal of fudge.

2. John Lott -- professor and author -- was vigorously defended by Mary Rosh, a young female student who had attended most of Lott's classes and loved his work.  The trouble was Mary Rosh was a sockpuppet.  

Lott created the Rosh character to provide lots of virtual praise.

I have to say he was the best professor that I ever had," s/he wrote.  "You wouldn't know that he was a 'right-wing' ideologue from the class... There were a group of us students who would try to take any class that he taught. Lott finally had to tell us that it was best for us to try and take classes from other professors more to be exposed to other ways of teaching graduate material."

Mary was also a staunch defender of Lott's thesis that crime had been reduced through the application of shootin' irons. As a wee-little female who drew the unwanted attention of dastardly men, she championed his cause.

"Do you really think that most women can out run your typical criminal?...Even if I am not wearing heels, I don’t think that there are many men that I could outrun.

As a woman, who weighs 114 lbs, what am I supposed to do if I am confronted by a 200 lbs. man?"

Mary Rosh continued to blast Lott's opponents, and praise his work, showing up seemingly every time his name was mentioned.  Mary's postings went on for three years. Only after investigation revealed that there had never been any such student, did Lott finally confess.

At the same time Lott's sockpuppetry was being revealed, his research was also under attack.  The editor of Science called him simply, "a fraud," and the National Academy of Sciences launched a review.

This story may sound amusing, but there's an aspect of it that's simply amazing: through all of this, as Lott's lying and exaggeration was revealed, his post at the American Enterprise Institute was never in doubt.  Regnery Publishing, Inc -- which had no problem publishing such bits of tripe as The Secret Life of Bill Clinton and Unfit for Command despite their lack of facts -- was only too happy to publish his book. If you think there is a level to which AEI, Regnery, and their ilk will not sink, you haven't been paying attention.

John R. Lott, jr. is the poster child from the "conservative intellectual," a man who is a demonstrated serial liar, but who is still given voice and money by the right. Neither truth, nor any sort of moral code, are allowed to get in the way of propagating conservative talking points.

And what are those talking points in Freedomnomics? They are (and I'm not joking about this)

• The expansion of the federal and state governments, along with increases in both taxes and regulation, can be traced, not to war or economic turmoil, but to giving women the right to vote.


• Abortion caused an increase in crime -- including a rise in murder as much as 7% (the real culprit is sexual freedom).


• Problems of corruption, such as Enron, occur because there is too much government regulation.


• Another factor in the rise of crime is affirmative action, which has ruined our nation's police forces.


• Price gouging during a disaster is good for the economy.

Suffrage as the cause of government debt and high taxes. I wonder what Mary would think of that? Actually, I suppose Lott's attribution of a more oppressive government to the idea that women seem more motivated by fear than they are by hope, is perfectly fitting with his perpetually frightened alter-ego, running from dirty men in her heels.

Come to think of it, Freedomnomics has some reviews online that are pretty glowing.  

As far as what positions struck me as being the strongest, I'd have to say that his link between women's suffrage and the swelling of government was ironclad.

As far as the politics goes, Dr. Lott is obviously a man of the right but the book is not a partisan affair. It is a sincere attempt to demystify the innerworkings of economics.

Lott takes on very politically incorrect topics that the mainstream media would never touch such as how affirmative action influences police effectiveness and how giving women the right to vote has influenced the size of the government.

I wonder how many of these Lott wrote?

(Note: Yes, the book came out a year ago, but the weekend of the Fourth seemed like a good time to drag out a book with a red, white and blue cover decorated with a slice of apple pie, and to point out the silliness that pervades the right.)

What have the Olympics, oil and commodity prices, and supply and demand have to do with either pandemic preparedness or health reform? And what do either have to do with politics?

Pandemic preparedness is still an issue; pandemics are inevitable, and we are not yet prepared for one (follow the links for more, and go here to learn how to prepare). Health reform, which can mean either expanded access and coverage or cost control (it's both, actually along with rebuilding public health infrastructure and improving quality of care) is also obviously an issue. Yet, one problem seemingly separate from another problem quickly runs together to induce a major headache for the world, and one that is going to to be a major headache for the next President.

Here's an illustration of how that works: take the example of latex examining gloves. It's a staple of personal protective equipment (PPE) for health care workers for infection control, and a much needed barrier to protect against the spread of influenza (both seasonal and pandemic). One company, Medline, with 30% of the market share, is a big player. So this announcement raised eyebrows when it was released this week:

Hong Ray Enterprises of Shijiazhuang, China, the world's largest manufacturer of vinyl exam gloves and a major manufacturer of nitrile gloves, has notified Medline Industries, Inc., and other U.S. customers that they are facing "force majeure conditions" and that they will be unable to meet their normal agreements to customers. Hong Ray is Medline's largest exam glove supplier.

Force majeure means that large scale circumstances beyond control free the company for liability and obligation. In this case:

In its letter to Medline and its other U.S. customers, Hong Ray cited a long list of events and government actions that have led to its inability to fulfill its contracts. These include a fire at a major raw material manufacturer, dramatic changes in government policy impacting labor, taxes and credit and pollution-control measures associated with the Beijing Olympics.

According to Amdur, Hong Ray's situation is by no means unique.

"All of our suppliers are facing enormous and unexpected obstacles in fulfilling their contract obligations," said Amdur. "While Hong Ray is the first factory to formally declare 'force majeure,' other factories, including those that manufacture latex gloves, face similar circumstances. In Malaysia, for example, the government recently declared a change in pricing for natural gas, almost tripling the price overnight."

So, much needed medical supplies will either be absent or raise your medical bills just as surely as rising oil prices impact the airline industry.

"We are moving quickly to secure adequate supply for our customers through alternative factories, at ultimately a much higher cost. It is crucial that we act fast for exam gloves, however, because it's a high demand item that can spike in times of crisis situations such as SARS and the pandemic flu."

And with that background, look at the numbers from a previous post in March:

Those with insurance are satisfied with their own health care coverage (83% to 93% depending on the question), but fear paying more for care (41%) or losing coverage altogether (29%). That >80% satisfaction is a key finding, because people satisfied with what they have a) don't want to give it up and b) are less likely to push for change. And when asked to rank health care along with other important issues facing Americans, Democrats tend to rate health care as more important than either independents or Republicans, so the push for health reform is not unanimous by any means.

Another important difference is that Republicans are more worried about cost-containment and Democrats more interested in expanding coverage. This leads to the following caveat; while much of the public agrees with the goal of  increased coverage, there is no agreement about the best solution to get there.

The slides are from kaiser.edu, which is a great resource on health care information. In conjunction with the Roper Center at the University of Connecticut, a list of recent health care polling can be found and put to good use. For example, from a Feb 08 AP/Ipsos poll:

(People have suggested various ways that the government could act to try to fix the economy. How much do you think each of the following would help fix the country's economic programs: a great deal, some, only a little, or no help at all?)...Increasing spending on domestic programs like health care, education, and housing

43%  A great deal
27   Some
16   Only a little
14   No help at all

Does that mean that increasing dollars for increasing price of gloves, oil, etc is what people had in mind? Not likely, any more than donors to colleges want their dollars to pay for electricity and heating oil when what they wanted was increased scholarships or educational programs.

But the reality of rising commodity prices (including food), international supply chains and a just-in-time economy put us at risk for key shortages that will, if not a sexy headline-grabbing issue, nonetheless need to be dealt with both in enacting health reform and preparing for pandemics.

The only way to approach this is with a sober, reality-based approach, and it's going to require the next President to understand the science behind the politics. That's why the public prefers the next President to know something about science, and why the 14 Science Questions the Next President Should Answer include

6. Pandemics and Biosecurity. Some estimates suggest that if H5N1 Avian Flu becomes a pandemic it could kill more than 300 million people. In an era of constant and rapid international travel, what steps should the United States take to protect our population from global pandemics or deliberate biological attacks?

14. Health.  Americans are increasingly concerned with the cost, quality and availability of health care.  How do you see science, research and technology contributing to improved health and quality of life?

in addition to questions about innovation, energy, national security and research. There's no way this approach is going to to be simple or easy. But whether it's the all-at-once or sequential approach, there's no question that a science-based and evidence-based approach to health care policy and politics is the right way to go. And those kinds of approaches will recognize that cost is a factor in the direction health reform goes, and will need to account for it, even as universal care remains the goal. Start with children if you want consensus

As you may know, President (George W.) Bush vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would create a program to spend 35 billion dollars to provide health insurance to some children in middle-income families. Do you think Congress should vote to create that program by overriding Bush's veto, or do you think Congress should vote to block that program by sustaining Bush's veto?    

Congress should override veto 61
Congress should sustain veto 35
No opinion 4

and get everyone to where they need to be. But in this environment, cost and complexity and going to need to be accounted for, one way or another.

This week, the media continued to bend over backwards to repeat whatever narrative McCain wants them to.  He even refurnished his airplane with a VIP section for the most obedient reporters.

Top McCain aide Mark Salter said "‘only the good reporters’ would get to sit in the specially-configured section for interviews. ‘You’ll have to earn it,’ he said." So how can these reporters "earn" a seat? Never challenge the Senator,

Full Lineup and lots of other goodies below...

Tonight's Rescue Rangers are jlms qkw, Shayera, Got a Grip, dadanation, srkp23, joyful and vcmvo2 as editor.

The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just~ Abraham Lincoln~

The diaries up for rescue this evening are:

Probability of failure

• gjohnsit discusses the personal impact of our financial system in Wall Street's Haute Con Job. (jlms qkw)
• In just ten minutes' time, the length of the embedded video in the diary, mconvente's Guardian (UK) video shows Mugabe's vote rigging, makes real the corruption of Robert Mugabe, and showcases what real journalism looks like. (dadanation)
• Using charts, graphs, and tables Migeru fills us in on the finger-pointing going on within OPEC as to why they think oil prices are so high in OPEC blames speculation. (Got a Grip)

the struggle

• DAMMIT! The Lobbyist "Express" Rolls Along, and StuHunter rolls with it to bring us the long list of McCain advisors you'll recognize as Bush/Rove cronies. (joyful)
• iampunha fills in the gaps in a piece of well-known history you only thought you knew in July 5, 1905: Horton helped the Whos be heard. (Got a Grip)
• The Republican presidential candidate spent July 4th not in this country, but schmoozing down in Colombia and Mexico. murrayewv brings us the details in John McCain's Excellent Latin American Adventure! (joyful)
• With the death of Jesse Helms yesterday, the revisionism machine is working overtime. Thankfully, Maaarrrk's Understanding the Far Right by Studying Senator "NO" puts the Helms legacy into a proper context, while Avenging Angel contrasts Bush's remarks about Helms' passing with those Bush gave regarding the death of Senator Paul Wellstone in Helms, Wellstone and the Partisan Eulogies of George W. Bush. Thus reminding us of how disrespectful partisan politics can sound. (dadanation)

support of a cause

• Morus informs us that the USA is not the only country where liberty versus security is a battle in "Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?!" (jlms qkw), while Mentarch examines how Democracy is faring across the pond and finds it wanting in Democracies In Trouble. (Got a Grip)
• gmoke takes us on a well-narrated photo tour of Old Solar: 1980 Barnraised Solar Air Heater. (srkp23)
• Lib Dem FoP celebrates the life of a universal health care program in A Grand 60th Birthday. (jlms qkw)

what we believe

• jimstaro asks us to join him in viewing the stories of some of our veterans and their lives in "In Their Boots"-Premiere-Episode 1- Video. (Got a Grip)
• First-time diarist The Dave relates how he is dealing with his shock now that A friend of mine has come out. (vcmvo2)
• DeanDemocrat has an unwelcome encounter with an old acquaintance and realizes why it was he never really liked the guy in the first place in Ed. (Got a Grip)
• Tchrldy shares the heart-filling reason why we do what we do in "I Never Felt Like a Citizen Till Now". (jlms qkw)

jotter has High Impact Diaries - July 4, 2008.

monkeybiz has Top Comments 7. 5 . 08 : Nobody Home But Us Chickens.

Enjoy and please promote your own favorite diaries in this Open Thread.

If you enjoy Diary Rescue, please consider joining the Rescue Rangers. It's a great way to become more involved with the Daily Kos community. Did we mention it's rewarding and fun? To volunteer or learn more, please contact us (don't forget to tell us your screen name) at: dkos.rescuerangers@gmail.com

::

For those not frequent readers of Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, not every item that appears there is actually fiction -- though sometimes we may wish it were. This month's column by Robert Silverberg focuses on the depletion of resources that don't get as much press as oil.

The element gallium is in very short supply and the world may well run out of it in just a few years. Indium is threatened too, says Armin Reller, a materials chemist at Germany’s University of Augsburg. He estimates that our planet’s stock of indium will last no more than another decade. All the hafnium will be gone by 2017 also, and another twenty years will see the extinction of zinc.

If some of these elements seem rather exotic, odds are you're looking at them right this moment. Both gallium and indium are used in the making of flat-screen displays (along with other electronics). If there's one name on that list that should stand out, it's zinc.  Zinc is not particularly rare, but we're consuming it at a rate that's far faster than we're finding new sources. That's also true of our old friend copper, which is why construction sites the world over are often plagued with thieves who ransack locations for copper plumbing and wiring.  

But the sobering truth is that we still have millions of years to go before our own extinction date, or so we hope, and at our present rate of consumption we are likely to deplete most of the natural resources this planet has handed us. We have set up breeding and conservation programs to guard the few remaining whooping cranes, Indian rhinoceroses, and Siberian tigers. But we can’t exactly set up a reservation somewhere where the supply of gallium and hafnium can quietly replenish itself. And once the scientists have started talking about our chances of running out of copper, we know that the future is rapidly moving in on us and big changes lie ahead.

Of course, we're not really consuming these metals, not in the way we do oil or coal.  They're not actually gone, merely spread out in forms that are extremely difficult to recover. Even with our best efforts at recycling electronics, it's likely that we're years, not decades, away from making do without some of these rare earth elements. In the last twenty years alone, we've consumed about one third of available resources.  Want to make a guess as to how long this can continue?

A 2007 study published in the journal New Scientist, looked at of the elements used in producing electronics and came to the same conclusion. Indium is gone within a decade. Zinc and tantalum in about twice that. The increasing scarcity of some metals is reflected in their prices.

He estimates that we have, at best, 10 years before we run out of indium. Its impending scarcity could already be reflected in its price: in January 2003 the metal sold for around $60 per kilogram; by August 2006 the price had shot up to over $1000 per kilogram.

This report also highlights a similarity between oil and rare earth elements used in electronics -- the vast majority are imported, often from politically unstable countries.  

In fact, these elements can contribute directly to that instability.  For some of the elements, like gallium, there's simply no good source of high quality ore.  Oddly enough, that's one aspect of this story that might be a good thing.  Those elements that are both extremely rare and isolated to a few high quality sources are a spark for corruption, murder, and environmental destruction. We may be currently engaged in a war for oil, but corporate proxies are also taking brutal actions in a war for tantalum, better known these days by the name of it's principle ore, coltan.  

There are steps we can take, including rethinking ordnances that require copper pipes and making it easier to recycle electronics (which is similar to broadband in that it's simple in many municipalities, while rural areas often lack access).  Those are good steps, and the sooner we act, the easier it will be to avoid fighting wars over copper, zinc, and their rarer cousins.

There are also those who suggest mining of landfills, and undoubtedly this is going to be tempting in the next few decades.  After all, rare elements may be found at a higher concentration in some landfills than can be located in any source of ore.  They're also a domestic source.  However, metals trapped in consumer goods are often soundly locked in stable, complex compounds.  Mining them, and freeing these elements for reuse could mean all the same disruptions to the water table, toxic chemicals used in extraction, and smelting familiar in traditional metals mining.  Anyone cheering for broad application of landfill mining as a solution to our shortage of rare metals needs first to look at the pits remaining from copper mines in the west -- then think about how many of these you want next to your home town.

The President
The White House
July 11, 2008*:

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. The Act authorizes critical intelligence gathering activities designed to defend the United States and its interests at home and abroad and provides much-needed flexibility to manage effectively the personnel and taxpayer resources devoted to the national defense.

Section 301(b) of the Act purports to place require the Inspectors General of the Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, the Department of Defense, and any other element of the intelligence community that participated in the President's Surveillance Program, to complete a comprehensive review of all of the facts necessary to describe the establishment, implementation, product, and use of the product of the Program; access to legal reviews of the Program and access to information about the Program; communications with, and participation of, individuals and entities in the private sector related to the Program; interaction with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and transition to court orders related to the Program; and any other matters identified by any such Inspector General that would enable that Inspector General to complete a review of the Program, with respect to such Department or element.

The executive branch shall construe the requirements on the Inspectors General in section 301(b) as advisory in nature, so that the provisions are consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and to supervise the unitary executive branch.

What then?

*What you're looking at is an adaptation of one of Bush's oft-used signing statements. Since the "administration" claims that the AUMF and the president's "inherent powers" under the Constitution authorize his domestic spying as a "military" operation, a signing statement simply rejecting the obligation of the Inspectors General (a part of the "unitary executive") to produce these reports would be entirely consistent with everything the White House has argued to date, on this and other related subjects.

So, shorter version without legalese: The people supporting this FISA bill say it has accountability built right into it, because it requires the Inspectors General to conduct inquiries and produce reports on what happened.

What if Bush says, "Yeah, but I'm not going to do it"?

The Democratic establishment is out in full force now, providing justification for the crappy FISA Amendments Act that's about to become law. While they haven't learned how to fight like Republicans (who have redefined "compromise" to mean "capitulation") they've learned how to lie like them.

Case in point, Nancy Soderburg, who was Clinton's deputy national security advisor and an ambassador to the UN. She pens a truly deplorable op-ed in today's LA Times, in which she tries to rewrite not only the history of the Bush administration's lawlessness, but also this law.

I can't write a better take down of this nonsense than Glenn, so be sure to read his whole piece. But here's this part that's particularly salient:

It's notable because the political establishment is not only about to pass a patently corrupt bill, but worse, are spouting -- on a very bipartisan basis -- completely deceitful claims to obscure what they're really doing. This is what Soderberg says is what happened:

The Senate is dragging its feet because the compromise bill's opponents -- mostly Democrats -- want also to punish the telecommunications companies that answered President Bush's order for help with his illegal, warrantless wiretapping program. That is the wrong target.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the White House directed telecommunications carriers to cooperate with its efforts to bolster intelligence gathering and surveillance -- the administration's effort to do a better job of "connecting the dots" to prevent terrorist attacks. In its review of the effort, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the administration's written requests and directives indicated that such assistance "had been authorized by the president" and that the "activities had been determined to be lawful."

We now know that they were not lawful. But the companies that followed those directives are not the ones to blame for that abuse of presidential power.

I would really like to know where people like Soderberg get the idea that the U.S. President has the power to "order" private citizens to do anything, let alone to break the law, as even she admits happened here. I'm asking this literally: how did this warped and distinctly un-American mentality get implanted into our public discourse -- that the President can give "orders" to private citizens that must be complied with? Soderberg views the President as a monarch -- someone who can issue "orders" that must be obeyed, even when, as she acknowledges, the "orders" are illegal.

That just isn't how our country works and it never was. We don't have a King who can order people to break the law. I have no doubt that people like Nancy Soderberg are spending the July 4 weekend paying shallow homage to the Founding, all the while being completely ignorant of or indifferent to the principles they pretend to celebrate.

This line of thinking is not only patently false, it's absolutely dangerous. Political expediency has been put ahead of principle, which happens all the time in politics. Politicians are always going to be politicians and they are always going to be basing their actions on the next election.

In this case, it wasn't even smart strategy. There are basically three groups who care about this legislation--us, The Villagers, and the Bush/Cheney cabal. Voters aren't clamoring for the Democrats to cave--Bill Foster's win proves that. So in a valiant effort to appease The Villagers, they piss off the activist base. As usual.

But this time is different. This time it's the Constitution we're talking about, the core principles of our founding--separation of powers, rule of law, all those "quaint" phrases that have kept this country going for 218 years.

Now the phrase we get is "it's good enough." Literally, Nancy Soderburg says this bill is "good enough." Sorry, but some of us have slightly higher standards. One of the reasons the Republican establishment is about to be thrown out by the American people is because we're sick of being lied to. Dems should take that as a cautionary tale, and realize that we're just not that stupid.

That goes for our soon to be President, as well. We have a much better chance of continuing this battle, repealing this legislation, and having the information related to this program declassified with a President Obama than we do a President McCain, and I relish the opportunity to do just that.

That's why I'm supporting Obama fully in this election. He's got my vote. But truthy talking points are not going to fool us--we will not sit by while Dem leaders lie to us about what this bill does and and watch them confer the king-like powers on the office we hope he takes.

Coming Up on Sunday Kos ....

• georgia10 will explore the new face of activism and what it looks like for the millennial generation.
• DemFromCT will review recent polling on health care as it relates to the 2008 campaign, and the chances for health reform after the election.
• DevilsTower will take a look back at Freedomnomics, sockpuppetry and misleading economics.
• Think the Cold War ended? Think again. Plutonium Page will take us on a tour of one of the most contaminated nuclear sites on Earth... right here in the United States.
• DarkSyde will give a lyrical salute to one of the most beautiful places on earth.

Due to the holiday yesterday (and the resultant slow news day), we did not do a roundup on Friday, instead saving the news for today. House and Senate Roundup will be returning to its regularly scheduled...uh, schedule, on Monday - brownsox

Senate Races

MS-Sen: MSNBC reports on the Mississippi race between Republican Senator Roger Wicker and former Democratic Governor Ronnie Musgrove, noting that it will be the first competitive Senate race in the state for decades.

But the fact that a Democrat is able to seriously challenge a Magnolia state Republican in a GOP stronghold for a seat in the Senate is almost heresy in Mississippi, which hasn't had a close Senate race in two decades. It could bode ill for Republicans all around the South and maybe the nation.

"We're concerned in the South. We've lost some Republican seats and that can't help but worry all of us who are interested in keeping good Republicans in office," said Lucedale Mayor and town doctor Dayton Whites, who perched Wicker atop a fire engine in front of Town Hall for a campaign appearance.

Wicker is fairly well-liked in the areas where he is known, though as a recently appointed Senator, he still has somewhat less name recognition than Musgrove does, leading to humorous anecdotes like this one:

After finishing a 13-mile bike ride through the Civil War battlefield where Union forces laid siege to Vicksburg, 70-year-old Alan Lessem continually calls Wicker "Sen. Licker" before being corrected by a reporter.

I'll be very interested to see how Musgrove's fundraising went in the second quarter.

TX-Sen: Rick Noriega raised $930,000 in Q2. The good news is that this is Noriega's best haul yet. Nearly half of that -  $454,000 - came via ActBlue, a testament to the netroots' commitment to this race and the Texas blogosphere's effectiveness.

The bad news is, well, the same thing. Texas is the most expensive state this cycle in which to advertise, and Noriega's total haul is a patch on Cornyn's take (Big Bad John, sad to say, is a top-notch fundraiser).

We don't know what Cornyn raised last quarter, but he was sitting on $8.7 million previously to Noriega's $328K on hand. Adding %930,000 to that five months before the election is a disappointing take, I'm afraid.

NC-Sen: Elizabeth Dole wants to drill for oil off the coast of North Carolina.

But she also wants to protect North Carolina's coral reefs from the kind of damage that could ensue from drilling for oil off the coast of North Carolina.

Color me confused.

Elizabeth Dole’s campaign this week touted the letter she sent to President Bush asking him to protect the deep sea coral wilderness off the coast of North Carolina, designating it as a marine monument. Dole wrote that the corals may contain "new biomedical breakthroughs" urging its protection because it "cannot be replaced once disturbed and damaged."

Last week, Elizabeth Dole’s campaign touted the bill she cosponsored which would allow drilling off the coast of states, including North Carolina, where part of the deep sea coral wilderness is located.

Today, the Charlotte Observer’s Bruce Henderson wrote that the corals off of North Carolina’s coast, "could potentially be damaged by offshore drilling and deep-sea trawling."

"You can’t have it both ways," said Hagan Campaign Communications Director Colleen Flanagan. "Elizabeth Dole wants President Bush to protect the same coral reefs she wants to drill into for more oil – that is completely hypocritical. Dole wants us to believe she’s in favor of protecting North Carolina’s coral reefs but what she’s really in favor of is protecting Big Oil and Gas’ bottom line. Offshore drilling continues to pad their profits while doing nothing to help middle class North Carolinians, and nothing to help us invest in renewable energy on the path to true energy independence."

House Races

AZ-08: Well, this is embarrassing for one of the GOP's top recruits, Arizona Senate President Tim Bee.

The district's former Rep, moderate Republican Jim Kolbe, has pulled his support for Bee's campaign, as Bee seeks to unseat freshman Democrat Gabrielle Giffords.

"I will not be actively campaigning for Bee," the former Republican congressman said during a telephone interview with the Herald/Review on Thursday. Kolbe, whose district included Cochise County and whose seat in Congress is now held by Democrat Gabrielle Giffords, hosted a fundraiser recently for fellow Republican Bee at his Washington, D.C., home.

Kolbe's spokesman cited "personal reasons" for Kolbe's decision. He declined to elaborate, but the Sierra Daily Herald speculates that it may have something to do with Bee's support of a constitutional marriage amendment in Arizona (Kolbe is openly gay).

When asked if Bee’s vote in support of putting a potential gay marriage ban in Arizona on the ballot had anything to do with the issue, Dunn also refused to cite what Kolbe’s personal reasons were.

Kolbe has been openly gay since the early 1990s.

Last Friday, the Arizona Senate placed a constitutional marriage amendment on the November ballot.

Whatever the reason for Kolbe's decision, it certainly doesn't make Bee look like a moderate in Kolbe's mold, an image he needs to cultivate to unseat Giffords this year.

VA-01: We weren't running very hard here anyway, but still, this is disappointing; the lone Democrat in the race to face freshman Republican Rob Wittman has suspended his campaign.

Dr. Keith Hummel, a Democrat from Montross, has suspended his campaign for the 1st District congressional seat, leaving the Democratic Party potentially without a candidate to run against first-year Republican Rep. Robert J. Wittman.

Hummel said discussions about past financial difficulties have become a "distraction from the real issues at stake in this election." Those difficulties include a bankruptcy, campaign manager Stephen Pierce said.

Hummel, an emergency room doctor, said he had made no secret of his financial problems.

"I have always said that I am an imperfect candidate," Hummel said. "Unfortunately, our elections today revolve around narrow and simplistic assessments of viability."

Well, I do think that it's rather critical to be a decent fundraiser in a district which gave Bush 60% of the vote, and where the last Democratic candidate (Phil Forgit) actually underperformed Kerry in his December special-election bid. So perhaps Hummel was not the ideal candidate, anyway.

The First District Democratic Party will be able to pick a successor, if they want to, should Hummel officially drop out.

FL-21, FL-25: The Florida Democratic Party has sent out a press release noting that Miami-area foreclosures have more than doubled in the second quarter of 2008, in the face of action by the Diaz-Balart brothers. The New York Times reported on the Miami housing crisis in March:

But as Congress returns from a two-week recess on Monday for a furious debate over whether to help homeowners on the brink of default, Mr. Diaz-Balart is caught in a crunch of his own.

On one side, Democrats emboldened by the Federal Reserve’s intervention in the collapse of Bear Stearns are demanding help for "everyday Americans." On the other, Republicans including Senator John McCain, the party’s presumptive nominee, are urging restraint, reluctant to commit taxpayer funds to what they say is simply a bailout for greedy lenders and reckless buyers.

On the ground, Miami residents appear to be angry:

For constituents like Mr. Carpio, that is not enough. "I’m very lukewarm about him nowadays," said Mr. Carpio, who like his congressman is a lifelong Republican of Cuban heritage.

Others were less subtle. "He says a lot of about foreign policy, mainly toward Cuba, which makes no difference here," said David Carbonell, a former computer programmer and gas station manager now on disability with a heart ailment. "You have people living here at the edge of poverty and he has done nothing to bring anything back to Hialeah or Miami Lakes. He is a party hack. He will vote the way his party votes."

Ouch. I can't imagine that after the apparent second-quarter fiasco, things are any better for the Diaz-Balarts at home.

Rep. Mark Udall, running for Senate in Colorado, is among the House Dems who recently voted for the FISA bill.

That by itself isn't particularly remarkable. It's symptomatic of running for higher office, just as the votes of Bob Menendez and Sherrod Brown for the heinous Military Commissions Act was. They both voted for it, and almost immediately after winning announced how deeply they regretted it and that they'd be working to repeal it as soon as possible.

The MCA, of course, remains on the books. Its repeal never stood a chance so long as George W. Bush held his veto crayon. And both Brown and Menendez knew that when they said it.

But that's (political) life. It is what it is, and we say so out loud even though it's one of those dirty-but-open little secrets that Serious People^TM don't talk about. Actually, that's probably why we say so out loud.

So now Mark Udall finds himself in the same position. And just as Brown and Menendez bet it all on their promises to repeal, Udall now bets it all on committing the next administration -- yet to be elected, by the way -- to extensive criminal investigations penetrating into the very heart of years and years of executive operations.

Well, he's not really betting it all on it. There are literally hundreds of other critical issues and as many equally critical reasons why you absolutely must vote for him if you're a Colorado voter, despite anything that could possibly be said about FISA. And he's just one of dozens of Democrats running for higher office or for reelection to their current offices in November about whom I'd say the exact same thing. But FISA and the core issues underlying it are getting the same exact same glossing over from those other candidates as we're about to read from Udall. And all of the people saying it are actually rather hoping you won't notice if they eventually pick up their chips and drop the wager entirely.

So this is not important because Mark Udall said it. Mark Udall is just the vector we have under the microscope at the moment, and just as with Menendez and Brown, we are better off by far agreeing to live with the dirty little secret and electing him. What's important is that this letter or one like it is going out to millions of concerned constituents, in hundreds of districts around the country. You may be expecting one, yourself. I think you deserve a fuller discussion of the answers you're being offered. Then I think you should go out and vote for Udall and/or your local Democrat, anyway.

But here, via email to a constituent that was shared with us, is just one example of what we get when we're silly enough to actually ask why they voted for this thing:

This bill is designed to update FISA while putting an end to abusive domestic spying, and I voted for it in order to prevent a future program of warrantless surveillance by the executive branch. The bill is explicit that complying with FISA is the only way for the government to conduct surveillance. At the same time, it updates FISA, which was originally passed in 1978, to give us important capabilities to discover and stop terrorist activities. I fully understand why there is confusion and even anger that the legislation does not do more to require some telecommunications companies to respond to lawsuits for alleged privacy abuses in their actions to implement the Bush Administration's warrantless surveillance after 9-11. But it does require a comprehensive review of that surveillance program by the Inspectors General of the Justice Department, the Directorate of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Department, including a report to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of Congress. This will mean that past abuses by the Bush Administration will not go uninvestigated. Also, the bill does not provide absolute or criminal immunity for these companies, and no government official will receive civil or criminal immunity for past abuses.

This particular line of response is now in wide circulation, doubtless disseminated by the House Democratic Caucus to help Members deal with constituent inquiries. And it does its job well. It sounds like a nuanced and intelligent response, and in most cases is likely enough to shoo away follow-ups and lingering doubts. But it's got serious holes in it -- serious enough to render the whole thing worthless, actually -- and they deserve examination.

Regarding the claim that this bill can "prevent a future program of warrantless surveillance by the executive branch," I say you're living in a dream world:

The "administration's" lawyers -- people like John Yoo -- advised Bush that the president had the "inherent power" to ignore the FISA provisions in the name of "national security."  So he did it. Despite the existence of the exclusivity provisions.

In fact, Yoo's memo insisted that FISA's exclusivity provisions meant exactly the opposite of what they do mean:

Unless Congress made a clear statement in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that it sought to restrict presidential authority to conduct warrantless searches in the national security area -- which it has not -- then the statute must be construed to avoid [such] a reading.

Just days ago, of course, the federal court in the Al-Haramain case said Yoo did indeed have it exactly backwards:

Congress squarely challenged and explicitly sought to prohibit warrantless wiretapping by the executive branch by means of FISA, as FISA's legislative history amply documented.

Congress appears clearly to have intended to -- and did -- establish as the exclusive means for foreign intelligence surveillance activities to be conducted.

Now, we've got a new exclusivity provision that also purports to prevent the president from simply ignoring the law, and it's being presented as something new and improved, and good enough by itself to justify a vote for the bill.

But the truth of the matter, as the court's decision makes clearer than ever, is exactly as Glenn Greenwald puts it:

They're presenting as a "gift" something you already have, and telling you that you should give up critical protections in exchange for receiving something that you already have -- namely, a requirement that the President comply with eavesdropping laws. What they're doing is tantamount to someone who steals your wallet, takes all the money out, gives the empty wallet back to you, and then tells you that you should be grateful to them because you have your wallet.

There really is no way to write a law such that it prevents someone from ignoring it, of course. If you ignore the law, you ignore the provisions preventing you from ignoring it. That, it turns out, is actually what "ignoring" means.

Regarding the claim that the bill "updates FISA, which was originally passed in 1978, to give us important capabilities to discover and stop terrorist activities," it's arguably true that the bill does "update" FISA, but it is decidedly misleading to follow that up by simply stating that FISA was originally passed in 1978. If "updating" is the issue, Udall might have taken care to mention that FISA has actually been updated dozens of times over the years, and several times just since 9/11.

It might also have been helpful to explain that while some of the updates were arguably necessary (debatable, but arguable), retroactive immunity for the telecom companies is neither an update to FISA, nor a necessity. Udall might have taken the opportunity to explain that George W. Bush would not accept the updates that were arguably necessary and proper unless he also won his point on immunity, and that he had in fact threatened to veto these "important capabilities to discover and stop terrorist activities" if he didn't get his way.

Some actual grown-ups among his constituents might like to know that.

Regarding the claim that the bill will "require a comprehensive review of that surveillance program by the Inspectors General of the Justice Department, the Directorate of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Department, including a report to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of Congress," I offer this observation shared with me via email, by emptywheel:

The IG report, by law, cannot name a private citizen or entity that participated in the warrantless wiretap program. In other words, while a lot of people are pointing to the IG investigation as a great invention of transparency (though, without the Bingaman amendment [about which, see here], we have no way to force the Administration to carry out the investigation in good faith), but the IG investigation by design will continue to shield the telecoms that broke the law in assisting the Administration.

Sounds pretty "comprehensive," eh? Can't name names. That, I think, is going to be rather important when it comes to Udall's last and most ridiculous claim, that:

This will mean that past abuses by the Bush Administration will not go uninvestigated. Also, the bill does not provide absolute or criminal immunity for these companies, and no government official will receive civil or criminal immunity for past abuses.

This last claim has already been addressed thoroughly by bmaz, writing on emptywheel's blog at Firedoglake. And the issues with it utterly destroy the point. Just a few such issues:

WHAT CRIMES? - Neither Olbermann, Dean, Obama, nor anybody else discussing this hypothetical pipe dream has indicated exactly what crimes they think might be charged. Let us be clear on one thing, simply because a proscribed activity is unconstitutional does NOT make it criminal. For a crime to be charged, there needs to be a specific provision of the US Code (USC), or other statutory provision, making said conduct a crime. It is crystal clear, from the collective record to date, that the participating telcos were compelled by the Bush Administration to assist and were given written assurances that their cooperation was necessary for national security, legal and authorized by the President of the United States in a supposed time of war. That pretty much eliminates any crime that requires criminal intent by the perpetrator, and leaves only what, in criminal law, are known as strict liability crimes, of which none come to mind. The only cogent possibility is the criminal offense defined under the FISA law (18 USC 1809) which, you guessed it, requires specific intent. How are you going to prove that here?

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: - Even if you could identify specific crimes to charge telcos and/or their owners, directors and personnel with, the crime must be viable and ripe for prosecution. The first question any criminal defense attorney is going to ask is "Gee, is this crime within the statute of limitations"? FISA is subject to the Federal general statute of limitation contained in 18 USC 3282, which is five years. And, remember, the statute starts to run when the crime is committed and/or when the government becomes aware of the conduct; in this case the Department of Justice knew about the conduct as, or before, it was being committed. When we, as citizens learned about it is not the relevant test. Obama, assuming he is indeed elected, will not be issuing indictments at the end of his inaugural address. The FISA Amendment Act provides for an investigation and report of the Bush/telco wiretapping/datamining and snooping to be completed by applicable Inspectors General within one year of passage; assuming Bush signs the FAA in mid-July, that would be mid-July 2009 for the report. The Bush Administration will not be working diligently to effect this while they are still in office; any meaningful work will have to be reviewed and/or performed under the new administration. It is unrealistic to expect that any charges could possibly be filed before said said report is due, so any act occurring prior to about July 15, 2004 will not be within the statute of limitations and will be barred from prosecution.

To these, I have still more to add.

1. Why, if you believe there are or may be grounds for criminal prosecution, would you immunize against civil liability? What sense does that make, exactly? Why make life easier for people you're telling us should be or could be subject to criminal liability?

2. Going the path in #1 says, "Don't press your rights by yourselves, Mr. or Ms. Citizen. Let the government that just finished stripping you of them take care of that for you. Maybe.

3. Who are these Congressmen commiting the Barack Obama administration to a major criminal investigation spanning eight years of the Bush White House's most secretive and most deeply shrouded abuses as its first official act, and have any of them asked Obama where he stands on this commitment?

4. The people promising you criminal prosecutions after '08 if you'll just shut up and trust them to read the law and take care of things after the election are the same people who promised you effective "subpoena power" after '06 if you'd just shut up and trust them to read the law and take care of things after the election.

Well, when they said it in '06, I read the law myself and saw very clearly (and dead accurately, I might add) what would happen to "subpoena power". Now we're back to trusting their reading of the law, their predictive powers, and their assumptions that Bush won't simply pardon everyone, out of some kind if pure shame, it is suggested, even though he hasn't exhibited such shame at any point in his life, much less during his "administration."

Absent the fact that Udall is hoping we'll all go away, this would be an intentionally stupid position to take at this point, 7 1/2 years into the Bush "administration." And if it weren't for the fact that we're all going to be hit with this telegraphed punch, I'd be more than happy to let those who subscribe to it take in on the chin while I laugh from ringside.

Too bad it's not that simple.

• The most unpopular president in history is still a formidable fundraiser even as his party frets over how to keep him confined to the attic during the upcoming convention. Some, in fact, don't even want him in the attic:

  "I don’t think there are a lot of people who want to see him at the convention," said Mr. Rohrabacher, who is especially irked with Mr. Bush for his stance on immigration. He said the president "should stay home from the Republican convention, and everybody would be better off."

• Vets for Freedom--a "non-partisan" group that boasted Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham on its policy board before the two rascals resigned--is gearing up for a multi-million dollar, battleground state ad blitz. I'm sure readers will be surprised to learn the ads will be critical of Barack Obama.
• A Canadian court ruled that a refugee board needs to re-examine its denial of asylum to Joshua Keys, author of The Deserter's Tale.
• Condoleeza Rice: Still Proud of Decision to Invade Iraq.
• The mighty state of California admits cowering in the face of Anthem Blue Cross, neglecting to enforce a $1 million verdict for fear of being "outgunned" in court.
• At Hullabaloo, Tristero ridicules the notion of "hard trade-offs and ideological confusions that the past years have forced on all thinking people" when those supposed "thinking people" are erstwhile supporters of the Iraq war. DHinMI
• Best eulogy of Jesse Helms, from Hendrick Hertzberg:

  Far too late for it to do anybody any good, Jesse Helms has died. He has done so on Independence Day, which, since he was born too late to own slaves and in too liberal an age to allow him to outlaw sedition, will forever be his only resemblance to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

  It is rude to speak ill of the dead. Luckily, I did so ahead of time.

  DHinMI

• Gallup:Obama Leads By 5, 47% to 42%

  Except for a brief period a week ago when McCain and Obama were tied in voter preference, Obama has had the slight upper hand in the race since Gallup's June 6 report, leading McCain by one to seven percentage points. The last time McCain had any numerical advantage over Obama was in Gallup's June 5 report when he was one percentage point ahead, 46% to 45%. However, the last time McCain had a statistically significant lead was in early May. (To view the complete trend since March 7, click here.)

  Gallup does not call it a statistical dead heat. DemFromCT

So, I have a great idea:

With four months until Election Day, and four months since Sen. McCain secured his party's nomination, the Arizona senator is relaunching his campaign. Trailing Democrat Barack Obama in the polls and dogged by the dismal approval ratings for the administration of George W. Bush, the campaign rearranged its staff last week. The primary reason: to sharpen its messages.

Trailing in the polls? Who knew? Anyway, since McCain is such a terrible campaigner who can't read a teleprompter, and since McCain's biggest liability is comparison to Bush, why don't we make him more scripted, and take away the thing that his supporters purport to like about him: his spontaneity?

So the campaign will try to find ways to better manage what comes out of these sessions. Aides say they will push Sen. McCain for tighter delivery and to contain diversions -- if not completely eliminate them. One senior adviser said the message will be executed "crisply" from now on.

Oooh, that will work. Let's run his campaign just like 2000 and 2004. Let's remind people everything we dislike about President 23%, including hiring all the Bush hands we can. Let's do this while attacking Obama for not being his own core self.

Brilliant.

I can't wait for the GOP convention. Should be some great theater, and a chance for a terrific warm embrace by the most unpopular President in post WW II polling history, reminding people what a dumb decision the GOP made in holding the convention in true-blue Minnesota, while the Democrats turn Colorado bluer.

Anyone want to bet on how many personnel changes the McCain camp will have between now and then? I hear Ken Duberstein is still available.

From one standpoint, Minnesota's senior Senator Norm Coleman is certainly a lucky man. He has a lovely wife, Laurie Coleman, who has succeeded at several walks of life: she is a former runway model and actress, and currently an inventor and entrepreneur (and mother of the Colemans' two children).

Laurie Coleman's latest endeavor is absolutely priceless, although it retails for $29.99.

Seems that Ms. Coleman grew frustrated with accompanying her husband on the campaign trail and on junkets abroad: one would wake up early in the morning in hotel rooms, with no way to properly take care of one's hair in such a brief period of time.

So she gave the world the rather unfortunately named Blo & Go!

For years, Coleman had been jury-rigging wire coat hangers into holders for her blow-dryer so she could use both hands to style her hair. "You go on a trip with senators and you have 45 minutes and you have to be ready to go," says Coleman, who doesn't have the luxury of traveling with a hairstylist. "Norm's not going to blow-dry my hair."

Her makeshift holsters were awkward, but they worked. That led a friend, Anthony Turk, who is now her business partner, to encourage her to develop and manufacture the device. It took four years of working with a product designer, but you can now get a Blo & Go for $19.99.

Prices have increased due to the economy, of course, but still!

The Washington Post rather dryly notes:

It is hard to believe that the name Blo & Go was not chosen to, at the very least, amuse. This, after all, is a world in which the term "wide stance" churns up easy chuckles.

Coleman's voice registers shock -- and dismay-- that anyone would make such a connection. "I didn't think of that," she says.

Evidently.

So I wonder how old Norm feels about his wife's invention?

"I needed something of great quality that was really going to stay up," she says.

Ouch.

"The whole key to this is the suction."

Stop it. You're killing me.

Senator Coleman, unfortunately, has not issued any public statements on the Blo & Go, depriving us of what could be a true YouTube gem. But as minor consolation, we have this zinger from Comedy Central's Pages:

It's fortunate that Coleman doesn't offer refunds, because (Senator Larry) Craig is going to mistake this product for an airport concierge service.

Race tracker wiki: MN-Sen

When we last left our heroes, House Judiciary committee Democrats had...

renewed their demand that former White House political adviser Karl Rove testify publicly on the politicization of the Justice Department but suggested they may accept a compromise in which Rove would be interviewed in private without taking an oath to tell the truth.

We were, of course, surprised to learn that Judiciary Dems considered this, "an important step forward," and that they were "encouraged by this suggestion."

Why would they say such a thing? Well, the thinking was that the "important step forward" was that Rove's offer didn't specifically preclude the later enforcement of a subpoena to compel sworn testimony, a key difference from a similar "offer" made on behalf of Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten last year. (Yes, they've been in defiance of their subpoenas for over a year now.)

But was it an important step? Well, clearly not that important, because:

Karl Rove has declined to testify before a House Judiciary subcommittee, despite a subpoena directing him to appear, his attorney told the committee on July 1.

Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, cited executive privilege as the reason that the former White House adviser would not appear before the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee on July 10.

As I sarcastically implied, no surprise. And no important step forward, either. The offer to testify off-the-record without precluding later sworn testimony was not, as it turned out, an important change in the White House's position on compliance with Congressional subpoenas, but rather an additional degree of gamesmanship that lawyering up privately (rather than through the White House) allows you to employ. You have your private attorney float an offer that puts daylight between you and the White House's position, let it be hailed as "an important step forward," and then:

respectfully decline to appear before the Subcommittee on July 10 on the grounds that Executive Privilege confers upon him immunity from process to respond to a subpoena directed to this subject.

Voila! You're back to the White House position, and the House Judiciary Committee has to explain why the "important step forward" is now unacceptable.

It's not inexplicable, mind you. The grounds are these: Rove says he'll answer questions about the Don Siegelman matter only, and will refuse to discuss the broader U.S. Attorneys matter. So technically, it's this that the Committee is rejecting as unacceptable.

And it is unacceptable. Unfortunately, it also means the Rove subpoena ends up in limbo with the Miers and Bolten subpoenas, awaiting the outcome of a federal lawsuit filed by the Committee, begging the judicial branch to please allow the legislative branch to conduct oversight of the executive branch. Just as Rove himself said it would, back in May.

So what's next? Well, there's always what some Members of the Judiciary Committee say is next:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said that the House Judiciary Committee would be willing to arrest Karl Rove if the former White House official doesn't testify about his role in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.

That sure would go a long way toward making people believe in subpoena power. Not to mention the tantalizing suggestion offered and oft-repeated by certain Members of Congress that the new FISA revisions recently passed by the House still preserve the possibility of criminal prosecution of domestic spying abuses.

It's hard to buy into the criminal liability claim when the House has Rove, Miers and Bolten dead to rights, and... seeks civil relief. Don't you think?