I don't fucking think so

Site is too busy right now, but Citizens for Ethics is reporting that the White House has "lost" FIVE MILLION emails over a two-year period. This, of course, in relation to the USA firing scandal that I mentioned two weeks ago would go away in two week's time if they would just cooperate with the investigation and let the news cycle run it's course.

This is like getting pulled over for speeding and then as soon as the officer comes up to your window you blurt out something stupid like "DON'TLOOKINTHETRUNK!" and then of course the trooper looks in your trunk and you have a corpse in there. Just play it cool and take the ticket, and then you can go home and hide that dead stripper in your basement where she belongs.

And, of course, those five million emails weren't just "lost". They're like nude pictures, in that once they're out on the Internet they're out there forever. In fact, some of the emails may actually include nude photos, or perhaps photos of dead strippers locked in a car trunk -- either one of which would really bring these analogies to life.

Who's Your Daddy?

I'm really disgusted (but not surprised) by the media's reaction to the way Congress is attempting to subpoena White House aides in the USA Firing scandal. The conflict between President Bush and Democrats leading the investigation has taken the tone of a stern father reprimanding misbehaving children, as though it's somehow out of line for Congress to want to hear some official testimony on this case.

Events like this have been a hallmark of the Bush presidency. Even when it's perfectly clear that the administration is wrong, and well past the point when any savvy politician would've given in and let the news cycle run it's course as quickly as possible. Instead, by puffing his chest out and taking a stand on exactly how Karl Rove and Harriet Miers ought to be interviewed by investigators, Bush is keeping the negative issue in the limelight for extra days and even weeks.

He must really be covering something good up here, because allowing testimony on the record here shouldn't hurt them any more than if they continue to act like they're actually succeeding in hiding any wrongdoing. In fact, the stalling is making it look worse than it probably is. If they were smart, Rove and Miers would've squealed already, everyone's suspicions would've been confirmed, Alberto Gonzalez would probably take the fall, and the American public goes back to their new episodes of Law and Order by the end of the week.

However, this "liberal" media has pretty much removed the necessity for any political savvy in instances like this up to this point. Why should they (or Bush, for that matter) change what they're doing now?

Smearing the Senator from Illinois

Media Matters has a pretty complete and comprehensive list of smears against Barack Obama, originating with, and repeated by members of the press.

This really goes beyond digging up dirt on the guy so they can have something negative to broadcast. He just entered the race two weeks ago and they haven't even let him trip up on his own -- no, they're doing everything they can to nip this campaign in the bud, and it's not working.

link via [Media Matters ]

On the topic of Electability

The primaries are still over a year away, and every day we're hearing about new exploratory committees to determine someone's chances of being elected to the highest office in the land. To some, this is the beginning of a too-long election process that will dominate headlines and conversations. To me, it's an encouraging sign that folks still care enough about democratic politics to have dozens of hopefuls revving their engines at the starting line here in January 2007.

Right now, though, it's a bit discouraging to tune in on cable TV or talk radio when they're talking non-stop about the elect-ability of a person; especially when they're discussing things like gender, race, religion, marital status, and other things that should have no bearing on a campaign two years ahead of Election Day (or at all, in most cases). Save that shit for the primaries, when strategy actually will count for something. Now is the time for original ideas, policy discussions, and public service track records.

Instead, we're already descending into the petty and the mundane. Everyone's asking one another the same silly questions with the same incredulous, wide-eyed faces as though they were the first people to think:

"Will Americans vote for a woman?"
"Will Americans vote for a black guy?"
"Will Americans vote for a guy who's been married three times?"
"Will Americans vote for a guy who's smoked pot?"
"Will Americans vote for a guy whose name doesn't sound of Anglo-Saxon origin?"
"Will Americans vote for a guy who did coke?"

The answer to most of the above WOULD be yes, but unfortunately the questions get asked so much that folks get spooked and tend to shy away from these candidates, gravitating toward more "safe" choices -- candidates that are, as the term goes, more "electable". We sacrifice the chance to have the best public policy and to have the best possible leaders in office because we're all scrambling to put our money down on the one who we think has the best chance to win.

Because of this phenomenon, genuinely interesting candidates like Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, Hilary Clinton, and John McCain are already being thrown under the bus by a mass media that has nothing better to talk about at this point in the campaign than how black, divorced, female, or old they are. It's as though if they're being punished for coming to the party early; and yet, anyone who dares to make a late entrance will be dismissed as being a long-shot. What's left are the in-betweeners, the play-it-safers, the favorites in Vegas -- the leaders Americans choose not because they want the best government, but because they want to Win At All Costs.