• The Rove Affair is Dead. Long Live the Rove Affair!

    As I was hoping yesterday, Rove's back. The Washington Post has a front-pager explaining that the file detailing her relationship to Wilson was marked, very conspicuously, "Secret", and so there's no longer doubt about whether her status was classified. There's some doubt as to whether Rove knew her status was classified (he could've heard about her from another source), but one way or the other, someone committed a crime here.

  • Insert Painfully Lame Movie Quote Here

    Poor Arnold. Homeboy just can't catch a break. Weeks of bad news and sagging poll numbers seemed close to reversing with the budget deal, but then came news that Arnold's been making $8 million from muscle magazines while simultaneously signing legislation that helped their advertisers. Ouch. Before the story broke, Arnold's approval rating was dismal 34%, 4% behind President Bush which, in California, is a real trick. After the scandal broke? God knows.

  • Group Hug

    I'm reading through some of Roberts' Senate testimony from his appellate court nomination (you can find the whole thing here but, be warned, it's the pdf to end all pdf's) and, while this part is totally unimportant, it's still worth excerpting. As context, Warner said he'd be attending his 50th reunion that week:

  • Uh-Oh

    Looks like more bombings in London.

  • Saber's Quiet

  • A Question

    I've been puzzling this out all day. If not for Rove, would Bush have picked Roberts? Which is to say, if not for Rove, would Bush have been spoiling for a long, protracted battle that could end with more public disapproval of his administration and priorities (even as the Justice eventually won confirmation), or would he have still wanted the lovefest Roberts created? Because the pick, all things considered, has given an Administration desperately in need of some good press an avalanche of positive coverage and sunny photo ops. Even Democrats are having trouble mustering much more than resignation. But was this weakness on their part or what they wanted all along? What do you guys think?

  • Smart Subsidies

    Yesterday, Matt pointed to a Times article saying that new hybrid technologies were being pumped into the acceleration side of things rather than going to increase fuel efficiency. That's not going on everywhere, sure, but the Accord hybrid and a few others are using the increased power to, well, increase power. This is essentially what happened in the 80's when the advances that had been going to cut fuel consumption were, with Reagan's freeze on CAFTA standards, plowed into engine muscle, at least by American companies. The Japanese kept going for efficiency and, well, you know how that turned out.

  • Bits n' Pieces

    I don't know if other writers are experiencing the same thing, but there's really nothing left to write about Roberts at the moment. Nevertheless, I feel I should be writing about Roberts now. It's all very confusing. So, while I try to mentally segue into other subjects, here are some bits that got buried:

    • Matt Holt wrote an excellent piece on the failure of Clinton Care yesterday that everyone should read. If you missed it, correct the mistake. Correctly understanding what happened there is crucial if we want to move forward.

  • First Impressions

    Check out BagNewsNotes on framing images. Most of the framing talk -- particularly Matt Bai's old-news article about Lakoff -- tends to twirl around the same old block, saying what we heard before but louder. The idea that you can lose on visual cues as surely as aural ones, though, hadn't occurred to me, but after seeing Bag's post, I'm convinced we're probably doing it. Definitely worth a read.

  • How It's Done

    The New York Times gets it exactly right:

    The American people know little about Judge John Roberts, other than that President Bush is nominating him to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court. But in the coming weeks that should change. The Senate has a duty to scrutinize his background and to question him closely at his confirmation hearings about substantive areas of the law. If he is a mainstream conservative in the tradition of Justice O'Connor, he should be confirmed. But if on closer inspection he turns out to be an extreme ideologue with an agenda of stripping away important rights, he should not be.