Dianne Feinstein is a good example of what happens when a politician is allowed to build a career on one brief moment of crisis, handled with courage, grace, and resolve, but largely irrelevant to the day-to-day business of governing. I still get little shivers remembering when she was sworn in as mayor following the assassinations of Mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk.

She did good that day. So, warts and all, did Rudy G. on 9/11. For good or ill, they'll always be defined by that image. They can't change it (this can happen just as suddenly in the other direction -- just ask George Romney or Ed Muskie). The sad corollary is that with such a tailwind of electability, their policy positions can be rooted in narcissism. As they are.

and especially since the "unitary executive" theory came out.

What if Bush decides that the new President-elect poses a risk to national security, by, say, planning to change some of Bush's policies? According to the U.E. theory, Bush would be duty-bound to stay on.

And, the way the Bush-Cheney White House does business mandates that he not leave. What's the point of all that secrecy if next president decides to let in some sunshine? The Energy Task Force, wiretapping and other FISA abuses, politicization of DOJ and DHS,. . .

He also has to keep guarding the Reagan presidential papers as long as Bush Sr. is alive.

I think the original plan was for Jeb to be the anointed successor. Well, that's a long shot now. No, this time he's telling the truth. He is planning to stay on.

-- maybe a little regulatory power does inevitably turn well-meaning do-gooders into self-righteous Nazis. Letters on this site and others seem to prove that this happens in animal-rescue shelters almost everywhere. Chicago, too, I can say from a personal experience with which I shall not bore you.

This is not about only dogs and cats. Recall the GOP chestnuts, real and imagined, about overzealous guardians of proper parenting methods or OSHA rules, about the ruthless invasions by the "jackbooted thugs" of the IRS, or about cops who give you speeding tickets as you rush someone to the hospital. These horror stories about animal shelters simply show that liberals resent petty power just as much as conservatives do, if you push the right buttons.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Petty power corrupts pettily. I don't have a clue about how to cure it.

Here in Illinois we cherish Adlai Stevenson's (1949) remarks as he vetoed a bill titled, "An Act to Provide Protection to Insectivorous Birds by Restraining Cats," seeking to levy fines on owners of cats caught outdoors.

It is in the nature of cats to do a certain amount of unescorted roaming. . . . That cats destroy some birds, I well know, but I believe this legislation would further but little the worthy cause to with its proponents give such unselfish effort. The problem of cat versus bird is as old as time. If we attempt to resolve it by legislation why knows but what we may be called upon to take sides as well in the age old problems of dog versus cat, bird versus bird, or even bird versus worm.

http://www.sci.edu/classes/ellertsen/catbillveto.html

I've read that Navajos avoid speaking the name of anyone who's died, lest the malevolent shade of that person think it's being summoned. Apparently Republicans have a similar belief.

As I recall, Jim Bouton wrote about some of the early-60s NY Yankees (including the Mickster himself) kissing on the team bus. All the principals denied it, but most readers believed. There was something obnoxious about Bouton that made you believe everything he said.

Is Bush gay? Sure. Figure: he was a single, good-lookin, rich, hard-partyin guy until he was what, 40? And not a single bimbo has written a book or gone on Oprah's show to talk about her liaison with studly young George. Why on earth not? Well, if the bimbos were male. . .

Isn't he part-owner of one of the largest family fortunes in the world? I thought the idea of electing rich guys was that they'd be immune from such temptations.

Leave aside Cheney's loathsome policies. Why would any journalist, anywhere, anytime, recommend the most-hated man in America to be someone's running mate?

You know that if Howard had won, the Mastadon Party and the Broder-Russert cabal would be telling us how Bush was vindicated. Surely we can spin his defeat our way.

I'd always thought that the biggest reason for electing rich guys to the Senate was that they'd be incorruptible. How can you buy a Rockefeller for any price?

I'm for Edwards, myself, but Clinton has one huge advantage in the general election -- the VRWC (a term she coined, remember) has already thrown at her everything they had on the farm. What's left to Swift Boat?

Is corporate personhood sufficient to allow them to receive Presidential pardons? You can bet that the Yoo-Addington crew think so.

If, as you say (and we all know), the Democratic honchos in Congress are letting them get away with it, is it really obstructionism? Who are the Goops obstructing? Not the Democrats.

It sounds like a tacit deal:

"We [Dems] will introduce this bill that the party faithful like but we don't want, at least not in this form. You [GOP] threaten to filibuster, we thriftily count heads and conclude we can't beat you, so we pull the bill. We all have a good story for the folks at home -- we tried, you beat us."

Whatever you call it, it isn't obstructionism.

Romney is a proud member of the most authoritarian church of them all.

Just ask him.