OK, so it looked gimmicky when Kucinich pulled out his pocket version of the Constitution. On the other hand, he did an anti-Gonzales by showing preparation for a likely question. He looked like someone gutsy enough to stand alone and do what's right when the other candidates wouldn't support his impeachment resolution. It that was just a campaign gimmick, then I guess the other candidates fell into it. He grabbed attention that Williams denied him the rest of the night and was the only one who said Iraq wasn't just a mistake, but based on lies. He had another stand alone moment when he was the only one who wouldn't keep calling it the "global war on terror", and then talked about the need to reorient how we conduct foreign policy.

I just went to kucinich.us and donated. He says what I want said, and I'm tired of major media deciding who is a serious candidate. I'll take the guy who who showed good judgement in opposing the invasion from the beginning, and who consistently shows the backbone to stand by his positions against political pressure.

I looked at that list of targeted seats, and they're going after Stephanie Herseth despite her 69% last year? Is this like Rove saying he had "the" math? As the fake president's administration implodes and they put together vulnerability lists that make limited sense to me, my confidence in Rove's unbeatable political skills wanes. If we can stop the election fraud, then I look forward to election day next year.

Or maybe he's still the master the fearful on the Democratic side imagine, and this was put out as disinformation. Except this is turning into a new scandal by itself. Nah, I'm sticking with Rove is just mean, not brilliant.

When the presidential candidates got the question last night about Guiliani's remarks, the select few who got to answer it (a big problem with that debate, I get tired of major media deciding who is a serious candidate, but I digress) gave the safe, dignified answer. I hoped to hear someone pointedly say that Republicans were in charge leading up to 911. We had a Republican president (legitimacy issues aside, he was in charge) for the prior eight months, and NYC had a Republican mayor for the prior eight years. I wish one of the candidates had mentioned the command center being in the WTC at Guiliani's command and at the request of a big donor who couldn't find a tenant for his WTC office space. Do they know these things about Guiliani? Are they holding back until Guiliani is definitely the GOP candidate before taking him apart? If I can offer advice, don't get fancy. Take him down now.

I've sometimes wondered why some terrorist didn't try what seemed to me an obvious way of screwing up American metro areas by blowing up car bombs on freeway overpasses and interchanges. Not many casualties, but lots of daily life gets screwed up. I eventually accepted the argument that Al Qaida and it ideological kin think large numbers of casualties is the point, and anything less looks like defeat. However, they're hardly the only people who might resort to terrorism, and if I could think of it, someone wanting to cause problems surely thought of it already. If they didn't, now they know destroying the right piece of freeway causes big problems. So "redundancy" seems like the right word. We don't have to consider transportation inefficient when it isn't used to maximum capacity. Suddenly, it seems like empty bus seats, half-empty rail cars, extra freeway lanes and little-used bike lanes are a security measure rather than a waste.

So if DOJ was supposed to reveal this memo to Leahy's committee and didn't, isn't that Contempt of Congress or Lying to Congress or some such felony? I don't understand why impeachment processes haven't already started against Gonzales.

AnnieW, I'm not Elephantman, but you did get me to look up Carl J. Marlinga. There's a story today in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/washington/01corrupt.html

Thanks for the tip, and while the subject is politics influencing prosecutions, anyone looked into why Bill Frist's insider trading investigation came to a prolonged end? It took 18 months to determine there was nothing there? It seemed so open and shut a case, I have to suspect Frist was protected. Even if my suspicions are wrong, this is the damage done by politicizing the Justice Department. How many years will it be before we stop believing any investigation may have been political?

No, refusing to believe evolution doesn't mean you're stupid, ignorant, or superstitious. It just means you're hoping to answer the follow-up quesiton, "Does the Earth go around the sun?"

The evolution question sounds silly, but I've learned to take it seriously. The people who believe evolution can be dismissed because it contradicts their creation myth have also learned science is no more likely to be right than religion or any trusted person venturing an opinion, and I suspect this is much of what lies behind the difficulty convincing people about scientifically proven environmental problems. It's no surprise, if that's correct, that the rise of religious fundamentalism coincides with global warming proving a tougher sell than any previous problem.

If the question gets asked again, I suggest that any candidate who answers by denying evolution be asked if he denies that Earth goes around the sun, and if not, please reconcile that with the bible.

If the Republicans will trample each other in an attempt to survive, let's encourage them. If Doolittle thnks he's being used by Gonzales, let's urge him to support Gonzales' impeachment. If Gonzales will push the delayed investigations of other Republicans, let's give him a day of not being the center of attention. If they turn on each other, we can get rid of a bunch of crooks.

Though Torture Boy Gonzales is the one above all I want gone.