Yup. It's the "everyone for themselves" time. Rats are fleeing the Hindenburg, at least once they're brought to trial. Just as nobody in DC could remember ever meeting, uh... what's his name? Jack something. Yeah. Him. Just as nobody could ever remember Abramoff when the investigation got a bit too hot for their liking, so everyone would suddenly become un-involved in policy-making when the leak investigation gets too close to home. I wonder if we'll ever see the day when Cheney says that he's not involved in the making of any of the disastrous decisions of this administration (and reveal that he's been against them from the start), and that it's all the Decider in Chief's fault.

We just might see that.

C'mon, cut Friedman some slack and please, for Pete's sake, don't put him on the same level with Rumsfeld! That's just mean. At the very least, Friedman isn't claiming that everything is peachy-keen in Iraq. Nor is he claiming that the war is being conducted properly by the administration. Nor is he denying that the insurgency is significant, strong and winning. He's just hoping against hope that the Iraqis themselves would see sense and move their country in the direction of democracy. Apparently, he's one of those people out there who is silly enough to believe that democracy is possible in the Middle East and that it's actually a good government. (I'm one of those too. I'm sorry. Can't help it.)

By the way, his "slap at the blogosphere" may have some merit to it. Whether or not the shoe-leather is real or virtual, the Net sure is brimming with a lot of folks who say all kinds of uninformed things that have no factual basis. Salon's very own Andrew Leonard once acted rather penitent about calling China "US's #1 trading partner", when in reality it's more like #3. "Bad blogger. Very bad blogger," he said. Would the War Room disagree that a true reporter reports that which has been thoroughly investigated? Was Friedman's remark all that uncalled for? Of course, had he said "right-wing bloggers", things may have been different, eh?

Perhaps I'm partial. I must admit, having followed Friedman's column for the last few years rather religiously, that he is a bit over-optimistic on Iraq. Maybe even un-realistic, sometimes. Perhaps he's even guilty of saying that the next six months would be pivotal for the last three years. I suppose his predictive powers are not absolute. I still think that, though I like your blog very much (it's the first thing I read in the morning, most days), this particular post was a bit much. Tom Friedman, despite an occasional flaw, is a good reporter and doesn't deserve that much ire. I'd much rather you focus your mortar on more worthy targets.

All right, all right. So California's election process is a joke. Yes. We all know that. The whole "recall" business has broadcast our idiocy all over the world. Rub it in. Revel in it.

{sigh}

You know how many people told me that they were sorry I lived in California after Arnie got elected? For the record, I voted against the recall, and no, I didn't choose a candidate "just in case" the recall went through.

You know, if not for all that electoral business, we would be the most radically awesome State in the Union. What's up with those politicians, dude? Ooh, I'll tell you what's up: Sacramento is WWAAAAY far away from the coast. So those dudes in suits clearly don't surf enough. Pale, unattractive lot they are. Otherwise, none of this lunacy would be going on.

You heard it from me first.

My Lord, even your in-depth coverage of this momentous event bored the crap out of me. Next time, don't bother. Seriously. I think at this point the choir already knows that Bush is a useless moron, while the remaining 29 percent of us are so entrenched that if he's caught on film with a latex doll, they'll continue to insist that he's like omg the Greatest Decider in Chief Ever (tm).

Myself, I was hoping for more juicy news about Lay and Skilling for example. So when a few days hence they are forced to pick up the soap by a large inmate or something like that, I expect a full report! Spare no detail!

Just the fact that everyone from Gore to Guiliani is pestered by talk-show hosts about their plans for 2008 tells us just how tired of this Bush dude the country has become. Maybe it's time even for bloggers to stop paying attention to him.

Reagan? Reagan?! How old were the people polled, I wonder? Have they heard of Kennedy? Or FDR? Or Hell, I'd take Ike over Reagan. Everybody liked Ike, right?

Pffth. Reagan. People are too fixated on the 80s, is what that is.

You know, I think there should be a Constitutional amendment banning all lobbying. Whatsoever. Of course, fat chance of it passing through Congress: all the lobbyists will be united in lobbying our representatives to vote against it. And who do you think the representatives would work for, their constituents, who only bitch and moan and demand things, or lobbyists, who pay for golf trips and football game tickets?

I'm preaching to the choir here, but you know... I wonder if a national movement to ban lobbying could potentially do something. Fat chance, but maybe still a chance? Maybe?

Hell yeah, Sam Farr voted nay! That's right! Go CA-17!!

Of course, Santa Cruz hippies would be on the front lines of the "cut and run liberal" movement, right? I nevertheless applaud the balls of those who risked political fallout and stood up against the cabal. Let's just hope none of them are up for re-election in November. Whew.