"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

And beyond that, F. Scott Fitzgerald is said to have come up with this gem: "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."

Can't quite process these two items properly -- my grey matter is threatening to explode at the the thought that Dubya, Tony Snow and others in this administration might actually be frickin' geniuses!

BOOM!!! Shoot, there go millions of brains across the U.S., splattered against our computer monitors.

...is clearly akin to the stages of grief and sorrow experienced by people who have suffered death of a loved one, or who are divorcing.

No surprise -- the man in the White House to whom they're wedded is NOT quite the guy they thought he was, and divorce is a definite option. In any case, the Bush presidency is terminally ill and will expire no later than January 2009 under the "best" prognosis.

- - -

(Shamelessly copied from http://www.womansdivorce.com/emotional-stages-of-divorce.html)

Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, a pioneer in the hospice movement, first described the stages of grieving about and recovering from a major trauma such as death or divorce:

Denial: "This is not happening to me. It's all a misunderstanding. It's just a midlife crisis. We can work it out."

Anger and resentment: "How can he [she] do this to me? What did I ever do to deserve this? This is not fair!"

Bargaining: "If you'll stay, I'll change" or "If I agree to do it [money, childrearing, sex, whatever] your way, can we get back together?"

Depression: "This is really happening, I can't do anything about it, and I don't think I can bear it."

Acceptance: "Okay, this is how it is, and I'd rather accept it and move on than wallow in the past."

- - -

Yup, Congressional Republicans are somewhere in the first few steps of this process, mixing denial with anger and first attempts at bargaining with Dubya. Once they've worked through the depression phase, Congress will FINALLY reach the critical mass needed for that final divorce decree.

How did that notorious recent billboard campaign put it? "Life is short -- get a divorce!" Sometimes that IS the best option.

RealName, WHAT are you attempting to say? A little more clarity and explanation seems to be needed for dense folks like me.

Mankind has always struggled against the allure of the notion of the perpetual motion machine, which, once set in motion, can continue to operate without introduction of additional energy.

Darned if the GOP didn't come close to inventing one post-9/11. The idea that the unfocused threat against all that is good and proper could ONLY be addressed by resolute Republicans successfully led to continued control of the White House and Congress in 2004, sparking speculation that Democrats would remain in the wilderness for years to come. If there's only one logical response to the one real threat faced by the U.S., then what's to be done except more of the same?

The problem with this latest pretender to perpetual motion is additional "fuel" still must be added continually -- that being the lives and bodies of Americans, Iraqis and others, not to mention the billions of dollars continually going up in smoke.

Switching gears a bit, I do agree 100% with this part of Cheney's statement: "We didn't get elected to be popular. We didn't get elected to worry just about the fate of the Republican Party." He's right (even if Bush administration actions put the lie to his lofty claims) -- but then he neglects to consider that Congress ALSO was elected to achieve all the same admirable ends. They share responsibility for the fate of this country with the executive branch; no one has sole claim. Only when Congress truly asserts its rights and powers, effectively reining in an out-of-control administration, will balance and sanity have a chance to return to this country.

This just in from the Seattle Times (the reference here is to John McKay, the former U.S. attorney for Western Washington):

- - - - - -

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003699882_webmckayforum09m.html

McKay said he began to have concerns about politics entering the Justice Department in early 2005, when Gonzales addressed all of the country's U.S. attorneys in Scottsdale, Ariz., shortly after he took over as attorney general.

"His first speech to us was a 'you work for the White House' speech," McKay recalled. " 'I work for the White House, you work for the White House.' "

McKay said he thought at the time, "He couldn't have meant that speech," given the traditional independence of U.S. Attorneys. "It turns out he did."

He looked around the meeting room and caught the eyes of his colleagues, who gave him looks of surprise at Gonzales' remarks. "We were stunned at what he was saying."

- - - - - -

I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- we need to discard the outdated oath of office taken by members of the executive branch, from cabinet secretaries on down the line. These people obviously are expected to show first allegiance to the President; the country and our Constitution just as obviously are secondary at best. Let's be honest about it, OK?