"Matthews' reasonable verdict on the whole matter, according to Isikoff and Corn, was that the Wilsons 'were trying to screw the White House so the White House was going to screw them back'."

It's not reasonable to describe Joe Wilson's revelations about the yellowcake hoax as "trying to screw the White House". It's cynical, amoral, and arguably politically biased.

"That's what's changed," the president said, with a smile of satisfaction. "It's what's changed over a relatively quick period of time. It used to be that the United States would say that and that would be kind of a stand-alone statement. Now when that statement is said, there are other nations in the neighborhood saying it ... That is a substantial change from the previous times."

Translation: "What changed is that now I'm giving the orders and the other countries have to do what I say."

When Bush promised a "humble" foreign policy, he meant "the opposite of humble".

I didn't used to be paranoid -- well, anyway, it isn't paranoia if they really are out to get you.

Why does the sheriff have to conduct a lengthy investigation into an incident that was caught on tape, when the tape shows that Mike Stark was definitely assaulted and that he didn't do anything more aggressive than ask Allen a question Allen didn't like?

What are the odds that the investigation of the assault on Mike Stark will lead to charges -- against Stark for disturbing the peace?

"Will Bush listen to reason?"

No.

I just wanted to say that this is spot on:

"the president's conception of what working with Congress means: He does what he wants, and Congress can complain later if it wants -- at which point the president's supporters can say that Congress is wasting its time looking backward when it's really time to move forward"

The wingnuts are dealing with the inconvenient truth that only five U.S. attorneys have been fired midterm in the last 25 years by -- surprise, surprise, lying their asses off about it. I've heard rightwing callers to the Ed Schultz show sputtering that Clinton fired 30 attorneys in addition to Bush's attorneys whom he replaced at the beginning of his first term. (The number keeps going up; at first they only accused Clinton of firing 20 after the beginning of his Administration.) Plus, they invent sinister motives for the routine turnover between Administrations: Clinton fired all the U.S. attorneys as camouflage for purging the one attorney he really wanted to get rid of to stop the Whitewater investigation.

You can't stop these people telling lies by presenting them with facts that they could look up for themselves, because for the rightwing, facts are things you fabricate to attack your enemies with. They'll either ignore you, or assume that you've fabricated your own facts and therefore your assertions are just noise.

My vote goes to "Matthew Dowd is Bush's Dick Morris." Probably without the toe-sucking, though.

Gov. Crist's order doesn't overturn the law that "permanently" disenfranchises felons. Restoring their voting rights still requires the approval of the Clemency Board. What will prevent the Clemency Board from stalling indefinitely? Or prevent the Secretary of State's office from "losing" the lists of re-enfranchised felons? Or the next voter-roll purge from "mistakenly" including felons who had their voting rights restored?

Florida government officials have demonstrated so many ways to prevent people from Voting While Democrat that I'm afraid that even if Gov. Crist really does intend that after people do the time they should have their rights restored, other Florida officials will manage to maintain the racist, anti-democratic (and anti-Democratic) status quo.

Back in 1988, CBS fired Jimmy the Greek for making a racist comment on the air. There was no "suspension", no long debate about whether firing him was a violation of free speech.

Last October, Fox News broadcaster Steve Lyons was fired for making racist remarks. Again, there was no lengthy argument about whether he should be fired.

So why is Imus getting a pass for making comments at least as offensive as Jimmy the Greek and Steve Lyons and others who've been fired for unacceptable behavior? That's all I want to know. Why shouldn't Imus' show be cancelled?

I saw an NBC executive on Keith Olbermann's Countdown last night, explaining why MSNBC dropped the simulcast of Imus' show.

His claim that The Mgt. had no idea Imus was so offensive was about as convincing as Dick Cheney's claim that he'd never heard of Joe Wilson until Wilson's famous op-ed was published.

I remember from the 2000 campaign that Bush's minions derided President Clinton for using tragic events, such as the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, as an excuse to hog the spotlight. They said it was inappropriate for a president to push his way into the midst of "personal moments" like that, and promised that if George W. Bush were elected he'd never, ever do that.

So now I'm wondering whether it was really appropriate for George W. Bush to be the keynote speaker at Virginia Tech's memorial service, or whether maybe he should have kept his promise to stay in the background when it doesn't involve him.

I blame the headline writer, not Sidney Blumenthal, for making an explicit -- and inappropriate -- connection between Norman Rockwell and George Bush's view of reality. Rockwell's vision of America was sentimental, but not sanitized. As others have pointed out, his paintings portrayed our democratic ideals but also condemned the ugliness of bigotry. Blumenthal's reference to Norman Rockwell was an aside; he doesn't say Rockwell is any part of Bush's worldview. The headline writer, I presume, lifted this casual reference for the headline because Rockwell's name is more familiar to most people than the names of the artists whose works are displayed in the Oval Office.

A Colbertian wag of the finger to the headline writer for creating a distraction from the point Blumenthal is making here.