True, it was a 4-3 ruling, but the other 3 advocated straight out marriage rights. So while it was a divided ruling, the majority opinion was on the conservative side of the court.

And to add my political two cents, I think any last-minute effort to force gay bashing down the electorate's throat will alienate more voters than it will attract -- especially given polling that suggests fundamentalist Christians are beginning to figure out that gay bashing is just a GOP technique to trick them into voting for corporate lackeys.

Lev Raphael is right, and as I said earlier there is polling that shows even right-wing conservative voters aren't falling for the gay-baiting by margins remotely close to what they were before. Google Center For American Values and you'll see one of those polls.

I will add, if the oligarchy is planning on stealing this election they will need some explanation for all the polls being wrong and the sudden exmergence of excited right-wing votes.

Don't forget that a) it's easy to rig voting machines; and b) there are billions of dollars on the line for corporations benefiting from GOP corruption. We are all depending only on the good will of anyone rich enough to afford a dodgy programmer.

Not included in Schaller's assessment of why Ford lost was this: he offered white homophobes/Christian zealots exactly what the GOP offered, but did not offer what the GOP doesn't: populist economics. If you have representation from the GOP that whores for business and kicks minorities of all stripes in the teeth, why vote for someone just as in bed with big business who hates gays but is black?

I bet Ford could have won if he wasn't a complete asshole to the poor and middle class. He offered the people he was pandering to no alternative. White Christians in TN are, on the whole, poor. Had Ford had a populist economic message, coupled with his distasteful gay-baiting and Christian bumper stickers, he might have won. Instead, he was the complete right-wing package, sucking up to big business so much that there was no reason for the rubes not to vote for the white guy.

Of course Carville likes Ford precisely because he's a whore for the banks, etc. - exactly the constituency that loves Carville's clients, like Clinton and Schumer: kinder, gentler vampires.

Whether planned or not, the ISG has led to another right-wing hat trick: shifting the debate well to the right. First off, virtually all the members of the group are pretty far to the right to begin with, including the Dems (Cohen wrote an op-ed calling for a war on Iran and while we have been conditioned to believe people like Sandra Day O'Connor are moderate, that's thanks to this era's whacked out Bush admin standards).

Second, the ISG recommendations call for beginning a draw down in 2008, which a) is a long time and lots could happen (e.g. more dead troops); and b) leaves Bush mostly off the hook as the campaigners for President will take over the debate at that point.

Third, one of the key recommendations (which even "liberal" news outlets like the Bush-revamped NPR overtly ignore) is that Iraqi oil must be privatized and run by the big multinationals that employ consulting firms run by Eagleburger and Baker (consulting firms that also have worked for Halliburton and with Saddam Hussein back when we liked him). In fact, the ISG report calls for Iraq to change their constitution to facilitate privatization. Whoa! You'd think that would be a story. What in the world is this study group's mandate such that it is deciding how a supposedly democratic government treats its own resources? Moreover, if we destroy the country's infrastructure and then pull out - but keep control of their oil - do you think that will make us safer from terrorism? Nothing could make us more hated.

But of course this commission is not about doing the right thing, it's about achieving the same goals we've had in Iraq for decades, in a politically permissible way. I am relieved that Bush is so insane that he is not accepting this political cover. Now both the administration and the ISG lose stature. Good.

The Constitution does not allow the President to interpret the law. Congress makes the law, the courts interpret based on the Constitution and precedent, and the President enforces the law. There's not a lot of ambiguity about this.

To take impeachment off the table was an irresponsible thing for Pelosi to do. This president is a consistent law breaker and it is the US House of Representatives' duty to impeach an outlaw president, however politically unpalatable that might be. But I guess having power is worth more to Democrats than upholding the Constitution, serving the American people or even honoring the will of their own voters.*

[* Before the election, Newsweek reported that 51% of Americans thought Bush should be impeached, which must mean that at least 80% of Democratic voters feel that way.]

My only problem with your solution (having Congress explicitly forbid alterations by the President within legislation) is that such an addition to legislation would imply the President has a right to do so unless otherwise specified. Very slippery slope.