Well, Larry Craig "intended" to resign at the end of September.

Intent ain't what it used to be.

I'd welcome a Gore candidacy. Fully 1/3 of all Americans have never lived under a President not named Bush or Clinton. Put that in your Prius and smoke it.

"Gonzales...acted always with the intent and commitment to honor the rule of law."

And Larry Craig intended to resign at the end of September.

I'm gonna try that one next time I get pulled over:

Me: Officer, you say that I was doing 70 in a 45, but I intended to observe the speed limit.

Officer: Oh! Wow. I'm glad you said something. Carry on.

Well, his new book is all about how to live your life as if it's a political campaign. If we take Tweety at his word that this is the way to live your life, it's safe to assume that coming out with this story now has some personal politcal advantage. What could it be? Oh yeah...did I mention he's got a new book out?

I'm so sick of all these reporters who've been grabbing their ankles for 7 years, finally speaking out "on principle." Don't they realize that they have no credibility left?

Because Matthews's story fits the narrative that's in vogue right now (e.g. the Bush Administration is corrupt and authoritarian and the Press has been too passive) it will bounce around the echo chamber for a while and a lot of folks will say 'I told you so.' But WE ALREADY KNEW THIS. There is no news here, only a poor excuse for a journalist admiting that he was too chicken to speak up when it counted.

Nice going, Tweety.

"Sex on the City"

"Rudy's Tryst Fund"

"Rudy's Humpton Tryst Fund"

"69-11 Changed Everything"

There's a whole bunch of these handy tags at DKos.

Feinstein and Schumer knew damn well that their cover story was toothless and lame. So what if you pass a ban on waterboarding. It doesn't matter. McCain's ammendment banning torture passed 90-9 and the President signed the bill, reiterating his reassuring claim that "America Does Not Torture." Then he issued a signing statement that allowed him to disregard the McCain law and authorize torture.

Feinstein and Schumer should be waterboarded for their cynical politics and incomprehensible capitulation.

Let's be optimistic here and assume the Dems win the White House in '08, and that whoever is elected doesn't do such a piss poort job that Al Gore would have any reason to run against them in 2012.

OK then.

You know, back in the 90s when Bill was pulling his "I didn't inhale" bullshit (and c'mon...we all know it's bullshit), I was pissed he didn't just own up to smoking pot. I said at the time and I say it now: If someone who came of age in the 1960s *didn't* smoke pot, they're probably a republican and I don't trust them.

But what of Hillary's drug use? Has anyone asked her? It seems a legitimate question now that her campaign has opend up the issue. Has she ever tried cocaine? Has she ever smoked pot? I mean, she was hanging out with Bill, so maybe she just "didn't inhale" all that second hand pot smoke.

But seriously, people, Justice Stevens (who is 87) wrote this in one of his recent Supreme Court opinions:

“. . . The current dominant opinion supporting the war on drugs in general, and our anti-marijuana laws in particular, is reminiscent of the opinion that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a student. While alcoholic beverages are now regarded as ordinary articles of commerce, their use was then condemned with the same moral fervor that now supports the war on drugs. The ensuing change in public opinion occurred much more slowly than the relatively rapid shift in Americans’ views on the Vietnam War, and progressed on a state-by-state basis over a period of many years. But just as prohibition in the 1920’s and early 1930’s was secretly questioned by thousands of otherwise law-abiding patrons of bootleggers and speakeasies, today the actions of literally millions of otherwise law-abiding users of marijuana, and of the majority of voters in each of the several States that tolerate medicinal uses of the product, lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval by those in the majority is silencing opponents of the war on drugs. Surely our national experience with alcohol should make us wary of dampening speech suggesting however inarticulately that it would be better to tax and regulate marijuana than to persevere in a futile effort to ban its use entirely."

And what of Cocaine? Well, there was time in Regan's 80s (back when a tipsy Nancy Regan would speak passionately about the war on drugs, with martini in hand) when cocaine was the drug of choice for those same 60s pot smokers (Bill? Hillary? George W?). It. Was. Everywhere. If you had the money and were young enough in the 80s, you probably did a little blow. Cocaine was EVERYwhere. I'm glad Obama was honest about his drug use, and I hope honesty on the issue is what wins the day, not below-the-belt holier-than-thou attacks from hypocritical candidates, and not the moralizing judgment of Washington pundits.

And for the record, I don't want to hear a peep of judgment or high-minded fretting from "Cokie" Roberts.

If McMaverick wins the republican nomination, I can't imagine he'd be dumb enough to pick 9iu11ani as his VP, seeing as they both have trouble with values voters, so it's probably safe to say Giuliani is angling for AG in a McCain administration.

By the way, nice campaign Rudy!

duh