No first-tier Democrat will seriously attack Bush on his mental health. But there's some truth in Kucinich's comments. Bush admits to substance abuse, which he claims he abruptly stopped upon finding Jesus. Unless Jesus also helped him discover why he drank (and I'm not saying Jesus didn't) those issues are still inside of him.

Bush also seems to think that the job of Congress is not investigatory oversight or ending the war in Iraq but to, rather, send him bills he is guaranteed to sign. In Bush's defense, that's all Congress did for the first 6 years of his administration, so he's somewhat justifiably confused.

Bush also says, "spending is skyrocketing under their [Democratic] leadership."

That one is just too easy.

Aside to saintzak: Good call on the whole "President of the Troops" comment.

Who are these White House aides, and why did they leak this info? Is it because they, too, are scared sh-tless that President Bush is trying to become King Bush?

There's more on this on Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/31/5289/7275

Their take: this is less about appropriations bills and more about pre-emptive strikes against Iran.

This theory is buttressed by this press corps exchange with Dana Perino yesterday:

Q Would the President seek an explicit green light from Congress if he intended to bomb or attack Iran, or does he think he has that right?

.

MS. PERINO: Well, Helen, there is no intention of bombing Iran. We are on a diplomatic track. We are working with our partners, the U.N. Security Council. We have provided them, the Iranians, a road map to get to a civil nuclear program. They have walked away from that. We are hoping that they'll come back. We are both working with our U.N. Security Council partners as well as pursuing sanctions on our own, and there is not an intention to bomb Iran, as you said.

Q Does the President think he has the right to do it without going through Congress?

MS. PERINO: That is -- it's a hypothetical situation, Helen. I'm not going to answer it.

Q It's not hypothetical. It's concrete.

The question remained unanswered.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071030-5.html

So, proven ways of reducing abortion include: comprehensive sex-ed, access to contraception and de-stigmatizing parenthood for unmarried women.

It's the holy trinity of what religious fundamentalists want to destroy!

Also, linking adoption rates to abortion rates assumes that the only kids up for adoption are infants who would have otherwise been aborted. Are we forgetting about all of the kids who are in the system because the State took them away from their parents?

There is virtually nothing Karen Hughes could do to make a substantially dent in improving the U.S.'s image abroad.

The world frowns on us because we went into Iraq. When we leave Iraq (because we will), the world will frown a little less. But the damage has already been done for generations. Our long-time allies (like the British) will forgive us sooner. But the Arab World will rightfully sneer at us for a long, long time.

Thank you, Bush Administration, for inflaming Muslim (extremist and moderate) hatred of America. I feel so much safer.

Shazzer4400: "a higher proportion of unmarried mothers are in their 20s rather than their teens, so the personal and financial stresses may not be as great as in the past" (source: http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/s_place.cfm)

From the same site: there aren't good stats on voluntary relinquishments because the numbers are so small that it's hard to note specific trends.

See Medline thru NIH for more links to data: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/adoption.html#cat22

I agree that Karen Hughes has earned our scorn. She's a loyal Bushie, and Team Bush has done serious damage to our country on every level. Which I guess is impressive in it's own way.

My point was more that we shouldn't scorn her for her inability to repair U.S.-World relations. Fortunately, she's scorn-worthy for so many other reasons.

[snark] Unprecedented? Actually, Perino said "unpresidented." It's the new White House buzzword for whenever Congress challenges the notion of president as Unitary Executive Emperor.

Use it in a sentence: "The Congress' exercise of its legislative powers and duties under the Constitution is unpresidented. [/snark]

Wow. Amazing work. Only I actually mean that. Well done.

Ultimately, it was six guys against her, and she came off as one strong woman.

An alternate way of saying this: "Ultimately, it was six against one, and Clinton came off as one strong person."

But who actually talks like that? It's an awkward way to deliberately disguise gender (like teenagers who tell their parents they're going to the movies with a "friend." Hmm, would that be a boy-type friend or a girl-type friend?)

That's why the Obama example doesn't hold: it's clearly a race card because it throws in unnatural and unnecessary details.

Is the Clinton campaign above playing the gender card? Not a chance. I just don't think this incident is necesarily evidence of it.

It was, however, clear evidence of the "they're all ganging up on me because they're afraid" card. It's a hand she plays against the Republicans candidates (who like to mention Hillary Clinton's name more than any other) and it's a hand she'll play against her Democratic rivals. The Clinton tactic is always political excessive force: "you nudge me and I'll pulverize you."

Drat! AKA Smith, you beat me to the punch. Well-stated.

That had me wondering...is Richardson angling for a VP spot?

Can you steal a service that's illegal to begin with?

The argument is disgusting. Prostitutes can't be raped? Way to further discourage prostitutes from coming forward about rapes and sexual assaults. Some cops already dismiss attacks against prostitutes because there were no "real victims."

Some of the worst serial rapists/murderers "practice" on prostitutes because they're "disposable." And then they move onto the "good women."