has failed at everything he has attempted. He didn't get into Yale because his grades and SAT scores were good, he got in because of his father's connections. Ditto Harvard Business School. He failed at every business he started and always got promoted by daddy's friends, their money and their connections. The money he made in the Texas Rangers sale was a sweetheart deal brokered by men who wanted access to his connections. He went to the head of the line to get into the Texas Air National Guard during the VN war. That too was because of his father's political connections.

In short, Bush is a man who has never borne the consequences of his own actions. He is characterless. He can screw up all he wants to and it'll always be OK, at least for him.

So why would we expect him to run an administration any differently? Why should he ask Gonzalez to resign? Why should he let Libby do time? In Bush's life failure carries no price, so why should it be any different for his friends?

My aunt lived in Natchez, Mississippi all her adult life. She ran a diner in the 40s and 50s and hired blacks in all jobs. The KKK threatened her life and those of her black employees. She had to drive them to and from work to keep them safe. The Klan burned crosses in her lawn. She called them cowards and went on with her work. She too was one of those Southern liberals about whom Northerners often know so little and whose anonymous courage was greater than most will ever know. Lady Bird was one too, albeit not so anonymous.

It's too bad that people nowadays only remember LBJ as the president who got suckered into Viet Nam. The greater truth is that he grew up poor and was basically a Populist and an FDR New Dealer in his political philosophy. His backing of the Great Society and the War on Poverty, Medicare and Medicaid, and his signing of two Civil Rights bills, the Voting Rights Act and fair housing legislation all speak to that. He was a savvy politician who knew that what he was doing would injure the Democratic Party, but he did it anyway because it was right. Name me one person holding office in Washington now who can say the same thing.

could cut into our war funding.

I'm totally down with forcing Bush to veto this and then overriding it. If 40 Senators want to filibuster this bill, fine. Let the people watch them explain how saving 39 cents on cigarettes is more important than poor children's health.

this has been clear for a long time. I've tried to understand the Bush Admin from a realpolitik standpoint and it never works. There is clearly something of the messianic at work, which of course can be terribly dangerous.

Interestingly though, the same above-the-fray sensibility that Bush has would be ideal in a president who truly worked for good. What if we had a president dedicated, because of his Christian faith, to drastically lessening the income gap in America? What if his/her policies resulted in a serious recession but he/she kept assuring us that the end justified the means, that if we just stuck it out a little longer, all would be well? Would we be willing to trade that person for a Nixon/Kissinger-style presidency?

why Reid is calling for a vote on cloture and then moving on to other business. Why not just keep 'em at it?

what Whedon's response was to the recent stoning to death of an Iranian man for adultery. Anyone know?

Whedon has nothing to say about the recent stoning to death of a man in Iran, reported by Broadsheet on July 10. You'd think that, with a topic as easy to take a stand on as death by stoning, even misandrists like Whedon could come up with something, but no. It's hard to buy the guy's supposedly passionate commitment to the cause when he only notices when women are the victims. When a man is stoned to death it doesn't seem to matter to him.