The Washington Post's Peter Baker today depicts George Bush as a sad, besieged, isolated and detatched figure, who seeks the company of like-minded extremists to convince him that he will be vindicated by history.  The Post article describes at length a "luncheon" which Bush hosted earlier this year for Andrew Roberts, a neoconservative "historian" and, according to The New Republic, an all-out "imperialist" with shadowy, vaguely white supremacist views.

As WashingtonPost.com's Dan Froomkin notes today, the incidents conveyed by Bush in the Post article bolster the themes of my new book, A Tragic Legacy.  Specifically, that neocon luncheon which Bush hosted for Roberts is one of the most revealing of the Bush presidency, as it reveals both how George Bush thinks and how influential neoconservatives have been able to manipulate his support for their agenda.  Following is an excerpt -- exclusively for C&L -- from A Tragic Legacy, which discusses the Roberts luncheon:

On February 28, 2007, President Bush hosted what he called "a literary luncheon" to honor right-wing "historian" Andrew Roberts. Accounts of that luncheon -- which describe the "lessons" the guests taught the President (and they call them "lessons") -- provide an amazing glimpse into the Bush mindset and his relationship with neoconservatives.

The White House invited a tiny cast (total: 15 guests) of standard neoconservatives and other Bush followers to the luncheon, including Norman Podhoretz (father-in-law of White House convict Eliot Abrams), Gertrude Himmelfarb (wife of Irving Kristol and mother of Bill), Mona Charen and Kate O'Beirne of National Review, and Wall St. Journal Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot. The Weekly Standard's Irwin Stelzer was also invited, and he thereafter wrote about the luncheon in the most glowing terms.

Continue reading »

(1) Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute (and a Contributing Editor of National Review), on his Pajamas Media blog last Thursday: "BREAKING NEWS --Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, is dead."

(2) Pajamas Media, front page, last Thursday: "A source close to Pajamas Media has learned that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has apparently succumbed to the cancer that hospitalized him last month, as exclusively reported by Pajamas Media, at age 67." (The phrase "still unconfirmed" added at the top only once nobody else touched their "exclusive").

(3) Michelle Malkin's Hot Air, last Thursday: "This is either going to be a two-ton feather in Pajamas’s cap or a major embarrassment. I have my fingers crossed for them."

(4) Associated Press, today -- Headline: Iran's Ayatollah Appears in Good Health -- "Tehran, Iran - Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, looked thinner than usual and sounded as if he had a cold, but seemed otherwise in good health when he appeared on television Monday. . . . On Monday, Khamenei addressed hundreds of citizens of Qom, a holy city 80 miles south of Tehran, who gathered outside his residence in the city center."

Pajamas Media is a $3.5 million embarrassment that was launched in 2005 by right-wing bloggers Roger Simon and Charles Johnson (of Little Green Footballs). It was supposed to be some sort of "credible" right-wing media outlet, an alternative to the dreaded "MSM." Yet they have done nothing of even minor note since their inception (until now). As a result, news accounts from real media outlets -- like the one today from Associated Press -- refer to reports from Pajamas Media as mere "Internet rumors."

In light of this latest humiliation, it's obviously necessary that they be downgraded still further in the credibility department. But what is lower than "Internet rumors" when it comes to the credibility of a report? It seems like it's necessary to create a whole new level of unreliability just for Pajamas Media. Anyone minimally familiar with the right-wing blogosphere would have predicted -- and did predict -- that a "news outlet" that grows out of that credibility-free swamp is destined for ignominious failure.

"Pajamas Media" is the $3.5 million right-wing flop founded in 2005 by "CEO" Roger Simon and LGF's Charles Johnson. Launched with great fanfare, it has thus far been almost entirely inconsequential except as an abundant source of derision. Until I just mentioned it, did you even know that it still existed? Its mission, according to CEO Simon, is to "raise [blogs'] credibility higher than they are now" and to create "a new method of fact-checking."

Pajamas Media boasts some of the most discredited and dishonest commentators around, including Glenn Reynolds as the "Knoxville Editor," warmonger Victor Davis Hanson, and Michael Ledeen, who has devoted his life to advocating an attack on Iran. Before the entire project even began, Roger Ailes presciently predicted its demise, expressing doubts (to put it politely) that "a neocon Memeorandum which relies upon the accuracy and integrity of Charles Johnson and Michael Leeden [could] be successful."

But last Thursday, Pajamas Media thought that it was finally about to make it big with its worldwide exclusive "scoop" -- "reported" by Ledeen -- that "Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, is dead." Nobody else had reported this bombshell. Only Pajamas! And, Drudge-like, they excitedly promoted it with bold red letters on their front page. As Michelle Malkin's Hot Air site put it when touting the Pajamas "exclusive":

This is either going to be a two-ton feather in Pajamas’s cap or a major embarrassment.

And 48 hours later, still nobody has reported this except for the increasingly lonely Pajamas. James Wolcott, doing his best to write through the scornful laughter, provides all of the ugly details here, concluding: "Pajamas Media may have just fathered its own self-inflicted Rathergate."

As I document in an article in the current issue of American Conservative Magazine, this is standard operating procedure for how pro-war, pro-Bush pundits like Ledeen (along with people like Charles Krauthammer and Peggy Noonan) function. They are completely unbound by facts and will recklessly spew the cheapest and most irresponsible innuendo as long as it bolsters their political goals. And when they are proven wrong -- as they are with painful regularity -- they simply move on, pretending it never happened. That, of course, is how the Iraq War was sold to Americans and how those responsible continue to parade around as wise and noble experts. But slowly (though decisively), they are all becoming exposed for what they are. There is no higher priority than doing what one can to facilitate that process.

ALSO: Both Digby and Jonathan Schwarz have superb posts highly worth reading on the complete hostility to facts and reality which drives right-wing punditry.

This achievement by Crooks & Liars is both extremely significant and well-deserved:

A small cluster of power bloggers -- focused on politics, blogging and humor -- were responsible for the top 100 blog posts for 2006, according to word-of-mouth measurement firm Nielsen BuzzMetrics. . . .

Crooks and Liars' posts on Stephen Colbert's monologue at the White House, and Keith Olbermann commentary on Rumsfeld, were the number 2 and 3 posts, respectively.

Beyond those two posts, posts from C&L also occupied the number 5 position (Olbermann's remarks on President Bush) and the 7 position (Al Gore's SNL would-be "presidential address"). That means that of the 10 most linked-to posts for all of 2006, 4 of them -- 40% -- came from one blog: C&L. Only one post from a top Bush-loving blog made the list (a Michelle Malkin rant on the Mohammed cartoons).

There are literally millions of blogs now. For one single blog, on its own, to generate 40% of the ten most linked-to posts for the year is a truly remarkable achievement. It is a testament to the uniquely valuable role C&L plays in the blogosphere -- not only in providing invaluable video content but, more importantly, in helping to shape the dialogue and agenda for the liberal blogosphere as a whole.

By definition, any blogger who blogs regularly works very hard. But few, if any, work as hard as John Amato does. Maintaining this site is incredibly labor-intensive, and a person would do this only if they were driven by genuine passion to develop a meaningful alternative to our broken national media and rotting Beltway political institutions. The power of the blogosphere -- particularly the liberal/anti-Bush blogosphere -- is growing inexorably, and C&L (which includes everyone who helps to maintain it) is playing a central role in that development.

Last month, Republican Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana explained why he voted in favor of the 2006 bill which legalized "coercive interrogation" and indefinite detention:

It is the solemn duty of this Congress and this President to make sure we do everything within our power to protect the American people. The war on terror is not like any war America has fought be before . . . Such extremism demands that America do everything possible to stop it.

The same Rep. Pence, in The Washington Post today:

Congress will convene on Tuesday for what some fear will be the lamest of lame-duck sessions, and GOP leaders have decided to take a minimalist approach before turning over the reins of power to the Democrats. Rather than a final surge of legislative activity, Congress will probably wrap up things after a single, short week of work. . .

"There is a lot of battle fatigue among members, probably on both sides of the aisle," said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), usually a reliable conservative firebrand. "Contrary to popular belief, members of Congress are human beings. They have a certain shelf life and a certain amount of energy to be drawn on. We're tired."

This is why this strong, brave warrior -- lecturing us how we must do "everything possible" to win the "War" -- is so tired and "fatigued" and doesn't want to work any more:

Operating most weeks on a Tuesday-through-Thursday schedule, Congress is poised to finish this year with just 100 working days under its belt -- the fewest since 1948, when then-President Harry Truman famously blasted what he called a "do-nothing Congress."

The year is likely to end with no final action on a number of major issues, including Social Security and immigration reform and tighter ethics standards for lawmakers. . . . This year, Congress will probably end up meeting for about 100 days -- an average of about two days a week in return for a salary of $165,000.

Continue reading »

At his Press Conference today, President Bush expressly admitted that he lied last week when he said that Donald Rumsfeld would remain Defense Secretary for the next two years (only to announce today that Rumsfeld is being replaced). When the President was asked about this discrepency, he simply admitted that "the reason why is I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign. And so the only way to answer that question and to get you on to another question was to give you that answer."

That the President would so brazenly lie is not, of course, surprising (although the lie was so glaring that even conservatives James Joyner and Byron York objected to it). But what is surprising, and encouraging (although it should be commonplace), is that the Washington Post is more or less calling this what it is:

Asked about that comment, Bush said he made it because "I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign," Bush said. He appeared to acknowledge having misled reporters, saying, "And so the only way to answer that question and to get you onto another question was to give you that answer."

He added later, "Win or lose, Bob Gates was going to become the nominee."

The phrase "misled reporters" in this passage should have been replaced with "misled the nation," since that is what the President actually did. What possible justification is there for the President to definitively assure the country that Rumsfeld is staying when he was actively in the process of replacing him? That a major election is about to be held is a reason which compels disclosure of such an important matter, not which justifies its dishonest concealment.

We've become so accustomed to being lied to in this manner by our political leaders that the President can just casually admit to this (just like he can casually admit to breaking the law), and it causes only the most minor of controversies, if that.

CNN reporter Suzanne Malvaeux, questioning President Bush at his Press Conference, today:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. With all due respect, Nancy Pelosi has called you incompetent, a liar, the emperor with no clothes, and as recently as yesterday, dangerous.

How will you work with someone who has such little respect for your leadership and who is third in line to the presidency?

Jeff Gannon, "Talon News reporter," questioning President Bush at his Press Conference, January 26, 2005:

Q. Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. [Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] was talking about soup lines. And [Senator] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there.

How are you going to work -- you've said you are going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?

Granted, the questions aren't precisely identical. Gannon wanted to know how the President could possibly work with Democratic leaders when they're so insane and deranged, while Malvaeux's point merely seemed to be that they're so hateful and vicious. But the one-sided reverence of each question (how can you possibly work with Democrats who are so beneath you?) -- not to mention the similarity they share in phrasing and timing (Gannon asked his questions following the 2004 election) -- is striking.

The basic mechanics of American democracy, imperfect and defective though they may be, still function. Chronic defeatists and conspiracy theorists -- well-intentioned though they may be -- need to re-evaluate their defeatism and conspiracy theories in light of this rather compelling evidence which undermines them (a refusal to re-evaluate one's beliefs in light of conflicting evidence is a defining attribute of the Bush movement that shouldn't be replicated).

Karl Rove isn't all-powerful; he is a rejected loser. Republicans don't possess the power to dictate the outcome of elections with secret Diebold software. They can't magically produce Osama bin Laden the day before the election. They don't have the power to snap their fingers and hypnotize zombified Americans by exploiting a New Jersey court ruling on civil unions, or a John Kerry comment, or moronic buzzphrases and slogans designed to hide the truth (Americans heard all about how Democrats would bring their "San Francisco values" and their love of The Terrorists to Washington, and that moved nobody). It simply isn't the case that we are doomed and destined to lose at the hands of all-powerful, evil forces.

All of the hurdles and problems that are unquestionably present and serious -- a dysfunctional and corrupt national media, apathy on the part of Americans, the potent use of propaganda by the Bush administration, voter suppression and election fraud tactics, gerrymandering and fundraising games -- can all be overcome. They just were.

Bush opponents haven't been losing because the deck is hopelessly stacked against them. They were losing because they hadn't figured out a way to convey to their fellow citizens just how radical and dangerous this political movement has become. Now they have, and as a result, Americans see this movement for what it is and have begun the process of smashing it.

That work is far from over, but it can be achieved -- unquestionably -- by those willing to fight for that result and who figure out how to perusade a majority of American of the rightness of their views. That's exactly how our democracy is supposed to work.

Not only the Republican Party, but also its most manipulative and destructive tactics, were severely wounded (though not yet killed off) last night. For the first time ever, the voters of a state -- Arizona -- have rejected a referendum which would have added to the state constitution a ban on same-sex marriages. From The Arizona Republic:

The Protect Marriage Initiative, which would amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex unions, is trailing by a slim margin.

With 96 percent of the polls reporting, 48.6 percent have voted for while 51.4 percent are voting against the proposition. . . .

Opponents say the measure is a largely symbolic attack on gays. Critics also say the measure could take away benefits from partners or heterosexual couples as well as gays.

Now with 99% of the precincts reporting, the amendment trails by more than 30,000 votes and appears certain to fail. And that is in a red state which, at the same time, re-elected a conservative Senator. Similarly, the same-sex marriage referendum in red state South Dakota only barely passed (52-48) -- outside of Arizona, the smallest margin ever for such a referendum.

Worse (for the GOP), although similar amendments passed in Virginia and Wisconsin, having the amendment on the ballot did not save the Republicans, as they lost their Senate seat and Govenorship, respectively, in those two states. Like most of their other demonizing tactics, this is rapidly becoming a dry well for the Republicans.

Everyone craves results, though none will be available until 6:00 p.m. EST (the closing times for each state is here). Worse, media outlets are taking extra steps to prevent the leaking of exit polls. Thus, for now, one has to consume what there is:

(1) Tradesports is an online market for political junkies to buy and sell shares in the outcome of each race, which (at least in theory) produces a reliable (or at least rational) percentage probability for each outcome. I have compiled the current probability which Tradesports assigns for the outcome of each key Senate race and for overall control of each House. They can be found here.

(2) Jerome Armstrong has some reasonably encouraging new polls released last night, while Matt Stoller has some thoughtful advice for how candidates ought to conduct themselves in the event of contested races.

(3) Blue Texan has a polling chart that demonstrates that the magnitude of Bush's unpopularity is historic and unique. In essence, at least from the perspective of Americans, he is the worst failure as President, by far, in the post-World War II era.

(4) The capacity of Bush followers to live in a world of fantasy, ignore all unpleasant realities, and be guided by their desires rather than rational judgment is well-established. Even still, sometimes it is so extreme and creepy that it can still shock and awe. From Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush:

As for me, this is a great day to be a Republican - I've been talking big about how well we're going to do and my faith, shaken from time to time, never failed. Now it is to be put to the acid test - we shall know within 24 hours of this writing if I've been whistling past the graveyard, or have been realistic in my predictions. I'm standing by my words: the GOP gains seats in both Houses.

"My faith, shaken from time to time, never failed" - isn't that how people are supposed to talk about their belief in their God and their religious beliefs, not their political Leader and their political beliefs? But to many Bush followers (and to the President), those two things are one and the same -- they are guided by faith in their conviction that they are Good and Right and destined to prevail, even in the face of mountains of facts and evidence to the contrary. That, as much as anything else, accounts for the current predicament of our country.

UPDATE:

(5) There are a lot of anecdotal rumors about Connecticut voters having difficulty finding Joe Lieberman's name on the ballot. Atrios has a copy of the Connecticut ballot and one can easily see why that is the case.