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.

It's so subtle and cryptic and hard to figure out:

Irwin Stelzer, The Weekly Standard, today - "The New Leaders? What the House will look like if the Democrats win":

Then there is Charlie Rangel, the elegantly-tailored, smooth-talking congressman who has represented the black constituency of Harlem for 36 years. Rangel is an engaging sort--it is almost impossible not to like him--who will use the chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee to see to it that the Bush tax cuts are unraveled as rapidly as possible and that any tax breaks available are funneled to low-earners.

Rush Limbaugh and Tony Snow, chatting yesterday about the election:

RUSH:  I have been suspicious of polls for a long time in the sense that I believe news organizations use them to make news that reflects their editorial pages, and the same with the editorial opinion of broadcast network people, and like the Pew poll internals show massive shifts in 30 days of public opinion.  One of the things in the Pew poll is that the Democrats have lost all white voters.  They've lost women and they've lost --

SNOW:  They lost men.  They've lost women.  Absolutely right, and I'm glad you pointed that out.

To recap:  Democrats have "lost all white voters" (and men and women, too).  Guess what that leaves them with?  And is it any wonder, considering that a Democratic win means that the elegantly-tailored Charlie Rangel from Harlem is going to come on behalf of his "black constituency" and tax everyone so that he can take their money and "funnel" it to the "low-earners"?

UPDATE:  Another clue is here.

White House spokesman Tony Snow visited with Rush Limbaugh yesterday and provided a pretty clear answer to that question, when he said:  "the war is more popular in Iraq than it is in the United States because the Iraqis actually get to see the Americans in action."  The Iraqis really love the war we brought to their country and so love the occupation -- even more than Americans love it! -- just like polls show:

_Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.

_ About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces . . . About 61 percent approved of the attacks _ up from 47 percent in January. A solid majority of Shiite and Sunni Arabs approved of the attacks, according to the poll. The increase came mostly among Shiite Iraqis.

And:

A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

And:

Another new poll, scheduled to be released on Wednesday by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country.

And:

The State Department, meanwhile, has also conducted its own poll, something it does periodically, spokesman Sean McCormack said. The State Department poll found that two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, according to The Washington Post.

It is a rather compelling sign of just how freely and casually Bush officials lie when Snow claims that the war is popular among Iraqis even though the Government's own poll shows that " two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces"  and an independent poll shows that the same percentage of Iraqis generally -- from both sides of the sectarian war -- actually approve of violent attacks on U.S. troops, a percentage which has increased substantially this year.  

Snow also explained that what we have achieved in Iraq is "miraculous," and that Americans are only against the war because the media lies about how bad things are there:  "what they constantly get on television and newspapers is a failure narrative. They hear body counts, they don't hear about successes."  The distance between the administration's statements and reality has always been huge, but their claims now are completely detached from reality.   

The difficulty in blogging today is that (a) the only thing worth blogging about is tomorrow's election but (b) the only clear fact that emerges from a thorough review of all of the polls and pundits is that nobody actually knows anything.  Most pundit predictions are based (at least) as much on desire as they are on data.  The only course of action that makes sense is to assume nothing and do everything possible to ensure the right outcome tomorrow.

Having said that, there are a few facts worth noting:

(1) If there is to be a deep Democratic sweep, the 1994 mid-term election which swept incumbent Democrats out of office and subjected the country to a Newt Gingrich-led Congress is the likely model.  National Journal's Hotline dug through its archives and posted the "generic ballot" polling results for the weekend immediately prior to the 1994 election:

ABC: --- 47-46 in favor of the Dems (a 6-point swing in the last week toward the Dems)
Gallup: --- 51-44 for the GOP (a 4 point swing in the last week toward the Dems)
NBC: --- 46-35 for the GOP (a 2 point swing in the two weeks toward the Dems)
Times Mirror: --- 48-43 for the GOP (a 7 point swing in the last month toward the Dems)

Two points to note about that:  (a) the party that was swept away was the beneficiary of late swings in each of the polls and (b) the polling advantage which Democrats have over Republicans for this election is substantially greater than the one Republicans had over Democrats at the same point in 1994.  But one countervailing fact should also be noted -- the incumbent-protection provisions installed by Republicans over the last ten years likely means that Democrats, in order to achieve a 1994-type sweep, will require a larger voting advantage than the Republicans had in 1994.

(2) Although it is conventional wisdom that the Democratic defeat of 1994 was due to the intense unpopularity of President Clinton, his approval ratings were substantially better, even in 1994, than Bush's are now.  As Fox pointed out with regard to its newly released poll today:  "According to 1994 midterm election exit poll results, at that time 44 percent of voters said they approved of the job President Clinton was doing and 52 percent disapproved."  By contrast, Fox's new poll shows that Bush is a deeply unpopular President, by a 38-54 margin (CNN's new poll shows Bush's approval rating even lower, at a humiliating 35%).

(3) To defend their Leader, Republicans are claiming that it is normal and natural for a President to suffer low approval ratings after being in office for six years.  But in President Clinton's sixth year in office -- 1998 -- he was a highly popular President, even though he was besieged by the right-wing and national media's filth-mongering impeachment proceedings.  Put another way, when one compares Bush and Clinton at the same points in their presidency, they are on opposite ends of the popularity spectrum.  From Fox:  "Six years into Clinton’s presidency, the same point as Bush is today, 55 percent of voters approved and 43 percent disapproved." 

(4) While a couple of polls released yesterday reflect what has become the media cliche of the day -- "tightening" -- the trend lines for the individuals races, with few exceptions, reflect no such thing.  The polling data for the key Senate races have long shown -- and continue to show -- huge Democratic leads in Ohio and Pennsylvania; marginal though consistent leads in Montana, Rhode Island, Maryland and New Jersey; and tiny, precarious leads in Virginia and Missouri.  Not much has changed in that regard for some time.  If those leads hold and there are no major upsets either way, Democrats (even if they lose Tennessee) will take over the Senate (a result that is far, far from certain, or even likely, but it is definitely possible, and more to the point, nothing that has occurred over the past few days has changed that fact either way). 

(5) Markos' predictions are here, for what they're worth (and he wisely emphasizes:  "I've been way off on my predictions the past two cycles. So there's no particular wisdom or inside knowledge or track record to give these predictions any more weight than anyone else's. They're just for fun").  He predicts gains of 24-36 seats for Democrats in the House (15 are needed for a majority) and a gain of 6 seats in the Senate (exactly the number needed for a majority).  Consistent with that, National Review's Editor, Rich Lowry, says that Republicans consider 12-13 GOP House seats lost for certain, and that they'd "be quite pleased if the GOP holds losses to 22 [House] seats tomorrow night." 

(6) Nobody actually knows anything about the results tomorrow.

GOP/Fox News shill and alleged polling guru Dick Morris uses his New York Post column today (along with his wife Eileen McGann) to warn:  "The latest polls portend disaster for the Republican Party tomorrow. The House appears to be gone; the Senate is teetering on the brink."

Morris predicts that "2006 will go down in history as one of the worst years for the Republicans." After listing the standard reasons for what he says will be a "rout," Morris identifies the sleaze and corruption which pervades that party as the principal cause:

It was corruption that did the GOP in. . . . Speaker Dennis Hastert's son left his music store in Illinois to move to Washington to become the lobbyist for Google. Hastert himself used his position to fund a highway project that had a lot to do with a big profit on a land deal nearby. Then-Majority Leader Tom Delay put his wife was on his PAC's payroll; she made $300,000. . . .  First the Republicans lost their virtue; now they'll lose their majority, at least in the House.

Morris is wrong constantly, and some polls in the last several days have suggested that this election is "tightening."  So nothing should be assumed because nothing has been accomplished yet.  There is much work to be done between now and tomorrow to ensure the desperately needed end of one-party rule in our country.  But it is nonetheless notable that the GOP cheerleader Morris, on the day before this election, chose to write such a definitive eulogy for Congressional Republicans.

It is not news to anybody that Bush followers lie repeatedly and aggressively.  But what does continues to amaze is that there is literally no limit on their willingness to do so even when -- especially when -- it requires them to ignore and contradict even the most glaring facts which everyone can see, as clear as day, right in front of our faces.

In this superb post, Digby uses two examples from this past week -- the John Kerry "controversy" and the publication by the Bush administration of how-to nuclear documents -- to describe precisely how this process works. 

And the Editors provides the illustrated cartoon version of what Digby is describing -- a cartoon which would be hilarious if it didn't so accurately convey the process which has destroyed our nation's political dialogue and enabled the most radical and destructive policies imaginable.

This is why I spent the last couple of days focused so heavily on Michael Ledeen's weekend lie in National Review that he "opposed the military invasion of Iraq before it took place" even though he repeatedly wrote and said the exact opposite.  It's not because Ledeen himself matters per se, but because this straightforward incident illustrates the dynamic so perfectly. 

Ledeen has no compunction at all about blatantly lying even in the face of a literal wave of conclusive evidence showing that he is lying -- and his National Review editors such as Rich Lowry are content to remain silent about it because it's not news to them that their magazine is printing demonstrable falsehoods.  It doesn't even warrant a response, let alone a correction, retraction or apology. That's because lying has become not only a perfectly acceptable tactic, but one that is central to their movement.  Lying is not something they do sometimes  It is who they are.  Lying is a central and consciously adopted part of their ideology.

The grandfather of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, long ago explained the "justification" for lying in an interview with Reason's Ronald Bailey (h/t Mona):

There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people . . . There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work.

It is from that rotted Stalinist root that the right-wing Ideology of Lying emerged, as embodied by the now-infamous warning issued to Ron Suskind by a Bush "senior advisor" after Suskind wrote an article about Karen Hughes which displeased the Leader:  ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out."

The authoritarian Bush movement is so Wise (in the case of neoconservatives) and so Good (in the case of the religious fundamentalists who are their loyal comrades) that everything, including the most blatant lies, is not only justifiable, but necessary.  Reality can and must be fundamentally distorted for our own good.  As Mona put it -- and as the two posts linked above illustrate -- "for neoconservatives [which has subsumed the so-called "conservative" movement itself], falsehood is a feature, not a bug."