Download | play Download | play (h/t Scarce)

As has been widely reported this week, Daily Kos’ Markos Moulitsas will be a contributor to Newsweek, helping offer commentary on the 2008 presidential election.

Predictably, the announcement was not well received among conservative bloggers, but the more striking reaction came from NPR’s Juan Williams in an interview last night.

“[T]he fact is that he’s not a journalist in terms of someone who knows how to do reporting, someone who reflects balance in what he portrays. To the contrary, he engages in the kind of hyperbole and extreme statements that’s represented by that crass and, I think, offensive statement he made about those dead people.

“But you know what? I think that’s just what’s going on in journalism. I think that, you know, there’s more and more opinion, less and less people who know how to do the job. All you’ve got to do is shout, say something on the blog that offends and attacks the other side, and suddenly, you have the credentials, and you’re said to be a journalist. I think it’s a great lie.”

Juan Williams said this while answering questions from Sean Hannity, during an interview on Fox News. The irony was apparently lost on the host, the guest, and the audience. What a shame.

On a related note, will Williams have similar criticism of Karl Rove -- who's been hired as Kos' counterbalance at Newsweek?

Two major dailies — the LAT and the NYT — argue that the resignations of Rove and Gonzales offer Bush has a “fresh chance” to turn things around.

[Bush] can go into the next battle with Congress over the Iraq war — as well as another looming fight over legislation authorizing his domestic wiretapping program — free of the baggage both men carried. If the resignations remove some of the partisan tension between the White House and Capitol Hill, and get Mr. Rove and Mr. Gonzales off the front pages, they could help get Mr. Bush off the defensive as he struggles to salvage something of his second term.

And the LAT on the same issue:

“The Texas mafia is leaving,” said Ron Kaufman, a longtime political advisor to the Bush family. “There’s a shift in the philosophies of the appointees you have [around the president]. They are much more creatures of Washington, D.C., and not Austin, Texas.”

But therein may lie an opportunity for Bush. In two weeks, the president has accepted the resignations of the two members of his staff who have drawn the most ire from the Democrats who now control Congress: Gonzales and political advisor Karl Rove. And that may give Bush a chance to salvage his relationship with Capitol Hill and the legacy of his second term.

I think not. Competent or not, Bush is the don of the "Texas Mafia," and there’s simply no reason in the world to believe he’s anxious to turn over a new leaf. Bush doesn’t want to “salvage his relationship with Capitol Hill”; he wants to smear his critics and bury his enemies. He likes the “partisan tension.”

Hello again, I'm Mark Hoback from The Aristocrats, and I'll be filling in all week here at Mike's Blog Roundup.

Let me start with a piece that might just blow your mind, or maybe just your lunch. It's philosopher king Phil Atkinson from Family Security Matters on Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy. Sample capture:

"President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming 'ex-president' Bush or he can become 'President-for-Life' Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court."

Eatbee's Blog uses the piece as the center for Neoconservative Death Throes, but I'm afraid that corpse may still have a lot of life left in it.

Sure, bringing sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court is nice, but what about the true breeding ground of chaos and rebellion, the family dinner table? Of course, as the good Reverend Wiley Drake will tell you, when all else fails, you can always count on the power of

Imprecatory Prayer.

Whew. I feel dirty after all of that. What I really need right now is something inspirational, like this lighthearted piece about Karl Rove's dad.

Maybe that last piece proves something, but for the life of me I can't figure out what it is. So if anybody was offended by the inclusion of such a piercing article, please accept my Unpology.

Mervgate! What else is there to say? (Except, perhaps, for "We'll be right back".)

And I'll be right back tomorrow. If you have any tips, send them to mhoback AT verizon Dot net.

Hey everyone, I’m Bill Wolfrum from Williamkwolfrum.com, Shakesville.com, and other assorted sites. And yeah, I'm just as shocked as you that Fox's "Half-Hour News Hour" didn't take off. Hardcore conservatives are ordinarily so funny, and all.Morning Martini: Will we get around to fixing the nation's infrastructure? Or, for that matter, stop being a nation of murderers?

Americans United for Separation of Church and State: Idaho Congressman Bill Sali has American democracy confused with theocracy.

Bark Bark Woof Woof: Whether Fred Thompson is a candidate or not, he's no different than the rest of the GOP mess currently running.

Les Enragés.org: The words of Pink Floyd ring even more true today.

Connect.the.Dots: Ask John Kerry, John McCain and Max Cleland about Karl Rove's legacy.

Guest blogged by Bill Wolfrum. Send links to Bill at wkw (at) williamkwolfrum (dot) com.

It looks like the most talked-about media piece of the day is David Frum’s take on Karl Rove’s White House tenure. Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, argues, relatively persuasively, that Rove crafted a White House political strategy that was predicated on helping Republicans, instead of helping the country. That’s true, of course, but anyone who’s been paying attention the last six years already knew that.

More importantly, Frum offers this take on, well, us.

I notice that much of the Democratic party, and especially its activist netroots, has decided that the way to beat Rove Republicanism is by emulating it. They are practicing the politics of polarization; they are elevating “framing” above policy; they have decided that winning the next election by any means is all that matters — and never mind what happens on the day after that.

Does Frum pay any attention to politics at all? Stop by any of the leading progressive blogs and you’ll see ample discussion of substance, policy, and legislation. In general, the netroots are practically obsessed with what happens “the day after” the election. Indeed, most the online discussion recently hasn’t elevated framing above policy, it’s done the opposite — how can Dems make strides on adding safeguards to warrantless surveillance programs? On restoring habeas? On affecting war policy? On investing in infrastructure?

If Frum wants to suggest Rove believed that “winning the next election by any means is all that matters,” I’d agree with him. But the netroots? Sounds like projection to me.

If Karl Rove thinks his resignation will keep him out of Senate Democrats' sights, Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) has a message for him: think again.

"Earlier this month, Karl Rove failed to comply with the Judiciary Committee's subpoena to testify about the mass firings of United States Attorneys. Despite evidence that he played a central role in these firings, just as he did in the Libby case involving the outing of an undercover CIA agent and improper political briefings at over 20 government agencies, Mr. Rove acted as if he was above the law. That is wrong. Now that he is leaving the White House while under subpoena, I continue to ask what Mr. Rove and others at the White House are so desperate to hide. Mr. Rove's apparent attempts to manipulate elections and push out prosecutors citing bogus claims of voter fraud shows corruption of federal law enforcement for partisan political purposes, and the Senate Judiciary Committee will continue its investigation into this serious issue.

"The list of senior White House and Justice Department officials who have resigned during the course of these congressional investigations continues to grow, and today, Mr. Rove added his name to that list. There is a cloud over this White House, and a gathering storm. A similar cloud envelopes Mr. Rove, even as he leaves the White House."

You don't get off the hook that easy, Karl.

Call the waahhhbbuulllance! The Douchebag of Liberty isn't part of the cool kids anymore and he doesn't like it.

ThinkProgress:

In a radio interview with Diane Rehm this morning, right-wing columnist Robert Novak tried to assert his conservative credentials by distancing himself from the Bush White House. "I don't support this administration," he said.

"The president's cut me off the list of conservative columnists that are invited there." He added, "They consider me a lot of trouble."

It would be unsurprising if the White House considered Novak "trouble," given his unscrupulous journalistic ethics. But nothing in Novak's previous comments has suggested anything but a close relationship with the White House. Just recently, he said he "never enjoyed such a good source inside the White House" as Karl Rove.

It appears Novak is simply sour over the fact he wasn't given a 110-minute sit-down interview with President Bush like his counterpart at the New York Times, David Brooks.

Audio of the Diane Rehm interview available at TP.

  Raw Story:

The White House appeared set for an expanded showdown with congressional investigators in the probe of the firing of eight US Attorneys over the weekend.

An attorney for Sara Taylor, a former top aide to White House adviser Karl Rove, notified the Senate that she was unlikely to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee July 11.

At the same time, former Counsel to President George W. Bush Harriet Miers told RAW STORY she did not know if she would appear before the House Judiciary Committee July 12.

An attorney for Taylor informed the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that the White House sought to block her testimony.

The White House stonewalling Congressional oversight?  Quelle surprise!  It's astounding to me that with so many of the Nixon White House still trolling around the halls of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue that the most fundamental lesson of Watergate appears lost on them: it's not the crime, but the cover up that gets them every time.

Media Matters:

On the April 30 edition of XM Radio's The Bob Edwards Show, Washington Post columnist David Broder asserted that it was "really doubtful" President Bush would be able "to salvage something that would look like a victory in Iraq." Broder made this statement four days after he attacked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for what he called Reid's "ineptitude," because of, as he wrote in his April 26 Post column, Reid's assertion that the Iraq war "is lost." As Media Matters for America noted, in that column, Broder pointed to Reid's "war is lost" remark to compare him to embattled Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and accuse him of engaging in "inept discussion[s] of the alternatives in Iraq" and of not being "a man who misses many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth."

Media Matters has the audio here. Jameson Foser offers Broder a nice steaming hot cup of STFU.

And lest you need any further persuasion why Broder needs to be soundly ignored instead of given a national media platform, let me share a little quote of Broder's from 2003 in Harper's:

BRODER: "Let me disclose my own bias in this matter. I like Karl Rove. In the days when he was operating from Austin, we had many long and rewarding conversations. I have eaten quail at his table and admired the splendid Hill Country landscape from the porch of the historic cabin Karl and his wife Darby found miles away and had carted to its present site on their land."

Broder didn't feel obliged to share that little bit of bias when he soundly went off on the media, saying they "owed Rove an apology" in 2006.

When the Bush White House was confronted with questions about an unprecedented purge of eight U.S. Attorneys, one of the key responses was, “Clinton did it, too.” It was false, Bush aides knew it was false, but they used it anyway.

Now the same officials are confronted with questions about an unprecedented initiative from Karl Rove’s office to give blatantly partisan campaign briefings to 15 federal agencies, on government property, shortly before the 2006 elections, despite a federal law prohibiting these kinds of activities. What’s the new excuse? Take a wild guess.

When one reporter asked Perino whether the briefings were a “White House idea, initially, or was it the agencies,” Perino dodged the question and replied that “the Clinton administration had similar briefings.”

Perino’s “Clinton did it too” is wrong. Bush White House officials went to federal agencies on at least 20 occasions and conducted private briefings for large groups of political appointees. They gave presentations focusing on “Republican electoral prospects in the last midterm election.” The Hatch Act explicitly prohibits the use of federal property for partisan political purposes.

ThinkProgress contacted Doug Sosnik, Clinton’s Director of Political Affairs, directly. Sosnik explained, “We never went to agencies and briefed political appointees.” In fact, no one in the Clinton administration — from Sosnik’s office or anywhere else — ever conducted similar briefings for federal employees.

It appears that, for the second time in as many weeks, Perino simply made it up, fabricating a story to get herself out of a jam. It's called "lying" -- and Perino has been doing it quite often lately.