On Wednesday, President Bush once again turned to AIDS for air cover in the battle for global opinion. Facing the prospect of universal condemnation by the international community for a wildly unpopular American policy, President Bush tried to change the topic and buy some global goodwill by announcing massive new U.S. AIDS funding. This time, Bush is trying to deflect criticism of American global warming policy in advance of next week's G8 summit. In 2003, of course, his problem was the looming Iraq war.

The pattern by now is a familiar one. Next week, President Bush heads to the G8 summit in Germany, where global warming will top the agenda. German Chancellor Angela Merkel will push an ambitious plan featuring a global carbon emissions trading system, a target for 50% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050 and aggressive goals for temperature change. Virtually the lone holdout from the Kyoto protocols, the United States opposes all these measures in the face of a worldwide consensus and unanimity among its G8 partners. Bush swatted away Tony Blair's final plea for American action on global climate change during the British Prime Minister's farewell tour in Washington earlier this month. Instead, President Bush today rolled out his own package of half-measures on global warming in advance of the common front of criticism he is sure to face in Germany next week.

Which is where AIDS funding comes in. Facing the certain prospect of universal worldwide opprobrium for his position on global warming next week, President Bush this week announced a new proposal for $30 billion in U.S. funding for AIDS programs around the world. The plan, which would begin in 2008, doubles the $15 billion in the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) targeting 12 African nations, Haiti, Vietnam, and Guyana currently set to expire next year.

Early reactions suggests that the White House PR campaign is having the desired effect. Despite tying 7% of its funding to failed abstinence programs beloved by his friends on the Christian right, Bush has been able to enjoy the support of most AIDS groups and political foes alike. Natasha Bilimoria, executive director of the District-based Friends of the Global Fight Against AIDS, Tuberculosis & Malaria, claimed Bush's support "has made a lifesaving difference to millions of people suffering from HIV/AIDS around the world." And Bush foe Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) diverted his attention from his criticism of the President on Iraq and global climate disaster to praise the AIDS proposal. "With the energy and resources provided by PEPFAR and other programs,' Feingold said, "there has been impressive progress in the fight against HIV and AIDS worldwide, but the battle is far from won."

For the Bush administration, that battle only commenced with the run up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. For President Bush, the selling the Iraq war to skeptical friends and foes alike in the global community wasn't going well in late 2002 and early 2003. As I wrote last June, it may well have been U2 lead singer Bono who offered President Bush the PR strategy he needed to sway global opinion moving away from an increasingly isolated United States over its pending war on Saddam.

With the Iraq war looming in early 2003, Bono offered President Bush the prospect of a global American public relations triumph by announcing a massive commitment to fighting AIDS:

"Maybe it's smart to just help people with these crushing problems. These drugs are great advertisements for us in the West, for our ingenuity, our technology, our innovation, particularly in the United States. I said that to President Bush. I said, 'Paint them red, white and blue if you want, but these drugs are the best advertisement you are going to get right now, and that might be important right now.'"

Shortly thereafter, President Bush shocked the world by announcing a five-year, $15 billion dollar AIDS program for Africa and the Caribbean in his 2003 State of the Union Address.

In his address on Wednesday, President Bush sought to deflect international anger towards the U.S. for undermining action on global warming by instead citing American largesse on AIDS:

"Once again, the generosity of the American people is one of the great untold stories of our time. Our citizens are offering comfort to millions who suffer, and restoring hope to those who feel forsaken."

Beyond telling that untold story, he also announced that First Lady Laura Bush, despite her past difficulties defending her husband's insistence on faith-based abstinence programs in his AIDS package, would reprise her role as AIDS ambassador and once again visit Africa. "She and I share a passion," Mr. Bush said. "We believe that to whom much is given, much is required."

As was the case with his AIDS payout in 2003, the "whom" President Bush cynically refers to not really the United States. It's the international community.

It's no surprise that the ongoing controversy over Alberto Gonzales' role in the purging of U.S. prosecutors has revealed the limitless intent of the Bush administration to convert the Department of Justice into an appendage of the Republican Party. What is more surprising - and deeply disappointing - is the unwillingness of leading Hispanic figures and organizations to take on one of their own.

With his hesitation to call on Attorney General Gonzales to resign, Democratic presidential hopeful Governor Bill Richardson failed his first test when it comes to transcending identity politics. On April 17, the New Mexico Governor and first major party Hispanic candidate made it clear his continued support for the Attorney General hinged solely on their shared ethnicity:

"The only reason I'm not there is because he's Hispanic, and I know him and like him. It's because he's Hispanic. I'm honest. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt."

Eventually, holding his fellow Hispanic to a lower standard of accountability became too much of a political albatross even for Richardson. On April 20, the day after Gonzales' calamitous appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Richardson finally acknowledged the magnitude of Gonzales staggering incompetence and likely criminality:

"After reviewing the attorney general's behavior, I must reluctantly conclude that new leadership is needed. It's time for him to go. He's lost his ability to lead."

Sadly, the majority of the national major Hispanic American organizations have failed to admit the inevitable and tell Gonzales "no mas." As I wrote in early April, the National Council of La Raza had not yet "taken a public position on the firing controversy." As of April 1st, fence-sitting was the rule, with the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Latino Coalition, and the National Hispanic Bar Association to date having all withheld public support - or condemnation - for Gonzales in the face of the mounting evidence of his role in the U.S. attorneys controversy.

And as the Washington Post reported Tuesday, many of the same groups have continued to remain silent about Gonzales, placing ethnic pride over good government. Despite the deepening U.S. attorneys scandal, the revelations over Gonzales bed-side visit to an ailing John Ashcroft to coerce an extension of President Bush's illegal NSA domestic surveillance and the testimony of Gonzales aide Monica Goodling, only La Raza and LULAC offered public statements of "buyer's remorse" when it comes to their earlier support for the embattled Attorney General.

Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza, said that with the Hispanic community, "people are conflicted," adding that Gonzales is "a follower, not a leader." And executive director Brent Wilkes expressed the regrets of the League of United Latin American Citizens:

"I have to say we were in error when we supported him to begin with. We hoped for better. Instead it looks like he's done the bidding of the White House."

But through their letters of support or mere silence, the majority of Hispanic civic and business organizations continue to stand by their man. Gilbert Moreno, president of the Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans, on whose board Gonzales once sat, said, "We're not really in a position to comment." And as the Washington Post reported:

The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, which offered enthusiastic support for Gonzales, also declined to discuss him. William Ramos, director of the organization's Washington office, said, "We provided a support letter, yes," then hung up.

The U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the National Latino Peace Officers Association, the Latino Coalition and the Hispanic Alliance for Progress Institute all wrote letters supporting Gonzales when he became embroiled in the scandal over the prosecutor firings.

"We strongly oppose what is nothing but patently political calls for the resignation of Alberto Gonzales," the Latino Coalition wrote. "He has been, and continues to be, a leading example to all in the Hispanic community of what we can accomplish through hard work and keeping true to our dreams."

In explaining his tardiness in calling for Gonzales' ouster, Bill Richardson said,

"Did it affect that he was Hispanic in what I said? Yeah, it did, and I said so. I'm just being honest."

Honest maybe, but not right, and certainly not presidential. But unlike his allies among the leading Hispanic organizations across America, Bill Richardson eventually put the national interest above identity politics.

One year ago today, I asked my readers to take a Memorial Day pause from the debate over the war in Iraq to reflect on the sacrifices of our servicemen and women, and to find ways to support them and their families. One year and almost 1000 U.S. dead later, I believe those Memorial Day sentiments are worth repeating:

Memorial Day this year arrives at an especially painful time for Americans. Over 2,400 U.S. troops have been killed and another 17,000 wounded in Iraq. New allegations have come to light regarding the possible slaughter of Iraqi civilians in Haditha by United States Marines just as heart-breaking details emerge about the disgraceful cover-up of the death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan. Painful times indeed.

But on this Memorial Day, we should set aside the shame of Haditha, the outrage over the stain of Abu Ghraib, and the manipulation of the memory of Pat Tillman. This Memorial Day, like every other, is to honor ours troop of all wars and remember and support their families. We are immensely privileged to live in a nation where a selfless few fight and sacrifice so that we might live in freedom. This is their day of tribute and remembrance.

For the other 364 days a year, we can and should ask why they died and what actions they and they leaders took in our name. But not on Memorial Day. Not for me.

Perrspectives has assembled a set of resources, most by way of the Defense Department, where you can help support the troops. This resource center provides links to lists and images of the fallen, sending messages and care packages to the troops, charities offering family services, facilitating donations, and providing care and comfort to the wounded.

Visit the Perrspectives Resource Center to access these and other resources to support our troops and their families.

In the wake of the Senate vote of Iraq war funding, Arizona Senator John McCain lashed out at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And, as it turns out, himself.

On Friday, McCain raged against his Democratic colleagues Clinton and Obama for their no votes and "waving a white flag" to Al Qaeda:

"What is Senator Obama and Senator Clinton's 'Plan B' if we withdraw?"

Sadly for his fading presidential hopes, McCain acknowledged that he himself lacks any Plan B of his own. Earlier today, he admitted "we are examining many other plans and none of the options are good." But back on April 13th, McCain for once offered some straight talk:

"I have no Plan B."

Here's more on the GOP's lack of a plan B for Iraq.

As Republicans await with baited breadth the signal that former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson is jumping into the 2008 presidential race, more ironic revelations concerning the politician-turned-actor continue to surface. As it turns out, the Watergate hero who helped reveal Richard Nixon's Watergate cover-up is now helping Scooter Libby facilitate his Plamegate smoke-screen.

To follow Thompson's evolution from nonpartisan truth seeker to Republican shill, take a trip back to the Senate Watergate hearings of 1973 and 1974. As I rediscovered while researching a piece on the Republicans' now-ubiquitous "criminalization of politics" scandal defense, it was a committee Republican staff attorney Fred Thompson who posed the question to White House aide Alexander Butterfield that unraveled the Watergate cover-up and effectively ended the Nixon presidency:

THOMPSON: "Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the President?"

BUTTERFIELD: "I was aware of listening devices, yes sir."

The recordings in the Nixon White House ended almost immediately. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Fast forward 30 years to Plamegate, a new Republican scandal featuring a cover-up of presidential wrongdoing and White House criminality. In July 2003, members of the Bush administration, desperate to refute Ambassador Joe Wilson's debunking of its claim that Iraq sought uranium in Niger, revealed the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame. Four years later, former Cheney chief-of-staff Scooter Libby was convicted on four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Sadly, this time Fred Thompson has joined the dark side in this new Republican cover-up. A quick glance at the web site of the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Trust reveals that among its advisory committee members is none other than Fred Thompson. And much more than merely lending his name to a convicted felon, Thompson is hosting fundraisers and penning screeds calling for a pardon. As recently as May 12th, Thompson offered a full-throated defense of Libby, regurgitating every GOP falsehood in smearing the Wilsons:

"After years of sacrifice and service to his country, he sits at home with his wife and two children awaiting a prison sentence. His name is Scooter Libby.

As you may recall, for some inexplicable reason, the CIA sent the husband of one of its employees to Niger on a sensitive mission. She had suggested it. He came back to the U.S. and proceeded to publicly blast the administration. Naturally, everyone wanted to know 'who is this guy?' and 'why was he sent to Niger?' Just as naturally, the fact that he was married to Valerie Plame at the CIA was leaked.

Having virtually guaranteed that Ms. Plame's identity would be ultimately disclosed by using her, shall we say, 'politically active' husband, the CIA then demanded that this leak of her name be investigated by the Justice Department for a possible violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

The Justice Department, bowing to political and media pressure, appointed a Special Counsel to investigate the leak and promised that the Justice Department would exercise no supervision over him whatsoever - a status even the Attorney General does not have.

The only problem with this little scenario was that there was no violation of the law, by anyone, and everybody - the CIA, the Justice Department and the Special Counsel knew it. Ms. Plame was not a 'covered person' under the statute and it was obvious from the outset."

All of which makes Thompson such an attractive 2008 standard bearer for many in his party. Like so many Republicans, Fred Thompson apparently no longer believes in law and order.

UPDATE 1: The Washington Post reports that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is calling for a sentence of up to three years for Libby. Fred Thompson might want to note Fitzgerald's words to the judge:

"The judicial system has not corruptly mistreated Mr. Libby. Mr. Libby has been found by a jury of his peers to have corrupted the judicial system. He has shown no regret for his actions, which significantly impeded the investigation."

UPDATE 2: As it turns out, in my ignorance I gave Fred Thompson far too much credit for his role during Watergate. As the Boston Globe and others detailed in July, Thompson was in fact a mole for the Nixon White House, doing its bidding on the Senate Watergate Committee despite the President's concern that Thompson was not "very smart."

Among the least surprising developments arising from Monica Goodling's appearance before the House Judiciary Committee was the reflexive use of the "criminalization of politics" defense. Not by the witness, that is, but by Republican members of the committee themselves. That is to be expected. After all, whether the scandal involves Tom Delay, the outing of Valerie Plame, Jack Abramoff, or the U.S. attorneys purge, we can always count on the GOP to recast its rampant criminality as mere political disagreement.

On PBS Newhour last night, Republican California Congressman Dan Lundgren was only too happy to offer the criminalization of politics ruse for Monica Goodling and Alberto Gonzales alike. Just moments after acknowledging Goodling's admission of violating civil rules and Hatch Act prohibitions ("she did admit that she made mistakes in that regard"), Lundgren returned the script:

"Let me just say this -- and I think it's an important point -- there is too much of a tendency in this environment to try and criminalize political disputes. That's been the effort here. They have found no basis for criminality, so the suggestion is now a vote of no confidence. Who knows what is next?"

But it was Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) who beat Lundgren to the punch, defending Goodling in the opening moments of her testimony. Pence, who famously compared his March visit to a Baghdad market to shopping in his home state of Indiana, trotted out the tired GOP talking point for her:

"I'm listening very intently. I'm studying this case. And I want to explore this issue of illegal behavior with you. Because it seems to me so much of this -- and even something of what we've heard today in this otherwise cordial hearing -- is about the criminalization of politics. In a very real sense, it seems to be about the attempted criminalization of things that are vital to our constitutional system of government, namely the taking into consideration of politics in the appointment of political officials within the government."

Later that morning, of course, Monica Goodling admitted her own lawbreaking and suggested that Attorney General Gonzales may have obstructed justice in trying to coach her. Acknowledging that "I believe I crossed the line, but I didn't mean to", Goodling clarified for all why she sought immunity in the first place:

"I do acknowledge that I may have gone too far in asking political questions of applicants for career positions, and I may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account on some occasions, and I regret those mistakes."

So much for the claim of Jim Sensenbrenner that "There ain't no fish in this water."

GonzoGate, however, is far from the first use of the "criminalizing politics" defense by Republicans and their conservative amen corner. Consider the case of Tom Delay. As early as April 2005, a furious Delay declared of the ethic charges swirling around him, "Democrats have made clear that their only agenda is the politics of personal destruction and the criminalization of politics." Amazingly, that comment came before Delay's own October 2005 indictment in Texas for money laundering in association with his Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC).

Unsurprisingly, the conservative echo chamber rushed to Delay's defense and magnified his talking point. Days after Delay's indictment by District Attorney Ronnie Earle, Robert Novak penned a column titled "Criminalizing Politics", concluding:

'Democrats are ecstatic. The criminalization of politics may work, even if the case against DeLay is as threadbare as it looks."

No discussion of Robert Novak and the Republican redefinition of GOP crime as everyday political disagreements could be complete without a look the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. While neither Karl Rove nor others were ever charged with the technical and narrowly defined offense of revealing the identity of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak and others, Cheney chief-of-staff Scooter Libby was convicted by jury on four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. But for the familiar goose-steppers of the conservative ascendancy, Libby the felon too was a victim of the criminalization of politics.

The usual cavalcade of apologists for Republican law-breaking swarmed to Libby's defense. With his looming indictment in the fall of 2005, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison compared Libby to Martha Stewart, and offered a new variant of the Delay sound bite, the "perjury technicality." Hutchison said she hoped that:

"That if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars."

Hutchison, of course, had plenty of company in offering the criminalization of politics canard in the CIA leak case. On October 14, 2005, Bill Kristol complained, "I am worried about what happens to the administration if Rove is indicted," adding, "I think it's the criminalization of politics that's really gotten totally out of hand." In succeeding days, Kristol's Fox News colleagues Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Stuart Varney and Chris Wallace joined the chorus singing from the RNC's criminalization of politics hymnal. On October 24th, Kristol took to the pages of the Weekly Standard to denounce a supposed Democratic strategy of "criminalizing conservatives." When Libby was later convicted, the Wall Street Journal editorial page called for a pardon. The WSJ cited grave dangers if the Libby verdict were to stand: "perhaps the worst precedent would be normalizing the criminalization of policy differences."

Things used to be different. There was a time when Republicans were able to place the national interest above partisan advantage. During Watergate, after all, it was Tennessee Republican Senator and later Reagan chief-of-staff Howard Baker who asked the defining question of all presidential scandals, "what did the president know and when did he know it." And it was Fred Thompson, then a Republican attorney for the Senate Watergate committee, who asked Nixon aide Alexander Butterield the question that unraveled the entire cover-up:

"Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the President?"

Fast forward 30 years. The "criminalization of politics" defense has an established arrow Republican quiver since the mid-1980's. And Fred Thompson? The Watergate hero and former Tennessee Senator will likely run for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination. And, oh yeah, Fred Thompson is on the advisory committee for the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Trust.

On Monday, I suggested that new polls coming out of Iowa could signal serious trouble for the both the Democratic and Republican front-runners in 2008. The surprising early leads for John Edwards and Mitt Romney could produce an Iowa Effect, upending the conventional wisdom regarding the dynamics of election '08. Apparently, some in the Giuliani and Clinton camps agree.

On Tuesday, rumors began to swirl that Rudy Giuliani might bypass Iowa's straw poll and caucus. While Giuliani aide Mark Campbell claimed "we are putting in place a full and complete field organization and leadership organization to compete," Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley noted that the former New York mayor trails both in the polls and on the ground in the Hawkeye state. Of Giuliani, who lags Mitt Romney by 30% to 17% in Iowa, Grassley concluded, "The best organizations have to be McCain and Romney. I don't think Giuliani is very far along on organizing."

Just a day later came news that Hillary Clinton's team is similarly debating how to manage expectations leading up to and coming out of the January 14th Iowa caucus. Despite consistently leading the national polls, Clinton (21%) currently runs third in Iowa, behind John Edwards (29%) and Barack Obama (23%). A memo from deputy campaign manager Mike Henry urged the New York Senator to skip Iowa altogether and so deny Edwards or Obama the "exceeding expectations" momentum wave that comes from dethroning the national front-runner in the first in the nation caucus:

"I believe we need a new approach to winning the Democratic nomination. This approach involves shifting the focus away from Iowa and running a campaign that is more focused on other early primary states and winning this new national primary."

While the Clinton braintrust is denying that Henry's memo constitutes the planned strategy for the campaign, the discussion highlights the risk of early defeat in Iowa to entrenched national party leaders. As I wrote Monday, Clinton and Giuliani may face a very game of expectations management should they experience disaster in Des Moines:

"The Iowa Effect is the complete upending of the predicted presidential primary landscape by a candidate's unexpected performance in the nation's first caucus. Riding a wave of adoring press coverage by a media eager to hype the tale of the underdog, the perceived winner in Iowa sweeps through New Hampshire and subsequent primary states to take (or at least seriously challenge for) the party's nomination."

With Florida moving up its contest to January 29th and some of the February 5th "national primary" states such as California encouraging early absentee balloting, the impact of Iowa may be muted. We shall see.

For more background, see "The Iowa Effect."

UPDATE: The Washington Post has more from the Clinton campaign and its move to quickly squelch rumors of her withdrawal from the Iowa race. Meanwhile, ABC notes that the Obama camp is circulating its own memo highlighting his improving prospects in Iowa and across the country.

Wednesday was a very bad day for the radical religious right. Proud products of flagship evangelical universities were revealed to be criminals and terrorists. And on the same day that vice presidential daughter and oxymoronic lesbian conservative Mary Cheney delivered her baby, a scientific study reported news of female sharks conceiving offspring without males.

In Washington, former DOJ White House liaison Monica Goodling admitted violating the Hatch Act's prohibitions on using political litmus tests for career positions. The 1999 graduate of Pat Robertson's Regent University law school conceded to the House Judiciary Committee that she broke civil service laws, stating "I believe I crossed the lines. But I didn't mean to."

Meanwhile at the late Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, student terrorist Mark David Uhl was arrested for planning to bomb protesters at Falwell's funeral. The self-proclaimed "Mighty Warrior" prepared to hurl homemade napalm devices at the family of Fred Phelps, the Kansas preacher expected to heckle Falwell for his insufficient zeal in persecuting gay Americans.

Speaking of gay Americans, vice presidential daughter Mary Cheney gave birth to her and her partner Heather Poe's first child. Her parents, of course, were supportive. Her father Dick, after all, eventually concluded he could not support a same-sex marriage ban, while mother Lynne famously wrote a novel of forbidden lesbian love in the Old West. Their allies on the religious right like Tony Perkins and James Dobson, however, could never bless a family bringing a child into the world without a man.

Which means Perkins and Dobson won't be visiting a shark tank any time soon. Researchers in Northern Ireland and Canada documented three cases of asexual reproduction in female hammerhead sharks which had no contact with males for over three years.

So apply every tired cliche and weary metaphor you want. When it rains, it pours. You can't make this stuff up. The truth is stranger than fiction. Because on Wednesday, May 23, 2007, the religious right jumped the shark.

In her testimony today before the House Judiciary Committee, former DOJ White House liaison Monica Goodling joined Alberto Gonzales, Kyle Sampson and Paul McNulty in disclaiming any role in the creation of the infamous list of U.S. attorneys to be fired. It should comes as no surprise that the graduate of Regent University law school would have us believe the list so central to the prosecutors purge appeared magically, untouched by the hands of man. Call it Immaculate Conception.

Goodling Wednesday consistently rejected any notion that she helped create the evolving list of USAs to be targeted or played any major role in the addition or subtraction of prosecutors. She claimed that she has "never had a conversation" with Harriet Miers and Karl Rove, though she acknowledged receiving emails (perhaps like these). Despite her own admissions that she suggest removing South Carolina's Wagner from the list, and was aware of discussions surrounding the inclusion of others (Cummins, Iglesias, Lam, Bogden), Goodling put the onus on former Gonzales chief-of-staff Kyle Sampson. While she acknowledged seeing the list in January, September and the conclusive November 27, 2006 meeting, she pointed the finger at Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and Sampson.

Unfortunately, Sampson during own testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 29th claimed repeatedly that he was only "the keeper of the list." He told Senator Feinstein (D-CA) that "It was based on an aggregation of input that came into me, and then I added people to the list." Sampson also contradicted Attorney General Gonzales' March statements that he had played no role in the discussions over the fired attorneys, declaring "I don't think it's accurate." Sampson also told Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY):

"I remember that he [Gonzales] asked me to make sure that I was consulting with the Deputy Attorney General [Paul McNulty], and that he agreed with the list of U.S. attorneys who should -- who we might consider asking to resign. And he also asked that I be sure to coordinate with the White House."

Gonzales, of course, continues to flip-flop over both his own role in the firings and the part played by the outgoing Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Paul McNulty. In his March 6th USA Today op-ed declaring the sackings "an overblown personnel matter," Gonzales painted himself as the decider, "While I am grateful for the public service of these seven U.S. attorneys, they simply lost my confidence." But just five weeks later in his April 15th Washington Post op-ed, Gonzales backtracked, "During those conversations, to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign."

Which brings us to Paul McNulty. Last week, Gonzales took advantage of McNulty's resignation to blame the DAG for all that came to pass in the prosecutors purge. "At the end of the day," Gonzales claimed on May 15th, "the recommendations reflected the views of the deputy attorney general. He signed off on the names." Gonzales continued the blame game, stating:

"The one person I would care about would be the views of the deputy attorney general, because the deputy attorney general is the direct supervisor of the United States attorneys."

Sadly, that's not what Attorney General Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee while under oath on April 19th. At that time, that is to say, before McNulty announced his resignation, Gonzales claimed his deputy AG had virtually no role in the process that led to the firings. "Looking back," Gonzales asked and answered, "things that I would have done differently? I think I would have had the deputy attorney general more involved, directly involved."

McNulty, of course, opted to resign on May 15th precisely because Sampson and Goodling hung him out to dry during his February 6th testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sampson and Goodling, to whom Gonzales by order earlier handed hiring and firing authority, failed to provide McNulty with all the background prior to his testimony on the purge. While Goodling today disputed McNulty's claim that she and Sampson had misled him - or worse, it is clear that the deputy attorney general did produce the list of those U.S. attorneys.

Which raises the question? Who is responsible for putting those eight names on the list? Who created, if you will, the Eight Commandments?

As Monica Goodling will tell you, the mission of Regent University law school is to bring the will of the Almighty to the law. But when it comes to the ultimate paternity of the purged prosecutors list, the Almighty resides not in Heaven, but in the White House.

With Monica Goodling's testimony underway, the Perrspectives U.S. Attorney Scandal Resource Center has been updated.

For all the latest news, document dumps, email archives, hearing transcripts and other essential materials in the political motivated firings of U.S. attorneys, see "The U.S. Attorney Resource Center."

It's been a good week so far for Mitt Romney. On Monday, new polls showed him leading the pack in both Iowa and New Hampshire. And if his growing attacks on Romney are any indication, John McCain is clearly answering yes to the Washington Post's question today, "Is Romney Moving Up?"

But despite his improving poll numbers, perfect hair and gleaming teeth, Mitt Romney can't escape himself. As Ana Marie Cox documents in Time, Romney's unparalleled opportunism, cynical calculation, red state transformations and gymnastic flip-flopping make Mitt a gaffe machine waiting to happen.

Cox's catalog of Mitt's Top Ten Gaffes details many of the greatest hits of smarmy pandering and jaw-dropping freakishness that are certain to add the term "Romneyesque" to the lexicon. It's all there, including his leaked playbook's plan to make France (where he himself performed his Mormon mission) the bogeyman of his campaign. The list goes on: naming Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard's Battlefield Earth his favorite novel and the two-time varmint killer proclaiming himself a lifelong hunter. Cox also highlights Romney's hilarious historical revisionism, including his inadvertent praise for Fidel Castro and the supposed green policies of Adolf Hitler. Romney was even able to insult his own wife, saying of her contributions to Planned Parenthood, "Her positions are not terribly relevant to my campaign." Romney's classic acts of contortion on the Iraq surge, Osama Bin Laden and the doubling of Gitmo are also featured.

Over the past two years, Perrspectives has also compiled a rather prodigious library of the packaging - and repackaging - of Mitt Romney. A small sampling includes Romney's amazing abortion flip-flop, his ever-changing state of residence and his born-again determination to capture Bin Laden. The Romney Irony Watch includes his call for states to end their investments in firms doing business with Iran, despite the portfolio on Tehran ties of his own former employer. You can read about the reformed immigration foe who hired illegal aliens for to landscape his property and joined Tony Snow and John McCain as a casual user of the racial slur "tar baby." (For more Romney classic quotes, see the "GOP Quotes of the Week" here and here.)

Back in 2005, Michael Murphy, Mitt Romney's version of Karl Rove, said of his boss the Governor of Massachusetts, "He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly." The bad news is that this fraud might be elected President of the United States. The good news, as Time reminds us, is that that unlikely eventuality promises to be entertaining along the way.

On Sunday, Pennsylvania Republican Senator Arlen Specter repeated his familiar pattern of feigned independence from the Bush White House. Appearing on CBS' Face the Nation, Specter announced his expectation that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would resign in the face of a looming no-confidence vote in the Senate.

But as I wrote in February, whether the issue concerns the political firings of U.S. attorneys, the illegal NSA domestic surveillance program, presidential statements or the Valerie Plame leak, Arlen Specter's initial outrage over Bush administration misdeeds inevitably gives way to quiet acquiescence.

While refraining from announcing his own vote on a possible Senate no-confidence vote (as he did earlier on Judiciary Committee subpoenas for Karl Rove and Harriet Miers), Specter declared of Gonzales:

"I think that if and when he sees that coming, that he would prefer to avoid that kind of an historical black mark."

Sadly, Specter's own crystal ball appears to be cracked. While the House has initiated the process for a no-confidence vote on Gonzales, in the Senate Mitch McConnell and other Bush loyalists may prevent such a resolution from coming to the floor. Meanwhile, President Bush on Monday continued to voice his "full confidence" in his Attorney General.

Let's hope that events - and a little backbone - prove Arlen Specter right this time. After all, former Gonzales White House liaison Monica Goodling is set to testify on Wednesday. But if history is any indication, Arlen Specter will allow GonzoGate to remain what President Bush describes as "pure political theater."

For more background on why watching Senator Specter challenge Bush administration wrong-doing is like witnessing a failed rocket launch, see "Arlen Specter's Failure to Launch."

New polls just released by the Des Moines Register show John Edwards and Mitt Romney leading the Democratic and Republican Iowa caucus fields respectively. While Edwards (29%) holds a six-point lead over Barack Obama (23%) and national front-runner Hillary Clinton (21%), former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney enjoys a surprising 13% over John McCain (18%) and overall GOP leader Rudy Giuliani (17%). All of which suggests that in 2008, Americans may once again witness the "Iowa Effect."

In a nutshell, the Iowa Effect is the complete upending of the predicted presidential primary landscape by a candidate's unexpected performance in the nation's first caucus. Riding a wave of adoring press coverage by a media eager to hype the tale of the underdog, the perceived winner in Iowa sweeps through New Hampshire and subsequent primary states to take (or at least seriously challenge for) the party's nomination.

Just ask Gary Hart. In December 1983, I joined Hart's Democratic presidential campaign in New Hampshire. At that time, the Colorado Senator polled at 2% nationally and a somewhat more respectable 5% in New Hampshire, well behind the media's chosen front-runners Walter Mondale and John Glenn. Thanks to an experienced team and a ground-breaking grassroots mobilization on the ground, by mid-February Hart moved into a distant second place behind Mondale. The day before the Iowa caucus and eight days before the New Hampshire primary, Hart trailed Mondale by roughly 35% to 15%.

Which is when Iowa changed everything. Sure enough, Mondale ran away with the 1984 Iowa caucus, 51% to 16%. But it was Gary Hart who finished a shocking second. (John Glenn's campaign imploded after his dismal fifth place showing.) That same night, Hart declared the nomination a two-man race and confided to an aide that his second-place showing meant he would be the next president of the United States.

Hart's boundless optimism was based on the media transformation and the tectonic momentum shift he knew would result for his stunning Iowa performance. The next day in New Hampshire, our usual press van of four reporters was replaced by two busloads of media from around the world. A week later, Gary Hart manufactured a 30% turn-around and won the New Hampshire primary by 10 points. The Iowa Effect was complete.

Ultimately, of course, Hart lost a hard-fought nomination battle to Mondale. After sweeping out New Hampshire to wins in Maine, Massachusetts, Florida and other "Super Tuesday" states, Hart stumbled badly in Illinois, New York and New Jersey. A late charge in Ohio and the June California primary was not enough to block a first-ballot win for Mondale at the Democratic convention in San Francisco.

Despite the massive front-loading of the parties' 2008 primary calendar, Iowa could still upset the apple cart. Despite his third place showing in the nationwide polls, John Edwards' excellent organization on the ground and strong second place showing in 2004 make him a formidable candidate in Iowa's January 14th caucus. (Ironically, it was Howard Dean's post-caucus "scream" that hijacked the media attention in 2004, and perhaps robbed Edwards of the New Hampshire bump his surprisingly close 29%-23% race in Iowa might have earned him.)

A solid win in Iowa, especially if coupled with an Obama second place showing over Hillary Clinton, could propel Edwards through the next wave of voting in the Nevada caucus (January 19th), New Hampshire (22nd) and South Carolina (29th). While Edwards is second or third in those states, a post-Iowa wave could catapult him to wins and build the media tsunami for the February 5th "national primary" including California, Florida, Illinois and Michigan.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney is also well-positioned. Up by 12% over McCain in Iowa, Romney also enjoys a small lead in his neighboring state of New Hampshire. The key for Mitt will be South Carolina, where his Mormon faith appears to be presenting a major challenge to his prospects. In an April Palmetto State poll, Romney (6%) badly trailed John McCain (36%) and Rudy Giuliani (23%).

All of this, of course, is mere speculation. Given the stacked primary schedule, national media candidates like Clinton and Giuliani could bulldoze their opponents as expected. But as Yogi Berra might say, it ain't over til it's over. In Iowa, that is.

UPDATE: Florida has moved its primary to January 29th, a shift which could trigger a forward stampede by South Carolina and others

The past week was a bittersweet time of garbled goodbyes and failed farewells for President Bush and his amen corner on the right. In Washington, Paul Wolfowitz resigned in disgrace, Tony Blair bid adieu to both President and his own legacy, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales faced new charges of malpractice over his Ashcroft bedside manner. Meanwhile, as President Bush dug in his heels over his fiasco in Iraq, the Teletubby terrorist Jerry Falwell shuffled off this mortal coil. Together, these unhappy endings produced yet another rhetorical gaffefest for the GOP.

Here, then, are the GOP Quotes of the Week:

Bedtime for Gonzo

"I'd rather trade places with Jose Padilla."
Viet Dinh, former senior Justice official under then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, about replacing Paul McNulty as Alberto Gonzales' deputy attorney general, May 19, 2007.

"Being able to go and having a very candid conversation and telling the president: 'Mr. President, this cannot be done. You can't do this,' - I think you want that."
Alberto Gonzales, May 19, 2007.

"No."
Alberto Gonzales, asked to share an example of a time he told President Bush "you can't do this," May 19, 2007.

"I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man."
James Comey, on then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales' browbeating the hospitalized John Ashcroft on March 10, 2004 to approve illegal NSA domestic spying, May 16, 2007.

"There's a lot of speculation about what happened and what didn't happen. I'm not going to talk about it."
President Bush, asked if he sent Gonzales to coerce the bed-ridden John Ashcroft in 2004, May 17, 2007.

"Trying to take advantage of a sick man. Because he had an appendectomy, his brain didn't work?"
Tony Snow, on Comey's assertion that Alberto Gonzales tried to coerce John Ashcroft, then bed-ridden with a pancreatic condition following gall bladder surgery, May 16, 2007.

"I wouldn't characterize those as top aides."
Alberto Gonzales, regarding chief-of-staff Kyle Sampson and White House liaison Monica Goodling, May 15, 2007.

"At the end of the day, the recommendations reflected the views of the deputy attorney general. He signed off on the names."
Alberto Gonzales, following the resignation of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, May 15, 2007.

"The one person I would care about would be the views of the deputy attorney general, because the deputy attorney general is the direct supervisor of the United States attorneys."
Alberto Gonzales, following the resignation of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, May 15, 2007.

"Looking back, things that I would have done differently? I think I would have had the deputy attorney general more involved, directly involved."
Alberto Gonzales, testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee, April 19, 2007.

"People are now asking, if you're a good U.S. attorney, why aren't you getting fired?"
Fired Seattle U.S. prosecutor John McKay, May 9, 2007.

"[Y]ou're asking me a question I hadn't really thought about."
Alberto Gonzales, asked if any U.S. citizens were being denied their habeas corpus rights, May 10, 2007.

"There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution."
Alberto Gonzales, January 19, 2007.

Between Iraq and a Hard Place

"Could be."
President Bush, on whether he is responsible for Tony Blair's downfall, May 17, 2007.

"You have to undercut the perception of occupation in Iraq. It's very difficult to do that when you have 150,000-plus, largely western, foreign troops occupying the country."
Bush "War Czar" Lt. General Douglas Lute, August 24, 2005.

"Well, people know we're still in Germany and in South Korea."
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), asked whether the American people will support U.S. troops remaining in Iraq for 10 more years, May 16, 2007.

"No one knows how to define progress in such a mixed-up situation. We're having trouble measuring it. Imagine building a house without a ruler. It would be like the Dow Jones. Nobody accuses the Dow Jones of being biased. It would be good information for all of us. And then you could say who's winning and losing."
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), on creating benchmarks for Iraq, May 13, 2007.

"We tend to not deal with them very often. We have our own mission, and we do our own thing."
Paul Brinkley, undersecretary of defense, on working with the State Department officials at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, May 14, 2007.

"If they vote to ask us to leave, we'll be glad to comply."
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), on the Iraqi government, May 13, 2007.

"As far as the Iraqi parliament is concerned, the Iraqi government obviously doesn't feel that way."
John McCain, on the majority vote of the Iraqi parliament calling for the U.S. to withdraw, May 13, 2007.

"I had an armed escort because, because that's what General Petraeus thought we ought to have...I didn't call for the kind of, quote, protection that was around me. I'll be glad to go back to that market...with or without military protection and humvees, etc."
John McCain, on repeating his April trip to a Baghdad market, May 13, 2007.

"Let's don't declare this war lost because you're telling all these soldiers and Petraeus that they're losers."
Lindsay Graham (R-SC), to Senator Barbara Boxer, May 13, 2007.

"Keep your mouth shut."
Governor Sonny Perdue (R-GA), to Iraq war critics, May 11, 2007.

"Obviously, the President bears the major part of the burden."
Vice President Cheney, asked if he considered himself a "cold-blooded warmonger" who doesn't care about U.S. war casualties, May 10, 2007.

Republican Family Values

"The president's proposal provides a good quality of life for service members and their families."
White House statement on President Bush rejection of 3.5% pay increase for U.S. military servicemen and women, May 16, 2007.

"If they f**k with me or Shaha, I have enough on them to f**k them, too"
Paul Wolfowitz, on his opponents at the World Bank, May 15, 2007.

"F**k you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room."
John McCain, speaking to fellow Republican Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) about immigration bill, May 17, 2007.

"Falwell was a perfected Christian. He exuded Christian love for all men."
Ann Coulter, May 16, 2007.

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen."
Jerry Falwell, on blame for 9/11, September 13, 2001.

"He could come back without arms, legs or eyeballs, and you're (whining)? You're not dodging bullets, so I don't want to hear any whining."
Laura Schlesinger, speaking to military wives, May 14, 2007.

"We've told people they can air those trailers out."
FEMA Director David Paulison, on high levels of formaldehyde in FEMA trailers used by Katrina victims, May 16, 2007.

"Here in the womb is a child that we're talking about doing this to."
Senator Sam Brownback, pointing to his abdomen, May 15, 2007.

"He's no more racist than any white male."
Rice University professor Bob Stein, on Ted Poe (R-TX) who approvingly quoted Ku Klux Klan founder Nathan Bedford Forrest, May 12, 2007.

"Let other federal agencies, as more than a dozen already do, cover the 'bugs and bunnies.' But let our spies be spies."
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), regarding CIA analysis of impact of global warming, May 10, 2007.

"You compare Bill Clinton's peccadilloes for which he was impeached to George Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors or Dick Cheney's high crimes and misdemeanors, and I think they pale in significance."
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former aide to Colin Powell, May 10, 2007.

"I am not happy with the Republican Party today."
Chuck Hagel(R-NE), May 13, 2007.

God's Own Party

"I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else."
James Dobson, May 18, 2007.

"As conservative Christians who take the Bible seriously, we have probably irreconcilable differences on life and family and that kind of thing...I couldn't support him for president."
Jerry Falwell, on Rudy Giuliani, April 17, 2006.

"If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan!"
Bill Keller, host of the Florida-based Live Prayer TV, May 11, 2007.

"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right."
John McCain, on Jerry Falwell, February 28, 2000.

"I join the students, faculty, and staff of Liberty University and Americans of all faiths in mourning the loss of Reverend Jerry Falwell. Dr. Falwell was a man of distinguished accomplishment who devoted his life to serving his faith and country."
John McCain, May 16, 2007.

Following in Reagan's Footsteps

"I haven't changed my position in even-numbered years or...because of the different offices that I may be running for."
John McCain, regarding Mitt Romney, May 16, 2007.

"We're not hostile to the administration. We just want it to be over."
Unnamed Republican Congressman, to Robert Novak, May 16, 2007.

"I'm looking for Jack Bauer."
Tom Tancredo (R-CO), supporting waterboarding and other detainee interrogation techniques, May 15, 2007.

"I would say every method they could think of."
Rudy Giuliani, supporting waterboarding and other detainee interrogation techniques, May 15, 2007.

"My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo."
Mitt Romney, May 15, 2007.

"This is fundamental blocking and tackling. This is your line in football. If you don't have a line, how many passes can Peyton Manning complete? Greatest quarterback, maybe, in NFL history."
Sam Brownback, speaking about families in Wisconsin, home of Green Bay Packers and legendary quarterback Brett Favre, May 12, 2007.

For the archives of conservative ditties past, visit here.

Alberto Gonzales continued to dissemble over the U.S. attorneys purge and President Bush's illegal NSA domestic surveillance program. On Tuesday, Gonzales blamed his outgoing deputy AG Paul McNulty for having "most of the operational authority and decisions" in the prosecutor sacking, just one month after testifying to the Senate on April 19 that "I think I would have had the deputy attorney general more involved, directly involved." The testimony of former deputy attorney general Paul Comey revealed then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales as a lawbreaker who later lied to Congress about the extent of NSA domestic spying. It's bad enough this is the second time that Gonzales was shown to have lied to Congress under oath. Even worse, he made a gravely ill John Ashcroft appear heroic.

Down in South Carolina, the field of GOP hopefuls showed once again why Republican primary voters continue to pray for the reanimation of Ronald Reagan. John McCain zinged Mitt Romney for changing his beliefs in even number years. Meanwhile, the Republican White House wannabes bloodlust for torture was again on display, with Romney claiming he would "double Guantanamo" while Rudy Giuliani endorsed "every method they can think of" by detainee interrogators. Sadly for the once-and-future pro-choice Giuliani, Focus on the Family's James Dobson joined the dear departed Reverend Jerry Falwell in voicing his opposition to Rudy's candidacy.

Meanwhile, the long national nightmare that is Paul Wolfowitz will soon be over. After endless expressions of "full confidence" in the Iraq war architect turned World Bank chief, President Bush pulled the rug out from under Wolfowitz and cleared the way for his overdue resignation. Amazingly, the cat dissecting, insider trading, Terri Schiavo misdiagnosing Bill Frist is apparently one of the names on the short list of possible successors.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair also experienced the reverse Midas touch of George W. Bush during his farewell visit to Washington this week. Blair, whose legacy of "third way" reform in the U.K. was forever tainted by his submission to Bush's Iraq war, watched as President Bush admit he "could be" responsible for the demise of Blair's premiership. And while Bush offered his final embarrassment in DC, back in London a British think tank study proclaimed Blair's Iraq legacy a "failed state."

Speaking of career-ending events, the death of American Taliban leader Jerry Falwell produced the predictable rhetorical convulsions across the political spectrum. John McCain, who in 2000 deemed Falwell an "agent of intolerance," led the cavalcade of GOP presidential candidates scrambling to out-praise the founder of the Moral Majority. Predictably, Ann Coulter penned a hagiography that proclaimed Falwell "a perfected Christian." Tell that to Tinky Winky, the anti-Christ "Jewish mayor" and those ("the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way") Falwell said helped make 9/11 happen.

For more pictures of Zoe the Corgi and right-wing outrages past, visit the Barking Mad archives.

Fresh off his Oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," former Vice President Al Gore has authored a new book, The Assault on Reason. Excerpted in Time as part of a feature on Gore, the book is a jeremiad against the crippled state of American political discourse and democracy itself. But as prescient as Gore is on the decline of public debate in America, he may well understate the more fundamental transformation: politics itself as entertainment.

From inaction on global warming to Americans' passive march to war in Iraq, Gore asks:

"What happened to our country...Why do reason, logic and truth seem to play a sharply diminished role in the way America now makes important decisions?

We have checks and balances. We are a nation of laws. We have free speech. We have a free press. Have they all failed us? Why has America's public discourse become less focused and clear, less reasoned? Faith in the power of reason - the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power - remains the central premise of American democracy. This premise is now under assault."

Judging from the Time excerpt, Gore offers a compelling set of explanations. He cites the explosive growth in television consumption, now exceeding four hours per day per person, even in an age of alternative media and entertainment resources. Exacerbating matters, "in the world of television, the massive flows of information are largely in only one direction," flows increasingly controlled by and concentrated in the hands of a small number of media firms. Making matters worse, "a new generation of media Machiavellis" in commercial advertising and politics is further perverting American democracy, as, in Gore's words, "the 'well-informed citizenry' is in danger of becoming the 'well-amused audience.'"

But in highlighting the peril of the "well-amused audience" that is now the U.S. electorate, Gore may have significantly understated the transformation of American politics. The trends he cites have fundamentally mutated "politics as discourse and debate" into "politics as theater and entertainment." In a nutshell, American politics must now compete with an oversupply of other entertainment and information sources, from television, radio, books, newspapers and magazines to web sites, online video, Podcasts and more.

The result is a 21st century "infotainment complex" where politics, news, opinion and entertainment merge. The result? There is no journalistic search for objective truth. Instead, all controversies are presented as ideological clashes featuring morality plays with two - and only two - sides. In that format, the "best" entertainers are the loudest, most aggressive and most theatrical. As I wrote in a 2005 review of George Lakoff''s "Don't Think Like an Elephant," that gives conservative themes and messages a huge built-in advantage:

Politics is now entertainment, part drama and part competition in a passion play where confrontation, conflict, and good versus evil rule the day. In a time of great uncertainty at home and abroad, for overworked Americans awash in sea of information, visceral appeals and gut-level emotions, not data, facts and analysis, cut through the noise.

And that gives the conservative message machine a significant, built-in advantage over liberals. Lakoff's "strict father" model for conservatives is tailor-made for the infotainment media of the 21st century. In this environment, confrontation, indignation, morality plays, good guys and axes of evil naturally dominate political debate, just as they do in Hollywood blockbusters. The initial progress of the liberal Air America Radio notwithstanding, the fury and self-righteousness of Fox News, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity and Coulter makes much better theater than "nurturers" like Bill Moyers. Conservatives rage, liberals whine. And rage is much more entertaining.

The resulting damage to American politics and public policy is clear. The United States blindly rushed to war in Iraq, virtually without debate and without opposition. As an October 2003 PIPA survey showed, even after the invasion of Iraq, majorities of Americans continued to believe Bush administration claims about Saddam (Iraq role in 9/11, an alliance between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and Saddam's WMD) all long since proven false. (Unsurprisingly, viewers of Fox News were the most delusional.) As late as July 2006, fully 50% of Americans still believed the discredited claim that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. And as Gore well knows from his experience evangelizing action to curb global warming, the right has been very successful in creating the ephemera of "scientific uncertainty" through the propagation and promotion of hucksterism packaged as legitimate dissent. (For more on the time-tested conservative tactic of undermining reasoned public policy through the creation of uncertainty, see The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney).

In looking to possible solutions to our dilemma, Gore is certainly right that the long road back to reason must include decentralized, participatory democracy made possible by the Internet and other technologies. The disruption caused by the Netroots is transforming how campaigns mobilize grassroots support, raise money and disseminate messages. It also raises the bar for truth-telling and gaffe avoidance, when millions-strong armies left and right stand ready to check facts and circulate damning video clips. (Just ask George Allen about his ground-breaking "Macaca Moment.") Blogs, wikis, podcasts, online video and social networking sites are and will be a growing counterweight to the infotainment complex.

But the infotainment complex isn't going anywhere. Politics as theater is here to stay. We have to both fight the medium and fight within it. Entertainment and entertainers will be central for political parties and issue advocacy groups. Empty terms like authenticity and charisma will become even more important. (Al Gore, after all, should know this better than anybody. It's a large reason why he's not president now.) For good or ill, the future belongs to the likes of Barack Obama, John Edwards, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. For Tommy Thompson, Dennis Kucinich and their successors, their infotainment age prospects are probably best summed up by the expression "face made for radio."

In his new book, Al Gore describes his senior thesis on the impact of television on American politics and the "growing importance of visual rhetoric and body language over logic and reason." As he learned in 2000 and we continue to experience today, politics as theater appears to be a fact of life.

"I was invited to go to Washington DC to meet with President Bush in the White House along with 12 or 13 other leaders of the pro-family movement. And the topic of the discussion that day was Iraq, Iran and international terrorism. I heard about this danger [from Iran] not only at the White House but from other pro-family leaders that I met during that week in Washington."

Dobson also used his radio show to compare Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler:

"The world looked at Hitler and just didn't believe him and tried to appease him the way we're hearing in Washington today. You know, the President seems to me does understand this."

In equating Ahmadinejad's Iran and Hiter's Germany, there is double irony for Dobson. After all, Dobson, Falwell, Gary Bauer, John Hagee and their allies in Christians United for Israel see tensions with Tehran leading to the Second Coming and final conflict in the Middle East foretold in Revelations, one in which 144,000 Jews are converted to Christianity while the rest are slaughtered. Meanwhile in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian mullahs look forward to their own Shiite End of Days, with the return of the "Twelfth Imam." In Shiite theology, the Second Coming of this last of the Prophet Muhammad's direct male descendents - the Mahdi - signals the imminent deliverance of the world from evil.

As I wrote in here and here, President Bush is seeking counsel from people who are trying to stoke the fires with Iran to accelerate a conflict they believe will bring the Second Coming of Christ. From protesting the removal of Israeli settlements in Gaza and the West Bank to actually trying to breed the mysterious "red heifer" which will signal the Second Coming, Falwell, Hagee, Dobson, Bauer and their ilk hope to foment war in the Middle East to fulfill biblical destiny.

For more background on the disturbing parallels between and the dangerous implications of the fundamentalist followers of George W. Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, see:
"Iran, Bush and the Second Coming."

For a look at the people and purposes of the Christian Zionist movement, Christians United for Israel and their end-of-times red heifer project, see:
"666: Armageddon, Iran and Bush Foreign Policy."

While likely GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich in April called for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign over his "mishandling" of the U.S. prosecutors purge, it turns out the two men have a lot in common. As we learned on Tuesday, when it comes to pressuring the gravely ill, Gonzales and Gingrich share the same bedside manners.

During his testimony Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey detailed then White House Counsel Gonzales' visit to the bedside of the hospitalized AG, John Ashcroft. In March 2004, Comey served as the acting attorney general during Ashcroft's recovery from emergency gall bladder surgery. In that capacity, Comey had refused to recertify President Bush's illegal NS domestic surveillance program. On March 10, Gonzales and Bush chief-of-staff Andy Card went behind Comey's back to pressure an "extremely ill and disoriented" Ashcroft, a man so ill his wife refused him to have any visitors. As the New York Times described it:

When the White House officials appeared minutes later, Mr. Gonzales began to explain to Mr. Ashcroft why they were there. Mr. Comey said Mr. Ashcroft rose weakly from his hospital bed, but in strong and unequivocal terms, refused to approve the eavesdropping program.

"I was angry,' Mr. Comey told the committee. "I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me. I thought he had conducted himself in a way that demonstrated a strength I had never seen before, but still I thought it was improper."

Ultimately, President Bush intervened to make changes to the NSA eavesdropping program to avoid the resignation of Comey and others at the Justice Department. But clearly, Alberto Gonzales showed he was quite comfortable in bringing bedside pressure to bear on Ashcroft, a man described as "very, very ill; in critical condition, in fact."

Which puts Alberto Gonzales in good company - with Newt Gingrich.

As Mother Jones detailed in a 1984 feature on the philandering, power-hungry Gingrich, the future House Speaker similarly had no problem brow-beating the gravely ill. In this case, though, the stricken person was his wife.

In 1980, Newt was separated from his first wife Jackie. As she lay incoherent in her hospital bed following surgery for a reoccurrence of uterine cancer, Gingrich paid her a visit to announce he wanted a divorce. As Lee Howell, a Gingrich friend and associate at whose wedding Newt was best man, described it:

"Newt came up there with his yellow legal pad, and he had a list of things on how the divorce was going to be handled. He wanted her to sign it. She was still recovering from surgery, still sort of out of it, and he comes in with a yellow sheet of paper, handwritten, and wants her to sign it.

Newt can handle political problems, but when it comes to personal problems, he's a disaster. He handled the divorce like he did any other political decision: You've got to be tough in this business, you've got to be hard. Once you make the decision you've got to act on it. Cut your losses and move on."

All of which explains why Gingrich wants Gonzales to resign. Not because there was anything wrong with Gonzales' firing of the U.S. prosecutors ("The president has every right to have the U.S. attorneys he wants"), but because President Bush and the Republican Party need to cut their losses and move on ("how could you have so totally mishandled what was a slam dunk").

Asked about Gonzales' leaning on the critically ill John Ashcroft to bless the President's illicit NSA surveillance of Americans, White House press secretary Tony Snow shrugged the question off by saying, "Trying to take advantage of a sick man. Because he had an appendectomy, his brain didn't work?"

On that point, New Gingrich couldn't agree more.

(For more on the moral black hole that is Newt Gingrich, see here and here.)