While the field of 2008 GOP White House hopefuls continues to distance itself from President Bush, Rudy Giuliani today endorsed the moribund Bush health care plan lock, stock and barrel. And speaking on the eve of the President's looming veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) expansion, Giuliani made it clear he shares the same blighted market-driven philosophy as Bush.

In New Hampshire today, Giuliani like Bush made a $15,000 family health care tax deduction to purchase private insurance the centerpiece of his health care reform program. Giuliani has yet to produce a price tag for his program, claiming "I don't think the plan would cost a great deal." (Given his recent distortions about his tax cutting record, Americans would do well to question his sincerity on any issue of the tax code.) And thus far, Rudy is unwilling to help fund his scheme by capping employer health care deductions, as Bush has advocated. But in his religious zeal for a free market, consumer-driven health care model, Giuliani is singing from the same hymnal as the President:

''Government cannot take care of you. You've got to take care of yourself. As more of us do that, the cheaper it will become and the higher in quality it becomes."

Sadly, there is little empirical evidence to support Giuliani's claims. As I wrote 18 months ago ("Unhealthy Trends"), the trend towards consumer-driven health care (CDHC) is not just shifting the financial burden to from employers to workers and the healthy to the sick, it's failing in its basic missions to control costs as well:

In one the first evaluations of consumer-driven health care plans, a joint study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute and the Commonwealth Fund found much lower satisfaction, higher costs and more missed health care with CDHC plans than traditional employer health packages. Americans utilizing new high-deductible CHDC health plans such as health savings accounts (HSAs) and health reimbursement accounts (HRAs) experienced dramatically higher out-of-pocket costs, with over a third paying more than 5% of their income towards health-related expenses, versus just 12% of those in traditional plans. Worse still, CDHC participants, especially those making under $50,000 a year, were much more likely (35% versus 17%) to skip or defer needed health care. The key to the new wave of consumer-driven plans, it would seem, is to be healthy, wealthy and lucky.

More disturbing is the go it alone, "opt-out" philosophy underpinning the so-called Giuliani health care plan. Just days after Mitt Romney likened Hillary Clinton to Karl Marx, Rudy deemed Democrats' incremental health care proposals "socialized medicine." Whereas Democrats including John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seek to dramatically expand health care coverage while hoping to control costs, Giuliani like Bush advocates that Americans and their government abdicate their commitment to shared responsibility - and each other.

On health care as with so many issues, Rudy Giuliani will have a tough time escaping George W. Bush's gravitational pull. At the 2004 Republican National Convention, Giuliani said of Bush's approach, "Some call it stubbornness. I call it principled leadership." And in a GOP debate just this June, he again reaffirmed his support of Bush's invasion of Iraq and his terror war strategy.

And with his health care announcement today, Rudy Giuliani gave more one more indication that Harper's may be right in worrying that he just might be worse than Bush.

The falafel day fall-out for Bill O'Reilly continues to dominate the blogosphere. Atrios, DailyKos and others are still having a field day with the Smoking Gun documents from the sealed settlement in the Mackris sexual harassment case. (Decorum prevents displaying them here.) But largely overlooked in the salacious details of O'Reilly's tawdry talk to his subordinate is the years of practice he got earlier - as a novelist.

In his 1998 novel, Those Who Trespass, Bill O'Reilly showed he could write - as well as talk - trash.

But the author of the The Factor for Kids is not alone. As it turns out, the Fox News fixture is far from the only conservative hard liner producing soft porn. In 1981, Second Lady Lynne Cheney offered up Sisters, her tale of forbidden lesbian love in the Old West. And 20 years later, future PlameGate villain Scooter Libby produced The Apprentice, which featured prostitution, deviant sexual acts and bestiality in his bizarre coming of age tale set in 1903 Japan.

For more of the titillating text and perverse prose of Team Bush, visit here.

Note: The term "art" used in the title of this piece is of course applied very loosely.

John Roberts' tumble today at his Maine vacation home might be the perfect metaphor for his tenure as Chief Justice. (Of course, I join all Americans in wishing Chief Justice Roberts a speedy recovery.) Advertised by even some of his detractors as a first-rate intellect with an ideal judicial temperament, Roberts' unsettling term is bringing a firestorm of criticism from friend and foes alike. Worst of all, he's losing the American people.

One of the first indications of Roberts' fall from grace came from Jeffrey Rosen, George Washington University professor and New Republic legal affairs editor. In his 2007 PBS series and accompanying book, The Supreme Court, Rosen anticipated betters days for institution of the Court under Roberts' calm direction. Rosen painted a promising picture of Roberts as a worthy successor to the first Chief Justice, John Marshall, whose collegiality and search for consensus strengthened the Court during its turbulent formative years.

"Those of us who supported Roberts never denied his conservatism. The question was: Who among the candidates President Bush was plausibly inclined to appoint as chief justice would be most likely to avoid the radicalism of Scalia and Thomas and try to unify the Court? In his first term, which began in October 2005, Roberts entirely vindicated these hopes."

And then Rosen was mugged by reality in the Roberts term just completed. Rather than greater unanimity and continuity, the Roberts' Court casually tossed aside precedents and produced a fractured Court repeatedly hinging on the swing vote of the prima donna Anthony Kennedy. Rosen's buyer's remorse was clear on the pages of the New Republic. Roberts' butchery of the meaning of Brown v. Board of Education in the Seattle schools race-based admissions case drew the ire of Rosen and his fellow editors. And in the same July 23rd issue, Rosen aired his disappointment in a piece titled, "Will Roberts Ever Get Better?"

"Although Chief Justice John Roberts began the term by calling for greater consensus, a third of cases were decided by five-to-four votes, the highest percentage in more than ten years. The polarization inspired the four liberal justices to write some of their most passionate, incisive, and memorable dissents."

And they are not alone. Democratic New York Senator Chuck Schumer has had enough. Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Friday, "There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked." Now, Schumer says, Democrats who were "too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito" need to make clear that the rules are going to change for confirming Bush Supreme Court nominees. Throwing down the gauntlet to the White House, Schumer declared, "We should reverse the presumption of confirmation."

Such opposition should be expected from the likes of Schumer, who voted against Roberts' confirmation. But his Judiciary Committee Republican colleague Arlen Specter voiced similar concerns over the Roberts' Court devastation of stare decisis. Picking up on Justice Stephen Breyer's "especially forceful " critique of the overturning of eight Supreme Court precedents, Specter plans a review of the promises Roberts and Alito made about respecting precedent during Senate confirmation. "There are things he has said," Specter noted, "and I want to see how well he has complied with it."

Ultimately, of course, the American people will judge John Roberts and the legitimacy of his tenure. So far, the verdict doesn't look promising. A Washington Post/ABC News poll last week showed that 31% of Americans thought the Roberts Court had moved too far right in its first two years. Less than half (47%) now view the Court as "generally balanced in its decisions," down from 55% in 2005. With the blowback from the partial birth abortion and race-based school admissions cases, the Supreme Court could well be a supreme issue in 2008. The early signs suggest John Roberts won't be getting any new conservative colleagues after January 20, 2009.

But if the American people have an increasingly dark view of their new Chief Justice, one man has maintained a sense of humor. Stephen Breyer, the most vociferous liberal voice on the Court, answered Jeffrey Rosen's question. "Will he do better in the future? He can join my dissents!"

It's been another tumultuous week atop the Bushboard list of the Top 10 GOP Sound Bites. The Republicans' all-out campaign of obstruction joined the Iraq war funding debate, the release of President Bush's interim surge progress report and the Alberto Gonzales death spiral to reshuffle the GOP talking point greatest hits.

Once again topping the charts from his Iraq Remix release is George W. Bush's fantasy rock classic, "We're Making Progress." From the same album and moving up to #4 is the B-side "Wait Til September." (A dance remix is rumored to be in development for year-end or mid-2008 release.) Meanwhile, Alberto Gonzales' haunting "I Don't Recall" stayed strong at #2. And rocketing up the charts is the first single from Republicans' Grand Obstruction Party CD. John Kyl's angry ballad of unrequited love from Harry Reid, "Political Stunt" is now #5.

Please take a moment to mourn the death of a GOP classic sound bite, "Up or Down Vote." Enjoying years of success in the conservative club scene, "Up or Down Vote" quietly dropped off the charts after series of successful Republican filibusters to block popular Democratic initiatives.

For previous lists of the Top 10 GOP Sound Bites, visit here.

Sunday's New York Times reports a new fissure within the American evangelical movement. Already increasingly at loggerheads over global warming, evangelicals may be witnessing a new schism over the issue of a Palestinian state. And that means Pastor John Hagee and his end-of-times friends at Christians United for Israel (CUFI) are not happy.

On Friday, a group of 30 evangelical leaders sent a letter to President Bush calling for a greater U.S. role in the creation of a Palestinian state. With the Bush "road map" for a two-state solution moribund, the letter argues that Israelis and Palestinians alike have "legitimate rights stretching back for millennia to the lands of Israel/Palestine." The effort, which grew out of the February U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar, targets global Muslim opinion as well as the Bush State Department.

But the missive apparently has another target as well: the evangelical group's erstwhile Christian Zionist brethren. As the Reverend Joel C. Hunter put it:

"There is a part of the evangelical family which is what I call Christian Zionists, who are just so staunchly pro-Israel that Israel and their side can do no wrong, and it's almost anti-Biblical to criticize Israel for anything. But there are many more evangelicals who are really open and seek justice for both parties."

For Texas Pastor John Hagee, Hunter's words are anti-Bible indeed. Unyielding support of Israel is seen as essential to the fulfillment of Biblical prophesy and the book of Revelations. For CUFI, Israeli compromises with the Palestinians (or the Iranians, for that matter) delay the final conflict and the Second Coming of Christ, when the Jews will be either be converted - or killed. (For more on why Israelis might ask themselves, "With friends like these, who needs enemies," see Max Blumenthal's "Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour.")

As I wrote last June, theirs is Armageddon as foreign policy:

Hagee is at the bleeding edge of a Christian Zionist movement seeking to accelerate the Second Coming of Christ and the final battle in Israel. Since the 1990's, Hagee and his group CUFI (Christians United for Israel) has tried without success to breed the "red heifer," the perfect calf that will signal the Second Coming. As Sarah Posner writes in the American Prospect, "for Hagee's new project - agitating for war with Iran - his influence over Washington is less important than his influence over his audience." His book "Jerusalem Countdown" sold over 500,000 copies. And as Posner reports, Hagee is not alone.

Hagee calls pastors "the spiritual generals of America" an appropriate phrase given his reliance on them to rally their troops behind his message. The CUFI board of directors includes the Reverend Jerry Falwell, former Republican presidential candidate and religious right activist Gary Bauer, and George Morrison, pastor to the 8,000-member Faith Bible Chapel in Arvada, Colorado, and chairman of the board of Promise Keepers. Rod Parsley, the Ohio televangelist who is rapidly becoming a major political figure in the Christian right, signed on as a regional director.

The dispensationalist Hagee is not happy and he clearly has friends in high places, including Joe Lieberman, Tom Delay, and his fellow Texas in the White House. Hagee thundered at Friday's letter:

"Christians United for Israel is opposed to America pressuring Israel to give up more land to anyone for any reason. What has the policy of appeasement ever produced for Israel that was beneficial?

"God gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob a covenant in the Book of Genesis for the land of Israel that is eternal and unbreakable, and that covenant is still intact. The Palestinian people have never owned the land of Israel, never existed as an autonomous society. There is no Palestinian language. There is no Palestinian currency. And to say that Palestinians have a right to that land historically is an historical fraud."

This evangelical civil war over Palestine is great viewing and probably would provide most Americans with an endless source of schadenfreude. That is, if all involved weren't so deadly serious and the stakes so great.

For more background, see "Bush, Iran and the Second Coming."

UPDATE: Fox News this morning provides additional disturbing background on CUFI, including the group members' recent meetings with "California Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell and Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, who received a standing ovation from CUFI's Texas delegation." The quote of the day comes from Pastor Greg Stephens, "We are not warmongers, but the bible tells us there is a time for war and there is a time for peace."

Two stories this weekend presented different faces on the unwavering - and perhaps criminal - zeal of the Bush White House to acquire and maintain power. On Friday, PBS Now reported how a massive Republican "vote caging" scheme targeted minority (read Democratic) voters in key 2004 battleground states. And today, the Washington Post revealed that Bush HHS appointee William R. Steiger blocked the release of Surgeon General Richard Carmona's 2006 global health report for purely political reasons. Suppressing votes and suppressing scientific truth will no doubt be among the sorry legacies of George W. Bush.

The PBS segment presented a picture of a far more expansive Republican voter suppression drive than sources such as Greg Palast and the Conyers 2004 Ohio report had exposed. Despite Monica Goodling's comical testimony that vote caging was merely a"direct-mail term," the future U.S. attorney replacement Tim Griffin led a sophisticated program to drive black, Hispanic, student - and perhaps worst, active duty military personnel - off the voter rolls in 2004. In Ohio, Florida, New Mexico and Nevada, the GOP's mass mailings to empty summer time dormitories, deserted military bases and other temporary addresses, designed to be undeliverable, produced a list of tens of thousands used to purge largely Democratic voters from the rolls.

It's no wonder David Iglesias, the fired U.S. attorney from New Mexico, said of the operation, "It's reprehensible. It's unethical, it's unlawful. It may very well be criminal." And it's even less surprising that Goodling tried, albeit feebly, to cover for Griffin during her May testimony to the House Judiciary Committee:

"I don't...I believe that Mr. Griffin doesn't believe that he, that he did anything wrong there and there, there actually is a very good reason for it, for a very good explanation."

Meanwhile, the Washington Post shed more light on the ongoing Republican war on science. In a follow up story to the revelations by former Bush Surgeon General Richard Carmona of undue political influence on his office, WaPo detailed the stonewalling of Carmona's 2006 report, "Call to Action on Global Health." On July 10, Carmona described how a Bush appointee, now identified as Steiger, refused to issue a report which linked poverty and poor health and called for the U.S. to ramp up its efforts to fight disease worldwide:

"You don't get it. This will be a political document, or it will not be released."

Steiger, a non-scientist and Bush family friend, is a specialist in education and a scholar of Latin American history. Steiger, who runs the Office of Global Health in the Department of Health and Human Services, admitted holding up the report, but adopted the usual Bush tactic of attacking his critic. As the Post reported:

He said in a written statement released by an HHS spokesman Friday that the report contained information that was "often inaccurate or out-of-date and it lacked analysis and focus." Steiger said that "political considerations" did not delay the report; "sloppy work, poor analysis, and lack of scientific rigor did." Asked about the report's handling, an HHS spokeswoman said Friday that it is still "under development."

This is far from the first time Team Bush has altered or suppressed scientific facts to further its radical political ideology. For example, the Bush FDA for years withheld its approval for over the counter sales of the Plan B emergency contraceptive, despite the broad scientific consensus as to its safety which was shared by the agency's career staff. Earlier, Philip Cooney of the White House Office of Environmental Quality, personally edited reports to make changes to conclusions regarding global warming and climate change approved by government scientists. (Cooney is now an oil industry lobbyist.) And just this May, Interior Department official Julie MacDonald resigned after allegations that she violated numerous federal rules in bullying scientists to modify decisions regarding the endangered species status of a range of animals and fish.

This weekend's stories, of course, are just the tip of the iceberg. Today's Republican Party seeks and maintains power through its "divide, suppress and conquer" strategy of mobilizing its base and driving down potential Democratic voter turnout. And once in office, Team Bush makes sure its extremist agenda never encounters opposition from the facts.

UPDATE: The Seattle Times notes the latest Bush administration of "burrowing in" political operatives into career positions in federal agencies. Here's more on Matthew McKeown, Interior Department colleague of the disgraced - and convicted - Stephen Griles.

The Perrspectives Bush-GOP Scandal Document Library has been expanded to include the latest news, key reports, document releases and other essential materials surrounding Bush administration and GOP wrong-doing. From the U.S. attorneys purge, illegal NSA domestic surveillance and the Iraq war to PlameGate, torture scandals and the ongoing Jack Abramoff fall-out, it's all there:

• U.S. Attorneys Scandal Document Center
• NSA Domestic Surveillance Scandal Center
• Iraq Intelligence and WMD Document Center
• Plamegate CIA Leak Resources
• Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff Scandal Resources

For more, visit the Perrspectives Document Library here.

The ever more disturbing Pat Tillman saga is predictably stirring rage across the blogosphere. Most just want to know the truth about a seeming White House cover-up that may include the horrible possibility that Tillman was "fragged," that is, purposely killed by his fellow troops in Afghanistan. But while the Tillman affair is spawning conspiracy theories on all sides, it is once again drawing attention to some conservatives' apparent comfort with fragging itself.

Over at ThinkProgress, Iraq veteran and VoteVets chairman Jon Soltz simply wants President Bush to tell the truth. Instead of hiding behind the incomprehensible cloak of executive privilege, Soltz asks the President to reveal what and when he knew about a case which "could start to have serious repercussions with internal confidence in the Armed Forces." Offering a voice of reason, Soltz further warns, "It is inevitable, then, that unless the President comes clean, rumors about Tillman's death will take hold."

Which, sadly, is exactly what is happening. Continued stonewalling from the Bush administration is fueling speculation that the White House didn't merely cover up Tillman's death by friendly fire for its propaganda purposes. Over at DailyKos, a few diarists are theorizing that Pat Tillman may have been fragged for his opposition to the Iraq war, his support of John Kerry and other of his political views. One tin foil hat wearer goes so far as to ponder whether Tillman was assassinated on "Cheney's or Rumsfeld's orders."

In response, the conservative blog Little Green Footballs assails such rumor-mongering for what it deems "conspiracy thinking and deranged hatred." Which is rather ironic, given the deranged hatred and positively enthusiastic support for selective fragging by some mouthpieces of the right.

Take the case of Ann Coulter. In June 2006, Coulter was asked about the decorated Vietnam veteran and early advocate for American withdrawal from Iraq, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). Her response calmly suggested he be murdered: Murtha was "the reason soldiers invented 'fragging.'"

The latest episode of the right's apparent comfort with fragging surrounds Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, the New Republic's recently revealed Baghdad Diarist. Beauchamp, currently serving with the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, has described horrifying tales of the cruelty of U.S. soldiers (including himself) to Iraqi civilians, animals and even each other.

All of which set off bouts of apoplexy within the conservative blogosphere. As Jon Swift details, the right-wing amen corner called Beauchamp everything from a fabulist and fraud to a traitor and criminal. And it didn't take long before the not so thinly veiled threats began to flow. While one announced "the persecution begins," another seemingly endorsed retribution against Beauchamp by his fellow soldiers:

"Now you need to get busy watching your back, 'cuz if you think you were disliked and unloved before...Heh."

Meanwhile, wingnut and moonbat alike will engage in frenzied speculation about the death of NFL star and Ranger Pat Tillman until the Bush White House at long last tells the truth. But while most across the political spectrum are united in their horror that Tillman may have intentionally been killed by his own troops, some conservative voices will continue to claim fragging rights.

Something certainly is rotten in the Bush White House. During his testimony on Wednesday, Attorney General Gonzales contradicted his previous statements that there was no disagreement within the Bush administration about the NSA domestic surveillance program and that his 2004 bedside visit to John Ashcroft concerned the same spying program publicly confirmed by President Bush. Instead, Gonzales now claims that he was discussing "other intelligence activities," a statement rejected under oath by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey and just yesterday by FBI Director Robert Mueller. This latest lie to Congress, combined with his repeated cries of "I am recused" and incoherent suggestions that U.S. attorneys were purged "for cause," only served to invite action against Gonzales.

And on Wednesday, Specter seemed to agree. An indignant Arlen raged at Gonzales:

"Is your department functioning? Do you review these matters? How many matters are there which do not come to our attention because you don't tell us and the newspapers don't disclose them?"

After hearing Gonzales contradict himself regarding the so-called "other intelligence activities" at the heart of the Ashcroft matter, Specter exploded again:

"Mr. Attorney General, do you expect us to believe that?"

Alas, that was just for show. On Thursday, traveling aboard Air Force One with President Bush, Specter sang a different tune. When Democratic Senators Schumer, Feinstein, Feingold and Whitehouse called on Solicitor General Paul Clement to name a special counsel to investigate Gonzales, Specter labeled the move "a great fundraising device for the Democratic Party." He then slandered his Judiciary Committee colleague Charles Schumer of New York for "playing politics." Specter similarly backed away from the subpoenas for Karl Rove and his aide Scott Jennings to appear before the Committee, hoping to avoid confrontation with the White House.

On issue after issue, Specter speaks of the evils of President Bush, but cannot bring himself to act. Illegal domestic surveillance of Americans, the end of habeas corpus, politically motivated firings of United States prosecutors and unprecedented presidential signing statements all bring cries of anguish from Senator Specter. But like Hamlet, torn and tormented by duty unfulfilled, he cannot do what he knows he must.

As Specter equivocated, the U.S Constitution was being killed in a "murder most foul." But rather than challenge the usurper, Specter merely moves from one soliloquy to the next, "to sleep, perchance to dream."

In the end, of course, Hamlet did his filial duty and killed Claudius, exacting his revenge. But Arlen Specter, ever mindful of the workings of the Bush White House, no doubt recalls that the tragic Hamlet died in the attempt.

For more on the tragi-comedy that is Arlen Specter, see:

Like it or hate it, Monday's CNN/YouTube Democratic candidates debate may have represented a sea-change in direct citizen participation in the American presidential selection process. Which is why the GOP White House hopefuls appear to want no part of the September 17 YouTube event co-sponsored by the Florida Republican Party. As their empty podiums at the recent NAACP convention attest, like the current Oval Office occupant these Republicans apparently have no stomach for authentic, unscripted questions from the American people.

On July 20, Florida Governor Charlie Crist enthusiastically announced that the state GOP would co-host a CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate in St. Petersburg in September. And almost immediately, the Republican candidates began to look for excuses to provide cover for their non-participation. Giuliani aide Katie Levinson told the New York Times that "the campaign had a likely scheduling conflict on that date." Thus far, only the idiosyncratic Ron Paul and moribund John McCain have committed to participate in the YouTube event.

The example of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is particularly illustrative of Republican squeamishness when it comes to interactions with the American people. Romney, who just days ago happily displayed a supporter's sign proclaiming "No to Obama Osama and Chelsea's Mom," wants no part of it. The man who compared Hillary Clinton to Karl Marx and pledged to "double Guantanamo" complained of the YouTube debate, "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman." (That level, as the Huffington Post detailed yesterday, is the new plateau where Romney cash buys the loyalty of Republican activists in Iowa.)

The Republicans' case of YouTube flu is shaping up as a repeat of their boycott of the 2007 NAACP convention in Detroit two weeks ago. As Jeffrey Feldman captured at his Frameshop blog, only Tom Tancredo had the courage to attend an event where the otherwise empty Republicans podiums on stage summarized the GOP's commitment to civil rights and the concerns of African-Americans. (Given then-RNC chairman Ken Mehlman's disastrous outreach to the NAACP and African-Americans in 2005, the Republican White Hous wannabes may have concluded that cowardice is the better part of valor.)

In the end, all of the GOP presidential contenders may yet cave to public pressure and participate in the next CNN/YouTube event. But for the likes of Giuliani, Romney, Brownback, Huckabee at al, it does raise a fundamental question about the Republicans gnawing fear of the very people they claim to serve. What if the American people went to a debate and no Republicans showed up?

UPDATE: As ThinkProgress reports, Romney has dug himself a deeper hole by confusing YouTube with MySpace. Once again, Romney shows he doesn't know what he's for - or against - saying, "YouTube is a website that allows kids to network with one another and make friends and contact each other."

As The Simpsons movie opens this weekend, President Bush is under a withering assault from all sides. White House aides face contempt of Congress charges and Senate Judiciary Committee members call for a special counsel to probe Attorney General Alberto Gonzales while the President's position on the Iraq war grows more untenable..

Which is altogether fitting. As I explained back in April, a 2000 episode of The Simpsons perhaps best explains how the Bush presidency survives because of - and not despite - the cavalcade of scandals enveloping it. Call it the "Monty Burns theory"...

Predictably, mainstream media discussion of Stephen Hayes' new biography of Vice President Dick Cheney has focused on his "unprecedented access" and salacious details. But while the Beltway is a abuzz about Cheney's decision to take the "cruddy job" of Vice President and Hayes' fanciful tale about a seemingly homophobic Cheney telling Senator Pat Leahy to "f**k yourself", little attention has been paid to Hayes himself.

Which is too bad. Because as the history shows, whether the issue is non-existent Saddam-9/11 links or the non-presence of Al Qaeda in pre-war in Iraq, Stephen Hayes is only too happy to make stuff up for his conservative masters.

Hayes was a logical choice by the Vice President for his official biographer. Long after the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee's Phase II report and even President Bush concluded otherwise, the Weekly Standard writer has continued to argue that Al Qaeda had a working relationship with Saddam dating back to the early 1990's and that Al Qaeda maintained training camps in Saddam's pre-war Iraq. As ThinkProgress noted last August, Cheney repeatedly pointed to Stephen Hayes as his preferred "authoritative source" for the Vice President's own bogus rationales for war:

This January, Cheney was asked by then-Fox News radio host Tony Snow, "Were there links to - between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda?" Cheney answered, "Well, I think Steve Hayes has done an effective job in his article of laying out a lot of those connections." Hayes wrote an article entitled "Dick Cheney Was Right" about the Vice President's effort to connect Saddam to 9/11. But even President Bush said most recently that Iraq had "nothing" to do with 9/11.

In 2003, Hayes declared "case closed" in an article purporting to show the links between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Cheney recommeneded it to the Rocky Mountain news as the premier source of information on the issue. ("[Y]ou ought to go look is an article that Stephen Hayes did in the Weekly Standard here a few weeks ago...That's your best source of information.") Hayes relied on a classified Defense Department memo produced by Douglas Feith. The Defense Department shot down Hayes' article, stating the Feith memo was "not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions."

For its part, the Weekly Standard makes no effort to conceal the perpetual lovefest between Cheney and Hayes. The Weekly Standard's web site contains this January 27, 2004 editor's note introducing Hayes' now thoroughly discredited November 2003 piece, "Case Closed:"

In today's Washington Post, Dana Milbank reported that "Vice President Cheney...in an interview this month with the Rocky Mountain News, recommended as the 'best source of information' an article in The Weekly Standard magazine detailing a relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda based on leaked classified information."

The Angler may prefer Hayes' revisionist tracts, but sadly they bear little relationship to history as it unfolded or to actual events on the ground. For example, in October 2005, Hayes' defended President Bush's 2003 SOTU claim regarding yellowcake in Niger, stating that the British Butler report had "concluded that the claim was - and remains - solid." Sadly, the Butler text concluded exactly the opposite, "We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded." That November, Hayes downplpayed revelations that captured Al Qaeda operative Ibn Al-Shaykh al-Libi had fabricated mythical Saddam-Al Qaeda links while under interrogation. In March of 2006, Hayes erroneously claimed that Saddam had provided financial and logistical support to Abu Sayyaf, the Al Qaeda affiliate in the Phillippines. And last September, Hayes launched a desperate - and fruitless - attack to discredit recently released portions of a Senate Intelligence Committee report which further devastated his fabulist claims about the Saddam-Al Qaeda-9/11 nexus.

The Cheney hagiography (Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful And Controversial Vice President) is Hayes' second book in three years. The other, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America, is available at Amazon.com for as little as 2 cents a copy.

Which is altogether fitting. The work of Stephen Hayes literally isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Three weeks ago, news of an aborted 2005 U.S. raid against Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan confirmed the failure of a key tenet of the Bush Doctrine, "no safe havens for terrorists." Now, it would appear, President Bush himself agrees with that assessment.

In his Saturday radio address, President Bush tried to spin the new National Intelligence Estimate and its warnings regarding a dangerously resurgent Al Qaeda in Pakistan. But buried among cherry-picked quotes about successes against Bin Laden's organization and his comical claim of willingness to work with Congress to "modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" was a startling admission. President Bush acknowledged that his post 9/11 mantra of "no safe havens for terrorists" was a dismal failure:

"One of the most troubling [points in the NIE] is its assessment that al Qaeda has managed to establish a safe haven in the tribal areas of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan. Last September, President Musharraf of Pakistan reached an agreement that gave tribal leaders more responsibility for policing their own areas. Unfortunately, tribal leaders were unwilling and unable to go after al Qaeda or the Taliban."

What a difference six years makes. In his address to Congress on September 20, 2001, a determined President Bush declared his "no safe havens" principle even as the World Trade Center towers still smoldered in lower Manhattan:

"We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

As it turns out, no so much. Bush's war on the cheap in Afghanistan allowed Osama Bin Laden and much of the Al Qaeda leadership to escape the American pincer around Tora Bora in the winter of 2001-2002. The massive diversion of U.S. resources to the invasion of Iraq and the eventual shuttering of the CIA's Bin Laden unit in 2005 showed that President Bush had taken his eyes off the prize.

And now, the frailty of Pervez Musharraf's government impedes action against Al Qaeda in Pakistan by either Islamabad or Washington. What Bush Saturday falsely portrayed as a truce by Musharraf to enable tribal leaders in lawless Northwest Pakistan to police their own territories was in fact a surrender to reality. His troops stymied, his life at risk and his regime under fire, Musharraf called off his campaign against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. With that truce now in tatters in the wake of the Red Mosque uprising, Musharraf faces renewed violence.

And the United States faces a fateful choice. The Bush administration can leave Al Qaeda and the Taliban to Musharraf and face the prospect of an entrenched and growing international terrorist presence in Pakistan. Or, the U.S. can violate Pakistani sovereignty and strike Al Qaeda along the Afghan frontier, risking the destabilization of the Musharraf regime in Islamabad.

On Sunday, Bush homeland security adviser Frances Townsend illustrated the American dilemma while claiming U.S. military action within Pakistan remains a possibility:

"Just because we don't speak about things publicly doesn't mean we're not doing things you talk about. Job No. 1 is to protect the American people. There are no options off the table.

We should also be clear that we believe Pakistan has been a very good ally in the war on terrorism. Musharraf has been the subject of numerous assassination attempts. Al-Qaida's trying to kill him. They get what the problem is. And we're working with them to deny al-Qaida and the Taliban the safe haven."

For now, though, Al Qaeda's safe haven seems very safe indeed. That, combined with the fiasco of his preventive war in Iraq and his dismal record of democracy promotion in the Middle East, means the President's Bush Doctrine is dead and buried.

Just don't expect George W. Bush to admit that anytime soon.

On Thursday morning, July 19th, the beloved GOP talking point "up or down vote" was officially declared dead. Its demise was little noticed in the aftermath of the Senate Republicans' successful all-night filibuster to block the Reed-Levin bill seeking to begin U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq. "Up or down vote" was killed by a desperate Republican Party trying to obstruct Democratic accomplishments at any cost in advance of the 2008 elections. And so far, the GOP seems to be getting away with the crime.

"Bills with majority support -- raising the minimum wage, ethics reform, a date to remove troops from Iraq, revoking oil subsidies and putting the money into renewable energy, fulfilling the 9/11 commission recommendations on homeland security--get blocked because they can't garner 60 votes to overcome a filibuster."

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS) has been one of the essential architects of the filibuster fever in the Grand Obstruction Party. While decrying that "the Senate is spiraling into the ground to a degree that I have never seen before" and "all modicum of courtesy is going out the window," Lott is also brutally frank about his strategy to prevent any Democratic wins come hell or high water:

"The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. So far it's working for us."

Sadly, so far Lott appears to be right. Polls put Congress' approval ratings as low as 25%, reaching levels below the now wildly unpopular President Bush. Aided by media coverage distorting the GOP skullduggery, Americans seemingly blame Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats for the failure to change course in Iraq as well as the gamut of stalled legislation. And in virtually every case, it was the unified Republicans' refusal to allow and up or down vote that produced the impasse.

Despite winning Senate confirmation for over 95% of his nominees, it was President Bush who in 2003 fired the warning shot at Democrats who threatened to filibuster a handful of his most extreme - and unqualified - judicial selections. After Republicans successfully blocked confirmation of dozens of judicial nominees from the outgoing President Clinton in 2000, Bush had the gall in 2001 to urge "urged the Senate to rise above the bitterness of the past and again asked that every judicial nominee receive a timely up or down vote." With his nomination of Miguel Estrada facing Democratic opposition, Bush turned to his trusted sound bite:

"The Senate has a solemn responsibility to exercise its constitutional advice and consent function and hold up or down votes on judicial nominees within a reasonable time after nomination. I ask that the Senate take action, including adoption of a permanent rule, to ensure timely up or down votes on judicial nominations both now and in the future, no matter who is President or which party controls the Senate."

As the battle over Supreme Court nominations heated up, Republicans in Congress and their amen corner in the press and in the churches took up President Bush's banner of "up or down vote." Then Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), who had filibustered Clinton nominee Richaed Paez in 2000, penned a 2005 USA Today op-ed titled "It's Time for Up or Down Vote" in which he asked:

"Will we permit a fair, up-or-down vote on every judicial nominee? Or, will we create an unprecedented 60-vote requirement for the confirmation of President Bush's judges?"

Frist's colleagues were quick to endorse the so-called "nuclear option", a radical change to Senate rules barring the use of the long-traditional filibuster as a parliamentary tool in the judicial confirmation process. The very same leaders of the Republicans' winning filibuster last week over the issue of war in Iraq were only too happy to end its use in 2005. While an aide to current Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that the Kentucky Republican "always has and continues to fully support the use of what has become known as the '[nuclear]' option," Trent Lott proclaimed:

"[Filibustering] is wrong. It's not supportable under the Constitution. And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I'm perfectly prepared to blow the place up."

The religious right led an army of conservative pressure groups in the crusade for the "up or down vote." Hoping to ensure the installation of a new generation of right-wing ideologues on the Supreme Court, Christian groups including the Family Research Council, the Eagle Forum, Focus on the Family and the Catholic League held the Justice Sunday I and Justice Sunday II events in 2005. Simulcast to hundreds of churches nationwide, these shock troops of the GOP got down on their knees for the up or down vote. As one of their flyers proclaimed:

"THE FILIBUSTER AGAINST PEOPLE OF FAITH - The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and now it is being used against people of faith."

So successful were the Republicans in the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito that their "up or down vote" weapon was deployed in other battles. For example, President Bush called for the line-item veto and "up or down votes" of budget items he would excise with a stroke of his pen. Early on, Bush had also called for fast-track authority with up or down Senate votes on new trade agreements. And an angry President Bush cited the failure to receive an up or down vote as the driver the resignation of the recess appointed and now disgraced UN ambassador John Bolton. Meanwhile, Bill Frist joined the act in 2006 over the immigration issue:

"That's why I strongly support the Secure Fence Act of 2006...and that's why I'm bringing this crucial legislation to the floor of the Senate this week for an up-or-down vote."

Alas, long before Senate Republicans administered the death blow this week, "up or down vote" was already on life support as a result of the Harriet Miers debacle. As Kos detailed in October 2005, Senate Republicans desperate to derail the Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court quickly abandoned their "up or down vote" religion. All of the usual GOP suspects - Hutchison, Kyl, Hatch, Santorum, Lott, Cornyn, Dole, Sessions and more - twisted the knife in Miers' back to ensure that her name never came to the Senate floor for an up or down vote. Ironically, it was Harry Reid who pointed out the Republican Party believes in the up or down vote, except when it doesn't:

"The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination," said Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), who had recommended that Bush consider her for the high court. "Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who would pack the court with rigid ideologues."

Fast forward to July 2007. Defeated in 2006, devastated in the polls and facing calamity in 2008, the Republican Party is reprising the blocking strategy Bill Kristol successfully deployed to derail the Clinton health care plan in 1993 and 1994. Then, the GOP feared the passage of a health care plan could lead to a Democratic majority for a decade. Now, with the Senate GOP filibustering virtually everything Democrats propose and President Bush committed to vetoing anything that might make it through Congress, the Republican Party is trying to forestall electoral disaster once again.

Up or down vote, rest in peace.

UPDATE: The resurrection of "Up or Down Vote" didn't require the GOP to retake the Senate. As the Washington Post reports this morning, right-wing groups are once again calling for up or down votes on a handful of President Bush's judicial nominees and threatening to shut down the Senate unless they get them.

For those who may have missed it, the official Bush White House /RNC approved list of Republican talking points on Iraq has gotten a bit of a make-over in the past few days.

President Bush's staggeringly incoherent surge interim progress report last week returned "We're Making Progress" to GOP mouthpieces everywhere. Then, the Senate Republicans' successful filibuster of the Levin-Reed after all night debate brought the Rove stamp of approval for "Political Stunt." (This turn of events signaled the death of a previous GOP favorite, "Up or Down Vote.") And now, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman has updated John Boehner's "Embolden the Enemy" with a twist of his own, "Reinforces Enemy Propaganda."

Here, then, is the newly updated list of official GOP Iraq Talking Points.

Current GOP Talking Points
The following GOP Iraq talking points appear to still be in use:

• "We're Making Progress"


• ""(Debate is a) Political Stunt"


• "(Even Discussing Withdrawal Contingency Plans) Reinforces Enemy Propaganda"


• "Wait Til September"


• "The Surge Has Just Started"


• "Precipitus Withdrawal"


• "Support Our Troops"


• "Surrender Date"


• "White Flag"


• "Micromanage the War"


• "Embolden the Enemy"


• "How Can Congress Confirm General Petraeus But Oppose His Mission?"


• "Don't Tell the Generals How to Run the War"


• "Handcuffing Our Generals"


• "Follow Us Home"


• "Islamofascists"


• "Mixed Messages (to Syria)"


• "Mixed Messages (to the Troops)"


• "Mixed Messages (to Iraq)"


• "Slow Bleed"


• "Surge"


• "The World is Safer Without Saddam"


• "Saddam Killed His Own People"


• "Pre-9/11 Worldview/Mindset"


• "Cut and Run"


• "As They Stand up, We'll Stand Down"


• "Govern Itself, Defend Itself and Sustain Itself"


• "Better to Fight Them There Than Here"


• "It's Hard Work"


• "Slam Dunk"


• Al Qaeda Link: "Al Qaeda was Present in Iraq"


• "Freedom is God's Gift to Humanity"


• "Iraq is the Central Front in the Global War on Terror"

No Longer in Use
Many other Iraq sound bites of yore, however, have mercifully ended up on the dustbin of history.

• "Augmentation"


• "New Way Forward"


• "Adapting to Win"


• "Stay the Course"


• "Turning the Corner"


• "Fresh Eyes"


• "Last Throes"


• "Purple Fingers"


• "Rewriting History (is Irresponsible)"


• "(Saddad Was) An Ally of Al Qaeda"


• 9/11 Link: "Pretty Well Confirmed (Atta Went to Prague)"


• "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism"


• "Uranium in Africa"


• "Pay for Itself"


• "Mission Accomplished"


• "Imminent Threat"


• "Gathering Threat"


• "Greeted as Liberators"


• "Smoking Gun, Mushroom Cloud"


• "Weapons of Mass Destruction"


• "Axis of Evil"

For a look back at the changing Top 10 GOP sound bites over time, visit the archives here. And to access a repository of all the key Iraq war intelligence documents, commission reports, key memos, essential analyses and other required reading, visit the Perrspectives Iraq WMD and Intelligence Resource Center.

Just 10 days ago, President Bush's bizarre sense of humor seemingly reached a new low when he made a 13 year old girl cry during an event in Cleveland. Today, the compassionate conservative returned to one of his favorite past-times, making light of the disabled. This time, the victim of President Bush's childlike callousness was an Iraq veteran - and double-amputee.

Surrounding by servicemen during a speech today, Bush recalled his conversation with an Iraq soldier who lost both legs in combat. The President then said of him:

"He's a good man, we're gonna get him some new legs."

Of course, this is far from the first time President Bush displayed his human side to the infirm, the sick and disabled. In May 2006, President Bush made a bizarre remark which charmed disability advocates everywhere. Pitching his troubled Medicare prescription plan in Florida, President Bush said to a man in a wheelchair, "You look mighty comfortable." Six weeks later, Bush chided Los Angeles Times reporter Peter Wallsten, who is afflicted with Stargardt's disease and legally blind, for wearing sunglasses during the President's press conference.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. As Perrspectives has detailed before, President Bush's disturbing sense of humor runs the gamut from children, the disabled and African-Americans to death row inmates and Iraq WMD weapons inspectors.

In the same speech today, President Bush lied about his support for bigger pay increases for U.S. servicemen and women. Bush's joke, it appears, is at the expense of America's military. Twice in one day.

With his vocal opposition to the expansion of the S-CHIP program to provide health care coverage for more of America's children, President Bush is returning to the same tried and true formula he first pioneered in Texas. That is, Bush initially fought the legislation on ideological grounds before caving to popular pressure and grudgingly accepting some version of the bill. Then, as with the Texas S-CHIP program, the Texas Patients Bill of Right and the 2003 Medicare prescription drug benefit, Bush claimed credit for it.

First, a little background. The 10 year-old State Children's Health Insurance Program is due to expire at the end of September. The program provides health care coverage to 6.6 million low income children whose families can neither afford private insurance nor qualify for Medicaid. The $5 billion annual federal contribution has been money well spent; as the CDC reported just three weeks ago, the percentage of uninsured children under age 18 dropped from 13.9% in 1997 to 9.3% in 2006.

Which is why the Senate wants to extend S-CHIP to cover 3.3 million more American children. Funded by a 61 cent per pack increase in the federal cigarette tax, a bi-partisan group of Senators led by Max Baucus (D-MT) , Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) want to double the President's proposed five year budget to $30 billion.

At least so far, President Bush is having none, promising to veto the bill on philosophical grounds. His argument is more philosophical than budgetary: expanding the proven S-CHIP plan would be the first step down the slippery slope to universal health care coverage. The Senate plan, Bush argues, "would cause people to drop their private insurance in order to be involved with a government insurance plan." On Wednesday, the President restated his belief in his moribund "consumer-based system" featuring health care tax deductions, health savings accounts and association health plans. (For more on why consumer-driven health care plans encourage employers to drop coverage while limiting access and boosting costs for their employees, see "Unhealthy Trends.")

As The New Republic noted, we've been here before. In the 1990's, then Texas Governor George W. Bush opposed a bi-partisan effort to expand S-CHIP in his state. Despite Texas' worst-in-the-nation status (then and now) in the percentage of residents without insurance, Bush (then as now) opposed the broadened program on both fiscal and philosophical grounds. As Salon reported in July 2000, Bush tried to limit eligibility to families with incomes at 133% of the poverty line, compared to the 200% standard adopted in most states (and over Bush's opposition, in Texas). Bush's hard line would have kept 200,000 kids off the program's rolls. As it was, the difficult and cumbersome application process limited sign-ups to only 28,000 of the 500,000 children eligible by mid-2000.

None of which stopped George W. Bush taking credit for the program during his 2000 presidential campaign. As Joshua Micah Marshall reported in Salon:

In Bush's press release it says: "When the CHIPs program was first implemented, Governor Bush embraced it as an opportunity to help deliver health coverage to thousands of uninsured children, and signed legislation providing health insurance for more than 423,000 children."

On July 20, 2000, Al Gore made a trip to San Antonio, Texas. Gore described Governor Bush's opposition to the program and the onerous eligibility process he set up to blunt participation by Texas families. "As a result," Gore said, "there are 600,000 children in Texas eligible for health insurance who don't have it." Sadly, Bush never paid a price for stonewalling on S-CHIP and his war against Texas' children.

By now, the Bush modus operandi on health care is all too familiar: oppose needed and popular health care programs but then claim ownership of them after they pass despite his efforts. For example, Governor Bush famously – and ferociously - opposed the Texas Patients Bill of Rights, enabling residents to sue their HMOs over denial of treatment. Afraid to veto the overwhelmingly popular bill, Bush cowardly allowed it to become law without his signature. That, of course, didn't stop him from claiming during the 2000 campaign, "As governor, I signed into law some of the toughest patient-protection laws in the nation."

More cynical still, Bush stated during the October 17, 2000 debate with Al Gore that he did not want any federal patient protection act to supersede the Texas law he falsely claimed to have signed.

"You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good laws like we've got in Texas."

Which, of course, is exactly what did. Bush not only signed legislation moving patients' lawsuits into much less friendly federal courts. In 2004, President Bush completed his flip-flop and had his Justice Department successfully argue for the supremacy of the national statute over state laws - like the one he never signed in Texas.

Bush's biggest health care flip-flop, though, came during the 2003 debate over adding a Medicare prescription drug benefit. As CBS reported in January 2003, President Bush initially opposed adding drug coverage to Medicare, noting "recent description of the proposal in government documents envisions 'no prescription drug coverage' for people in traditional fee-for-service Medicare." But facing overwhelming public support for the benefit and with his 2004 reelection looming, Bush did an about face. He supported and signed a bill creating a prescription benefit through Medicare and private insurers. (For more on the arm-twisting and fraud behind Bush's duplicitous Medicare RX plan, see "Medicare's Prescription for Failure").

Which brings us back to S-CHIP. Bush opposes it, but most Americans - and many Congressional Republicans, for that matter - support it. Sadly, one new factor suggests we might not see the usual Bush pattern of flip-flopping on health care issues. Finally, George W. Bush is not up for election.

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That may well be an apt description of John Edwards' "Road to One America" tour, his 11 city, three day journey to bring attention to the persistent - and resurgent - scourge of poverty plaguing the United States. But while Edwards' call to address the plight of America's most needy is admirable, it is out of sync with the current psyche - and voting patterns - of today's American electorate.

No doubt, Edwards and his wife Elizabeth deserve praise for their eight state swing. The first American politician since RFK to make poverty the centerpiece of his campaign, Edwards is trying to breathe new life into his "two Americas" theme. (Cynics, of course, view the tour as Edwards' attempt to redirect focus from conservatives' incessant and childlike fixation over his $400 haircut, his 28,000 square foot mansion, and sizeable jury awards.) Retracing Bobby Kennedy's steps from 1968, Edwards will hold a series of events highlighting the 37 million people living in poverty (12.6% of Americans in 2005, up from 11.3% in 2000), with an emphasis on urban neighborhoods, workers' rights and rural poverty. And he's no doubt right when he says:

"A lot of Americans think of people who are struggling as people who don't want to work, and that's nonsense. We need to make sure the country understands that."

Unfortunately, the very people John Edwards wants to help most may help him least at the ballot box. In 2004, for example, voter turnout was 21% lower for households with incomes below $50,000 (59%) compared to those over $75,000 (80%), a gap which has persisted since the 1950's. In 2000, only 38% of Americans with incomes below $15,000 turned out to vote. And as Princeton's Larry Bartells told a Brookings Institution forum in October 2000, "The nonvoters are noticeably more Democratic in their partisan loyalties than the voters are."

A 2003 study by Elaine Kamarck highlighted the implications for Democratic candidates. Kamarck pondered why the overwhelmingly Democratic states of Massachusetts and New York persisted in electing Republican governors throughout the 90's and early 00's. Her research suggested that a major change in voter turnout patterns from less well-off, less educated residents to more affluent and better schooled suburban dwellers. Issues like an increase in the minimum wage, a change supported by all five Massachusetts Democratic primary candidates in 2002, affected less than 5% of actual voters.

Which isn't to say that John Edwards isn't right or virtuous to call on "the better angels of our nature." But his poverty fighting campaign isn't merely out of step with who shows up to vote on election day and their issue priorities. At a basic level, Edwards misreads the national mood when it comes to the economy, class and inequality.

In a nutshell, Americans remain attracted to aspirational messages that speak to their possible futures, not their current circumstances, to their images of themselves, and not what statistics define as their reality. Opinion surveys consistently show that Americans see themselves doing better financially than the nation as a whole. And more important, study after study confirms that Americans view themselves as higher up the income ladder than they actually are. As a result, Democratic politicians need to speak to Americans' hopes and dreams, not their fears.

Which isn't to say that Americans don't have a lot to worry about when it comes to their standards of living. Exploding income inequality, stagnant wages, and spiraling education, energy and health care costs are issues of fundamental economic insecurity that span class, race and geography. Poverty is a blight on the promise of the United States, but at its most basic, the American Dream of each generation doing better than its predecessor is now at risk. In 2008, Democratic leaders would do better to speak more broadly to Americans' own feelings of insecurity, instead of merely calling on their consciences to conquer poverty.

With his current tour tackling poverty, John Edwards isn't just reinforcing his "brand." He's showing a lot of political courage. It's just too bad he probably won't be rewarded for it.

In the Washington Post today, Dan Froomkin offered readers a preview of the fate that awaits General David Petraeus at the hands of President Bush. Petraeus should prepare for his designated role as Bush's Iraq fall-guy come September because, as Froomkin noted, "he has a tendency to celebrate his generals when they're providing him political cover -- then stick a knife in their backs when they're no longer of any use to him." And as I wrote last December, outsourcing responsibility - and blame - has been President Bush's m.o. since his ill-fated Iraq invasion in 2003.

Froomkin pointed to Bush's cowardly finger-pointing at Iraq campaign architect General Tommy Franks during last week's surreal interim progress report on the surge:

Last week, Bush rejected any blame for the chaos that ensued in Iraq after the March 2003 invasion. So whose fault was it? Bush pointed the finger at Gen. Tommy Franks, the Central Command chief at the time. "My primary question to General Franks was, do you have what it takes to succeed? And do you have what it takes to succeed after you succeed in removing Saddam Hussein? And his answer was, yes," Bush said.

That's the same Tommy Franks to whom Bush awarded a Medal of Freedom in 2004.

And when virtually all of Bush military line of command, including the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, opposed his "surge" proposal late last year, Bush responded not by listening, but by removing the top two commanders responsible for Iraq and replacing them with more amenable leaders, including Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus.

Petraeus, as it happens, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post just five weeks before the 2004 election describing what he called "reasons for optimism" in Iraq. Now Petraeus is Bush's "main man." Maybe he should be watching his back.

Of course, appropriating undue credit and deflecting much deserved blame as been a hallmark of George W. Bush's tenure as the Iraq "War President." As I wrote in "Iraq and the 7 Habits of Highly Defective Presidents," unable to define the objective or even what constitutes victory in Iraq, President Bush at almost every critical turn in the war pinned responsibility for success or failure on others:

For example, the politically unpopular prospect of increasing troop levels has been a decision "for the generals." Ever since effectively disemboweling former Army Chief General Eric Shinseki for his January 2003 statement that the occupation of Iraq would require "several hundred thousand soldiers," President Bush has laughably claimed he would look to his general to request more boots on the ground. In January 2006, Bush repeated that "I'm going to continue to rely upon those commanders, such as General Casey...his recommendations will determine the number of troops we have on the ground in Iraq." By October, the President was still singing from the same hymnal, proclaiming "if the generals tell me they need more troops, I'll send them."

From almost the moment the invasion was launched, Bush treated political developments in Iraq no differently. The make-or-break decisions of 2003, including the dissolution of the Iraqi army, privatization of state-owned businesses and the harsh policy of de-Baathification, were left to Paul Bremer, Bush's man in Baghdad. That August, Bush told the American Legion Convention that "The coalition provisional authority, led by Ambassador Paul Bremer, is implementing a comprehensive plan to ensure a successful, democratic Iraq, and a better future for the Iraqi people." But in 2004, as Ayatollah Sistani led Shiite resistance to Bremer's plan for Iraqi elections, the writing of a new constitution and the handover of sovereignty, a cornered President Bush turned to the United Nations of all places to save his bacon:

"At this moment, United Nations Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi is conducting intensive consultations with a wide range of Iraqis on the structure of the interim government that will assume control on July the 1st. We welcome this U.N. engagement."

Fast forward to 2006 and President Bush is again making the case that success or failure in Iraq squarely hinges on someone else. Despite the misgivings of his own national security advisor, Bush this past November hitched his wagon to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, claiming "he is the right guy for Iraq."

Of course, one of the corollary benefits of naming those vested with responsibility for new strategies is the opportunity to conveniently blame them for later failures. For example, President Bush moved to quickly sack Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld following the GOP's 2006 midterm election disaster. Whereas Bush claimed on November 8 that "win or lose, Bob Gates was going to become the nominee," Rumsfeld concluded that his dismissal was based "the outcome of the election."

WaPo's Froomkin is almost assuredly correct that General Petraeus will fall victim to the Bush administration's Iraq blame game. After all, President Bush's habit is to evade accountability by naming names and farming out responsibility. And with this President, bad old habits die hard.

For a detailed look at how George W. Bush runs the Iraq war liked a failed business manager, se