First, a little history. As he prepared for his presidential run, John McCain in the spring of 2006 sought to repair his frayed relationship with the religious right. On April 2, 2006, McCain appeared on Meet the Press and retracted his famous 2000 claim that the late Reverend Jerry Falwell was an "agent of intolerance." On May 13, 2006, McCain delivered the commencement address at Falwell's Libery University. There, the two men walked on stage together, where Falwell then praised his former foe, "the ilk of John McCain is very scarce, very small."

But weeks before McCain journeyed to Lynchburg, Virginia to deliver that speech, he traveled to New York to appear on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. There, Stewart jokingly warned McCain about the risks in pandering to evangelical GOP voters through his looming rapprochement with Falwell:

STEWART: You're killin' me here. I feel like it's a condoning of Falwell's kind of crazymaking to some extent to have you go down there, and it strikes me as something you wouldn't normally do. Am I wrong about that?

MCCAIN: Jon, I've spoken at a lot of schools, I've spoken to schools whose specific policies I may disagree with - Ivy League schools don't allow military recruiters, I don't agree with that. I'm going there to speak to the students at his invitation, and I can assure you that the message will be the same that I give everywhere.

STEWART: You don't think that it helps to sort of reassert Falwell as the voice for a certain group of people, say evangelicals or the Christian Right? Isn't it the kind of thing that maybe if you don't go there, it helps to keep marginalizing guys like that, or do I misunderstand politics? No? Maybe I misunderstand things.

MCCAIN: Jon, I try to, as I said --

STEWART: Why do I feel like I'm about to get grounded?

MCCAIN: Listen, I love coming on your show. Young people all over America watch it. I love to travel around the country and speak at colleges and universities. Look - they're all parts of the Republican Party. I respect them; I may disagree, and I'm sure that I've had disagreements with them. I'm not going to change -

STEWART: You're not freaking out on us? Are you freaking out on us? Because if you're freaking out and you're going into the crazy base world - are you going into crazy base world?

MCCAIN: I'm afraid so.

STEWART: All right, sir. You know we have great regard for you here, and I hope you know what you're doing there, I trust that you do. When you see Falwell, do you feel nervous, do you have vomit in the back of your throat - what does it feel like?

MCCAIN: No, but I'll give him your love.

(The video of the exchange is available here.)

Fast forward two years and John McCain no doubt is feeling the bile rising. Under attack from the left and right for embracing Hagee, an anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic advocate of accelerating the Second Coming of Christ by triggering Armageddon in a death struggle with Iran, John McCain today could offer only a feeble defense. "In no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee's views, which I obviously do not."

As Jon Stewart warned him, this is what happens when John McCain goes to crazy base world.

As I wrote two weeks ago, in the run-up to the March 4 contests in Texas and Ohio Hillary Clinton's campaign eerily resembles that of Walter Mondale, another dazed and on-the-ropes former frontrunner.

Like Clinton, Vice President Mondale was the overwhelming national leader and consensus party choice heading into the primaries. But when Gary Hart, and not John Glenn, scored a surprising second place finish in Iowa, a media wave washed over Mondale. Hart enjoyed a 30 point swing in New Hampshire in a week, easily winning the Granite State primary and the ensuing Maine caucus. Heading into the first Super Tuesday contests in Georgia, Massachusetts and seven other states on March 13, 1984, Mondale's frontrunner campaign was on the verge of oblivion.

Facing a younger opponent promising a "new generation of leadership" transcending special interests, Mondale urgently needed a tactic to deflate Hart and his campaign of "new ideas." And that came just before the Georgia primary. During a debate in Atlanta, Mondale appropriated the slogan from a popular Wendy's ad and famously mocked Hart:

"When I hear your new ideas, I'm reminded of that ad: 'Where's the beef?'"

As it turned out, Mondale won the Illinois contest, but not because of his ad, but one of Gary Hart's . (Hart, after all, was a 10-year veteran of the U.S. Senate and a leader in military reform.) No, Mondale's victory in Illinois resulted instead from catastrophic missteps by the Hart campaign.

Seeking to build on its early lead, Hart's team began running a negative ad linking Mondale to the Chicago Daley machine figure, "Fast Eddie" Vrdolyak. But after taking heat for airing an attack spot against the Vrdolyak (who had til that time done little to help Mondale), Hart pledged to stop running the ad. Inexplicably, the ad continued to run, making Hart seem both disorganized and hypocritical and disorganized. In a matter of days, Hart's 12 point lead evaporated and Mondale walked away with a narrow win.

Things went from bad to worse in the ensuing New York primary. In his position papers, Hart had declared he would not move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. But speaking to a Jewish group in the Empire State, Hart promised just that. For a candidate who claimed to fight special interests in the name of the national interest, the impact of the blatant pandering was devastating. Hart lost to Mondale by 20%, just barely beating Jesse Jackson for second place. His woes continued in Pennsylvania.

But the campaign was not over. Hart battled back, winning 7 of the next 11 contests. Those wins in April and May 1984 included surprise victories in Indiana and Ohio, two strong union states expected to go to Mondale. With victories in the simultaneous June primaries in California and New Jersey, Hart could deny Mondale a first ballot nomination at the convention in San Francisco.

Which is when the Hart gaffe machine resurfaced one final time. Locked in a tight contest in New Jersey, Hart and his wife Lee spoke with reporters at a Los Angeles fundraiser. In one moment of carelessness, Hart went from closing fast on Mondale in the Garden State to a 15 point blowout a week later. As Time recalled:

In a classic campaign boner, he exposed his sarcastic side at a fund raiser in Los Angeles. The "bad news," he told a well-heeled audience standing on the lawn of a Bel Air mansion, is that he has to campaign apart from his wife Lee. "The good news for her is that she campaigns in California while I campaign in New Jersey." When Mrs. Hart interjected, "I got to hold a koala bear," Hart sniggered, "I won't tell you what I got to hold: samples from a toxic-waste dump."

(Full disclosure: I not only worked for Gary Hart in 1984, but was at the photo-op at the toxic waste dump in question. While hanging out at the Jersey shore the next summer, I was harangued by a woman who saw my "Gary Hart for President" t-shirt. "I hate him," she said, "because he insulted our state.")

The rest, as they say, is history. Walter Mondale went on to a first ballot victory at the Democratic Convention.

But as the Clinton camp should be careful to remember, he got off the mat not because of an ad that sounded like something from the Republican playbook. Walter Mondale needed an awful lot of help from Gary Hart. Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama does not seem similarly willing to oblige.

With each passing day, John McCain seemingly deepens his commitment to a third term Bush agenda. As the GOP primaries approached, McCain experienced just-in-time reversals on making the Bush tax cuts permanent and the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Like President Bush, McCain butchers history in comparing a 100-year presence in Iraq to the U.S. defense of allies like South Korea. And now, John McCain is even mimicking the adolescent petulance of George W. Bush in using the "Democrat Party" taunt to tweak his opponents.

Two days ago, McCain scolded right-wing radio host Bill Cunningham for his "Barack Hussein Obama" rant at a campaign event, declaring:

"I have repeatedly stated my respect for Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, that I will treat them with respect. I will call them 'Senator.'"

As Steve Benen noted this morning, John McCain may claim to respect his potential November rivals, just not their party. On the campaign trail, McCain is now following in George W. Bush's petulant footsteps by intentionally branding Clinton's and Obama's the "Democrat Party."

"One thing I'm not any good at predicting is the outcome of Democrat elections," he said Tuesday aboard his bus, dubbed the Straight Talk Express. A day earlier, he had mentioned his “Democrat friends” to a Cleveland-area audience.

Asked aboard his bus about the "ic," he replied, "I'm sorry, I usually say Democratic. They prefer Democratic, so I try to say Democratic...It offends some members of their party, so I'll say Democratic if that's what makes them feel better."

But his resolve didn't last long. Later on that same ride, he was talking about his annoyance that Democrats take credit for the improving situation in Iraq. "To say, as Sen. Obama has said, that it's because of the Democrat majority that we have experienced success in Iraq, that's just beyond comprehension."

If this childish taunting from the would-be occupant of the Oval Office sounds familiar, it should. Despite his previous pledges not to do so, the current tenant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue repeatedly spouted the "Democrat Party" jab just two weeks ago.

A staple of Republican taunting since at least the time of Reagan, the "Democrat Party" jab has been part of George W. Bush's rhetoric from the inception of his presidency. Even after promising a spirit of cooperation after the GOP got its "thumpin'" in the 2006 midterm elections, Bush continued with the slight in his 2007 State of the Union. During a February 2007 meeting with the House Democratic Caucus Issues Conference, Bush offered Democrats an unpology by attributing the taunt to his legendary verbal incontinence:

"The last time I looked at some of your faces, I was at the State of the Union, and I saw kind of a strange expression when I referred to something as the Democrat Party. Now, look, my diction isn't all that good. (Laughter.) I have been accused of occasionally mangling the English language. (Laughter.) And so I appreciate you inviting the head of the Republic Party. (Laughter and applause.)"

But appearing on Fox News, President Bush simply couldn't help himself. With his approval rating mired at 30% and Democrats pledging to make the election about Republican support for a third term, Bush returned to his trademark petulance:

"If the Democrat Party feels like they can win an election by focusing on me, I think they'd be making a huge tactical mistake. But I hope they do that then because our candidate will be able to talk about the future."

President Bush did not stop there. He again put his "Democrat Party" swipe to work in fear-mongering over both FISA and taxes:

"But there is a big part of the Democrat Party that is against giving our intelligence officers the tools necessary to protect America."

"Most Americans feel overtaxed and I promise you the Democrat party is going to field a candidate who says I'm going to raise your tax."

Heading a party that is slightly more popular than the Ebola virus, President Bush can offer the American people little more than schoolyard name games. Nothing if not consistent, even as he shuffles off the stage George W. Bush will doubtless continue his global war on the Democrat Party.

And if elected, John McCain seems committed to carrying on this infantile name-calling as part of his Bush third term agenda.

(For more on the lengthy history of the "Democrat Party" taunt in the Bush White House, visit here.)

In San Antonio on Wednesday, the Texas pastor and head of Christians United for Israel (CUFI) threw his support behind McCain:

"John McCain has publicly stated his support of the state of Israel, pledging that his administration will not permit Iran to have nuclear weapons to fulfill the evil dreams of President Ahmadinejad to wipe Israel off the map."

For his part, Senator McCain was only too happy to have Hagee's blessing. "All I can tell you," he said, "is that I am very proud to have Pastor John Hagee's support."

Donahue, who has raised frothing at the mouth to an art form, demanded that McCain reject what he deemed Hagee's anti-Catholicism. "If someone said to me: who is the biggest anti-Catholic bigot in the evangelical community," Donahue fumed, "I would say: hands down, John Hagee."

Be that as it may, Americans of all faiths should be frightened indeed by Hagee and his view of Armageddon as foreign policy. If Hagee has his way, the biblical battle against the Anti-Christ will be fought by the United States - against Iran.

As I wrote back in May 2006 ("Bush, Iran and the Second Coming"), key figures in the radical religious right see Israel and end-of-times conflict with Iran as the fulfillment of biblical prophesy contained in the Book of Revelation.

But it is Hagee who 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 wrote 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 reported, 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.

Just how much influence the likes of Hagee have over President Bush and his foreign policy team is open to debate. But as Max Blumenthal and Bill Moyers each reported last year, Pastor Hagee counts Washington's hardest of hard liners among his friends and CUFI allies. In October, Moyers described CUFI's annual summit in DC featuring Hagee's friends in high places:

At the recent annual CUFI summit in Washington, D.C., prominent politicians were present to pledge support for this growing movement, including Senators John McCain, Joseph Lieberman, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, as well as former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Lieberman particularly sang Hagee's praise:

"He is a Ish Elokim, a man of God and those words really fit him...like Moses he's become a leader of a mighty multitude, even greater than the multitude that Moses led from Egypt to the promised land."

CUFI considers its defining issue to be the growing challenge of radical Islam, particularly as relates to the security of Israel and the United States. CUFI is incresingly concerned by Iran and its potential nuclear threats. Hagee often alludes to Nazi Germany in order to underline what he believes to be the gravity of the situation:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we are reliving history. It is 1938 all over again," Hagee explains in a 2007 speech. "Iran is Germany. Ahmadinejad is Hitler. And Ahmadinejad, just like Hitler, is talking about killing the Jews."

During the 2006 CUFI conference, Hagee made perhaps his clearest statement of Armageddon as American foreign policy:

"The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West...a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ."

Meanwhile, back in what John McCain himself once called "crazy base world," William Donahue is outraged by the anti-Catholic bigotry of John Hagee. As for the rest of the American people, it's Hagee's rapture-ready foreign policy that should cause trembling. As for John McCain, he's "very honored" to have Hagee's support in November - and at the End of Times.

UPDATE: As Glenn Greenwald notes, the pushback against McCain for embracing is Hagee is starting to gather steam. In response, McCain issued a feeble statement restating his acceptance of Hagee's backing while noting, "in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee's views, which I obviously do not."

In a rare moment of humility, President Bush during this morning's press conference acknowledged that he knew little about Russian President Vladimir Putin's hand-picked successor, Dmitry Medvedev. Responding to NBC reporter David Greg's dubious assertion that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama seemed to know much about Medvedev, Bush owned up to his own ignorance, "I don't know much about Medvedev, either." President Bush's sheepishness is justified. After all, in the run-up to his 2000 election, then candidate George W. Bush showed a comic - and tragic - ignorance of major world leaders.

While Bush was able to name Taiwan's President Lee, he drew a blank on the leaders of India and Chechnya. The neophyte Bush's squirming only increased when it came to Pakistan. As the BBC recalled:

But then came the crunch question: "Can you name the general who is in charge of Pakistan?"

Mr Bush needed a breather. "Wait, wait, is this 50 questions?"

Hiller: "No, it's four questions of four leaders in four hot spots," the reporter tried to put his victim at ease.

"The new Pakistani general, he's just been elected - not elected, this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country and I think that's good news for the sub-continent," the Republican candidate offered.

Good news, but not an answer, and the interviewer insisted: "Can you name him?"

"General. I can't name the general. General" was all Mr Bush had to offer.

Bush, who has repeatedly joked about his preference for dictatorship over democracy, has apparently been sticking to his line on Musharraf ("this guy is going to bring stability to the country") ever since. He just didn't know his name yet.

Sadly, George W. Bush's struggles with the international landscape didn't end there. Just four months later in March 2000, Bush was delighted to learn from a reporter that he had received the ringing endorsement of Canadian Prime Minister Jean Poutine:

"Prime Minister Jean Poutine said he wouldn't endorse any candidate in this election, now he says he believes George W. Bush is the man to lead the free world into the 21st century."

Bush warmly accepted his endorsement:

"He understands I want to make sure our relationship with our most important neighbour to the north of us is strong and we'll work closely together."

There were a few problems, of course. The prime minister of Canada was Jean Chretien, not Jean Poutine. "Poutine" is a popular regional food of Quebec, a dish of french fries, gravy and cheese curds. Bush, simply too ignorant regarding our neighbor to the north, fell hook, line and sinker for a prank by This Hour Has 22 Minutes star Rick Mercer.

Presidential candidates can't be expected to know every detail about every leader of every country. (President Clinton acknowledged as much when he threw Bush a lifeline after Dubya's November 1999 fiasco, "If Mr Bush is president he will soon enough learn their names.") In Tuesday's MSNBC Democratic debate, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama showed that even without looking in his eyes and knowing his soul, they knew a great deal about Dmitry Medvedev, if not how to pronounce his name.

But unlike George W. Bush 8 years earlier, at least they knew what it was.

Clinton's admittedly feeble effort to seek balance came early in the debate. Coupled as it was with an awkward attempt to leverage a Saturday Night Live parody, to say the tactic fell flat is an understatement. Responding to co-moderator Brian Williams, Clinton said:

"Well, can I just point out that in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time. I don't mind, you know, I'll be happy to field them. But I do find it curious. And if anybody saw 'Saturday Night Live,' maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow."

Hillary Clinton may not be a comedian, but she can do math. As it turns out, in her quixotic quest for debate justice, she's happens to be right. Hillary Clinton not only generally receives the opening question of the evening. In the previous CNN debate, she was asked to respond first about 70% of the time.

This morning, the New York Times provided the numbers:

Mrs. Clinton has received the first question of the night in all three of her one-on-one debates with Mr. Obama - about Cuba, about the North American Free Trade Agreement and about their biggest policy differences.

In other debates before the Democratic field narrowed, she received the first question at 6 of the 10 most recent events.

And in the one-on-one debate last Thursday, she received the first question on the overwhelming majority of topics and thus spoke first about twice as often as he did.

Last Thursday's CNN debate in Austin, Texas shows just how dramatic the disparity had become. A quick pass through the transcript shows that Senator Clinton was asked to respond first on 9 of 13 questions posed. (I'm leaving out follow up questions from the panel of Campbell Brown, John King, and Jorge Ramos.)

The Clinton camp is not without foundation in believing that Obama enjoys the equivalent of a home field advantage in baseball. Given what appears to be the consensus that Hillary Clinton has the edge in debating substantive policy, Obama's "bottom of the inning" position lets him react to - or even appropriate from - Clinton's initial answers. Like overtime in college football, to use another sports analogy, Obama's task simply becomes to match or beat her performance.

Tim Russert's question last night on Russia and Vladimir Putin's hand-picked successor Dmitry Medvedev provides a case in point. After a brief silence between the candidates, Hillary Clinton stepped forward to answer the question, providing a concise summary of the dynamic at work in the ever more authoritarian Russia of Vladimir Putin. But Russert, perhaps hoping to reprise George W. Bush's hilarious 1999 stumble when asked to name foreign leaders, tried to set the trap. After she stammered in pronouncing Medvedev's name, Obama rode the coattails of Clinton's answer and one-upped her by recalling President Bush's 2001 description of Putin that he was "able to get a sense of his soul":

RUSSERT: Who will it be? Do you know his name?

CLINTON: Medvedev -- whatever.

RUSSERT: Yes.

CLINTON: Yes.

RUSSERT: Senator Obama, do you know anything about him?

OBAMA: Well, I think Senator Clinton speaks accurately about him. He is somebody who was hand-picked by Putin. Putin has been very clear that he will continue to have the strongest hand in Russia in terms of running the government. And, you know, it looks -- just think back to the beginning of President Bush's administration when he said -- you know, he met with Putin, looked into his eyes and saw his soul, and figured he could do business with him.

Ultimately, of course, Hillary Clinton did herself no favors in making her case last night. But after losing 11 straight primaries to Barack Obama, the order of debate questions seems to be the only time she still comes in first.

UPDATE: Satirical Political has more on the failed Clinton SNL reference here and here.

In one of the more hilariously ironic developments of Campaign '08, the Politico reports that the GOP is undertaking a crash course in diversity training of sorts. Desperate to avoid another devastating "Macaca moment" in the fall campaign, the Republican National Committee is "working on plans to protect the GOP from charges of racism or sexism in the general election." Unfortunately, that's a tall order for a fractured party united only by its common disdain for immigrants, blacks, gay Americans and above all, Muslims. Like the proverbial leopard, the Party of Hate cannot change its spots.

But you can't blame frantic Republicans for trying to apply a Potemkin facade of tolerance to their party. As the Politico detailed, the RNC is desperately in search of kinder, gentler forms of its traditional fear-mongering and race-baiting as the GOP prepares to face Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in November:

The Republican National Committee has commissioned polling and focus groups to determine the boundaries of attacking a minority or female candidate, according to people involved. The secretive effort underscores the enormous risk senior GOP operatives see for a party often criticized for its insensitivity to minorities in campaigns dating back to the 1960s...

..."Republicans will need to exercise less deafness and more deftness in dealing with a different looking candidate, whether it is a woman or a black man," Republican strategist Kellyanne Conway said. "But at the same time, really charge back at any insinuation or accusation of sexism or racism.

"You can't allow the party to be Macaca-ed," she continued, referring to a much-publicized remark made by former GOP Sen. George Allen that played a significant role in his 2006 defeat. "I think the standards are higher and the bar is lower for the Republican Party."

Sadly for the Republicans, as I documented last November in "The Party of Hate," fear-mongering and stereotyping is now standard operating procedure.

Its privatization agenda dead, the GOP has morphed into the party of big government conservatism, massive deficits, self-defeating American unilaterlism, and, above all, fear. All that remains to unite the fractured Republican Party and its amen corner is hatred. Of immigrants. Of African-Americans. Of gay Americans. Of Muslims here and around the world. Bereft of ideas and increasingly rejected by the American people, the conservative movement's profound identity crisis leaves it certain of only one thing: hatred of the other.

Nowhere is this dynamic clearer than in the debate surrounding immigration reform, where the xenophobia of the anti-amnesty right has been transformed into demonization of Hispanics Americans. President Bush's proposals, which enjoyed broad Democratic support, are dead, stillborn thanks to overwhelming Republican opposition in Congress and the massive mobilization of right-wing radio.

When Bill O'Reilly claims immigration reform advocates want to "change the complexion" of the United States and Michael Savage calls the National Council of La Raza "the Ku Klux Klan of the Hispanic people," it helps ensure that Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo (who labeled Miami a "third world country") and not John McCain are more in line with GOP primary voters. It also helps explain the decision of virtually all of the Republican White House hopefuls to skip the September 16 Univision debate in Miami.

This politics of hate may endear Giuliani, Romney et al to their party's hard right, but could also produce devastating defeats for Republican candidates among Hispanic general election voters. Coming on the heels of the July snub by the major GOP hopefuls of the convention of National Council of La Raza, Republican prospects among Hispanic voters are quickly dimming. John Kerry carried only 53% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, but by 2006, Democrats won 69% support among the nation's 43 million Hispanics who went to the polls. As NCLR's Cecilia Munoz put it in September, "It's not just that they are not coming. It's that some of them are visibly insulting us." (It's no wonder the GOP had a change of heart and later attended a rescheduled Univision debate on December 9.)

Meanwhile, the GOP's race-baiting of African-Americans, so central to the Republicans' "southern strategy" since 1968, continues unabated in ways large and small. From the casual use of the "tar baby" slur by Tony Snow, Mitt Romney and John McCain to Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour branding African-American looters in New Orleans "subhuman," Republicans seem quite comfortable trafficking in the not-so-subtle language of racial intolerance. As the 2006 ad ("Call Me") in the Tennessee Senate contest depicting Harold Ford as a Mandingo playboy debauching the white women of the South showed, race-baiting can still help get Republicans elected. And just to be on the safe side, draconian voter ID laws in Georgia, Missouri, Indiana and Arizona are designed to keep minority voters from ever getting inside a voting booth.

Predictably, these Republican tactics are helping to ensure the African-American community remains monolithically Democratic. The Republican presidential candidates sent a clear message to the GOP base - and black voters - when they skipped NAACP and PBS events this summer. (The GOP can't win for losing when it comes to reaching out to black voters. During a July 2005 speech to the NAACP, former RNC chair Ken Mehlman confused victim and villain in the dragging death of James Byrd, one of the worst hate crimes in recent history. Mehlman described Byrd as "a racist killer in east Texas, who the president brought to justice.") In 2006, Democrats maintained their traditionally high level of support, winning the votes of 89% of African-Americans voters. That will no doubt continue.

In word and deed, the GOP crusade against gay Americans is a strategic centerpiece of 21st century Republican political strategy. Despite the seemingly endless parade of Mark Foley, Jim West, Ted Haggard, Ed Shrock, Larry Craig and a host of other once-closeted conservatives, Republican demonization of gay Americans and the "homosexual agenda" is the reddest of red meat for so called "values voters."

The tactics and rhetoric of the gay-bashing are right are tied at the hip. In 2004, same-sex marriage ban ballot measures in key battleground states helped bring Karl Rove's four million new evangelical voters to the polls, ensuring President Bush's reelection. (Ironically, the same tactic failed the GOP during the 2006 mid-terms in the wake of the Mark Foley scandal.) Congressional Republicans uniformly opposed the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which last week passed the House 235-184 despite GOP maneuvers to bury the bill. President Bush, of course, has vowed to veto the bill protecting the workplace rights of gay Americans, on the spurious grounds that it threatens "the sanctity of marriage."

Then, of course, there are the words of the Republican leadership and its echo chamber. Ex-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and his one-time Texas colleague John Cornyn equate same-sex marriage to polygamy and bestiality, with "man-on-dog" and "man-on-box turtle" analogies. Columnist Ann Coulter, a Mitt Romney supporter and fixture on right-wing media, calls John Edwards a "faggot" and Al Gore a "total fag." There is a continuum of hate that runs from the fringe of the conservative movement directly to the Republican leadership; the distance from Fred Phelps to the Republican National Committee is a short one.

And in the wake of 9/11, Muslims are the latest group to receive the venom of the Republican Party and its conservative amen corner. Bush sycophant and Giuliani adviser Daniel Pipes called for the profiling of Muslim-Americans. Blogger and commentator Michelle Malkin urges World War II-style internment measures, likening the Muslim community now to wrongly imprisoned Japanese-Americans then. CNN host Glenn Beck demanded of Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress, "prove to me that you are not working with our enemies." Picking up on Beck's theme, Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode warned only his immigration position could prevent the specter of "many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran." Idaho Republican Bill Sali followed suit, mau-mauing the Muslim Ellison after the delivery of a Hindu prayer to open a session of Congress, claiming "they are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers."

But that pales compared to the language being used towards Muslims around the world by President Bush and his would-be successors. Continuing to play on Americans' fears in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee have adopted the "Islamofascism" talking point.

Beyond its usefulness in fear-mongering, the dangerously misguided "Islamofascism" formula serves three purposes for the Republicans. First, as Mitt Romney repeatedly demonstrates, it conveniently conflates all Muslims - Sunni and Shiite, friend and foe, guilty and innocent - into a single unified threat. (Romney's math? Al Qaeda in Afghanistan = Hamas in Gaza = Hezbollah in Lebanon = Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.) Second, the Islamofascism moniker is designed to help the GOP equate the fiasco in Iraq (and the next one in Iran) with the just war fought by the Greatest Generation in World War II. And last, the term provides a not-so-subtle Holocaust allusion to friends of Israel by implying that the next existential threat to Jews comes from Adolf Hitler's supposed protege in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

It is interesting to note that while Bush was quick to drop his 2001 "crusade" language, those Republicans seeking to replace him in the White House continue to ratchet up their rhetoric of civilizational struggle against Islam and Muslims. As Mike Huckabee, darling of the religious right put it just last week:

"I think I'm stronger than most people because I truly understand the nature of the war that we are in with Islamo fascism. These are people that want to kill us. It's a theocratic war. And I don't know if anybody fully understands that. I'm the only guy on that stage with a theology degree."

Hate is not only a core value for the supposed values voters of the right. It is also an indispensable tactic. For example, in the span of just a few weeks, Rush Limbaugh led the conservative charge against kids' health insurance (S-CHIP) and action to fight global warming by attacking the children bearing the message. And when Limbaugh attacked as "phony soldiers" Iraq veterans opposed to the war (even comparing a Purple Heart recipient to a suicide bomber), Georgia Congressman Jack Kingston sponsored a House resolution commending him. And so it goes.

For his part, John McCain may be getting the GOP's new tolerance message. In November, McCain failed the sexism test with his weak response to a supporter's question about Hillary Clinton, "how do we beat the b----?" But today at a rally in Cincinnati, McCain quickly denounced the "Barack Hussein Obama" taunt of warm-up speaker, right-wing radio host Bill Cunningham. "I absolutely repudiate such comments," McCain said, "It will never happen again."

We shall see. After all, stereotyping and playing the race card is not the result of Republican carelessness. Far from it. It's been essential GOP electoral strategy for four decades.

"The unprecedented survey of religion answers many concerns about a secular, morally void America. To the surprise of many experts, Americans are still deeply religious, with 84 percent of adults claiming a religious affiliation."

For beginners, the term "secular" in the context of American society and politics does mean what CBS seems to think it means. "Secular" does not mean "atheist." Far from it. As historian Wilfred McClay argues elsewhere on the Pew web site, secularism has a distinctly political sense in the United States:

"That is, secularism as recognizing politics as an autonomous sphere, one that's not subject to ecclesiastical governance, to the governance of a church or religion or the church's expression of that religion. A secular political order may be one in which religious practice or religious exercise, as we say, can flourish."

This broader view of secular as "not controlled by a religious body" is shared by an overwhelming majority of Americans of all faiths. While Americans may disagree about prayer in schools or the display of nativity scenes on public land, the separation of church and state is seen by most as an essential guarantee of religious liberty, freedom and diversity. (For example, while Pew reported 84% of people affiliated with a religion in the U.S., 70% of Americans believe church leaders should not endorse political candidates.) Surely, CBS News did not actually intend to term most Americans "morally void."

And just as surely, CBS News could not have meant, like Mitt Romney, to insult the 16% of Americans Pew described as "unaffiliated" by calling them immoral. (The Pew survey of 35,000 Americans found that only 4.0% were "secular" in the narrow philosophical sense of being unbelievers. 1.6% were atheists and 2.4% agnostic, while another 12.1% reported their religion as "nothing in particular.") Americans' morality - their basic goodness, honesty, charity and law abidingness - has little to do with their religiosity or lack thereof. Just ask the congregants of Ted Haggard's New Life Church or the parishioners of the bankrupt Catholic archdioceses around the country.

Which raises a final question about the CBS story. Whose "many concerns" was Wyatt Andrews referring to when he claimed the Pew study "answers many concerns about a secular, morally void America?" To ask the question is to answer it.

No doubt, many of the religious right in the United States believe their secular countrymen are "morally void." But the Pew findings suggest something else they can fret about instead. Americans are quick to dump one church for another or none at all: fully 44% have left their childhood religions. (In this election, at least, evangelicals are the big winners.) That statistic suggests that while religious faith in America is a mile wide, it may only be an inch deep.

Today's Washington Post praised John McCain's "ironclad refusal to issue signing statements." While his Democratic rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton defended using "signing statements in very rare instances," the Post lauded McCain's "sharp break" from the unprecedented practice of the Bush administration.

But what the Washington Post neglected to mention was why John McCain has such a visceral dislike for presidential signing statements. The answer, as it turns out, dates back to December 30, 2005, when President Bush betrayed his would-be Republican successor with a signing statement on McCain's amendment to the Detainee Treatment Act that made waterboarding and other acts of torture the continuing policy of the United States.

Last week, McCain promised that as president he would never issue a signing statement:

"Never, never, never, never. If I disagree with a law that passed, I'll veto it."

That commitment echoed his November pledge not to follow in President Bush's footsteps, a man whose use of the signing statement to nullify laws passed by Congress differs both in kind and degree from his predecessors:

"I would never issue a signing statement. It is wrong, and it should not be done."

With his signing statement attached to the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, Bush himself sought to create a legal basis for his administration's past and future criminality. In a nutshell, Bush signed into law a bill he had every intention of continuing to violate.

"Thank you, Mr. President. I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the effort that you made to resolve this very difficult issue...This agreement basically does two things: One, puts into the Army Field Manual the specific procedures for interrogations. And two, it prohibits cruel, inhumane [treatment]-- or torture."

As the Boston Globe reported, that supposed compromise lasted just as long as it took for President Bush to issue his signing statement two weeks later on December 30. When it comes to what constitutes "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees," the President proclaimed that he indeed would be the decider:

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.

That shocking presidential power grab, along with Alberto Gonzales' 2005 lies to Congress about the administration's torture policy, served to emasculate John McCain's amendment. It's no wonder he's vowed of future legislation in a McCain presidency that he "would only sign it or veto."

That much said, Bush's betrayal over the administration's torture policy in 2005 has proven to be no barrier to McCain supporting the White House now. Desperately seeking to solidify his support among conservative GOP primary voters, John McCain just two weeks ago voted against a Senate intelligence bill that would restrict the CIA in its interrogation techniques, banning waterboarding and limiting the agency to 19 less aggressive tactics outlined in the U.S. Army Field Manual. (Four days later, McCain pompously proclaimed, "I'd be honored to be anywhere with him under any circumstances.") As the Washington Post reported, McCain "said current laws already forbid waterboarding, and he urged the administration to declare it illegal."

Of course, George W. Bush already declared it's not illegal. John McCain just needs to read the signing statement.

In much the same way that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, conservative culture warriors love to hate the Oscars. Last night's 80th Academy Awards were no exception. Nothing seems to infuriate the family values crowd more than Hollywood award winners on stage thanking their same-sex partners for their support. Nothing, that is, except the sight of American soldiers in Iraq introducing them.

Conservative culture mavens were apoplectic that a half-dozen U.S. troops were featured in the Oscars via a satellite feed from Baghdad. Shortly thereafter, the controversial "Taxi to the Dark Side" won the trophy for best documentary. The film, originally acquired by Discovery Network which then retreated from showing it, will air on HBO in September. The documentary examines the case of an innocent Afghan taxi driver allegedly tortured to death by U.S. officials at Bagram Air Base. No doubt, director Alex Gibney's acceptance statement got the right's blood boiling:

"Let's hope we can turn this country around and move away from the dark side and back to the light."

The response was fast and furious. The consistently execrable Debbie Schlussel called the film "blatant, lying propaganda" and "the hypocrisy of the Oscars using soldiers to introduce their movies, when they just hate American soldiers." New York Post columnist and Gulf War vet Kyle Smith fumed that the "media are bent on presenting sordid, depraved and illegal acts committed by members of the military and intelligence...as the norm in order to undercut the war and defund the troops." Needless to say, a frustrated Michelle Malkin weighed in, complaining "you know what they say: DON'T QUESTION THEIR PATRIOTISM!"

But adding insult to injury for the foaming-at-the-mouth right was what happened just a few minutes earlier. Our soldiers in Iraq actually introduced the nominees and winner for best short subject documentary. In what will no doubt be read as the latest salvo in the battle over the Pentagon's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, a uniformed American soldier announced the winner, Freeheld. As the New York Times described the film:

The 38-minute documentary chronicles the experiences of an Ocean County prosecutor's investigator, Detective Lt. Laurel Hester, who died of lung cancer in February 2006 at 49. She fought her illness while battling the Ocean County freeholders for benefits for her partner, Stacie Andree.

(Ms. Hester passed away before New Jersey Governor John Corzine signed into law the state's new civil unions law.)

Most commentators on the raging right like Ed Driscoll have focused their venom at the Hollywood "'Axis of Chutzpah' for having American troops present the best documentary award." Schlussel appears to be one of the few in the Republican amen corner to actually understand which award out troops were actually presenting. In her typically bilious manner, she concluded:

"Figures that the Best Short DocuFakery winner is about promoting lesbians adopting kids and came with a political, sob story "thank you" speech about how bad lesbians have it. Blah, blah, blah. Spare us. They have the WNBA, don't they?"

Now, the reaction of raving right to the use of American troops as a seeming Oscar night prop is predictable. But in one respect, the likes of Schlussel and Malkin are right. It was inexcusable for the Academy to put our soldiers in the center of controversy like this. If Hollywood really wanted to honor our fighting men and women, the Oscar organizers should have had them introduce a marquee award like Best Picture. At that moment, Americans - and people worldwide - would have watching our best awarding the film industry for its best.

Instead, the Oscars merely gave fodder for the Neanderthal right to rage about Americans troops being appropriated by Hollywood as pawns in the culture war. (Of course, the conservative chattering classes have no issue with President Bush's endless use of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines for White House propaganda purposes.) But worse still, it puts people like me in the uncomfortable position of agreeing, in part, with the conservative hate machine.

Exactly two years ago, I dissected the Bush administration's dubious legal justification for its illicit program of NSA domestic surveillance. Then, I argued that the President's twin claims that his constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief and the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) allowed Bush to operate outside the legal mandate of FISA were specious. As it turns out, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey apparently agree.

In "The Republicans' Constitutional Crisis," I noted:

From the beginning, the administration's amen corner has aggressive claimed that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the wartime Commander-in-Chief powers give President Bush the statutory and constitutional basis for sidestepping the FISA process for domestic electronic surveillance. But most in the GOP are downright sheepish when it comes to the third argument that logically flows from their first two: FISA itself is unconstitutional. Their trepidation is well founded; as a matter of law and of politics, an attack by Republicans on the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is bound to fail.

As I documented, only the most extreme Bush supporters such as John Yoo argued that FISA itself was unconstitutional. And sadly for the Bush administration, the overwhelming weight of constitutional opinion is working against them. In a February 13th, 2006 letter, the American Bar Association cautioned President Bush against acting outside of FISA, and urging adoption of its recommendations to ensure the fight against Al Qaeda "is conducted in a manner reflective of the highest American values." On January 9th, 2006, a distinguished, bi-partisan group of American constitutional legal experts and scholars wrote to congressional leaders and strongly rejected the arguments put forth by the Bush administration:

The DOJ also invokes the President's inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to collect "signals intelligence" targeted at the enemy, and maintains that construing FISA to prohibit the President's actions would raise constitutional questions. But even conceding that the President in his role as Commander in Chief may generally collect signals intelligence on the enemy abroad, Congress indisputably has authority to regulate electronic surveillance within the United States, as it has done in FISA. Where Congress has so regulated, the President can act in contravention of statute only if his authority is exclusive, and not subject to the check of statutory regulation. The DOJ letter pointedly does not make that extraordinary claim.

Fast forward two years and President Bush's DNI and attorney general seemingly agree with that assessment. As Glenn Greenwald details:

In the letter from Chairman Reyes to which McConnell and Mukasey are responding, Reyes pointed out that under the still-existing FISA law, the Government is free to commence surveillance without a warrant where there is no time to obtain one. In response, McConnell and Mukasey wrote:

"You imply that the emergency authorization process under FISA is an adequate substitute for the legislative authorities that have elapsed. This assertion reflects a basic misunderstanding about FISA's emergency authorization provisions. Specifically, you assert that the National Security Agency (NSA) or Federal Bureau of Intelligence (FBI) "may begin surveillance immediately" in an emergency situation. FISA requires far more, and it would be illegal to proceed as you suggest."

Wow, what a blockbuster revelation. Apparently, as it turns out, in the United States it's "illegal" for the Government to eavesdrop on Americans without first complying with the requirements of FISA. Who would have known?

A blockbuster indeed.

All of which makes the Democratic capitulation last August on the FISA revisions in the so-called Protect America Act all the more galling. It wasn't enough that they codified President Bush lawlessness. They not only had the votes to safeguard American civil liberties and prevent the legalization of past Bush White House criminality. On FISA as we knew it before August 5, 2007, Democrats had the law - and public opinion - on their side.

As Matthew Yglesias reported, the conservative amen corner was apoplectic about Obama's assertion that undermanned U.S. units in Afghanistan were scavenging weapons from the Taliban:

"You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon -- supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon," he said. "Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief."

Following up with the Obama campaign, ABC's Jake Tapper spoke with the Army captain in question and confirmed Obama's retelling in most aspects. The West Point graduate said his unit was short of ammunition during training and lacking armored Humvees both before and after deployment to Afghanistan. His platoon in fact was down 15 men, at least 10 of whom had been sent to Iraq:

The platoon was sent to Afghanistan with 24 men.

"We should have deployed with 39," he told me, "we should have gotten replacements. But we didn't. And that was pretty consistent across the battalion."

He adds that maybe a half-dozen of the 15 were replaced by the Fall of 2003, months after they arrived in Afghanistan, but never all 15.

Of course, this one anecdote only serves to highlight the dangerous overstretch of an American almost fully committed in Iraq. The warning signs were there in 2003, even as President Bush dispatched troops to the Middle East in the run-up to the March invasion. By January 2006, multiple studies described the "enormous strain" on the American military and portrayed the U.S. Army as "stretched to breaking point." Facing a growing manpower crisis, the Pentagon by October 2007 was offering retention of bonuses of up to $35,000 retain specialists from its rapidly shrinking officer corps and $150,000 for elite Navy Seals.

Over just the past month, new studies revealed that the U.S. armed forces are not only unprepared to face the next regional conflict, they are woefully inadequate to response to an attack on the America homeland. In February, Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for a New American Security released the results of a survey of 3,400 present and former U.S. officers. 88% said the demands of the Iraq war had "stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin." Three weeks earlier, an independent panel concluded "the Pentagon is not prepared to respond to a catastrophic chemical, biological or nuclear attack within the United States." With the unending burdens on National Guard and Reserve units already deployed, retired Marine Corps major general Arnold Punaro concluded, "We looked at their plans. They're totally unacceptable."

So while the right rains a hellstorm of criticism on Barack Obama, the Illinois Senator has been largely vindicated in sounding the alarm about the overtaxed American military.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said for George W. Bush.

Back in 2000, then candidates Bush decimated Vice President Gore over his much-hyped claimed that the Clinton administration had gutted the U.S. armed forces. Speaking at the Citadel in the fall of 1999, Bush lambasted President Clinton:

"Not since the years before Pearl Harbor has our investment in national defense been so low as a percentage of GNP. Yet rarely has our military been so freely used."

But it was at the 2000 Republican National Convention where Bush crystallized his compelling, if ultimately false, charge:

"We have seen a steady erosion of American power and an unsteady exercise of American influence. Our military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, 'Not ready for duty, sir.'"

As Joshua Micah Marshall documented four days later, Governor Bush's claims were - and he knew them to be - patently false. Those two divisions had their status temporarily downgraded for the obvious reason that they were already on duty in the Balkans:

Bush took all this a step further when he told the convention audience that two divisions were currently "not ready for duty." As a factual matter, the statement is false, as the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Hugh Shelton, was at pains to point out the following day...

...But the reason those two divisions had their readiness downgraded was not because they were unfit for duty or lacked equipment. It was because portions of each division were on peacekeeping duty in Bosnia and Kosovo. The military's definition of readiness has to do with a particular division's ability to go into combat immediately in the hypothetical case of two major theater conflicts breaking out simultaneously. The commanders doubted their ability to quickly extricate their troops from their positions in the Balkans.

Confronted by CNN, Bush refused to own up to his fraud and pointed a suspicious finger at the military itself:

"If the Army, in fact, changes its tune from that report...then they need to let the country know. I am amazed that they would put out a statement right after our convention. I'm curious why it took them this long to say they were combat-ready after a report last November said they weren't."

But by then, it was too late for Al Gore. The media swallowed hole these and other exaggerations and lies from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Bush may have knowingly had his facts wrong, but the Republican myth of the decimated Clinton/Gore military survived intact through election day.

As it turns out, Barack Obama had his story mostly right. His larger narrative of a dangerous overburdened American military is unquestionably correct. But while conservatives will question his experience to be Commander-in-Chief, history shows it was George W. Bush who was not ready for duty.

That the United States would come to grief in the Balkans under Bush's leadership was foreseeable back in 1999. Bush at first refused to back President Clinton's air war against the Milosevic regime's campaign of terror against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. As he explained to Talk Magazine in 1999, Bush's first problem was not strategic but geographic:

"Nobody needs to tell me what I believe. But I do need somebody to tell me where Kosovo is."

Bush, of course, later came around and supported the U.S. strikes against Belgrade. (Not before criticizing Bill Clinton's lack of an "exit strategy," an ironic foreshadowing his own subsequent Iraq misadventure.)

But the real warning signs that Bush knew little - and cared less - about the impact of Kosovo's looming declaration of independence came last June during his visit to neighboring Albania.

Even as President Bush basked in the warm embrace of Albanians grateful for American support of Kosovo independence and Albanian membership in NATO, he still struggled to understand the policy he claims to advocate. Bush told the Albanians, "At some point in time, sooner rather than later, you've got to say, 'Enough is enough - Kosovo is independent.'" During his Albanian visit, President Bush said he supported bringing the UN Security Council talks on Kosovo independence to an end, "In terms of a deadline, there needs to be one. It needs to happen." But as the New York Times reported, within 24 hours Bush backed off his tough talk, lest he once again run afoul of Russian opposition at the UN.

But on Sunday, Mr. Bush tried to backtrack when asked when that deadline might be. "First of all, I don't think I called for a deadline," Mr. Bush said, during a press appearance with Mr. Berisha in the courtyard of a government ministry building. He was reminded that he had.

"I did?" he asked, sounding surprised. "What exactly did I say? I said deadline? O.K., yes, then I meant what I said." The reporters laughed.

Speaking in Tanzania during his African tour this week, President Bush downplayed the impact of the Kosovo announcement and the need for immendiate and intense diplomacy to defuse Russian opposition to Serbia's loss of its ancient province. As the Washington Post detailed:

"There's a disagreement but we believe as many other nations do that history will prove this to be the correct move."

"We have been in close consultation with the Russians all along," said Bush on Tuesday in Tanzania when asked about Russia's critical reaction to the Kosovo independence.

Asked about timing of the declaration and whether there was any effort to smooth things over with Russia, Bush said: "We worked with the European nations. This strategy was well-planned."

As it turns out, not so much.

As the UN scrambled to reestablish border security posts between Serbia and Kosovo, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called the EU's new 1,800 man mission in Kosovo "illegal." On the ground, Serb mobs are trying force a de facto partition of northern Kosovo, apparently with the tacit support of Belgrade. Even as Russia pledges to use its Security Council veto to block Kosovo's admission into the United Nations, the moderate pro-western Serbian government of Boris Tadic faces growing pressure from nationalist opponents his party barely defeated in the recent elections. Meanwhile, China and Spain, among other countries concerned about the national aspirations of their own regional minorities, joined Russia in their opposition to Saturday's unilateral declaration.

The Economist is likely right that Kosovo's independence was inevitable and that its people could not be indefinitely held in a state of limbo. But managing global reaction and the predictable emotional tide in Serbia accompanying the undoing of hundreds of history is a delicate diplomatic task for the international community and especially for President George W. Bush. That, of course, has never been his strong suit.

Unphased by it all, Bush told reporters in Dar es Salam on Tuesday:

"What you may be interested in knowing is that we have been in close consultation with the Russians all along. This wasn't a surprise to Russia. And you know, today's announcement is simply putting an exclamation point onto a series of announcements that have been made over the last 24 hours.

Thank you all very much. See you in Rwanda."

By Thursday, the American embassy in Belgrade was burning.

While debate rages over the New York Times' bizarre allegations regarding John McCain's relationship with a DC lobbyist, two other legendary Republican scandalmakers are keeping GOP corruption in the spotlight. On Tuesday, Duke Cunningham bagman Brent Wilkes was sentenced to 12 years in prison. And just yesterday, former Ohio Congressman Bob Ney was transferred to a halfway house to serve the remainder of a 30 month term for his role in the Jack Abramoff affair.

In March 2006, California's Duke Cunningham was sentenced to 8 years in prison for taking $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractor ADCS owned by Brent Wilkes. During Wilkes' subsequent trial, prosecutors "presented evidence that he showered Cunningham, a Republican congressman from Rancho Santa Fe, with expensive meals, gifts, fancy trips, cash bribes and prostitutes." In court papers, investigators claimed that the U.S. government lost up to $60 million in contracts awarded to ADCS.

While probation officials recommended a 60 year term and prosecutors 25 for Wilkes, Judge Larry Burns instead handed down a relatively lenient 12 year sentence. Still, when the judge urged Wilkes to "own up" and "come clean," the Bush "Pioneer" and prolific GOP fundraiser Wilkes remained defiant:

Wilkes thanked his family and friends for their support, and continued to deny guilt.

"I know they understand how helpless I've felt in the process because I couldn't speak out," he said. "Your Honor, I've always maintained my innocence and I continue to. "

In the run-up to the 2006 midterm elections, Ney emerged as one of the leading figures in the Abramoff scandal that helped undo the Republican majority in Congress. Ney resigned from his House seat on November 3, 2006 after pleading guilty just three weeks earlier to making false statements and conspiring to commit fraud.

In court papers, Ney was famously identified as "Representative #1." The wheels began to come off in early May 2006, when Abramoff partner and former Ney staffer Neal Volz pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges for lavishing gifts and junkets on Ney, whom he referred to a "champion." Just weeks later, photos emerged of Ney with Abramoff, Ralph Reed and others heading off on the infamous golfing journey in Scotland. Then in June, yet more pictures came to light showing Ney with leaders of the Tigua tribe during an August 2002 meeting of Abramoff clients the Congressman claimed he didn't remember.

Hopefully, American voters will be better served by their memories this fall. The convictions of Cunningham, Wilkes and Ney should remind them why they threw the Republican bums out in the first place.

The blogosphere is abuzz with the New York Times story about presumptive GOP nominee John McCain and the nature of his relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. It remains unclear why the paper sat on the story since December. But whether or not the New York Times has had the goods on John McCain, it didn't stop them from endorsing him in the state's Republican primary last month.

On January 25th, the New York Times gave McCain its stamp of approval in the Empire State's Super Tuesday GOP contest. In an editorial that lambasted the Republican Party and its field of White House hopefuls (especially former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani), the Times was comparatively effusive about McCain:

Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field...

...He has been a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform, working with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking legislation, just as he worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform.

That doesn't make him a moderate, but it makes him the best choice for the party's presidential nomination.

Given the implications of today's Times article (and subsequent Washington Post piece), McCain's credentials as a "staunch advocate of campaign finance reform" would appear in jeopardy. The paper did not, as the Drudge Report first detailed, run with the Iseman story in December. While the New Republic is not confirming the McCain campaign's claims that it forced the Times' hand in publishing the piece, the magazine's Noam Scheiber reports that "TNR correspondent Gabe Sherman is working on a piece about the Times' foot-dragging on the McCain story, and the back-and-forth within the paper about whether to publish it."

In the meantime, conservatives at the National Review and Town Hall will proclaim John McCain the victim of the liberal media assault by the nation's paper of record. Of course, just last month, they were decrying his support by the New York Times.

Regardless, whatever wrongdoing prompted the New York Times to print its McCain imbroglio today was apparently not serious enough to withhold its endorsement in January.

UPDATE 1: Gabe Sherman's New Republic piece, "The Long Run-Up: Behind the Bombshell in The New York Times", is now available online.

UPDATE 2: Don Davis at Satirical Political notes with tongue in cheek that for the New York Times , "Self Confidence on Journalism Poses Its Own Risk."

A new poll from the American Research Group shows that President Bush's approval rating has plummeted to 19%. Fully 77% of Americans disapprove of the job he is doing as President. And when it comes to the sputtering U.S. economy, Americans' record-setting disdain for the current occupant of the White House is even more pronounced. Only 14% approve of the Bush league economy.

According to ARG, Americans' disregard for President Bush is bipartisan. In an age of hyper-partisanship, people across the political spectrum agree that Bush's tenure in the Oval Office deserves failing marks:

Among Republicans (29% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 45% approve of the way Bush is handling his job and 50% disapprove. Among Democrats (43% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 1% approve and 99% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job. Among independents (28% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 17% approve and 75% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president.

These comatose Bush numbers from ARG are dramatically worse than other recent surveys which revealed merely catatonic approval ratings hovering around 30%. But to fully appreciate the extent of Americans' rejection of George W. Bush, a little context is helpful.

A 2005 Harris poll provides some interesting contrasts. For example, while only 19% of Americans now believe in George W. Bush, 40% believe in ghosts. About one third (34%) believe in UFO's, while 28% believe in witches. One quarter of Americans believe in astrology. Fully 21% believe in reincarnation.

Among the things Americans hate, George W. Bush rates high on the list. People dislike President Bush and their jobs at the same staggering 77% level. In comparison, only 40% of American adults reported hating math during their days in school. Given a choice between two evils, 49% of Americans in 2005 said they would a trip to the dentist versus the 48% who would rather than prepare their tax returns. Luckily for President Bush, he wasn't in an option in that survey.

Undeterred by his current abysmal standing among the American people, George W. Bush believes history may yet be kind to him. As the President comically told Fox News last week:

"It's very hard to write the future history of America before the current history hasn't been fully written."