I've been meaning to post on a number of things lately, but just can't come up with the words. The tricks pulled that meant we'll be stuck with the 2008 RNC convention instead of the DNC convention we should have had (and probably, based on my conversations with current DNC members before the RNC announcement, would have had...) pissed me off, and then came this atrocity of the torture vote.

That torture bill is blatantly anti-Constitutional. It's not just that it goes against all American principles, values, morals, and ethics. It's not just that it contravenes the spirit of every bit of law since the Magna Carta. It's directly, obviously, illegal. It cannot be logically reconciled with the Constitution as law.

I remember the oath of office sworn by our public servants. Obviously, those who voted for this do not. They swore to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They have broken that oath; moreover, they have put themselves forward as enemies of the Constitution. It is now the duty of those who actually believe and honor that oath to take action.

There's a widespread idea (seen particularly with respect to Al Gore and Tennessee in 2000) that it should be expected that presidential candidates will carry their home states. This is often extended to a premise that adding a VP to the ticket will bring their state into line.

Apparently Bush believes in the home-state myth too, as seen in his recent comment that he thinks he's the only presidential candidate to not carry his state of birth. This is actually a rather suprising comment from Bush, as he typically tries to avoid reminding people that he was born in Connecticut. David Stout of the NYT shoots that idea down.

In one of the earlier diaries on the whole Gannon thing, the Free Speech Foundation of Idaho was noticed as sharing a name with the Free Speech Foundation that Guckert/Gannon's connected with. It was largely dismissed as a coincidence of naming, something unconnected.

When I started finding prominent Idaho Republicans named Eberle, however, I got suspicious (moreso), and decided to check the FSF (ID) out again.

The result, in short: We were right the first time. No connection that I can see.
For the details anyway, there's the extended entry...

[I'm writing this largely as a response to a comment on the McCain aide thread, but it got rather long, so I figured I'd post it as a diary.]

The Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party is the Democratic Party in MN. The Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party (unaffiliated with a national party of that name) was founded in 1918, stating that the Democratic Party was too close to the Republicans, representing only the well-off and ignoring the concerns of people like the miners in the Iron Range and farmers. It was largely regarded as socialist.

(Turns out I won't be in Idaho after all, it seems...)

A thought for the impeachment-pushers: if things go badly enough for the GOP that both Bush and Cheney get removed, it should be reasonably possible to get the Senate to pick Kerry as President Pro Tem. It's just a simple vote, and the "longest-serving member of the majority party" thing is custom, not law, and there've been exceptions to it before. Then Hastert just has to be pressured to pass on the job of President once it devolves onto him.

Just something for those I've seen saying we'd have to be impeaching until we got about a dozen places down the succession.

I was planning on continuing the "Bush vs. the Government" theme I posted about last week into a bit of a series, agency-by-agency, focusing on how Bush, his mismanagement, and his policies (and appointees) had frustrated, irritated, or endangered those departments. Alas, I'm going to be in Idaho for the next month, so it's not likely I'll be in much position to do posting. Maybe someone else could take up the plan. US.gov has a good list of agencies to work from.

I've been thinking about how, in that press conference, Bush was unable to think of a single post-9/11 mistake. Very disturbing.

It's symptomatic of a greater problem with him, and I think Kerry would do well to shine some more light on just how incapable of admitting error Bush is.

Some thoughts on approaches:

I've been noting the reports about the CIA being particularly hostile to the rest of the gov't post-Plame, and recent stories about how everyone's stopped talking to one another, and decided to look a little deeper.

Looking at the whole government... I think Bush has a serious problem. They've all got strong reasons to be upset right now.

A (long) list of problems, sorted by agency/administration/directorate, in no particular order: