Nick Anderson

More Trouble For McCain Candidacy

First we had all the flip-flopping, and now this:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions.

In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain’s chief political strategist.

Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCain’s case, they said, it was McCain’s top strategist who came to them. * * *

Wow.

What Is It With These People?

From ABC News:

Bush administration officials throughout the government have engaged in White House-directed efforts to stifle, delay or dampen the release of climate change research that casts the White House or its policies in a bad light, says a new report that purports to be the most comprehensive assessment to date of the subject.

The reason why most members of the Bush Regime always seems to have their heads up their asses is because, with these people, it's all politics all the time. The recent PurgeGate Scandal arose from this obsession with politics. There's simply no substance. None. That's one hell of a way to run a country.

John DiIulio, the former Bush director of the White House Office Of Faith-based and Community Initiatives, summed it up this way (via Kevin Drum):

In eight months, I heard many, many staff discussions, but not three meaningful, substantive policy discussions. There were no actual policy white papers on domestic issues. There were, truth be told, only a couple of people in the West Wing who worried at all about policy substance and analysis....On social policy and related issues, the lack of even basic policy knowledge, and the only casual interest in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking -- discussions by fairly senior people who meant Medicaid but were talking Medicare; near-instant shifts from discussing any actual policy pros and cons to discussing political communications, media strategy, et cetera. Even quite junior staff would sometimes hear quite senior staff pooh-pooh any need to dig deeper for pertinent information on a given issue.

The last straw for me on all of this was when Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, was put in charge of the post-Katrina reconstruction effort. Heckuva job, Rovie.

Joe Conason States The Obvious

It is funny that nobody in the Corporate Media has really come right out and said this yet, given that it is incredibly obvious (from Salon):

The proposal to interview the president's chief political counselor without an oath or even a transcript is absurd for a simple and obvious reason. Yet the White House press corps, despite a long and sometimes testy series of exchanges with Snow, is too polite to mention that reason, so let me spell it out as rudely as necessary right here:

Rove is a proven liar who cannot be trusted to tell the truth even when he is under oath, unless and until he is directly threatened with the prospect of prison time. Or has everyone suddenly forgotten his exceedingly narrow escape from criminal indictment for perjury and false statements in the Valerie Plame Wilson investigation? Only after four visits to the grand jury convened by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, and a stark warning from Fitzgerald to defense counsel of a possible indictment, did Rove suddenly remember his role in the exposure of Plame as a CIA agent.

Not only did Rove lie, but he happily let others lie on his behalf, beginning in September 2003, when Scott McClellan, then the White House press secretary, publicly exonerated him of any blame in the outing of Plame. From that autumn until his fifth and final appearance before the grand jury in April 2006, the president's "boy genius" concealed the facts about his leak of Plame's CIA identity to Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper.

There is no reason to believe that Rove would ever have told the truth if Fitzgerald had not forced Cooper to testify before the grand jury and surrender his incriminating notes, with a contempt citation and the threat of a long sojourn in jail. Indeed, there is no reason to think that even knowing Cooper had testified would have made Rove testify accurately. He failed to do so from July 2005 until April 2006, after all. But in December 2005, Fitzgerald impaneled a new grand jury and started to present evidence against him.

The Bush Regime is made up of liars, with Rove being the lying-est liar of them all. Demanding that they be under oath when they testify seems like a reasonable position to take given their past history.

Hell, an oath to tell the truth probably isn't enough for someone like Rove, who had to go before the Plame grand jury four times before he got it right. I wonder if he could be put under oath and hooked up to a lie detector when he testifies. A loud buzzer could go off every time he lies (like the lie detector Moe was hooked up to on The Simpsons).

It's About Freaking Time

The editorial writers of the Washington Post came out with yet another hit piece attacking the Democrats' position on the Iraq Catastrophe. This is what Democratic Rep. David Obey said on the House floor today with regard to the Post's editiorial page (via Talking Points Memo):

Let me submit to you the problem we have today is not that we didn't listen enough to people like The Washington Post. It's that we listened too much. They endorsed going to war in the first place. They helped drive the drumbeat that drove almost two-thirds of the people in this chamber to vote for that misbegotten, stupid, ill-advised war that has destroyed our influence over a third of the world. So I make no apology if the moral sensibilities of some people on this floor, or the editorial writers of The Washington Post, are offended because they don't like the specific language contained in our benchmarks or in our timelines.

What matters in the end is not what the specific language is. What matters is whether or not we produce a product today that puts pressure on this Administration and sends a message to Iraq, to the Iraqi politicians that we're going to end the permanent long-term dead end babysitting service. That's what we're trying to do. And if The Washington Post is offended about the way we do it, that's just too bad.

I've often expressed my view that the American News Media are just as responsible for getting us into the Iraq Debacle as anyone else, and it's about time someone in Congress brought this up.

My Favorite Exchange From Yesterday's Global Warming Hearing

There were a lot of great moments, but this one was clearly my favorite:

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) has said Al Gore is “full of crap” and compared people who believe in global warming to “the Third Reich.” During [yester]day’s Senate hearing, Inhofe used a considerable amount of time to attack Gore’s use of carbon offsets and try to convince him to sign a sham “energy ethics pledge.” (Find the real facts on Gore’s energy usage HERE and HERE.)

Inhofe asked Gore for his reaction, but then quickly cut him off saying Gore had taken up too much time. When Gore tried to go on, Inhofe repeatedly interrupted, adding, “I don’t want to be rude, but from now on, I’m going to ask you to respond…in writing.” Inhofe said Gore could respond verbally only if it was a “very brief response.”

Committee chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) finally intervened. “Would you agree to let the Vice President answer your questions?” Inhofe said Gore could respond when he was done talking, but Boxer wouldn’t have it: “No, that isn’t the rule. You’re not making the rules. You used to when you did this. Elections have consequences. So I make the rules.” The hearing audience applauded loudly.

Beautiful. I also enjoyed how Gore kept his cool through all of it, even though that Inhofe Asshole was clearly trying to get Gore to lose it. Gore even invited Inhofe to have lunch with him so they could talk about these issues in a more relaxed environment.

Gore/Obama 2008.

The Final Nail?

From the Washington Post:

The leader of the Justice Department team that prosecuted a landmark lawsuit against tobacco companies said yesterday that Bush administration political appointees repeatedly ordered her to take steps that weakened the government's racketeering case.

Sharon Y. Eubanks said Bush loyalists in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's office began micromanaging the team's strategy in the final weeks of the 2005 trial, to the detriment of the government's claim that the industry had conspired to lie to U.S. smokers.

She said a supervisor demanded that she and her trial team drop recommendations that tobacco executives be removed from their corporate positions as a possible penalty. He and two others instructed her to tell key witnesses to change their testimony. And they ordered Eubanks to read verbatim a closing argument they had rewritten for her, she said.

"The political people were pushing the buttons and ordering us to say what we said," Eubanks said. "And because of that, we failed to zealously represent the interests of the American public." * * *

Senator Feinstein said the other day that we've only seen the tip of the iceberg on this ProsecutorGate Scandal, and it looks like she was right. The real story doesn't necessarily involve the prosecutors who were fired for not doing the White House's bidding, but the prosecutors who weren't fired because they gave in to the political pressure.

Of course, this scandal wouldn't have snowballed like it did if it wasn't for the Democratic victory last November. Sure, Josh Marshall would have still broken the story, but a GOP-controlled Congress would have ignored it (just like it ignored the Downing Street Memos) and the mainstream media certainly would not have picked up on it. And folks like Sharon Eubanks would still be keeping their mouths shut on this issue if it wasn't for the fact that the Democrats now control both branches of Congress.

UPDATE: Robert Reich chimes in on this:

The real question isn’t whether the eight U.S. attorneys were fired because they refused to carry out the Republicans’ political agenda. It’s obvious to anyone with a brain capable of processing information that’s exactly why they were fired.

The real question concerns the other eighty-five U.S. attorneys who are still there. What kind of political vendettas have they engaged in, in exchange for keeping their jobs? Until all the information is out about the White House’s and the Attorney General’s political operation, a cloud hangs over the entire federal prosecutorial system. Senator Pat Leahy, whom Dick Cheney suggested copulating with himself, and who now runs the Senate Judiciary, should bear this in mind.

Bong Hits Cause Rift Between Bush And Religious Right

The first two words of this post's title should probably be in quotes, but punctuation was never one of my strengths. Anyway, it looks like our highest court has a major free speech case on its docket next week (from the New York Times):

A Supreme Court case about the free-speech rights of high school students, to be argued on Monday, has opened an unexpected fissure between the Bush administration and its usual allies on the religious right.

As a result, an appeal that asks the justices to decide whether school officials can squelch or punish student advocacy of illegal drugs has taken on an added dimension as a window on an active front in the culture wars, one that has escaped the notice of most people outside the fray. And as the stakes have grown higher, a case that once looked like an easy victory for the government side may prove to be a much closer call.

On the surface, Joseph Frederick’s dispute with his principal, Deborah Morse, at the Juneau-Douglas High School in Alaska five years ago appeared to have little if anything to do with religion — or perhaps with much of anything beyond a bored senior’s attitude and a harried administrator’s impatience.

As the Olympic torch was carried through the streets of Juneau on its way to the 2002 winter games in Salt Lake City, students were allowed to leave the school grounds to watch. The school band and cheerleaders performed. With television cameras focused on the scene, Mr. Frederick and some friends unfurled a 14-foot-long banner with the inscription: “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” * * *

The student, after receiving a ten-day suspension for his efforts, sued the principal and the Juneau School Board, who are both represented in this litigation by Ken Starr, the right-wing sex freak best known for his role in the PenisGate Scandal.

The Religious Right is concerned about this case because they see it as an attack on the religious freedom of students, which is hysterical because the kid who designed the banner testified that he first saw the slogan on a snowboard and that he used it so the banner would be "meaningless and funny," which would help it "get on television.”

OK, So This Isn't All That Surprising . . .

. . . but it is still interesting (from Editor & Publisher):

Dr. James Knodell, director of the Office of Security at the White House, told a congressional committee today that he was aware of no internal investigation or report into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame.

The White House had first opposed Knodell testifying but after a threat of a subpoena from the committee yesterday he was allowed to appear today.

Knodell testified that those who had participated in the leaking of classified information were required to attest to this and he was not aware that anyone, including Karl Rove, had done that.

He said that he had started at the White House in August 2004, a year after the leak, but his records show no evidence of a probe or report there: "I have no knowledge of any investigation in my office," he said.

Rep. Waxman recalled that President Bush had promised a full internal probe. Knodell repeated that no probe took place, as far as he knew, and was not happening today.

Knodell said he had "no" conversations whatsoever with the president, vice president, Karl Rove or anyone about the leak.

Asked by chairman Rep. Henry Waxman if he knew this was an issue of concern, he said "yes." Asked if he learned this from the White House or the press, he said, "through the press."

Rep. Elijah Cummings said all of this was "shocking." Waxman said that Knodell's office's lack of action was a "breach within a breach." Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton called this a "dereliction of duty."

Bush promising an internal probe of the Plame outing is akin to O.J. promising to look for his ex-wife's killer.

What A Load Of Crap

I laughed when I read about the so-called "growing rift" between the White House and the attorney general over the ProsecutorGate Scandal:

The two Republicans, who spoke anonymously so they could share private conversations with senior White House officials, said top aides to Mr. Bush, including Fred F. Fielding, the new White House counsel, were concerned that the controversy had so damaged Mr. Gonzales’s credibility that he would be unable to advance the White House agenda on national security matters, including terrorism prosecutions.

“I really think there’s a serious estrangement between the White House and Alberto now,” one of the Republicans said....

Serious estrangement? Why? Did I imagine it, or didn't I read somewhere that Harriet Miers and Karl Rove -- i.e., people from the White House -- were involved in the firing of the U.S. attorneys?

Maybe the two Republicans referred to above didn't hear about the recently-released memos and e-mails that showed a White House connection to all this, but I guess you could hardly blame them. It's hard to keep track of everything, particularly with regard to an administration that is coming apart at the seams like this one is.

And speaking of Rove, I thought this was pretty funny as well:

[I]nside the White House, aides to the president, including Mr. Rove and Joshua B. Bolten, the chief of staff, were said to be increasingly concerned that the controversy could damage Mr. Bush.

“They’re taking it seriously,” said the other of the two Republicans who spoke about the White House’s relationship with Mr. Gonzales. “I think Rove and Bolten believe there is the potential for erosion of the president’s credibility on this issue.”

It's hard to have erosion when there ain't no soil or bedrock left.

What The Uproar Over Ann Coulter Is Really About

From Gary Kamiya at Salon:

[T]his isn't really about Coulter at all. This is about a pact the American right made with the devil, a pact the devil is now coming to collect on. American conservatism sold its soul to the Coulters and Limbaughs of the world to gain power, and now that its ideology has been exposed as empty and its leadership incompetent and corrupt, free-floating hatred is the only thing it has to offer. The problem, for the GOP, is that this isn't a winning political strategy anymore -- but they're stuck with it. They're trapped. They need the bigoted and reactionary base they helped create, but the very fanaticism that made the True Believers such potent shock troops will prevent the Republicans from achieving Karl Rove's dream of long-term GOP domination.

Truer words have never been written.

This Guy Should Move To The U.S. And Become A Republican

He'd fit right in:

Israel has recalled its ambassador to El Salvador after he was found naked, bound and drunk, according to Israeli media reports confirmed Monday by a government spokeswoman.

The longtime diplomat, Tsuriel Raphael, has been removed from his post and the Foreign Ministry has begun searching for a replacement, said ministry spokeswoman Zehavit Ben-Hillel.

Two weeks ago, El Salvador police found Raphael in the yard of his residence, tied up, gagged with a ball and drunk, Israeli media reported. He was wearing sex bondage equipment, the media said. After he was untied, Raphael told police he was the ambassador of Israel, the reports said.

More GOP Scumbaggery (With Update)

You really can't make this shit up:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged he was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.

"The honest answer is yes," Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."

Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity.

"The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge," the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton's 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. "I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept ... perjury in your highest officials. Especially when it involves a blow job. But perjury and obstruction of justice is OK if it is merely committed by the vice-president's chief-of-staff who is also a top advisor to the president, and it is merely committed during an investigation as to whether someone in the White House outed a CIA operative who was working on WMD proliferation issues during a time of war. Then perjury isn't that big of a deal.'"

OK, so I made up those last few sentences -- everything above "especially when it involves a blow job" is Newt's actual quote -- but that's really what he is saying, isn't it? Newt's timing for such an announcement is a bit off thanks to the recent Libby verdict, but is there ever a good time to admit you are a hypocrite?

He obviously wants to run for president and he's just trying to get this little problem out of the way now before he makes an announcement. I wish him luck. I really do hope he gets the GOP nomination.

And by the way, this is a great cartoon.

UPDATE: Here's a little background on Newt Gingrich's marital history (from Scoobie Davis via Eric Alterman):

1) Gingrich marries his high school teacher, Jackie, who was seven years his senior; 2) Jackie puts Gingrich through college and she works hard to get him elected to the House in 1978 (Gingrich won partly because his campaign claimed that his Democratic opponent would neglect her family if elected -- at that time it was common knowledge that Gingrich was straying); 3) Shortly after being elected, Gingrich separated from his wife -- announcing the separation in the hospital room where Jackie was recovering from cancer surgery (the divorce was final in 1981); Jackie Gingrich and her children had to depend on alms from her church because Gingrich didn't pay any child support; 3) Six months after the divorce, Gingrich, then 38, married Marianne Ginther, 30; 4) "In May 1999, however, Gingrich [55] called Marianne [48] at her mother's home. After wishing the 84-year-old matriarch happy birthday, he told Marianne that he wanted a divorce." This was eight months after Marianne was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis; 5) In 2000, Gingrich, 57, married ex-congressional aide Callista Bisek, 34, with whom he was having a relationship while married to Marianne.

Bill Clinton is an amateur compared to this guy.

I Guess Third Time Is Not A Charm For Some People

From CNN:

A Southern Baptist leader said Tuesday that evangelical voters might tolerate a divorced presidential candidate, but they have deep doubts about GOP hopeful Rudy Giuliani, who has been married three times.

Richard Land, head of public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention, told The Associated Press that evangelicals believe the former New York City mayor showed a lack of character during his divorce from his second wife, television personality Donna Hanover.

"I mean, this is divorce on steroids," Land said. "To publicly humiliate your wife in that way, and your children. That's rough. I think that's going to be an awfully hard sell, even if he weren't pro-choice and pro-gun control."

The fact that all GOP candidates for president have to pass through their party's Evangelical base is the Achilles' Heel for the Republicans. Indeed, it is such a powerful force that even an alleged "straight-talker" like John McCain has been forced to flip-flop like a madman in order to cozy up to these radical religious extremists.

Although Giuliani doesn't seem like a very nice person -- his own son reportedly won't have any part in his campaign -- he appears to be a moderate Republican who probably wouldn't be a bad president. Of course, I felt the same way about George W. Bush when he was appointed to the presidency, so maybe I'm not a very good judge of character.

In any event, it will be interesting to see how Giuliani will handle these wingnuts. I'm kind of rooting for him to pass through this Evangelical filter and emerge as the GOP nominee without having to flip-flop like McCain has. If that happens, then maybe the GOP can finally break away from these radical elements and this country can get to work on solving real problems.

It's FitzMas Morning In America

Scooter found guilty on four out of five counts. Sure, he'll probably be pardoned, but it is still a great day for this nation.

UPDATE: Fitzgerald just said that he doesn't anticipate any more charges being filed in this investigation and that the investigation is inactive at this time. He also said that if new information comes forward, then his team will take a look at it.

UPDATE II: I watched FauxNews over the lunch hour -- I love watching that channel when the big story of the day amounts to bad news for the Bush Regime -- and Brit Hume basically said that Bush has a moral obligation to pardon Scooter Libby given that his trial amounted to a miscarriage of justice. If this article is any indication, the extreme right has apparently decided to run with this Pardon Scooter! talking point. Oh, and Hume also took the opportunity to call Joe Wilson a liar.

Kos basically summed up my position on all this:

So let me get this straight -- according to conservatives, lying about a blow job was an impeachable offense, but lying about outing a CIA agent focused on the Iranian nuclear program is much ado about nothing? Okay, got it.

What I found fascinating about the Libby trial was how much came out about BushCo's efforts to discredit war critics. Cheney was obsessed with the desire to crush Joe Wilson, which basically told me that Cheney and the rest of them knew that they took this country to war based on a lie.

You Left Out "Immoral Piece-Of-Shit," But . . .

. . . otherwise it was a good start:

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) got the [Conservative Political Action Conference] crowd cheering early in the day. "I have been called -- my kids are all aware of this -- dumb, crazy man, science abuser, Holocaust denier, villain of the month, hate-filled, warmonger, Neanderthal, Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun," he announced. "And I can just tell you that I wear some of those titles proudly."

Inhofe repeated his view that man-made global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," and he quarreled with a Bush administration proposal to list polar bears as a threatened species. "They're overpopulated," he declared. "Don't worry about it: The polar bear is fine." His staff handed out supporting documentation, including the claim that "MARS HAS GLOBAL WARMING DESPITE ABSENCE OF SUVs."

I'm embarrassed to be from the same species as this guy.

That's One Hell Of A Reporting Job, BBC

Via Wonkette:

The Internets are buzzing with the bizarre story of BBC News reporting the 9/11 collapse of WTC7 before the building actually collapsed — all over a live shot of Ground Zero, with the 47-story highrise clearly in view and clearly standing.

What it “proves” is anyone’s guess, but it sure makes for hilarious viewing. But BBC reporters and anchors who maybe didn’t know the Manhattan skyline so well could possibly be forgiven for reporting an erroneous story and not knowing that great big highrise was World Trade Center 7 (otherwise known as the Salomon Brothers building). So why doesn’t the BBC simply say it got a story wrong and didn’t know any better? Stranger still, why did New York-based CNN anchor Aaron Brown do the same exact thing on September 11, 2001?

This unfolding story is a 9-11 conspiracy theorist's dream. The BBC is now claiming it lost all of its 9/11 video (yeah right), and Google deleted its copies of the video yesterday. YouTube still has it here, but you better hurry.

ProsecutorGate (With Update)

I haven't written anything on the emerging scandal involving BushCo's apparent politically-based firings of several federal prosecutors. This New York Times editorial summarizes the situation pretty well:

It is time for the Justice Department to stop issuing rote denials that are becoming increasingly hard to believe about the suspicious firing of eight United States attorneys. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should appoint an impartial investigator to get to the bottom of this unfolding scandal.

Just this week, David Iglesias, one of the eight fired United States attorneys, charged that he was dismissed for resisting pressure to begin a politically charged prosecution before the 2006 election. His allegation came shortly after performance evaluations came to light that throw considerable doubt on the Justice Department’s claim that the United States attorneys were fired for poor performance.

United States attorneys, the highest federal prosecutors at the state level, must be insulated from politics. Their decisions about whether to indict can ruin lives, and change the outcome of elections. To ensure their independence, United States attorneys are almost never removed during the term of the president who appointed them.

The Bush administration ignored this tradition, and trampled on prosecutorial independence, by firing eight United States attorneys in rapid succession, including one, Carol Lam of San Diego, who had put a powerful Republican congressman in jail. Mr. Iglesias, who was the U.S. attorney in New Mexico, says two members of Congress called him last October and urged him to pursue corruption charges against a prominent Democrat before the November election. He did not. He was dismissed.

Most of the fired United States attorneys’ performance evaluations praise them for the quality of their work, and for following the priorities set in Washington. These do not appear to be the evaluations of people who were fired for poor performance. * * *

I guess I didn't get too excited about this because, well, we have seen this type of thing before. The main reason Bush's presidency will be lumped amongst the worst in American history is because every decision this adminstration makes is based purely on politics and/or revenge. Folks like General Eric Shinseki, Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, Coleen Rowley, and Richard Clarke all served this country with distinction and yet were treated like shit by the Bush Regime. So when I heard that all of these U.S. attorneys were fired, I merely thought it was "business as usual" for Bush.

But the background of the David Iglesias firing is very interesting, especially the part about two Republican members of Congress calling him last October and urging him to indict a Democrat before the November election. I have no doubt they were ordered by Karl Rove to make these calls. If this did indeed occur, then these acts would constitute ethics violations at the very least. Congress is investigating.

And speaking of that investigation, I thought this was pretty funny:

On Thursday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., issued subpoenas to require Iglesias and three other ousted U.S. attorneys to testify before Congress.

The judiciary subcommittee on administrative law authorized the subpoenas by a 7-0 vote. The five Republican members of the subcommittee didn't show up for the vote.

I love that last part about the GOP members of the subcommittee not showing up for the vote. What a political hot potato this must be for them. After all, if they showed up and voted against the subpoenas, then their political opponents could label them as being "pro-corruption," and if they voted to allow the subpoenas, then BushCo and its apologists would brand them as traitors.

I'm certain that we'll be seeing a lot more of this "not showing up for the vote" stuff in the months ahead. It should be a fun couple of years.

UPDATE: Well, it looks like at least half of Iglesias' story is true. Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) has admitted that he did make such a call:

In retrospect, I regret making that call and I apologize. However, at no time in that conversation or any other conversation with Mr. Iglesias did I ever tell him what course of action I thought he should take on any legal matter. I have never pressured him nor threatened him in any way.

Domenici then fully embraced the BushCo talking point on this and stated that Iglesias was fired because he wasn't working hard enough on issues such as immigration. What a crock.