Longtime Kos reader, I was initially an Edwards supporter, and really wanted to get behind Obama.  But the more I read, the more I felt disillusioned with him.  I saw a huge gap between his rhetoric, which I thought was good, and his policy proposals, which I thought were generally libertarian nothings.

I think the reason for this schism is Austan Goolsbee, the U.Chicago professor who is Obama's chief economic advisor.  A bit more on this below the fold.

I don't have the time for a long diary, but I wanted to insert a talking point that I really think needs to be pushed: namely, that a special prosecutor should be appointed at this time, to investigate the US Attorney firings.

In short, the reason for this is that, while the Senate and House have broad investigative powers, my understanding is that they don't have criminal prosecutorial powers.

I'm no tinfoil hat guy, and generally try to take conspiracies with a grain of salt.  That being said, if this election once again produces results that are disjunctive with the exit polls, I'll be convinced that massive fraud will continue to take place for the foreseeable future, whether via electronic voting machines or more "bricks and mortar"-based methods (throwing away ballots, etc.)  Karl Rove's optimism might be, as Kos says, a bluff.  Or it might be the knowing smirking optimism of the prize fighter who knows his bout is rigged.

The question I have, what should we do about it?  I for one don't have any ideas.  But if the evidence is overwhelming (which it appears to be nearing) that massive fraud is tainting our elections, what should we do?

I'm not a scientist, but to me it seems highly likely that fraud has already occurred in every election since 2000.

So far, the coverage on the Andy Hurst-Tom Davis debate has been very positive in favor of Hurst. For those who don't know, Tom Davis is the Republican Congressman representing VA-11, a wealthy DC suburb, which is leaning slightly anti-Republican and may be ripe for an unexpected pickup. As the chair of the Committee on Government Reform, Davis is one of the leaders in the Republicans' "culture of corruption", as well as a key enabler in the blank-check, look-the-other-way Congressional non-oversight of George W. Bush's illegal activities over the last 6 years.

Andy appropriately hit Davis hard on these and other issues last night in their debate. The Washington Post's coverage was very positive for Andy, and we should see more good coverage in the next few days, as Andy did a great job in standing up to Tom Davis. More below the flip. (For a more detailed description from someone who was at the debate, check out Ambivalent Musing's diary)

For the last 20+ years, the Republican playbook has pushed tax cuts as its number 1 recommendation.  And frankly, I think Republicans have had a major edge on this issue.  After all, who doesn't want their taxes cut, other than altruists and policy wonks, who comprise maybe 1% of the population?

I want to start pushing 2 memes: 1) tax cuts for the rich and for big business are the worst kind of entitlement; and 2) Republicans are addicted to tax cuts for the rich and for big business, even as the economy is being ravaged, and good jobs are leaving this country, and we can't afford to pay for good schools, or roads, or enough police officers.

The latest amusing example of the denizens of Freerepublic.com attempting to use their brains.

Basically, taking a cue from the White House, the Freepers are busy searching for appropriate grounds for ad hominem attacks on Murtha.  As the right-wing site Newsmax learned, in 1993, Murtha called for US troops to pull out of Somalia, which eventually led Clinton to actually do so.  And, if one were insane, as these people are, one could claim that this allowed Osama bin Laden to attack the US, which of course they do.  At the very least, if you're crazy, you could call him a coward.

Simple enough.  Except for the inconvenient fact that pretty much every Republican in 1993 also wanted to pull out of Somalia. The ensuing comments are quite amusing, imo, as the Freepers waver between attacking Murtha (as alternatively a coward or an enabler) and attacking Clinton for putting our troops in Somalia.  Fun times.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/

Really explosive stuff, some of the stuff Josh Marshall was discussing in TPM.  Richard Sale is apparently UPI's intelligence correspondent.

(Edited by request, after some effort. I learned a lil HTML today. Yes I realize that makes me sophisticated circa 1994.)

THE NIGER FORGERIES
How Did Allegations from Discredited Documents End Up in a State of the Union Speech?
By Richard Sale, Intelligence Correspondent

DOUG FEITH'S BACKCHANNEL
In December 2001, there was a secret meeting in Rome attended by MICHAEL LEDEEN, a paid consultant to Panorama, the Italian magazine that first broke the story of the Niger documents, Defense Department official, LARRY FRANKLN, since indicted for passing classified information to Israel, the classified documents outlining US policy towards Iran and U.S activities in Iraq. HAROLD RHODE, another DOD official was there, and, like FRANKLIN, was from the office of DOUG FEITH Undersecretary of Defense for Policy.

More below the fold.

So every once in a while, I troll on freerepublic.com to see what the right wing nuts are saying.

So i was checking it out today, and i see a thread linking to a story in which Noam Chomsky was voted the world's top living intellectual by the Brits (Eco came in 2nd).  

So basically you have a bunch of Freepers, 99% of whom have clearly never read a word by Chomsky, attempting to criticize Chomsky.  Good times.  

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1504644/posts

Some of my favorites below the fold.

Was browsing through Freerepublic, where I found reports from people who claim to know Miers from her days in Texas.  They claim she is obviously pro-life, and any contributions she made to any Democrats were because her law firm made her do so, as the head of the law firm's PAC.

I also found this little nugget, quoting a good friend of Miers, Nathan Hecht, "the Texas Supreme Court justice who is a prolife hero for strongly supporting parental notification laws five years ago when a SCOTEX majority was scuttling them."

http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/

Among the excerpts:
Hecht and Miers "went to two or three prolife dinners in the late 80s or early 90s."

On abortion, choosing his words carefully for an on-the-record statement, he says "her personal views are consistent with that of evangelical Christians... You can tell a lot about her from her decade of service in a conservative church."

I just called the NY Times to cancel my subscription, except for Sunday.  When the customer service representative asked if there was anything else she could help me with, I told her that I wanted to give a reason for cancelling, and if she could direct my reason to the appropriate people, I would appreciate it.

I told her that the Times' atrocious coverage of Judy Miller was the reason for cancelling, and she thanked me and told me that complaints like mine were helpful for them.

From Dobson's webpage, literally hours of amusement.  My favorite?  In giving advice on how to treat "pre-homosexual urges", Dobson cites Dr. Joseph Niccolosi, clinical psychologist and author of the soon-to-be-released book "A Parent's Guide to Homosexuality", who recommends:

"[T]he boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard.  He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger."

More excerpts after the break.

I know that most people on the Left are calling for at least an aggressive hearing on Roberts, if not an all-out filibuster war.  After thinking about it, I disagree.  Here are the important questions in my mind:

1. What happens if we try to filibuster Roberts?  Even if we successfully filibuster him?
   
2. What is Karl Rove hoping to accomplish with this nomination at this time?
   
3. What should be the focus of the Democratic leadership right now?

My opinions on the answers to these: