At the end of the day

Whistlin' Dixie with South Carolina conservatives in mind, the Huckster flapped the Confederate flag. An "independent group" sponsored a "flag issue" radio ad that smacked McCain and poured a heaping helping of praise on how Huckabee "understands the value of heritage." On Huck's values, Joe Conason at Salon wrote about his religious extremism and his ties to it. His face was sharp as a butcher’s cleaver... Look away!

None of the above -- 19% of SC GOP voters are undecided. Is that big? No, it's "HUGE."

What's a GOP code word for heartless bastard? In, SC, Fred Thompson dissed Bush's global AIDS initiative because "Christ didn’t tell us to go to the government and pass a bill to get some of these social problems dealt with. He told us to do it... ...we need to keep firmly in mind the role of the government, and the role of us as individuals and as Christians on the other.” Countering Fred's criticism, Bush's former speechifier Michael Gerson said of Fred, "he clearly is playing to isolationist sentiments." TP offers more, um, insight.

Mr. and Mrs. Obama took a swipe at Hillary's voting record. When it comes to taking a stand on an issue, you're either fer it or agin it. Oh, wait...

Picking up from Manifesto Joe, the Bush-league economic stimulus plan refrains that one-hit wonder -- Tax cuts, baby! Via Sam Boyd at Campaign for America's Future, the CBO applauds the Democratic solution.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) "ain't buying" WH spokesman Tony Fratto's kooky denial, "We have no reason to believe that any e-mail at all are missing." Oh? Emptywheel explained why Tony should have kept his piehole shut and today connected a few dots to the Plame investigation. Way to go, Fratto! Fred Fielding must luv u.

The No. 3 U.S. diplomat -- R. Nicholas Burns -- will leave the State Department in March for personal reasons. Uh huh. He'll remain involved "as a special envoy on India." U.S. Ambassador to Moscow William J. Burns will replace Burns. The two are not related. Tomorrow's WaPo.

Bob Somerby aptly covered the truncated, bogus apology from Tweety. Transcript at Media Matters. Corpus Juris posted the video .

First, Lee Siegel called us blogofascists. Now he whines that we're Stalinists (h/t Avedon).

Passive-Aggressive: In today's NYT column, David Brooks compared presidential frontrunners, Democratic to GOP -- "...a daughter of the feminist movement, a beneficiary of the civil rights movement and a self-styled proletarian. These are powerful Democratic categories" vs. "a pastor, a businessman and a war hero. These are the three most evocative Republican leadership models." Is Bobo aware of his unconscious cognition? Doorknobs say maybe, maybe not.

[That's all...no more after the jump.]

There's more: "At the end of the day" >>

New Day, New Letter

Today is a new day. That means a new letter. Today's letter is from Henry Waxman, John Conyers and William Clay and it is addressed to Alberto Gonzales.

You might have thought that all this Dick Cheney is the 4th branch nonsense is brand new. Wrong, as WTWC's grape_crush pointed out a few days ago the Vice President has been making his 4th branch claim for years. It seems that On January 9,2007, J. William Leonard, Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, wrote to Alberto Gonzales requesting an interpretation as to whether the Office of the Vice President is bound by the executive order. According to the letter, Mr. Leonard's request was made pursuant to a provision in the executive order that requires the Attomey General to resolve legal questions in response to such inquiries. To date the Attorney General hasn't responded to Mr. Leonard's request. The very polite congressmen ask the Attorney General some questions

(1) What is the status of your department's response to the January 2007 request from the Archives?

a. When did the review commence?

b. Which individuals at the department have been assigned to review this matter?

c. Please produce all documents relating to your department's review of this matter, including without limitation all communications, analyses, memoranda. or other documents.

(2) Have officials from the Department of Justice ever communicated with officials from the White House, including the Office of the Vice President, concerning the request from the Archives or the issue of whether the executive order does or should apply to the Office of the Vice President?

a. If so, please identifu and explain the substance of any such
communication.

b. Please produce all documents relating to any such communication

(3) Has the Department of Justice ever taken a position on or analyzed the issue of the status or existence of the Vice President or the Office of the Vice President within the executive branch, the legislative branch, both, or neither?

a. If so, please identiff all instances in which the department has addressed this issue and explain the position, if any taken by the department.

b. Please produce all documents relating to this issue, including memoranda, legal briefs, communications, and any other documents.

(4) Have officials from the White House, including the Office of the Vice President, ever cofirmunicated with ofñcials from the Department of Justice conceming the status or existence of the Vice President or the Office of the Vice President within the executive branch, the legislative branch, both, or neither?

a. If so, please identiff and explain the substance of any such
communication.

b. Please produce all documents relating to any such communication.

(5) When you were serving as White House Counsel, were you or anyone in your office involved in any way with drafting, assessing, or otherwise reviewing proposed revisions to the Executive Order in 2003?

a. If so, please explain whether you have considered recusing yourself from consideration of this issue.

b. Ifyou have elected not to recuse yourself please explain the basis for your decision.

You might be wondering about the last question. Spencer Ackerman of TPMmuckraker has an idea

If he was involved in the 2003 revision to EO 12958 (which became EO 13292), then he'd be able to speak to the question of whether the order always intended for the veep to be exempt -- which would further raise the question of whether Gonzales accepted David Addington's theory that the vice presidency is outside the executive branch. After all, the White House's fallback line in the controversy has been that president never "intended" for EO 13292 to apply to Cheney, thereby begging the question of what legal ground that contention is based upon. As White House counsel when President Bush revised the EO, Gonzales or a deputy must have looked at it; if no one from the counsel's office did, that itself is scandalous.

Any thought whether and how the AG responds?

There's more: "New Day, New Letter" >>

Chairman Waxman Has Sent Another Letter

Chairman Henry Waxman of the Committee on Government and Oversight Reform has sent another letter to the Administration. According to Chairman Waxman

* White House security officials have been blocked from inspecting West Wing offices for compliance with procedures for handling classified information. The White House has its own security office that functions independently of the Information Security Oversight Office in the National Archives. According to several security officials who have worked in this White House office, the Bush White House blocked the White House security officers from conducting unannounced inspections of the West Wing. This is a departure from the practices of the prior administration, which allowed these inspections.

* The White House regularly ignored security breaches. The security officers described repeated instances in which security breaches were reported to the White House Security Office by Secret Service or CIA agents, but were never investigated. In one case, the White House Security Office took no action after receiving a report that a White House official left classified materials unattended in a hotel room. In numerous instances, reports that White House officials left classified information on their desks went uninvestigated.

* The President’s top political advisor received a renewal of his security clearance despite presidential directives calling for the denial of security clearances for officials who misrepresent their involvement in security leaks. Under guidelines issued by President Bush, security clearances should not be renewed for individuals who deny their role in the release of classified information, regardless of whether the disclosure was intentional or negligent. Contrary to this guidance, the White House Security Office renewed the security clearance for Karl Rove in late 2006.

* The White House has condoned widespread mismanagement at the White House Security Office. According to the White House security officers, the White House allowed the White House Security Office to be run by managers who ignored basic security procedures and allowed other White House officials to do so also.

The letter was sent to White House Counsel Fred Fielding. You have to admit Henry Waxman is nothing if not persistent.

Of course, you can't expect anybody in the White House to be concerned with anything so pedestrian as security for top secret documents. They are just too important for such trivialities.

There's more: "Chairman Waxman Has Sent Another Letter" >>