HIATUS

In less than 24 hours I'll be putting everything that I own into a 10' trailer and moving back across the river to the District proper, where a cheaper, smaller and more scenic address awaits. In the meantime, my Internet will temporarily go down, and I'll be sorting out all the typical moving-related issues that one must at times like this. So Armed Prophet will take a short break while I get situated.

When I return, things will be a little different. I don't want to tip my hand, but I've decided to shake up the way that I blog in a way that will deal with some of the issues that I think have kept this blog from being all it can be. It'll take a bit of getting used to, but when all is settled I think everyone who comes to this site right now will find it a satisfactory compromise.

Expect an announcement sometime this weekend.

DIY?

PunkVoter.com, ill-informed as it is, I believe is genuine. This, on the other hand, isn't fooling anybody.

EAST COAST BIAS STRIKES AGAIN

Over at the Commentator, Olly points to a pretty funny Onion story from last week, wherein a high school biology teacher from my hometown gripes about convoluted, unfunny political cartoons. Worth reading. But so far no one at the OC has yet mentioned the glaring error contained in the article's first sentence:

A political cartoon in Monday's Daily Oregonian was more boring and confusing than the issue it attempted to address, area resident Craig Lawler reported Tuesday.

What's the Daily Oregonian? I'm familiar with The Oregonian, even sometimes referred to as the Portland Oregonian, but I can assure you there is no Daily Oregonian serving the greater metro area. At least, not unless one started up since I left. And in any case, if someone did, I imagine they would be promptly sued by S.I. Newhouse.

P.S. More accurately, it's East Coast ignorance. But I don't think it much of a stretch to call that a kind of bias.

REPUBLICANS IMITATE DAN ATKINSON

Late last week the RNC rolled out a blog aimed at challenging Democratic attacks. And what did they call it? A flog! How original. Here's Dan's flog, which readers of this site are probably well aware of. And here's the GOP flog, which you now are also. And here's a GOP-approved definition of the term, which they insist on putting at the top of the page:

Fact Log (FLOG)

(n.) Abbreviation of Fact log.

A Web page that serves as a publicly accessible journal of misstatements, mischaracterizations or factual errors with corresponding corrections and citation.

A communication tool used by a group or organization to publicly correct the record.

A frequent, chronological publication to simplify and accelerate the correction process.

(v.) To author a Fact log.

Other forms: Flogger (a person who flogs or submits a statement for flogging).

Homage, ripoff or meaningless coincidence? I report, you decide.

P.S. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the first sentence of the press release announcing this new flog's existence:

The Republican National Committee today unveiled a new Internet Flog or Fact-Log ... designed to track inaccurate statements made by Democrats and set the record straight with accurate information using real time web technology.

"Real time web technology"? So that's how they do it!

P.P.S. I almost forgot. Congrats!

BALDERDASH, POPPYCOCK AND FATUOUS TWADDLE

Google's shortcomings notwithstanding, it does almost seem as if the term "senatitis" was invented to describe John Kerry. Nexis turns up only this early March column by the blogosphere's celebrated own James Lileks. On his website, Lileks explains the term* as

a condition characterized by an unnatural belief in the unimpeachability of your every utterance. Twenty years of saying anything in a room full of rich guys who aren't really listening has to have an effect on one's ego. No one ever stands up and shouts 'Balderdash! Poppycock! Fatuous twaddle, sir, and if you persist in this infantile display of specious drivel I shall ask for you to meet me on the field of honor at dawn.'

I think of this because this morning, the Washington Post takes note:

Some Democrats are worried that their presumptive nominee's campaign is suffering from the candidate's inability to put a period in his sentences. They say an arguably trivial trait -- Kerry's penchant to wander off into the rhetorical woods -- has already proved damaging.

And the point is illustrated with this comparison of a written speech. Indignant about inadequate troop funding (ironic, I know) his written text read:

"How can this happen in the United States of America? Who among us could move on short notice when you don't even know where your paycheck will come from?"

Here's what he actually said:

"Now how can this happen in the United States of America in the way that it happens? ... Who among us thinks it's right to say so quickly, on short notice, before you even know where your next paycheck's going to come from; before you know, if you haven't been working, what skill you can apply to be able to earn a paycheck; before you've been able to adjust to the loss and begin to be able to get back into life?"

Those aren't my ellipses; I can only assume it was longer and windier than it reads.

But here's the real problem -- or as Kerry might say, "the real deal" -- it isn't just that he's like this, it's that he's been on the campaign trail for over a year and he has not improved. This Post article could have been written a year ago. And in fact, versions of it have. Consider this passage from a Boston Magazine article in February 2003:

A long-winded fence straddler in a state [New Hampshire] that prefers straight talkers, Kerry has to overcome early doubts about the consistency and reliability of his positions on key issues before he can appeal to voters who value strength and trustworthiness. Then there's that pesky likeableness factor, the chronic failure to connect with people that has earned Kerry a boilerplate adjective in published description after published description: aloof.

Not much has changed, has it? Then again, Kerry did win New Hampshire. But only because of Howard Dean's downward slide and eventual implosion, I think. Will Bush implode the same way? I wouldn't count on it.

_____
*While it would be nice to credit Lileks with the coinage, the first appearance seems to be in this Atlantic online article by Jack Beatty, whom I like a lot less.

WHAT TOOK SO LONG?

As of yesterday, Noam Chomsky is blogger. I won't be reading it, but if there's anything especially preposterous worth a few laughs, let me know. (Hat tip: Jeff Jarvis.)

On the other hand, I will keep checking in with Mark Cuban's blog, which he's been at for a week or so now. As you might expect, talking back to the media is a favorite topic, as is bitching about league officiating -- he's even shared the referee data and analysis he pays for. He doesn't write every day, but when he does he writes a lot. When you're an internet billionaire by the age of 40, I suppose you have the time.

I CAN ONLY ASSUME THIS IS ACCURATE

From the Associated Press, within the past hour or so:

PARIS (AP) - A mysterious group that claimed to have planted bombs on the French railroad network announced Thursday it is suspending its terror threats while it improves its ability to carry them out.

In two letters, addressed to President Jacques Chirac and Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, the group, which calls itself AZF, said that "there are currently no bombs capable of functioning on the French rail network."

"With the experience gained these last weeks and now conscious of its technological, logistic and other weaknesses, AZF suspends its action for the time needed to remedy this," the one-page typed letter said.

What kind of a terrorist outfit issues press releases announcing its own weakness? Or is this shamelessly capricious while meticulously ineffectual? Well, don't forget, they are French.

OH, CANADA

Armed Prophet's younger sister just returned from catching an NHL game in Calgary -- why Calgary for spring break? I'm not too sure myself -- whereupon she reports, at the hockey game they sold her beer (Molson, of course) in cups with lids and straws. Lids and straws! I know Canada is lame -- and believe me, I know -- but even this scrapes the depths of ridiculousness.

P.S. She also says at sporting events in the Great White North, they do play "YMCA" over the loudspeakers, but the fans don't dance. Then what's the point? Not lame, per se, but still pathetic.

EMACIATED SATURDAY

Blog would never let you confuse him with a supporter of the last war in Iraq, but at least he's objective enough to describe (and photograph) the invasion's one-year-anniversary commemorative protests as "more of a political Mardi Gras" than a coherent political movement.

RES IPSA LOQUITOR

The Boston Globe's Patrick Healy quotes Boston University professor Tobe Berkovitz as giving this assessment of Kerry's recent missteps:

He's got to avoid playing into the Republican hands when he makes these Kerryesque statements in which he takes both sides, like on the $87 billion for the troops.

Once the term "Kerryesque" is already commonly understood, isn't that battle already lost?

A CORRECTION

Considering how resistant the New York Times is to printing corrections -- even going so far as to file suit against those who would do it for them, it was no small shock to see one of their columnists own up to such a mistake this weekend. Not only that, but it's the only place I've yet seen make a correction on said topic. Of course, the columnist was David Brooks, who is nothing if not a decent character. Too decent, perhaps, to really cut it as a polemicist. As I noted, he may be wrong from time to time, but he'll never cut with the kind of invective his liberal colleagues will do on the same pages. Not unlike Tucker Carlson, he's a liberal's ideal conservative. But I digress. He notes:

Correction: In Tuesday's column I quoted the European Commission's president, Romano Prodi, telling the Italian newspaper La Stampa that force was not the answer to terrorism. I was relying on an Agence France-Presse translation, which was incorrect. Prodi actually said force should not be the only answer to terrorism. He said terrorism would not abate until the Israeli-Palestinian dispute was resolved.

I offer this up partly because I used this quote too, albeit indirectly. Prodi's actual statement is better than the über-defeatist quote we all read last week, but his contention that the existence of world terrorism is entirely dependent upon Israel and Palestine working out their differences still wrong and still pretty defeatist.

FLOG™ TAKES A WALK

Vacation? Pfft. By the end of the week I'll be well on to something else. There have to be a statute of limitations on these things; one can't just declare a blog fight and then take off for Spring Break. Bad form. Flog™ loses. Armed Prophet wins.

AFGHAN WIG-OUT

So, Musharraf's troops may or may not have Ayman al-Zawahiri cornered in Waziristan. Even if it's not him, it is surely a gang of al Qaeda/Taliban folks. Sounds to me like: a) the Iraq war did not alienate our allies, and b) we haven't "forgotten" about Afghanistan/Iraq. More evidence to support that: Colin Powell recently announced the U.S. doubling the amount of money we're donating to Afghanistan this year, to $2 billion. Seems to me the White House is dropping the ball by not making a bigger deal of this; I assume they're afraid of reminding the public how much spending has increased under this administration.)

But back to Zawahiri. Now that his name is back in the news again, I notice the television media has apparently decided they were pronouncing his name wrong. When he became an internationally-known figure three years ago, I recall his name being said, "Zawa-hear-ree." These days -- we'll take Ed Bradley on "60 Minutes" tonight -- I'm hearing "Zawa-huh-ree" or "Zawa-hurry." Same thing happened with Qatar a year ago. The Americanized pronunciation, bandied about during the 1991 Gulf War, was "Kuh-tar." Now it's "Cutter" or "Gutter," closer to the Qatari pronunciation. What, are we going to start saying "May-hee-ko" instead of "Mexico"? It's not like they're going to stop calling us "Americanos," even though we're always told how insensitive we are by calling ourselves "Americans" to the exclusion of countries on two continents.

Apparently we're being careful not to offend Zawahiri. The first President Bush had a better idea, calling Saddam Hussein "Sah-dum" (like "Adam") as a calculated insult; according to an Egyptian quoted in New York Magazine around the time of the last war, what Bush 41 was calling him was "a boy who fixes or cleans old shoes." More on that: "It's the dirtiest possible insult in some parts of the Arab world, but you have to have spent years on the streets of Alexandria or Cairo to know it." Hmm... well, Bush was in the CIA. I guess if anybody could know such a thing, it would be him.

P.S. Here's a year-old story on the proper pronunciation of Saddam's name. And one on "Qatar."

P.P.S. This just gets more confusing. Here is the VOA page (which agrees with Bradley) on foreign pronunciations. And here is linguistics blog (which more or less agrees with me) arguing that the VOA has it all wrong. Go figure.

SULLIVAN WOBBLES

Andrew Sullivan confirms my suspicion that he's working his way up to a Kerry endorsement:

Here's a question worth asking: whatever John Kerry's record, could he afford in office to be weak on terror? Wouldn't he be obliged to continue Bush's policies in Iraq and Afghanistan and even, as he has already promised, actually increase troop levels in those countries? I don't think it's out of the question. ... I'm not yet convinced and want to hear much more from Kerry. But I'm persuadable. Four more years of religious-right social policy and Nixonian fiscal policy is not something I really want to support.

Sullivan has been making overtures to voting Democratic in this election; this is probably the closest he's come to saying so outright. Now, the last sentence is compelling, but the first part doesn't fly with me. As David Brooks pointed out last week, Kerry's record isn't inconsistent -- it's consistently equivocal. Regarding Kuwait, Somalia, the Balkans and (in 1998) Iraq, Kerry has tried to have it both ways while ultimately voting as a dove. Simply put, I don't think Kerry is capable of anything else. Brooks' clever phrase sums it up for me:

Kerry has made clear that if he is elected president, the nation will never face a caveat shortage.

True. I'll be curious to hear what basis Sullivan has for thinking Kerry would change in office. Because it certainly can't be based on his record.

P.S. Based on recent statements, John McCain and Chuck Hagel have apparently already gone further than Sullivan, and say Kerry is not weak on defense. One thing is for sure: you could never accuse those two of being good Republicans.

WHAT HATH HOWARD DEAN WROUGHT?

Apparently, this. It's always somewhat discomfiting when Democratic candidates try to court the (non-existent) "youth vote," but when Republicans try to do it, the level of silliness goes through the roof. I wish Patrick Ballantine the best of luck, but consorting with College Republicans is not going to raise his hipness quotient.

C-SPAN IS SHOWING...

... the Funniest Celebrity in Washington event from last week. I saw Fox News' James Rosen win last year, and he was actually funny. This year? Wow. I mean, wow. I've caught a bit of this so far, including Mayor Anthony Williams and the "humor" columnist for the Washington Post, Gene Weingarten. But this year? The silence is deafening.

P.S. Judging by the list of participants, the notion of "celebrity" isn't being enforced to rigorously.

P.P.S. CNN commentator Julianne Malveaux, who once wished death upon Clarence Thomas, all but emptied the floor.

UNDONE: THE CAMPAIGN SONG

Why does anybody think there's a difference between Kerry saying "more leaders" or "foreign leaders"? I still hear people arguing -- like Paul Begala on "Crossfire" today -- that because the Boston Globe's Patrick Healy initially misquoted Kerry the whole "foreign leaders want me to win" thing was bogus. But it's not.

TNR's Noam Scheiber gets it right:

During the "more leaders" contretemps, for example, the Kerry camp's response was to claim that what Kerry had actually said ("more leaders") was much more vague than the quote that first appeared in newspapers ("foreign leaders")--so much so that, according to Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter, the phrase could have referred to "anybody, here at home, abroad, anybody." (This was at odds with the context of Kerry's comment, which clearly indicated he was talking about foreigners.) And, oh yeah, the campaign also trotted out Democratic foreign policy luminaries like Bill Richardson, Richard Holbrooke, and Madeleine Albright to argue, as Holbrooke did, "It's so obviously the truth what Kerry said, and the Republicans are just having fun with it." Shockingly, none of this proved very effective at making the issue go away.

Scheiber's politics are much closer to Begala's than mine, but at least he's not so partisan he can't see the facts. So Healy eventually corrected this inconsequential error a day or two after Kerry's comments hit the big time. But because they didn't really change anything, what did they do? Keep the story alive, that's what! That Republican attack machine is worth every penny.

Then there's the somewhat more tactical problem for Kerry, which is a direct effect of the campaign finance reform Kerry supported (and Bush signed, cynically) in 2001. The effect:

For all the talk about various Democratic-leaning 527s (that is, independent nonprofits) helping to balance out Bush's huge financial advantage, Tuesday's showdown in West Virginia showed why nothing beats good old-fashioned hard money when it comes to waging a presidential campaign. Before Kerry could touch down in West Virginia, the Bush campaign had saturated the airwaves with the aforementioned weak-on-national-security commercial--which framed the debate for Kerry's West Virginia trip in terms most favorable to Bush. By contrast, because none of the 527s trying to help Kerry can coordinate their message with his campaign (at least not legally), Bush is much less likely to face such focused debate-framing when he touches down in the swing states he's targeting.

For all the talk about President Bush's campaign unraveling -- and make no mistake, it has been making inexplicable mistakes as of late -- I think Kerry's has fewer threads left.

FIGHT BLOG

You know, like Fight Club? Oh, never mind.

All right, FLOG™. You said you want to take on one of us trial-lawyers-have-run-amok people, and you have some interesting asides, but I don't think you've rebutted my thin point: people are afraid of lawsuits. In the Washington Post article that started it all, the health club association guy explained why AEDs sometimes not obtained:

"Our main concern is the liability issue."

I think that settles it. Yes, there is the interesting point that more health clubs that did not have them have been sued, but apparently that hasn't gotten through to the likes of the health club guy. Whether he and his clients are acting rationally, or rather with all of the facts (it seems they are not) they are nonetheless acting without fear. As even you concede, the fact that many of these sensational lawsuits are summarily dismissed doesn't mean they are cost-free. And then, every once in awhile, one does get through and it's a huge deal. They are not prevalent, of course, but that hardly diminishes their impact.

So there's a case to be made that journalists are also to blame for this, too. Which is fine by me -- we journalists are a self-loathing type. (That's why we drink so much.)

Now, when you say you believe in maintaining an "open court," I'm not sure exactly what that means. If it means you oppose laws exempting fast food companies and gun manufacturers from suits when bad things happen (people get fat, people get shot) then I'm for a partially open court. But I know there are already restrictions against suing various institutions for different things, so I don't think this is too much different. But these bills, now facing a hard time in Congress (Democrats killed the gun measure by attaching several anti-gun riders to it), should be common sense.

P.S. In all other respects, however, great post. I never knew the details about the McDonalds coffee thing; the details do change things.

BY ANONYMOUS

Scott Lindlaw of the AP writes this morning:

White House political chief Karl Rove said Wednesday that President Bush had just begun to demonstrate the kind of targeted, multi-front campaign he plans against Democratic rival John Kerry. Addressing a small group of conservative activists, Rove assured them that Bush planned a nimble campaign able to counterpunch even before Kerry opens his mouth. ... And he expressed irritation that some disgruntled Republicans in Congress and elsewhere have increasingly chosen to go to the news media to air their complaints, rather than bringing them directly to the White House.

Nothing remarkable about this, if you've been following the campaign so far. At least, not unless you happen to read Bill Sammon's article from this morning's Washington Times:

President Bush's re-election campaign has kept Sen. John Kerry on the defensive for days by employing an aggressive communications strategy that was largely absent just weeks ago. ... "You're going to see us continue to be more aggressive," said a senior Bush campaign official. "I mean, everywhere Kerry goes, he's not only rebutted, but 'pre-butted.'" ... White House political strategist Karl Rove and Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman were among the aides who pushed for the president's team to engage Mr. Kerry early and often."It's weird because half the people are criticizing us for coming out too early; the other half are criticizing us for coming out too late," the campaign source said. "I think we're doing it right."

According to today's The Note, the "small group of conservative activists" Lindlaw refers to means -- and I should have figured this -- uber-activist Grover Norquist's well-known Wednesday morning bull sessions. Incidentally, I once passed up an opportunity to attend one, which I now regret. I take my own invitation as evidence that they aren't too difficult to get into. Which makes it rather amusing that the unidentified "senior Bush campaign official" bothered to say these uncontroversial things on background.

Then again, assuming Rove, the "campaign source," and a source used by the New York Times' Elizabeth Bumiller today to make essentially the same point are all the same person, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation. Her source? A "senior White House official who asked not to be named because he did not want to be pestered by reporters."

IT CAME FROM THE BLOGOSPHERE -- IN 3-D!

Last night I crossed the Potomac to attend a "round table discussion" -- scare quotes because the table was altogether rectangular -- pondering the question: "Are 'hipublicans' for real?" You know, "hipublicans," after the title of a slightly absurd New York Times Magazine cover story from last year. The panel consisted of five local bloggers, some well-known, others less so.

All agreed that the topic was silly, and immediately went on to talk about other things. What things, I'm not entirely sure -- I showed up late and got stuck in the middle of the crowded anteroom, well to the back, where at least it was easier to get my drink refilled. From what I could hear, it was pretty much what you'd expect when a gaggle of bloggers get together: the conversation zig-zagged from one topic to another, they made reference to other things they'd written, and nothing really got solved. It got especially meta when the crowd started talking amongst themselves toward the end. It was just like the blogosphere, only in an actual physical location.

Funny thing is, out of five panelists only one had any reasonable likelihood of being an actual Republican. Yet the organization putting it together is avowedly right-of-center; it's a sort of drinking club for young Beltway libertarians and conservatives.

There was Julian Sanchez from Reason Magazine, who thinks nothing of referring to the war in Iraq as "imperialist." Matthew Yglesias from The American Prospect was there; his voice sounds identical to Peter Beinart's, whom from what I gather is surely to the right of Yglesias.

I have it on good authority that the panel organizer (herself a panelist) is a libertarian, although according to her blog, she is a libertarian who finds the commercialization of outer space "sad."

The only likely Republican was a young woman who writes for National Review and edits the blog Swamp City, which is sort of like a non-Bush-hating Wonkette without the snark.

Oh, and speaking of Wonkette, she was there, too. Despite my opinion of her website, I have to say she was actually one of the better-spoken and more interesting people there.

At least, so far as I could tell.

IT'S NOT ENTIRELY HIS FAULT...

But I still feel compelled to say: thanks a lot, John Edwards.

NUKE IDAHO

Scion of the Graham clan, staff reporter Bradley, reports in today's Washington Post:

In a war game run here Tuesday, a country resembling North Korea launched six ballistic missiles at the United States and put to the test an antimissile system modeled after the one being developed by the Bush administration.

The size of the salvo threatened to exhaust the U.S. arsenal of long-range interceptors, which was set at six in the game. When one of the interceptors missed, role players who were standing in for chains of authority stretching from the U.S. president to firing crews were confronted with the possibility that they might not have enough remaining interceptors to save both Anchorage and Boise, Idaho, and would have to choose one of them to protect.

Built To Spill notwithstanding, would anyone choose Boise? And I have relatives there! Strategically speaking, Anchorage simply must be more strategically important. I know there's an Air Force Base in Idaho, but Alaska has more military installations than that. Plus, Alaska gives us lumber and oil. Idaho gives us potatoes and ski resorts.

P.S. If you're reading this Jeremy, it's nothing personal.

SHARPTON DROPS OUT

Well, not quite. Yesterday he threw his support to Kerry, but here's what he had to say about Kerry to the New York Times about the man he didn't actually endorse:

I am not ending the campaign, but I am saying he is the nominee.

Um, sure. Actually, that's pretty much what John Edwards, Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman and Wesley Clark have said. All "suspended" their campaigns; none have "dropped out." Dick Gephardt is the only candidate who made it to the primaries and then officially ended his campaign. (Dennis Kucinich is still on the trail.)

Why is Sharpton doing this? Two reasons. First, like the others, he wants to have some say at the convention -- although his 27 delegates aren't much to negotiate with. The second is that he needs the money. Sharpton's campaign owes half a million dollars to unpaid staffers and for five-star hotel stays. The FEC is starting in on a second investigation of his spending, but in the meantime, they've decided to grant him a hundred grand in matching funds. (If this isn't an argument for doing away with federally-funded campaigns, I don't know what is.) And yet Sharpton has conceded he won't be on the trail much anymore.

Actually, Sharpton was never on the trail much to begin with. The illusion that he was running a legitimate campaign was maintained only by his debate appearances.

One last thing. In response to (surely correct) speculation thatThe New York Post quotes an unnamed source close to Sharpton -- If I had to guess I'd finger the obnoxious NYC council member Charles Barron -- as saying:

If the Kerry campaign messes with Rev. Sharpton, they do so at their own peril.

Whatever. Sharpton was a good sideshow, but my amusement petered out some time ago.

IS KERRY THE NEXT DEAN?

I myself wondered all autumn and winter, in the pixels that make up this very blog, just how long Howard Dean could get away with his nutty allegations, inopportune comments and politically obtuse statements. I haven't tried to pinpoint a date, but the events of Iowa and New Hampshire at least proved "not indefinitely" an acceptable answer.

So how long can Kerry keep going on calling Republicans "crooked" "liars," professing a desire to be the "second black president," insist the president shouldn't mention 9/11 in his campaign, and now claim the support of foreign leaders while telling voters which ones is "none of your business" who they were? Evidence from the primaries is this will happen again.

R. Musil (not his real name) has made the same connection:

Mainstream media coverage of the Senator's bizarrely self-destructive statements has been entirely consistent with the early media infatuation with Howard Dean. The mainstream media resisted detecting the self-demolition implicit in very similar comments and speeches by Howard Dean until the Iowa primary made such resistance impossible. Similarly, there has been essentially no suggestion in the mainstream media that the presumptive candidate has done himself any real damage with these comments. ... Senator Kerry is also defining himself as someone who makes up the darnedest things for the purposes of self promotion. It's a trait that may have entirely undone General Clark - but the Senator seems not to care.

I'm still sorting through how this may be offset by general election considerations as opposed to Democratic primary ones. But my initial guess is this can't help Kerry.

P.S. Did Kerry make this all up? (On TV tonight, Krauthammer said that's his guess.) I doubt it, at least in the sense that Kobe Bryant didn't rape that girl in Colorado. (How's that for a comparison?) I think Kerry did have conversations with European diplomats who gave him this fairly unsurprising assessment. But I also believe Bryant did believe that girl consented to what happened in that hotel last year. Kerry may be on more solid ground, but I'm not sure that excuses either of them.

SPAIN

Bad. Very bad. I don't think al-Qaeda could pull the same thing off here as in Spain, but the potential for a precedent being set by Sunday's election is troubling. Last week Andrew Sullivan translated part of an editorial from France's left-wing daily Le Monde comparing 3/11 with 9/11 and saying Europe knew it was now a target. That was encouraging.

But now the Spanish electorate has decided that when attacked by terrorists, the proper response is contrition. Just as horrifying, EU chief Romano Prodi now endorses the horrific delusion that terrorism cannot be fought by military means. I don't know if Le Monde will stick with its initial response, but I share John Ellis' general discouragement. Prodi doesn't just reject the entire Iraq war; his remarks declare the entire war on terrorism illegitimate. Since 9/11 Europe has always looking for an excuse to ignore what Christopher Hitchens calls Islamofascism. One of our best allies just has, and others are ready to go further.

What does this mean for Tony Blair? For Silvio Berlusconi? For Poland's Aleksander Kwasniewski? I know the last of them only recently took office, but I'm less clear on the next elections for the former two. (Apologies for being so Beltway-centric these days.) Now, Blair is from the UK's left-leaning party, and the Tories haven't got much in the way of a bench (and they were generally for the war). And Berlusconi is something like a President Rupert Murdoch while the average Italian voter is more like an NPR listener. Poland is anecdotally said to be very pro-U.S. But how will they react to these developments? At least one German news source wonders openly -- yet briefly -- about all this. I wonder too.

P.S. Is it overdramatic to say this is like France falling to the Germans, or perhaps to the Japanese in WWII? In terms of the vileness of our opponents, I do think so [correction: earlier version inadvertantly said "don't"]. I'm not sure there's an apt analogy. Maybe more someone with a history degree has a better suggestion.

P.P.S. The Guardian says Blair may blog the next election. Here's hoping he has something to say about the above.

AN ANNOUNCEMENT

I don't read Wonkette anymore. I'm not saying I'll refuse to follow a link to it, but as of this post I'm taking it out of my bookmarks. And I did like Wonkette, at first. But now it's over.

And it's not for the expected complaint, i.e. that D.C. "gossip" requires those scare quotes.* And it doesn't necessarily have to do with its politics -- it's about truth in advertising. If Nick Denton, blog magnate extraordinaire, thought he made a good hire by putting former Suckstress Ana Marie Cox in charge of his D.C. blog, I wonder if he still thinks so.

In her first week she told a radio interviewer here: "I push a platform of funny." She even included that in one post, almost like a mission statement. At the time, it was true. She was cruel to both sides, and often cruelly funny. But in the last month Wonkette has slipped into all Bush-bashing, all the time. Last week she was obsessed with two things: putting foul words into a now-defunct create-your-own-poster feature at the Bush-Cheney campaign site, and the supposed attractiveness of John Edwards and (for reasons I won't go into) John Kerry. That imbalance pretty much sums up the site these days. No need for more elaboration.

What was self-advertised as a humor/gossip site has rather quickly become another left-wing ranting post. Thing is, Cox already had one! It was called The Antic Muse, and for unpleasant left-wing bloggery, it was always a good bet. Now it's pretty much just a quote-and-link clearing house. In a link to Wonkette on that site, she refers to her main gig as "a guide to DC politics and culture." Whatever you have to tell yourself, Ana.

It's not that I don't read left and leftish blogs -- I check in with Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo almost daily -- but I don't read the ones who are all bile (see my comment on Atrios).

Done right, a D.C. gossip site could work. Cox is not doing it right. Now, Denton is a man who wants to make money. As I mentioned above, I have to wonder if he's happy about the way she's alienating half his potential audience. Wonkette has been online for only a few weeks, but already it's already lost this reader.

P.S. Since Wonkette is a gossip column, I might as well share some myself: I hear she's not a very pleasant person, and that her personality has hastened her departure from several jobs -- whether that includes her gigs at Suck and Ms., I don't know. But it shows, and I wonder if Slate's Jack Shafer -- who wrote a good-but-not-great Wonkette takedown last week -- knows her socially and felt the need to call her "a friend" even if he doesn't like her very much.

______
* In particular, the Washington Post's horrid Reliable Source. It was bad under Lloyd Grove and it's worse under Richard Leiby. Exhibit A:

More love in the air: We hear former EPA administrator Carol Browner is dating former New York congressman-turned-lobbyist Tom Downey. Neither returned our calls.

Take that. Liz Smith!

BY THE WAY

Finally, Hardball has started airing "ads" for George Bush, as well as for John Kerry. The Kerry spots -- i.e. a 30-second montage preceding a Kerry-centric segment -- included shots of Vietnam and music from U2.

The Bush montage is basically the same -- clips include olf Air Guard photos and footage from Ground Zero -- but the music... the music is Jesus Jones' "Right Here, Right Now." First time I'd heard the song in almost a decade, to say the least.

Still suspicious, I spent a minute or so analyzing the lyrics for subtle pro-Kerry bias:

A woman on the radio talks about revolution
when it's already passed her by
but Bob Dylan didn't have this to sing about you
you know it feels good to be alive
I was alive and I waited waited
I was alive and I waited for this
Right here, right now, there is no other place I want to be
Right here, right now, watching the world wake up from history
I saw the decade in, when it seemed
the world could change at the blink of an eye
And if anything
then there's your sign of the times
I was alive and I waited waited
I was alive and I waited for this
Right here, right now
I was alive and I waited waited
I was alive and I waited for this
Right here, right now, there is no other place I want to be
Right here, right now, watching the world wake up from history

Well, it seems to be another wish-it-was-the-60's paean, but I can't make anything out of it. How does one "wake up from history," anyhow? Didn't we wake up to history on 9/11? Maybe the producers mean we shouldn't worry about major world events going around us, that we should forget all about terrorism and threats to our national security? In which case ... it's okay to vote for John Kerry? I'm not saying I believe it, it's just a theory...

No media bias here, just another sign that MSNBC isn't only trying to out-Fox Fox, but also out-MTV MTV.

I'M NOT MUCH FOR PREDICTIONS

But I will say this much: Should George W. Bush lose to John Kerry this fall, history will judge his loss as predominantly due to two factors:

1. Paying the price for an unpopular but history-altering war in Iraq.
   
2. Serving four years on the end of a bad business cycle.

There are other things going on, but I believe they derive from the two above.

First, with the signing of the interim Iraqi constitution and the steady decline of civilian casualties in the so-called Sunni Triangle, Bush's gamble (and less consequentially, my own) that Iraq could build a stable, moderate, pluralistic, even democratic society will prove to be true. If the Baathist-Wahhabi terrorists haven't torn apart Iraqi society yet, they won't. And their democracy won't look like ours, but then neither does Japan's or India's. Andrew Sullivan was right, last week, when he wrote that the tussle over the signing of the constitution was a good sign -- the fact that Iraqi leaders are practicing politics of that kind is truly remarkable. And so far compromise has carried the day. But this is very difficult for most American voters to see, when we are still spending billions there and our troops remain in danger.

Second, polls show the economy is voters' most pressing issue. But as any non-partisan (and non-socialist) analysts will tell you, the president can't turn the economy around at will. Bush came into office on the cusp of a mild recession, and he goes into re-election with underperforming job numbers. If the chatter is to be believed, unprecedented productivity gains have held back the creation of new jobs. If so, that has everything to do with the ongoing evolution of the global economy and little to do with specific policies promulgated by George W. Bush. (Well worth reading on this point: this column by the indispensible Bob Samuelson). But just as presidents will claim credit for the good times, they will be held responsible for the bad times. Even when the bad times are still pretty good. The paradox of progress -- to paraphrase Gregg Easterbrook -- is that people forget how much better it is now than a good while ago when things aren't quite as good as they were a short while ago.

P.S. It would truly take an unforeseen event of Watergate-times-ten magnitude for me to not vote for the president this fall. But given the way his political team has handled recent events (not adroitly) and how the media has covered said handling (not favorably) and how presidential re-elections are always referendums on the incumbent (so everybody says) it's a distinct possibility my vote won't be in the plurality. But that I won't try to predict.

OREGON IN THE NEWS

Armed Prophet's home state almost never gets any positive coverage. Get ready for more: AP (the other one) is reporting a former congressional aide to Rep. Peter DeFazio and then-Rep. Ron Wyden was an Iraqi spy. Well, that's just great.

THE WHITE HEADPHONES CLUB

Armed Prophet was the first person I know to own an iPod, and I'd like to think that my testament to their utility, enjoyability and, er, awesomeness helped a few others to take the several-hundred-dollar plunge. I still love it -- hell, regular readers of this blog know it's been more dependable than the actual laptop I bought it with -- and I'll tell others I know to keep buying Apple music products. I'm not an fundamentalist -- I use a PC at work without complaint (except that that computer crashed on me, too) -- but I am devoted.

Now. Sometime last summer I accidentally let my iPod headphones get stuck in a sliding glass door. Shortly thereafter, they got dragged on the ground a bit too long. Then, on a fateful Tuesday (or perhaps Wednesday) morning (afternoon?) I damn near well rolled my office chair over one of the ear buds. The inevitable result: kaput. In a money crunch, I walked two blocks to the nearby Radio Shack and got an under-$10 set of phones, identical in function though not superficial design or, of course, color.

I always intended to replace the more-stylish originals, but it wasn't so long before I changed my mind. In fact days, I would refuse to trade my generics for the authentics (easily obtainable on eBay for an almost-reasonable price). And it all comes down to this: I am damn tired of seeing people walking around the street or riding on the Metro with their telltale white headphones. Just sick of it.

I first noticed their ever-greater prevalence in New York City last September, where the white headphone to regular headphone ratio seemed approaching 1:1. A few hundred miles south, here inside the Beltway, we're at 1:1.5 -- and dropping. Somewhere I heard the iPod has one-third of the market share for portable MP3 player market. And I dare say, it's growing.

When I'm walking from Point A to Point B with Modest Mouse or Mr. T destroying my inner ear, I've made a decision to check out of the real world for a little while and ignore my surroundings. (Some exceptions are made -- i.e. traffic.) So the last thing I want are people looking over at me, thinking oh hey, iPod. Because that's what I do whenever I see someone with those damn things.

I'm glad mine are gone. I don't want to draw the attention. My music is not a fashion statement.

VEEPERS CREEPERS

Last year, National Journal empaneled 50 high profile Democratic politicians and consultants to weigh in weekly on the likely nominee. Not surprisingly, Dean led until he crashed, and Kerry sank lower and lower, until he soared. With the nomination settled, they're asking the panel to guess whom Kerry will choose as his running mate. Most of the speculaton centers on John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Bill Richardson and a few other familiar faces. It's a fool's errand, of course, because the VP is just about impossible to predict (Armed Prophet's choice: Evan Bayh). But playing the "veepstakes" is a time-honored parlor game here in the Beltway, even if nobody really has parlors anymore.

So maybe the obvious inconsequentiality explains the inexplicable presence on the list of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Say what? Ms. Albright is a naturalized citizen of the United states. Her birthplace is Prague. Ergo, she is ineligible to serve as Vice President because she is ineligible to be President. Based on the methodology it's impossible to tell if one person rated her chances very highly or a few gave her modest chances. But whether they were truly ignorant or just having some fun, I fail to see why National Journal allowed it.

Now, I'm all for Orrin Hatch's constitutional amendment to let naturalized citizens be president. But until that happens, what's the point of letting the panel pick people they know can't be picked? If we're starting down this path, why not go all the way? Why not people who are too young? Or what about fictional candidates? Armed Prophet would like to nominate Robert Redford's Bill McKay from The Candidate. Or better still, Michael J. Fox's chief of staff character from The American President. Any other ideas?

WHACK BUSH DAY II

No, I didn't forget about the second installment. I just didn't write it. At least until now.

So, the second and third unduly biased stories were written by the Post's Mike Allen, the same guy who wrote the "fake turkey" story following Bush's Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad.

One notes that Bush flies on Air Force One to campaign events, for which the rules only require the White House pay the price of a commercial flight. The tone of the piece obviously implies the use (or abuse) of federal property for political gain -- yet Allen has to note, repeatedly, that Bill Clinton did much the same. And if Kerry wins in November, so will he in 2008. I don't mind skepticism from journalists, but there isn't actually any news here. Just a friendly reminder from Mike Allen, who thinks this is something you should be concerned about.

His other article of the day is worse, and he's abetted by the headline writers. The subject is one of those political trips the president took, in this case to California. A few lines:

President Bush rhapsodized Thursday about the possibility that a stock-car firm in this hot, dry community will add two jobs this year, as he refined his campaign message of economic optimism. ... Prompted by the president, chassis-maker Les DenHerder said the tax cuts Bush backed might allow him to hire two or three more people. "When he says he's going to hire two more, that's really good news," Bush said. "A lot of people are feeling confident and optimistic about our future so they can say, 'I'm going to hire two more.' They can sit here and tell the president in front of all the cameras, 'I'm going to hire two more people.' That's confidence!" ... Bush's focus on two jobs suggests how critical the issue is to his reelection.

Well, at least the headline is accurate: "Bush's Economic Indicator: 2 New Jobs." Get it? Bush is excited about two jobs when there are millions of jobs still to be replaced. But Allen is willfully taking this out of context -- did Bush say those were the only two jobs to be created? Two jobs here, two jobs there, pretty soon you've got a recovery in the job market (any day now...) and yet Allen ignores that to write another Bush-is-dumb story. Armed Prophet thinks Mike Allen is the dumb one here.

INTERLUDE

Armed Prophet will get around to the second installment of the last post, but first there's the last basketball game of the season for my alma mater to lose. While they do, I might as well be at a nearby bar watching them do so.

In the meantime, you may enjoy this. At first it looks like an all-male recreation of a Japanese girl pop music video, but so far as I can tell, it's government-issue. And it makes those effects-laden "trailers" for the Marines at your local multiplex look stodgy. (Via boingboing.)

WHACK BUSH DAY I

What day is that? Today, if you're a Washington Post White House reporter. The Post is on balance more even-handed in its political coverage than the New York Times, but apparently not this news cycle.

For this post, let me just focus on Dana Milbank -- more on him in the post below -- who kicks things off with a piece obviously written more to mock the President than to inform the reader. He leads:

The Bush administration, irked that the official arbiter of recessions continues to say the current downturn began on President Bush's watch, has unilaterally changed the official start of the recession to the last months of the Clinton administration.

Hold it! "Unilaterally"? That's called editorializing-by-word choice. But I digress. He continues:

A new Bush campaign ad released this week proclaims: "January 2001. The challenge: an economy in recession." This backs up the claim often made by Bush and top aides that they "inherited" an economic recession.

The only trouble with this assertion is the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research, which does the official dating of recessions, says the downturn began in March 2001 -- early in Bush's presidency. NBER is examining revised economic statistics to see if the official date should be moved earlier, but spokeswoman Donna Zerwitz said there is "nothing imminent."

This inconvenience, however, did not stop the White House Council of Economic Advisers. In their annual report last month, the president's economists argued that "revisions since the NBER made its decision for the most recent recession strongly suggest that the business-cycle peak was before March 2001."

Pardon? Three months? Economics isn't an exact science -- three months isn't much disagreement when you're talking business cycles. And besides, who didn't know that the economy was on a downward trajectory? The tech bubble had burst a year before and the Dow Jones was already falling.

Besides, if Milbank is trying to pin the recession on Bush, he's left out the paragraph explaining how Bush's policies managed to turn things for the worse in the 2 ½ months between his inauguration and the NBER. Of course, that paragraph is unwriteable. Bush did nothing significant before the summer -- in particular, the tax cut, about which one could at least have an argument about.

Sorry, that was Clinton's economy that was tanking in March 2001. But Milbank omits enough to make it sound as if the Bush administration is being dishonest about this fact. Armed Prophet thinks Dana Milbank is the one being dishonest.

SKULL AND UNKNOWNS

Pretty much everybody knows that both President Bush and John Kerry are members of Skull and Bones, the secret society at Yale that some Art Bell fanatics think rules the world. (FYI, it's actually the Bilderbergers.) What I didn't know -- and I dare say not a great many people knew until yesterday -- is that so is the Washington Post's Dana Milbank. So writes Post refugee (and bad tipper) Lloyd Grove in the New York Daily News:

In what might be eerie coincidence or further disturbing evidence of a scheme for world domination, The Washington Post has assigned Bonesman Dana Milbank to chronicle the battle between Bush and Kerry.

"I have been assigned to monitor all secret hand signals during the debates," Milbank told me - half in jest but wholly in earnest?

I can find no record of Milbank as a Bonesman in the Nexis database predating Thursday. Google turns up a few, but they're decidedly obscure (and I'm sure many are false positives). So I'm comfortable saying the average reader doesn't know this about him. Yet he covered Bush through the entire 2000 election and is now set to cover two Bonesmen. Isn't there a little thing in journalism called "full disclosure"? Maybe Yale really is overrated.

Now, I searched through his book "Smashmouth" -- about the 2000 presidential race -- over at Amazon, and I didn't find any references to Skull and Bones. Which is sort of remarkable given the depth with which Milbank covers the candidates. But while it would be a lot worse if he had, it doesn't make it any better that he didn't.

P.S. The first Google hit about Milbank as a Bonesman comes from an interview at Common Dreams, quoting a Skull and Bones "expert," who says:

There are a slew [of journalists] who are members of Skull and Bones, and some of them are biased. Some of them are not. Dana Milbank of the "Washington Post" is certainly not a biased journalist.

Oh yeah? Check back for my next post.

THIS IS PRETTY GOOD

It is racy, but don't worry -- it's safe for work.

TRADING PLACES

Labor unions for the working class are problematic, but labor unions for the rich are such a joke they aren't funny. Tony Kornheiser of ESPN has a good column in the Washington Post this week about the fight between Major League Baseball and the player's union over steroid testing. Everyone, including the President as it so happens, wants random testing of baseball players -- except the union.

But this isn't the first time in recent weeks that the union has wielded its power to the detriment of the league. When the Red Sox wanted to trade for Alex Rodriguez late last year, everyone agreed A-Rod could stand to take a small pay cut to make it happen. Including A-Rod. But not the player's union. Kornheiser writes:

I understand a union wanting to protect the salaries of its members. But Rodriguez's salary is more than double what anyone else in baseball makes. ... This is not the same as protecting the precious $12 an hour that a mill worker makes. Taking the position that we've got to protect Rodriguez's $252 million is not going to win the hearts of American workers. Who else should we go to the barricades for? Michael Eisner? Warren Buffett?

On TV Kornheiser likes to make fun of Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich, but I think it safe to say he's not a conservative or libertarian. For one, the mill worker is already earning more than a "living wage" -- plenty more than what many adults in this country live on. It's not a lot of money, but one can "live." Besides, if his union insists on a still-higher salary or expanded benefits, the employer is liable to move overseas and that mill worker is suddenly making $0 an hour. Of course, MLB can't do that, even if they do put the Expos in Monterrey.

But I digress.

The baseball union appears to be a case of what can happen in the -- pause for effect -- Marxian struggle between labor and capital when labor becomes capital. Historically speaking, management's abuse of workers gave rise to the union as a way of giving workers leverage. But these days the owners have no leverage with the players. Say what you will, but the baseball owners at least have an eye toward the bottom line, not to mention the survival of the sport. Based on recent evidence, the players and their union sure don't act like they do. They're being just as selfish as the owners might -- more so, at the moment. In the factory of professional baseball, the musclebound floor-sweepers have taken over the upstairs office. And they're making very bad decisions.

P.S. Yes, I am still pro-drug legalization. But baseball gets to set the rules for membership, and I don't find the banning of steroids and their growth hormones an unreasonable notion. If Barry Bonds or Jason Giambi want to go play in the steroid league, let them eat oversized, overpriced hot dogs.

TAKE IT OFF!

Not what you think. I'm actually referring to John Kerry's most famous line: "Bring it on!" The full version goes something like, "If Republicans want to [question my patriotism, criticize my Vietnam record, make fun of my hair], I have just three words for them: Bring it on!" Or rather, Briiiiing iiit ooonnnnnn! with a limp swing at the air.

And it's cribbed, of course -- from an arguably inadvisable statement by George Bush last summer to the effect US troops could handle the terrorists in Iraq* -- so it's not terribly original. Worse, it's tired. A Google search of "John Kerry" and "bring it on" confirms its status as a journalistic cliché. (Yes, I know using Google searches to prove a phenomenon's prevalence is problematic. Take it or leave it.)

Did I say 'tired'? Exhausted is more like it. I'm not exactly offering advice here, I'm just complaining, but: John, it's time to get a new catch phrase. Most Americans probably think it's your coinage, and they don't know why you seem so attached to it. So let go. You can do it.
___
* My memory is fuzzy. He might have been talking about a Kirsten Dunst movie.

ANOTHER PREDICTION

Lars Larson is going to get some quality time on The O'Reilly Factor sometime this week.

9/11 WAS NO BIG DEAL

Rep. Maxine Waters, invited by Chris Matthews to give a brief anti-Bush rant, said a lot of silly things ("Is he really the president? He's not articulate!") but nothing worse than:

He's really overdoing this terrorism.

That's not transcript, but it's basically accurate. This wasn't Iraq, it was terrorism Bush is overreacting to. It's just too bad he didn't ask her to go on about Bush-kidnapped-Aristide conspiracy theory...

P.S. Compare, her fellow California Democratic officeholder Jerry Brown, who wouldn't take the bait from Matthews and call Bush a "bad" president. (Somehow, the old Sir Mix-a-Lot line "L.A. waist and an Oakland booty" could be worked in here, but it's late.)

WHAT TOOK SO LONG?

Late this afternoon, Multnomah County announced it will begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, and a Portland judge says she'll start performing the ceremonies pronto.

I haven't had much time to collect my thoughts, but I might as well dispense with what I have so far:

1. Media coverage of the Portland area not seen since that asshole killed those two girls and buried them in his yard, starting about 11AM on the East Coast. I expect the CNN and Fox News vans have been dispatched from Seattle and are somewhere on I-5 right now. It'll be great filler between the morning shows and the afternoon programming.


2. A major windfall for the city. Portland, and Oregon at large, took the recent recession harder than most states. This won't change that, but it will probably put an unanticipated few million dollars into the local economy. San Francisco has already raked in the tourist dollars recently, but I'd bet most Seattle gays haven't made that trip.


3. Rosie O'Donnell has already said her 'I do's, but I don't know that Dan Savage has. Portland will have its own gay celebrity nuptials, though it might not make national news. (Is Gus Van Sant seeing anybody steadily?)


4. A friend points out, this kind of civil disobedience causes a lot less damage than say, the WTO riots. I agree, with one possible exception -- the Jewish gay weddings have to be careful not to get broken glass all over the floor.


5. Legal action, controversy, debate, et cetera. Of course.

Now, I'm of a few minds about the whole gay marriage thing. I'm inclined to see it in civil rights terms, but it's not just a civil rights issue. Also, comparisons to miscegenation laws are missing the point. But I tend to prefer Vermont-style civil unions, or something else. But I'm also not thrilled about the constitutional amendment. Writing social policy into the Constitution didn't work with prohibition, and though the circumstances are different, I don't think that's necessary or desirable.

So basically, my position is John Kerry's position.

More as developments warrant...

P.S. More here, at the Portland Communique.

P.P.S. Here's The Oregonian's rush job. For the time being, the Communique is still the place to go.

EVERYTHING'S SUPER WHEN IT'S TUESDAY

Today will be super, if only because our month-long national charade will come to an end. The race for the Democratic nomination effectively ended in New Hampshire, for sociological reasons persuasively explained here. But if Drudge's claim that Kerry leads big in all the Eastern states is true, then you might as well turn off the TV at eight o'clock Eastern.

After fourteen months of the Democratic nomination fight (more really) we can now get on to the main show, which thankfully will last only ten months.

THE MONKEY SHOW HAS BEEN PULLED FOR RETOOLING

So the Dennis Miller show is already on hiatus. For two weeks, is all. And CNBC’s ratings for that time slot are up. But there's something else going on, because the only major change should be the addition of a live studio audience (a good idea, methinks). Yet he's going off the air for two weeks? I can't imagine it takes that long to put in some fold-out chairs.

Assuming there’s trouble, it's too bad, because after three weeks or so, the program has improved a lot. As one could expect, his first week on the job was a bit rough. For a guy who used to rule topical late night humor with Weekend Update, his "Daily Rorschach" segment was atrocious, simply unfunny, and still needs some rejiggering. I think his writers trying to craft Miller-style jokes... at least, that’s my guess.

Then there’s the chimpanzee, Ellie, who didn't really go along with the show. Now they have a new monkey, Mowgli, who isn’t going through puberty. Though I love the idea of a monkey wandering around the set, they still haven't figured out what to do with him. Hence, they’ve had him swing back and forth in front of Miller on a few occasions. The amateurism is a little fun, like watching the early, early days of Conan and Andy, but something’s gotta give.

But then there’s his panel -- the "Varsity" panel -- is one of the better such panels on news television, up there with the Fox News "All Stars" on Brit Hume's "Special Report." Almost all such panels are D.C.- (or sometimes New York-) based, but "Dennis Miller" is shot at the Burbank Studios. There are a great many lively California pundits (left and right) who rarely show up on the East Coast panel discussions. Among them: David Horowitz, Mickey Kaus, John McWhorter, Dinesh D’Souza, Lawrence O’Donnell ... presumably Tammy Bruce, Hugh Hewitt, Daniel Weintraub, Dennis Prager and Bernie Ward will be on shortly. He’s also a reasonably good interviewer, skills no doubt honed on a near-decade of the late great “Dennis Miller Live.”

And while his opening news bit still doesn't quite work, the monologue he spits out around the bottom of the hour is usually great. It’s the classic Dennis Miller who rants, albeit with a bit more focus than he used to. Also good is the ongoing bit, "What would Dennis Kucinich do?" Also still, his "one last thing" segment -- in the show’s final moments,the studio dims, camera zooms out, but then screeches back to full attention for a brief, politically incorrect observation -- is great, too. And there’s the "Cathartic Screed" began as an opportunity for a conservative pundit to put together such a Miller-esque rant, but recently he's featured amusing bits by left-wingers Kristina Vanden Heuvel and Robert Reich.

What’s more, these segments seem to come on at random times -- interview, Varsity, skit, interview, or maybe interview, interview, skit, Varsity, skit -- which to my mind keeps things lively. You could never get away with this in a magazine or newspaper where the reader needs to know where everything is up front. But on TV you try to keep the viewer watching and discourage them from flipping away -- the show’s irregular pacing should do that. ("Hannity & Colmes" is the only cable news show opposite "Miller" that I'd consider watching in that time slot, but really only when Dick Morris shows up.)

So now the show is in reruns, and they just might rerun every single episode before Miller returns in a week or so. Anyway, if you haven’t seen the show, it’s worth a shot. We’ll see if CNBC gives it one, too.