It's one thing for a Romney supporter to make a sign with homemade writing that reads, "NO TO OBAMA OSAMA AND CHELSEA'S MOMA" (sic). It's slightly worse for Romney to be photographed with it. And it's slightly worse still for Romney to then hold up the sign himself.

Is it any wonder, then, that the Romney campaign is struggling to explain all of this?

I was on a conference call a couple of months ago with Speaker Pelosi in which she alluded to getting the Democratic caucus out of the minority-party "mindset." The Dems had won back both chambers of Congress, a feat few expected, and it was time to start governing with some confidence, especially when it comes to Iraq.

David Espo reports that it took a while, but the new majority party no longer seems afraid of its own shadow. Indeed, it's the GOP that's divided and unsure of itself.

Senate Republicans are growing increasingly nervous defending the war in Iraq, and Democrats more confident in their attempts to end it.

More than a year before the 2008 elections, it is a political role reversal that bodes ill for President Bush's war strategy, not to mention his recent statement that Congress' role should merely be "funding the troops."

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, made that clear Friday when he dismissed any suggestion that it could be November before a verdict is possible on the effects of the administration's current troop increase.

"September is the month we're looking at," he said unequivocally.

Espo notes that cheap slogans like "cut and run" have "largely come and gone" because Republicans find the alternative -- stay the course -- increasingly untenable. At the same time, Dems are stepping up with conviction. "Time and the American people are ... on our side," Harry Reid said.

It's perhaps easy to forget how far the party has come since last year. Espo notes that it was just 13 months ago that Reid "was the one hoping to avoid a vote on a troop withdrawal." When the Feingold-Kerry measure, which included a withdrawal deadline of July 2007, came to the floor, it garnered 13 votes. "Now," Kerry said last week, "it's the unified Democratic position.... In May, Republicans were dismissing even tough questions about the escalation. Now, they're falling all over themselves to distance themselves from the president."

Better late than never.

The Washington Post had an odd front-page item today on a 211-page study conducted by the Rand Corp. for the U.S. Joint Forces Command. The subject: how to boost the image of U.S. military operations through "shaping" the product and the marketplace.

In an urban insurgency, for example, civilians can help identify enemy infiltrators and otherwise assist U.S. forces. They are less likely to help, the study says, when they become "collateral damage" in U.S. attacks, have their doors broken down or are shot at checkpoints because they do not speak English.

I see. So, in other words, public relations is more challenging in a foreign environment in which your "target customers" suspect you might kill them.

While not abandoning the more aggressive elements of warfare, the report suggested, a more attractive brand for the Iraqi people might have been "We will help you."

You'll notice, of course, that the report put this in past tense -- it's a little late for Iraq -- so the administration will have to keep it in mind for the next war.

Rudy Giuliani delivered a speech in Iowa recently on "Restoring Fiscal Discipline and Cutting Wasteful Washington Spending." Just two minutes and 14 seconds into it, the former mayor said, "I will continue to keep America on offense in the terrorist war against us, because I think that's the overriding issue of our day."

Giuliani was also asked recently about his position on taxes. After a few soundbites, he said, "[Democratic presidential candidates] never mentioned the word 'Islamic terrorist' during the debate.... Maybe they think they're going to be insulting somebody if they say it. I'm trying to figure out who would be insulted -- other than Islamic terrorists."

And this week, also in Iowa, Giuliani was asked about increasing federal support for HIV treatments. He responded:

"My general experience has been that the federal government works best when it helps and assists and encourages and sets guidelines... on a state-by-state, locality-by-locality basis. It's no different from the way I look at homeland security. Maybe having been mayor of the city, I know that your first defense against terrorist attack is that local police station, or that local firehouse."

I'm generally not in the habit of offering advice to Republican presidential hopefuls, but I have an idea for the Giuliani campaign. As a way to save time at future appearances, perhaps one of his aides could give Giuliani a placard with the word "terrorism" on one side, and "9/11" on the other. That way, whenever anyone asks him a question about anything, he can simply point to the sign, instead of having to go to the trouble of coming up with an excuse to end up at the same point anyway.

As Atrios noted, the latest Washington Post editorial is drawing the ire of nearly everyone, and with good cause; the piece is a mess, based on a misguided premise.

The decision of Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) to deny rather than nourish a bipartisan agreement is, of course, irresponsible.... A Democratic strategy of trying to use Iraq as a polarizing campaign issue and as a club against moderate Republicans who are up for reelection will certainly have the effect of making consensus impossible -- and deepening the trouble for Iraq and for American security.

One wonders if perhaps the Post editorial board simply hasn't been paying attention to current events. As Kevin Drum noted, "After four years of Republican insistence that Congress's only role in the war is to pony up trainloads of money and then shut the hell up, it turns out that it's actually Democrats who are making consensus impossible."

Yes, that dastardly Harry Reid insisted on bringing to the floor a measure that enjoys bi-partisan support, is popular with the vast majority of the country, and offers a realistic chance to improve the country's security interests. How "irresponsible." Doesn't the Senate Majority Leader realize that a watered-down measure of dubious reliability that offers craven WINOs political cover is the only way to reach "consensus"? He's obviously history's greatest monster.

It's worth adding, by the way, that a new meme seems to be quickly emerging within the chattering class: the lack of Senate progress on Iraq legislation isn't Bush's fault (he's vowed to veto any measure that undercut his authority to do what he pleases), or the GOP's fault (the party has voted to filibuster any measure that might pass), but actually Harry Reid's fault.

The Post editorial obviously holds Reid responsible, as does an analysis piece in today's LA Times, which blames the Majority Leader for not "compromising" enough with Republicans. For that matter, David Brooks added this assessment last night:

"[A] lot of Republicans who detest where the White House is are furious at Harry Reid.... [A] lot of Republicans would like to peel off from the president, but they feel that Harry Reid is making it impossible. He's taking this as an issue, forcing them to vote with the president for political reasons. [...]

"Republican senators were anxious to move away from the White House, to move towards some sort of withdrawal. Now they're not talking that way. They're talking, 'We've got to stick with the president.' And why? Two words: Harry Reid.'"

As hilzoy put it, "If David Brooks is right, then 'senior Republican senators' are planning to cast their votes on the question what to do in Iraq ... not on the basis of what is actually best for Iraq, or for our country, or for our troops, or for our long-term national interests, but because of 'Two words: Harry Reid.'"

And for inexplicable reasons, the Washington Post editorial board seems to find this persuasive.

Following up on the new interrogation executive order for a moment, Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is apparently one of those old-fashioned lawmakers who's withholding judgment on the new regs until he knows whether they're legal.

[Rockefeller] said it was unclear what the order "really means and how it will translate into actual conduct by the CIA." In a statement, Rockefeller repeated a committee demand made last spring that the White House turn over a copy of the Justice Department's legal analysis of the new guidelines.

Rockefeller could, of course, try to subpoena the internal documents. But the White House believes executive privilege effectively eliminates congressional oversight, and the president is entitled to define the scope and limits of his own powers.

I guess Rockefeller will just have to assume Bush is operating in good faith. What could possibly go wrong?

"I would say I am winning," says Hillary in answer to questions about whether she's electable. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Saturday Roundup.

Aside from the tragedy of the war itself, one of the more disconcerting elements of the ongoing political debate is just how little progress we've seen in nearly five years. Vapid arguments that were absurd in 2003 are still used routinely. Offensive talking points that were discredited before the invasion even began still appear in major news outlets.

Take, for example, the latest diatribe from William Kristol.

With the ongoing progress of the surge, and the obvious fact that the vast majority of the troops want to fight and win the war, the "support-the-troops-but-oppose-what-they're-doing" position has become increasingly untenable. How can you say with a straight face that you support the troops while advancing legislation that would undercut their mission and strengthen their enemies? You can't. [...]

Having turned against a war that some of them supported, the left is now turning against the troops they claim still to support.... [The troops] are our best and bravest, fighting for all of us against a brutal enemy in a difficult and frustrating war. They are the 9/11 generation. The left slanders them. We support them.

The point of Kristol's piece was to denounce The New Republic and The Nation for pieces that cast some U.S. troops in an unflattering light, but instead of just questioning the articles themselves, Kristol feels justified in rehashing the notion that to disapprove of a war is necessarily to condemn those fighting it. It's an "argument" -- I use the word loosely -- that has a child-like sophistication.

It's apparently impossible for Kristol to conceive of the failure of the so-called surge, or realize that the only thing "strengthening" our enemies is the status quo.

Indeed, to see the world as Kristol does, most Americans, a majority of both chambers of Congress, a considerable number of veterans, and even a growing number of Republican lawmakers, all stand in opposition to the men and women in uniform because they believe the president's policy is a mistake. All deserve to have their patriotism questioned because they have the audacity to see conditions as they are, not as Dick Cheney wills them to be.

But taking a step back, and simply looking at this as a matter of rhetoric, this notion of support-the-troops, support-the-mission was transparently ridiculous years ago, and Kristol, had he the ability, should be embarrassed to be repeating it now. Why is conservative discourse stuck in 2003?

After a recent audience with the president, the NYT's David Brooks was apparently impressed with Bush's unwavering certainty.

I left the 110-minute session thinking that far from being worn down by the past few years, Bush seems empowered. His self-confidence is the most remarkable feature of his presidency. [...]

But Bush is not blind to the realities in Iraq.... Rather, his self-confidence survives because it flows from two sources. The first is his unconquerable faith in the rightness of his Big Idea. Bush is convinced that history is moving in the direction of democracy, or as he said Friday: "It's more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn't exist."

Apparently, Brooks was impressed, but not persuaded. (via TP)

Tony Snow told reporters yesterday that the administration has seen "a declining level in the overall pace of attacks" in Iraq.

The reality, of course, is far different.

Attacks in Iraq last month reached their highest daily average since May 2003, showing a surge in violence as President George W. Bush completed a buildup of U.S. troops, Pentagon statistics show.

The data, obtained by Reuters from the Defense Department, showed an upward trend in daily attacks over the past four months, when U.S. and Iraqi forces were ramping up operations against insurgents and militants, including al Qaeda, in Iraq.

There were a total of 5,335 attacks against coalition troops, Iraqi security forces, civilians and infrastructure in June, for a daily average of 177.8 attacks per day, the highest since Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech more than four years ago.

Now, the administration hasn't responded to this report yet, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess the spin: an increase in attacks is good news because it shows the enemy lashing out in desperation. We've got 'em on the run.

Of course, if the number of attacks had dropped considerably this, too, would be good news, because it would be proof that the administration's policies were having a positive effect.

And of the number of attacks had stayed the same, this would also be good news, because a leveling off would reflect a "cooling" period, harkening a new period of stability after growing tensions throughout 2007.

That's the fun thing about listening to the White House -- the president's policy always right, facts be damned.

Since the Hamdan ruling a year ago, there's been some uncertainties surrounding the Bush administration's interrogation policies, with ambiguous lines dictating CIA policy. The good news is, the White House said yesterday it was clearing things up with an executive order "barring the CIA from using torture, acts of violence and degrading treatment in the interrogation and detention of terrorism suspects."

The bad news is, the ambiguities are as dramatic as they were before the executive order.

[M]ost of the president's executive order is written in generalities, leaving unanswered whether the CIA will be free to subject prisoners to a range of specific techniques it has reportedly used in the past, including long-term sleep disruption, prolonged shackling in painful stress positions, or "waterboarding," a technique that produces the sensation of drowning.

The administration is separately crafting a list of permitted and forbidden tactics that it said will comply with Bush's executive order, but the list is classified. In a background conference call with reporters yesterday, a senior administration official declined to say whether the new guidelines will permit tactics such as waterboarding.

"I am not in a position to talk about any specific interrogation practices," the official said. "It is impossible for us, consistent with the objectives of such a program, to publicize to the enemy what practices may be on the table and what practices may be off the table. That will only enable Al Qaeda to train against those that are on or off."

Unless terrorists are prepared to grow gills, it's not clear how they can prepare to withstand waterboarding, but nevertheless, the new guidelines leave practically all of the key questions unanswered. No one outside the administration knows what's on the separate list of interrogation tactics, so no one knows whether administration policy prohibits torture, meets the standards of the Geneva Conventions, or conflicts with any existing laws or treaties.

"All the order really does is to have the president say, 'Everything in that other document that I'm not showing you is legal -- trust me,' " said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch.

Given the last six years, it's not as if the president has earned the benefit of the doubt.

Some photos are just so pregnant with meaning that they demand a caption contest to tap the full yield of collective snarkdom.

Here's a photo courtesy of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). A year ago at the annual Kenai River Classic, the big pol and lobbyist shindig hosted every year by Bob Penney, the Alaska bigwig who's now in hot water for giving Sen. Murkowski half off on a choice piece of riverfront property on the very same Kenai River, right near where the Classic is held every year.

At last year's Classic, Murkowski landed the second biggest fish, a 63 pound King Salmon which she posed with here ...

I'm going with either ...

"Penney Reels in a Big One"

or

"Bob Penney's Haul from a Great Day's Fishing"

Can you do better? Send us in your entries.

Sigh, it looks like some people are already freakin' out about this weekend's Cheney presidency ...

I'd been wondering lately about our old friend, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA). A year ago, Lewis was at the center of a widening federal investigation into congressional earmarks, lobbying practices, and the revolving door between congressional staff positions and DC lobbying firms. Then Los Angeles U.S. Attorney Debra Yang, whose office was leading the Lewis investigation, stepped down to enter private practice (with the firm representing Lewis); and San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, whose conviction of then-Rep. Duke Cunningham spawned the Lewis probe, was canned in the U.S. Attorneys purge. Since then, things have been awfully quiet (whether that was by design remains to be determined).

Until now. CBS News is reporting about a questionable new Lewis earmark, this one on Capitol Hill itself. According to CBS, Lewis has earmarked $2.4 million since 2004 to Barracks Row, a commercial development on the Hill, just four blocks from a million-dollar home owned by Lewis' wife. With the infusion of federal dollars, property values in the area have been soaring, the network reports. There's also another lobbyist connection:

But CBS News has found another link between Lewis and Barracks Row: Tip Tipton, property owner and director of the redevelopment project. It turns out he's a top Washington lobbyist, and a longtime Lewis friend and donor.

He says Congressman Lewis only has the national interest at heart.

“It’s important that the area surrounding the Capitol look like an area that the United States citizens would be proud to show their neighbors and friends,” Tipton, who is [on] the Barracks Row Board of Directors, said.

Lewis wouldn't talk to us but in a statement said it's "ridiculous" to suggest he supports Barracks Row for any reason other than to help residents and visitors in a once-shabby area.

I missed ol' Jerry. Nice to have him back.

Being a New Yorker, I'd remembered that during a cop union rally in 1992, Rudy had come unhinged and screamed, "Bulls#$t!"

For some time now I've been meaning to track video of this moment down. I thought it might tell us something about the reliability and temperament of this man who is asking us to make him our next Commander in Chief -- especially now that he's trying to win the support of GOP "values voters."

Wouldn't you know it, but video of that moment has suddenly surfaced, as if by magic! Enjoy:

"Bullsh#$t!"

Mitch McConnell concedes the 2008 Senate map looks grim indeed for the GOP. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.

In response to our inquiries, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has issued a statement responding to the uproar over the letter from Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman to Sen. Hillary Clinton condemning her for reinforcing "enemy propaganda." Says Gates:

I have long been a staunch advocate of Congressional oversight, first at the CIA and now at the Defense Department. I have said on several occasions in recent months that I believe that congressional debate on Iraq has been constructive and appropriate. I had not seen Senator Clinton’s reply to Ambassador Edelman’s letter until today. I am looking into the issues she raised and will respond to them early next week.

I'd stop short of calling that a rebuke to Edelman, but just barely short. Greg, who has been dogging this story for the last couple of days, has more at Election Central.

How does the GOP record of obstruction in the Senate compare to past Congresses? McClatchy does the legwork to get the numbers:

Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office.

McClatchy also puts the filibuster in historical context and notes that the Democrats used it more in recent years than in the past. In short, we've been on an upward trend for almost two decades, but the GOP is on pace to use the filibuster more than ever before in the history of the Senate.

TPM Reader TM digs deeper into President Bush's broad assertion of executive privilege:

I think David's point is an excellent one, but he doesn't sink the point home.

While everyone seems to recognize that some form of executive privilege exists, everyone also seems to agree that it doesn't really apply to federal agencies that are created by the Legislative Branch. The Attorney General, for instance, only has the powers he has due to Acts of Congress, and Congress can ask him any questions it wants to about holding him accountable for how he has used those powers and carried out acts of Congress. Getting straight answers is another story, but Congress has clear powers there.

But what if, "hypothetically", political appointees ostensibly accountable to Congress were either:

A) Puppets, taking orders from the White House, without regard or knowledge for why those decisions were being made; or

B) Pretend Puppets, feigning ignorance of how or why decisions were made, pointing the finger at the White House.

And in either case, the White House stonewalls, using claims of executive privilege to withhold information that could explain the actions of executive agencies clearly under the purview of Congressional oversight?

What we would have is the overthrow of de facto congressional oversight.

That's what this is all about.

I don't hold myself out as an expert on executive privilege, but I think TM is right that this is the most dire implication of the President's sweeping application of the theory of the unitary executive to executive privilege. And by "dire" I don't mean to suggest that it's a remote or speculative implication. It is very real.

However, I still maintain that in debating the scope of executive privilege as a policy matter, it concedes too much to say that of course the President can get good advice only if that advice is protected legally from congressional oversight. By then, you are already well down the slippery slope.