DNC chairman Howard Dean pushed for apology over “Stalin” comment. That and other news of the day in today’s Daily Muck.

So Howard Dean is catching flak for comparing Katherine Harris to Joseph Stalin. (Actually did you know that TPM is related to Stalin by marriage? Little known fact. Actually not even sure if it’s true. But it seemed to be from what I could tell. I’ll look into it again.) But somehow Harris, Stalin, I just don’t see it. Not that she hasn’t been involved in undermining democracy and perhaps, by elevating George W. Bush to the presidency, in some way indirectly responsible for casting the entire Middle East into the hell pot of oblivion. But somehow, Stalin, I just don’t see it. Maybe it’s the pockmarks.

But that doesn’t mean she might not have an analogue in other villains from the past. Just off the top of my head Felix Dzerzhinsky comes to mind. He was founder of the NKVD, forerunner of the KGB. He was known as something of a dandy. So I can see some crossover and affinity there with Harris.

But you tell me. If not Stalin, which historical villain seems a more logical historical soulmate to Katherine Harris?

The Washington Post‘s front page today: House Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis (R-VA) and his lobbyist pal — who just happens to employ Davis’ wife.

More Social Security bamboozlement from Washington senate candidate Mike McGavick. He actually manages to flip-flop within the same statement.

This is from his statement on privatization/phase out in the Seattle Times today …

McGavick says benefits must be guaranteed for current beneficiaries and those nearing retirement. He does not support privatization or a phasing-out of Social Security. But confidence in the system is broken. He would give younger workers the option of placing their benefits in voluntary personal accounts controlled by the federal government. This would help restore confidence in the system and ensure its solvency.

So he doesn’t support privatization, only he does support it. Is this nuance?

BREAKING: President Bush Really Big Doofus

Yes, I grant you, this may have been reported in other outlets before. But we’re here listening to the Bush-Blair press conference. And a few minutes ago a reporter (I think David Gregory, but will check on that) asked the president in so many words: You said Iraq was going to bring about new Middle East but now the Middle East is a complete disaster.

Certainly, this would be a challenging question on more levels than one. But the president’s answer, quite a lengthy one actually, showed in a really frightening detail how President Bush seems to be basically brain dead on this issue. We’ll try to get a copy of it up on line. You really have to hear it to believe it.

Late Update: Here’s the transcript of the exchange in question.

Can acting in community theater get you kicked out of the Army?

Blogger’s point of privilege: From our Manhattan readers, can we get recommendations for economical but reliable business broadband service?

Here’s a transcript of that brain dead answer by Bush at today’s press conference alluded to earlier.

Hillary’s senate opponent John Spencer says she must endorse John Bolton to prove her loyalty to Israel. Bolton must be quite a goy! I didn’t even know he had one of our decoder rings.

Fascinating. From Ha’aretz: an interview with a broadcaster for an independent Arabic language news cable channel in Israel.