Def Sec Gates: Senate debate of anti-escalation resolution doesn’t hurt troop morale, after all.

As noted below, Rudy is flip-flopping badly on a key issue for social conservatives: Whether he backs a ban on “partial birth” abortion. Here’s another damning piece of evidence.

Given how edgy blog writing is (some more than others), it seems inevitable that bloggers who go to work for campaigns will get their past writings scrutinized and then have their employers dogged to fire them. If there’s anything that surprises me about this dust-up with the Edwards campaign, it’s this. Is it really possible that they hadn’t figured out who they were hiring, figured something like this would happen and planned for how they would react if and when it did?

That said, the ‘incendiary’ quotes I just heard referenced on CNN didn’t really strike me as all that incendiary. And second, Bill Donohue? Chief rabblerouser and bullyboy of the ‘Catholic League’? Please. I think he gave up his ‘incendiary’ language complaint rights when he said that ” “Hollywood likes anal sex” or that “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.” I can’t wait till he comes with the dig that gets Jews, Christians and anal sex all into one long smoldering sentence.

Please. Please. Please. Let’s get someone on the right to complain who’s not a complete nutball and Jew-basher and then we can talk.

Guess who’s subbing on the campaign trail for Hillary in New York this weekend? The answer is…

TPM Reader AG on Edwards, et al.: “I’m sad to see that this whole “controversy” over John Edwards’ bloggers is yet another example of what you’ve termed the “bitch-slap theory” of politics. If the Edwards campaign buckles under the “pressure” of some as petty as Michelle Malkin and Bill Donahue, then the meta-message is that he’s even more of a wimp that John Kerry. I can understand the campaign not wanting this to become a distracting “issue”, but I think the way to effectuate that is to basically laugh off the entire “controversy” rather than buckle under.”

And TPM Reader NG (no relaton) …

My husband and I would likely be described as “liberal” Catholics by the rest of the world. Maybe we are. I do read TPM. I don’t like William Donahoe either. He’s way into victimhood. Yes people make remarks about the Catholic Church that they would never make about other religions. The criticism is often uninformed or ignorant. But Roman Catholics are not persecuted in the U.S. We are free to practice our religion. I’ve read Pandagon in the past. I read it because I wanted to read a feminist blog. I thought they spent too much time cruising the right-wing blogosphere. I also found their criticisms of the church to be rather redundant. Yes I really have read it all before. It’s fine if you want to make them but don’t pretend to be original or cutting-edge.

There is another aspect of this case that has received little mention but I find it interesting. Marcotte made another controversial post about the Duke Lacrosse sexual assault case that received some attention. (I’m a criminal defense attorney and have been following the case.) The blog entry parroted the conventional feminist prosecutorial spin on the case with no real thought as to how the later developments have changed the case. Marcotte is never going to change her mind about this one. The problem is that John Edwards old law partner, Wade Smith, is representing one of the defendants in that case. Smith and at least one other defense lawyer have also contributed to Edwards’s past campaigns. I do not know how close Smith and Edwards are. But I might be annoyed if my former law partner hired somebody to work for him that trashed my high profile client in a public forum. The situation may have made Edwards uncomfortable.

I do feel bad for almost anybody who loses their job. But I wonder why Marcotte was a good fit for a political campaign. She may be witty but she is terribly predictable and seems to have trouble adjusting to new information. I think that would be a problem for someone running for office. But I’m just a lawyer and what do I know.

Then there’s TPM Reader GN …

Normally I’d agree with you regarding Donohue’s waiver of credibility, but even a broken watch is right twice a day.

The comment regarding the Church forcing women to give birth so as to provide “tithing” Catholics smacked of (what I had hoped) was long-gone 19th century biases against Catholics– that they are a slavish people in thrall to an all powerful hierarchy employing superstition to keep people in line, and that the Church itself is an organized racket to take advantage of such people.

Look, there’s more than enough legitimate reason to criticize the Church’s position on birth control without resorting to ad hominem (or ad institutionem!) attacks. Obviously Edwards can hire who he wants– but how can one be surprised that he’d fire people showing such cavalier disrespect towards an important traditional Democratic voting base?

Or TPM Reader DF …

Edwards has staked out some pretty strong positions on healthcare, the war in Iraq, and although I can’t remember him saying so, I’m pretty sure he’s in favor of decisive action vis a vis climate change. Great.
These are all issues that have reached a crisis point of one kind or another. So today the righties put a little heat on his bloggers (over the kind of nontroversy that they are so adept at exploiting)- and he
cuts them loose. Can we expect him to stay strong on those important issues that are not yet crises?

Edwards campaign in bunker mode over blogger controversy.

An army investigation finds no evidence of detainee abuse at Gitmo. And oddly enough, the investigator managed an absolutely thorough inquiry without speaking to any detainees.

ABC picks up the bogus Pelosi-airplane story. Give it a read and see how they work their way around discussing whether the story has any merit.

How silly did the Pelosi-airplane story get today in the CNN retelling? Some choice squibs.

Chatting it up with Wolf Blitzer on The Situation Room Carol Costello noted that protestations to the contrary, “both planes are capable of flying coast to coast without refueling under optimal conditions.”

Blitzer also noted that “In theory, [both plane] could fly coast to coast without refueling, but that would also depend on multiple factors, including winds, payloads and reserve fuel requirements.”

Note, the plane the GOP says Pelosi must fly on “in theory” could make it to her district. That is, assuming good prevailing winds. Adverse wind conditions or a back up on the runway in San Francisco and it might fall out of the sky. But under “optimal conditions” it could well make it all the way there.

Go see the rest of the transcript to see if CNN asked any of Pelosi’s accusers any adverse questions.

Late Update: TPM Reader JT from the airline industry writes in to say: “I work with aircraft logistics situations all the time. Having a plane that can make it to a destination non-stop (but only if conditions are right) is a nightmare for planning. It means you don’t know if you need to plan for another hour on the ground for the fuelstop until a few hours before the flight. And the weather looked good yesterday but doesn’t look good today. And (as you noted), if there’s a lengthy ground hold before the flight, you’ll make the stop regardless of weather. You would almost rather have a plane that definitely needed a fuel stop so you could at least plan around it.”

Later Update: TPM Reader JT checks in again …

In reading further about the planes…

Hastert had a “C-20”… another name for a Gulfstream business jet. Assuming Hastert has the C-20A version, this would be like a Gulfstream II (able to make Illinois non-stop… but sometimes may not make it nonstop to California.

Pelosi wants a non-stop to California plane. Terrific… upgrade her to the C-20H. This is the Gulfstream IV equivalent. It’s basically the same size plane but has the range she wants.

Republicans are accusing her (per ABC article) that she wants the C-32. This is equivalent to a Boeing 757 which holds as many as 200+ passengers in all coach configuration. If this is what she truly requested, this is indeed a giant step up from what Hastert had been using.

Point #3 is the kicker. If she wants to go from Gulfstream to Boeing 757, that is quite a leap. If she just wants nonstop, give her the Gulfstream IV equivalent and be done with it.

Seven Republican senators have written Reid, McConnell, Dubin and Lott decrying the political gamesmanship that preventing a debate and vote on the ‘surge’. I have a hard time buying their line. It was the Republicans who scuttled this debate. I have a hard time seeing this as a matter of equal blame on both sides. But read the details and see what you think.

I think Reid’s words on this will carry the day. You can’t escape this one. Iraq is the issue of the day. They can’t get away from it. The debate’s coming.