Is it really stealing the spotlight when it's offered?

The Washington Post reports today that the speakers have been set for both the Democratic and Republican national conventions, and a couple questionable choices appear on both lists.

The Democrats' headliner is certainly no stranger to the spotlight lately: ladies and gentlemen, a warm round of applause for President Bill Clinton. With pundits already questioning the potential effect of his book tour on the Kerry Campaign, the former President seems an interesting choice for Democrats. Within the party, he'll be a huge hit. Outside the convention doors, in the land of the undecideds, it may be a hit of another flavor. In four years, Clinton seems to have moved from pariah to patriarch; Gore's strategy of keeping WJC at arm's length is certainly not being heeded this time 'round, but then again, it wasn't a winning strategy for Gore.

Still, the majority of the buzz around Clinton's book is, predictably, his affair with Monica. It's hard for me to believe it's a positive for Kerry to have Clinton recounting his "couch time" after telling his then-First Lady Hillary about the affair.

Down in NYC, the Republicans will host Governor Schwarzenegger at the podium, apparently unfazed that the actor-cum-governor stands in sharp contrast to some of Bush's core social issues. Strategy might suggest that the Republicans are paying more attention to the land of the undecideds by putting forward the pro-choice, pro-gay moderate to ensure that the President's foothold in the right doesn't freak out the moderates in the undecided category.

Then again, perhaps it's just so the Governor can drop some movie lines and get some laughs.

The 30-second ad that lasted six months.

Republican and Democratic Party leaders are still firing missives at one another over two internet ads which featured the President and Adolph Hitler and drew some specious (at best) comparisons between the two. While MoveOn.org officially denied any culpability in or endorsement of the ad, it was submitted to the organization's "Bush in 30 Seconds" political ad contest and hosted at MoveOn's www.bushin30seconds.org.

MoveOn may have pulled the ad, but it's the Bush Campaign that thinks it still has legs. Also, the DNC who thinks that criticizing the criticism also still has legs. Finally, as a sidenote, the German government wants you to forget about Hitler.

The President's website showcases a movie in which clips from the offending ad are interspersed with Bush campaign text saying that (I paraphrase here) while Kerry has denounced the Bush Campaign's use of these ad clips, he has not denounced leaders like Al Gore and George Soros who have compared the President to Hitler. The ad then contains several clips, including a speech by Al Gore, but none contain a reference to Hitler.

While political ads are notoriously vague, the Bush video seems to be confused about its identity. It starts with the title "The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party" and features Hitler, Kerry, Dick Gephardt, Michael Moore, and Howard Dean. None of the latter make any remarks comparing Bush to the former, however. It seems as if the campaign started out making a "how dare Democrats compare Bush to Hitler" ad but got lost in the middle and concluded the ad by lambasting Kerry's "pessimism."

Essentially, six months of spin on a 30-second ad equals a situation where neither party is sure what they're talking about anymore. This attack has hit a wall for both sides, let's move on. (Pun very intended.)

I could be persuaded. Eh, probably not.

The political impact of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" documentary, opening today, is already being deliberated in the press. Considering my source material this morning, I use the word "press" in the broadest possible sense. (What? It was free with my hotel room.)

Journalistic snobbery aside, USA Today's article raises the issue of persuasion. Clearly, Moore wants the film to be the ultimate attack piece -- to his credit, something that hasn't been done before on this scale. The impact, however, is likely to be negligible.

This weekend's premiere, on screens in 868 theaters nationwide, is likely to be seen most by the people who don't need any convincing to oppose the President's campaign.

More than likely, the film's impact will be limited to a cinematic get-out-the-vote campaign, which could certainly have an impact in the long run.

Will it turn Bush lovers in to Bush haters - or even Bush questioners? We'll probably never know - they'd have to want to see it first.

GOP Leadership walks... away... slowly...

Following allegations that he took his then-wife Jeri Ryan to a string of sex clubs, Illinois Senate hopeful Jack Ryan is now officially pondering his options, according to CNN.

The allegations originally met with supportive statements from Republican colleagues in the Sucker State (I swear, that's one of their nicknames), which led Democrats to chide the supportive Republicans, reminding them of their not so supportive statements toward a certain former President turned author.

Majority Leader Bill Frist took a step back Thursday by noting that while he respects Jack Ryan the "committed public servant," he is disappointed in Jack Ryan the alleged sex club addict.

It seems as if Ryan's campaign (and the Republican Leadership) are laying the groundwork for his quiet exit from the race - probably the smart move. Considering Ryan originally told the press that the records contained nothing embarrassing, Republicans (especially Congressional ones) could only have defended the embattled candidate for so long without it coming back to bite them.

Especially during "My Life" kick-off week.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?

In response to the public outings of gay staffers on the Hill, the Lesbian and Gay Congressional Staffers Association released a statement condeming the campaign, charging that it "undermines our efforts to promote a safe work environment for all LGBT staff working for the House of Representatives."

In a spate of unfortunate e-mailing, however, the LGCSA neglected to blind-copy its full membership list in an e-mail Thursday that wasn't even intended for public consumption in the first place.

Not to worry, though - thanks to the highly coded "firstname.lastname@mail.house.gov" address format for many of the members, I'm sure Aravosis & Company won't be able to add any names to their "to do" list.

Related Posts:
Out, damn staffer, out!

Cheney orders the f-bombing of the Senate floor

Reports are flying that Vice President Cheney (less than politely) instructed Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to "go [expletive] himself" while in the chamber for the official Senate photo. Wonkette offers a much less redacted version of the altercation, which has been confirmed (via CNN) by the Vermont Senator's office as well as the Veep's office (although they dismiss the idea that Cheney would use such language).

Apparently, Cheney has taken offense to Leahy's call for a probe into the awarding of a no-bid contract for Iraq rebuilding to his former employer, Halliburton.

I'm starting the countdown to Democratic "outrage" and charges that he has "violated the sanctity of the Senate" right...... NOW. (Synchronize your watches.)

Out, damn staffer, out!

An activist duo has started a controversial "outing" campaign on Capitol Hill, seeking to force gay and lesbian staffers of gay-unfriendly Members to make themselves known. The campaign was brought to public light by the Washington Blade, DC's gay newsweekly, but has since been picked up by Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill.

According to the Blade, the campaign, led by John Aravosis and Mike Rogers, consists of vaguely threatening calls to staffers (whose names are obtained through anonymous tips) urging them to come out to their bosses. If they refuse to comply, a call is made to their Chief of Staff to spread the news.

The pair fancy themselves "liberators" of these closeted gay staffers, but critics (this critic included) are questioning the motivation as well as the intended result. Their misguided efforts force gay and lesbian staffers' private lives out into the open at a time when most gay advocates are seeking to make sexual orientation a non-issue in the workplace. Gays and lesbians working for Congress do not enjoy the protection of workplace non-discrimination laws; therefore, the outing campaign has the potential to lead to dismissals by uberconservative Members. Seems that for Aravosis & Company, it's come out or get out.

The anonymous tips, shady motivations and the psychological blackmail are glaring evidence of lessons unlearned. What Aravosis and his ilk have to gain through these efforts is unclear; as is their motivation to launch attacks on Congressional worker bees, rather than their elected bosses.

Big Sky, Big Reach.

Democrats are reaching again. After Nebraska Dems called shenanigans on Rep. Lee Terry's Madonna-centric fundraiser, their friends up north have made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the State Department on Tuesday, asking for "all documents, e-mails and other communications" regarding Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg's recent trip to Kazakhstan, Roll Call reports.

Rumors of impropriety were first lodged at the Congressman by an anonymous tipster to Roll Call's Heard on the Hill gossip column, who alleged that Rehberg tossed back "some 20 shots of vodka, ran into the woods, returned on a horse, fell over (stumbling drunk) was trampled on by another horse" and broke three ribs.

What the Montana Democrats will glean from the food menus and alcohol consumption data they've asked for from the State Department is unknown, but Rehberg's office denies (most of) the allegations. His office says that while he did fall off a horse, he wasn't drunk. Apparently, he's a lightweight; Roll Call quotes him as saying that he'd be "dead" after drinking that much vodka.

Oh, and for the record, he only broke two ribs, not three - so there.

Perhaps Montana Dems are jealous of the current Jack Ryan divorce scandal and are looking for their own golden ticket into the Capitol. Before they can make this volley work, however, they're going to have to get through a couple hurdles: 1) Montanans will have to start caring about what happens in Kazakhstan; and 2) Montanans will need to forget about the time they themselves got drunk and fell off a horse.

Related Posts:
Papa Didn't Preach, Apparently.
They just want to hanky panky, guy.
At least it was his wife, I guess.

Frist isn't making it easy? Say it isn't so.

Senator Kerry expressed his frustration yesterday over the Republican leadership's decision to delay a pivotal vote on veterans benefits scheduled for Tuesday.

The Presidential hopeful scrapped his campaign schedule to travel to Washington and cast his vote in favor of the veterans' health bill, which was scheduled for a vote yesterday afternoon. Kerry was hoping to parlay his time in DC to garner support from the key veteran constituency, but was thwarted by Republican scheduling changes. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist didn't hide his displeasure at Kerry "parachuting in" for the vote, although he denied delaying the vote to mess with the presumptive nominee's schedule.

If the Kerry Campaign thought that the Senate Republicans would welcome him home to cast a triumphant vote, though, he needs a smarter team. While his 20% voting attendance record this year hasn't had much traction in the mainstream media, it's certainly a sticking point inside the Capitol building.

Republicans are no doubt enjoying the opportunity to use the Senate's schedule to tweak the Junior Senator from Mass., but it's the Democrats who actually have a reason to be frustrated. Their move last month to extend unemployment benefits lost by one vote.

One guess who wasn't there.

The MPAA's teenage army

The Motion Picture Association of America announced Monday that it will enlist the help of theater employees in its fight against movie piracy by offering a $500 per-pirate bounty to the largely teenage gestapo.

The reward will be based on "several factors," says the MPAA, including whether or not the suspect was apprehended (are they encouraging these kids to give chase?) and the "timing of the piracy with relation to the movie's release." With subjective terms like these, a cynic might wonder if box office revenue might also be a factor in whether a pirate is reward-worthy or not.

Just how does the looting of Spiderman stack up to the plundering of Gigli?

At least it was his wife, I guess?

Court records from GOP Senate hopeful Jack Ryan's divorce from television actress Jeri Ryan were released by a Los Angeles judge on Monday. The records detail the reasons behind the divorce of the pair, which include allegations that the Senate hopeful, on three occasions, surprised his wife with trips to sex clubs in New Orleans, New York and Paris. At these clubs, he allegedly encouraged his wife to "have sex with him there, with another couple watching."

Kyle Sing over at Chicago Report has made some good points about the Ryan's right to privacy. The genesis of the release of these documents is a court case filed by several Chicago media groups, who argued that public interest outweighed the Ryan's right to privacy (and any negative effect the publicity would have on their 9-year-old son). While the results may have been juicy, and will probably have an effect on Ryan's electability (and, more cynically, the Chicago media's bottom line), the line of reasoning that divorce proceedings are an essential piece of information for the voters is far from clear.

Criminal records? Absolutely. Questionable business dealings? Sure. But divorce papers? That's a hard one to justify.

Congratulations! It's a... net gain?

At the request of Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), the Congressional Budget Office prepared an analysis of the budgetary impact of federal recognition of same-sex marriage. The report request was spurred by same-sex marriage opponents who presumed that the budgetary impact of federal recognition would tilt in their favor.

The Congressional Budget Office responded today with figures that Chabot probably didn't expect. The bottom line: federal recognition of same-sex marriages would have a negligible budgetary impact. If anything, gay marriage would produce a net gain of $1 billion. (In federal budget terms, negligible.)

Activists on both sides of the aisle have all-but-accepted that gay marriage would have a detrimental impact on the budget. Just six months ago, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) testified
before Chabot's Subcommittee on the Constitution, quoting previous CBO cost estimates to make the case against same-sex marriage. The Washington Times reported one month ago that "government officials say [the federal cost of gay marriage] would be high," and quoted Bachus' concerns that the recognition would "break the bank."

Even the Human Rights Campaign didn't have a strong answer to the question, asserting on their website that the effects on the budget would be negligible because the cost to extend benefits would be offset by lessening gay families' dependence on welfare benefits and food stamps. Right.

The report, it seems, has not provided gay marriage opponents with the ammunition they had hoped to help their efforts. Plus, considering they've extrapolated results from previous CBO reports to make their case already this year, it will be difficult to dismiss the CBO's new findings.

Opponents will undoubtedly find another way to make their argument, but Chabot will have to come to grips with the fact that he's handed gay marriage advocates strong evidence for their case.

Bush smacks down brevity

At the invitation of highly revered (and totally non-fake) World Wrestling Entertainment, the Bush and Kerry Campaigns have happily supplied their respective answers to the official "Smack Down Your Vote" candidate survey.

The two candidates' responses are as different as A-Train and the Ultimo Dragon - and that's before you even look at policy.

Kerry, the first to submit his five-page response, speaks to the target 18-30 audience with cutting edge controversial statements about "the economic concerns of young Americans," "making sure the doors of college are open to everyone" and that young people should not "lack quality health care coverage." The Massachusetts Senator also warms the hearts of 18-30 year olds by letting them know that "this election is about you." (Shhhhhh, that's a secret, don't tell the demographic groups that actually vote.)

Bush, who submitted his eleven-page novella today, takes a, uhm, detailed approach to addressing the SmackDown wrestleheads. Venturing inside the Bush response, one can find such young-person engaging quotes as "real GDP has grown at the fastest annual rate in 20 years," and one noting that "real after-tax income in America has increased 11% since 2000." Those readers still awake enough to turn past page one will find an extremely loquacious defense of the War in Iraq, the PATRIOT Act and the Bush Administration's education reform.

On the unofficial "Who Smacked Down That Survey?" scale, Kerry wins this one, with especially high marks in the "knowing your audience" and "how to say it in less than one page per question" competitions. The Bush Camp, however, proves that they've got statistics. And lots and lots of words to go with them.

They hope, oh how they hope...

The Washington Post reports that Senator John McCain's trip across the west with the President yesterday "ended any hopes" that the often dissenting Senator would hitch his wagon to the Kerry train as a Vice Presidential running mate.

The Senior Senator from Arizona has been largely ambiguous about the question up until now. If you don't count last month’s blanket denial ("I will not be vice president of the United States. I will not be a candidate. And I mean that.") on NBC's Meet the Press, or his rebuff ("I spent several years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, in the dark, fed with scraps. Do you think I want to do that all over again as vice president of the United States?") on Late Night with Conan O'Brien (scroll to the end).

The press has a responsibility to pursue stories, certainly – and even to push beyond any denials thrown their way. Some of the most famous stories in the annals of media have followed very public denials. The media’s fascination with a bipartisan Kerry-McCain ticket has been based on very few facts along the way, and Senator McCain’s continued refusals to entertain an offer for the VP spot have underscored the lack of corroboration.

Last week, the Kerry team, for reasons passing understanding, leaked the fact that the two Senators talked, essentially dancing around the issue and coming to the (wink, wink) understanding that McCain wasn’t kidding when he said he wouldn’t entertain Kerry’s advances. Even in politics – well, at least McCain’s special version - no really does mean no.

Apparently, that still wasn’t enough to convince the media – at least the Post - but the Arizona Senator’s appearance with the President in Washington, Nevada, and Arizona on Friday put the nail in the coffin of the bipartisan-ticket-story-of-the-century-media-lovefest.

Perhaps the only question remaining is whose “hopes” the Post was referring to in the opening of their article. My money’s on the Post itself.

He just wants them to vote, that's all...

President Bush yesterday addressed the Southern Baptist Convention via live video link to encourage the group to engage in voter registration efforts. The President's campaign separately urged church leaders to do everything short of endorse Bush within their congregations, careful to skirt around any implication that they are encouraging churches to violate the terms of their tax-exempt status, knowing that they really don't have to; an extremely strong majority of those registered through church drives will vote Bush.

It's an easy leap to criticize Mr. Bush for what some view as a blurring of the lines, but unlike proposed changes by Republicans on the Hill (from the DArchives), the Bush Campaign's actions aren't a violation of the law, they're just fuzzy.

But even folks within the church are concerned; the NYT quotes Daniel Vestal, coordinator of the dissident Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, as saying "the Southern Baptist Convention has become aligned with the secular political agenda of one particular part of one party, and that is tragic."

This sort of dissent sounds awfully familiar. Republicans have long worked for paycheck protection to ensure that conservative union members weren't forced to donate to liberal candidates -- perhaps the push to loosen religious exemption laws will give birth to "offering plate protection?"

HRC endorses Kerry... over Clinton

The Human Rights Campaign yesterday announced their endorsement of John Kerry for President. HRC President Cheryl Jacques kicked off the release with apropos approbations: "From voting against the Defense of Marriage Act to actively opposing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' John Kerry is a true leader for our community." The next paragraph hammers the point home again, noting that Kerry was one of 14 Senators to oppose DOMA and testified against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Without question, John Kerry is the right choice for the HRC, but their spotlight issues make for an insteresting choice: they're products of the Clinton Administration. Democrats defend the former President by noting that there were political forces at work that forced his hand, but the HRC backs up Kerry on that one too -- Kerry was the only one of the fourteen anti-DOMA senators who was up for re-election. If memory serves, Clinton was on the ballot that year as well.

There is no shortage of comparison points to address between the two candidates, but HRC's press release seems to argue not that Kerry is better than Bush, but that Kerry is better than Clinton... was?

I'll give HRC a break, though, because it's hard to compare Kerry and Bush on the GLBT issue du jour, same-sex marriage. They both oppose it.

Who's talking pre-nup now, Teresa?

The Washington Post reports today that John Kerry has broken all presidential campaign records, raising over $100 million in the last 100 days. One would expect the Bush Camp to retort that it has outraised Kerry on the whole, but they're actually saying that they've always expected to be outspent by the other side, so this is exactly how they thought things would happen. Huh?

The DNC, conversely, is saying that the surge is a sign that the DNC is building a "sustainable database" of donors that will be called upon time and time again. Privately, they say that it's due to dislike for the President's policies in combination with a "great nominee." Which is totally true. If you take away the last part.

Not to disparage the Democratic nominee (which, let's face it, is just what people say before they disparage someone), but Kerry hasn't been breaking any records for campaign prowess or personal charisma during the last 100 days; the Bush Administration, however, has taken some pretty big hits on Iraq during that same time.

Of course, the Kerry Campaign would love to say that the surge in money is due to a surge in Kerry's popularity, rather than a surge in bad news for Bush. Perhaps with $100 million, maybe they can do something about that.

Tucker? I don't even know her!

This Friday on PBS, Tucker Carlson launches his new show, "Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered." During an online chat with the Washington Post, Tucker peddles his wares, sounding much less like his Crossfire persona and more like someone that I wouldn't completely hate to be stuck in an elevator with.

On the subject of partisan politics, Tucker opines that "neither party seems to take its own ideas very seriously," while pointing out that he is still a conservative, "which is one of the reasons I often have trouble defending Bush."

A few weeks ago, I explored the idea of doing a Crossfire-inspired column with an "other side of the aisle but just barely" friend of mine. Turns out, neither of us had a desire to take the extreme side of either of our partisan identities, and the prospective column stalled.

Not that there's anything wrong with doing that, mind you; Crossfire is good entertainment, but if this new show is any indication, Tucker might just want to be Tucker.

Movies aren't real?

The Energy Future Coalition launched a new website to refute the "science" portrayed in the Fox sci-fi film The Day After Tomorrow. The group's new website, www.dayaftertomorrowfacts.org, provides solid data point-by-point to refute the claims made in the movie.

Is the EFC concerned that Americans will think TDAT is a documentary? One might hope that even the most non-scientifically minded American won't fear that the planet can really go from zero to ice age within a week. The Coalition clearly isn't holding out similar hope.

Now, I respect the EFC and their mission; they're probably one of the most even-keeled environmental groups out there. With the exception of this initiative, their policy (for the most part) consists of an even mix of environmentalism and reality, under the theory that somewhere between "what we would do in a perfect world" and "what we do now" is a middle ground that will make positive progress for the environment.

In fairness to the EFC, the fact that some groups still refuse to admit global warming exists (or moreover, that pollution isn't bad) may be a signal that people don't know enough about the phenomenon. If anybody is going to educate the masses, I'd much rather EFC do it than their more extremist counterparts.

I suppose my main problem is that EFC didn't address my two major concerns about the movie: 1) the horribly (but expected) cheeseball script and 2) the horribly computer animated wolves randomly roaming New York City.

I'm happy to wait while they address these glaring omissions.

Papa didn't preach, apparently.

Roll Call's Heard on the Hill reports this morning that Congressman Lee Terry nixed his Madonna concert fundraiser on Monday amid controversy raised by Nebraska Democrats.

Although it's a shame that the Congressman yielded to such a ridiculous attack, it may have turned out to be a wise move. Even thought the Washington Post reports that no concertgoers "seemed bothered by the antiwar, anti-Bush politics of the show," I'm betting that Terry's supporters - not to mention the Congressman himself - would have been.

Related Posts:
They just want to hanky panky, guy.

Doesn't everybody hate crime?

The Senate voted 65-33 today in favor of the Hate Crimes Amendment to the Defense Authorization bill, which would add sexual orientation, gender and disability to the list of protected classes under the Hate Crimes Act. The amendment would allow the federal government to assist local government in prosecuting hate crimes. While the Republican leadership solidly opposed the bill, eighteen Republicans joined their colleagues across the aisle to create a filibuster-proof margin for the controversial bill.

Hate crime laws are controversial with or without this amendment, but if these laws are to exist, it is difficult to imagine them not including sexual orientation, especially in the still looming shadow cast by Matthew Shephard.

Advocates for the amendment were pleased by the result, although some tempered their exuberance with concerns about still unprotected groups while others urged caution in victory, noting that there are more battles to come.

And right they are. Not to be perceived as being too flamboyantly gay, the Republican Leadership announced today that it will schedule a vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment in mid-July (the AFA says July 15, which is either insider info or a total guess). The GOP knows it won't get the required supermajority to pass, but in the process, they'll put Democrats on the gay marriage record prior to the Democratic National Convention in late July.

They just want to hanky panky, guy.

The Nebraska Democratic Party is calling shenanigans on the chosen venue for Republican Congressman Lee Terry's fundraiser tonight - namely the Madonna concert in downtown Washington, DC. While the press release is MIA on the Nebraska Party's website, Roll Call's Heard on the Hill (sub. req.) reported last week that the Nebraska Dems are decrying the fundraiser as hypocritical, since Congressman Terry vocally rebuked Janet Jackson's Super Bowl performance. (I vaguely remember the incident.)

What the Madonna concert (which, last I checked, is optional) has to do with Ms. Jackson's Superbowl antics isn't exactly clear. If this is the best the Nebraska Dems have up their sleeve, they might want to get some new sleeves.

Church, meet State.

The Arizona Republic offers this editorial on a duo of bills in the House that would alter the ability of churches to participate politically without losing their tax-exempt status. The first (and perennial) bill, H.R. 235, would allow churches to make both endorsements of and donations to political candidates without endangering their tax-exempt status. The bill would not extend the same courtesy to non-religious non-profits. The bill made its bi-annual debut in January 2003, and hasn't moved since.

However, a provision within H.R. 4520, the corporate tax bill, would provide for limits and penalties for churches who lobby the federal government or participate in political campaigns. While that sounds like a good thing, the provision actually provides churches with a strike system -- the legislation would reportedly allow them a certain number of violations before their tax exemption would be revoked. Under the existing law, churches are prohibited from engaging in political activities, but no "warning" system exists for violations, only the automatic loss of their tax-exempt status.

The renewed attention to this issue is partly the result of the Vatican's call to deny communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights - a foray into politics that drew the attention of Catholic Democrats last month. Without a doubt, either bill would invigorate the President's re-election campaign and his conservative base.

The separation of church and state can only truly exist in a vacuum. There will always be an influence, even if it isn't overt. However, codifying a two, three, or four-strikes-you're-out system has the effect of handing churches a pack of free passes to violate the terms of their exemption.

Now, I'm sure any good separation-minded church would never think of using those passes. Unless, of course, some religiously-charged issue were to find its way into the Presidential campaign. It's a good thing we don't. have. any. of. those.

Evacuation Reviews Well

Capitol Hill's Roll Call newspaper reports today (sub. req.) that the evacuation of the Captiol went smoothly, with the exception of the Library of Congress, who were apparently out of the "omigod there's a plane coming right for us" loop. Another argument for Cap Police Chief Gainer's plans to merge the LOC police with his own force, apparently.

While I made some critical comments about the manner in which the evacuation was handled, apparently Senate and House Leadership are pleased with the outcome. At least staffers now know what the "plane about to hit us" plan is; while we all hope there isn't a "next time" for this particular drill, perhaps it's best that the staffers know what's going to happen -- before they start getting "impact in one minute" announcements.

Bush lands - but not forever

Maybe it's just dead president fever over at CNN, but this article puts a morbid spin on the two tandem parachute jumps made by President George H.W. Bush today, noting that "about 60 seconds of free fall were followed by five to eight minutes of gliding onto a landing on a grassy field, near where he plans to be buried." (emphasis mine)

I can almost guarantee that this will replay heavily when this jump - and that quote - become part of "Remembering Bush" week when H.W. shuffles off his mortal coil...

RUN! to the nearest sensible evacuation plan

Everytime Capitol Hill has a false alarm, the Capitol Police get a chance to show how NOT prepared they are to deal with a major threat to the Capitol. Less than two hours before President Reagan's funeral procession was set to begin, the political protectors were alerted to a breach of restricted airspace and subsequently initiated what I can only assume was their amazingly strange emergency plan for evacuation.

A plan that involved such notable quotes (sub. req.) as “get the [expletive] out, there’s a plane, two minutes” from the highly trained Capitol cops. Right.

Evacuated Hill denziens told stories about staffers running down stairs, yelling frantic and eerily final cell phone "I love yous" to equally freaked parents as Capitol Police yelled at them about an impending "impact" and for staffers to simply "RUN SOUTH!"

Now, one might think that of ALL the emergency plans that might exist for the Capitol, a plane striking a building might, just might be on the list. If "JUST F---ING RUN SOUTH!" was the plan, they might want to revisit.

Kudos to the CapCops on getting people out of harm's way, but the procedure left some staffers wondering why that particular evac plan wasn't in the training manual.

This is totally not for Reagan, we swear.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has issued a press release announcing that their offices will be closed on Friday in honor of "all those lost to AIDS."

I'm sure NGLTF donors are hopeful that Task Force employees will spend the day properly memorializing those lost to AIDS, but I'm guessing they're going to do what everyone else in DC is going to do: enjoy their day off.

I say good for them, but I'm surprised it took them this long to think of the proper spin.

Is the Reagan, is not the Reagan...

Two pieces out of the Capital today, as Washington's political colors start to eek through the veneer of bipartisan mourning.

CQ Today (get your own damn subscription) reports this morning on the Democrats and their tributes to President Reagan, highlighting the former leader's qualities that they say differ from the party's current standard-bearer. Specifically - pragmatism and respect for the other side. Tom Daschle told reporters he would "have a hard time imagining President Bush" demonstrating Reagan-esce civility. It's totally cool, though, because if it's one thing Democrats are all about, it's civility.

Very apropos of Reagan's policies, the Republicans seem to be counting on the trickle-down from LoveFest to lather President Bush in goodwill. Probably to his political benefit, the President's prior G8 committments in Georgia have probably helped to keep him clear of any perceived "milking" of Reagan's passing. Bush has done enough invoking of the Reagan prior to the political pontiff's death to get him whatever traction this memorial week might provide.

In the end, both sides will dismiss the other as spin -- and both sides, for once, will be right.

It's morning again, again

It's 1981-1988 again. All at once. At least then, they had eight years to deal with it. Now it's like Reagan concentrate. Although we haven't seen the former President in over a decade, but his death has certainly stirred up both intense patriotism and warmth as well as intense hatred and animosity -- and some of us are slipping into the same old debates again.

The left, particularly gay groups and AIDS activists, are horrified by the outpouring of emotion and love for the former chief executive. Understandably so -- they're reminding us that Reagan oversaw (or didn't oversee, you decide) the onset of AIDS, but failed to address it publicly until 1987. The gay community is far from unified on this front, however - not everyone is sure the Gipper should take the whole blame, or perhaps, if this is the appropriate time to be handing out the blame cards.

On the right, party loyalists and Christian groups are falling all over each other to pay homage to the revered patriarch. From what I've seen, they have not turned to snipe at their dissenters, which serves them well, I think - the last thing the Reagan family wants is a politics-as-usual tit-for-tat. Any acknowledgement of anti-Reagan sentiments takes away from the warm and fuzzy week they've planned to say goodbye to a larger-than-life Chief.

Does Reagan's passing count as a period of national loss? Depends. After 9/11, there was no sniping, no arguing and no debating, there was just doing. That, to me, is a nation mourning a national loss. With the loss of Reagan, that overwhelming feeling isn't there -- certainly not without qualification from the left.

That doesn't mean, however, that it can't be handled with respect for both those who held him dear, and those that hold him at arm's length. This week is a throw-away week for legislative work in DC; pomp and circumstance will certainly pervade.

We're doing the same for Ford, right?

Beelzebub doesn't live here.

Here we go.

Thanks to the ubiquity of, well, ubiquity on the net, you can find any number of definitions for "devil's advocate," including the very pessimistic "someone who takes the worse side just for the sake of argument."

However, I rather like the idea that a devil's advocate is someone who critiques "ideas to ensure that different viewpoints are fully explored."

It is nearly impossible to write politically without your own views seeping in. There are plenty of news outlets that have a hard time with it, and political outlets don't even try. (Although, in fairness to them, that's their job.)

That's what this space is for. If this blog had a mortal enemy, it would be propaganda. Since it's a Presidential campaign year, it's as pervasive as Washington cicadas.

As a disclaimer: I have never been a good party person. I have friends, however, on both sides that do their respective parties a lot of good. Unfortunately, these dear friends of mine, and more like them, have a tendency to forget that there are two sides to each argument. DA is here to remind them.

Someone - and with all due apologies, I can't remember who - recently said that if party activists on both sides would concede simply that the other side is acting in good faith, much of the party nastiness we see today could be dispelled.

That is absolutely true, but it's not going to change anything.