… that my schedule is full to the brim for the next couple of months, or I’d be experiencing some serious envy about this.

Amsterdam … sigh …

Via email, August reminds me of something John Kerry said in June of 2003:

I am prepared to filibuster, if necessary, any Supreme Court nominee who would turn back the clock on a womans right to choose, on civil rights and individual liberties, and on the laws protecting workers and the environment.

… update: astonishingly enough, CNN is reporting that Kerry is, in fact, calling for a filibuster.

In the discussion about the Abramoff scandal, people have mentioned the K-Street Project’s goals of funneling money to Republican candidates and providing golden parachutes for ex-GOP congressmen and their staffers, but amid the outrage about media outlets repeatedly making the false claim that this is a bipartisan scandal one important point is being missed. The key point of the K-Street Project wasn’t just its boosting of Republicans, but its insistence that Democrats not be allowed to share in the spoils. In short, this is a Republican scandal because the GOP insisted that Democrats not be allowed to sit at the grownup’s table. That’s not to say that Democrats are above corruption by any means, just that in this case the Republicans went out of their way to ensure that these avenues to bribery were only available to Republicans.

August has just ensured that when they start rounding up cartoonists, his name will be higher on the list than mine.

From the start:

The first official history of the $25 billion American reconstruction effort in Iraq depicts a program hobbled from the outset by gross understaffing, a lack of technical expertise, bureaucratic infighting, secrecy and constantly increasing security costs, according to a preliminary draft.

* * *

Seemingly odd decisions on dividing the responsibility for various sectors of the reconstruction crop up repeatedly in the document. At one point, a planning team made the decision to put all reconstruction activities in Iraq under the Army Corps of Engineers, except anything to do with water, which would go to the Navy. At the time, a retired admiral, David Nash, was in charge of the rebuilding.

“It almost looks like a spoils system between various agencies,” said Steve Ellis, a vice president and an authority on the Army corps at Taxpayers for Common Sense, an organization in Washington, who read a copy of the document. “You had various fiefdoms established in the contracting process.”

* * *

Until January 2003, reconstruction planning was conducted in secrecy “to avoid the impression that the U.S. government had already decided on intervention,” the draft history says. Possibly as a result, the American administrative authority arrived with no written plans or strategies for purchasing and contracting and no personnel with expertise in the area.

According to AP:

White House counselor Dan Barlett said Monday that Bush’s photographs in the company of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff amount to a coincidence and shouldn’t be interpreted any more seriously than that.

Other photographic coincidences:

1. Picture of Abramoff putting $100 bills into Bush’s g-string with his teeth

2. Picture of Abramoff handing Bush an oversized novelty check for $1 million with memo line reading “bribe”

3. Picture of Abramoff with Bush, inscribed: “To Jack—thanks for the bribe!”

4. Picture of Dan Bartlett with Bush, inscribed: “To Dan—thanks for lying about my sordid relationship with Jack Abramoff!”

5. Twenty year-old picture of Abramoff shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld in Baghdad.

Update from Tom: as luck would have it, I was able to track down one of the photos Jonathan mentions. Somebody tell Drudge.

Greg’s new rainy day fun game, repurposing Mallard Fillmore strips, reminds me of the time I was at a conference of editorial page editors, back in the early nineties, and met an editor — I’m pretty sure she was from the Washington Times — who was one of that strip’s earliest champions. Her description of Mallard Fillmore remains lodged in my mind: “It’s like Doonesbury — but conservative and with a duck!

I don’t know why that still makes me smile, but it does.

This week’s cartoon was the one that I originally wrote for the New York Times op ed page, but decided to pull upon being notified, late in the process, that the op ed page no longer allows caricature. I discussed the situation at greater length here, but the short version is that the Times felt the piece was salvagable without using identifiable images of politicians. They suggested that it would work just as well with a picture of the White House, or by representing Bush and Cheney as figures speaking from the shadows.

I disagreed.

This is the ‘rough’ version of the piece as submitted to the Times:

You can see a larger version by clicking on the image. You’ll notice that I changed a few things before using the piece in my weekly strip — the woman in panel two is replaced by Sparky; in panel three, Bush changes from a would-be king to a decadent Roman emperor; and I tweaked the wording here and there. But for all practical purposes, it’s the same cartoon that I sent out this week.

So. Let’s take a closer look at the third panel, as it appeared in my final piece:

Okay, now let’s see how well that would work if I were to forego the use of caricature, and simply insert a picture of the White House:

The joke kind of loses some of the impact, doesn’t it?

Similarly, the final panel pretty much hinges on the immediate recognition of Cheney growling and Bush looking somewhat blank and idiotic:

But just for fun, let’s try it with Bush and Cheney obscured by shadow:

Again, not quite the same.

I suppose I could have rewritten the panels entirely, but I’d already put too much work into the piece as it was — and as I said before, there sometimes comes a point where you just really don’t feel good about obliging such foolishness with cheerful acquiesence. Of course, maybe I’m just a cranky sonofabitch.

I’m really, really tired of getting jerked around by Democrats. Last week, Harry Reid wrote a great op-ed that justifiably compared the Republican bribery scandal to organized crime, but yesterday he apologized to the mob (via TPM) :

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday apologized to 33 Republican senators singled out for ethics criticism in a report from his office titled “Republican Abuse of Power.”

“The document released by my office yesterday went too far and I want to convey to you my personal regrets,” Reid said in a letter.

“I am writing to apologize for the tone of this document and the decision to single out individual senators for criticism in it.”

This seems to be the endless cycle for the Democratic elites. First they say something tough to get the base all riled up, but then they turn into shrinking violets at the first appearance of GOP dissent. Is this how you took down organized crime in Vegas, Harry? By sending little apology notes to mob bosses when you hurt their feelings? Real tough guys don’t apologize for being right.

And while I’m on the subject of weak-ass Democratic responses to Republican corruption, as much as I like Rep. Louise Slaughter, I’ve gotta take issue with her post over at DailyKos “Democrats Come Out Swinging for Honest Leadership in Washington”. I know a politician’s greatest skill is the ability to pat himself/herself on the back, but this is too much. When it came to proposing solutions to the Republican bribery scandal, you guys were beaten to the punch by Republicans! Do you have any idea how lame that looks? It sends the message that Republicans can do a better job policing themselves than the Democrats can. You guys didn’t come out swinging, you came out blocking.

When you get to the meat of the proposals, the Democratic plan is a slightly tougher laundry list of proposals that bears a striking resemblance to the GOP plan. When are you guys going to realize that “Me too!” isn’t a message that’s going to help you win elections? Sure, if you get into the meat of both proposals, the Democratic plan is much better, but who gives a shit at that point? Congratulations, you’ve won the confidence of a few hundred policy wonks. The rest of the country still thinks you’re wimps.

I can’t believe I’m actually saying this, but you guys really need to stop worrying about policy and start worrying about politics. No matter how great the Democratic plan is, it doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of actually getting through a GOP-run legislature. So instead of boring people with a wonkish list of “reforms”, why not counter with something bold and simple that actually has a chance of convincing people that the Democratic party represents a viable alternative to GOP leadership? It doesn’t have to be realistic, it just has to get attention.

For example, instead of a byzantine list of regulations on what lobbyists can and can’t do, you should just come out of the gate proposing a ban on all lobbying. Send a message that under Democrats, the rich and powerful don’t get more access to the halls of Congress than Joe and Jane Sixpack. You want to “petition the government”, then use the “Contact Us” form on a Senator’s webpage just like everyone else. Sure, the proposal is simple-minded and would never make it through committee, but that’s not the point. If you ever want to get into a position in which you can govern, you need to address the problems that voters are concerned about. Americans are sick and tired of the government working on behalf of professional ass-kissers.

It doesn’t help that those same Americans also think Democrats are a buch of weenies without moral compasses. When you’re alternately stuck in the GOP’s shadow and begging their forgiveness, that only adds to the misconception. So throw something out there to let everyone know that you’re not just a bunch of neutered shills that are afraid to defend your values. Offer big proposals that draw a stark difference between the GOP and Democratic agendas. With a track record as horrible as yours, the last thing you need to worry about is how you’re actually going to fulfill your promises. Besides, if you accidentally win an election, there’s nothing to stop you from taking a cue from the Contract with America crowd by watering down the proposals and later declaring victory. You’re politicians, remember?

The Young Republican who’s running a witch hunt to expose the rampant liberalism of the UCLA faculty has a website, here. His email address is bruinalumni@bruinalumni.com. In case you missed my post below, let me reiterate: I think the best way to deal with this is to denounce every single professor on the UCLA campus, and maybe some imaginary ones as well.

Be creative.

And be sure to demand your hundred bucks.