The Establishment Strikes Back

This is probably a repeat theme, but in my humble opinion, the most crucial threat to shrub and co. these days is not Libby rolling over. It's the wiretapping scandal. Why? Because though Libby WAS an insider, there's no real hard evidence to back up any allegations he MIGHT make at some point, IF he completely rolls over, which in and of itself is unlikely.

But the wiretapping bit gives the establishment (even the Republicans) a real solid chance to stand up against Bush. No matter what issue of shrub's they're sick of, this finally gives everyone a chance to stand up against him without fear of being labeled "un-American," because there's almost nothing more American than the right to privacy.

In keeping with this, here's a new story from Newsweek about a handful of key Republicans who are taking sides against shrub over the wiretaps:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11300384/site/newsweek/

And one of the most subtle and unkown (but still right-wing and impressively influential) is Rep. Heather Wilson, R-New Mexico. This is a woman who's been deeply entrenched in the military-industrial complex for decades, has worked for Reagan and the elder Bush, and is now (a la Murtha, perhaps?) taking sides against Bush. This is the real threat to the administration, and this is where the real possibilities for change are coming from. Bush & Co. have pissed off and alienated so many of the people they should be utilizing as allies that they're almost to the point of no return.

This, of course, is going to have immense repercussions for the Republican party, but only if the Democrats can come up with a viable candidate in '08. For my money, and I'm just speculating here, Hillary ain't gonna git it done. This is an invitation for discussion, if no one picked up on it.

***

Oh, hey, and here's a hypothetical question, for all the two of you who are reading my blog on any kind of regular basis: in response to Mehlman's recent allegations that Hillary Clinton is "too angry" to be elected president, should she just say, "Yes, I'm angry. I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore," and then use that as an intro for an anti-Bush rant? I think she should. Granted, "angry" candidates have not historically been succesful, but still, I can't help but think of Network. A lot of people are pissed off, and they could use a pissed off leader.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/nyregion/07hillary.html

***

One other interesting bit, for those of us who are (at least slightly) interested in the furthering of gay rights:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3500275

There's two sides to this story: first, there are two ballot initiatives likely to be on Colorado's ballot this November, one to add an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage, and a referendum giving the same legal rights as married couples to gay couples with domestic partnerships. The interesting bit is that both are mutually exclusive. If Colorado bans gay marriage, there's nothing in the current initiatives that would preclude the domestic partnership referendum from bestowing legal benefits on gay couples. So it's both a step forward and a step back. And right now, both measures are looking like they're going to succeed. Majorities of Coloradans support both the gay marriage ban and the domestic partnership bit.

Yeehaw, eh? Stupid red states. I already had a pizza today, but since the woman made some quiche, I'll take some extra salad dressing. Mustard vinaigrette.