Not pretty:

Like any close reader of The Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch has his opinions.

“I’m sometimes frustrated by the long stories,” he said, adding that he rarely gets around to finishing some articles.

The editorial pages? He likes them but would like to see more political coverage in the news pages. “I might put more emphasis on Washington,” he said.

Oy. And Murdoch seems intent on getting it:

Update [2007-5-4 21:57:3 by Big Tent Democrat]: I want to clarify that I do not mean to say that mahablog believes the one benchmark mentioned in the proposed bill she is touting is the end of the road, but rather a step in the "ratcheting up the pressure" process. I thought I was clear on that point but I want to make sure I am not misstating mahablog's position. I do not believe that changes my analysis of the situation. Indeed, I think John Edwards has the best response to that argument.

Being called naive by someone who believes this tickles me no end:

Monday I published a post about building a veto-proof majority in the House and Senate to vote against the war.

Bulding a veto-proof majority??? It takes 290 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate to override a Presidential veto. Let's just take the Senate. Can anyone name the 17 Republicans who are gonna vote to end the war please (Lieberman never will, so IF you can hold the 50 Dems, you need 17 Republican Senators.) And you call me naive? Puhleeeaze. It is no wonder that someone who believes a veto proof majority to end the war can be built thinks this:

One thing I like about these Democratic leaders is they’re very subtle and canny. We have to keep in mind, of course, that we’re dealing with a hostage situation here, and we have to protect our soldiers from this maniac.

Suuuure. That House Supplemental is working out like a charm for ending the war. Honestly, sometimes our side can be as stubborn in clinging to ideas that have been proven not to work as the Right.

I forgot to do an open thread earlier this week, and I'll be at the jail most of the day, so here's a place for you to weigh in.

Glenn Greenwald points to the latest deep thinking from the Wingnuts:

After having created "The Victory Caucus" two months ago only to stand by helplessly as it died a rapid and painful death, right-wing bloggers have now joined forces with former Senator Bill Frist to create a new Victory website, the purpose of which is to set forth their foreign policy principles for the Iraq war. The name of the site is "We Win. They Lose."

Their advice is good. No, really. They seem to have borrowed it from Prof Reynolds:

Glenn Reynolds

1. Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Yes.

2. Have you changed your position? No. . . .

3. What should the U.S. do in Iraq now? Win.

Or Al Davis. Course, the Raiders were the worst team in the NFL last year.

Politico reports that the latest proposal Congressional Dems are floating is the short term funding approach:

Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.) outlined a new plan for an Iraq funding bill in private meetings Thursday afternoon, congressional aides said. The plan would split the now vetoed supplemental spending bill into two bills, one that would provide two months of funding for the Iraq War and another that would fund the agricultural programs contained in the earlier bill, aides said.

This will make some happy and I admit I have no objection to it. But no one seems to be talking about setting a date certain when the Iraq Debacle will NOT be funded. It does not have to be in any legislation. It need only be announced Democratic policy. You know my drill on this.

The other development is the Byrd-Clinton deauthorization proposal:

In remarks on the Senate floor, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that she and Senator Robert Byrd will introduce legislation to end authority for the war in Iraq. The legislation will propose October 11, 2007 -- the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution.

From the debate:

Speaking of Iran, Giuliani said "they looked in Ronald Reagan's eyes and in two minutes they released the hostages." That was a reference to the U.S. hostages released from captivity on the day of Reagan's inauguration in 1981.

Oh really? Then how do you explain this, Rudy?

In 1983, Buckley succeeded Ken Haas as the Beirut Station Chief/Political Officer at the U.S. Embassy, but was kidnapped by the Islamist group Hezbollah on March 16, 1984. Hezbollah was closely allied to Iran. William Casey, who was by then the Director of Central Intelligence, asked Ted Shackley for help in securing Buckley’s release. Three weeks after Buckley’s abduction, President Ronald Reagan signed the National Security Decision Directive 138. . . . This was the beginning of the Iran-Contra deal, which culminated in the exchange of missiles for the release of hostages.

Not to mention this:

On October 23 1983, around 6:20 am, a yellow Mercedes-Benz truck drove to Beirut International Airport, where the 1st Battalion 8th Marines, under the U.S. 2nd Marine Division of the United States Marine Corps, had set up its local headquarters. . . . The suicide bomber detonated his explosives, which were equivalent to 12,000 pounds (about 5,400kg) of TNT. . . .In the attack on the American barracks, the death toll was 241 American servicemen . . . The Marines were moved offshore where they could not be targeted. On February 7, 1984, President Reagan ordered the Marines to begin withdrawal from Lebanon. This was completed on February 26; the rest of the MNF was withdrawn by April.

Is that what Rudy is promising in his potential Presidency?

I'm no supporter of federal hate crime legislation. We need to get away from mass federalization of crimes that are better left to the states. I also object to laws that punish thoughts behind the crime in addition to the crime itself.

The penalty for murder is life or death. Sex offense penalties are already sky high. Why make them higher?

Nonetheless, the House of Representatives today passed hate crime legislation. President Bush has signaled he will veto it. Fine by me.

Please take my blog reader survey!

It's that time of year again for blog readers to take the Blogads reader survey. It's not short, but it really helps us with demographics. It's about ten minutes, but you can stop whenever you've had enough.

Each blog has a unique survey link. Help us learn who TalkLeft's audience is.

Thanks!

I'll chime on with thoughts on the GOP Debate as they come.

First thought, the Big Loser so far is Brian Williams as Matthews, Jim Van Den Hei and John Harris are asking much better questions than Williams could muster. What an empty suit he is.

Update [2007-5-3 20:40:4 by Big Tent Democrat]: Huckabee is extremely effective at what he is trying to do. His answer to the global warming question was shrewdly nuanced, abstaining on the question of whether humans are the primary cause, and stressing whatever the answer to that question is, we must address it. Markos always said he was a guy to watch and I can see why now.

Update [2007-5-3 20:42:16 by Big Tent Democrat]: Rudy no longer supports Roe v. Wade. Or at least that's what he wants GOP primary voters to think.

Update [2007-5-3 20:47:0 by Big Tent Democrat]: Here's my question to the Republican candidates on choice, assuming Roe is overturned, would you support a complete federal ban on abortion?

Update [2007-5-3 21:2:48 by Big Tent Democrat]: Ok, I'm bored. I'm changing the channel. I'm gonna watch basketball now. Sorry.

James Comey, who we know primarily as the person who chose Patrick Fitzgerald, shows what integrity used to mean at the Department of Justice, as he describes two USA firings he was involved with:

h/t TPM.

In responding to Jon Chait's argument that the Left Blogs take it easy on each other, Atrios writes:

If The Left suddenly became all powerful and was successful at promoting views and legislation I disagreed with I'd certainly be more critical of it.

Let me prove Atrios right by criticizing a view he is promoting:

The important thing, politically, is for the public to understand that the Democrats are doing what they can to stop CooCoo's war. And, sadly, "what they can" does have to take into account the fact that they have 51 senators and only a slim House majority, especially once one excludes the wanker caucus.

Atrios' underlying assumption is wrong. The Democrats are NOT doing everything Congressional control permits to end the Iraq Debacle. Whether Atrios likes it or not, the Blue Dogs are part of their caucus and if it is the Blue Dogs that are the problem, then DEMOCRATS are the problem.

I find this TPM Cafe story surreal:

[T]he offices of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are denying a Washington Post story today saying that Congressional Democrats have backed down to the White House by offering to remove Iraq withdrawal language from the now-vetoed Iraq bill.

That's great and all but the fact is the Dems backed down on a firm withdrawal date in the bill Bush vetoed. Why all the gnashing of teeth now?

Let's be clear, the Dems bill did not set a firm deadline and no binding conditions that the President could not waive. The only theoretically firm deadline was that troop withdrawal START, without saying how many, in October. Frankly, why Bush vetoed it is inexplicable to me. Sure he'll get the Dems to cave here but he let the Dems escape immediate co-ownership of the war.

All this DRAMA about whether the Dems backed down is funny. But the need to end the Iraq War is not. The Reid-Feingold framework which, for those of you just tuning in, does NOT require passage of a bill, is the way out. Announce April 1, 2008 as the date certain for NOT funding the war. Forget about strings, conditions, benchmarks and goals. None of that matter to Bush.

Close the purse. Say it now so you can do it then.