Talk about what is on your mind.

And don't forget the diaries. They are located just below the Recent Comments Table to the right.

Right now the recommended diaries include some great ones, including this one from scribe, Rove is toast.

And a reminder, Gwen Ifill on Meet the Press is must see TV.

One of the best excerpts on the flip.

If you get a chance, watch Meet The Press and watch Gwen Ifill shame the white men around the table on the Imus issue. She was brilliant.

Eugene Robinson was also good. And the general discussion, which included John Harwood and David Brooks, who was surprisingly interesting and intelligent though wrong on some things, was excellent.

The tension was palpable. And that is good. It should be. Here's the link.

Let me add, kudos to Tim Russert for putting the panel together. Good for him. He knew he would take his lumps. Well done Russert.

Update: nolo brings us some excerpts from Think Progress:

[RUSSERT:] And yet, you write this: “Why do my journalistic colleagues appear on Mr. Imus’ show? That’s for them to defend and others to argue about. I certainly don’t know any black journalists who will.”
IFILL: You know, it’s interesting to me. This has been an interesting week. The people who have spoken, the people who issued statements and the people who haven’t. There has been radio silence from a lot of people who have done this program who could have spoken up and said, I find this offensive or I didn’t know. These people didn’t speak up. Tim, we didn’t hear from you. David, we didn’t hear from you. What was missing in this debate was someone saying, you know, I understand that this is offensive. . . . The offense, the slur that Imus directed at me happened more than 10 years ago. I would like to think that 10 years from now, that Asia [her duaghter] isn’t going to be deciding that she wants to get recruited for the college basketball team or be a tennis pro or go to medical school and that she is still vulnerable to those kinds of casual slurs and insults that I got 10 years ago, and that people will say, I didn’t know, or people will say, I wasn’t listening. A lot of people did know and a lot of people were listening and they just decided it was okay. . . .

This is nice, but frankly, Ifill's appearance was much much better than this. Watch the whole thing when you can. I'll post it just as soon as I can.

Today MLB celebrates the 60th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's breaking of the color barrier:

On April 15, 1947, Jackie Robinson played in his first major league game and suceeded in breaking the color barrier that divided baseball. Over the course of Jackie Robinson's rookie year, he endured racist taunts from both fans and opposing players. On his first trip to Cincinnati, the fans cursed, taunted, threw bottles, and hurled racist epithets at Robinson. The scene became so raucous and dangerous that Brooklyn manager Burt Shotton briefly considered pulling Robinson from the game.

Today, Cinncinati outfielder Ken Griffey, Jr. will be wearing Jackie Robinson's number 42 in tribute to the man who blazed the trail. He has been joined by many other MLB stars and the entire Dodgers team will wear 42 today.

An admirable gesture from Griffey and MLB. Today is a day to remember Jackie Robinson.

Hey, don't miss this one. It's brilliant.

Lawyers for two men charged with illegally ejecting two people from a speech by President Bush in 2005 are arguing that the president’s staff can lawfully remove anyone who expresses points of view different from his.

Those who wonder how an absolute power to squelch dissent squares with the First Amendment are forgetting that while our unitary president makes our laws (remember signing statements?), no laws actually apply to him. Anyone daring to disagree with the president is dispatched with the bum's rush. Free speech? The unitary president doesn't want to be troubled with nonunitary opinions.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' Sunday WaPo piece just confirms that he should never have been nominated, confirmed or allowed to remain as the nation's chief law enforcement. Forget his mendacity. Forget his outrageous opinions. Consider only his gross incompetence. What kind of Attorney General would defend his running of the Justice Departmenr saying this:

During those conversations, to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign.

The man running the Justice Department did not decide who would or would not be fired is his defense.

That would be a firing offense imo even if the firings were perfectly kosher. How could that be acceptable?

There was so little evidence linking Jimmy Lee Page to a 1987 double homicide in Texas that jurors shook Page's hand and congratulated him after he was acquitted. Despite the acquittal, Page went back to prison. He was on parole for an unrelated homicide, and parole officials, unconstrained by the need for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, decided on the basis of a police detective's testimony that Page was guilty. His parole was revoked and he's been in prison ever since.

Seems unfair that a single governmental employee can negate the judgment of a unanimous jury, doesn't it? It is, but it happens all the time.

Last year, 91 Texas parolees were returned to prison after being charged with a new crime, even though the charges against them were later dropped or they were acquitted in court.

We all wondered how Frank Rich would try and dance away from his enabling history regarding Don Imus. And predictably, he calls everyone a hypocrite, pulling out the Al Sharpton card. But Rich gets one thing right, he is a hypocrite:

Among the hypocrites surrounding Imus, I’ll include myself. I’ve been a guest on his show many times since he first invited me in the early 1990s, when I was a theater critic. I’ve almost always considered him among the smarter and more authentic conversationalists I’ve encountered as an interviewee. As a book author, I could always use the publicity. Of course I was aware of many of his obnoxious comments about minority groups, including my own, Jews. Sometimes he aimed invective at me personally. I wasn’t seriously bothered by much of it, even when it was unfunny or made me wince, because I saw him as equally offensive to everyone. The show’s crudest interludes struck me as burlesque.

We never heard that from Frank Rich before. NOW he is brave with his opinions about Imus. Shame on you Frank Rich. Take your lumps and stop trying to drag everyone else down with you. And to call this a free speech issue is a joke. We're supposed to worry about the freedom to tell racist and sexist jokes? What a crap column from Frank Rich.

While I agree with Matt Yglesias that demands regarding a "no residual force in Iraq" pledge are not meaningful or even smart, I actually question the entire premise of the discussion.

What matters now, what everyone needs to ask of their representatives, of the Presidential candidates, of the blogs, of the activists, is 'what is your plan for ending the Iraq Debacle?' I get rather impatient with these discussions about residual forces and whatnot. These are fine questions, for the debates and the primaries and for down the road.

The REAL question now is 'what is your plan for getting us out of Iraq?' President Bush is not talking about residual forces - he is sending in MORE troops. We need to stop this Debacle. Right now, Reid-Feingold is the only viable proposal, and no it does not have to become law to end the Debacle.

So my main questions now for all pols, activists, etc. is, and will remain for the time being, "do you support Reid-Feingold? If not, why not?"

I'm headed to the airport now to visit a client in jail in Nebraska tomorrow and Monday. In case it gets quiet around here, please use this as an open thread.

I'll be back late Monday night, but will be checking in from time to time.

When we last checked in with marijuana activist Ed Rosenthal (background here), a federal judge had thrown out added money laundering and tax charges against him finding them based on prosecutorial vindictiveness. That left the Government with a few cultivation charges, on which he had already served his sentence.

Yesterday at a hearing, the Government announced it would stick with the case and re-try Ed even though he couldn't be sent to jail.

The Judge demanded to know who made this decision. It was newly appointed U.S. Attorney Scott Schools. I guess he's one of those U.S. Attorneys who just follow Administration marching orders.

Digby weighs in on this incredible waste of prosecutorial resources.

John McCain is just losing it:

He said that if the Bush administration’s plan had not produced visible signs of progress by the time a McCain presidency began, he might be forced — if only by the will of public opinion — to end American involvement in Iraq. “I do believe that history shows us Americans will not continue to support an overseas engagement involving the loss of American lives for an unlimited period of time unless they see some success,” he added. “And then, when they run out of patience, they will demand that we get out.”

But the American People HAVE said it. They said it in 2006. They say it in every poll.

The Reid-Feingold bill is the proposal the American People support. By a wide margin. Heck, it even gives Bush and McCain a year to see if their ridiculous "strategy" can work. There is no reason why the Congress, and every Democrat in particular, should not embrace the Reid-Feingold proposal. Especially Democratic Presidential candidates. Why is Chris Dodd the only one supporting Reid-Feingold?

barb has this from CBS :

Which of these comes closest to your opinion? 1. Congress should block all funding war in Iraq no matter what OR 2. Congress should allow funding only for a limited period of time OR 3. Congress should allow all funding for the war in Iraq without a time limit.

Block all funding 9
Allow only w/time limit 58
Should allow all funding 29
Don't know/No answer 4

Reid-Reingold anyone? How about you Presidential candidates? Who will join Chris Dodd now?