Katie Couric begins her nightly newscast at CBS this evening. I'm going to tivo it as I'll probably be at the jail when it airs and won't get to see it until I return home tomorrow.

For those of you who watch tonight, what did you think?

I hope it's a success. Break a leg, Katie.

I'm off to Omaha for court. I'll be stopping in to post from the airport and hotel, but there's proably a lot going on I'll miss. Here's a place to weigh in. Happily, I think this is my only trip for the next month.

Please be patient with the comments. The site is being rebuilt as we speak, and should be complete by the end of the week. Until Friday, I'll be hand-approving comments as I have time to log in to the site.

I've always wondered why people think America is better off with Saddam Hussein out of power in Iraq. I can appreciate (although I don't accept at face value) the argument of those who think it's better for Iraqis that he is gone, but for Americans? I never have gotten the connection.

I was channel surfing very late last night in Aspen and caught Bill Maher on Larry King Live from Friday night. Even though it was way past time for bed, I listened.

KING: Are we better off with Saddam gone?

MAHER: We are not better off. We were never better off because Saddam was actually a bulwark against terrorism. He would never have allowed al Qaeda in Iraq. And I know people say oh, yes, there was al Qaeda. Yes, there was a few al Qaeda in the northern part of the country, which he did not control.

KING: He didn't like bin Laden, right?

MAHER: He hated bin Laden. So the world certainly is not better off without Saddam. And I don't know if even Iraq is better off without Saddam.

You ask the people in Iraq now. Because you know, we're running out of things that Saddam did that we don't do like torture, rape. About the only one left is mass graves. So in a lot of ways we are Saddam except for one thing, he at least had control of his country.

That sounds about right to me. Your thoughts?

The New York Times reports that Republicans will abandon immigration reform in favor of concentrating on anti-terror laws.

With Congress reconvening Tuesday after an August break, Republicans in the House and Senate say they will focus on Pentagon and domestic security spending bills, port security legislation and measures that would authorize the administration's terror surveillance program and create military tribunals to try terror suspects.

"We Republicans believe that we have no choice in the war against terror and the only way to do it is to continue to take them head-on whether it is in Iraq or elsewhere," said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the majority leader.

I smell a rat. I wouldn't put it past Sensenbrenner to sneak the worst parts of H.R. 4437, which passed the House but not the Senate, into new legislation tagged as national security legislation. To get around what they call "amnesty" they'll just leave out the guest worker provisions.

by TChris

As fall political campaigns begin to capture the attention of voters, the days after Labor Day will give Democrats the opportunity to discuss the many ways in which life for workers can improve if Republicans are reduced to a minority status in the federal legislature. (Some changes would likely encounter a presidential veto, but that problem can be remedied in another two years.)

• Democrats can protect retirement income by saving social security from privatization. And by eliminating the $90,000 income cap on social security payroll taxes, Democrats can make the Social Security Trust Fund solvent while assuring that high income wage earners pay the same percentage of their earnings to FICA as does the average worker.

• Democrats can roll back the most punitive provisions in the Republican-enacted bankruptcy "reform" legislation, while reforming chapter 11 bankruptcy law to make it more difficult for corporations to weasel out of the commitments they made to employees in collective bargaining agreements.

• Democrats can increase the minimum wage.

by TChris

Who works on Labor Day? Baseball players and a ton of other people. Those who aren't stuck at work can read the official (i.e., boring) History of Labor Day at the Department of Labor's website. The Department of Labor, you will be reassured to see, is "in the 21st century." The rest of the administration should try to catch up.

Livelier versions of Labor Day's origin can be found here and (surprisingly) here.

If you aren't working today (or if you're at work but slacking), here's a place to converse.

by TChris

It's difficult to discern a legitimate federal interest in an investigation of "possible attempted arson to a police car during [a] demonstration" in San Francisco. Nonetheless, because "the San Francisco Police Department receives some federal funds," federal prosecutors claim to have a need to subpoena blogger-journalist Josh Wolf before a federal grand jury. Wolf took some video of the demonstration, and federal prosecutors want to compel him to surrender the tape.

The real reason this prototypical state crime is being investigated in federal court:

While California has a state shield law that generally protects news reporters from disclosing materials, there is no federal shield law.

Wolf was held in contempt on August 1 for refusing to share the tape with a grand jury. On Friday, the Ninth Circuit granted a stay pending Wolf's appeal of the contempt finding, releasing Wolf after a month in custody.

Using a federal grand jury to investigate "possible attempted arson to a police car" is a huge waste of federal resources. Aren't there any serious federal crimes to worry about in the Bay area?

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

A few weeks ago in my post What Obama Needs To Learn, I wrote:

[T]hat is FDR's lesson for Obama. Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle. . . . FDR governed as a liberal but politicked like a populist. When LBJ rightly and to his everlasting credit removed one of the Dem pillars of paranoia - racism, the GOP co-opted populist racism, added the Jeffersonian notion of government and institutional hatred, throw in a dash of paranoid Red scare, now terrorism scare, and you get political victories. The lesson of Hofstadter is to embrace liberal governance and understand populist politics. It may sound cynical, but you must get through the door to govern. Lincoln knew this. FDR knew this. Hofstadter knew this. I hope Obama can learn this.

A debate about populism has been ongoing among some very smart folks. Brad DeLong has been in the middle of it, in particular in debate with Paul Krugman:

I am, as I said above, a reality-based center-left technocrat. I am pragmatically interested in government policies that work: that are good for America and for the world. My natural home is in the bipartisan center, arguing with center-right reality-based technocrats about whether it is center-left or center-right policies that have the best odds of moving us toward goals that we all share--world peace, world prosperity, equality of opportunity, safety nets, long and happy lifespans, rapid scientific and technological progress, and personal safety. The aim of governance, I think, is to achieve a rough consensus among the reality-based technocrats and then to frame the issues in a way that attracts the ideologues on one (or, ideally, both) wings in order to create an effective governing coalition.

I am a Big Tent Centrist Dem so that sounds good to me as a matter of policy. But what about the politics? I think populism is critical to Democratic politics. I'll discuss Delong's views and other matters related to populism, as policy and politics, on the other side.

I wasn't going to blog this weekend, but this Sunday Times (London) article stands out as too much baloney for me not to make a quick comment. The premise:

FRIENDS of Hillary Clinton have been whispering the unthinkable. Despite her status as the runaway frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic nomination for president, some of her closest advisers say she might opt out of the White House race and seek to lead her party in the Senate.

Here's the tip-off to me it's total spin:

The solution, insiders say, is for Clinton to take over as Senate minority leader in 2009 from the lacklustre Harry Reid, senator for Nevada.

Since the "insiders" are assuming Hillary would be a "minority" leader in 2009, they are proclaiming Republicans will maintain a majority in the Senate in 2008. Now, who would be saying that? Certainly no one who was a "Democratic" insider.

If Hillary wants to run, she'll run. I suspect the only people who know which way she's inclined right now are Bill Clinton and her campaign staff. Even though I don't like this article, there's a line from Terry Mcauliffe that warrants repeating. In describing the effect Bill Clinton's support for Hillary could have on any future election, he states:

He is probably the most popular politician in the world."

I think you can take that one to the bank.

by TChris

Seeking to interview Karl Rove, the New York Times refused the administration's inevitable attempt to control the message:

The White House said that Mr. Rove would consider an interview for this article if it were conducted off the record, with the provision that quotations could be put on the record with White House approval, a condition it said was set for other interviews with Mr. Rove. The New York Times declined.

The Times isn't alone in telling Rove to stuff it.

by TChris

• Whatever his motivation, Arnold Schwarzenegger merits props for his support of legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California. (Here's what else he needs to do.) What are we to think, though, about his incongruous love affair with the Hummer?

• This is the text of the president's weekly radio address. Ever optimistic, the president is again using the V word. The definitition of victory remained unspoken.

He didn't say what "victory" in Iraq will look like. Given that most of the Iraqi deaths over the past several months have been the result of sectarian conflict, would "victory" require U.S. troops to intervene in a civil war? Nor did the president say how the Iraqi enterprise prevents terrorist plots such as the recently disrupted plan to blow up airliners.

• "This is the time?" Wasn't the time, what, three or four years ago?

This is the time for Mr. Bush to acknowledge serious errors, present evidence that he has learned from them, define clear goals and set a strategy for accomplishing them. Time is short.

• The administration decided to "cut by nearly half the jobs of lawyers at the IRS who audit the tax returns of the richest Americans," while the government sends Ronald Isley of the Isley Brothers to prison for three years and one month for tax evasion. Isley must not be a Republican.

• Opium farmers in Afghanistan are having their best year ever.

by TChris

Ethel Freeman is more than a symbol of the Bush administration's incompetence.

[Ethel Freeman's son] began pushing her toward the Superdome. A passing police officer told them to head instead to the riverfront convention center, where buses were expected to arrive. There were medical supplies, food and water at the Superdome, but people who took refuge at the convention center had none.

"He told me, 'The buses are coming. Wait here so you can get your mom on first,'" Freeman said Friday outside the building where his mother died.

Her last words were a supplication: "She asked me if the buses were coming," Freeman said. "I said 'Yeah, they're coming. And then I said, 'Ma, I'm going to pray to God to help me. And you pray to God to help you," he said.

A few minutes later, he realized she had stopped talking.

At a memorial today, Ethel Freeman's son recalled her death.

A fleet of buses arrived four days after she died - and when they did, Freeman was not allowed to take his mother's body, forced to board the bus at gunpoint. "It was like cutting me open and adding salt in the wound," he said.