The L.A. Times gives credit where credit is due: to Josh Marshall's Talking Points and TPM Muckraker for besting the mainstream media on the coverage of the U.S. Attorney firings.

In a third-floor Flower District walkup with bare wooden floors, plain white walls and an excitable toy poodle named Simon, six guys dressed mainly in T-shirts and jeans sit all day in front of computer screens at desks arranged around the oblong room's perimeter, pecking away at their keyboards and, bit by bit, at the media establishment.

The world headquarters of TPM Media is pretty much like any small newsroom, anywhere, except for the shirts. And the dog. And the quiet. Most newsrooms are notably noisy places, full of shrill phones and quacking reporters. Here there is mainly quiet, except for the clacking keyboards.

It's 20 or so blocks up town to the heart of the media establishment, the midtown towers that house the big newspaper, magazine and book publishers. And yet it was here in a neighborhood of bodegas and floral wholesalers that, over the last two months, one of the biggest news stories in the country -- the Bush administration's firing of a group of U.S. attorneys -- was pieced together by the reporters of the blog Talking Points Memo.

[hat tip Kevin Drum]

There are other things going on in the world besides the fired prosecutors. With all the Gonzales news yesterday, I forgot to do the Tuesday open thread. So here it is one day late.

All topics welcome. Keep it civil, and don't forget urls have to be in html format because the long ones skew the site. Use the link button at the top of the comment box or follow the instructions at the bottom of the comment page.

To hear some in the "Netroots" (Update [2007-3-13 13:6:21 by Big Tent Democrat]: A good point from Kos to me, Stoller is not the "Netroots" - though I think Stoller is a big part of the "Netroots") tell it, defunding the Iraq Debacle by the Dem Congress is pipe dream crazy talk. Here is Matt Stoller:

Respectfully, your pet solution is not THE ANSWER. There is no THE ANSWER. Strategy is actually putting out a set of parameters that actually map to reality, and the reality is that there is not the discipline in the party to do what you suggest . . .

For Stoller, defunding can not be done. At least not by Democrats. For Stoller, it takes REPUBLICANS to defund:

There's only one endgame for Iraq, and that's to force Republicans in Congress to recognize that it's their [behinds] on the line.

From Greg Sargent:

. . . Though the bill mandates withdrawal by Fall 2008 at the latest, it's going to be at least partly a disappointment to some House liberals. That's because language that was in earlier drafts that would have clipped funding after the deadline -- as opposed to merely declaring the war illegal -- has been taken out. House leaders will argue that the bill does do its job, because it declares the war illegal beyond a certain date. But liberal House sources say this removed language was critical in ending the war in practice, because it would enforce the war's end with the power of the purse rather than requiring a trip to court in hopes that judges will end the war.

Remember the Kosovo case Kucinich brought? A court case to end a war? Just pathetic. Let's see Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers sell this one.

This is simply horrible. Just horrible.

There's some good stuff out there to read today.

• Digby's Lancing the Boil

• Frank Rich's (free link) Why Libby's Pardon is a Slam Dunk, via Buzzflash

• Nora Ephron at Huffpo: The Secret: A Testimonial

• The You Tube video of Rudy Giuliani in 1989 calling for public funded abortions.

I am now convinced that the House Dem Leadership has no clue how to end the Iraq Debacle. What convinced me is this:

[In] [a] meeting in Pelosi's office Thursday . . . Pelosi's political consigliere, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.). . . 's pitch was blunt: If the liberals team up with Republicans to bring down the Iraq bill, Democratic leaders would have no choice but to come back with a spending bill that simply funds the war, without any policy restrictions. It would pass easily, with Republican votes and the support of many Democrats.

Now why in the hell is that true? Why must the Dem leadership introduce such a no restrictions bill? Why would they "have no choice?" Sez who?

Anyone have something to say? Here's some space. All topics welcome.

Newcomers: links must be in html format or they skew the site (use the buttons in the comment box.)

A few months ago I wrote a post about a news article saying Google was looking to hire. In my fantasy world, I considered how much fun it would be to relocate to San Francisco and never have to write another brief. Then I checked the job offers at Google, and concluded there was not a single one I was even remotely qualified for.

Now the New York Times reports on Google's latest perk: Shuttles to work. Turns out, this is becoming Google's biggest draw as an employer. Forget the Grateful Dead chef, the real perk is the free ride to work.

So who is qualified for these jobs? I love what I do but there are some days I can't help but wonder what it would be like to have a job that had set start and stop times - where when you leave for the day, you're done until the next one. Law is never like that. You get home and still work. You go to sleep worrying about if someone is going to get off or get five years or twenty years. It never stops.

Alas, there is still nothing I can find in Google's job database that I am qualified for. What a shame. I'd so be there in a minute. At least I would on a day like today when I spent 8 hours writing and submitting a brief the outcome of which will either get my client five or twenty years. It's midnight on a Friday night and I'm still worrying.

It's 5:00 in Denver and I haven't left the computer since 7:30 am. I'm taking a break to replenish my groceries and libations. With all the Scooter Libby excitement today, I'll never sleep tonight without a little Grand Marnier.

I know there's other news, so here's a place to discuss it.

Joe Klein sez:

A left-wing extremist exhibits many, but not necessarily all, of the following attributes:

--believes the United States is a fundamentally negative force in the world.

--believes that American imperialism is the primary cause of Islamic radicalism.

--believes that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not an individual case of monumental stupidity, but a consequence of America’s fundamental imperialistic nature.

--tends to blame America for the failures of others—i.e. the failure of our NATO allies to fulfill their responsibilities in Afghanistan.

--doesn’t believe that capitalism, carefully regulated and progressively taxed, is the best liberal idea in human history.

--believes American society is fundamentally unfair (as opposed to having unfair aspects that need improvement).

--believes that eternal problems like crime and poverty are the primarily the fault of society.

--believes that America isn’t really a democracy.

--believes that corporations are fundamentally evil.

--believes in a corporate conspiracy that controls the world.

--is intolerant of good ideas when they come from conservative sources.

--dismissively mocks people of faith, especially those who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage.

--regularly uses harsh, vulgar, intolerant language to attack moderates or conservatives. . .

For the record, I fail, as I do not believe any of that. Go ahead, take the Left Wing Extremist test.

It's a beautiful sunny day here in Denver and I need a break from the computer. If you are stuck inside due to weather, or just feel like being online, here's a space to chat.

In a diatribe against Glenn Greenwald, Patterico seemingly agrees with at least half of what Greenwald says:

To the contrary, Greenwald insists, anonymous comments by hateful leftists prove nothing about the left generally. Nothing! . . . These comments are staggeringly hypocritical, viewed in the light of Greenwald’s extensive history of spotlighting anonymous comments at conservative blogs to reach broad-brush conclusions about the entire conservative movement.

Well, I don't know about that, but presumably Patterico agrees with one of the two alleged sentiments expressed by Glenn. Either the anonymous comments about Cheney mean NOTHING, or the anonymous comments on Right Wing blogs mean SOMETHING.

So which is it Patterico, do anonymous comments mean something? Or nothing?

I tend to the nothing school myself.

See also Atrios and Alicublog.