Akkam’s Razor

see Sarah Palin pictures

It’s not even election day, and already the GOP is taking out the long knives. I’m unsure if McCain picked Palin as a stunt to woo the unicorns PUMAs, as a dog whistle to crazy-baselanders, or as a patsy for his increasingly probably defeat. In any case, the coalition of convenience formerly known as the GOP three legged stool of social conservatives, policy and pundit conservatives, and fiscal conservatives is rapidly coming off the rails. We can only hope that the GOP is too busy dealing with their own insurgents to pay attention to any of the real work getting done in picking up the pieces of eight-years of GOP-rule.

Popularity: 8% [?]

This really should come as no surprise, as McCain has an established track record of pulling the ejection handle or rapid reverses.  By now you’ve certainly heard that John McCain has ’suspended’ his campaign.

(Yeah, yeah - I know its an F-16, an Air Force jet, and the Thunderbirds.  But it works…)

This morning, the WSJ reports the following occurred:

…and if they did, they’d probably agree with it.

Many of us are making a big deal out of Sarah Palin’s inability to articulate the paramount legacy of this White House - The Bush Doctrine [wiki]. Here is a partial transcript and video of her interview with Charlie Gibson of ABCNEWS (more at HuffPo):

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine? PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

I’d like to make an effort to formally define the Bush Doctrine, to provide context for its existence, to examine its success, and to look at future challenges.

Regardless as to your political leanings, the Bush Doctrine exists for one reason and one reason only - to reinforce the Unitary Executive Theory, weakening what, to this point, had been the sole responsibility of Congress over the Executive Branch - the ability to declare war. Similarly, it seeks to remove any external, non-domestic restrictions by foreign bodies over US actions, including international agreements and treaties. In short, the US, as the sole remaining superpower (after the fall of the Soviet Union) would have the justification for acting unilaterally against any threat. This is further quantified by allowing the ability to wage preemptive war against perceived threats both in the near- and long-terms. In short, it means never having to say you are sorry.

Popularity: 9% [?]

• Joe Bageant: Moving to the Center of Elite Consensus - What voters are expected to believe is that after a 30-year class war against the bottom 90% of income earners, the source of their troubles are black rappers and inner city fathers and not criminality on Wall Street or a corrupt political system. The road to the White House over the past 30 years has been paved by pretending to believe the absurdity that the individuals who pull the levers of power over people's lives are named Willie Horton, Sister Souljah and Ludicrous, and not Robert Rubin, Phil Gramm and Hank Paulson.

Dan Froomkin, writing at the Neiman Watchdog, writes about how the absence of Bush and Cheney from the White House does not mean that they are gone, covering the military, burrowed-in partisans as career government employees and the expansion of the Executive Branch’s power, the handling of Presidential pardons, the expanded role and power of the Vice-Presidency, and how the veterans (and current members) of the second Bush administration are playing a large role in securing the Presidency for John McCain.

Popularity: 6% [?]

Atrios points to a little piece of opening commentary from the trial of Osama Bin Laden’s driver that contradicts the accepted folklore behind Flight 93.

“If they hadn’t shot down the fourth plane it would’ve hit the dome,” Stone, a Navy officer, said in his opening remarks.

The tribunal’s chief prosecutor, Col. Lawrence Morris, later explained that Stone was quoting Hamdan in evidence that will be presented at trial. Morris declined to say if the “dome” was a reference to the U.S. Capitol.

“Virtually no one knew the intended target, but the accused knew,” Stone said.

• The Candidates, Comically Drawn - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog
  Where better to chronicle the stories of Senators John McCain and Barack Obama and their bids for the White House?
  (tags: comics democrats election08 mccain news obama politics republicans)
• SurfTheChannel - Homicide: Life On The Street - Season 6 Episode 7
  Best. Episode. Ever.
  (tags: Homicide vincentdenofrio 1997)

Popularity: 2% [?]

Can’t help but wonder why Pat Meehan’s sudden resignation, news that Vince Fumo isn’t resigning, and yet more alleged shenanigans regarding Curt Weldon have all crossed through my feed reader today?  Maybe there’s some meat to allegations of political prosecution at the urging of the Bush White House?  You may recall that the FBI had to run the investigation against Weldon as the Delco GOP (and Meehan) had no interest in investigating their own, having focused their attention on Philadelphia Democrats (rightfully so).   Or is the former Arlen Specter aide (or his sidekick) planning on running against Joe Sestak?