And what a shot it was.

David Okrent has been their public editor since the Jayson Blair scandal, and in his last column for the Times, he decided to address some of the columnists and the editors:

Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults. Maureen Dowd was still writing that Alberto R. Gonzales "called the Geneva Conventions 'quaint' " nearly two months after a correction in the news pages noted that Gonzales had specifically applied the term to Geneva provisions about commissary privileges, athletic uniforms and scientific instruments. Before his retirement in January, William Safire vexed me with his chronic assertion of clear links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, based on evidence only he seemed to possess.

No one deserves the personal vituperation that regularly comes Dowd's way, and some of Krugman's enemies are every bit as ideological (and consequently unfair) as he is. But that doesn't mean that their boss, publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., shouldn't hold his columnists to higher standards.

I didn't give Krugman, Dowd or Safire the chance to respond before writing the last two paragraphs. I decided to impersonate an opinion columnist.

Daaaaamn.  I bet that hurt.  But for the Times to be such a top notch paper, their columnists are lame and often make weak arguments.

What a way to go out, huh?

Dean's appearance this morning wasn't as bad as the previous one a couple of years ago, mainly because that was the standard bearer for terrible appearances.  This morning, Dean didn't seem as confused, but he did lie his butt off and gave non-answers at every possible moment.  It should be interesting to see how the RNC breaks down every single statement Howard Dean made in that interview.

The most telling moment was when Howard Dean criticized Republicans for their rhetoric at the same time Tim Russert was railing off some of the ridiculous comments that Dean had made in the past few months.  The mere fact that Dean was willing to criticize someone else for being harsh comments in the face of a virtual mugshot of Tom DeLay complete with serial numbers at the bottom of the photo appears on the DNC website is laughable. 

The fact that Dean would prejudge Tom DeLay as a criminal, yet wouldn't do the same for a terrorist responsible for the worst foreign attack on American soil shows the primary reason why the American people don't trust Democrats with leadership, particularly in regards to foreign policy.  I'm sure a number of people winced when they saw that part of the show.

Howard Dean showed precisely why he isn't fit to lead a political party.  It isn't because his comments are offensive, it's because they insult the intelligence of the electorate at every turn and are often absurd.  I'll provide a more thorough analysis once NBC posts a transcript, but I'm sure a number of people agree with this view.

Ed Morrissey liveblogged the show, and offers his insight here.

I'm sure everyone has heard about the London Sun's surprising photos that have now been broadcast around the world.

Of course, the media is trying to paint this as an Arab outrage, but why should they care if a murdering despot is shown in his draws?  The man is probably responsible for more deaths than anyone in the Middle East, yet they're salty because he was "exposed"?

Here's the spin the media's trying to take on this issue:

There were fears that the publication Friday and Saturday of pictures showing the imprisoned Saddam, including one where he is clad only in his underwear, could further fuel anti-American sentiment.

The new pictures in Britain's The Sun included one of Saddam seen through barbed wire wearing a white Arab robe, and another of Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as "Chemical Ali" for his alleged role in gassing Kurds, in a bathrobe and holding a towel.

Give me a break.  It was a British tabloid that published the pictures, not an American media organization.  President Bush rightfully condemned the photos - not because Saddam was embarrassed, but it was a security leak.  An investigation should be underway and the one who leaked those photos to the Sun should be punished.

Meanwhile, there are people trying to ironic and ridiculous claim that Saddam is a victim, by stating the conditions in the prison are poor.  I'm sure they are tons better than the jails his victims were kept in.  Hussein deserves far worse treatment than whatever he's subject to in those jails.

With writeups like this from the AP's Will Lester, it's no wonder there has been mounting criticism over the polls several media organizations have been conducting:

About four in five Americans want the Senate to thoroughly examine the president's nominees to be federal judges — an attitude shared by a majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents questioned in a new poll.

The rest say those nominees should get the benefit of the doubt and get approved by the Senate without much scrutiny, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Friday.

Why would the Associated Press lead off with a question like this in their article, much less even ask it in a poll?  It would be obvious to most that nobody wants to confirm judicial nominees without making sure their background and legal career is thoroughly researched.

As you read further, you'll find out why:

Senators are locked in a fierce fight over what is required to approve the more controversial federal court nominees. Republicans want them approved by a simple majority, while the Democrats want to require the 60 votes needed to override a blocking filibuster. The Democrats say a minority party needs the method to ensure checks on the majority.

Both sides point to the Senate's constitutional duty to "advise and consent" on presidential nominations. Republicans say that means great deference is given to the president, while Democrats say it means those put forward should be closely scrutinized.

Hence, according to Lester, Bush's judicial nominees are being "closely scrutinized".  Nevermind the fact that some of these nominees have been waiting over 4 years for confirmation, with Terrance Boyle first being nominated 15 years ago.  Meanwhile, the Republicans are being characterized as giving the president a rubber stamp - as Democrats like to say - on his nominees. 

Lester's article is nothing but spin.  The Democrats aren't "scrutinizing" anyone; they are obstructing a nomination with the express purpose of killing it.  The Democrats have not requested anymore information of any of these nominees nor have stated publicly that they needed more.  Lester takes it upon himself to distort what's going on in the judicial nominee battle by infering that the Republicans are simply trying to rush these nominees through the Senate without a proper look into their backgrounds.

Indeed, the true story in the AP poll is placed in the background:

Respondents favored conservative over liberal judges in general, 47 percent to 39 percent. As for a possible Supreme Court nominee, 52 percent said they felt comfortable that President Bush would pick the right kind of justice, while 46 percent said they weren't.

That's what should have led the article, as it was a new revelation, but didn't.  The fact that the poll found that more Americans favor conservative judges than leftist ones and a majority trust President Bush to make sound decisions in picking judicial nominees played second fiddle to a moot point that had no bearing in the filibuster issue.

The poll shows what I've suspected all along; people are tired of the obstruction and expect these nominees to go through; after all, it was one of the central issues the Republicans ran on in 04. If the Democrats continue to obstruct, they are only hurting themselves in 06 and 08.

Kudos goes to Maryland Governor Todd Erlich, who stemmed the rising anti-Walmart tide today by vetoing a bill that would have forced Walmart to pay higher health care premiums and contribute more to Medicaid.

This was an obvious plan to single out Walmart:

The Fair Share Health Care Act, passed by lawmakers in April, would require a company with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of its payroll on health care benefits or pay more into the state Medicaid fund. Currently, only Wal-Mart fits that criterion.

Eduardo Castro-Wright, chief operating officer of Wal-Mart stores USA division, said the company already spends 7 percent to 8 percent of its payroll on health benefits.

I would say that had this bill been signed, it would have been declared unconsitutional anyway, but that's not a given with today's court system. 

That doesn't mean this is over.  The Maryland Senate passed the bill with enough votes to override the veto, and the House was just short of that number.  If successful, Walmart threatens to pull out of their plans to build a distribution center in Princess Anne, Maryland.  Losing the distribution center could take over 1,000 jobs away from the town.  And as the folks in Jonquiere, Quebec found out, Walmart doesn't play games with unions or left-wing governments trying to dictate how they run their businesses.

The citizens of Princess Anne should tell the Maryland legislature to step off, and let them decide if they want to work with Walmart.

aw.

Yesterday during his time on the Senate floor, Rick Santorum said this:

Some are suggesting we're trying to change the law, we're trying to break the rules. Remarkable. Remarkable hubris. I mean, imagine, the rule has been in place for 214 years that this is the way we confirm judges. Broken by the other side two years ago, and the audacity of some members to stand up and say, how dare you break this rule. It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 "I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine." This is no more the rule of the senate than it was the rule of the senate before not to filibuster. It was an understanding and agreement, and it has been abused. . . .

Now, Santorum could have used another example other than Hitler in Paris; no question about it.  Frankly, I'm tired of hearing people bring up Hitler and the Nazis every time they confront opponents, as I've been likened to Hitler myself.  But rather than deal with that on it's points, there are a number of people screaming bloody murder claiming he's likening Democrats to Hitler.  As Santorum stated when clarifying his remarks, that's ridiculous:

"Referencing Hitler was meant to dramatize the principle of an argument, not to characterize my Democratic colleagues," Santorum, the No. 3 Republican in the GOP leadership in the Senate, said of his remarks Thursday.

Santorum never called what the Democrats were doing Nazi-like or compared their actions to Nazis. 

A number of people, including Morning Call, mentioned Santorum's denouncement of Robert Byrd's statement more than a year ago.  Here's what Byrd stated (and oddly, what USA Today's DeWayne Wickham actually defended):

"We, unlike Nazi Germany or (Benito) Mussolini's Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men," Byrd said. "But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends. Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler's dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Act."

Of course, Wickham never took Byrd to task for his railroading of the Republican minority when he was Senate Majority Leader in the 1970's, but that's neither here nor there.  The fact is that Robert Byrd likened Republican actions to Nazi tactics, while Santorum only used a statement by Hitler to underline the silliness of the Democratic Party's arguments of ending judicial filibusters.

Indeed, Santorum was correct in his assertion, albeit he could have used a better example.  The fact that Democrats can only find one legitimate filibuster that was ever levied on a judicial nominee - Abe Fortas, which was a bipartisan one due largely to corruption charges - in the 214 years prior to the Democratic filibusters being used now speaks mainly for itself. 

The fact is that Democrats see that statement as a way to galvanize the Jewish lobby onto their side, but it won't work.  Nevermind the fact that Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klansman, never apologized for his comparison to the GOP to Nazis; in fact his spokesperson denied he ever did so.

You see, when Republicans make any kind of offensive statement, they must apologize immediately or be considered a racist or a bigot.  The Democrats make statements with impunity, and rarely apologize for them because their inclusiveness is taken for granted. 

A perfect example is Eleanor Holmes-Norton, who stated today that pro-gun lobby groups "want to see to it that more children get killed."  You think she'll apologize for that?  Don't hold your breath.  Protected black legislators don't have to apologize for anything.  See Cynthia McKinney.

---

UPDATE: Oliver Willis (And LaShawn's mad you didn't link to her.  Awww puddin!) claimed Santorum called all Democrats Nazis.  Willis is lying and he knows it; anyone that has readable eyesight or could hear clearly knows Santorum never stated or implied that all Democrats are Nazis.

Also, where's Willis's criticism for Robert Byrd?  Don't bother to look on his site for it, because it's not there.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich must really have a lot of time on his hands.  First was the royal decree forcing pharmacists to sell contraceptives, now he wants to restrict the kinds of video games sold by businesses to children.

At first, the legislature was going to give jail time to anyone who violated the law, but the Senate pulled that proposal.  And note; this is despite several other courts having ruled against these kinds of laws in the past.

One senator was very honest as to why he voted for the bill:

Still, even some critics said they would not vote against the measure for fear it would be used against them politically.

"I'm going to vote for this bill, but I'm voting for it for one reason — because this is a political bill," said Sen. Mike Jacobs. "If I vote against it, it will show up in a campaign mail piece."

Well, at least people can't say he isn't honest.

I suppose there isn't any pressing issues to discuss, and everything is going great in Illinois, hence they can deal with pressing issues like this.  I only wish they would be as interested in saving taxpayers a little money in the process. 

Reggie Miller is done after the Pacers fell 88-79 to the Detroit Pistons tonight.  He left the game with 15.9 seconds left, and Pistons coach Larry Brown called a time out in order to give the Fieldhouse enough time to give Miller a standing ovation.

That's how a player and future Hall of Famer should go out.  He shouldn't go out through an injury, or after a miserable season.  After the infamous Indiana/Detroit brawl, it would have been easy for Indiana to give up on this season.  Instead, Indiana toppled Boston in seven games and sent the defending world champions to the limit.  Miller closed the night with 27 points in 33 minutes, doing absolutely everything he could to force a Game 7, but he couldn't get it done.

I've always been a fan of Miller.  He's always been a competitive, yet humble person.  Reggie has always been the prototype for what an NBA player should be, and those are slowly disappearing.  As Reggie said in an interview on TNT, during the summers when he first started guys like Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, James Worthy and others took him under their wing and showed him how to play "the right way".

I was working at a sports bar the night that Miller made the play of a lifetime; down by two against the then-champion Chicago Bulls, he gave Michael Jordan a shove, jetted to the wing and hit the huge three to force a Game 7 in that series.  Many people still think that was one of the best playoff series in NBA history, and I agree.  The whole restaurant went nuts when they saw that shot, including me.  It was definitely one of the NBA's greatest moments.

Every kid that wanted to shoot out of the gym had Reggie Miller on their short list as one of their NBA heroes.  And now that hero will take those shoes off for the last time.  I'm sure he'll have a great retirement, as a number of NBA legends have.  However, will another player in the league step up and fill Miller's shoes?  The answer is the same as when the question is posed to other stars that have hung up the shoes; it's doubtful.

---

Ed Brayton over at In The Agora writes a good tribute as well.

Robert Novak points to a worrying Democratic Party as their chairman, Howard Dean, faces off with Tim Russert this weekend.

The truth is, Democratic Party members would rather have Dean appear on camera less than more, and Russert emasculating him almost two years ago in one of the more memorable shows in MTP's history makes it even worse. 

This should be fun to watch.  I might have an excuse to wake up early on Sunday morning now.

It sure looks like it.

According to the Washington Post, there have been a number of meetings to try to undermine the agendas of the Republicans.  As the media has focused on, Ben Nelson along with Mr. Spotlight, John McCain, has been trying to get six Republicans and six Democrats to join them in order to make a deal that would end the filibuster fight.  The six Democrats would join the Republicans in breaking the filibuster of a handful of judicial nominees in order to appoint them, and the six Republicans would join the Democrats in making sure the judicial filibuster will not end.