Anti-Flag is promoting AfterDowningStreet

" 'If there was ever a good time for Congress to figure out oversight, it would be in the sixth year of a presidency,' said Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 3 House Republican, well aware that the party in power typically loses seats at the midpoint of a president's second term." (link)
lol - i dont even think he's being (intentionally) ironic or snarky or anything

* " "The panel's vice chairman, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), said yesterday in an interview that the proposals fall far short of allowing Congress to make judgments necessary to oversee the program. 'It is 'undersight' when they tell us what they want us to know,' Rockefeller said, referring to the White House. 'It's 'oversight' when we know enough to ask our own questions.' "" (link)

* the punk band Anti-Flag is promoting AfterDowningStreet. cool.

* from a (religious type) commentor over at EW's: "While I would never defend Dobson, I think his involvement with Abramoff is substantially different from Reed's. More importantly, I think it's a losing battle to attack (Dobson) as a charlatan. Tactically, I think it's much better to paint him as dupe than fraud. Attacking him as a fraud will only strengthen his position of control over his followers by playing into their very strong "us vs. them" mentality. If you stipulate his sincerity and point out the very obvious fact that he was duped by Reed and Abramoff into supporting gambling, you will undermine his authority much more effectively. To maintain his "strong father" authoritarian control over the "family", he has to display wisdom and discernment. Get his followers to question his judgement and you've defanged him." (link)

* glenn gets shrill, again: "No matter how strong of an immunity one thinks one has constructed against being shocked and disgusted by the acts of national Democrats, it always turns out that it's never actually strong enough."

* georgia10: "I have always been bothered by Attorney General Gonzales's statement that the legal justifications for the program have "evolved over time." Reading through these emails, it becomes apparent that that is perhaps one of the biggest understatements of this scandal. Four years after the program allegedly first passed legal review, the Department of Justice was still scrambling to find legal footing for the program. This despite the fact the program was allegedly reviewed every 45 days for the last four years by legal experts. "