Once, His Lordship the Grey One put up a post comparing stats for his Mighty Blue Implement of Power and that of some Potter fanzine site. The difference was truly Awesome, and the Potterites showed what “dedication” and “popularity” really look like in online communities/causes. In that spirit, I offer the following. Do read the whole thing:

The results suggest a startling conclusion: On average, companies generated roughly $28 in earmark revenue for every dollar they spent lobbying. And those at the very top did far better than the average: More than 20 companies pulled in $100 or more for every dollar spent.  Read more 

In the spirit of being constructive, I want to post in response to this comment from the Crack Den:

Without 60 votes in the Senate the Dems can’t do squat.

I really hate this meme. You never, ever hear it about Republicans, when they are in a weak majority. Let’s kill it, shall we?

The purpose of this post isn’t that I believe any of what we suggest will happen, it’s that I want to kill a meme that something cannot happen. There is a difference between can, will and should. Some folks seem to be forgetting that.

I’ll start. Democrats, wanting to accomplish their stated goals during the campaign cycle last year and at the time of their elevation to majority status this year, can:  Read more 

He’s tall, he’s smooth, and he’s way better looking than his ’brother.’ If I were a lonely TSA screener, I’d pull him out of line and whisk him to the front like a celebrity too. Although, I hope it was one of the TSA’s more masculine types. Jus sayin. OTOH, I developed an instant crush on him when I met him in DC, so I totally understand how a SecurityGal could fall for him.

Humor aside, whiskey tango foxtrot? Are good looks the newest security clearance standard? Does the smooth swish of a well rounded derriere do the trick? What about bedroom eyes?  Read more 

UPDATE 3: Further Froomkin Fun, Same link as in Update 2 in the category of Credit Where Bloggy Credit is Due. Okay, he missed us [sob] but we’ll get over it:

Blogger Josh Marshall writes: “I can say that I am very confident … that orders from Pat Fitzgerald were the reason for the change in White House policy in 2004. So the change in policy was tied to yet another criminal investigation of the White House. And the White House and the key employees in question — namely Karl Rove and people working for him at the White House political office — were specifically on notice not to destroy the emails they sent through the RNC servers. And yet they took affirmative steps to continue destroying them, even after all of this had happened.”

It was in October 2004 that Rove suddenly turned over to Fitzgerald a July 2003 e-mail sent to then-deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, that clearly showed that Rove had spoken to then-Time magazine reporter Cooper. In subsequent testimony, Rove says he had forgotten the conversation, in which he revealed Plames identity, but remembered it after his lawyers found that e-mail.

Michael Isikoff wrote in Newsweek in October 2005: “Why didn’t the Rove e-mail surface earlier? [Rove’s] lawyer says it’s because an electronic search conducted by the White House missed it because the right ’search words’ weren’t used. (The White House and Fitzgerald both declined to comment.)”

You’ve got to wonder which e-mail account Rove used for that e-mail — and how it was discovered.

And Glenn Greenwald blogs for Salon about the multitude of examples of the Bush administration’s “terrible luck with finding documents.”

UPDATE 2: Froom Fingers Fishy Finagling. Noting the “dog ate our emails” excuse for Rover…er I mean “Rove” and Rove alone, the best journalist at WaPo notes that Waxman is So Wise in the Ways of (Computer) Science:

These new, largely unexplained revelations were included in an extraordinary series of letters that Waxman, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent to 17 government agencies yesterday demanding that they preserve any e-mails received from or sent to non-governmental e-mail accounts used by White House staffers.

So Rove’s end of the emails may be swept out, eh? Well, every mail has two ends at very minimum. Chop-block the recipients. It’s like gathering the shotgun pellets after they’ve been fired rather than while they’re still in the shell…but cops do this every damn day of the week. E-cops too. Go read the whole thing. [WaPo link changed to single-page version rather than their split-into-five-jumps-just-to-cheeze-out-extra-page-hits (or maybe discourage readership of material embarassing to their other staffers?) version.]

UPDATE: Document dump, as in the documents themselves, is now up at the House Judiciary Committee website. Document Dump Discussion, comparison, analysis, etc., is already in progress over at Talking Points Memo. That’s fast-moving so get there early (like now). This is live, realtime and messy so don’t jump to any “OMG!!” moments until you’ve read downthread and, preferably, consulted the original to see if it says what the poster says it says. Once burned, ya know.

*****

The parallel stories of Karl’s Missing Emails—the ones going through Republican National Committee channels which we will refer to as the “.com” ones, as well as the newly-discovered-to-be-(oops!)-“missing” from government files, hereafter called the “.gov” scandal—continues apace. This post will be today’s contribution to the effort to herd the Known Facts, the Unknown Facts, the Facts We Don’t Know We Don’t Know, well you get the point, into one place for convenience of readers.

There may be too much detail for some who have been following this right along. Sorry. There may be too little, particularly in links or supporting documentation, for those who are just hearing about this for the first time and still at the “WTF is the deal with this email shit?” stage. Sorry. We will endeavor to be clear on our sources, with links to reputable outlets who themselves cite sources where possible.

In some cases there will be quotations for which attribution cannot be supplied because they are unable to speak on the record for legal or other reasons. Use whatever standards you usually apply in judging the veracity of these, or else the common sense God gave a goat as my grandmother used to say.

This will be added on to as the day goes on. Some posts may not seem directly related to the topic but mostly likely will as you read along, such as for instance this NYT: Bush Threatens a Veto Over Intel Bill from early this morning. It’s relevant, trust me.  Read more 

Let’s review. Bill Clinton liked cigars, although he kept that more or less to himself before the Monica thing made it “fashionable” to joke about it. Betty Ford was a drunk. Pickles was a pot dealer and “go to girl” for her sorority sisters. Al Gore inhaled, a lot, and did so often with his Negro best friend in school. I haven’t looked it up, but I’m sure each and every major candidate running for high (snicker) office in 08 has “something to be ashamed of” when it comes to poisons in the body. Now we learn that in addition to being a white-wimmin lovin, Koran reading, madrassa schoolmate of his namesake Osama and Afropower paganist, Obama also…gasp…smokes. Cigarettes, that is.

It’s a sad statement that we even have to have this discussion, “oh, but what of the children,” blah blah. The man is running for high office, and he’s rather young- it’s unlikely he’ll die of it during his term if elected. I’ve never seen him light up in front of a camera, and I doubt he ever will. As Sean-Paul and others note, “who cares?” We’ve all got a flaw or two, we’re all human (Republican die hards not counting). But…but(t). In this day and age, I think it’s worth a second look, or thought, or something. What kind of man thinks he’s got an honest shot at office and still smokes?

Being cynical, there are actually positives to this, if you’re a candidate.  Read more 

I thought that the Republicans had mastered the art of talking entirely in cliches long ago, but those wacky Republicans! They can always surprise us. What House flak Dan Bartlett:

[BARTLETT] “What we aren’t doing is sitting there with our heads in the ground,” said White House counselor Dan Bartlett as he made the rounds of five morning television news shows. He said that the administration was “making tactical changes on a week-by-week basis as we respond to the enemy’s reactions to our strategies.”

Now, does anyone know what Dan Bartlett means here?

“Heads in the ground,” WTF?  Read more 

Even me! So play along with me, as I have some fun with a new site/organization, The Democratic Strategist.  Read more 

I just came across this site and I’m interested to see where they go with it. Think tanks abound in the Beltway, I’m not sure another one is needed or can make a difference, even with bloggers working for it, but I’m still glad to know people are making an effort. However, one quote on their blog (although I’m not sure that’s how they think of it) really ticked me off:

It is fair to say that the Strategist intends to make empirical evidence a more central element than most blogs, and we reject advocacy of strategies that are weakly supported by evidence (if at all). But you know what? The netroots may very well be right on any number of questions where their answer differs from the Beltway conventional wisdom.  Read more