No? Darn. For a second, I thought Bush would be able to declare that another mission had been accomplished:

Meanwhile, Bush reached an unwelcome record. By 64%-31%, Americans disapprove of the job he is doing. For the first time in the history of the Gallup Poll, 50% say they "strongly disapprove" of the president. Richard Nixon had reached the previous high, 48%, just before an impeachment inquiry was launched in 1974.

So, The Decider has conquered yet another challenge. Word of this latest poll has spurred on another round of "LET'S IMPEECH BUSH!!1!!11" talk from the online liberal masses, but, from a purely cutthroat point of view, it's much better for the Democrats if any and all impeachment movements continue to fail miserably. Headlines dominated by a President and Vice President who are as unpopular with the American people as vegetables are with little kids will do more for the eventual Democratic nominee than any policy position, campaign ad, or sex scandal ever could. For all their bluster and rhetoric, you can bet the house that, in their private circles, prominent Donkey leaders will make 100% sure that the Cheney Administration stays firmly in place until January 2009.

After all, what's another year and a half of terrible decisionmaking at the highest level when you can win?

White House press conferences have been steadily climbing the Unintended Entertainment Value scale for the past seven years, but this one really takes it to a whole new level. Behold, the Administration's latest "Do as we say, not as we do" policy:

During today’s White House press briefing, spokeswoman Dana Perino condemned Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s declaration of “emergency rule” in Pakistan. She said that the administration is “deeply disappointed” by the measure, which suspends the country’s constitution, and believes it is never “reasonable” to “restrict constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism”:

MS. PERINO: In our opinion, no.

Ah. Thank God we have the White House Press Secretary Hottie to clear that sort of thing up. For a second, I had thought that this particular administration was in full support of ignoring any damn pieces of paper that got in the way of the Crusades. I mean, uh, its crusade.

It would be nice, however, to see that aforementioned Hottie explain a few particular moments:

First Amendment: In September, a federal judge ruled that the FBI’s use of secret “national security letters” to obtain citizens’ personal data from private companies for counterterrorism investigations “violate[d] the First Amendment and constitutional provisions on the separation of powers.”

First Amendment, Fourth Amendment: In Aug. 2006, a federal district court in Detroit ruled that the Bush administration’ss NSA warrantless wiretapping program was unconstitutional, violating the “separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III.”

Article I: Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in June, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales attempted to justify the administration’s detainee policy by claiming, “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Contitution reads: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”)

Article II: In June, House investigators revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney had exempted his office from an executive order order designed to safeguard classified national security information by claiming that he was not an “entity within the executive branch.”

The anti-Hillary crowd is gonna froth at the mouth after this one.

Some talented, Edwards-backed video editors created a YouTube montage of Clinton's dodgiest answers from the recent Demoratic debate. It's a very well-done clip - the message is clear and the selected responses illustrate the oft-repeated criticism that Hillary's politics are mostly about trying to please everyone at once. Even more importantly for Edwards (and the other Democratic contenders), the video has exploded into a level of popularity that has gotten it played on the cable news networks for free. It's a nationwide Clinton-bashing ad that doesn't cost them a cent; somewhere, a $400 head of hair is having a very good day.

I have to say, I'm immensely disappointed by the ad that was so conveniently provided in the other Joe's recent post. Ron Paul has spent the past half-year building himself up as the anti-establishment candidate. He's supposed to be the alternative to carbon-copy Republicans, the man who sounds different and makes sense, the independent-minded candidate who manages to escape political groupthink. He needs to cultivate that image, because if he melts into the mainstream, he doesn't have a chance of making a strong showing (not that he has a very big chance anyway, but why throw away the long shot?).

So, knowing the specific identity he's made for himself, knowing the angles he needs to attack from, Paul's ad team comes up with... that? Really? How does that ad distinguish Paul from any of the other Republican candidates (well, besides the lack of 972 individual utterances of the word "terrorism"), or, hell, any politician of the past 50 years? The spot reeks of so many cliches that I'm astounded Paul didn't opt to throw in a little kid holding an American flag. Let's do a brief run-down of the points the GOP's supposed "dark horse" wanted to hammer home:

He's honest: This is a big one. People have to know that Ron Paul is the honest one, not all the other candidates who talk about honesty in their ads.

He wants out of Iraq: Unique for a Republican Presidential candidate? Sure. Unique for most politicians in the past two years? Well....

He wants to cut spending: Thank God we've finally found a Republican who will run on that platform.

He wants to protect personal freedoms: You know, in contrast with all the candidates who talk about getting rid of freedom.

He knows New Hampshire's state motto: ...and can also tell it apart from Vermont.

He's attractive to college students: Possible "October surprises" include hosting a kegger and releasing a "Ron Paul Supporters Gone Wild" DVD.

He's a doctor, so he'll understand healthcare: Just like Bush was a governor, so he understood how to be President.

He's catching on with bearded, slightly awkward white men: With a demographic like that, how can he lose?

Someone needs to be fired from that campaign staff in a jiffy.

Well, I have to say, I'm actually pretty disappointed in Bill O'Reilly. He had an opportunity to turn this interview with Richard Dawkins into one of his classic, ruthlessly entertaining shouting matches, and he instead approached it in a calm, rational manner that can only hurt his ratings. The topic, as it usually is with Dawkins, was God. Is there a higher power? Did he create humanity? Is he, perhaps, a flying collection of noodles and tomato sauce?

Dawkins and O'Reilly both managed to make some good points, although Bill slipped a bit when his argument against the validity of Zeus and Apollo was that he "just saw Apollo, and he's not looking too good." Gosh, I guess Greek gods just aren't built like Greek gods anymore.

As the Ron Paul phenomenon gains momentum among Nigerians everywhere, there have been a few complaints about the coverage he gets in the mainstream media. The majority of these complaints have been lodged against Fox News, which is about as surprising as a blonde lingerie model managing to screw up a suicide attempt. (Important questions: How is that even possible? Is any stereotype as unprotected by political correctness as blondeness? Was that story referenced for the sole purpose of linking to a very large and very scantily-clad picture of said lingerie model?)

Some people, frequently referred to by on-air talking heads as "Internet lunatics" and similar derogatory e-labels, believe that Paul's anti-establishment message annoys Republican leadership enough for them to actively pull the strings that will keep television coverage of the Texas Congressman twisted and minimalized. They seem to have a case - but, given what could at least be described as moderate levels of success by the Paul campaign, the motive for any underhanded reporting becomes a bit less clear. Is Ron Paul simply a nuisance? Or might Republican leadership be worried that a large chunk of its base could be attracted to Paul's decidedly different brand of politics?

The magical world of the Internets makes this sort of analysis much more interesting, because not only do sites like YouTube allow for inspection of every second of Fox News' broadcasts (and who doesn't want to spend hour upon hour looking at the masterpiece of human genetics that is Neil Cavuto?), but they can also spread moments that were never intended to be recorded - such as this discussion amongst Fox producers that Paul's supporters claim proves bias against treating his candidacy with any sort of legitimacy. Is it enough? Or might the reason behind the subtitled comments be much more mundane? We report, you decide.

Wow. For all the fervent denials Larry Craig throws out about his bathroom incident and subsequent sexuality speculation, there's never been evidence quite this vivid against him. David Phillips, a DC resident, claims to have slept with Craig some twenty years ago, and happily described the encounter down to every last latex-laced detail for Wonkette.

Phillips was recently in a bar minding his own business when he heard Craig’s voice on the television. “I went pale and nearly vomited,” Phillips says. It was the man he remembered from one of his creepiest sexual encounters twenty years earlier. “After a truncated meal I went back to my hotel room and began unwinding and jotting down the memories that the voice had opened. I recalled The Follies, the furtive groping and pawing there, the odd following of this man in my car….. Crap!”

One night, Phillips continues, “I followed [Craig] from The Follies to a Capitol Hill neighborhood, parking on the street no telling how far from his house. We walked up the alley and through the back door of a house, with him repeating several times, ‘You were never here. You don’t know me. Right?’ and me responding, ‘Right!’ in boyish submission. As we tiptoed from the back door to the stairs to the upper floor, as if somebody else was home, he turned to grope my crotch and brush my face with his hand.” The house’s decor led Phillips to believe that this was a married man: “The bric-a-brac with family pictures didn’t scream ‘old queen’ to me; it announced a woman’s influence. Still, we made our way upstairs.

You can either leave the rest to your imagination or click on the link, which would qualify as erotic literature to some. But if Phillips is to be believed, this is a first-hand account of a one-night stand with Craig, which makes the scandal all the more interesting, and, yes, entertaining. Craig's probable response? A pre-written denial which will contain a 3:1 ratio of denials of his homosexuality to denials of the actual event ever taking place.

Surgeon General's Warning: In case it wasn't already clear enough, the Wonkette's story is very graphic in nature.

When a matter as important as the next leader of the free world is up for debate, the most intelligent, rational thing to do would be to organize a rigorous analysis of the candidates' respective policy plans, histories, diplomatic skills, and general leadership abilities. But this is America. So instead, we're gonna focus on who has the hottest wife.

To be fair, it's pretty easy to find some eye candy this early in the primary game, when fringe candidates have yet to drop out and sultry spouses like giantess Elizabeth Kucinich still make TV appearances. But the afore-linked-to Top Five Countdown still has a few big problems - Jackie Dodd over Judith Giuliani? This relatively creepy picture of Michelle Obama? And where in God's name is the fantastic Mrs. Colbert?

Unfortunately, the most famous spouse of all had to be left off the list due to a Y chromosome. But how upset can Bill really be? I can't imagine he misses any Future First Ladies of America meetings when some of the other members look like this.

If you think you're excited now, just wait until the Bikini Contest.

Fox News had an interesting little debate the other day over a particularly violent video game called Manhunt 2. The game has recently been banned in the UK for its graphic death scenes, flirted with the rare "Adult" rating from the ESRB, and has drawn the ire of people concerned about little Timmy coming home from school and slitting virtual throats. So why not have a shouting match about it?

This exchange is particularly idiotic thanks to the man defending the game's sale, who drags out the most tired cliches in the book ("I don't go kill people because I play video games") after starting his argument with the following question: "Which do you read more, the Bible or the Constitution?"

The world would be a better place if he had missed his interview due to a long game of HALO.

He was probably hoping for an endorsement from a paper with a daily readership in the double-digits, but Joe Biden will take whatever he can get, and today he gets the Storm Lake Times, a small publication in northwestern Iowa.

We have seen all the Democratic presidential candidates, except for two, up close and personal: Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson. Biden is our choice for the nomination for the powerful personal story he shares, for his deep knowledge of international affairs, and for his long record of exemplary service in the United States Senate.

Biden is astounding with his sheer command of world politics and conflict. He has distinguished himself by offering the only workable plan to get us out of harm’s way in Iraq. He advocates a loose federal system under which the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds would each control their own territory, somewhat similar to the notion of American federalism. He would remove American troops to a safe distance in friendly environs ­ Kurdistan and Kuwait, to name two ­ and let the Iraqis solve their own problems.

The article dramatically simplifies Biden's approach to Iraq, but it definitely nails his biggest selling point - his expertise in the international arena. So far, Biden has blown away his Democratic competitors in every foreign policy segment of the televised debates, and offers the attractive combination of being both an anti-war candidate and being able to intelligently describe just how he would get American soldiers out of Baghdad.

There's plenty of speculation that Biden is really in the race in order to position himself to be selected as Secretary of State, but if he's going to make a legitimate run at the Democratic nomination, he'll have to pull some surprising numbers in Iowa - and nothing says "dark horse" like the staff of Storm Lake.

Does the name Heath Shuler ring a bell? No? Well, ask any Redskins fans you know about him and watch them cringe. Shuler was a highly-touted quarterback when coming out of college, and the 'Skins drafted him in hopes that he would guide DC's home team to multiple Super Bowls. Instead, Shuler was a total bust, eventually getting laughed out of the league and being forced to find a new profession... namely, North Carolina Congressman.

Given his years playing the game (and playing it very well in college, even if he didn't pan out in the NFL), as well as his natural athletic talent, you'd think that ol' number 5 would be able to handle a pick-up game, right? Eh... maybe not. Shuler was chosen to be the quarterback of the Congressional team against the Capitol Police, and not only did he get shut out, but he threw two interceptions to the Hill's finest. Ouch. Hopefully he's better at picking apart legislation than he is at picking apart defenses.

...well, if polls were everything, at least.

The love/hate relationship Hillary Clinton shares with the Democratic base has often featured an intense debate about just how liberal she really is. Astoundingly, she has been accused of being both too crazy-hippie-leftist and too sneakily-right-wing, a phenomenon that leads some to believe that, much like the Heineken draught keg girl, there are multiple robotic Hillaries campaigning in various pantsuits across the country.

Now, in the latest round of this argument, a libertarian chimes in to say that he sees plenty of similarities between Clinton II and Bush II.

For seven years, the left has been up in arms about President Bush's aggressive foreign policy, his secrecy, his partisanship, and his expansive claims on executive power. It's odd, then, that they're prepared to nominate Hillary Clinton to carry the party into the 2008 elections.

And judging by her political career and recent voting record, they should also realize that even if they succeed in electing Hillary Clinton to the White House, it's likely that the only real resulting change in Washington will be that come 2009, we'll merely have a Democrat pursuing the same misguided policies.

What's this? Someone finally noticing that the biggest difference between the incumbent Republican and the favored Democrat is their party affiliation? Gosh, it's almost like there's more to politics than which letter is in parentheses next to a candidate's name!

These criticisms of Hillary are more valid than many on the left want to admit. But the article's author left out perhaps the most glaring Bush-Clinton similarity of all - just like Dubya, Hillary is a notoriously polarizing figure. If she is elected, the country will again be faced with a bitter 50/50 split for at least another four years, one that would be much stronger than any possible partisan fallout after the election of, say, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. Those of us who are sick of nothing but bickering Red-Blue politics for the past eight years will be on suicide watch if Clinton, The Sequel makes it all the way to the White House.

And just think, after Hillary's run is over, there's always the chance of the next step in divisive, dynastic Presidential campaigns... Jeb.

Our friends across the pond are cracking down on health care costs, and that means a rude awakening for rotund Redcoats. British schools will be sending letters to the parents of children as young as five if they are found to be obese when weighed on campus, a measure intended to counter the growing problem of growing poundage that, at current rates, will cause over 50% of the country's adult population to be obese by 2050.

The postal plan was approved by Health Secretary Alan Johnson, who claims that "it is in children’s best interest if their weight is brought formally to the attention of their parents." Johnson apparently believes that many British parents will go years and years without noticing the size of their children, only to wake up one day and startlingly yelp, "By jove, Henry, you're the size of Scotland Yard!"

What next? Well, there are always the rumblings of insurance companies moving to do to overweight people what they've done to smokers, but first the Brits might want to deal with those nasty wizard-caused metabolism problems.

HBO gives Bill Maher the freedom to do things he's always wanted to do on a political talk show: Curse. Make sexual references. And go into the audience to physically take on an obnoxious heckler.

Now this is great television. The only thing missing was a high-pitched, "Don't tase me, bro!"

Warning: This video includes language that may not be safe for work, or little kiddies on your lap.

Andrew Sullivan, one of those delightful conservatives who is nearly as non-stereotypical as they come, has been spending some time thinking about just who the big parties represent in modern American politics, and who they will represent in the coming years. It's an interesting question - while the die-hard Red State-Blue State vendetta has been hyped ad nauseam, there's a sizable (and rapidly-growing) section of the population that's become disenfranchised with both sides. Or, as Joe Lieberman put it in 2006, "The fastest growing political party in America is no party."

We may be on the verge of a real realignment. I'm a refugee right now, the kind of refugee who sees Ron Paul and Barack Obama as the harbingers of a new politics.

Paul and Obama, of course, are lagging far behind the front-runners of their respective parties in the polls, which may call Sullivan's hypothesis into question. But the email that prompted his ponderations made some excellent points:

I've met a fair number of people who would ordinarily be pretty far to the left who are fans of Ron Paul. They love his opposition to the war. I've been trying to think about what that means.

I know this sounds crazy -- that some new conservative coalition would incorporate this radical left wing view of cold war american foreign policy. But really, I don't know if it's any crazier than some of the lefty types I know swooning over Ron Paul. I think these are strange times, and that interesting things are possible now.

Interesting, indeed. And perhaps not as implausible as many might think, given what the traditional "conservative" approach to foreign policy has been - essentially the complete opposite of what the Republican Party has come to support since 9/11. Remember when Republicans would rail against the lack of an exit strategy in a Democratic foreign intervention? Remember when Bush (yes, the current one) emphasized that he wouldn't use our troops for nation building? Oh, and remember when Democrats were the party of big government?

The times, they are a-changin'.

Apparently, NBC never liked the Grumpy Old Men movies. Mike Gravel will not be allowed to participate in the next Democratic debate, scheduled for October 30th in Philadelphia. NBC News political director Chuck Todd, a man whose two first names are rivaled only by Ron Paul, explained that Gravel did not meet the polling or fundraising requirements necessary for the forum, which is unsurprising given that the former Alaska senator might not even have enough money for the plane flight to get there.

As much as we'll all miss Gravel's flippant comments and general curmudgeonry, at least this will allow him to spend more time chasing children off his lawn with a cane.

Chess master, author, Russian Presidential candidate. Garry Kasparov does a little bit of everything, and after listening to him for just a few minutes, it's easy to see why. As you might guess of anyone who can beat chess supercomputer Deep Blue, Kasparov is massively intelligent in the way that his native country is just plain massive. Now, he's attempting to use his strategic mind to fix the plethora of problems facing the still-fledgling democracy in Moscow - if he's not killed first.

Kasparov has been making the rounds on late-night talk shows here in the States, and he's been quite clear about the political climate in Mother Russia. He refers to Putin's tight grip on the country as a "police state," and suggests that Bush and Cheney could enjoy the same high approval ratings that the KGB-spy-turned-President does if they had as much control of the media as the Russian government. I guess Fox News is losing its touch.

A recent spot with Bill Maher gave Kasparov a chance to wax political about everything from oil to the mindset of the Russian people - but Chris Matthews made perhaps the best point of all, when afterward he asked, "Can you imagine one of our guys talking in a foreign language at that level of sophistication?... He was sophisticated, he was intelligent, and our guys talk down to us." Or, to continue the board game theme, "Do you ever get the feeling that they're playing chess and we're playing checkers?"

From the state that brought you America's devastating map shortage, the National Socialist Movement proudly presents the dark horse that will take the country by storm next November... John Taylor Bowles, the Nazi candidate!

When City Paper first heard of Bowles’ presidential bid, like the fireman in the Capitol Café, we too thought it was a joke. Worse yet, we thought it was a sick one. Was the guy for real? When was the last time the National Socialist Movement even made headlines? Weren’t they, like the Klan, long washed away by the tides of progression, intellectualism and cultural tolerance? Apparently not. And judging by a CNN article just this month and a recent analysis by MSNBC, both the KKK and the NSM are coming back in style after the lull and disenfranchisement they suffered in the ’90s. Why then this sudden propulsion in the zeitgeist for extremist white supremacy groups? How about this for an answer: Illegal immigration. More so, Bowles says, it’s the refusal for either the Republicans or the Democrats to adequately deal with the problem. (Republicans don’t want to address illegal immigration because they want the cheap labor and Democrats don’t want to do anything about it because they want the vote, he says.)

Apparently, the Nazis have come all the way from conquering vast stretches of the Old World and committing genocide to tackling one of the hot-button issues of the 2008 election. But don't worry, all you white supremacists out there, the party's sticking to its roots (which may have something to do with these roots). In fact, its message of Caucasian control might have already made its way to a burning cross near you if Bowles hadn't suffered an unfortunate early setback:

In December 2006, John Taylor Bowles announced his candidacy for president on the NSM ticket with William Hoff as his running mate. The following day Hoff was killed in an auto accident, but Bowles plans to move forward with the campaign anyway.

God, if only we were clever enough to make this stuff up.

Maine's King Middle School has decided to make birth control pills available to girls as young as 11, causing an asexual uproar in a state oh-so-close to our nation's Puritanical roots.

The decision was made after local middle school girls were hit with "an outbreak of pregnancies," a description that makes pregnancy sound more like the result of a biological weapon than of fifth-grade fornication. There had been 17 pregnancies in Portland's three middle schools during the past four years, not counting any miscarriages or abortions that went unreported.

This "outbreak," however, may not be enough to convince some skeptics, who believe they have identified the true goal of the program: teacher-student molestation.

"Shouldn’t this behavior be discouraged rather than encouraged? Yes. But don’t tell that to liberal social engineers. They enjoy having sex with children."

Clearly, what those dirty Communist perverts up in Maine need are some good, ol'-fashioned purity balls.