Where's Jeff Gannon When You Need Him?

Some of the best television you'll see all year was today's White House press briefing. Some of the journalists covering the White House (most notably NBC's David Gregory) were actually asking questions and not taking the usual right-wing propaganda at face value. There's nothing like watching White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan squirm for entertainment value. Watching him try to find a reporter – any reporter, from any obscure news outlet whatsoever – who would serve him up a dependable softball question in the face of a hostile press asking tough questions was a joy to behold. It's too bad that former member of the White House press corps (and former male prostitute) Jeff Gannon wasn't there to lend him a hand, so to speak.

Here's what's going on, in case you haven't been paying attention lately. It is now known that, contrary to his previous denials, Karl Rove, the president's top political strategist, was the source of the leak of the name of Joseph Wilson's wife, who at the time was an undercover CIA agent, to the press. This means that it is entirely possible and indeed likely that Karl Rove committed a criminal act while working in the White House, because to knowingly leak the name of an undercover CIA agent is a federal offense.

The White House press corps was using Scott McClellan as a piñata today – and rightly so. Rove denied being the leak, and McClellan piously asserted that Rove had nothing to do with it. Both those contentions are now known to be, at the very least, what Churchill used to refer to as "terminological inexactitudes," or what Republicans used to refer to during the Clinton Administration as "lies." One of the most amusing aspects of this whole story is watching the White House spin explanations for Rove's conduct that would, at least in theory, exonerate him – explanations that sound downright Clintonesque: you see, he mentioned "Joe Wilson's wife" while talking to reporters, but he didn't mention her specifically by name. And he said she was with the CIA, but he never specifically said that she was an undercover agent, and it's only by saying specifically that she's an undercover agent that makes it illegal. I guess it all depends on what your definition of "undercover" is.

This is an important story, because finally someone in this criminal administration is being held responsible for their lies – and on live TV. It's clear that, with a member of the press currently doing time in prison for not disclosing the name of Karl Rove, they are in no mood to put up with the lies they've been fed by the right-wing propaganda machine operating out of the White House. And it's about time.

It's clear that Karl Rove should be forced to resign from the White House and should probably do time in prison for breaking the law by leaking the identity of an undercover CIA agent to the press. Will it happen? Will George W. Bush do what he said he would do, and see to it that whoever leaked the name of Joseph Wilson's wife be punished to the fullest extent of the law?

Are you kidding? Knowing Bush's penchant for rewarding incompetence and illegality, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush nominated Rove to the Supreme Court. But make sure to tune in to the daily White House press briefing on C-SPAN. For the moment anyway, it might be the best show in town.

Tom Moran

Get Ready to Rumble!

George W. Bush now has his chance.

Sandra Day O'Connor has announced that she is retiring from the Supreme Court after 24 terms. She made it clear, however, in a subtle but significant statement, that she will stay on the court until her successor is confirmed by the Senate. This means that there will be no 4-4 ties on the court while the nominee is being confirmed. The Senate (and the Judiciary Committee in particular) can take its time.

This is the moment that progressives have been both dreading and gearing up for ever since the 2000 election. While people had been expecting Chief Justice Rehnquist, who has been battling cancer, to step down after this term, that possibility was seen as a wash by progressives. If Rehnquist leaves, you lose a conservative vote and you gain one back: no big deal. But O'Connor is the crucial swing vote on this court. Over 100 times in 5-4 decisions, it was O'Connor who cast the deciding vote. This is the most significant Supreme Court nomination of the past 20 years. And it's going to be made by George W. Bush.

(For the record, I would like all the people who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 to read that last sentence and consider it carefully. If any of them decide to slash their throats as a result, I won't stop them.)

Who will Bush pick to replace O'Connor? Not long ago, in this very blog, I wrote the following:

"Knowing George Bush, and his penchant for getting his way no matter what the cost, I think it's a pretty good possibility that Priscilla Owen might end up being nominated for the Supreme Court if an opening turns up in the next few years. Maybe not to replace Rehnquist, but if Sandra Day O'Connor retires, I'd bet money that Bush nominates Owen to rake her place."

At the moment, however, I think that the timing may not be on Owen's side. It's been far too soon since she won confirmation to the federal bench for her to get such a promotion, so for Bush to appoint her to O'Connor's seat might be even more than he's willing to do. On the other hand, I wouldn't bet against it.

What you can bet on is that Bush will try to ram a hard-right ideologue in the mold of Antonin Scalia onto the court, and that he will not be persuaded by anyone to pick a moderate. While it's true that Bush can't run for president again, the extreme right-wing Bible-thumping Christian fanatics who constitute Bush's most vociferous supporters have been waiting for this chance for years. They want Roe v. Wade overturned – and they think that this nominee will be the person to finally help them do it. If Bush doesn't nominate a Scalia-esque ideologue, all hell will break loose on the right.

The left has been gearing up for this fight as well, and the bitter recent battle over the so-called "nuclear option" was just a prelude for what's about to happen. They are going to throw in everything but the kitchen sink to prevent Bush from putting another far-right judge on the court. This could be a long, protracted battle, and I rather doubt that it will be over by the first week in October, when the Supreme Court begins its next term.

Isn't it a good thing, then, that Justice O'Connor will be there to fill in until her successor is confirmed? Because, from the way both sides are gearing up, that could mean that O'Connor could remain on the court until hell freezes over.

Tom Moran