Daily News Roundup, 12/14/07: The Nice List

If the Republicans played nice on Wednesday, the Democrats took it to the next level of nice in yesterday's debate. The sunny dispositions were necessary as it is the holidays, and also the Iowa caucuses are less than three weeks away. So the fact that no one was mean except to crack wise it was not necessarily surprising, and it made perfect political sense:

Most strikingly, there wasn't the need for a single rebuttal, as candidates never attacked each other by name. And the two-three actual digs were so subtle that it's doubtful that most voters got what they meant. The contrast could not have been more pronounced from the fireworks of the past two debates in Philadelphia and in Las Vegas.

May I wholeheartedly recommend George's liveblog of the debate and followup analysis? I think I may.

Rick Perry is in the news this morning for criticizing President Bush. I know, it sounds weird, but it is true. And it is not unexpected. Perry wears Bush like a millstone more than most other Republicans and he is doing his best to distance himself from his predecessor by making broad digs about Bush's lack of fiscal conservatism. That he was touting Giuliani as a fiscal conservative by comparison is a little strange, but when you're on the trail I guess you've got to get your message out there, even if it doesn't make any sense.

I was disappointed, though, to see that either Perry has taken it upon himself to be ridiculous or is doing so at the behest of his chosen horse:

And although Giuliani would keep up the war on terrorism, Perry said, "if we elect the Democrats across the board, the war on terror is not going away. It's just going to have to happen here. And I want the war, and I want the conflict, to be over there in their country. I want to stop it over there before they get back over here."

It is statements like this that should inform voters everywhere: Perry thinks you are dumb, and doesn't care so much for your ability to think critically or even pay attention to what is going on around you. Giuliani carries the shadow of terrorism by positioning himself tirelessly as Mayor of 9/11, and he could easily work this message with similar disregard for the intellect of voters everywhere, but having Perry do it just feels weird. What does he know about terrorism, anyways?

If you think Karl Rove and Josh Bolten have contempt for Congress, I have good news for you — Congress agrees. The Senate Judiciary Committee decided to issue the citation on a 12-7 vote. It won't make it to the full Senate for consideration until the new year, but it is there for your consideration and for mulling by people who follow such things. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is choosing to talk about how much time is left rather than whether the claim of executive privilege protecting these two and others from testifying on the US Attorney firing scandal — or anything else — is valid:

Even if the citations receive floor votes, the issue likely would land in federal courts in a drawn-out constitutional showdown over what White House information should be made available for congressional oversight.

Any court proceedings would almost certainly survive the Bush administration.

"They should be fully aware of the futility of pressing ahead on this," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, that the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."

I don't know that there's any way for the common man to help, other than to concentrate very hard on the hope that Rove, Bolten, and the rest of the crew will feel bad about everything and take it upon themselves to fess up. We can all try today at about 2:00 PM, and everyday after at the same time.

Lastly today: the House voted to ban torture as an interrogation method, and Bush threatened to veto the legislation.

The White House threatened to veto the measure this week in a lengthy statement, highlighting more than 11 areas of disagreement with the bill.

The administration particularly opposes restricting the CIA to interrogation methods approved by the military in 2006. That document prohibits forcing detainees to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner; placing hoods or sacks over detainees' heads or duct tape over their eyes; beating, shocking, or burning detainees; threatening them with military dogs; exposing them to extreme heat or cold; conducting mock executions; depriving them of food, water, or medical care; and waterboarding.

I wonder if that made it into the White House holiday card.