Coultergeist takes a page directly from her official playbook – when asked a tough question, change the subject, obfuscate, and attack Murtha.  How is it that people still take this lady seriously?

BooMan Trib’s Larry Johnson proffers a gift to reporters still confused by Plame’s status with a run-down of the terms ‘covert’, ‘cover’, and ‘non-official cover’.

Offering a chronology of Cheney’s involvement, emptywheel invites Fitzgerald to use his research to indict the Vice-President.

Also at FDL, looseheadprop contrasts the quasi-related topics of jury nullification and judgment notwithstanding.

Over at TAP, Jeff Lomonaco ponders the PR implications of a Cheney indictment.

Finally, Jeralyn finds herself conflicted in a case where Libby may be being charged with the wrong crime and where Fitzgerald seems to have “missed the forest for the trees”.

There is a really good diary on My Left Wing parsing a recent Gallup Poll in the context of general characteristics. The question was asked: “If Your Party Nominated A Generally Well-Qualified Candidate For WH '08 Who Was ___, Would You Vote For That Person?” with blanks filled in as ‘black’, ‘old’, ‘divorced’, ‘atheist’, etc. And while division and prejudice may have scored as a GOP advantage in the past (deliberately fostered, perhaps), it looks like yet another backfire in ’08. Here are some highlights:

...a full 42% say that they will not vote for [John McCain] simply on account of his age alone … A full 30% will not support a thrice-divorced man [Rudy Giuliani] as presidential nominee … [Mitt Romney’s] Mormonism is still his biggest obstacle. A full 24% of Americans say that they just won't vote for a Mormon … if we take the poll at face value, a female candidate starts at a six point disadvantage behind a black candidate--and statistically[sic] equivalent to a Hispanic president, which is rather surprising given that Hispanics are the GOP xenophobic target-du-jour.

Even so, NONE of the Democratic frontrunner candidates in the field have anything CLOSE to the sorts of simply inherent personal negative attributes that the GOP field does. No divorces. No religious difficulties. No age issues. We can certainly argue that society should be free of such prejudices--but it isn't. And we'll certainly take what we can get, since such prejudices usually work against us, rather than for us.

The diary rightly cautions not to read too much into this. As my wife (the statistician) will tell you, polls attempting to index attitudinal data on social prejudice are notoriously unreliable. People often indicate what they believe is the socially correct response rather than what they truly believe – in other words, passive bigots rarely admit it on paper but this says little about their actual vote. I’m also reluctant to rejoice in the existence of prejudice even when it works in my favor, but after six years of radical decline, I’m willing to take hope in whatever bitter pill it comes.

Pach bemoans a missed opportunity for self-evaluation from the NYT over the media’s role in Plamegate and notes that the Gray Lady is “trying to pretend she's not in it way past her tits in propelling right wing propaganda.”

Over at Hullabaloo, digby highlights Fitzgerald’s conservatism against a recent article by Murray Waas exploring whether Libby will shield Cheney from prosecution.

Larry Johnson takes issue with Victoria Toensing’s recent assertions that Plame was not undercover and that Joe Wilson is a big, fat liar.

Also, Jeralyn at TalkLeft counters Toensing’s claim of jury nullification and argues that she could not think of a worse argument to make to the jury.

Finally, enjoy these two articles from FDL’s looseheadprop which offer a legal analysis of both the prosecution’s opening and the defense’s closing.

I think this falls squarely under the category of funny as hell, but fair warning - the following definitely borders on an R rating.

That’s one way to do it:

Not content to wait for Congress to act, a group of Maryland state legislators is backing a smaller-scale attempt at putting a Net neutrality mandate in place.

Delegate Herman Taylor, a Democrat who represents a county just outside of Washington D.C., introduced House Bill 1069 on Feburary 9. As of Friday, more than 20 of his colleagues had signed on as co-sponsors.

It’s probably good idea to start working on this as a state-based issue since the federal government doesn’t seem to be making any headway. Big teleco just has too much sway in Washington and I doubt the general public really has any concept of the implications behind messing with our “series of tubes” to exert any meaningful grassroots pressure.

This reminded me, however, of an idea I was once toying with about internationalizing this debate. For example, I recall reading about certain provisions in NAFTA that allow corporations and states to sue if policies are enacted that threaten profit potential (I’m pretty sure the WTO has taken a similar approach). This is what has allowed bottled water companies to sue Canada and Mexico over environmental policies. In my humble opinion, this is patently unfair – particularly since such supra-national institutions were never subject to democratic will. That being said, I wonder if this holds any precedent for the current debate.

Much as we in the US might claim ownership of “the internet”, it is an international good to which all countries have more or less equal access via the open DNS. As someone who owns and operates a small website in Ireland that specifically targets traffic in the United States, I represent exactly the kind of international entity that would be effectively screwed by the implementation of a tiered system. Of course, my site operates at a permanent loss (donations, anyone?) so I doubt I personally have a grievance, though certainly there are larger multinationals that would.

This then raises the question: does the United States’ failure to enforce homogenized network access violate our trade agreement under international law? Does failure to legislate against preferential data transfer effectively amount to a form of negative legislation in which profits are unlawfully threatened?

I have exactly zero legal training, so I would be very interested in hearing your opinions on the subject.

I heard a rumor a while back that FOX was trying to roll out a right-wing doppelganger for The Daily Show. Well, all the nail-biting and eager anticipation be quelled – The ½ Hour Comedy News Hour has finally reared its ugly mug (FNC leaked a clip to drudge). And a virtual torrent of accolades have been flooding the internets all morning:

Hal Boedeker, The Orlando Sentinal: Fox News Channel does not know how to do slashing comical commentary … It is a botch. "The 1/2 Hour News Hour" does not comment on what is happening; it simply takes swipes at people … Laughter, of an awfully canned variety, greets all the gags. Nothing happening on screen justifies these outbursts … Fox News Channel will offer a second episode at 10 p.m. March 4. If we're lucky, we'll never hear of this dreadful show again.

Bob Cesca, The Huffington Post: If they're going to leak a segment of the show, they should have avoided what is rumored to be a laugh track. I'm not sure why they didn't run through the show with an actual laughing audience, but I could probably fire off a list of reasons. The first being that, as we all know, there aren't many funny Republicans … Republicans are good at certain things -- making trains run on time for one. And they can certainly appreciate good comedy. They just can't create it.

Will Bunch, Attywood: Good grief … Was there a joke in there? The humor here sort of reminds me of Mad magazine, which I used to devour when I was 11 -- except that Mad was often funny. Right-wing humor must be like a dog whistle -- you have to be a conservative to get it. If you're going to be on the line of mildly (to maybe more than mildly) offensive about the only black man running for president, you'd better make damned sure that it's funny … This just hangs there, like -- well, like so much B.O. The real kind.

Personally, I think the idea of a conservative comedy show is long past due. Comedy is undoubtedly one of the few arenas in which we can more easily connect with one another and I would be thrilled if conservatives would finally jump on the bandwagon and learn how to laugh at the human condition.

The problem is not so much that the show lacks any comedic … well, let’s face it, it’s like listening to a 6-year old regaling you with fart jokes. No, the problem with this is that conservativism is not funny. Not these days. Not by a long shot. The brand name of conservatism a la William F. Buckley, etc. has long since been hijacked. Like it or not, true social/fiscal conservatives have allowed themselves through sheer acquiescence to become defined by some of the darkest elements in society.

Decades ago, a conservative believed in small government and fiscal responsibility, eschewed social engineering and interventionist nation building, and while their methods may have differed, in most ways they shared the same long-term goals as the rest of us. Today, a conservative is a bitter, overweight drug addict who publicly ridicules the sick and disabled. A conservative is a woman bloated with ambition who lies to congress in order to drag our country deeper into conflict. A conservative is a dangerous fascist seeking to create a list of women who have had abortions. A conservative is an armed xenophobic vigilante who has taken it upon himself to guard against illegal immigrants. And a conservative is a dark, soulless coward who publicly condones waterboarding from the most respected office in the country.

Is it fair that these people now define conservativism? Not by a long shot. Is it a double-standard? Maybe. But it’s true. Conservatives sold out their ideals to the most sensationalist elements and these new conservatives (and so-called neoconservatives) have ushered us into an uglier world. No matter how much they try, how badly they may want it, these things will never be funny. They aren’t even in the same ballpark as funny. In fact, they are so far outside that they are starting to wonder if the ballpark ever really existed.

Bottom line: The ½ Hour News Hour stole my funny and I want it back. After watching this clip, I am now operating at a funny deficit. But then again, I suppose creating deficits is something they’re really good at.

See, now that’s funny!

Wonkette highlights perhaps the most surreal journalistic one-liner since Bill Frist’s testosterone soaked hair and clothes.

Over at FDL, Swopa sees the defense strategy as a microcosm of the same “state of mind” that got Libby into trouble in the first place.

With the defense attempting to demonstrate the lack of a vast conspiracy by trotting out reporters to whom Libby did not leak, Jeff Lomonaco provides the obvious rebuttal – Cheney and Libby were focusing on Miller before moving on to others.

Professor Kim takes issue with Clarice Feldman’s contention that Russert may have perjured himself over learning Plame’s identity from Libby.

Finally, on the way back home to Denver, Jeralyn bids a wistful farewell to new friends and colleagues and leaves us with a video appearance from herself, Jane, and Marcy.

You may recall I blogged about this last week, but I oh-so-naively had no idea at the time the depths to which budgetary hypocrisy could plummet:

The Bush administration plans to cut funding for veterans' health care two years from now — even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.

Bush is using the cuts, critics say, to help fulfill his pledge to balance the budget by 2012.

After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly — by more than 10 percent in many years — White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.

The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA budget trends — its medical care budget has risen every year for two decades and 83 percent in the six years since Bush took office — sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better.

Does anyone remember those days of yore when the GOP actually cared about the troops? Today’s Republican Party: Supporting the troops – supporting our children – supporting America. One brazen sham at a time.