I know, the AP doesn't like people linking its stories, but I'm going to do it anyway.

Going back to May 2007, the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Justice Department's Inspector General investigated charges of applicants being turned down for jobs within the department based solely on political leaning.  What did they find?  [flip]

Usually I try to limit my posting to snarky comments, but this is too important.  We need your help!

April 1st is the election date for Milwaukee County Executive, pitting incumbent Republican Scott Walker up against state senator Lena Taylor.  This has Daily Kos Action Item written all over it.

I've never begged for recommends before, but heck, I have no pride.  The more people who see this, the better.

In the past few weeks, we had the shame-on-you, the backhanded endorsement of McCain over Obama, the 3 a.m. ad, the darkening of Obama ad, the "leaking" of the picture of Obama in local garb on a trip outside the country, the questioning of Obama's religion, and now Geraldine's opinions on race.  Most of these have either come directly from the Clinton campaign, or are thought to be from her campaign.  Some of these attacks have been more effective than others, but at a price: her reputation for ruthlessness is making her less and less attractive as a candidate.

So let's play the What If game: What if Hillary wins the nomination and is campaigning against her good friend John McCain for the election in 2008.  What are you going to do?  I'll make a poll, but by all means, the comment floor is yours.

Today's voting day in Wisconsin, and after this past week, I think I know who I'm voting for.

John McCain, because he loves me.  Look at all the attention I received!

Candidate	Number of phone calls begging for my vote
John McCain	4
Mike Huckabee	2
Cindy McCain	1
Barack Obama	0
Hillary Clinton	0
Bill Clinton	0
Chelsea Clinton	0
Socks Clinton	0

Of course, it could be because John McCain had polled me, and I told him I was voting for Mike Huckabee because of his policy on immigration.  Apparently, John likes it when I play hard to get.

It's funny, though --- not a single call from a Democratic candidate, in what could be an important state for the primary.

Such is life when you're a blue person in a dark red county in a purple state.  Well, time to go vote!  

When my few conservative friends and I talk politics --- something they do with less and less fervor, I might add --- the message I'm getting is similar to what you see on the national level: a walkback from the current administration.  Usually, it'll be a variation of a "he's not a true conservative" theme.

This seems like a load of crap disingenuous to me.  The mantra for the conservatives has been tax cuts for the rich, and I'm sorry to say, that's something Bush was able to deliver, as was stacking the court with conservative judges too afraid to reveal their true opinions during their congressional hearings lest they be rejected.  But rejection of science and evolution, proffering faith-based initiatives --- with the exception of a milquetoast immigration policy, it'd been a conservative administration through and through, most of which with a conservative congress.

[flip]

For some reason, I was thinking about signing statements this morning --- you remember, the "by the way, this law doesn't apply to me" love notes Chimpy wrote to himself at the end of laws he signed off on but didn't like.  Specifically, I was wondering if this really bad president had just established a really bad precedent.  Push the button, Frank...

And by "the Democratic Establishment," I mean "me."  And by "John Edwards Diaries," I mean, "John Edwards Diaries."  And Obama diaries too.  Dennis Kucinich and Joe Biden diaries, you can stay, if only for comedic value.

Hey, I know you really, really, really like John Edwards or Barack Obama.  And that's fantastic.  If he wins the primaries, he will enthusiastically get my support.

But seriously, enough with these diaries.  You're not really convincing anyone --- all you're really doing is knocking more worthy diaries (like those by nyceve) off the rec list.

Or, as a famous moonbat once said:

The candidate wars are now being fought in the Recommended Diaries. Here's a little secret -- no one is being convinced by those diaries to support your candidate, but many are sure being turned off by them.

For my sake --- for all our sakes --- just give it a rest.

Cindy Sheehan has almost single-handedly started the anti-war movement for the Iraq debacle; moreover, she put an end to the free pass Chimpy was getting post-9/11.  She's done so much to this party, to this country, and even to dailykos, that it's hard to imagine where we'd be without her.  She started the process of giving the Democrats the fight they somehow had lost.  We owe her more than we can say.

Having said all that...her running as an independent is dead wrong.

This diary by DemFromCT got me thinking.  For most people, voting is really making a choice between candidates who aren't really your choice.  For example, with Russ Feingold not running, my vote in the primary will be for someone who (IMHO) isn't the best choice for president.  I wonder how eight years of the Shrub is affecting conservative voters' second choices for president.

It was just announced that Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down as Secretary of Defense.

The AP link is here.  It's also being reported on MSNBC now.

There's no report on his replacement, if one has been made yet.  (Or if this is a firing more than a stepping down.)  Lieberman, stay by the red phone, please.  

I wonder if Condi Rice is expecting another position change.  Man, how does she keep her resume updated?

I was reading an Australian analysis of the upcoming midterm, and it discusses (briefly) how the midterm could affect the 2008 presidential hopefuls.  It also mentioned a curious pairing for the Democrats.  (On the flip, please.) <div></div> UPDATE: I apreally preciate people reading the diary and stopping to comment. I do --- I've had diaries up with all of 5 comments, so it's nice that people take a moment to respond. I'm a little disturbed, though, by the people who dismiss a short diary about the 2008 election as "not being properly focused" and, more bluntly, that I should "get back to work" on 2006. Hey, I know the midterms are coming up --- the article I'm referring is about the midterms. I'd like to think, though, that if it raises an interesting point about the 2008 election, I could share it without being blasted. Now, about those midterms...

One of my conservative friends had told me once that he was "socially liberal" but a fiscal conservative.  I think he contemplated (briefly) voting for Gore before giving in to the stupid side.

After reading Kos's post this morning, it makes me think that "socially liberal but fiscal conservative" approach is something of a myth: it isn't necessarily contradictory, and certainly not a reason to vote republican.  (Flip)

When I was visiting Arizona, I remember reading that Senator Kyl (R) was swept in as an agent of change as part of the Gingrich Revolution in 1994.  Of course, the foundation of the infamous Contract with America was term limits: if you know you have to leave, you're more likely to get something done than if you're a "career politician."

Of course, that was 12 years ago, yet some of the names look the same.  Join me on the flip, won't you?

I was reading a recommended diary by Dr. Bob called Strong Indications that Dean & Netroots Are Changing the Game, which talks about the enaction of the 50-state strategy and suggestions that it's starting to work.  Of course, this is all faboo, but it got me thinking that the Republicans will always have one advantage over us: they'll always be the party of immediate self-interest, and if there's one thing people are good at, it's voting for self-interest.

I might be the only one who didn't know that Mike Malloy was fired from Air America.  (I love AAR, but I wonder about their on-air personality decisions.  First, Lizz Winstead, then Sam (almost), and now Mike Malloy?)

Anyway, here's a non-update from Mike Malloy's web site:

We are still trying to recover from the shock of last week, but wanted to check in and thank you all for what you're doing on our behalf with the calls, emails, and petitions. We're overwhelmed by your kind words and actions.

Many thanks as well to our former colleagues Randi Rhodes and Sam Seder for all they have done and are doing to support us during this ordeal. They are true friends and we can't thank them enough.

We are traveling this weekend and hope to have some radio news to share with you next week. By the way, we so appreciate all the email and calls and petitions. Your voices are being heard and given real attention.

Many thanks,
Malloys

9/8/06

So stay tuned next week, I guess.  Even though didn't agree with him all that much, I liked his show.

I hate to say it, but the moonbats and wackadoos got a little bit less, well, moonbatty.

Friday's Salt Lake Tribune has an article that acknowledges the 60% disapproval rating for our occupation into Iraq, and reaches the inevitable conclusion: that when support for the war is no longer mainstream, it becomes fringe.  Fringe, baby!  (Read on!)

UPDATE: it was just pointed out to me that conspiracy theories are forbidden here, especially ones ahout 9/11. (Which mine, heh-heh, kind of was.) I don't think my diary was all that fringe-y, really, but I certainly don't make the decisions around here. The rules are the rules: lest I get kicked out, I'll withdraw the diary. Sorry, guys. Didn't mean to cause a ruckus.

A broadcast of Yearly Kos is being shown right now on CSPAN2.  (I was tempted to add "BREAKING!" to the title!)  Right now, Jane Harman of California, ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, is discussing speaking truth to power in the intelligence community.

It's running until 7pm Central time.  Check local listings.