1. it seems quite conceivable that he still may be, and


2. it also seems likely that if he isn't indicted, it will be for reasons completely different than I cited in my argument.

That is, even if it ultimately turns out that I was right, I'll probably be right for the wrong reasons.

Of course, I'd be much happier just to be proved wrong and see Rove indicted.

It's actually just a little strange: people who went overboard with their irrational exuberance at the possibility that "Fitzmas" would mark the beginning of the end of the Bush-world are now pretty disappointed at what's come of the investigation so far, because their expectations were so unreasonably high (fed by paragraph after paragraph of rank speculation and fantasy-mongering -- "frogmarch" indeed -- rampant throughout the liberal blogosphere) and are waxing pessimistic about Rove being indicted, while I'm feeling pretty optimistic myself, despite my prediction that he wouldn't be. Go figure.

Update: On reflection, the brouhaha over "Fitzmas" is perhaps an indication that liberals are as susceptible to Messianic impulses as are fundamentalists. I guess that should come as no particular surprise, given the left's response to Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Che, or cults such as Jonestown, La Rouche and the Weather Underground, but I had thought (hoped?) that liberalism, specifically, was more dedicated to rational evaluation and logical thinking. I suppose that means that the mushy emotion-laden liberalism of (for example) Barbra Streisand is much more prevalent than I'd like to believe. In this current flap of irrational exuberance and unreasonable expectations, however, some of our more insightful and perceptive analysts got caught up in the emotional vortex, and wrote some stuff that, I strongly suspect, is going to look pretty damn embarassing in a few years when they read it again.

Now, as I said before, this grand jury investigation has been conducted in secret. I believe it should have been conducted in secret, not only because it's required by those rules, but because the rules are wise. Those rules protect all of us.

We are now going from a grand jury investigation to an indictment, a public charge and a public trial. The rules will be different.

Get that? Fitzgerald said:

The rules will be different.

I take that as a warning shot across the bow of anybody -- Karl Rove, "Official A", whomever -- who was not indicted today, and may still be in danger of indictment. Fitzgerald is not convening a new grand jury (he was explicit on that point several times in the press conference), but will borrow a sitting grand jury if he needs one. His investigation is continuing, but because it's not a grand jury investigation, and is therefore not covered by the secrecy rules which apply to grand investigation, Fitzgerald is not bound to secrecy, which means that he is able to fight a war of leaks, tit for tat, as he was unable to do before.

That should give pause to Rove, since it means Rove's attorney will no longer be able to spin things to the benefit of his client without being answered by Fitzgerald.

Now, it's true you can interpret Fitzgerald's words entirely in another way, as saying that in the case of Libby, we're in another phase, and the rules change, but then it's hard to explain this AP report:

In a sign of the trouble lingering for the Bush administration, the indictment handed up Friday in the CIA leak probe refers to someone at the White House known as "Official A."

The unidentified official could become a courtroom witness against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who left his job as vice presidential aide shortly after his indictment on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury.

Several other unnamed officials mentioned in the indictment were identified Friday afternoon by Justice Department officials.

But not "Official A."

The mysterious official is identified in the indictment only as "a senior official in the White House."

No mention is made of Karl Rove, the president's political adviser who remains under investigation by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.

It has been known that columnist Robert Novak spoke to Rove on July 9, 2003, saying he planned to report over the weekend that Valerie Plame, the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, had worked for the CIA. Rove told the columnist he had heard similar information.

Friday's indictment says "Official A" is a "senior official in the White House who advised Libby on July 10 or 11 of 2003" about a chat with Novak about his upcoming column in which Plame would be identified as a CIA employee.

Late Friday, three people close to the investigation, each asking to remain unidentified because of grand jury secrecy, identified Rove as Official A.

Now Fitzgerald's operation has been, up to this point, remarkably fastidious about not leaking anything -- leaks have come from other sources, such as attorneys representing witnesses and targets, but it's hard to see how these "three people close to the investigation" could be anything but inside the investigation, since Rove would have nothing to gain by doing anything which lessens the sense that he's off the hook.

I think we're seeing Fitzgerald use yet another weapon to go after Rove, one that hasn't been available to him before.

Update: Here's another snippet from the press conference (and here's a link to the NY Times transcript of it):

QUESTION: You identified Mr. Fleischer as one of the people that Mr. Libby spoke with. Can you say who the counsel to the V.P. was, and also the undersecretary of state that he spoke with?

FITZGERALD: We've referred to people by their titles in the indictment just because that's a practice. We don't allege they did anything wrong. But we said the White House press secretary and we talked about counsel for the vice president. And I generally don't identify people beyond the indictment.

And I'll talk to Randy Samborn, who tells me what I'm allowed to do, at the break.

If we can provide you those names, we will. I'm not so sure we can, so I better not do it in front of a microphone.

Clearly, Fitzgerald's very concerned about what he can say and what he can't, and anything he was told he could say in public, is something that he could leak or caused to be leaked.

AARON BROWN: Why do you think it- people at the Vice President's right hand -- and whether this was criminal or not will be for a jury to decide -- apparently engaged in this effort to, this is my word, certainly, and not yours, trash Ambassador Wilson?

SEN. JOHN SUNUNU: Well, I think they felt that Ambassador Wilson was a partisan, and he certainly was, politically speaking, a partisan, that he may have had specific motives and goals in mind, that were cer- it was certainly counterbalanced by other evidence and other sources of inteligence gathering at the time, and they felt that there needed to some sort of a balance out there. That doesn't justify the specific way that they approached it, but I think that was their concern at the time.

So if you accept this at face value, they thought Wilson was a Democratic anti-war advocate (which I can believe -- they are people who see things in strictly black-and-white terms: if you're not for me, you must be ag'in me), who was publicly put weight behind one specific piece of information which mitigated against going to war, but they knew of all this other evidence which supported going to war, so their response was not a substantive one, to present that evidence and let the public decide, but instead they attempted to defang Wilson by revealing that his wife was a CIA agent.

That's the Republican idea of creating "balance."

It all just barely makes sense even on its own terms. The only thing that really makes sense is that the outing of Plame was an attack and warning to Wilson: "shut up or else", and, in addition, a warning to the CIA: "get with the program, or else". The information that Wilson's wife is a CIA agent isn't "evidence" for or against anything, it doesn't bear on the Administration's position on the war one way to the other, and can only be justified as a legitimate move by a dimbulb such as Sununu dancing as fast as he can to his master's tune.

I do not understand why Scooter Libby (or whoever was Novak's source) did not take a dive in the fall of 2003. From the moment the CIA asked for an investigation, it was clear that this could be big trouble--for the administration was guilty as hell. At that moment Scooter Libby should have stood up and said: "I did it. I was pushing back against Wilson's lies and I forgot that his wife's status at the CIA was secret. I'm guilty." He would then resign, go to work for the campaign, get pardoned if there were to be any jail time--no criminal intent, Bush would say--and come back into the administration in early 2005. If you're guilty--especially if you're guilty--that's the dominant strategy. It gets you a sterling reputation as a stand-up guy. It wins you eternal gratitude from all the other guilty people who now escape scrutiny. [More]

I'd guess that at least part of the answer is that the Bushies didn't see the necessity fot anyone to fall on their sword, because they had Ashcroft in the DoJ to protect them by controlling the scope of the investigation. Once Ashcroft had recused himself, perhaps the moment had passed?

Almost unnoticed by the media, apparently, has been the ludicrously poor governmental response to the latest hurricane. Jeb Bush's leap for responsibility was a laudable example of brotherly love, but hardly an explanation of why FEMA, with Brown still on the payroll, still is the gang that can't respond straightforwardly to wind or waves. The current Administration is wildly successful in wealth transfers, but can't seem to award a low bid contract, armor up our military vehicles, freeze ice, keep electricity humming, or look for Osama in the country in which he is located. If in fact Washington's latest remix of High Noon produces a White House cleaning, one positive outcome could be the recruitment to high posts of folks who know how to run a government for practical, and not merely political, purposes.

I thought at the time of Katrina that FEMA's pathetic response at that time put the Bush administration in a no-win situation. If they responded well to a subsequent hurricane somewhere else -- such as in Florida, for instance -- it would be taken as proof that the response to Katrina was deliberately underwhelming because of the race and political orientation of many of the people affected by it. If, on the other hand, Bush's FEMA didn't do a good job on another storm, it would be taken as proof that they're just incompetent.

Well, no one deserves a no-win dilemma more than Bush and his deeply incompetent administration, so I'm not particularly unhappy at the unfairness of it all. The poor response to Wilma (still orders of magnitude better than the anemic response to Katrina) is just another example of a basic fact: it's hard to make government work when you don't believe in the efficacy of government, and your ideology is built around that supposition.

I never really bought into the argument that the FEMA Katrina fiasco was linked to race (although Louisiana's blue-stateness may have lessened any sense of urgency FEMA's minders might have had about stepping in, all policies in Bush's White House being measured by political yardsticks a la Rove), since it seemed apparent from FEMA's statements at the time, and earlier in Congressional hearings, that they just didn't believe in using the Federal government to fix problems -- that was the responsibility of the states and cities. That orientation fundamentally perverted their view of what their job was, which was why they did such a bad job, and (apparently) continue to do so.

The bottom line is that we desperately need someone in the White House who believes in using governmental power to solve problems. Until we do, there will be more Katrinas, more Wilmas and more general incompetence.

What if the scenario is supposed to play out this way:

• Bush appoints obviously unqualified personal retainer for the high court;


• She's a woman: Bush gets points for this with some people;


• She's not a right-wing ideologue: Bush gets points with certain people for this;


• However, the right-wing is up in arms with vociferous objections: they want a true believer to reshape the court;


• The mainstream media latches onto the problems with the nominee (unqualified) and political problems with the nomination (not supported by powerful forces, i.e. the right-wing punditocracy);


• The media starts talking about Harold Carswell, the Nixon S.C. nominee who was a mediocre choice at best (leading one Senator to say about him "Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they?"). Carswell's nomination was ultimately defeated;


• To avoid the "Carswell dilemma," Bush withdraws Miers from consideration (or perhaps Miers, ever loyal to the most brilliant man she ever met, removes herself "in the best interests of the President and the country");


• Bush them nominates a stealth candidate, someone with judicial experience and a paper trail that conservatives can appreciate, but which is subject to possible innocent interpretation (on the model of Roberts);


• Happy to have gotten somebody with more potential right-wing bona fides, the right supports this nomination, even though they're not overwhelmed with joy;


• The Democrats object, but their objections can't find any purchase because the media, having blown its wad pontificating about Miers, can't bring itself to take arms against the new nominee (especially since those same powerful forces that dissed Miers are now supporting the new guy -- and it will most probably be a guy, perhaps even a minority -- more points for Bush);


• The new nominee is confirmed;


• Bush and Rove have pulled off a perfect head fake.

So far, things are proceeding pretty much as I (and others) had speculated they might. The questions we've got before us now are:

1. What will Bush do now -- will he follow the scenario above?; and



2. Was this a deliberate "head fake"?

It seems pretty clear that Bush will follow my speculative scenario fairly closely -- it's pretty much what everyone is thinking will be the case. I suppose the only question there is whether the new nominee will be a slam-dunk radical conservative, exactly the red meat the right's been hankering for, or whether Bush will go with his inclination to appoint someone close to him who's somewhat more moderate, but still less of a cipher than Miers.

If Bush had any common sense, he'd have learned his lesson from the Miers debacle and would go with someone the fundies and righties will drool over -- but common sense is never one of the stronger inclinations of this president or his administration, so you can't count on it. Absent other circumstances, it's just as likely that he'd do his stiff-necked thing again and appoint Alberto Gonzales or someone like that -- but with his administration under duress due to the Fitzgerald investigation, he might just realize that the last thing he needs is more fracturing within his base, and give them what they want.

So -- was the Miers nomination a deliberate head fake, an elaborate ploy by Bush and Rove to outfox the opposition and put through a stealth far-right justice?

I reserve the right to adjust my opinion as things develop further, but at this point I don't think so -- it seems to me from this vantage point (the outskirts of Lower Blogovia) that things just happen to have happened in a way that follows the head fake scenario.

Bush's reaction to the criticism of Miers seemed too real, and his response (i.e. stiffen the neck, then hunker down to stay the course, then frantically look for an exit) too much in character for it to have been faked. Years of observing Bush on TV with the sound off have convinced me that this man is not a particularly good actor, that he wears his true feelings right out on his face and in his posture for everyone to see -- if they'd ignore what he's saying with his mouth to see what he's saying with his body.

So, my provisional thought is this wasn't a complex bank shot by Bush and Rove. Other possibilities:

• Miers was completely Bush's idea -- Rove being distracted by other matters -- which is why the choice seemed so badly tone deaf to the current political realities; and



• (brace for this one) Rove manipulated Bush into nominating Miers, knowing what the reaction form the right would be, and how Bush would respond to it.

That last adds yet another bounce to the bank shot, and probably puts it out of the running as anything remotely real, but it's sure interesting as speculation.

However we ended up here, I suspect that Democrats may soon look back with great fondness on those halcyon days when the GOP coalition appeared to be self-destructing over Miers, and they could sit back and snack on popcorn and watch it develop. With Miers, so obviously underqualified to be on the high court, they had the option of abstaining from the vote, but that privilege won't be available to them with whomever is next -- and the right isn't going to help them out.

(CBS) Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.

[...]

God created humans in present form
51%
Humans evolved, God guided the process
30%
Humans evolved, God did not guide process
15%

[More]

While the ignorance of the Great American Public is displayed here, the bad news is not quite as bad as the piece would have us believe, since people who believe that God guided the evolutionary process are still people who believe that the evolutionary process exists and is at work. (God's "guidance" can presumably be as light or as heavy-handed as one cares to believe.) Since this is the case, one has to add together 30% and 15% to arrive at a quite different (if still depressing) result:

God created humans in present form
51%
Humans evolved.
45%

(There's another complication, in that the question is framed entirely in terms of human evolution, and there presumably is some percentage of people who would be willing to believe in evolution -- with or without God's guidance -- if it was limited to other forms and life and not applied to human beings.)

Is there another country in the developed world where a majority of the people outright reject the major tenet of biological science?

1. your blogfather, or blogmother, as the case may be. Just one please - the one blog that, more than any other, inspired you to start blogging. Please don't name Instapundit, unless you are on his blogchildren list.


2. Include your blog-birth-month, the month that you started blogging, if you can.


3. If you are reasonably certain that you have spawned any blog-children, mention them, too.

You can e-mail this info here.

My responses were (with comments added later):

1. Blogfather: Eliot Gelwan's Follow Me Here. (Were I allowed a second influence, it would be Kevin Drum.)


2. First post on August 31, 2003 (after several years of dithering)


3. No blogchildren that I'm aware of. (But sometimes the father is the last to know.)

[Via Pharyngula]

Update: Two new instructions have been added by Commissar:

• Don't email me to tell me that you have no blogfather/mother. If that's your view, that's fine. But what I'm doing here is tracking intellectual heritages, or just strong influences. If the idea of blogging came to you fully-formed and no other blogger influenced you, I do not object. But I'm tracking lineages here.


• Identify your blog as Left, Right, or Other.

There was a scene in the first Batman movie where the Joker stood on the steps of city hall and handed out wads of cash, yelling: "Vote for me! I'm giving away free money!"

Yep, a dead ringer all right.

During my short, four-day experiment, I recieved about 20 times as many signatures at a rate 690,000% higher than what the Discovery Institute can claim...

Related: this article in the Boston Globe.