FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Oct. 10-11, 2006. N=900 likely voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"As you may know, Florida Republican Congressman Mark Foley recently resigned as a result of reports of inappropriate behavior toward teenagers working on Capitol Hill.

"Do you think Democrats in Congress knew about Rep. Foley's inappropriate behavior and intentionally waited until close to the election to release the information to try to damage Republicans?"

                 Yes    No  Unsure   
                  %     %     %   
 10/10-11/06      49    34   18

"Do you think Republicans in Congress knew about Rep. Foley's inappropriate behavior and intentionally failed to take action to try to protect Foley's seat in Congress?"

                 Yes    No  Unsure   
                  %     %     %   
 10/10-11/06      66    21   14

Probably the operative factor in the first in that people generally blame Congress, and anyone connected to it, for not regulating itself as it should, but the operative factor in the second may be that they actually do understand who runs Congress.

Of the top 15 states for divorce rates in 2005, all 15 voted for Bush in 2004. All fifteen.

Of the 12 lowest states for divorce rates, 10 voted for Kerry.

Massachusetts, where gay marriage is allowed (and where, according to Republicans, civilization would fall apart), has the lowest divorce rate in the country.

This cannot be a coincidence.

No, probably not, but I'm not sure what the connection is. Thinking Liberal suggests that Republican greed may be the answer, but, while I suppose it enters into it, that doesn't seem to me to be sufficient to explain the entire effect - social and cultural factors must enter into it as well, I'd think. In the end, it's probably explained by a complex of factors, not a single one.

Results from an initial air sampling after North Korea's announced nuclear test showed no evidence of radioactive particles that would be expected from a successful nuclear detonation, a U.S. government intelligence official said Friday.

The test results do not necessarily mean the North Korean blast was not a nuclear explosion, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose the sampling results.

[...]

The U.S. government remains uncertain of the nature of the underground explosion Monday trumpeted by North Korea as a nuclear test. The air sampling tends to reinforce earlier doubts about whether the test blast was entirely successful, officials said. Data from seismic sensors indicated the explosion was smaller than expected.

At the White House, press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration's analysis of North Korea's claim was still ongoing and is covering a wide range of data in an attempt to reach a conclusion about whether it is valid.

"We still do not have a definitive statement on it," he said. "They still think the analysis that they're doing will take another day or two."

The air sample was taken Tuesday by a specialized aircraft, the WC-135, flying from Kadena air base in Okinawa, Japan. It apparently took the sample over the Sea of Japan, between the Korean mainland and Japan.

In Beijing, a government official said Friday that Chinese monitoring also has found no evidence of airborne radiation from the test-explosion. The official with the State Environmental Protection Administration said China has been monitoring air samples since Monday.

"We have conducted air monitoring and found no radiation in the air over Chinese territory so far," said the official, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly release the information. The official declined to explain how the Chinese monitoring was conducted.

The U.S. intelligence official said an initial result from testing of the U.S. air sample became available late this week. He said a final result would be available within days but the initial finding is considered conclusive.

It was not immediately clear whether the WC-135 took additional samples after the Tuesday effort.

If it was a nuclear device, but the yield was a paltry half a kiloton, that would mean that North Korea's nuclear scientists aren't up to snuff and blew their country's initial nuclear test (something that no other country has done before), but if it wasn't nuclear at all, that would mean that NK set off a half a kiloton of coventional explosives, knowing that the magnitude of the blast would be almost immediately apparent, but also that, eventually, its non-nuclear nature would be known as well.

Why?

I'm confused as to their motivation to do that -- or is it as simple as trying to attract attention to their repeatedly expressed desire for one-to-one talks with the United States? If they thought that was a way to get Bush to the table, they sadly misunderstand the psychology of this administration, and the nature of American politics as well.

More.

Update: According to a comment to this post on Arms Control Wonk:

If it is a well contained test, only isotopes of noble gases like argon and xenon are likely to surface through barometric gas transport along faults. But, then soil gas sampling in on-site inspection operations alone can detect them. And that not before 50 days after the test for a 1 kT yield. With no access to the site for such sampling, all efforts at radionuclide monitoring from the air amount to fishing expeditions. Simple radiation level measurements will tell nothing. They may serve to give the lay public the impression that something is being done. And possibly to let DPRK believe that their tricks whatever they might be will be found out.

Update (10/14 2:30am): A WaPo report in the Boston Globe now says that radioactivity has been found:

As the United States and Japan pushed for a vote today on a Security Council resolution condemning North Korea's reported nuclear test, US intelligence officials said the government had detected radioactive debris consistent with a nuclear explosion.

The radioactive finding was the only positive result among many tests conducted since North Korea announced a nuclear explosion Monday, the officials said last night.

Environmental samples collected by a US military aircraft detected signs of radiation over the Sea of Japan, possibly confirming North Korea's nuclear test, but intelligence officials stopped short of declaring that an atomic test was conducted. ``The intelligence community continues to analyze the data," said Frederick Jones, spokesman for the National Security Council.

Earlier detection attempts by the United States, China, and South Korea did not pick up any radiation. In addition to collecting more samples, analysts are taking a harder look at seismic data, satellite photos, and communications intercepts.

US intelligence analysts say they believe, though cannot prove, that the North Korean blast was the result of a partial implosion of plutonium at the core of the test device. That would mean some of the plutonium failed to implode. The blast yield was less than a kiloton, far smaller than the 20-to-23-kiloton bomb the US military dropped on Japan 61 years ago.

I guess this puts up back to thinking that the North Koreans probably botched things, and their bomb fizzled. It would be nice to get some confirmation of this from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization's International Monitoring System, which has yet to say anything about it.

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization, or CTBTO, has about 200 stations worldwide designed for monitoring nuclear tests as part of what it hopes will become the world's most reliable source for such tests. But until the treaty comes into force, the data are not made public, only released to governments and vetted partners.

[...]

The test ban treaty, which bans all nuclear explosions, will not enter into force until it has been ratified by 44 states who possess either nuclear power or research reactors. So far 34 have ratified it. Holdouts include the United States, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.

The CTBTO's stations are more extensive than those used by most countries. They monitor seismic events but also underwater data, radioactive particles in the air and radiowaves.

"Within 72 hours we will have full data. Then all this will be available to member states," said Zerbo.

While the North Korean explosion was small, potentially complicating monitoring efforts, sensors in South Korea were likely close enough to categorize it as nuclear, if that is what is was, said Friedrich Steinhaeusler, professor of physics at Salzburg University.

A nuclear blast also gives off a clear signature -- a clear graph of peaks and curves -- that differentiates it from other kinds of shocks, he added.

"We'll have the confirmation soon," he said.

[Sci-Tech Today 10/10]

Without verification coming from a presumably neutral source, we're left to depend on the word of various American officials, on- and off-the-record. Given the politicalization of many aspects of American government under Bush (especially when it has to do with disputes involving science), I'm somewhat less than confident than such people can be relied on, one way or the other. (Such is our relationship to the state after 6 years of right-wing rule.)

[click on the graph for the most recent version]

In itself, Foleygate isn't going to drive many people's votes. And even fewer will admit that it has in polls. But I think Foley has provided a collective gut-check moment for the country, when perhaps a critical portion of the country has said, Enough. it's not about Foley. It's really about everything that has come before. But it's allowed people to step back, take in the whole picture and say: No, I'm done.

Update (10/14): Today's graph shows the "Republican scandal" meme disconnecting even more thoroughly from the specifics of the Foley/page/Hastert events as it continues to take off on its own.

Update (10/15): Everything's taken a dive, but whether it's just the weekend and will rebound, or a permanent drop...

Update (10/16): Down, down, down.

Update (10/17): With the weekend over, there's some upward movement, but will it be enough?

Update (10/18): The upward movement continues, with "Republican scandal" still running ahead of the other search terms.

Update (10/19): After some upward zigs, today we've got a downward zag.

Update (10/20): Up, down, up, down, up, with "Republican scandal" continuing to lead the way, and signs of some new life in the "Mark Foley/page" meme, perhaps because of the confirmation from a priest of some sort of hanky-panky when Foley was a teenager. Of course, Foley's personal misbehavior isn't the core of the scandal, whether or not it can be explained or excused -- the real problem is how the Republicans handled it, before and after the public revelations. Cover-up then and whitewash now is the core.

Update (10/21): Things once more plunge downward, which may be the beginning of the end for these memes, somewhat short of reaching Election Day. (Unless, of course, the rumors of another Congressperson being involved with a page turn out to be true.) Looking back at 2004, when I tracked the Bush/AWOL stories using this same technique, I found that that story petered out after 17 days, suggesting that, absent additonal revelations, about 2 - 3 weeks might be a "natural" length for such stories to remain alive.

Update (10/22): Dying embers.

Update (10/23): A few more days like this, and I'll be calling this -- and the only hope for reviving the story is if there are, as rumored, new revelations to come out. Unfortunately, those rumors sound a lot like wishful thinking.

I suppose they can always fall back on their belief that Democrats aren't "Real Americans" so it's not inconsistent to them that they always blame America first themselves -- and always have. ("Who lost the civil war?" "Who lost China?" "Who lost Vietnam?" "Who lost Iraq?") In fact, their entire worldview is shaped by the idea that the enemy within, the treasonous Americans among them, are at fault for everything that's gone wrong in the world. [...] In fact, I suspect that if Republicans couldn't blame America for every single thing that they believe has gone wrong in the world they would completely lose their moorings.

[Emphasis added -- Ed]

The major events that have led to the downfall of Republicans over the past two years--Iraq, Social Security, Foley, Katrina and Terry Schaivo-were not Republican "mistakes." As long as Republicans and the conservative movement maintain power, we can expect to see more reckless and theoretical uses of the military with horrible long-term results. We can expect to see more cover-ups in order to hold onto a single seat in Congress (or maybe even something smaller). We can expect more attempts to destroy Social Security and other cornerstones of successful governance in favor of private companies and large corporations who only care about making money. We can expect more incompetent and unqualified cronies in positions of real power. We can continue to expect a complete lack of accountability for high-ranking administration officials and private companies (unless they are pro-choice, in which case they better brace themselves). We certainly can expect the federal government to care more about whatever the latest fetish of the conservative base may be more than about being properly prepared and responsive in the event of a major national disaster. This is just how the conservative movement operates. These are not mistakes. All of these campaigns were conducted with the same political skill and using the same political machine that Republicans used in order to build their slim 50% + 1 majority.

The difference is that there are now forces much more capable of countering Republican campaigns than in the recent past. [...] Republicans haven't changed or grown less competent at politics. The difference is that they are facing much stiffer competition. Democrats and progressives have earned this lead--it did not fall into our laps.

I think this is correct, and goes along with what I've said in a number of posts, that these scandals and failures and incompetencies aren't each of them unique and unconnected to each other, instead, together they're the direct result of the mode and the means by which the Republicans have chosen to operate during this time that they've totally controlled the Federal government. That all these things should come to fruition (or reach their nadir, whichever way you want to look at it) at about the same time, just before a midterm election, may be fortuitous for the Democrats, but they were all bound to hit bottom at some time or another, and it's worth noting that we've had more than six years for them to fester and grow.

So Chris is right, the mistakes made by the Republicans are not, for the most part, about campaigning (since they excel at the techniques needed to get elected), but in how they chose to approach governance, policymaking and our relationship with the rest of the world. In that sphere, their corruption, incompetence, hackdom, and ideological outrageousness combined to create their current problems.

So those of you counting those chickens need to stop. All of you celebrating the imminent GOP collapse need to take a deep breath. We've got a long ways to go, and nothing in this cycle is in the bag. Nothing.

So no slacking. No premature celebrating. No heightened expectations.

There's a reason I'm pessimistic about our chances this year. It's because no has voted yet and nothing in this biz is ever guaranteed.

I'm guilty as charged here... well, sort of guilty, anyway.

I'm not claiming that this election is in the bag, or that it's assured that we're going to take back either or both houses of Congress. What I've been saying is something a little different, that we've broken the back of the power of the right-wing Republican party, that we've passed the high-water mark of their influence, that in the immediate future they will no longer have the kind of hegemony they've had in the immediate past.

Now, I do feel that this will translate into a transformative election, but that's not my primary claim. Elections do tend to run a little behind social change, and it's the social power and influence of the right which I think is going to go down the tubes, not necessarily their hold on Congress (which will become much more tenuous if nothing else).

Nevertheless and notwithstanding my feelings, Kos' warning is a good one.

Update: Still....

I thought that would be a really great name for an actor of a certain type and a bygone era. (It might be a good choice for the actual name of the Jon Lovitz character "Master Thespian," currently being utilized as a spokesperson for Subway.)

The simplest way to understand Republicans is to use the quick rule of thumb that whatever they criticize Democrats for is what they are doing.

Projection, projection, projection, yep.

Bush has complained, these sources said, that the [Foley/Hastert/Predatorgate] scandal torpedoes furious GOP efforts to reenergize a dispirited political base - especially Christian conservatives.

"There's steam coming out of his ears over the Foley thing," someone who talks to the President regularly said. "The base is starting to get turned off again."

For all the misery, Bush remains defiantly resolute. He will campaign relentlessly in the next month and has told friends he's determined to prove his Democratic and media enemies wrong on Election Day.

Bush is less worried about his standing with history, telling aides that George Washington's legacy is still being debated two centuries later. But he understands that losing one chamber of Congress will cripple his lame duck-weakened final two years.

"He's remarkably optimistic," a Bush insider said. "Like Ronald Reagan, he has a gift for looking beyond the morass in front of him and sticking to his goals, even if it's not popular."

Bush's ability to not see what he doesn't want to see goes far beyond that, of course -- he also has the ability to not see that the morass in front of him is of his own making (Iraq) or that of his party (Foleygate).

But what interested me about this report was Bush's remark about George Washington's legacy still being debated 200 years afterward. It brought back memories of those dorm room bull sessions my second year of college, when Larry Vincentino (who was a history major and presumably should know) insisted that the conventional wisdom was all wrong, and Washington wasn't actually "First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen," but instead was first in peace, tied for second in war, and maybe fifth in the hearts of his countryman, while Tyler Babco (a poli-sci guy) insisted that fifth was much too low when you factored in that Martha was pretty well-liked and that sorta rubbed off on George a bit.

Good times.

Bush, of course, is entirely incapable of coming up with an idea like this all on his own, so either there's a right-wing revisionist take on Washington that's making the rounds of Bush's circle, or else some aides (or Laura?) are feeding him nuggets so he won't get all self-involved worrying about what his deservedly shitty historical reputation is going to be. I can't seem to find the revisionist take on Washington's legacy, but perhaps I'm just missing it somewhere -- anyone know what's going on?

Is the whole "Washington's legacy" thing more code to the troops, like "Dred Scott," or does Bush just not know what he's talking about (for the umpteenth time)?

[via Digby]

What, me worry?

Update: Debate about Washington's legacy? News to this guy, and this one. Like a loyal empty-headed moron, Tony Snow repeats the mantra. If there was such a debate, surely the revisionists would have been at pains to mention their thesis in this article on Washington's legacy in Wikipedia, don't ya think?

I think I might have another idea about where this is coming from, somewhat at odds with my previous ones. Bush has been at pains, on several occasions, to say that he's read three books on Washington. I think we can dismiss that as an exaggeration -- perhaps he read one books, or parts of three books, but almost certainly he didn't actually read three books on George Washington. In his reading, Bush was surprised to find out that things he had taken as gospel about Washington -- the cherry tree incident, for instance -- were actually not true, but an early example of American image mongering. Shocked by having his perception of our first president shaken, Bush explained it to himself by inventing an ongoing "debate" about Washington and, with his own historical legacy obviously very much on his mind (or else why would he and his minions tell us so often that he's not at all concerned with it?), that eventually morphed into a lively and ongoing contemporary debate about Washington's legacy, the fact of which would give him solace in those rare moments when he allows himself to see a glint of the truth about the mess he's made of the world in just 6 years.

That's my theory, and I'm stickin' to it.

• Afghanistan - Job unfininshed, slipping back into narco-warlordism


• Osama bin Laden - Uncaptured!


• War in Iraq - Unjustified and unwinnable


• North Korea - Undeterred!


• Europe and the rest of the West - Unfriendly


• Darfur - Genocide rages, nothing done


• The rest of Africa - Nothing done there, either


• Global warming - Denied and ignored


• Katrina - New Orleans sacrificed on the altar of incompetence

I forgot how enervating and discouraging this game quickly becomes. The real question is: how can any rational and reasoning adult who's not a bona fide client of the Bush Administration or an ideological soulmate uninterested in results in the real world remain a supporter of these imbecilic and incompetent dolts?

Update: Josh Marshall (specific link not working):

North Korea's nuclear program has been a problem for US presidents going back to Reagan, and the conflict between North and South has been a key issue for US presidents going back to Truman. As recently as 1994, the US came far closer to war with North Korea than most Americans realize.

President Clinton eventually concluded a complicated and multipart agreement in which the North Koreans would suspend their production of plutonium in exchange for fuel oil, help building light water nuclear reactors (the kind that don't help making bombs) and a vague promise of diplomatic normalization.

President Bush came to office believing that Clinton's policy amounted to appeasement. Force and strength were the way to deal with North Korea, not a mix of force, diplomacy and aide. And with that premise, President Bush went about scuttling the 1994 agreement, using evidence that the North Koreans were pursuing uranium enrichment (another path to the bomb) as the final straw.

Remember the guiding policy of the early Bush years: Clinton did it=Bad, Bush=Not whatever Clinton did.

All diplomatic niceties aside, President Bush's idea was that the North Koreans would respond better to threats than Clinton's mix of carrots and sticks.

Then in the winter of 2002-3, the US prepared the invade Iraq, the North called Bush's bluff. And the president folded. Abjectly, utterly, even hilariously if the consequences weren't so grave and vast.

Threats are a potent force if you're willing to follow through on them. But he wasn't. The plutonium production plant, which had been shuttered since 1994, got unshuttered. And the bomb that exploded tonight was, if I understand this correctly, almost certainly the product of that plutonium uncorked almost four years ago.

So the President talked a good game, the North Koreans called his bluff and he folded. And since then, for all intents and purposes, and all the atmospherics to the contrary, he and his administration have done essentially nothing.

[...]

Talking tough is great if you can make it stick and back it up; it is always and necessarily cleaner and less compromising than sitting down and dealing with bad actors. Talking tough and then folding your cards doesn't just show weakness it invites contempt. And that is what we have here.

The Bush-Cheney policy on North Korea was always what Fareed Zakaria once aptly called "a policy of cheap rhetoric and cheap shots." It failed. And after it failed President Bush couldn't come to grips with that failure and change course. He bounced irresolutely between the Powell and Cheney lines and basically ignored the whole problem hoping either that the problem would go away, that China would solve it for us and most of all that no one would notice.

Do you notice now?

More updates here.

Why is this stuff so hard for the black and white morality crowd? Consensual sex between adults --- nobody's business. Marrying member of the same sex --- nobody's business. Choking mistress --- wrong. Sexually preying on 16 year-olds --- wrong.

Maybe we could make up some flash cards so the moralizing rightwing could carry them around and consult them whenever they get confused.

Wouldn't help, since the ideological blinders these folks wear wouldn't let them see the cards, or understand the writing if they could see them.

Wingnut: Look at all the funny marks, they're so pretty! Gee, I wonder if they might mean something?

Hope is a beautiful thing. But disappointed hope is the worst thing in the world, and the Republicans have gravely disappointed you. It turns out that they are not what they promised; in the end, they are just another group of politicians, no better than any other and in fact worse than most. The law and order party cannot prevent crime; the decency party turns out to have child molesters within its ranks; the church party turns out to oppose not just dangerous ideas but true and useful ones; the security party has made the world less secure; the ownership party left you out of its circle of owners. Everything they have done has taken power away from you in some way, and consolidated it in Washington and in corporate boardrooms, so that a few people you have never met now have extraordinary power over what you can see, what you can buy, where you can work, what you can read, and how you can live. Much of this happened so gradually that you barely noticed the stages of it. But at last, they have laid the groundwork for the loss of the most basic civil freedom: the loss of habeas corpus, the loss of the sharp dividing line between a free society and an unfree society.

[...]

If you, as a longstanding Republican voter, have come to the conclusion that the Republican Party does not deserve your vote this time, then I congratulate you on your powers of observation and reason. But before extending this hand of respect, I wish you to consider your part in all of this. I know that for years now you have been blaming many things on the liberals, but they were not responsible for all that has happened in the past five years. I am speaking now not of the Democratic Party per se, but of millions of your fellow citizens -- the much-maligned "liberals" who oppose the Republicans out of principle and (usually) support the Democrats out of pragmatism.

Liberals have their flaws and their failures, of course. But they did not rush into a war in Iraq for dishonest reasons; they did not then bungle that war; they did not cover up Mark Foley's predations against teenage boys, or destroy your schools with an avalanche of unscientific nonsense. They did not poison the political atmosphere with a barrage of death threats against their opponents, or destroy the country's reputation by torturing people and tearing up old alliances; they did not make you a peon to your creditors and try to loot your grandmother's only source of retirement income. They did not undermine the very foundations of freedom and due process, and pave the ground for a truly monarchical presidency and in effect a repeal of the American Revolution.

No, the Republican Party whom liberals oppose did all of that. And by supporting the Republican Party, you did all of that. If you wish to know who is responsible for these troubles that now face us, you must name yourself; only then will you understand the power that you actually have, and how little you need the "protection" of the fakers and phonies who have been promising it to you for so long. You can take matters into your own hands. You can, with your fellow citizens, pool your resources and strength to make things right, and force your government -- the government that you own, after all -- to serve you, rather than feeling that you must serve it. Breaking the Republican monopoly on power is an essential first step, but there is much to be done after that.

As you played your part in the damage, so you may play your part in the rebuilding -- but only when you realize that your part is and has always been your own. A mythical being called the "liberal elite" did not get you into this mess, nor will it get you out of it. At stake, in the long run, is not exchanging one set of masters for another, but a chance to be truly free. I hope that you will take that chance, not just in November, but in the long term, and that you will use that remarkable dedication to rebuild a just, open, and free society for yourself, your children, and your fellow citizens.

Amen. Please read the entire post.

[T]he conventions of he said, she said journalism aren't designed to deal with the tactics of modern information warfare.

There's nothing new about the underlying thought here -- I've been complaining for years that reporters seems totally unaware that the conventions of contemporary reporting, which is supposedly objective, non-partisan and unbiased, are being used against them in very clever media jujitsu moves -- but I appreciated Billmon's succinct statement of the situation and, especially, the framing of the circumstance as "modern information warfare. That seems to me precisely correct and, as long as it continues, is the death warrant for "objective" journalism. (In a media world where Fox News is a major accepted player, objectivity as a standard to be lived up to is inevitably going to become a dead issue.)