I don’t understand the set up or the stage that results in such photographs. Why is it set up in such a way that the Senate-beat photographers are getting these politicians at weird Kirby-esque angles?

(Incidentally, the Trent Lott photograph may be the “weak link” of this here page, even if Colin Powell’s “blowing” stage isn’t terribly threatening. In a later image, we got to see an image from that stage looking up Tom Daschle’s nostrils… and I don’t really know what the religious symbolism of that would could be contorted as being. I will have to refind one of the two or three Bush-halo images, either within my cache of images or from whatever page I just linked to — the old mdcplus page has run out on me…)

This Harry Reid image was taken after Reid closed down the Senate, so as to get the long-delayed next phase of the Iraq War Investigation. What I’m curious to find out is when the last time the Senate went into a closed session without being mutually agreed on before-hand. I heard the date of 25 years ago… so we can skim through these incidents… (and I invite you to check out the profile of former Judge / now Representative Alcee Hastings… the Jerry Springer Rule is in effect here, or more ignobably than Springer the Marion Barry Rule — I don’t know whether to congratulate his constitutes for looking past Hastings’s criminal and corruption misdeeds or to scorn them.)

Unfortunately the page does not show individual entries for these moments, so I don’t know what the last blind-siding job from one party to the other was. Nicaragua? The Panama Canal Treaty? (which was a right-wing cause de jour back in 1978.) If I had to bet, it would be the Panama Canal Treaty.

[ADDITIONAL EDIT: Daily Kos has a different photograph more flattering to Harry Reid and some distinctly religious-themed comments.]

Regretabably, Orcinus stole my thunder on much of what I was going to say about

.

Mussolini to Hillary Clinton, eh? I will say this: I’m glad he didn’t say Hitler. My real beef with people who make Hitler references to their political enemies is that Hitler is not the end all and be all of Historical dictators and Bad Guys.

But, in the end, I just have to come to the conclusion that… Mussolini is an entity of the right. I guess Jonah Goldberg used Mussolini because he was tired of hearing the quotation “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” (For an exploration of where, if anywhere, that Mussolini-ism came from, and more importantly what exactly Mussolini’s conception of Fascism was see here.)

Jonah Goldbergh’s argument placing Fascism on the back of the “Left” seems to proport that the “Right” is synonomous with limited government. Which, as we float through the Bush Administration, is to laugh.

Mussolini is a creature of the right. Like it. Live it. Learn it. Stalin is a figure of the Left, which is to say that at one point in history “left-wingers” were defending Stalin. The publication The Nation once published a piece by Emma Goldman which derided Stalin, where the publisher felt compelled to toss in his caveat at the beginning of the article that “You have to consider the circumstances of Dictator Franco’s Spain and put it all in context.” Which is reminiscent of how today (though not quite as much as you would during periods of the Cold War) you’ll occasionally get comments that “You know — Stalin killed more people than Hitler ever did.” (Which ends up as a strange back-handed exoneration of Hitler… as much as the case to start bombing the Soviet Union and American Liberals that it’s designed to be.)

Hitler is a bit stranger a case. Like it or not, it is “National” “Socialism, and he proudly called his regime “Socialism”, and in a number of twisted ways it was (probably moreso than the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was, for whatever that is worth… and here I’m just getting loopier and loopier). But, in the end, the “Right” was aligned with Hitler. He was a bulwark against those Commie Soviets, you see.

So, in conclusion: Jonah Goldberg is full of it. Maybe in the case of comparing our political enemies to Famous Dictators we oughta impose a two -century rule… which is to say… the Famous Dictator must come from at least two centuries ago.

(I would be remiss if I didn’t once again throw you to this odd bit of a alternative history)

[Additional Note: Because it oftentimes is the most important factor in a society, I have to explore how the dictators handled pop culture: Stalin preserved the Russian classics, Hitler and Mussolini allowed for the Apolitical Art/Entertainement (remember: Mussolini and “Bread and Circuses for the Masses”), Mao wanted to destroy it all. Now, what counts as “apolitical” is a question that needs to be parced out, which is to say you’re walking a fine line and will need to be summarily disappeared if you cross that line.]

I’m lazy enough to lift articles full cloth from the famous blogs, and simply offer a different line of comments. (Though, to quote my 8th grade English teacher when he read student writings in front of the class and came to a piece of mine: “Okay, this one is a little bit different. (Pause) Actually, this one is a lot different.”) Such is the case here.

Has anyone noticed that the coverup worked?

Bush and his disciples would like everyone to assume that Libby was some kind of lone operator who, for this one time in his life, abandoned his usual caution. They pray that Libby will be the only official facing legal charges and that political interest in the case will dissipate.

That’s what the establishment moderate liberal EJ Dionne says.

I always wondered what the point behind Nixon’s break-in of the Watergate Hotel was. Last I checked, the final tally of Nixon — McGovern was 49 – 2. (Washington DC exists just as much as Massachusetts does.) What — was McGovern going to flip Rhode Island? But nay — the whole break-in was symptomatic of how Nixon and crew operated. A well heeled machine at that… one dirty trick after another.

I also used to think that Nixon would have gotten by if he had at some point in time simply apologized. But this seems absurd to me now. It was a third class break-in, and the Democrats complaining about the ordeal were shrill. Try the new line of reasoning: Overzealous Campaign staff! That one is a riot!! (To be fair, it was a third-class operation. After all — they were caught.!)

Bush and Kerry. You realize that Plame-Gate actually succeeded in winning Bush an election? You realize that the stalling through the Fitzgerald Investigation actually won Bush an election? If you consider Impeachment — and as we all found out (and were reminded of, if we managed to learn about Andrew Johnson in school) that’s not removal from office, so here I add and a resulting action to remove the president from office — as a corrective measure to the electoral process that was thrown out of whack through dirty dealings — the case to remove Bush is stronger than the case to remove Nixon was. (Because, you see… Nixon would have won anyway.)

This is all a masturbatory thought-process, mind you… speculation based on how political justice would be meted out over on an imagined America II over on Earth II. Though, perhaps I have the beginnings of my own Republic here. In my imagined system of justice, Nixon would have finished his presidency, and Bush would currently be on his way to being carted out of the White House and replaced by John Kerry.