Franken knew who the guest was going to be (a controversial choice) and presumably arrived loaded for bear, just in case. Wellstone was likewise prepared to meet the president of the Senate. In Sarah Janecek’s words:

The beginning of Paul Wellstone’s first term in the U.S. Senate was also inelegant. He thrust a cassette tape of Minnesotans expressing opposition to the Gulf War into the hands of then-Vice President Dan Quayle.

Indeed, Wellstone took a while to adjust to Washington, D.C. protocol, as remembered at CounterPunch:

So when Wellstone met Bush in a typical White House pro forma reception line, he used the occasion to urge Bush on three different occasions to spend more time on issues like education and cautioning him against the Persian Gulf War. Of course, Bush was more concerned about fighting the war against Iraq (sound familiar?) and could care less about Wellstone’s issues. After Wellstone violated Bush 41’s sanctimonious White House protocol, Bush was overheard saying, “Who is this chicken shit?”

By expert estimation, Franken is himself six weeks away from being seated in the Senate. It’s a full month before the Minnesota Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the case of Norm Coleman vs. Al Franken. A ruling in Coleman’s appeal of their 2008 U.S. Senate election may take weeks more. After a statewide hand recount and a seven-week election-contest trial, Franken holds a 312-vote margin of victory over Coleman.

Here’s a clip including Franken’s free transition advice for Bush on Bill Maher’s “Politically Incorrect” TV show. The discussion starts at the 7:00 mark, with the exchange between Franken and conservative Los Angeles radio host Al Rantel (paritally transcribed below) starting at the 8:00 mark.

RANTEL: A third of the time’s gone while this guy (Franken) and his friends try to steal the election from Bush.

FRANKEN: I will not let that stand. But go ahead, and then we’ll …

RANTEL: For Bush it’s harder than for Gore…

FRANKEN: His father has picked the cabinet.

RANTEL: That’s not true. For Gore, he’s got a Democratic bureaucracy already in place by Clinton. …

FRANKEN: OK, the point is you really can’t start a transition until you’ve been elected president.

RANTEL: Well, I think he has been elected president.

FRANKEN: I know you think that, but he hasn’t. And you guys would like everyone to think it.

RANTEL: What would you have said, if Gore would have been certified by Florida on Sunday night –

FRANKEN: By his campaign manager? By his campaign vice president?

RANTEL: No, by the counties that reported the numbers. What would you have said?

FRANKEN: I would have said: Recount the votes.

RANTEL: Oh, you would not have. If Gore had been elected you would say recount the votes?

FRANKEN: I would have taken up Bush on the statewide recount.

MAHER (interrupting): What about the lie that I was just talking about? The lie that you have to rush to appoint a cabinet when of course they don’t.

RANTEL: Well, everybody at this point has got to go through FBI background checks. If they’re cabinet members, they’ve got to be approved by the Congress, by the Senate –

MAHER: And that takes three months?

RANTEL: Well, it’s already almost December.

MAHER: Just admit it’s a lie. I’ll give you the office. It’s just a lie.

FRANKEN (to Maher, pointing to Rantel): He and I hate each other. But you’re wrong.

You [the CIA] would like to place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box with an insect. You have informed us [the Department of Justice] that he appears to have a fear of insects. In particular, you would like to tell Zubaydah that you intend to place a stinging insect into the box with him. You would, however, place a harmless insect in the box. You have orally informed us that you would in fact place a harmless insect such as a caterpillar in the box with him.

It’s almost as if “1984″ was on top of the reading pile for someone at the DOJ or CIA. Simply compare that paragraph with the penultimate chapter of Orwell’s novel, in which the hero, Winston Smith, prepares to meets his “worst thing in the world” — rats — in dystopic leader Big Brother’s all-purpose torture chamber, Room 101.

Here’s the scene as performed by John Hurt and Richard Burton in the 1984 film version, followed by excerpts from Orwell’s novel. (Note that the parallel stands up even to U.S. government claims that no one actually put a bug in Zubaydah’s “confinement box.” Big Brother didn’t have to actually release the rats on Smith either to achieve the desired result of breaking his prisoner.)

Excerpts from Part 3, Chapter 5 of Orwell’s “1984″:

For a moment he was alone, then the door opened and O’Brien came in.

‘You asked me once,’ said O’Brien, ‘what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world.’ …

‘The worst thing in the world,’ said O’Brien, ‘varies from individual to individual. It may be burial alive, or death by fire, or by drowning, or by impalement, or fifty other deaths. There are cases where it is some quite trivial thing, not even fatal.’ …

‘In your case,’ said O’Brien, ‘the worst thing in the world happens to be rats.’

A sort of premonitory tremor, a fear of he was not certain what, had passed through Winston as soon as he caught his first glimpse of the cage. But at this moment the meaning of the mask-like attachment in front of it suddenly sank into him. His bowels seemed to turn to water.

‘You can’t do that!’ he cried out in a high cracked voice. ‘You couldn’t, you couldn’t! It’s impossible.’ …

‘By itself,’ (O’Brien) said, ‘pain is not always enough. There are occasions when a human being will stand out against pain, even to the point of death. But for everyone there is something unendurable — something that cannot be contemplated. Courage and cowardice are not involved. If you are falling from a height it is not cowardly to clutch at a rope. If you have come up from deep water it is not cowardly to fill your lungs with air. It is merely an instinct which cannot be destroyed. It is the same with the rats. For you, they are unendurable. They are a form of pressure that you cannot withstand, even if you wished to. You will do what is required of you.’

‘But what is it, what is it? How can I do it if I don’t know what it is?’ …

But he had suddenly understood that in the whole world there was just one person to whom he could transfer his punishment — one body that he could thrust between himself and the rats. And he was shouting frantically, over and over.

‘Do it to Julia! Do it to Julia! Not me! Julia! I don’t care what you do to her. Tear her face off, strip her to the bones. Not me! Julia! Not me!’ …

There was still the cold touch of wire against his cheek. But through the darkness that enveloped him he heard another metallic click, and knew that the cage door had clicked shut and not open.

But since the election, Republicans have made several high-profile mentions of things urban — urban myths and legends, that is. In exit interviews, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have three times invoked the phrase “urban myth” or “urban legend” — picking up on Republican U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann’s use of “urban legend” to discount reports of her own statements, as quoted verbatim or shown in video clips, regarding anti-American attitudes in Congress.

Vice President Cheney, on Jan. 7, 2009, said about allegations that he made decisions for President Bush: “This whole notion that somehow I exceeded my authority here, was usurping his authority, is simply not true. It’s an urban legend, never happened.”

President Bush, on Dec. 17, 2008, said about torture and wiretapping: “There’s a lot of urban myths about certain decisions I have made. But when the truth comes out and people will say, ‘Oh, I see what he did.’”

President Bush, on Dec. 16, 2008, said about not listening to opinions on Iraq from outside his inner circle: “I’ve heard all kinds of voices. There’s urban myths in Washington, D.C., and, you know, of course I listened.”

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, on Nov. 18, 2008, said about her televised statements calling for an investigation of anti-American views held by her colleagues in Congress: “It’s an urban legend that was created. That isn’t what I said at all.”

Politico questions McCain’s temperament:

On Thursday afternoon, McCain swept into Washington, walked to his office with pal Joe Lieberman, said little at a contentious White House meeting, did a few TV interviews, sped off to his home and proclaimed, through a spokesperson, that he was “optimistic” about bringing House Republicans “on board.”

McCain’s high-wire intervention in the financial crisis is his latest showstopper move – and his riskiest. He might succeed, but the candidate’s penchant for the dramatic has also raised anew potentially damaging questions of his age, executive abilities and, most of all, his temperament.

Here’s Joe Klein’s analysis:

McCain’s erratic, and irresponsible, behavior this week isn’t happening in a vacuum. This isn’t just politics–even George W. Bush, who never failed to take a partisan advantage in his presidency, realizes that. It is a time for leadership, a time for John McCain to explain to his fellow Republicans that this is one moment where government activism is absolutely necessary, that they have to get behind the Paulson compromise–and also try to explain to the general public, as Bush did on Wednesday night, that their savings and mortgages may be at stake if federal action isn’t taken. We’ve seen nothing like that from McCain. Just histrionics.

John Judis is even more brutal:

It is simply unpatriotic–it’s an insult to flag, country, and all the things that McCain claims to hold dear–for McCain to hold this financial crisis hostage to his political ambitions. McCain doesn’t know a thing about finance and is [in] no position to help work out an agreement. If we do suffer a serious bank run, or a run on the dollar, it can be laid directly at his feet. As I said to friends last night, if McCain had been president at this point, I would have wanted to impeach him.

Then there’s this hilarious bit from First Read:

During a speech on the Senate floor this morning, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) urged President Bush to “respectfully tell Sen. McCain to get out of town. He’s not helping.” …

He added, “When you inject presidential politics into some of the most difficult negotiations under normal circumstances, it is fraught with difficulty. Before McCain made his announcement, we were making great progress. Now after his announcement, we are behind the 8 ball. We have to put things back together again.” …

“So this is a plea to President Bush, for the sake of America, please get your party in line. Get the House Republicans to be more constructive; get Sen. McCain to leave town and not throw fire on these flames. And maybe we can get something done.”

Read the entire series, but here’s an excerpt with remarkable new details about the gathering at then-Attorney General John Ashcroft’s hospital bed at George Washington University Medical Center in March 2004. The principals in the scene: Deputy Attorney General James Comey, FBI director Robert Mueller, and Jack Goldsmith, Chief of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

Late that Wednesday afternoon, Bush returned from Cleveland. In early evening, the phone rang at the makeshift FBI command center at George Washington University Medical Center, where Ashcroft remained in intensive care. According to two officials who saw the FBI logs, the president was on the line [4]. Bush told the ailing Cabinet chief to expect a visit from Gonzales and White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr.

A Senate hearing in 2007 described some of what happened next. But much of the story remained untold [5].

Alerted by Ashcroft’s chief of staff, Comey, Goldsmith and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III raced toward the hospital, abandoning double-parked vehicles and running up a stairwell as fast as their legs could pump.

Comey reached Ashcroft’s bedside first. Goldsmith and his colleague Patrick F. Philbin were close behind. Now came Card and Gonzales, holding an envelope. If Comey would not sign the papers, maybe Ashcroft would.

The showdown with the vice president the day before had been excruciating, the pressure “so great it could crush you like a grape,” Comey said [6]. This was worse.

Was Comey going to sit there and watch a barely conscious man make his mark? On an order that he believed, and knew Ashcroft believed, to be unlawful?

Unexpectedly, Ashcroft roused himself. Previous accounts have said he backed his deputy. He did far more than that. Ashcroft told the president’s men he never should have certified the program in the first place [7].

“You drew the circle so tight I couldn’t get the advice that I needed,” Ashcroft said, according to Comey. He knew things now, the attorney general said, that he should have been told before. Spent, he sank back in his bed.

Mueller arrived just after Card and Gonzales departed. He shared a private moment with Ashcroft, bending over to hear the man’s voice.

“Bob, I’m struggling,” Ashcroft said.

“In every man’s life there comes a time when the good Lord tests him,” Mueller replied. “You have passed your test tonight.”

“Take off those stupid pink gloves,” Rove recalled Bush saying.

Bachmann, of course, is no stranger to wearing pink or donning gloves for fashion’s sake. Consider the outfit she picked out for her fund-raiser with Bush just before her election in 2006. From The Star Tribune:

Clad in a pale pink suit jacket and matching knee-length skirt, Bachmann sported not only a pearl necklace, but also pink heels and pale pink wrist-length gloves with scalloped edges and a rhinestone bracelet. Asked about the gloves, Bachmann smiled broadly and said, “The president’s coming. We want to look our best.”

It doesn’t sound like Bush thought she looked “her best.”

Critics of the 200-page plan say it lacks focus and ignores the real problem of mortgage-backed securities and millions of foreclosures across the country. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said the economic collapse was not a failure of regulation, but a “failure of leadership.” Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., are working on an update of a Depression-era (there’s that word again!) plan that would facilitate a $300-$400 billion buyout of mortgages, allowing nearly 2 million homes to be refinanced instead of foreclosed.

But it’s not just Paulson’s speech today that is causing “Depression” to be invoked. Top economists and analysts are using the word to describe what they say is the worst financial crisis they’ve seen in their lifetime.

Continued: Click “Read more”

• Jeff Faux, founder of the Economic Policy Institute, writes today in The Nation that “we are now staring into the abyss.” Home prices are expected to drop another 10 percent, halting consumer spending that makes up 70 percent of our economy. It’s not the “Big One,” he says in his article “Are We Headed for the Next Great Depression?” But it’s A Big One, he says. And it will take years to recover.

 

• Nouriel Roubini, professor of economics at New York University who also served as an adviser in the Treasury Department, says we’re experiencing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. He writes a lengthy and compelling article about how and why we are at increasing risk for the “mother of all financial meltdowns.”
• Allan Sloan at Fortune Magazine writes that we are suffering the aftermath of the collapse of at “Tinkerbell economy” that was dependent on money that disappeared like fairy dust. He cites leading political economist Allan Meltzer of Carnegie Mellon, who argues the current situation is unusual, but not unprecedented. The last time we saw a collapse like this? In 1929, he says. Which resulted in the Great Depression.

Photo: Franklin D. Roosevelt Library

“Just the facts, ma’am. Just the facts.”

Yep, that was the headline that greeted me in this morning’s Star Tribune.  And while I’m ecstatic that these deplorable wretches (well, at least those found guilty) are finally being brought to justice, the timing seems a bit too opportunistic.  Here we are under two months before the November elections, almost 5 years after 9/11, and President Bush all of a sudden decides it’s finally time to try these suspects.  Holding the trial off until now seems like a thoroughly calculated political move intended to con the American public into believing that this administration is effective on defense (oh, and never-you-mind the war going on).

Oh well, we’re sure to see more of these tactics between now and November.  All we can do is sit back and try not to let the fear-mongoring get to us.  In the mean time, I’m still happy that justice is finally going to be served, it’s just too bad partisan politics got to decide the timeframe.