SATURDAY SMITHERS BLOGGING....Yes, this is my darling cat, Smithers. And yes, that is a leash. We started getting her used to a harness when she was but a kitten, and while other cat owners are frequently surprised to hear it, she's never minded it a bit. In fact, she usually comes running the moment we take it out of the drawer.

I've never entirely understood why it's considered odd. Sure, leashes are generally associated with dogs, but we've taken Smithers for many a stroll. (We do, to borrow a phrase, get the funniest looks from everyone we meet.)

Is walking Smithers like walking a dog? Well, no. She stops quite a bit and, compared to a dog, she's far less interested in going in the same direction we're going in. That said, it's probably not as awkward as one might expect.

And with that I give you, 24 hours late, a hearty dose of cat blogging for your reading pleasure.

INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM....Ken Silverstein wrote a fascinating expose for the July issue of Harper's about DC's lobbying industry. Silverstein wanted to understand how, exactly, these firms operate when approached by an ethically-dubious client, and what lobbyists would/could do for a price.

Of course, if the Washington editor of Harper's Magazine calls up one of these firms, he'll get plenty of spin and very few answers. If "Kenneth Case," a consultant for "The Maldon Group," a mysterious (and fictitious) London-based firm that claimed to have a financial stake in improving the public image of neo-Stalinist Turkmenistan calls up, he'll get a candid assessment of what services are available.

So, Silverstein went undercover, took on a fictitious persona, and gained some fascinating, albeit disturbing, insights.

In some circles, what Silverstein did was unethical. In short, he misrepresented himself -- a journalistic no-no. "No matter how good the story," Howard Kurtz wrote, "lying to get it raises as many questions about journalists as their subjects." Kurtz was hardly alone; the DC media establishment has been less than shy about denouncing Silverstein's tactics.

Silverstein responded today in an LA Times op-ed, arguing that a) this media establishment is far too close to the political establishment; and b) until news outlets start taking investigative journalism seriously again, the public will suffer.

The decline of undercover reporting -- and of investigative reporting in general -- also reflects, in part, the increasing conservatism and cautiousness of the media, especially the smug, high-end Washington press corps. As reporters have grown more socially prominent during the last several decades, they've become part of the very power structure that they're supposed to be tracking and scrutinizing.

Chuck Lewis, a former "60 Minutes" producer and founder of the Center for Public Integrity, once told me: "The values of the news media are the same as those of the elite, and they badly want to be viewed by the elites as acceptable."

I suspect this will make Silverstein even less popular with the media establishment, but he makes a very compelling case.

AND THEN THERE WERE SEVEN....For an "overblown personnel matter," the U.S. Attorney scandal sure has produced a lot of Justice Department resignations.

A Justice Department official who was considered as a possible replacement for one of several fired United States attorneys has resigned. The official, Rachel L. Brand, the assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Policy, will step down July 9, the department said. The statement did not give a reason for her departure, but Ms. Brand is expecting a baby soon. She was a member of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's leadership team.

When officials were planning to fire prosecutors in San Diego, San Francisco, Michigan and Arkansas, Ms. Brand was named as a possible replacement for Margaret Chiari in Michigan, according to documents released as part of a Congressional inquiry.

Brand is the seventh senior aide to Gonzales to resign in the past few months.

She's also the latest to depart late on a Friday afternoon, a time the White House routinely uses (abuses) to hide embarrassing news. For those keeping score at home, Brand joins William Mercer, the former Acting Associate Attorney General; Michael Elston, former chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty; and Monica Goodling, Gonzales' former White House liaison, as top DoJ officials who stepped down by way of The Late-Friday-Media Trick.

THE RIGHT'S MOVEON.ORG....For years, one of the principal concerns on the left was creating a political and intellectual infrastructure that the right developed over decades. Conservatives had the think tanks, the massive membership organizations, the media outlets, the conferences, the deep-pocketed benefactors, etc. The left scrambled to catch up in the late '90s, but the right has a big head start.

But as it turns out, the envious looks cut both ways. The right wants its own MoveOn.org.

Veteran Republicans say they have quietly raised millions of dollars for a pair of nonprofit organizations that will launch this fall with the ambitious aim of providing a conservative counterweight to the liberal MoveOn.org, Politico.com has learned.

The issues and education group, which has a plan to enlist hundreds of thousands of small donors, aims to be active in the 2008 presidential election, according to Republicans involved in the effort. Organizers, who include veterans of the last three Republican White Houses, would not give specifics on how much money the group has raised so far or who its donor base is.

Bradley Blakeman, a former aide in Bush's White House said, "We're in the formative stages of creating a new group that will give voice and hope to conservatives everywhere who believe in peace through strength and limited government. We expect to have more to announce sometime down the road."

We'll see what Blakeman and his team can pull together, but I'm skeptical it'll amount to much, at least for a long while. For one thing, this still-unnamed group will have plenty of competition. The Vanguard says it's "intended to be a right-wing version of the leftist MoveOn.Org." Tom DeLay says he's in the process of "building a conservative grass-roots equivalent of MoveOn.org." In the last couple of cycles, a right-wing 527 group called Progress for America Voter Fund has already positioned itself as a far-right version of MoveOn.org. I think Blakeman's group will have to get in line.

For that matter, I think the right's been confused about MoveOn's appeal for a while. The group doesn't follow a top-down model; it's the other way around. Loyal Bushies can raise some money and form yet another conservative activist group, but that's hardly a recipe for success.

MoveOn drew support because it had a cause (Clinton impeachment). It showed staying power when new causes (Iraq war) emerged. This wasn't an instance in which a bunch of liberals got together and said, "Wouldn't it be great to form some kind of organization to advance a progressive agenda?" It was a far more natural evolution, a fact that seems to elude those who want to emulate it.

But that won't stop them from trying. We'll see what happens.

MAN BITES DOG....Several readers have asked about Friday Cat Blogging, which, I'm afraid, will have to wait until Kevin returns. In its absence, how about a different pet-related story?

An example of Mitt Romney's crisis management skills has turned into something of a political problem for the Republican presidential contender.

Romney placed his family dog, an Irish setter named Seamus, into a kennel lashed to the top of his station wagon for a 12-hour family trip from Boston to Ontario in 1983. Despite being shielded by a wind screen the former Massachusetts governor erected, Seamus expressed his discomfort with a diarrhea attack.

Now the story, recounted this week in a Boston Globe profile of Romney, has touched off howls of outrage from bloggers and animal rights activists even though it was presented in the story as an example of Romney's coolness under trying circumstances.

Is this story important to the presidential race? Not really, but it's one of those nagging stories that's been, ahem, dogging Romney's campaign all week. He was even forced to respond at a press event yesterday, telling reporters the dog "enjoyed" being on the roof.

It seems like a stretch to think that a story like this could hurt Romney's chances in the presidential race, but there are a lot of dog owners out there who wouldn't dream of sticking their family pet on the roof of a car.

And just to make thing extra interesting, Time reported, "Massachusetts's animal cruelty laws specifically prohibit anyone from carrying an animal 'in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the animal carried thereon.' An officer for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals responded to a description of the situation saying 'it's definitely something I'd want to check out.'"

It's a story with, ahem, legs.

FALSE WITNESS....James Dobson's Focus on the Family issued an alert to its membership yesterday bragging about the latest New York Times poll, which, the group said, showed that "America's young people continue to track conservative" on social issues. It took some breathtaking spin to reach this conclusion.

The survey collected opinions of 17- to 29-year-olds. Sixty-two percent said abortion should be outlawed or restricted. Danielle Huntley, a student at Boston College Law School and president of Students for Life of America, said she's proud her peers are not buying into liberal rhetoric.

"It illustrates that my generation realizes that they are survivors of Roe," she said. "Each of us born after 1973 could have been legally aborted by our parents."

Tom Robins of the College Republican National Committee told Family News in Focus the opposition to abortion can be attributed to young people's level of understanding. "Our generation has seen the effects of that," he said. "They understand that abortion on demand is not a healthy choice for America."

Fifty-four percent of young adults expressed opposition to same-sex marriage. Ron Luce with Teen Mania said the challenge is to make sure their opinions are founded in biblical truth.

OK, now let's look at what the poll actually said:

* On abortion: A combined 75% of voters under 30 want abortion rights to be legal.

* On gay rights: 44% said they believe that same-sex couples should be permitted to get married, and an additional 24% support civil unions, for a combined 68% who support some legal recognition of gay relationships.

* On ideology: 28% of young voters describe themselves as liberal (compared with 20% of the nation at large), while 27% call themselves conservative (compared with 32% of the general public).

If this is what it takes for a young generation to "track conservative" in Dobson's book, I couldn't be more pleased.

HOMOPHOBIA?....I have to admit, I'm puzzled by the reaction in some corners to what seemed like one of the more amusing and lighthearted moments of last night's debate.

NPR's Michel Martin asked the candidates, "[W]hat is the plan to stop and to protect these young people from this scourge?" When it was Joe Biden's turn, the senator suggested the key to combating AIDS is prevention: "I got tested for AIDS. I know Barack got tested for AIDS. There's no shame in being tested for AIDS. It's an important thing."

The audience laughed nervously. When Biden was done with his answers, Obama, smiling, interjected.

OBAMA: Tavis, Tavis, Tavis, I just got to make clear -- I got tested with Michelle. (Laughter, applause.)

SMILEY: Ah.

OBAMA: In -- when we were in Kenya in Africa. So I don't want any confusion here about what's going on. (Applause continues.)

SMILEY: All right.

BIDEN: And I got tested to save my life, because I had 13 pints of blood transfusion.

OBAMA: I was tested with my wife.

SMILEY: And I'm sure Michelle appreciates you clarifying it.

OBAMA: In public. (Laughter.)

Everyone laughed; the debate continued. Today, however, Obama is being accused of homophobia, which strikes me as off-base.

TNR's Alexander M. Belenky said Obama "doesn't want anyone to get the impression that he's on the down-low." Lane Hudson said it was a "frat-boy moment," adding that Obama revealed "some level of homophobia."

My take on it was entirely different. Obama seemed to be saying that Biden's comment might have left the impression that he got an AIDS test because he'd had sex with someone else. But why assume he was referring to a man? Isn't it just as likely Obama wanted to "clarify" so that no one would think he'd had an affair with another woman?

The criticism seems misplaced. How did everyone else perceive the comments?

THE WRONG 'MAIN ENEMY'....Oddly enough, the president used to be fairly responsible when describing al Qaeda's role in Iraqi violence. Not too terribly long ago, Bush described "the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda" -- not even the network itself -- as the "smallest" component of violence in Iraq.

And then, as the political winds shifted, so too did the president's rhetoric. In May, Bush declared that al Qaeda is "public enemy No. 1 in Iraq." Yesterday, he reiterated the point at the Naval War College, describing al Qaeda as "the main enemy" in Iraq.

The point, obviously, is to shift the political debate. If we're fighting those who were responsible for 9/11 in Iraq, the argument goes, then we can't withdraw. As such, al Qaeda is suddenly transformed from minor player in Iraq to the sole purpose for our ongoing presence, reality notwithstanding.

Glenn Greenwald recently had an excellent item explaining that several major media outlets are buying into war supporters' rhetorical shift. Thankfully, McClatchy demonstrated today that some journalists are still willing to fact-check the president.

Facing eroding support for his Iraq policy, even among Republicans, President Bush on Thursday called al Qaida "the main enemy" in Iraq, an assertion rejected by his administration's senior intelligence analysts.

The reference, in a major speech at the Naval War College that referred to al Qaida at least 27 times, seemed calculated to use lingering outrage over the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to bolster support for the current buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq, despite evidence that sending more troops hasn't reduced the violence or sped Iraqi government action on key issues.

Retired Major Gen. John Batiste, a former division commander in Iraq turned critic of the war, recently warned everyone about conflating al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents: "[W]e cannot attribute all the violence in Iraq to al-Qaeda. There's a tendency now to lump it all together, and call it al-Qaeda. We have to be very careful with that."

Unfortunately, the president disagrees, and hopes Americans won't know the difference. Kudos to McClatchy's piece for calling him on it.

LISTENING TO THE GENERALS....The president delivered a speech yesterday at the Naval War College, rehashing most of what you'd expect him to say about the war in Iraq. (Surprise, he's "encouraged" by what he called "hopeful signs.") When he opened the floor to questions, however, the audience seemed a little skeptical.

Q: Mr. President, I just returned from a week at the United States Army War College in Pennsylvania on national security. I walked away with so much more pride in our military. I would follow them anywhere. My question is: At the beginning of your speech -- that you said that you consult with the military. With all due respect, sir, how much do you really listen and follow them?

BUSH: Yes, a lot. I don't see how you can be the Commander-in-Chief of a well motivated military without listening carefully to the advice of your commanders.

Really? In order to be effective, he has to listen to the advice of his commanders? Does Bush remember this from January?

When President Bush goes before the American people tonight to outline his new strategy for Iraq, he will be doing something he has avoided since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003: ordering his top military brass to take action they initially resisted and advised against. [...]

It may also be a sign of increasing assertiveness from a commander in chief described by former aides as relatively passive about questioning the advice of his military advisers. In going for more troops, Bush is picking an option that seems to have little favor beyond the White House and a handful of hawks on Capitol Hill and in think tanks who have been promoting the idea almost since the time of the invasion.

In November, after the election, CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid rejected the notion of a surge, saying that he "met with every divisional commander, Gen. Casey, the Corps commander, Gen. Dempsey" and asked them if bringing "in more American troops now, [would] add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq and they all said, 'No.'" Indeed, Bush fired Gen. Casey, in large part because he neglected to tell the president what he wanted to hear.

And yet, here we are, just a few months later, watching Bush brag about "listening carefully to the advice of [his] commanders." Please.

If Bush wants to reject the advice of top military leaders, that's his prerogative; he is regrettably the Commander in Chief. But he really needs to drop this I-listen-to-our-military schtick.

Reporting on yesterday's speech, Peter Baker noted, "[E]ven in this military setting, the audience responded politely and without much enthusiasm." Bush used to count on these speeches to show how receptive military audiences are to his message. Not anymore.

THWARTED BOMB IN LONDON....While some of the recent alleged terrorist plots in the U.S. haven't withstood much scrutiny, it looks as if London avoided a serious terrorist incident today.

Police in London say they have deactivated a bomb packed with nails and capable of creating huge casualties, raising renewed fears of a terrorist strike almost two years after the city was hit by deadly suicide bombers.

The device, consisting of 200 liters of fuel, gas cylinders and nails linked to a triggering mechanism, was found in a car in Haymarket, in the city's busy nightclub and theater district shortly before 2 a.m. (0100 GMT) on Friday.

British police anti-terror chief Peter Clarke said the explosives would have resulted in significant injury and loss of life had they detonated.

Details are still a little sketchy, but apparently an ambulance crew alerted police after they noticed a smoke-filled car parked close to the popular nightclub. Explosives officers discovered the fuel and nails attached to a "potential means of detonation," inside the vehicle. Officers "courageously" disabled the trigger by hand, Clarke he said.

Several news outlets are noting the proximity to the anniversary of the 7/7 attacks, but I'm also curious about the possible attack coinciding with the announcement of a new British Prime Minister. The '93 attack in NYC happened shortly after Clinton took office; 9/11 occurred shortly after Bush took office; might today after something to do with Brown?

Regardless, I think Atrios raises a valid point about the temptations towards hysteria: "Watching the CNN coverage of the thwarted car bombing in London I'm struck by how the coverage makes something that didn't happen thousands of miles away sound like something around the block. You know, foiled bomb plot in London! Terrorists crawling up through your toilet!"

Good point. As for Londoners, the chances of something like this sending London into a panic are about zero. In 2005, Slate's David Plotz happened to be in London on 7/7 and noted, within a couple of hours of the attacks, "When I walked by the Queen's Larder Pub, not half a mile from the Tavistock Square wreckage, at 11 a.m., a half-dozen men were sitting together at a sidewalk table, hoisting their morning pints of ale. Civilization must go on, after all."

Hearty bunch, those Brits.

ADVENTURES IN POLLING....As Eric Kleefeld noted, there's a real gem towards the end of the latest Fox News poll (.pdf).

This has to be a first. In its new poll, Fox News asked what may well be the ultimate in jingoistic, rally-around-the-flag questions -- and the Democrats came out on top:

"If there is an all-out war between the United States and various radical Muslim groups worldwide, who would you rather have in charge -- Democrats or Republicans?"

Democrats 41%, Republicans 38%, Both the same 9%, Don't know 12%

As Eric put it, "The question of which party the people would trust more to lead World War III against a global coalition of Islamofascists should have been a gimme for the Republicans. But they couldn't even manage to get a plurality." Ouch.

Of course, given the rather silly wording of the question, this probably wasn't the result Fox News was hoping for. Indeed, once a month the partisan network releases a poll, and once a month we see shamelessly slanted questions that no legitimate news outlet would ever want to include in a valid survey.

From May's FNC poll: "Recently Democratic Leader of the Senate Harry Reid said that the war 'is lost' in Iraq. Do you feel this was an acceptable thing or an unacceptable thing for Reid to say while U.S. troops are still in the field fighting?"

From April's: "Considering that over the past twelve months the stock market is up, employment has increased and the disposable income of U.S. workers has increased, do you think the news media has generally done a good job or bad job providing accurate news about the nation's economy?"

From March's: "Do you think the Democratic Party should allow a grassroots organization like Moveon.org to take it over or should it resist this type of takeover?"

Pretty soon, someone might get the sense that Fox News is trying to skew its polls to advance some kind of political agenda. Shocking, I know.

DEBATE WRAPUP....The latest debate for Democratic presidential candidates just wrapped up, and I was impressed with how different this one was from the rest, both in style and substance. It focused specifically on issues important to the African-American community, featuting a panel of minority journalists. Tavis Smiley moderated, and I hope the other networks were paying attention to how well he kept the event moving -- without inane raise-your-hand questions. For that matter, there won't be any complaints about some candidates dominating; everyone got the same questions and the same opportunitities to speak.

The candidates were on their best behavior -- there were no pointed barbs tonight -- which kept things substantive. I didn't see any campaign-changing moments, though Hillary Clinton just about brought the house down when she said AIDS would be a higher national priority if it were the number one killer of white women ages 25 to 34. (The comment drew the loudest, most sustained applause of the night.)

Let's consider this a debate open thread. Who won? Who lost? Who watched?

And why did this nationally-televised debate get so much less attention than the previous ones? There was very little live-blogging tonight, though I noticed Chris Cillizza was keeping up.

CANADIAN HIP REPLACEMENTS....Well, Kevin warned us back in April.

[H]ere's a handy rule of thumb: any time a healthcare article starts nattering on about hip replacement waiting times in Canada, just stop reading. The authors are cherry picking so egregiously it's a wonder their fingers haven't fallen off.

With that in mind, I give you David Gratzer's piece in today Wall Street Journal:

Canadian doctors, once quiet on the issue of private health care, elected Brian Day as president of their national association. Dr. Day is a leading critic of Canadian medicare; he opened a private surgery hospital and then challenged the government to shut it down. "This is a country," Dr. Day said by way of explanation, "in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."

On a more substantive healthcare note, the president and congressional Dems are facing off on whether, and to what extent, State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) should be expanded to include more children from middle-income families. Bush is repeating a predictable canard "government-run healthcare," and insisting that his proposed changes to the tax code would cover more kids.

The truth is, the divide isn't between public and private; it's about guaranteed standards. Brad Plumer explains.

DEPT OF POTS AND KETTLES....Way back in April, during the first round of debate on war funding, Bush excoriated lawmakers for "spend[ing] billions of dollars on pork barrel projects and spending that are [sic] completely unrelated to this war." It was one of his more disingenuous complaints -- the president's own war funding proposal included funds for federal prisons, Kosovo debt relief, flood control on the Mississippi, and nutrition programs in Africa, among other things.

Similarly, just a couple of weeks ago, Bush devoted his radio address to complaining about federal spending. "Earmarks are spending provisions that are slipped into bills by individual members of Congress, often at the last hour and without discussion or debate," the president said. "It's not surprising that this leads to unnecessary Federal spending."

It's why the White House should probably find this embarrassing.

Just a few months after blasting the congressional practice of diverting millions in taxpayer dollars to pet projects, President Bush has slipped into current legislation more than 100 so-called "earmarks" worth over $1 billion -- including nearly $6 million for work on the White House. [...]

The president's earmarks, for projects including national park improvements, land purchases and new government facilities, have drawn unusual on-the-record criticism from Republican lawmakers, who typically eschew public displays of disaffection with the White House.

"It would appear the administration likes earmarks from their perspective," Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., told the Hill newspaper, which first reported the White House earmarks. Aderholt is a member of the House Appropriations Committee. He termed the White House stance as "inconsistent," though another Republican, Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, told the paper it was "duplicity."

The Bush White House? Duplicitous? Never.

CHENEY SEES THE LIGHT....We've all been thoroughly entertained by Dick Cheney's "unorthodox" argument that he is not part of the executive branch, a policy position the White House has refused to comment on.

Late Tuesday, the Office of the Vice President shifted its rhetoric a bit, arguing that Cheney ignored an executive order because the document exempted him from oversight. (Asked where the E.O. said this, Cheney's lawyers declined comment. Apparently, you need some kind of decoder ring to read text that doesn't exist.) Forget about that other argument, they said; it's no longer operative.

Yesterday, in what I believe was a first, the White House said Cheney never liked that fourth-branch argument anyway.

A White House official placed further distance from the dual role argument by adding that Mr. Cheney did not necessarily agree with it.

See? Dick Cheney's office started asserting a year ago that the Vice President isn't part of the executive branch, but the gang has just now come to the conclusion that Cheney isn't fond of his argument. What a relief.

If the White House doesn't like the tack, and the VP doesn't agree with it, and literate people everywhere recognize the argument as sheer nonsense, maybe now the White House can respond to questions about whether Cheney is part of the executive branch?

And if the argument has genuinely fallen out of favor at the White House, maybe someone can tell the Justice Department? Gonzales & Co. have apparently been struggling with the question for several months. Maybe Cheney can give them a hand.

PERJURY TRAP....The White House "offer" to the Senate Judiciary Committee was fairly straightforward: if members wanted to talk to WH staffers about the prosecutor purge, the discussions had to be a) private; b) not under oath; and c) without transcripts. It's that last one that never made any sense.

Indeed, the Bush gang never even tried to rationalize it. That is, until today.

The White House organized a conference call this morning with an official who certainly appeared to be Counsel Fred Fielding, who finally shed some light on why the president would make staffers available for private interviews, but only if there was no transcript of their remarks.

"Obviously, there has been a lot of discussion back and forth in that regard. The position that the president took and conveyed to the committees and the offer of compromise did not include transcripts. The accommodation was designed to provide information, not to appear to be having testimony without having testimony. One of the concomitants of testimony, of course, is transcripts.

"As far as the debate goes, often cited is that a transcript is not wanted because otherwise there would be a perjury trap. And, candidly, as everyone has discussed, misleading Congress is misleading Congress, whether it's under oath or not. And so a transcript may be convenient, but there's no intention to try to avoid telling the truth." (emphasis added)

Got that? As Fielding sees it, if there's a written record of what Bush's aides say, senators might have proof if they lie. It's preferable, then, to have no record and simply assume that White House staffers are being honest. And if you disagree with any of this, you prefer "confrontation" to cooperation.

He did not appear to be kidding.

ANOTHER 5-4 RULING....It's been a discouraging week at the Supreme Court. Over the last four days, there have been five major decisions, all of them 5-4 rulings, all of them victories for conservatives, and all of them backed by the same five-member majority (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy).

Today's ruling on school racial integration was probably the most disappointing of all.

Concluding its current Term with a historic ruling on race in public policy, the Supreme Court divided 5-4 on Thursday in striking down voluntary integration plans in the public schools of Seattle and Louisville. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., wrote the majority opinion in the combined cases. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy did not join all of the majority opinion, but joined in the result. Kennedy suggested in a separate opinion that the Chief Justice's opinion, in part, "is at least open to the interpretation that the Constitution requires school districts to ignore the problem of de facto resegregation in schooling. I cannot endorse that conclusion."

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," Roberts wrote. On the two school plans, the majority found that the districts have "failed to provide the necessary support for the proposition that there is no other way than individual racial classifications to avoid racial isolation in their school districts."

The Chief Justice, in his oral announcement of the ruling, insisted that the Court was remaining faithful to Brown v. Board of Education in barring public school districts from assigning students on the basis of race. Answering that, Justice John Paul Stevens said in dissent that there was a "cruel irony" in making that claim, because it involved a rewriting of the history "of one of this Court's most important decisions." Stevens noted that he joined the Court in 1975, and asserted that "no member of the Court" at that time "would have agreed with today's decision."

Stevens' and Breyer's dissents (.pdf) are both worth reading. Their disdain for the majority is palpable.

Ultimately, of the five controversial rulings this week, Roberts wrote the majority opinion in three, and Alito wrote the other two.

I guess it's one of those elections-have-consequences moments, isn't it?

STICK A FORK IN IT....A couple of weeks ago, a confident president said his immigration package was going to pass. "I'll see you at the bill signing," Bush said. So much for that idea.

The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush's plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.

The bill's supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.

Senators in both parties said the issue is so volatile that Congress is highly unlikely to revisit it this fall or next year, when the presidential election will increasingly dominate American politics.

Sure, we thought the bill was dead earlier this month, and it came back for a second round, but this time it's really dead. The AP's "drove a stake" metaphor is telling.

The roll call on the key vote is online. The 46 votes to allow the bill to proceed were made up of 33 Dems, 12 Republicans, and Joe Lieberman. The 53 votes to block the bill included 37 Republicans, 15 Dems, and Bernie Sanders. Before David Broder blames Dems for the bill's failure, let's keep in mind that nearly 70% of the Senate Democratic caucus backed the legislation this morning, whereas 75% of the Senate GOP caucus voted to block the bill.

As for the winners and losers, the president couldn't rally support from Republicans, a failure which ultimately did the legislation in. Immigration reform is the one major, sweeping policy area in which the White House and congressional Democratic leaders were at least near the same page. With this legislation falling apart, Bush appears to have lost his only shot at scoring a major legislative victory in the 110th Congress.

As for conservative critics of the status quo, I'm sure they're greatly relieved by today's "success," but they may ultimately regret it. First, a hard-line conservative bill won't magically replace the legislation they just killed. Second, as Kevin recently noted, their prospects for the future aren't encouraging: "[W]hen do they think they're going to get another crack at this? It's going to be years, and at this point it looks to me like the political environment in the future is more likely to be more liberal than it is to be more conservative. My guess is that the hardliners aren't going to get a better deal in 2010 than the one they voted down."

FEIN: IMPEACH CHENEY....As part of the Washington Post's multi-part profile on Dick Cheney, Bruce Fein, an associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, accused the Vice President of having made "monarchical claims" on power.

In an interesting Slate piece, Fein, a self-identified conservative, follows up on these concerns and explicitly calls for Cheney's impeachment.

In grasping and exercising presidential powers, Cheney has dulled political accountability and concocted theories for evading the law and Constitution that would have embarrassed King George III. The most recent invention we know of is the vice president's insistence that an executive order governing the handling of classified information in the executive branch does not reach his office because he also serves as president of the Senate. In other words, the vice president is a unique legislative-executive creature standing above and beyond the Constitution.

The House judiciary committee should commence an impeachment inquiry. As Alexander Hamilton advised in the Federalist Papers, an impeachable offense is a political crime against the nation. Cheney's multiple crimes against the Constitution clearly qualify.

Fein presents quite an indictment, describing multiple "crimes," including Cheney's role in creating military commissions, initiating torture policies, authorizing legally-dubious "signing statements," engineering the warrantless domestic surveillance program, and generally usurping the power of the presidency outside the standards of the 25th Amendment.

There's nothing wrong with Fein's argument, of course, but I'm not going to get my hopes up. Dems have a busy policy agenda, and this isn't on it. What's more, even if Dems went for Cheney impeachment, unless there are 67 votes in the Senate to remove the VP from office, Cheney, alas, isn't going anywhere, scuttlebutt from Sally Quinn notwithstanding.

That said, defunding Cheney's office is another matter entirely. Debate begins on Rahm Emaneul's amendment in about 20 minutes.

BUSH ASSERTS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.... Well, this hardly comes as a surprise.

President Bush, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.

Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor.

"With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation," White House counsel Fred Fielding said in a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. "We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion."

Yeah, I'm sure the White House is all broken up about it. They'd hoped to avoid "confrontation," but those pesky Dems kept insisting they had some kind of oversight responsibilities or something.

The White House counsel's office also said Miers and Taylor would not testify next month, as required by subpoena.

Last week, The Hill reported, "House Judiciary Committee Democrats warned yesterday they would pursue a contempt of Congress motion if the White House fails respond to subpoenas for testimony and documents related to the firings of U.S. attorneys last year." Stay tuned.

Update: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy responded to today's announcement: "This is a further shift by the Bush Administration into Nixonian stonewalling and more evidence of their disdain for our system of checks and balances. This White House cannot have it both ways. They cannot stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses, while claiming nothing improper occurred.... Increasingly, the President and Vice President feel they are above the law - in America no one is above law."

Legally, we're in for a fierce fight in the courts. Politically, the White House is now left looking as if it has something to hide, in large part because it almost certainly has something to hide.

LUGAR BACKPEDALS....On Monday, Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) appeared to shake things up with a Senate speech in which he said Bush's war strategy is not working and that the U.S. should downsize the military's role in Iraq. Given Lugar's stature in the GOP, it was perceived as a seminal moment.

Lugar's spokesperson added, however, that the speech did not mean Lugar would switch his vote on the war. The senator crafted a high-profile speech on Iraq, sent shockwaves through the Hill, inspired Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) to also call for a troop reduction, but Lugar wasn't committing to anything. He's willing to break with his unflinching support for Bush's war policy, but that's about all he's willing to do.

Yesterday afternoon, Lugar made clear that his rhetoric may be the full extent of his actions.

Lugar has no intention of acting on his rhetoric. Speaking this morning with NBC's Matt Lauer, Lugar said that Congressional measures aimed at curtailing U.S. military involvement in Iraq, including "so-called timetables, benchmarks," have "no particular legal consequence," are "very partisan," and "will not work."

What are we left with? A conservative Republican senator who's willing to break with the president's policy, unwilling to embrace the Democrats' policy, and unable (so far) to offer some other alternative. What's this worth? Time will tell.

Swopa argues, persuasively, that Lugar can hem and haw now, but at a minimum, the Indiana senator has moved the debate forward: "The good news about the Lugar et al. statements is that by creating a media fuss about 'Republicans say it's time to leave Iraq,' they've kept the subject of withdrawal on the table and made it easier for Democrats to apply more pressure."

Perhaps. All the buzz this week is that leading Republican senators are breaking with Bush on Iraq. They see the White House pushing them over a cliff, and they're suddenly reluctant to go. This creates some momentum for opponents of the war, and will ratchet up the pressure when it comes time for these "serious" GOP lawmakers to actually cast a vote.

But this approach still counts on a sizable chunk on the Republican caucus to eventually act on their convictions (and fears). So far, a small handful are kinda sorta willing to talk the talk. I'll be impressed when any of them start walking the walk.