MICKEY KAUS CORRECTS THE NOTE:

In essence, the Note tells Dems, in classic, media-consultant fashion, that instead of basing their pitch on the reality of the case (the leak) they should base it on BS (that somehow the prosecution is refighting the Iraq war). Shouldn’t it be a general premise of Democratic politics that it’s reality-based and not spin-based? . . .

I know, ABC’s Halperin & Co. might say they are only parodying hack Democratic media advice. But even if they are, the parody (like all good fiction) reveals a depressing truth about modern Dem politics. Also, they’re not. They clearly buy into it.

Yes.

HEH: “The big irony to savor at the center of the Valerie Plame case is that everything everyone thinks they know about Patrick Fitzgerald’s leak investigation has been leaked.”

Or just made up.

OUCH:

The Miers debacle is beginning to remind us of New Coke–a product introduced in an effort to expand market share, which instead infuriated loyal customers. If Bush wants to “save his presidency,” the way to do so is clear: withdraw the Miers nomination and reintroduce Court Classic.

You know, if the White House had been reading the blogs, they wouldn’t have been blindsided by this reaction, as they seem to have been.

THE SENATE HAS REJECTED THE COBURN AMENDMENTS: Mark Tapscott opines:

It appears the majority of senators think it is more important to shelter dogs and cats in Rhode Island than people in Louisiana and Mississippi made homeless by Hurricane Katrina.

Indeed. So what’s a Republican Senate for, exactly?

UPDATE: Via email from Coburn’s office, a correction: Those were different amendments, to the same effect. The “Bridge to Nowhere” amendment is coming up shortly. I imagine it will fail too — though I’d love to be wrong — but I hope that this Senate action will get a lot of attention.

Meanwhile, Patty Murray is threatening people over the Coburn cuts.

I predict a revival of interest in term limits and a balanced budget amendment. But at least we’ve got their attention.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Tapscott has updated with a list of how Senators voted, and observes about Patty Murray’s threats: “Getting that defensive this quick is probably an indication of just how scared the Big Spenders in both political parties are that the Coburnites will succeed.”

MORE: Reader Monte Meyer emails:

Just after I read your blog on the Coburn Amendments’ failure, I received a phone call – AT MY OFFICE (a church) – from the Republican National Committee thanking me for my past support and asking for more money for some critical election in Florida.

I interrupted them and said “You won’t get one thin dime from me, until you do something about the pork. I called my Republican Senator’s (Coleman) office a couple weeks ago to talk about Pork – but barely received a response. Now they rejected the Coburn amendment. Where is the fiscally responsible Republican party I helped to elect? You won’t get any more money from me until it changes.”

They said they took down my comments, and thanked me. Probably nothing will happen – but at least it made me feel better – for 8 or 9 seconds.

If enough people do the same, I guarantee you that something will happen.

MORE STILL: Andrew Stuttaford writes:

It’s interesting to see the identities of the thrifty thirteen who voted for the Coburn amendments. Only one Democrat broke ranks to do so, Russ Feingold. Good for him. Of the possible Republican presidential candidates McCain and Allen voted for Coburn. Frist voted against, showing, perhaps, that he’s set on running as an ‘establishment’ candidate. In the current mood of the country (and the rank-and-file GOP) that does not look like a wise move.

I agree. Sadly, Kos’s prediction that Democrats would vote with Coburn turned out to be incorrect. But Kos is hammering the Democrats

It’s embarrassing that Feingold was the only Democrat voting for it. What a great way to show the country that Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility. Sheez… This is becoming a gross failure by both parties and the institution of government.

Yes, it is. I also agree with Kos when he says: “Those who voted against these amendments have zero credibility on issues of fiscal responsibility. Zero. And by the way, Feingold is starting to look really good for ’08.”

RIGHTSIDE REDUX HAS A LIST of bloggers blogging from the Capitol today. So does Ian Schwartz, who’s liveblogging.

UPDATE: More here.

IN THE MAIL: Terry Eagleton’s Holy Terror, which argues that terrorism is a modern technique with its roots in the French Revolution.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: “It’s only taken a decade or so, but suddenly there’s momentum in Congress for spending restraint. We’ll be watching the fine print, but you can tell Republicans are worried about complaints from conservative voters because for a change they’re trying to act, well, like Republicans.”

PATTERICO: “If you need me this morning, I’ll be out on the window ledge. Because it is becoming clearer and clearer that we are headed towards the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice who has no idea what the Constitution says.”

THE COLLEGE GENDER GAP CONTINUES TO WIDEN:

As women march forward, more boys seem to be falling by the wayside, McCorkell says. Not only do national statistics forecast a continued decline in the percentage of males on college campuses, but the drops are seen in all races, income groups and fields of study, says policy analyst Thomas Mortenson, publisher of the influential Postsecondary Education Opportunity newsletter in Oskaloosa, Iowa. Since 1995, he has been tracking — and sounding the alarm about — the dwindling presence of men in colleges. . . .

But even as evidence of a problem — a crisis, some say — mounts, “there’s a complacency about this topic,” McCorkell says.

There has been no outcry, for example, on the scale of a highly publicized 1992 report by the American Association of University Women, How Schools Short-Change Girls, which compiled reams of research on gender inequities.

That study “really … got people to focus on girls … (but) there is no big network that protects the needs of boys,” says family therapist Michael Gurian, author of the just-published The Minds of Boys: Saving Our Sons from Falling Behind in School and Life, which argues that elementary and secondary schools aren’t meeting the developmental needs of boys.

I think we’ll be hearing more about this in coming years. (Via guess who).

NANOTECHNOLOGY UPDATE: Here’s a nanotechnology podcast from John Furrier, and here’s a list of nanotechnology blogs, courtesy of Technorati.

PORKBUSTERS UPDATE:

Now, two Washington think tanks — one left-leaning, one right-leaning — are taking a different approach. They proclaim: We differ on solutions. We agree on the problem. The federal budget is on an unsustainable trajectory. Spending over the next couple of decades, particularly on retirement and health-care benefits, will rise much faster than revenue unless Congress does something. The economy won’t expand fast enough to avoid unpleasant choices. Politicians are ducking that fact.

The message is delivered with equal conviction by budget mavens at the Brookings Institution, home of many Democrats who have been or hope to be in government, and at the Heritage Foundation, a younger think tank that is the source of many Republican talking points and proposals.

It will take more than porkbusting to address this problem, of course, but if Congress can’t even address pork it’s hard to imagine that it can deal with entitlement reform.

UPDATE: The Club for Growth reports that the Coburn Amendment is now getting bipartisan support, Even Kos is on board.

More on the Coburn Amendment here and here.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Mark Tapscott: “Mr. Smith is back in Washington, and his name is Tom Coburn.”

And don’t miss this big roundup from Sissy Willis. Meanwhile, Mike Krempasky observes:

Make NO mistake – the establishment Republicans are terrified of this bill. The chutzpah of the little people demanding an end to one of the most immoral acts of Congress – earmarked pork spending – has got some in quite the tizzy.

Word is that some are trying to stop the Coburn Amendment from even reaching the floor for a vote.

I’ll bet they are. Let’s keep the spotlight on this.

MORE: Rhode Island blogger Caroll Andrew Morse called Sens. Chafee and Reed to ask their position on the Coburn Amendment, but reports that they’re staying mum:

The staffers were very polite and professional, but both offices informed me they couldn’t share the Senator’s position until after the vote was taken.

Is this really how deliberative democracy is supposed to work? Aren’t public officials supposed to make their positions on issues, well, public?

You’d think. Let me know if you hear anything from your Senators.

MORE STILL: Reader Jim Hogue emails:

I just got off the phone with a staffer in Sen. John Cornyn’s Washington office. He (the staffer) said he had never heard of the Coburn amendment but said I was the second person to call today urging the Senator to support it. I told him about “porkbusters” and asked him to relay to the Senator that I hold responsible to remain true Texas Republican roots to reduce federal spending. He seemed genuinely bemused by my call.

Since the staffer didn’t even ask for my name, I guess I’ll call back later!!

I urge my fellow Texans to call Cornyn at 202-224-2934 or Kay Bailey Hutchinson at 202-224-5922 and let them know where they stand.

As a troubling aside, it seems to be getting harder and harder to communicate with my elected representatives. If you call direct they seldom take your name and number unless you insist on a return call. Now I’m seeing caveats on their websites about “security procedures” slowing down their ability to respond to anything other than email and they rarely answer email with anything other than a form letter; just an unverifiable perception on my part.

A lot of people seem to have the same perception.

MICKEY KAUS: “Does McCain really think he’s going to win the GOP nomination by enlisting the media in calling Republicans who disagree with his policies bigots?”

DEPAUL UNIVERSITY, CENSORSHIP OF STUDENTS, AND WARD CHURCHILL: Andrew Marcus has set up a blog devoted to this topic. If I were an administrator at DePaul, I’d have heartburn about now.

MARK GLASER:

But how can one county in Florida prosecute obscenity cases on the Internet, where obscenity might as well have its own domain suffix? Sheriff Judd told me that his jurisdiction applies to any material that begins and/or ends in his county, regardless if the server or site owner is based in another state or country.

I’ve looked at some of these issues in the past, though the Supreme Court has so far failed to see things my way.

THE COLD WAR is truly over, reports Austin Bay.

WITH ALL THESE VOTER FRAUD CONVICTIONS, you’d think the East St. Louis story would be getting more attention.

RUSSERT, ROVE, AND PLAME: Perhaps we should just indict everyone in Washington for talking to one another. . . .

AN ABLE DANGER EXPLOSION?

WIILLLMMMAAA! Brendan Loy has her covered. StormTrack has lots, too.

JONAH GOLDBERG HAS THOUGHTS on Robert Bork and who’s a “real” conservative.

Not me, for sure! I have some much lengthier thoughts on Bork, original intent, and judicial confirmations here.

N.Z. BEAR IS SETTING UP A SPECIAL PAGE for people participating in the Congressional blogging event tomorrow. If you’ll be participating, please let him know.

Also, Matt Margolis is taking questions to ask the House members. Submit yours!

I say, ask ’em about the pork, and the Coburn amendment. (Yes, I know it’s in the Senate, but someone could always introduce a House version.)

PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: The more I think about it, the more I think that the Coburn Amendment is a big deal. It’s setting the precedent whereby members of Congress go after each other’s taxpayer-shafting pork projects rather than turning a blind eye and engaging in logrolling.

It seems to me that this makes it an especially good project for bloggers to get behind, and to encourage their senators to support. I expect that quite a few people in Congress are worried about this, and will be trying to ensure that it dies a quiet death rather than coming to the floor for a vote. I think the country is better off with transparency, and I’d like to hear any Senator who opposes this measure explain why he or she favors funding a bridge that could buy a personal jet for every inhabitant of Gravina Island, instead of spending the money on fixing ruined bridges that people actually use in Louisiana. They won’t want to talk about that, of course, but they need to be asked.

Perhaps tomorrow at the big Capital blog event would be a good time to ask some questions?

UPDATE: Reader Bob Rahm emails:

Is it possible to mount a public campaign that will pressure the Republicans in the Senate to elect Coburn as majority leader? This is the kind of leadership we need.

It’s certainly possible.

ANOTHER UPDATE: More comments here.

AUSTIN BAY thinks that we should have tried Saddam sooner. I think he’s probably right — with the caveat that we may have gotten some useful intelligence out of him, and the probably bigger caveat that it’s different to have him tried after the Iraqi people have voted on a new constitution.

PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: THE CLUB FOR GROWTH is supporting the Coburn Amendment that would take money from Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere” and put it into Katrina relief. Here’s more information on the Coburn plan, including links to the amendment and to Coburn’s “Dear Colleague” letter.

MICKEY KAUS has an interesting piece on why there’s so much attention aimed at Judith Miller. I think he’s spot on with this bit:

a) Treason: Miller wasn’t just perceived as in cahoots with neocons in foisting the war off onto the public. She was doing it from within the New York Times, which the Left correctly perceives as one of “its” institutions. As a traitor within the liberal camp, she has to be expelled and punished, in a way she wouldn’t be punished if she’d been an equally mistaken and influential reporter for National Review. The host body rejects her.

I also think it’s interesting to see how many people are now pretending (1) that Miller’s WMD/Iraq reporting didn’t start until the Bush Administration’s war buildup, when actually it goes back to the 1990s; and (2) that nobody else thought that we’d find vast WMD stockpiles when we invaded, when in fact everyone thought we would. (The valuable lesson for would-be Saddams — don’t run a bluff against the United States — is also lost).

I also like Kaus’s Judybats reference. Since I know a couple of the original Judybats myself, I’m always glad to see them get press!

UPDATE: More appropriate Judybats references: “Doubters’ Club,” and “Pain Makes You Beautiful.”