This diary is about how far John McCain went to cover up a serious family scandal.

This diary is not about the underlying scandal.  It is not about the family member who was implicated.  That family member is not running for office.  What he or she did is irrelevant to learning how John McCain might exercise his responsibilities as President.

All we need to know is that there was a scandal, it was serious, and there was a whistleblower.  John McCain had the story spun to his liking in the media and had the whistleblower destroyed.

Some of you will already know, or be able to discover, the roots of this story.  I am leaving them out intentionally and beg you to do the same.  Whatever salacious backstory exists merely distracts from the critical issue: how -- and how well -- John McCain may cover up scandals as President.  If some smart-ass raises those facts in comments, I will either hide-rate or ignore them; I ask that you do the same.  Again: this diary is not about any underlying offense, but about a cover-up.

So, I beg your cooperation.  Let's keep this diary about John McCain ... and Tom Gosinski, whose life he hired agents to ruin -- with evident success.

I've had this cued up for a while, waiting for a day when I didn't have much else to say.  This Saturday-night-not-in-Austin qualifies.  So, this goes out from all of us, with hope, to Barack Obama of Chicago:

If you see me walking down the street
And I start to cry each time we meet:
Evan Bayh

Evan Bayh
Can't believe
Obama'd pick this guy
And I will grieve
In public 'cause his voting record
Makes me want to cry
Evan Bayh (don't pick)
Evan Bayh (don't pick)
Not Evan Bayh

We just can't let many chances slide
To get the world back on our side
Evan Bayh

Evan Bayh
Would not do
A fraction of the things
We'd need him to
Like stand up to big money interests
When they slither by
Evan Bayh
Not Evan Bayh
Evan Bayh (don't pick)

Evan Bayh
Evan Bayh
Foolish choice
Though all his DLC
Friends would rejoice
He's more of the same not the change in
Which we can believe
Evan Bayh (don't pick)
Not Evan Bayh (don't pick)
No you really gotta not pick Evan Bayh (don't pick)
Your ideals say you can't pick Evan Bayh (don't pick)
No you really gotta not pick Evan Bayh (don't pick)

Thomas Friedman's column today, "So Popular and So Spineless", bashes Europe and other parts of the world for no longer liking the United States so much thanks to the tender Presidential mercies of George W. Bush.  That is not the part I agree with: I think that after bigfooting in the Middle East, claiming the right to torture, blocking treaties on land mines and global warming, and cheerfully signing off from G-8 as "the biggest polluter in the world," we're not exactly in a position right now to demand that the rest of the world like us.  If Obama wins, we can start to move in that direction; if not, probably not.

The part I do agree with is that the world won't like a world where China and Russia are the ascendant powers.  Friedman provides the example of the Security Council resolution in Zimbabwe.  And, about that, he's right.

I just ran across this blog entry from the New York Times, which references this story from the Washington Post, explaining that

Several studies have produced a stream of evidence that...happens to overturn one of the most stubborn American stereotypes: the belief that this is a land whose gifts, charms and joys flow mostly to young people. The studies show that when you check on how happy people are at various ages, the elderly generally come out ahead.

I am going to take off my lawyer hat and put on my old social scientist cap and try to explain what the problem is here.

This is a silly Saturday night diary with limited political relevance and less redeeming social value, but I think it might be fun.  Actually, it is two small games in one, so it might be double the fun.

I expect that others have thoroughly plowed this intellectual ground before, but I haven't, and it's more fun to be told a story than to sift through dry books looking for it.  So, here we go:

The surnames (occasionally with given names) of some people, like Albert Einstein, have become shortcuts in our culture for certain characteristics.  To call someone "Einstein" -- but, oddly, not Galileo or Newton -- is to call them a genius.  To call them a "Rembrandt" -- but, oddly, not Picasso or van Gogh or Michelangelo -- is to call them a great artist.  To call them "Benedict Arnold" -- but not, say, Joe Lieberman -- is to call them a traitor.

I'm not sure what this class of linguistic appellations is called, but it may have something to do with metonymy as well as possibly prototypes and exemplars.  (Someone here will know.)

Here's what both sides don't get about the debate about FISAAA (the "FISA Amendments Act"):

What we do about the past matters much less than what we do about the future – and it doesn't necessarily determine what we do about the future.

We are in two simultaneous wars at the moment: a theoretical one about Presidential power in the Constitution and a practical one about what the President will be able to do in the months and years to come.  They are related, but analytically distinct.  The former has the potential to rewrite our system of government.  The latter has the potential to offer the President the ability to perform dirty tricks and possibly turn elections this fall.  "Telecom immunity" has been presented as the defining battle of both wars.  I don't think it is: and the reasons why are worth our attention.

Reading this story in the New York Times, that "Weather Channel Is Sold to NBC and Equity Firms", reminded me of a great idea I once had for a cable network.

Imagine this: every half-hour, for the convenience of viewers just stopping in for the TV news headlines, this channel would provide a decent update on the day's news events.  Some stories with more in-depth coverage would be included on a two-hour rotation.

I even had a good name for it: "Cable News Network."

It turned out, of course, that there already is an organization of that name -- I had assumed that the "C" in "CNN" stood for "Castrated" -- and that it was mostly dedicated to ensuring that we could enjoy the conservatice Sunday Morning pundit shows all week long.

So I came up with an alterative title: "Headline News."  It turned out that that too, rather than giving you the news over a half-hour whenever you tuned in, was largely devoted to maximizing the airtime given to conservative pundits and center-right thinking journalists for balance.  

I still think this would be a great idea -- if I could come up with a name that already hadn't been reserved for another purpose.

On Thursday, June 26th, mcjoan issued a front page challenge to us all, Senators and plebians alike: read the FISAAA bill (that stands for "FISA Amendment Act," the bill actually being voted on) and see what was in there.

She was highly interested in Section 110 of the bill, which contains the redefinition of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" to include

any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas device that is designed, intended, or has the capability to cause a mass casualty incident

This captured my attention.  This redefinition, coupled with this year's earlier accusations that Iran was providing a class of IEDs to certain Shi'ite elements within Iraq, seemed possibly to suggest that Iran was being redefined into a nation engaged in international proliferation of WMDs.  This, in turn, could provide Bush a casus belli, allowing him to bomb or invade Iran without further authorization.

So, last night, thanks to insomnia spurred by my anger that we in the netroots haven't risen to the occasion in fighting this bill, I checked it out.  Here's what I found.

So, as the front page notes, Florida Governor and Harry Shearer impersonator Charlie Crist is "planning a fall wedding" -- we are not told whether that means before, after, or on Election Day, and whether or not it's contingent on the results -- to Carole Rome, "a New York socialite who relocated to Miami in 2006."  From my sense of the photo at right, Ms. Rome will be an excellent playmate for Cindy McCain if Crist is indeed chosen for the Republican ticket this year.  Gov. Crist is indeed lucky that something -- some conversation? some burning desire? -- motivated him to pop the question quickly.

Rome, Crist's fifth fiancee, owns her venerable family business, the Franco-American Novelty Company.  What do they sell?

I enjoy a good gentleperson's bet now and then.  I made some bets here about future political events with people in the distant past that I no longer even remember.  What's the use of a good gentleperson's bet if you can't gloat after you win (or cringe after you lose?)

So, this is a diary -- the first of what I expect will be a series -- where people may register their gentleperson's bets, as well as proposing and accepting challenges.

While I will sometimes post a nominal amount for my bets, my expectation is that any money that will be owed me will be sent to the DNC or other political group instead.  But you don't have to use that rule if you don't want to.

Had he had the presence of mind to do this five years ago, Atrios could be richer than Warren Buffet right now betting people that we'd still have troops in Iraq after 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6+ years.

Your bets will be collected below and transferred to the next such item, sometime later on.  My first bet is already included in the diary body.

The New York Times reports in tomorrow's edition that the bulk of Leona Helmsley's estate will be left for the care and welfare of dogs.  The value of the estate is valued at $5 billion to $8 billion.

Some of the younger folk around here may not know much about who Leona Helmsley was, but you'll find the gist at that Wikipedia link.  She was, by most accounts, and awful person and tyrannical employer who is best known for what she claimed was an apochryphal quote:

We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.

She went to jail for tax evasion.  Now her reputation will be salvaged for some because of the nature of this new foundation.  "She did a lot of good," I can already hear.  "She's helped a lot of dogs."

I want to do possibly the stupidest thing one could ever do on this website.  I want to attack the notion that loving dogs has much of anything to do with whether you're a good person.

A friend sent this list of new driving fines in the budget-squeezed state of California today.

NOTE: This turned out to be a hoax.  Thanks to Rupert for pointing it out below.  The original list can be found on Snopes here, except that in the version I received it was updated for 2008 and of course was built around the kernel of truth that the hands-free cellphone law begins today.  I'm leaving only one bogus "new law" that is mentioned in the diary and one that is largely true.

...

3. Block intersection: $485

...

9.  As of 07/01/08, cell phone use must be "hands free" while driving. Ticket is $285. They will be looking for this like crazy - easy money for the police department.

My topic today is not these fines, but that last boldface sentence.

Read this carefully, because almost no one seems to understand it:

As I laid out in my diary from Friday evening, the proposed FISA bill (the "FISA Amendments Act", or "FISAAA") DOES NOT MERELY PROVIDE RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL SUITS TO TELECOMS FOR PAST COOPERATION WITH WHAT MANY (LIKE US) BELIEVE WERE ILLEGAL ORDERS FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

Sorry to shout, but it's important.

Rather, FISAAA PROVIDES PROSPECTIVE IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL SUITS FOR ALL ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PROVIDES, INCLUDING THOSE THAT PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET, SO LONG AS THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDES CERTIFICATION THAT IT HAS NOT BROKEN THE LAW.

And, as we know from Addington and Yoo, THE GOVERNMENT ASSERTS THAT IT CANNOT BREAK THE LAW WHEN IT COMES TO NATIONAL SECURITY, BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW.

Do I have your attention yet?  Read on.

On Sunday, June 16, the long wait some of us endured was over: new Doonesbury cartoons were back.  The eleven-week hiatus was not as traumatic as the one from January 1983 to October 1984, which I remember desperately hoping would end in time for Garry Trudeau's rapier wit to expose the misbehaviors of Ronald Reagan and allow Walter Mondale to wrest away the Presidency at the last moment, but his absence during the latter stages of primary battles has been acutely felt.

When it comes to comic strips and political cartooning generally, we live -- and often forget we live -- in the Age of Doonesbury.  (In all of political cartooning, the only person I think who can keep pace with him is the incredible Tom Toles.)  Doonesbury changed the comics pages forever and for better.  As we've done with George Carlin -- only eleven years senior to Trudeau, who turns 60 next month -- we should take a moment to appreciate the absolutely unprecedented and incredible contribution he has made to an artistic field.  And, even more that Carlin, Trudeau has produced an archive that makes this simple to do.

Since I took the "mcjoan challenge" yesterday and read the FISAAA bill -- that's "FISA Amendment Act," although it if sounds like Jon Stewart looking up and yelling "KHAAAAAAAAN," so much the better -- my hair has been on fire.  (A family emergency quenched if for much of the day, but I've used my kerosene shampoo in preparation for this diary.)

Our public discussion so far, which have aimed primarily at retroactive telecom immunity, has missed a great deal of what's wrong with this bill, such as mcjoan's find about the bill's redefinition of WMDs to include conventional bombs.  (If you missed it, click that top link.)  One thing we know pretty well is that as it stands, we will lose the Senate FISAAA vote in July.  We need to dig out the other bad things in the bill and make them known this week.

Bad things like: even without probable cause, the government will be able to force Microsoft and Yahoo to give it your e-mail without punishment.

SUNDAY UPDATE: PART 2 APPEARS here.

Please please please please please please please.  This diary is not intended as a forum for discussing what the Supreme Court, or society in general, should do on any particular question of gun control.  My interest is solely in what the Court did do in its decision today -- because it's highly counterintuitive and I haven't seen it discussed elsewhere.

Justice Scalia today authored the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which a 5-4 majority of the Court confirmed the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) as an individual right.

As many of us argued before the decision, whether the RKBA was individual or collective was not the most important issue at hand.  The significant question was, if it is an individual right, how and when and to what extent it could be restricted.

Today, among other things, Scalia wrote that the DC law requiring trigger locks was unconstitutional.  What you may not have heard is that this was based on a relative technicality -- a fixable technicality, after which trigger locks would seem to be OK.

This is the first in an occasional series of contests to see who here can come up with the best way to frame aspects of John McCain and his campaign for a not-always-entirely-alert public.  (If there is a second entry in this series, I'll be surprised and pleased.)

Right now on the Rec List is an excellent diary by David Dayen talking about how the media has failed to cover the McCain FEC campaign finance problems and how the Obama campaign is finally fighting back.  The discussion in that diary and comments is excellent.  What I'd like to see more of is determining how to get this not-entirely-simple idea across to the public.  That, compared to the simplicity of the "Obama broke his pledge to take public financing" storyline, is not so simple.

So: come up with your pitch, and if you can improve on something someone else posts -- such as by adding graphics (which, for the general public, probably doesn't mean LOLcats) -- then great, do that too.  I would love to see us have contests like this with many issues -- and many races.

The prize?  People think you're a genius and you may help win the election.

Every June since 2002, Slate Magazine has engaged in an online "Supreme Court Roundup" (which they call a "Breakfast Table") during the last week of the Court's term, hosted by generally liberal legal affairs editor Dahlia Lithwick.  This year's panel includes liberal lion Walter Dellinger, moderatish-Establishment seeming ex-Slate publisher Cliff Sloan, and "good" conservative DOJ whistleblower Jack Goldsmith.

Tomorrow is the last day of the 2007-2008 term, with major decisions on gun control, capital punishment (for rapists who did not kill), and punitive damages (more on the Exxon Valdez case) yet to come.  Yesterday, nothing particularly interesting (to a general audience, at least) came out, which meant that they have been looking for filler.  That filler has been commenting on Boumediene, the habeas corpus case.

I expect that I'm not the only one reading it; this diary is for our commentary on what has happened so far, before the gun case and its controversial companions explode onto the scene.