Today’s edition of quick hits.
* A front-page WaPo report yesterday suggested Dems were poised to give in entirely on the president’s demands on war funding, but today, the caucuses appeared to be standing relatively firm: “Congressional Democrats have signaled they’re not ready to back down in their confrontation with President Bush on Iraq, spurring Republicans to accuse them of causing political gridlock.” The House and Senate passed funding bills for the war in Iraq; Bush vetoed it. Who’s responsible for the gridlock?
* I saw this headline at the Huffington Post — “NRA Says Terror Suspects Should Be Able To Buy Guns” — and assumed it was some kind of mistake. It’s not. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) is sponsoring a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Bush’s Justice Department has endorsed the legislation, prompting the NRA to urge the administration to reverse course. NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill “would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere ‘suspicions’ of a terrorist threat.”
* We talked yesterday about new Army regulations that would severely crack down on blogging among active member troops. Today, the Army seems to be backing away from the policy, not because the regulations are being scrapped, but because they aren’t going to be enforced. Something smells fishy.
* In last night’s debate, former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson (R), in response to a question about discrimination, said private employers should be able to fire gay employees, regardless of job performance. Thompson has since said he misunderstood the question. “There should be no sexual discrimination whatsoever,” he said.
* NYT: “President Bush told Congressional leaders Thursday that he would veto any legislation that weakened federal policies or laws on abortion. In a two-page letter sent to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Mr. Bush said his veto threat would apply to any measures that ‘allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life.'” We presume that does not apply to the war.
* It’s nothing we haven’t seen before, but I liked Eugene Robinson’s column this morning: “Is George W. Bush even trying to make sense anymore? … I know that most of the president’s off-the-wall locutions are dangerous only to the English language. But to the extent that carelessness of speech reflects carelessness of mind, much more is at stake. The Commander Guy’s rationale for sending more U.S. troops to fight and die in Iraq is as elusive as his reason for starting the war in the first place. He says his goal is victory, but he can’t explain coherently what victory would look like, much less how to get there.”
* On a related note, I should report in the interest of fairness that “The Commander Guy” was kind of taken out of context. Bush said he was only “a commander guy,” meaning that he takes commanders’ side in war policy debates.
* Glenn Greenwald asks, “Who funds and runs the Politico?”
* The Hackocracy lives: Tevi David Troy, the new deputy secretary of HHS, was the president’s former debate prepper. He has also written for National Review and the Weekly Standard.
* Paul Kiel is trying to track down, by process of elimination, anyone at the Justice Department who will take responsibility for the U.S. Attorney firings. It’s proven to be quite a challenge.
* Did it seem last night like Romney got to talk the most, while Tancredo the least? In this case, the perception is reality.
* Another step backwards for equality: before last night’s debate, as the 10 wealthy white guys approached the stage, Newsweek’s Howard Fineman said, “There is a hierarchical, there is, dare I say it, male, there’s an old-line quality to them that some voters, indeed a lot of voters, find reassuring.” Ugh.
* And finally, if readers have a few minutes to spare, BlogAds is running its fourth annual survey of blog readers. It takes about 12 minutes to complete. Thanks for helping out.
Anything to add? Consider this an end-of-the-day open thread.