Breaking, unreported news on Chase and the FDIC  being reported now at http://policypoliticspolice.blogspot.com/.

I see the Georgian conflict working out in McCain's favor for few different reasons. 

First, beating the war drums enables him to bolster the notion that he would be a stronger Commander-in-Chief than Obama.  Much of the electorate will still equate McCain's professed willingness to engage in force with "strength" and "resolve," all the while ignoring that very similar decisions by the current Administration have led to our present troubles.
Second, McCain will, directly or indirectly, contrast his stance with President Bush's, who has denounced the use of violence in the region.  A perfect counter to the Obama campaign's assertion that McCain would continue Bush's failed foreign policies.  The contrast shows McCain to be more experienced than both Bush and Obama when it comes to making decisions about where to send US troops.  McCain is a war hero, after all. 
Lastly, the fact that the fighting is (was?) taking place in the former Soviet Union puts McCain in somewhat more familiar (read: Cold War) foreign policy territory.  He's shown his ignorance of the situation in the Middle East.  But even if he accidentally refers to Czechoslovakia a few times, surely McCain can still let loose about the Russian menace to Western democratic values if he's called upon to do so. 

I don't think that highlighting the links between Randy Scheunemann and the fighting in Georgia will hurt McCain one bit.  The "attack the advisors" tactic only works when Republicans use it against Democrats.  Democrats don't buy into that type of politics.  Hillary's attacks on Jeremiah Wright did nothing for her with Democrats, but McCain sure won over Republicans by attacking Obama with similar lines.

Wolf voted in favor of retroactive telecom immunity, so it seems safe to say that he takes little issue with the federal government monitoring domestic surveillance.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Ca) blames Rep. Wolf for the breach of Wolf's computer files. She argues that his insistence on monitoring Chinese sites from public computers put the entire Capitol network at risk. Wolf maintains that what's at issue is the Chinese government's willingness to spy on official US communications. He also managed to slip in something there about China's "barbaric one child per couple policy." (emphasis mine)

The irony of a Republican Congressman complaining that a foreign entity has monitored his business and personal communications via the Internet became apparent to me just now while listening to Rep. Wolf's statement being read into the record. The Bush Administration has been doing the same to Americans in the name of safety for years. As far as the privacy of Americans is concerned, the federal government should as well be a foreign entity. The Fifth Amendment was designed to maintain such a relationship between the federal government and American citizens.

One of Rep. Wolf's stated reasons for his outrage over the cyber-attack only further highlights the shortcomings of the government surveillance program. Rep. Wolf complains that the attacks came in response to his opposition to China's prominent role in US foreign policy. How many Americans have been monitored by the Bush Administration as a result of their own opposition to its policies?

Wolf "urged not to speak out on this threat." Wolf also says that he learned of the Chinese espionage from the press and not from the government. The original C-SPAN narration suggested that the FBI informed Wolf of the breach. "Congress should take the lead in protecting our government, indeed our country, from...espionage activities," Wolf said.

I wonder where Wolf stands on FISA and wiretapping? More later.

C-SPAN reported just now that the FBI alerted Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va), who was critical of US policy toward China, that the computers in his Capitol office had been compromised by Chinese hackers. Original article here from the Los Angeles Times. Distillation of LA Times article here.

Give the guy a break. We shouldn't be prosecuting ANYONE for possession of drugs. There is enough legitimate dirt on most politicians to force us to tolerate drug use in their personal lives.

Treason is right now being committed by President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and a host of other administration cronies whose highest aims are to fill their own pockets and advance a radical militarist agenda at whatever cost necessary. The American people have known these facts for years yet the traitors remain in office.

And anyone cares about drug use?

That's actually a wise move on Al-Sadr's part.  Calling for the approval of clerics, and promising to obey their command, are excellent tools for the hopeful theocrat.  and it's good for America's interest there, too, because it promotes a dialogue between major pillars of society (the church and the government) that might stimulate the democratic impulse in Iraq.  the possibility that Iraq could actually turn into a stable democracy, though, brings the present means into question at the moment they first seem to be working.  perhaps America should encourage a more fragmented republic that enables a larger number of groups to share power in government at a local level. 

There's no way Hillary will drop out now.  She has enough delegates to believe that the party might nominate her if the superdelegate situation  sorts itself out.

The problem for the nation in all of this has much to do with the invasion of the public good by private corporate interests.  In its original sense, I have  no qualms with the corporate interest; the right to organize is universal to all human beings.  However, when private corporate interests, such as the two ruling political parties in the United States, exert such enormous control over the determination of the public good, I have a problem. I have a problem because these private interests act in a manner detrimental to the common welfare.  Think about the negative impact of the party system and please do your part to think independently of party rhetoric.  Be an individual.

The Constitution grants rights to individuals alone.  The Declaration of Independence outlines the transgressions of King George III against the colonies.  The American Revolution was framed as a corporate cause with  the promise of individual freedom within the overriding corporate principle.  What happened to common welfare?  The common good?  The good life of your neighbor? 

"Politicians borrow good lines and catch-phrases. Happens all the time. There's nothing wrong with it."

And it goes to show that the politicians themselves aren't the creative ones in the whole process.  The individuals running for office are not the ones who will do the real leg work required to make America live up to its ideals.  Politicians are speech-givers.  Politicians are pretty faces.  The staffers, think-tankers, and low-level bureaucrats are the ones who make things happen.  We should stop tolerating "idea people" and elect individuals with practical ability.

The statement closes with these words:

"Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career."

Note that the campaign's statement does not deny any of the substance of the NYT piece.  In fact, the statement tacitly acknowledges the truth of the story by arguing only that his behaving in such a way does not mean that McCain "violated the public trust." 

It's a very similar tack to the one the Bush Administration is taking on water boarding.  "Yes, we water board prisoners who have not been convicted of any crime.  What's wrong with that?"  McCain is saying, "Yes, I had a relationship with a lobbyist in private while campaigning against special interests in public, all while married.  So what?" 

Any hope that a possible McCain presidency would be any different than the second and third Bush presidencies has evaporated. 

Matthews has been pressured to not criticize the Clinton campaign lately, so he went after an unprepared Obama surrogate.  Matthews either refuses to or can't criticize Obama personally, so he made a particularly vicious attack on the surrogate.