The JonBenet Fraud

"Armitage, a well-known gossip who loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about Washington characters, apparently hadn't thought through the possible implications of telling Novak about Plame's identity. 'I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused this whole thing,' he later told Carl Ford Jr., State's intelligence chief. Ford says Armitage admitted to him that he had 'slipped up' and told Novak more than he should have."

Isikoff says Armitage was also Bob Woodward's confidential source.

His coauthor, the Nation's David Corn , says:

"The outing of Armitage does change the contours of the leak case. The initial leaker was not plotting vengeance. He and Powell had not been gung-ho supporters of the war. Yet Bush backers cannot claim the leak was merely an innocent slip. Rove confirmed the classified information to Novak and then leaked it himself as part of an effort to undermine a White House critic. Afterward, the White House falsely insisted that neither Rove nor Libby had been involved in the leak and vowed that anyone who had participated in it would be bounced from the administration. . . . To date, the president has not addressed Rove's role in the leak. It remains a story of ugly and unethical politics, stonewalling, and lies."

The New Republic's Peter Beinart comes out strongly in favor of vacuous slogans?

"If this fall's midterms become a referendum on the incumbent president and his party, they will be a bloodbath. With approval ratings south of 40 percent, George W. Bush may prove the least popular president to preside over a midterm election since Harry Truman in 1950. And the Republican Congress is even less popular--with less than one-third of Americans approving of its performance. Historically, when Congress's approval rating falls below 40 percent, the incumbent party loses an average of 29 seats in the House--double the number Democrats need to regain control.

"So it's hardly surprising that Republicans want Democrats to offer a detailed agenda; it helps them change the subject...

"So far, the Democrats have not played along: They have kept their proposals vague, and the press has paid little attention. And, with any luck, it will stay that way in the coming months. As much as possible, Democrats should stick to vacuous slogans like 'time for a change' and 'had enough?'"

So much for the notion that elections should be about ideas.

The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes sees Bush getting a bump, but the GOP still in trouble in November:

"As favorable as recent trends have been, they are not nearly enough to spare Republicans a nasty defeat, including the loss of the House and perhaps the Senate. The country is in a disagreeable mood and ready for a change. The Republican base is grumpy and apathetic. Bush may be America's choice to fight terrorism, but he falters on other issues. His boost in the polls doesn't mean he's now popular. He's merely less unpopular. And the August bounce may prove to be ephemeral, as earlier upticks have.

"There's much to do. Standing pat and expecting terrorism to dominate the campaign would be foolhardy. Grim reminders of the threat on the fifth anniversary of September 11 won't make terror the paramount issue. Nor will presidential speeches or lacerating Republican TV ads. Neither Democrats nor the media will play along. It's Bush's actions, not his words, that will matter. Americans want to see him fighting for America's security. For Bush, good politics consists of following his instincts and doing the right thing."