Today, President Bush asserted executive privilege to hide global warming documents requested by the House Oversight Committee. Bush “has also asserted executive privilege to keep his chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and former White House counsel Harriet Miers from having to provide information to Congress” about the U.S. attorneys scandal. At a press conference in Jacksonville, FL this afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama said that such blanket assertions of executive privilege are “completely misguided” and does not reflect how he would operate:

I think that nobody is above the law. If there are specific assertions of executive privilege, then, you know, those can be examined. But I think this notion, this blanket notion that you can’t subpoena White House aides, where there’s evidence of genuine wrongdoing, I think is completely misguided.

You know, as I recall, Richard Nixon mounted similar arguments. That’s not how we operate. We’re a nation of laws and not men and women. So, you know — and my — that’s a precedent I don’t mind living with as president of the United States.

On MSNBC’s Morning Joe today, host Joe Scarborough pressed Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) top economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, on McCain’s infamous flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts. Scarborough noted that McCain’s current position is “that we couldn’t afford tax cuts in 2001 because of deficits, but we can afford them now.” “Can we afford to extend George W. Bush’s tax cuts?” he asked.

Holtz-Eakin filibustered, claiming that “McCain has a plan to bring the budget into balance by 2013.” After Scarborough repeated his question five times, Holtz-Eakin finally relented, saying, “Yes.” Scarborough then pointed out the absurdity of McCain’s changing position from 2001 to 2008:

SCARBOROUGH: You’re saying we can afford, just a yes or no, we can afford to extend George W. Bush’s tax cuts?

HOLTZ-EAKIN: Yes.

SCARBOROUGH: Ok. But in 2001, when Sen. McCain voted against George Bush’s tax cuts, he said we couldn’t afford it because it would create a deficit. In 2001, we had a 155 billion dollar surplus. This year, in 2008, when he now supports the tax cuts, as you know, we are moving towards a 300 billion dollar deficit. How can we afford tax cuts in 2008 with 300 billion dollar deficit that John McCain said we couldn’t afford in 2001 when we had 155 billion dollar surplus?

Beyond a blanket promise to “control spending,” Holtz-Eakin could not explain how McCain’s budget could afford the tax cuts. Watch it:

The reason Holtz-Eakin refused to explain how McCain would “balance the budget” while extending and enhancing the Bush tax cuts is simple: He can’t do it.

McCain has claimed that he can pay for his massive tax cuts by either cutting $100 billion a year in earmarks or $100 billion in overall spending. But the Washington Post’s Fact Checker calls this “voodoo economics” worthy of four Pinocchios:

An analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund has determined that McCain’s fiscal proposals “would create deficits as deep as 5.7% of GDP by the end of a two term presidency — the highest federal budget deficit in 25 years.”

Transcript: Read more

On the Wednesday edition of his radio show, far right talker Michael Savage declared his support for the execution for any lawyer who represents accused terrorism suspects. “I’d execute any lawyer who would do this to this country in a time like this,” said Savage. Later, while talking with a caller, he specifically said he would “hang every lawyer who went down to Guantanamo“:

SAVAGE: Yeah, that’s why they had a pipe bomb and their lawyer said they were firecrackers. I tell you, I’d hang the lawyer. If I ran this country, I’d hang the lawyer. I would try her for aiding and abetting terrorism — I’d hang her and I’d hang every lawyer who went down to Guantánamo to defend those murderers.

Many of the lawyers defending detainees at Guantanamo Bay are actually members of the military. Media Matters, who has the audio, points out that in March, Savage advocated putting “left-wing lawyers” in Abu Ghraib.

And boy-oh-boy is he pissed at Barack Obama, citing campaign finance shenanigans while ignoring the blatant criminality of John McCain’s own shenanigans. This anti-Obama fervor is probably to be expected — Brooks is a smart, perceptive, conservative Republican and Obama is not a conservative Republican so I wouldn’t expect Brooks to find his campaign appealing. But earlier in the cycle, Brooks seemed surprisingly positive about Obama, and his current wave of detraction is a bit odd.

Read more

During a radio interview on Wednesday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) attempted to argue that drilling for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) would be beneficial for Arctic wildlife. Bachmann claimed that drilling would cause not only an “enhancement of wildlife expansion,” but that the area around oil pipelines would also “become a meeting ground and ‘coffee klatch‘ for caribou”:

“Some suggestions are that perhaps we would see an enhancement of wildlife expansion because of the warmth of the pipeline,” she said. [...] The pipeline has now become a meeting ground and “coffee klatch” for the caribou, she said.

Bachmann is not alone among conservatives in pushing this narrative of drilling being good for caribou. Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show last week that “the caribou have multiplied ’cause they like the warmth that surrounds the pipeline.” On Tuesday night, National Review’s Jonah Goldberg made a similar argument on Fox News:

GOLDBERG: People don’t realize that at Prudhoe Bay, where they have been drilling for 30 years, the central Arctic caribou herd has increased fivefold since they started drilling up there. Some people say it’s because they get to hide from the bugs. It’s a little easier for them. But people say it’s because of the lack of hunting. But it is not dangerous to the caribou up there.

Watch it:

Science, however, tells a different tale. Though the Central Arctic herd in Prudhoe Bay has grown, the Porcupine caribou in the Arctic refuge are “very different.” Wildlife biologists say drilling proponents are making an “oversimplified” argument when they tout Prudhoe Bay to justify disrupting the much larger Porcupine herd in the refuge:

Although the same animals, the two herds are very different. The Porcupine herd migrates over a much larger range, an arduous journey that takes its toll on the herd. Scientists also believe the Central Artic herd, a much smaller herd, has access to several acceptable calving grounds. The Porcupine herd has fewer alternatives and the herd has suffered declines in years when deep snow cover made it difficult to reach its preferred calving grounds on Alaska’s coastal plain.

Far from becoming a meeting ground, surveys have shown that the Central Arctic “caribou reduced their use of the more heavily developed Prudhoe Bay oil fields by 78 percent, and their east-west movements declined by 90 percent.” “As surface development continues, the caribou are effectively crowded out of these areas,” said Ray Cameron, a wildlife biologist who studied caribou for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “They’ve decided it’s not the place to be.”

Studies have also found that pipeline construction near caribou calving and summering areas can lead to “greater calf mortality” and the “reduction of the population.”