Since omerta died with Sammy the Bull (or was it John Dean?), anybody who thinks a united front is possible when the slammer beckons hasn’t read enough history.

But, gosh darn it, emptywheel, I want more speculation about whatever precisely it might be that has whoever it might be gunning for Laura. Is one or more of the folks you mention – and those who go unmentioned – wanting the president to exercise a swaggering diversionary tactic to take the heat off legal problems for various players? Attack Iran, say? And they think Laura is telling Dubya to forget it? Or is she cutting back on the red meat served at dinner to keep the testosterone flow in check?

I don’t see the remarks as being aimed at Laura, but at W. In he-man land, saying that someone is under his wife’s thumb (there’s a vulgarism that is more precise, but I hate it and refuse to use it) is the worst sort of insult. The unnamed Republicans are publicly insulting Bush; one question is whether anyone will have the nerve to tell W about it. The fact that they insulted him this way, rather than simply pointing out that the man is a buffoon, implies that the goal is to goad him into an aggressive act.

What a way to run a country.

Not Cheney, I think. Wasn’t he having surgery? Not Rumsfeld. He is sort of out of the loop but Bush won’t let him resign. One of those emininces grises whose names I forget. The James Baker types, but close to Bush II.

And as for the MO? Could it have been Rove himself? Someone who thinks that being under the â€little woman’s†thumb is an insult? Where have I heard that before? Or maybe it IS Cheney. Isn’t he mulling a run as the only one who could keep the string going, as Frist and the others prove to be empty suits?

Couldn’t be Rove. Let me include a bigger quote:

â€A reelection campaign was always the driving principle to force them to get things together,†said the GOP operative, who would speak candidly about Bush only if his name was not used. He said the â€brilliance of this team†was always overstated. â€Part of the reason they looked so good is Democrats were so discombobulated.†Since the election, this official said, White House aides reported that Laura Bush was among those counseling Bush to change his cowboy image during the final four years.

Rove might be self-hating. But not so much he would refer to â€them†as over-rated in terms of brilliance, nor woudl he need to ask White House aides what is going on.

Then again, my three choices probably wouldn’t have to rely on aides either.

YK

I think they’re different, too. But I also think Norquist might qualify for both. He’s clearly an operative of the GOP. But he’s an official–he has some title somewhere doesn’t he? Wednesday lunch host?

President of Americans for Tax Reform or some such thing.

I’m not going to make a guess about who the â€anony-mouse†is. I’m not going to argue that it isn’t Norquist. But I am going to argue with the reasoning for thinking it’s him.

He is being credited in this post and in the comments as a â€real conservative.†But please don’t forget, his name is involved in the Abramoff scandal. He probably has been directly involved in creating and managing the current pay-to-play Congress.

I think that his involvement in our modern day, Tammany Hall: DC, trumps his credentials as a small government conservative.

Thinking about branding makes my head hurt. I mean, there is usually very little distinction made beyond â€liberal†and â€conservative.†Anyone who is paying attention realizes that the current government is not really fiscally conservative. That label may have helped get the Republicans and Norquist into power, but they ain’t walking that walk now.

Further, they have used that power and attempted to create the â€permanent Republican majority.†And they have not been afraid to bend or break the rules to achieve that.

Hopefully, Norquist and the rest of these guys will becoming well acquainted with the justice system soon, and this will all be academic.