(CNN) — It appears President Obama has to step up his reading pace if he wants to beat his predecessor in one particular measure: how many books a president can polish off a year.

In an interview with the BBC Tuesday, Obama said he is currently reading Joseph O’Neill’s 270-page novel “Netherland,” a book Obama first said he began back in April.

If Obama is close to finishing the novel, that puts him on less than a 10 book-a-year pace, far less than the close to 100 books President Bush was reportedly able to finish in the same amount of time.

[...]

In 2006, Bush read 95 books to Roves 110: a Herculean pace of nearly two books a week — in an election year to boot — for the ex-president. But, according to Rove, Bush’s reading slowed a bit in the final years of his presidency, finishing a not-too-shabby 51 books in 2007 and at least 40 in 2008.

And if that’s not impressive enough, Rove also said Bush found time to read the Bible “from cover to cover” every year.

What can one say, except, Yeah, right!? One hundred books per year my [blip]!

I wish he had read the August 6, 2001, President’s Daily Brief: Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.

"New emails show conclusively that Karl Rove was in the middle of this mess from the beginning. It is now imperative that he testify before Congress and give all the details of his involvement both in the proposal to fire the 93 U.S. Attorneys in the beginning of George Bush’s second term, and his involvement in the firing of the individual eight U.S. Attorneys who were fired throughout 2006.  If the White House prevents Karl Rove from testifying, it will be thumbing its nose at the American people and at the rule of law. The reason it’s so imperative that people testify under oath is that every time new information comes out, it proves that the White House was not telling the truth in their previous statements. Statements from those involved have proved to be false, false, false, time after time after time."

-U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer

You can see one of the emails incriminating Rove here.

It’s an ugly rumor, but it’s spreading like wildfire: Karl Rove has lost his touch. In an amazing betrayal within a family where top political aide Rove is royalty, Bushies have been sneering at his pre-election happy talk that the gop would keep the Senate and take a slight hit in the House, both soon to be run by Democrats. And now we learn that President Bush really believed the GOP was safe, too. On the day before the elections, he asked embattled House gop leader Dennis Hastert to run for speaker again so he could guide the White House’s agenda in Congress.

TalkingPointsMemo.com serves this bit of news from TNR.com:

It seems increasingly clear that the GOP congressional leadership, eager for every safe incumbent in the House to run for re-election, looked the other way as evidence accumulated that Mark Foley had a thing for pages. Holding onto his seat became more important than confronting him over his extracurricular activities.

But there’s more to the story of why Foley stood for re-election this year. Yesterday, a source close to Foley explained to THE NEW REPUBLIC that in early 2006 the congressman had all but decided to retire from the House and set up shop on K Street. "Mark’s a friend of mine," says this source. "He told me, ‘I’m thinking about getting out of it and becoming a lobbyist.’"

[...]

According to the source, Foley said he was being pressured by "the White House and Rove gang," who insisted that Foley run. If he didn’t, Foley was told, it might impact his lobbying career.

"He said, ‘The White House made it very clear I have to run,’" explains Foley’s friend, adding that Foley told him that the White House promised that if Foley served for two more years it would "enhance his success" as a lobbyist.

And there you have it folks, we have a Republican party, led by the Bush & Rove gang, so desperate to retain control, that they are willing to sacrifice just about anyone — including the young congressional pages — to remain in power and prevent Democrats from disturbing all those GOP skeletons that have piled up a mile high over the past six years.

Well, Liberals and Democrats don’t envy their policies, much less their policy results, just look at some recent Republican accomplishments: failed Iraqi nation building project, a nuclear armed Iran and North Korea (remember the “Axis of Evil” line?), record deficits, the 6’4″ Osama Bin Ladin still plotting against the U.S., the Taleban is regrouping in Afghanistan, multiple Republican officials are under investigation for accepting brides, money laundering, leaking a CIA agent’s name and for many other illicit schemes betraying the public trust.

And yet, we suffer of Republican Operative/Strategist envy — otherwise known as Rove/Gingrich envy. In these two men, Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich (and, actually, let’s add a third man, Grover Norquist), we have the architects of the Republican electoral successes of the past 10-15 years. Meanwhile, as these men, with the eager help of their allies in conservative circles, impeached a Democratic president, stole a presidential election (2000 and, some argue here and here and here, 2004), and exploited a national tragedy (i.e., 9/11) to advance their conservative/Republican agenda, the Democratic Party establishment largely stood by — too afraid to punch back, and punch back hard.

Unfortunately it’s not just the Democratic Party establishment that’s too afraid to got toe-to-toe against these Republican thugs. Sometimes we of the grassroots are too afraid to hit back with all we’ve got. Now, clearly, more of us, the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, have grown tired enough to not want to take it any more and have started to punch back. That said, I recently came across a post at DailyKos.com where a diarist suggested that members of the Bush administration should be routinely described as:

[I]ncompetent, Liars, or both.

[and, too]

The Republican congress is unAmerican because it is not performing its constitutional duty to be a check and balance to the executive.

The executive branch continues its unAmerican activity by any number of activities that are not supported by the constitution or bill of rights.

The diarist’s suggestions may be completely wrong headed, I frankly don’t know. However, what struck me was the response the diarist’s suggestions illicited from another user:

What good does it do to name-call?

[...]

[Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration will] be gone with the lame duck President soon enough, and [they'll] not be on the ballot, so there’s no point attacking [them].

The unAmerican line lost its popularity a long time ago, and I’d rather not be the party to bring it back. And I’d rather not have this charge brought against us when we have the House and the Presidency and they work together.

I was so struck with the reflexive dismissal of the diarist’s suggestions by the other user, that I responded to the dismissal with the following:

This is just a quick reaction after reading your response: you sound like a Democratic party insider (or at least with direct ties to an elected member’s office in some capacity), more interested in the immediate tactical gain; rather than on the long term goal of building a “progressive movement.” Again, this is my immediate reaction to your reply, without taking too much time to “ponder and digest” your take on the diary. Now, the diarist’s talking points I’m sure can be refined and retooled; however, the diarist premise and main point is sound: negative language used to tarnished the opposition does work — just ask Newt Gingrich to provide his list of words he suggested be used in association with Democrats:

“Anti-flag, anti-family, anti-child, anti-jobs, betray, coercion, collapse, consequences, corruption, crises, decay, deeper, destroy, destructive, devour, endanger, failure, greed, hypocrisy, ideological, impose, incompetent, insecure, liberal, lie, limit(s), pathetic, permissive attitude, radical, self-serving, sensationalists, shallow, sick, they/them, threaten, traitors, unionized bureaucracy, urgent, waste”

Now, I’m not a supporter of Gingrich, but the man is a visionary and a transformational “movement” leader, adept at using all tools at his disposal to provide his party with a political advantage — unfortunately for us Liberals and Democrats, Republicans seem to have monopolized the market on Gingrich’s type of party activist and leader (willing to reach into the operative’s tool bag for whatever is necessary to gain advantage over the opposition). Now, your point about not wanting to revive certain attack lines (i.e., un-American) is well taken; regrettably we, Democrats and Liberals, don’t have a choice on that matter, since the enemy (Republicans and conservatives) consistently pelt us with that very epithet. It seems to me that our only recourse is to wrestle the very notion of what it means to be American away from the opposition, and restore it to its rightful heirs: Liberals and Progressives that, with sweat, tears and blood, have welcomed previously excluded citizens into the American family — and, of course, all the while, the enemy blocked school house doors, blocked workers from organizing and generally could be heard from the sidelines chanting We don’t care, We don’t care.

Again, I’m sure that the diarist’s suggestions can be refined so that they are more than mere “personal attacks” against the administration; however, as I intimated in my response to the user that objected to “personal attack”: negative or attack language used to frame the opposition does work — just see how well it has served Rove and Gingrich, and their Republican/conservative causes.

Perhaps this is why some Liberals and Democrats, myself included, sometimes feel Rove/Gingrich envy: because these men don’t stop to ask themselves, Uh, perhaps we’ve gone too far. We don’t really need to attack them. In stead, these men and their Republican allies are always willing to go for the jugular to advance their cause. It’s about time we do the same; besides, it certainly isn’t a stretch to say that the Bush administration lied us into war, and it certainly is un-American for our Congress to ignore their Constitutional duties.