Today, I played golf at the Old Course at St. Andrews in Scotland. The sun was out and the wind was down. Truly a blessing. After golf, a family friend who is an R&A member, treated us to drinks and an extraordinary lunch in the R&A clubhouse, which overlooks the first tee and eighteenth green at the Old Course. After lunch, we adjourned downstairs to The Big Room for a spot of a wonderful liqueur called Kimmel — a drink the Scots call a “wie sticky.” Words can’t do justice to the experience. (If you’re not a golfer, and don’t have any idea what I’m talking about, please just move along to the next post. There’s nothing to see here.)

I’m going to write something, because… I fear having a picture of Cam in a wetsuit on the top of this page for too long.

So I know Marshall’s not a huge 24 fan, but Cam and I are. I haven’t heard his reaction to Janeane Garofalo joining the cast of ‘24′ next season. I’m sure that at least part of his reaction will be wondering why, of all radio talk show hosts, Garofalo was the one chosen…

I understand the creators wanted to put Jack Bauer on overseas covert mission in Africa next year, and Fox shot it down because it was going to cost too much. I find the idea intriguing:

“He was at a humanitarian work project, but he was merely visiting a friend of his who had made his life there,” explains Gordon. “Jack was wandering and finding where he belongs in the world. On one level, his friend says, ‘If you think you’re going to find penance here, you’re not going to find it.’ Jack actually has been there for a couple of months, and we learn he has been wandering the world basically trying to find a place to belong and looking for penance and realizes he’s not going to find it anywhere, so he gets caught up in a coup and has a BLACK HAWK DOWN kind of moment.” 

I salute the creators for thinking outside the box. I think that in seasons two through six, we all feel like we’ve seen Jack trying to find the bomb in Los Angeles before it explodes one time too many. There’s other talk of setting much of the season in Washington, and talk of a twelve hour gap during the day.

Change setting: Judging from previous seasons of ‘24′, the city of Los Angeles is not only the world’s top terrorist target (with the rest of the country pretty much ignored by the bad guys) but it has an endless array of abandoned warehouses, run down factories, industrial parks, parking garages… It’s practically the Rust Belt. After a while, it all starts to look the same. Did Jack ever go downtown? Beverly Hills? Any ethnic neighborhoods? (I may be forgetting…) Jack’s spent six days in L.A., and it all looks like Gary, Indiana.

At the very least, keep the President and his folks in Washington. And the menace, whatever it is, should threaten the President in some way. One of the things that made season one work was seeing the assassination threat through the eyes of the target, how he dealt with it, how his family dealt with it. While the Secret Service is good (Bring back Aaron Pierce again!), they can’t guarantee the safety of the president in a world where Air Force One was shot out of the sky (season four) where a former president was assassinated (season five), another was severely injured, if not killed by his own wife (season six) and where another was, it seems likely, forced to step down for health reasons (didn’t look like Wayne Palmer was going to come back after season six).

Here’s a crazy idea: The new president has a loyal vice president who doesn’t completely disagree on every issue and isn’t secretly plotting to depose the president, we establish this character as a heroic figure, cool-headed in a crisis, helpful to the administration and the country in every way. Then the bad guys kill him, of course.

Bring back familiar faces: Other than Joss Whedon’s Buffy/Angel shows, no other show has killed off so many popular characters - George Mason, Nina Myers, David Palmer, Tony, Michelle, Ryan Chappelle, Milo… The replacement characters just haven’t been as interesting. So who’s left? Well, they could bring back Mandy, the recurring assassin. I’ve mentioned Aaron Pierce. One-handed Chase? Mike Novick? Daniel Dae-Kim’s Agent Baker? If the new president is a Democrat (unlikely, unless the president played by Cherry Jones somehow took over for Powers Boothe’s Noah Daniels), did Lynne Kresge ever recover from her injuries and return to politics? If the new president is a Republican, is former Vice President Hal Gardner playing any role in the administraton?

Big non-terror event: I’m thinking of the California presidential primary that David Palmer won in season one, it was one other major event demanding the characters’ attention throughout the day. It could be the Super Bowl, it could be the Dali Lama or Pope visiting, some environmental circumstance (presuming it’s L.A., wildfires? earthquake? mudslides?)… One of the great things about the early seasons was the sense that everything represented a complication or potential problem for Jack & company. Then you put a terrorist plot on top of it. Think of Jack getting stuck in traffic… and on that point

More public reactions: They had some of this every few seasons, including the ethnically diverse insomniac gang of anti-Muslim rednecks in season two, but let’s face it, getting around a city that has had a terrorist attack is a huge problem. It gives an excuse to have Jack and one sidekick taking on a whole gang of foes - the CTU backup team hit bumper-to-bumper traffic the moment they left the parking lot…

If you’re gonna give us a storyline with civilians - like the wedding in season two, or the Muslim neighbor last season - give us some connection to the characters we care about. Give us Morris’ brother that was mentioned, or Chloe’s parents. Imagine how we would have felt if we had known Edgar’s mother before she became a plot device. Let us see the crisis through their eyes, if we need a few scenes of “ordinary folk” reacting to some terrible terrorist attack…

A quick way to avoid Muslim or Arab bad guys, if there’s a feeling it’s getting cliche, even though it’s accurate: In season two, Second Wave (al-Qaeda wannabes) hired Timothy McVeigh Michigan militia types to blow up CTU. In real life, we’ve seen Jose Padilla, Adam Gadahn types working with al-Qaeda, along with Islamist groups in the Philippines and Indonesia, the Islamist Courts Union in Somalia, etc. They used Russian-looking and sounding Chechnians in season five, and a Russian mastermind i season six. With two lines of dialogue by the badguys —  ”We’re working with them? They don’t look Muslim.” “They converted.” — you can use any type of badguys.

CTU’s internal history: We’ve seen six or seven heads of CTU Los Angeles in the seasons we’ve watched, and nobody ever mentions it. At least have some internal grumbling about how the office is cursed, or have some guy — the late Milo Pressman would have been perfect — saying, “Hey, I’ve been analyzing code since back when Nina Myers was on our side and George Mason was calling the shots, pal, I think I know what I’m doing.”

Secondly, acknowledge the characters’ histories. Whoever’s running CTU this year should ask, in response to the latest crisis, “Hey, has Jack gone rogue yet, or is that scheduled for later today?”

On a similar point, somebody could or should refer to the fact that Valencia California and a portion of the Mohave desert are radioactive.

Other random ideas: Jack attending the firing squad execution of Cheng, his Chinese tormentor… Chloe’s baby, obviously, the most likely candidate for kidnapping since Lindbergh’s kid… Josh Bauer, the blonde nephew with the occasional odd instinct for ass-kicking that no one thinks came from the bald man who claimed to be his father… Whatever happened to the Caspian Sea oil interest guys who were helping Second Wave back in season two? … Even if whatshername blondie isn’t willing to reappear on the show, at least depict Jack keeping an eye on her, and/or calling her and leaving messages…

I spoke with Jim earlier today and he said he and Marshall are thinking about starting a blog… just the two of them.

Well fine fellas. But then you won’t have shit like this to make fun of.

So there.

Jim: Words fail me.

I missed it yesterday, so here at On Tap, we’ll be celebrating it belated style. To wit: If we can find a paratrooper today, we’ll be buying two beers instead of one. (HT: James Joyner)

Get the details, and a great post about it, over at Blackfive.

Go read Patrick Hynes’ recent essay, charging conservatives are acting like a self-important identity group, and not a political movement. (And remind yourself that while Hynes works for John McCain’s campaign, this is the New Hampshire consultant/blogger’s thoughts, not those of the Arizona Senator.)

First things first: Is the country turning left? Well, sure it has, since 2005.

A huge part of that is A) a sense of no progress in Iraq B) botched reaction to Katrina and general sense of government-wide incompetence and  C) scandals.

The Republican, and for that matter conservative “brand” have been shot to hell.

There’s plenty of blame to go around. Blame George W. Bush for his poor management skills. Blame Dick Cheney for concluding he didn’t need to engage his critics or the press at any point during his two terms. Blame Bush for not visiting New Orleans immediately, for not swatting down the urban legends surrounding Hurricane Katrina. Blame Bush for following that horrific failure to see what the rest of the country was seeing with the decision to nominate Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Blame everyone around Bush for not having the guts to say, “Mr. President, Harriet is a wonderful person and a fine lawyer, but she doesn’t belong on the highest court in the land.” Blame those in the Congressional GOP who didn’t see the potential fallout of intervening in the Terry Schiavo case.

Blame Mark Foley. And Bob Ney. And Don Sherwood. And John Sweeney. And Curt Weldon. And Tom DeLay. Blame Conrad Burns for snuggling with Jack Abramoff. Blame George Allen for not paying attention to demographic changes in his home state, and not seeing how “macaca” would play in the northern Virginia suburbs. Blame an Ohio state GOP for stepping deep into a smelly pit of scandal, and blame state parties in Connecticut, New York, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey and Pennsylvania for corroding and falling apart.

But there’s another reason that the country is feeling more pro-liberal than it has in the recent past – most Americans remember few, if any, of the downsides of Democratic rule. The two most recent eras of all-Democratic rule were 1976-1980 and 1993-1994. After Jimmy Carter’s gas lines, malaise, Iran hostage crisis and the Russians marching into Afghanistan, they gave Reagan 44 states. After the latter – tax hikes, the health care debacle, Jocelyn Elders urging the teaching of masturbation in schools, the World Series being canceled, the invasion of Haiti – the country recoiled and elected Republicans in droves.

In the modern era, all-Democratic control of government tends to result in disaster, with the country waking up, asking, “what the hell is this? We didn’t vote for this!” and voting for Republicans ASAP. But those are twenty-seven and thirteen years ago, respectively. The Republican errors are fresh, visible, in the headlines every day.

So 2010 and 2012 will look great for the GOP if Democrats win the White House next year. But in the meantime, how do you fix this? You either rack up more successes, or you spotlight the other guy’s failures. In the former category, if I’m a Republican congressional leader, I’m looking over lists of ideas like the “9 With 90” and Ruffini’s list and measuring support among the Blue Dog Democrats. Then I get those Democrats to get those bills through the committee, and file discharge petition after discharge petition (if you have 218 signatures, the Speaker has to bring a vote to the floor) and I make the Democrats vote against a popular idea time and time again. We’ve got to spotlight our governors, demonstrate successful reforms in the states, these little laboratories of democracy. You rebuild the Republican and Conservative brands by demonstrating successful ideas and policies independent of President Bush, who will, by very early next year, no longer be the face of the party.

Is the problem, as Hynes writes, “we have reverted back to type: A Republican Party and a conservative movement that really doesn’t give a s*** about ordinary people”?

I don’t think that’s quite the problem, but he’s in the neighborhood. One of the phenomenon I’m finding seriously troubling is the recent consolidation of Democratic support among just about every minority group. I know it will be a long time before Republicans run well among blacks. I don’t expect a GOP candidate to win over a majority of Latinos, other than Cuban-Americans. But is there any reason that Asian-Americans should be overwhelmingly Democratic? Indian-Americans? (Maybe future Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal will shift that.) Immigrant Africans? Eastern Europeans? Can this party appeal to anybody besides white, Christian, married couples?

I’m suspecting the Tom Tancredo wing of the party. A giant chunk of the electorate doesn’t want to be within ten miles of a party that gives off a whiff of racism, and everything from Trent Lott’s praise of Strom Thurmond to “Macaca” to “nuke Mecca” to “Havana is the same as Miami” to efforts to ban legal immigration to outrage over Spanish-language books out of the Denver Public Library …. there are too many Republican lawmakers who are way too reckless in their rhetoric when it comes to issues dealing with ethnic minorities. And those who disagree with them aren’t always helping. When Lindsey Graham eagerly tells the New York Times about the “racism” in the immigration debate, he’s not helping anyone but himself and the New York Times. Insult a man or woman and they’ll never vote for your party again.

UPDATE: Patrick Ruffini and I are on similar pages…

 The time to do a deal on immigration that defused these tensions was three years ago, not now. The Administration went way out on a limb for extreme regularization, hoping to lead the party there, when they should have gone for achievable objectives that also gave serious conservatives like Duncan Hunter what they really wanted (basic enforcement). Instead, we now have the Tancredoites baying for mass deportation and buying into groups that are not only anti-illegal immigration, but anti-population and anti-growth, funded by radical environmentalists like John Tanton. And we have exposed an entire generation of Latino voters to this message, erasing whatever hard-earned gains we might have achieved. There was an enforcement-first road that could have worked, but it was not taken.

Ours is a changing society. 25% of the population over 40 is a member of a minority group. That number for those under-40 is 40%. 46% of the children born in the U.S. last year were non-white…

So what is conservatism’s message for a multiracial nation? It seems to me there is a greater opportunity for a positive message of assimilation. The old identity politics are breaking down before our eyes. The inner cities that Mike Gerson built a worldview around are literally disappearing. African Americans are moving to the suburbs, and becoming middle class. Hispanics have shown that they behave more like swing voters if you treat them as such. (We bounced back nicely from our post-187 21% showing in ‘96.) Minorities are becoming more independent, and interwoven into the fabric of American society. That should create new opportunities for Republicans, if we remain the party that represents the hope of upward mobility.

He also offers policy proposal ideas for the environment/global warming and health care. Buena Suerte, Patrick (look, I just made a Tancredoite burst a vein in his forehead). I think the most depressing things about the reaction to the “9 with 90″ list was A) the number of Republicans who not only believe that global warming is a hoax (I don’t want to rehash that debate here) but who believe that their candidates will be just fine by not addressing this issue. A Republican candidate at any level should have a plan to improve air quality, to establish their bona fides as somebody who loves the environment, because the moment you’re painted as pro-polluter, you have an uphill battle.

And B) the relative lack of reaction to my (admittedly vague) health care plank. I know this is a comparably boring and wonky issue, but it’s one the Democrats will use to beat Republicans’ heads in if they don’t have their own plans, solutions and ideas. It affects just about everybody and just about everybody has encountered a complicated, frustrating bureaucracy in the course of getting their health care.

In the past, I have expressed despair at the slow decline of the Royal Navy, the proud force that once dominated the world’s oceans, keeping them safe for commerce.

Which is why I was glad to read last week that the Royal Navy has signed contracts for two new aircraft carriers, to be christened the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales.

The carriers will come in at 65,000 tons, making them a bit smaller than the U.S. Navy’s Nimitz class flat tops, but their size will make them sufficient to operate F-35, fixed wing Joint Strike Fighter, instead of relying on VSTOL Harriers and helicopters. Their size also makes them the largest ships, by displacement, ever to wear the White Ensign.

This is a huge step forward for the Royal Navy. The only question now is whether the fleet can keep enough frigates and destroyers in service — in light of recent budget cuts — to put a respectable task force to sea.

The White House confirmed this morning that Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove would be leaving his post at the end of this month. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Rove says it was time.

I’m actually surprised it took this long. For a figure of Rove’s stature and influence to remain in the daily grind of the White House for seven years is extraordinary and unusual. He has given much to this President, and evidently, had been considering the timing of his departure for more than a year.

But the fact that the President would accept Rove’s resignation now, in the dog days of summer, with 18 months remaining in his term, suggests that the President has accepted his status as lame duck. For if President Bush was planning any more major pushes on domestic policy, he would, no doubt, have asked Mr. Rove to remain by his side. And Mr. Rove, being the loyal right hand man, would have stayed, as he has always stayed.

Whether you love this President or despise him, it’s worth marking this day. For this one, it seems to me, is the day that the President conceded that his term is effectively finished.

Jim: I keep looking for a way to disagree with this conclusion, Marshall, and I’m struggling. I figured that after staying this long, Rove would hang on until January 20, 2009, but I guessed wrong. What’s truly fascinating is how much is reputation has soared and crashed in a six year span. He was considered a bit overconfident for the way the 2000 Bush campaign was run, earned rave reviews for the way the president helped congressional candidates in 2002, was “the architect” of 2004, and certainly deserved at least some blame for the way Bush hit the skids in early 2005 and slid all the way through 2006. I’ve met Rove very briefly, and my impression of watching him in action is that he’s a man of enormous knowledge - but sometimes he sticks to a losing position - i.e., I can convince the Republican base that we’re serious about securing the border — long after it is wise.

There have been speech writers — also known as ghost writers — as long as there have been important principals who lacked the time, inclination or talent to compose their own words.

Michael Gerson and Matthew Scully, both former speech writers for President Bush and others, have demonstrated that they are among the best of their generation. Both are brilliant and insightful. And both have a gift — a divine endowment to give voice to ideas.

I haven’t had the privilege of meeting either one of them. But I have read their works with relish. Scully is the author of the phenomenal book, Dominion: The Power of Man, The Suffering of Animals, and The Call to Mercy. Gerson writes a regular column for the Washington Post and contributes to a variety of intellectual magazines. He is also soon to release a book of his own, Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace America’s Ideals.

And it’s Gerson’s impending book that has brought them both to the front page of today’s Washington Post.

“Bush’s Muse Stands Accused,” the headline blares.

He has been hailed as the best White House speechwriter since Kennedy’s Theodore Sorensen, the muse behind President Bush’s most famous phrases, the moral conscience of the West Wing. But now Michael J. Gerson is accused by a former colleague of taking credit for words he did not write.

According to Matthew Scully, who worked with him for five years, Gerson is not the bard of Bushworld but rather a “self-publicizing” glory hog guilty of “foolish vanity,” “sheer pettiness” and “credit hounding.” In Scully’s account, Gerson did not come up with the language that made him famous. “Few lines of note were written by Mike,” Scully says, “and none at all that come to mind from the post-9/11 addresses — not even ‘axis of evil.’ “

Boil it all down, and Scully and Gerson seem to arguing over whether this phrase was Scully’s or that expression was Gerson’s.

But in so doing, they’re forgotten the first rule of ghost-writing. After the words leave your typewriter, PC or legal pad, they are no longer your words. They are your principal’s words, and his (or hers) alone, for all eternity.

It is the ghost writer’s curse to be close to power, even to influence the course of events as a result of that proximity, and yet, to always remain in the background. And in this too, Scully and Gerson have forgotten the next cardinal rule: never, ever become the story. For if you do, you are undermining your principal, and in so doing, the very reason that you are writing.

I wish Scully and Gerson both much success. They are both intelligent and immensely talented. They deserve to emerge from the shadows and make their own mark in whatever way they wish.

But not this way. This sort of sniping is beneath both of them.

For more, read Scully’s original piece in Atlantic Monthly — stupidly hidden by editors behind their subscription firewall. Peter Wehner, who worked with both, comments in National Review. And Timothy Noah ads snarky commentary at Slate.

UPDATE: Jonathan Rick e-mails this outstanding inventory of background info on the players in this self-made drama.

Senator Tim Johnson, struck last year by a brain aneurysm, has not returned to work. As Erick Erickson points out, he hasn’t cast a vote nor been in his office. While the circumstances are tragic, it’s time to recognize that the people of South Dakota are being deprived of one of their two voices in the U.S. Senate.

In another age, Senator Johnson would have resigned. But today’s Washington is so tinged with partisanship that the consequences of his resignation would be significant. South Dakota’s governor would presumably appoint a fellow Republican to replace Johnson, and the Democrats would lose their majority in the Senate. Needless to say, they don’t want that to happen.

Nevertheless, that’s the right and honorable course of action.

If Senator Johnson insists on remaining in office in spite of his incapacity, it’s the duty of the Republican party in South Dakota to find a candidate to oppose him. Voters should and must have a choice. They ought to have the opportunity to select a voice who is capable of representing them in the U.S. Senate. Indeed, in another age, it wouldn’t just be the Republicans mounting a challenge. The Democrats would also be searching for a candidate as well. But either way, the people of South Dakota would be well-served.

Sadly, that’s not the case. Too many seem intent on giving Senator Johnson a free pass, afraid of the unseemliness of opposing the incapacitated Senator.

So in this, I strongly agree with Erick. It’s time to start finding a candidate.

More info in this article from Stu Rothernberg.

It’s a little hard to tell whether the offering at this site is legitimate or not, but either way, it’s a great idea. In short, someone is making chew toys for dogs in the shape of Michael Vick. I’m going to order one for Cody. Dogs get their metaphorical revenge. Though Jim’s suggestion at the end of this post is still pretty appealling, too.