Add the L.A. Times to the list of media organizations that knew about the Foley e-mails well in advance. The paper sneaks this little revelation inside today’s portrait of Lane Hudson, who broke the news about Foley:

Hudson, who will not say where he got the e-mails, shared them with the Los Angeles Times in July. He posted them anonymously in September, he said, frustrated that the paper was still conducting research and had not published an article.

Many of us remember the last time that the L.A. Times had explosive information about a campaign, and worked up the story for weeks and weeks and weeks, dropping it on voters at the last second before the election.

I wonder when The Times would have gotten around to completing its story, if Hudson hadn’t gotten impatient.

UPDATE: Allah points out something else that I’d meant to comment on: the paper’s lede sentence, which shills for Hudson in a transparently ridiculous way, by uncritically accepting a ludicrous assertion of his without any questioning whatsoever:

Lane Hudson had no idea he would bring down a congressman when he sat in his living room and turned on his laptop one Sunday morning nearly seven weeks ago.

Yes. He had no idea. That’s why he had given the e-mails to the L.A. Times two months earlier. Because he had no idea they’d bring Foley down.

The next time you hear about journalists’ vaunted “bullshit detectors,” remember this line.

Actually, I think the reporter probably detected the bullshit. But the bullshit made a better story than just saying the guy was acting as a Democrat operative.

See Dubya is famous, getting himself quoted at Slate:

Hawks look back fondly at Rumsfeld’s tenure. “Rumsfeld served his country well and, while he made mistakes, suffered a great degree of scorn he did not deserve,” writes anonymous conservative national-security blogger See-Dubya at Patterico’s Pontifications. “I am sorry to see such a dedicated public servant leave under these circumstances, and I do not envy his replacement.”

We are not worthy.

Happy Veterans Day.

UPDATE 11-11-06: Happy Real Veterans Day!

Contrary to my recent dour predictions, Ed Whelan — whom I greatly admire — says that we can still confirm conservative judges. He notes that 11 Democrats voted for Clarence Thomas in 1991, and adds:

A lot has changed since 1991, but the changes cut in both directions. The Democrats have gotten more unified — and nastier — on judicial confirmations since then, but the high-profile politics of a Supreme Court nomination enhances the case for confirmation of a strong pick. Opponents can’t rely on obscure procedures to block the nomination. They need to make their case openly, and in the Internet age, unlike with the 1987 nomination of Judge Bork, their distortions won’t go unanswered.

More importantly, the conservative case against liberal judicial activism has powerful public appeal across a broad swath of the political spectrum. Opponents of a strong nominee will have to be ready to pay a high price for their opposition. Plus, President Bush, having appointed two white males to the Court, still has the diversity card to play, so a nominee who is a committed proponent of judicial restraint and also a female or a minority would have added political punch.

You should read the whole thing.

I love Whelan’s attitude, but I’m not convinced. I’m sure that there are plenty of great candidates out there, but I’m not already aware of very many to whom I could give my full-throated support. Of the few clearly qualified candidates out there, I have a sneaking suspicion that most or all will be too controversial for President Bush. I think Bush will be too cowardly to start the fight that Whelan and I want to see him start.

Moreover, I think it’s inevitable that the next Supreme Court nominee — whether the nomination is made by President Bush or President Hillary — will have to be a woman. That cuts the pool of qualified candidates in half.

I think Whelan is exactly right in theory. Bush should nominate a strong candidate should the opportunity arise. It would be incredibly energizing, and would give the base the best possible reason to turn out in 2008.

But if the lesson learned from this election was to screw the base and target centrists, I fear that Whelan’s advice will be ignored. So, contrary to Whelan’s advice, I continue to despair — and I continue to assert that Bush has confirmed his last decent judge.

P.S. I don’t see a lot of Gang of 14 defenders stepping forth to defend their chillin’ attitudes. The fact is, we lost a lot of good judges by rolling over. If we had used the nuclear option, we would have lost the Senate, and the arrogance of Senate Republicans would have been blamed in large part. But we lost it anyway, and with it the chance to confirm a lot of judges who were thrown under the bus by the Gang of 14.