It is a fact of history that leadership is not always bestowed but is often seized. Napoleon Bonaparte was never figured into the French Revolution, but while everyone else dithered under powdered wigs, he simply took charge. Obviously, and without comparing their motives or character, for a figure such as he, or a little known state senator from Illinois to vault themselves into national leadership over the heads of the establishment, that establishment has to be weak and confused. Strong governments and political parties and movements promote from within and are impervious to outside intervention. It’s only when they fall apart that they become vulnerable and the collapse of the Republican Party under the weight of George W. Bush is one of the more stunning reversals of political fortune in American political history. Sure, both parties have done their time in the wilderness but this is not just a loss of power. It’s a loss of identity and ideas, a total bankruptcy. To illustrate this point dramatically we need only look to what is, de facto, the current leader of the Republican Party, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

Fourteen years ago, the shoe was on the other foot. The Democrats had grown fat and lazy in the halls of congressional power and had long since lost the plot of their own movie. Throw in a Democratic president whose strength was policy and technocratic maneuvering, as opposed to visionary leadership, and you had a sleeping cow that was easily tipped. That tipping came from a “revolution” of yeoman farmers and political neophytes who were short on experience but long on what the Democrats most lacked- a vision and a purpose. In true populist style, most promised to only serve two terms and to go home. It didn’t really work out that way. Just over a decade later, the cultural methadone that is Washington D.C. had done it’s work on them too. Where Clinton was at least efficient and extraordinarily intelligent, George W. Bush was essentially a powermad despot and the Republican caucus, drugged on power with heads sunk into seat cushions and eyes heavily lidded simply drifted along with him down the path of unmitigated disaster. Now that the smoke has cleared from the November election there is no one left standing in the Republican Party who has the stuff of leadership and like the French two hundred odd years ago there is a void that no one can figure out how to fill.

No one, that is, except Rush Limbaugh who, with millions of listeners every day, finds himself at the zenith of his personal power. While Republicans in congress shuttle from meeting to meeting to try to figure out what to do, and how to preserve their own political skins, Limbaugh actually has a vision and can articulate it. Not only does he have a vision, he has actually gone so far as to put a legislative proposal together via an Op-Ed piece in The Wall Street Journal where he suggests…wait for it…the “Obama/Limbaugh Stimulus Package.” That’s right, he’s gone so far as to bypass the elected members of his sadsack, disoriented, party and laid it out there himself. It is just the kind of proposal you would expect from someone who observes the process from an armchair, or thinks that because they can “see Russian from their porch” they understand foreign policy. But for a lot of other folks who share not only Limbaugh’s sentiments, but his vantage point, it will look like a perfect solution. What will be fascinating to watch is just how far Limbaugh will go with this. He’s smart enough to know that the quickest path to self-destruction would be elected office, but he’s got to be enjoying his new found leadership stature. All you have to do is listen to the humiliating, nakedly groveling, call-in to his show from Georgia House Member Phil Gingrey, who had the temerity to question him, to understand just how powerful Limbaugh has become. If someone else doesn’t step up soon, very soon, Limbaugh will occupy the position of kingmaker- or even queenmaker- in the party, and won’t that process be fun to watch?

The Illinois State Senate heard excerpts today from Patrick Fitzgerald’s tapes of Governor Rod Blagojevich’s conversations and rather than being outraged each and every one no doubt said a silent prayer that their own phones were not tapped. Blagojevich is a tacky character to be sure and is the kind of politician Tony Soprano would think twice about dealing with. But as churlish as what we hear on the tape is, it is far from illegal and is in fact commonplace. It’s every day in every city hall, statehouse and anywhere elected officials have telephones. To be clear, it is not a crime to donate money to a campaign and to be in favor of this or that legislation. It is not a crime to tell that person you are donating to that you support this or that legislation. The only thing that is a crime is to say, in unambiguous words “I will donate money to your campaign if you will support, or not support bill number X.” But you can certainly say “I will dontate money to your campaign because you support gun control as I do,” even if there is pending gun control legislation before that elected official. In other words, to cross the line you have to be completely specific that you are paying in expectation of an exact outcome- and you have to be stupid enough to say it perfectly clearly.

What Blagojevich said about Barack Obama’s senate seat is perfectly true- it was valuable and golden and no politician gives favors like that away for free. A decision like that is based upon one or more of three variables. First, is your own political interest. If there is someone who is likely to present you with a serious challenge, you might consider awarding that person to get them out of your way. Second, you take into consideration other politicians from whom you always need support, or might want something tangible. You might, for example, want the sitting president to promise to come and campaign for you come re-election time and there is nothing criminal in striking that bargain. Or lastly you might take the views of your major supporters and contributors into consideration. These folks are, by definition, like minded or they wouldn’t be supporters, and you never know how much more support you might get by following their suggestions. Not only are all of these scenarios legal, they are literally the life blood of the political game.

But as bad as Blagojevich sounds on tape, he pales in comparison to Tom Delay’s infamous K Street Project, which was also perfectly legal (Delay’s demise came from a separate money laundering episode in Texas). What Delay did was to bring lobbyists into a big meeting room and review with them their contribution histories- not just to Republicans but to Democrats as well. At a time of Republican majorities in both houses he very bluntly laid out the terms for “access,” which were not only dependent upon contribution goals but also on withholding money to the other side. And to boot, he lectured them on their own hiring practices, telling them in no uncertain terms that those corporations who did hire conservative Republicans would not only gain better “access” but would also literally have “input” into the writing of legislation. Delay’s goal was, literally, to merge congressional legislative staffs and lobbyists into a single, self perpetuating, political behemoth. He wasn’t known as “The Hammer” for nothing. Delay ran into problems when, like so many who gain so much power, he over reached. Instead of building a coalition he considered it a personal empire and one sanctioned by no less a figure than Jesus Christ himself. Americans don’t like Caesars, however, and down they invariably come.

Which brings us back to Blagojevich. Like Delay, Blagojevich is on his way out of government and for the same reason. It’s not for what they did because everyone does it. Both were shown the door by their colleagues because they had lorded over them and acted like assholes. And that, folks, is the only real crime here.

If you have never witnessed it yourself, it is a particularly unnerving thing to see rioters coming up the street at you. Predictability is a major part of being civilized, knowing the boundries of behavior, and with rioters there are none. You don’t know if they might simply walk by or yell or smash or turn murderous. This lack of predictability is why those in authority so fear riots- the question of how bad or widespread they might become is unknowable. It is also, needless to say, why they can be so effective and this was certainly the case in Oakland this week. The riots had purpose and, sadly for all of us, they had value.

No one cares about peaceful protests and demonstrations. Cops and politicians just look at their watches and yawn. Protests don’t mean anything and they don’t translate into votes. In fact, as the election of Richard Nixon and re-election of George W. Bush suggest, they have the opposite effect for those who stage them. Few did more to hurt the anti-Iraq war effort than the pink ladies of Berkeley who not only made fools of themselves but of anyone else who wanted to protest that war. Many voices were quieted for fear of being associated with them and their self aggrandizing, lunatic ilk. And, of course, the war went on.

But we can say without much doubt that the Oakland and BART police forces were put on serious notice about the use of force for the very simple reason that they don’t want to trigger a more serious riot- and the strength of that notice is in direct proportion to how serious the first riots were. While it would be nice if it weren’t true, that’s how it works in the real world. Sometimes violence is very effective, and the fact that every law enforcement person in the Bay Area will be thinking long and hard before reaching for their gun is a testimony to that. We don’t know why Johannes Mehserle, the BART cop who murdered Oscar Grant in cold blood, did what he did, but we do know that the courts will take it very seriously. He will not get a slap on the wrist and a good deal of the reason for this is because all involved know that all eyes, both local and national, will be on them. Because of the riots, they will know that they are sitting on a tinderbox over this, and rightly so.

As some have pointed out, there is violence in Oakland every day like the tragic story of the kid shot by a stray bullet while sitting the piano and these acts go almost unnoticed by all but the grieving families. But that is a very, very different thing than a member of law enforcement killing an unarmed civilian- especially one who was clearly complying with the officers’ requests. They are simply not comparable in any way. The larger point is that every young black man in the Bay Area sees himself in the form of Oscar Grant, being handcuffed and held prone before being shot and killed. The riots were how we were all put on notice- law enforcement in particular- that this will not be taken, literally, lying down. And rightly so.

Just as our courts and our laws promote the idea that actions have consequences, so to do riots. The rioters made a point, and again sadly for all of us, it was a point that needed making.

Is there a bigger douchebag in Washington than Harry Reid? With his misreading and mishandling of the Roland Burris affair, the mealy mouthed senator from Las Vegas proved yet again that he is way over his head in his position as senate majority leader. The amazing thing was that Reid didn’t just get the politics wrong, and got spanked by the ever wily Rod Blagojevich, but he got the basic law wrong too. A jawdropping two-fer. There was clearly no legal basis by which Reid could prevent Mr. Burris from coming to Washington and filling President-Elect Obama’s former senate seat. How he didn’t get that is amazing, but Reid’s subsequent public pronouncement that Burris “would not be seated”- to put his personal reputation on the line like that- was as boneheaded a move as a politician can make. Not only was his underestimation of Mr. Burris’ nakedly obvious tenacity a blunder, but his plan to “slow walk” his credential paperwork, to use the worst aspects of the senate’s procedures, was a PR disaster. Could Reid have looked any more “Washington,” in its worst public definition, if he tried? Blagojevich is the governor and he can make the appointment, and unless you can prove it was illegally done, there it is. Suck it up. But no, Reid stuck his weak neck out and got slapped, and slapped hard, by hardball players.

But if that weren’t bad enough, and clear reason to remove him from his leadership position just on sheer lameness grounds alone, Reid went so far as to let Burris- a 71 year-old black man- walk up the steps and be turned away from the door by a fat white man. Sure, we have a black president elect and the black caucus was behind all this, but nevertheless, the PR and the visuals were terrible. For much of the country, it brought back the image of James Meredeth being blocked from the door at Ol’ Miss. Had Reid had a legal leg to stand on, it would have just been unfortunate, but given that he didn’t, and any fool could see he was going to have to fold his hand, why on Earth go through that?

Best of all was Reid’s climbdown. Once someone had finally pointed out to Reid that he was buck naked here, the Vegas shyster went before the microphone and declared in his trademarked waffling tones, how the once “tainted” Burris was now suddenly a fine public servant who only needed to get his papers in order to be welcomed into the august body of the United States’ Senate with open arms. This was followed by a hilarious photo-op yesterday with, as Steven Colbert puts it, “his new black friend.” Reid is an embarrassment to his party, to the senate and to the country and the Democrats had better put him out to pasture if they want to be taken seriously.