I mean, the GOP is against adultery but it's really against being gay, and really, really against gay trysts in public mens' rooms.

But here I believe you are guilty of speculation. You are attributing values and positions to the GOP, rather than asking them what their positions are on all these issues, which I suggest would be much fairer and more accurate. Personally, I'd like to have somebody in a leadership position, say Ken Mehlman, explain how the GOP as a party views all these events/issues--which ones are cause for resignation, which ones are simply bad, which ones represent nothing but partisan attacks, and so forth. I'd like to see Ken explaining that to Tim Russert.

I agree with you. There's a pretty good likelihood of Craig getting off.

ksbagley,

I had heard or read somewhere that Craig had changed his plea from guilty to innocent. Perhaps I'm mistaken. On punning, I don't mean to give anyone offense, but this whole aspect of the GOP does have some humor in it, as well as tragedy. Life is too short not to attempt humor.

"What is stopping Democratic Senators and representatives, ... from... calling on Vitter to resign?"

Resign for what reason?

"The police are targeting men who hook up for sex in public bathrooms, not "gays" in general."

They may or may not be targeted by Police, but it is hard to argue that bias doesn't flow along lines of sexual orientation, just as it does with race and gender.

Seriously, how is that not in violation of the 4th amendment? Somebody ought to sue the municipality over that. Well, that and the ferkin traffic cameras.

New Zealand, I tell you. Gotta go see what that place is like...

Fraud guy,

I'm not an atttorney, but in my view the 'randomness' of the stops simply insures that police will be violating the 4th amendment without regard to race (the term "race" itself is a biological fallacy, but I am forced to use it in most legal and social contexts). However, they are clearly violating the constitutional rights of, minimally, every one they pull over without a warrant, without probable cause. I also think anyone who simply drives through such checks, and is not pulled over, is also having his or her rights violated.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There are now a ton of blog posts at Anonymous Liberal, Balkinization, FDL, TPM regarding the democratic collapse associated with the FISA vote. Hilzoy has a good recent one, linked at name below, saying much what GG says here.

Those who place their hopes on an anticipated larger democratic majority after '08 are likely to be disappointed. 41 democrats in the house voted for the administration bill gutting meaningful supervision of government surveillance.

Uncle Che should begin mobilizing his troops for a march on Capitol Hill during the upcoming session. Him and 500,000 of his closest friends. Voters should find out how their representative (and senators)came down on that FISA vote. If they voted for the president's bill, regardless of which party they're in, then support a new candidate who will above all else uphold the constitution--regardless of party. In my opinion, the democratic leadership in house and senate are the guilty ones. The Bush Surveillance Bill could not have passed without their active collaboration.

It's significant, I think, that over the past year or so there has been a serious uptick in talk of alternative parties. At the same time, various constitutional scholars have been gazing longingly at aspects of the parlimentary system, and writing books with titles like "Our Undemocratic Constitution".

These are correlated in that, when things start to get really bad (as they are now), we just naturally start to look for ways to tinker with our system--ways to form the "more perfect union" that the founders spoke of.

In my view, voting for a third party candidate is never throwing a vote away. No vote, cast for honest reasons, is ever thrown away. And no third-party candidate ever need apologize to anyone for running for office. Nader, for example, is frequently attacked by some democrats for running. What Nader was saying during his runs was that there was insufficient difference in policy between republican and democratic parties. As we are now seeing, he was absolutely correct in this.

beenjammin said

"the Democratic fear was not of a terrorist attack, but of having their vote hurt them come election time.

"

And they are actually having the exact opposite effect. If one looks at the poll data, what we are seeing is a consistent condemnation of leadership of both parties by the american people. The pollsters are looking at these data through the lens of party or branch of government, which masks things somewhat. What the american people are actually saying, I believe, is "we are being horribly led by both parties and both branches".

The GOP was already in the tank anyway. At the bottom of the tank. But what democrats are doing is truly remarkable. They are systematically deflating the massive enthusiasm of their own voters, who gave them a huge victory just a few months ago. They are reading the exact opposite of what these very clear polling data are telling them. And, if they are not careful, they are going to let the GOP back into the race.