...you could just be a rebound until she finds another rocker with a big penis.

Just kidding.

It has been my experience that people--men and women--take relationships individually. I suppose some people may try to recreate previous ones, but most people like the fact that a new relationship defines itself. That's part of the pleasure of it--you get to start again, create something new, and even, if you're on the young side, redefine yourself if you want.

Besides, if she wants a little more kink she'll ask.

How nice to see Sen. Kerry finally using well-constructed, concise phrases.

We're glad to help.

http://www.pookastew.com/k123/2004/10/smear-and-fear.html

Would that all the media accomplices to the Bush Administration's lies were exposed as Woodward has been. He sure ain't the only one.

Great article. I would add that Cheney learned, from Watergate, that control of the media message was paramount.

What the rest of us learned from Watergate was the ramifications of the failures of leadership. What Cheney and Rumsfeld learned was that if they controlled the message they could get away with anything.

Are you seriously comparing the relative "political power" of a career journalist who served as a "special assistant" to Bill Clinton to that of Dick Cheney--who has been Deputy Assistant to the President, Assistant to the President, White House Chief of Staff, five-term Congressman, Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, House Minority Whip, Secretary of Defense, CEO of one of the nation's largest defense contrators, and, oh yeah, Vice President?

You may object to Clinton's centrism, but holding Sidney Blumenthal accountable for not stopping Dick Cheney's march to darkness is not even remotely reasonable.

Frankly, I think Blumenthal is EXACTLY the right person to set the record straight on Cheney. And i think he did a great job.

I don't think Sidney Blumenthal is saying that Dick Cheney is an "evil genius". Ruthless ideologue is more like it. And one who has historically been wrong about just about everything.

I agree that the media dropped the ball on Cheney, but let's face it--they dropped the ball on George W. Bush, and, in fact, the entire Republican agenda. Or worse--they were in on the con from the start.

Now that the poll numbers reflect a reality they can't ignore, the press is suddenly "discovering" just how radical and incompetent these people are.

Why and how the press allowed this to happen is a real story--and it's something to bear in mind before you go blaming specific "liberal" pundits and politicians: until recently, anyone who questioned this cabal got their heads handed to them by the media--time and again. Just ask Marty Meehan.

...I think it's perfectly fair to take a step back and consider the career arc of someone who's gone so far being so wrong about so much. What does Cheney have on his side, exactly, other than a talent for getting ahead?

Kissinger and Clinton had rational positions one could agree or disagree with. Cheney's career is based on his dogged devotion to an ideology that has no basis in reality. He owes his position solely to his being the poster boy for delusory right-wing extremism.

...that local Republicans in Kansas can beat someone up, but Dick Cheney can do "nothing" but call his enemies names?

I suspect a ruthless multi-millionaire ideologue who happens to be Vice-President of the United States and who has 7/8 of the media doing his bidding could probably do a number on you if he wanted.

Why do you think no one crosses these people--'cause they don't have the guts or the brains? Or because they're too "bourgeois"? Please--they're scared s***less.

These people pulled off a coup d'etat and took control of the country; they can do anything they want. They're ruthless, they've got control of the media, and they have all the funding they need.

Go ahead, get yourself on TV and "kick their asses" --and see what happens to you. They impeached a two-term President for getting a blow job.

...sure sucks, huh?

"But what dumbfounds me is how come it's the Cheney (libertarian) wing of the republican party that seems to be pushing so strongly for such a powerful state."

It's the business side that's pushing that. Cheney's a money guy.

They want a strong executive for the same reason they like strong CEOs: control, power, and money. They're not interested in democracy or justice--they want control. With a strong executive and control of the legislature business gets whatever it wants.

The current right-wing assault on the judiciary is the money's attack on the last remaining branch they don't control. The courts are the only place business can still lose.

I dunno, I read a bunch of thoughtful criticism of Dowd's book--and Traister's review. Seems like she picked one outrageous one around which to build her follow-up article, and thereby paint all of Dowd's male critics as "threatened". Pretty lame.

Are ALL of the men who disdained the book and review "threatened"? What about the women?

Why not try the same trick with a more representative sample? Can't do it, can you Ms. Traister?

Isn't Blumenthal going a little easy on Woodward? Given his statements before his cover was blown, readers have every reason to believe he was in on the Iraq war con, and not just a victim of "cunning sources".

It was Woodward's complicity that was exposed, not his credulity.