http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm

Check out this BBC documentary if you have high speed. It gives an excellent rundown on the origins and rise of neoconservatism and parallels it to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, which have both evolved in the same historical moment.

The overarching thesis is that once poltiical leaders derived power from defining and fulfilling our dreams, but in modern times they were discredited in this (think LBJ's Great Society). To reclaim this kind of power, they now spin mythologies of fear.

Somebody over in the Joe Conason thread posted a link to researcher Bob Altemeyer's online published book "The Authoritarians." Altemeyer was a primary source for John Dean in his recent New York Times bestseller "Conservatives without Conscience" about authoritarian followers and their leaders in the US.

Altemeyer says something very interesting about authoritarian aggression that I think describes the people threatening Marcotte and McEwan:

"Authoritarian followers usually avoid anything approaching a fair fight. Instead they aggress when they believe right and might are on their side. “Right” for them means, more than anything else, that their hostility is (in their minds) endorsed by established authority, or supports such authority. “Might” means they have a huge physical advantage over their target, in weaponry say, or in numbers, as in a lynch mob. It’s striking how often authoritarian aggression happens in dark and cowardly ways, in the dark, by cowards who later will do everything they possibly can to avoid responsibility for what they did. Women, children, and others unable to defend themselves are typical victims. Even more striking, the attackers typically feel morally superior to the people they are assaulting in an unfair fight."

Does he describe to a tee the people who came after Marcotte or what? That's amazing to me...

If you've got enough time and interest to be following this Marcotte thread, then you ought to go peruse Altemeyer's online book:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Brit Humes' status as a "real journalist and news anchor" lends him access and status. It means that he will very likely be the moderator or a member of the panel when Fox News hosts a Democratic presidential debate this summer:

From the Fox News press release:

FOX News, the Nevada Democratic Party and the Western Majority Project have jointly announced that they will host a 2008 presidential debate, which is expected to attract the top Democratic contenders for President. The debate will be presented live on FOX News Channel (FNC) and FOX News Radio on August 14, 2007 in Reno.

In making the announcement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said, "This is more great news for Nevada. I'm happy FOX News will be a partner for the August presidential debate. Western issues will be a major focus of this debate in particular. With FOX News as our partner, candidates will have an opportunity to not only speak to Nevada voters, but voters across the West who will be instrumental to electing a Democratic president in 2008."

FOX News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes added, "FOX News is proud to be a leader in coverage of the 2008 campaign season and a co-host of this important presidential debate. We look forward to working with the Nevada Democratic Party and the Western Majority Project."

Christ, Hume probably can't even bring himself to say the "ic" at the end of Democratic Party, and we're likely going to be subjecting our candidates to his questioning and his control?

If the Democratic candidates can be subjected to Fox news, then the Republican primary candidates should have to debate in front of a panel comprised of progressives like Henry Waxman, David Sirota and Glenn Greenwald. Given the known liberal bias of reality, we can expect much better ingrity from the questioning of progressive moderators and panelists than from the likes of a rightwing character assassin like Hume.

I do, and if you have the consciousness to ask the question, you do too. That and my daughter are good enough reasons to carry on.

If some Democratic primary candidate wants to build momentum among likely primary voters, s/he could issue a statement right now that s/he will not participate in a debate hosted by Fox News until "news anchor" Brit Hume apologizes for his over-the-line ad hominen attacks on Representative Murtha.

Let's see someone show that they know how to use the bully pulpit to set the perimeters of the debate.

She is up front and out in the open. We know exactly who she is. And you're overbroadening the definitions of "threat" and "bully" if you claim her comments about the holy ghost equate to an physical threats against individuals who are Christians. Sure, she bans people from her website, but after all, it is her own private weblog.

I agree that her writings about the Duke university rape case may show a disregard for justice that make me uncomfortable, but wouldn't it be an argument for moral relativism if you then leap to conclude that that in any way excuses or justifies the out-of-bounds behavior of her rightwing threateners?

I thought conservatives were defined by their opposition to moral relativism?

Chas wrote:

It's gonna take everything we have to fight these motherfuckers forever. Because now that they've been created and awakened, these monsters won't quit. Not now, not ever.

Exactly. I can't imagine myself returning to a time before the rightwing Clinton attacks when I would have allowed my attention to drift away from politics. After Bush, Salon and the rest of us will be very, very busy beating back the next round of political attacks and media assasinations.

I anticipate spending the rest of my life paying alot more attention to Congress, both in terms of trying to get progressives elected, and in terms of helping with efforts to run primary challengers against lazy complicit Democrats.