Perhaps I am merely projecting my own values onto what others (ondelette & WT, et al) have already posted, but I think that bright line could be a place/point that is best described as something internal, rather than external. Not a specific behavior, but a rationalization. The moment where one says/decides/resigns-oneself-to... the Ends justify the Means. Perhaps that's what makes it so slippery. The internal and external markings may often seem to be out of synch. And when they get re-synched, we are, as ondelette points out, likely to be much further down the slope than we thought.

Also, one person's decision to go with the Ends may look pretty mild compared to someone else's. However, once one has concluded to go with the Ends, the slope becomes pretty darn slippery, pretty darn fast.

In general, I would say that one way of distinguishing between the GOP and the Democrats (at least, the Democrats I like to think of) is that (in keeping with their authoritarian mindset) members of the GOP really believe that one can impose a particular End or outcome by sheer force of Will (and oppression, and any other means that are required); while the Democrats (in my memory) are more likely to recognize that the Means determine the Ends. That you become what you use. That your Ends become what you used.

[Granted, it's hard to keep this in mind lately, with the Dems still suffering from post-9/11, post-elections 2000, 2002, 2004... but, frankly, that's our job. No one else is going to do it.]

Just as the public discussions on torture (for Democrats/progressives/liberals) center around the idea that it's not about what they do, but about what we do, so should they here. If we have to become (like the current version of) Republicans in order to win, then what have we won? Not much.

Still, that doesn't mean the Dems have to cave or give in or fold-- willy-nilly-- at every one of GWB's whims. Standing up to a bully often means just calling him or her that, and refusing to back down. Sometimes more than once. (Especially in the case of the current occupant.) Words have a lot of power, especially wrt naming things. Unfortunately, our herd-like press corps has been lax... and waaaay to euphemistic. So, people like Glenn (and Digby, and FDL, and Josh Marshall, et al) who have the analytical and arguing skills have to lead the way. Even if it means beating the joe kLIEns of the world with verbal carrot-sticks, in order to get their attention.

One important bit of "news" from this episode is exactly how hard it is for the Dems to actually call things as they are... when they are denied even the opportunity to respond to a complete misrepresentation. That may be the biggest thing to come from this, because it's going to be pretty hard for anyone to defend it. If they want to claim being "fair and balanced."

* * *

Thank the gods for preview, or this comment would have been weighing in on the "slipper" slope... ;~)

Actually, that's a high compliment coming from you. Your higher-level reasoning was bringing out the better writer in me today.

I want to make sure that I get any requests exactly right. No mistakes. They are too costly. More smoke signals, please. ;~)

I noted the connection between our two posts, as well, and was going to compliment you, too, but I had to get home first.

I especially loved the anecdote about your grandson. Empathy is key in raising kids. Otherwise, the rest doesn't really seem to get integrated.

I don't remember whose theory it is (but someone else here undoubtedly will), but on the internet there are lots of posts comparing and contrasting the attributes of the authoritarian family (GOP, RWA) with the nurturing family (Dem, progressive, liberal). And your post would be a good example story for illustrating it.

I couldn't think of his name.

RMP, it was George Lakoff I was trying to remember.

And here's a link you might like:

http://www.charlielawing.com/metaphor_and_politics.pdf

It includes the family metaphors, but much more than that. It might be of some use re: that other question.

As a matter of fact, I did see that story. But, you're right, it was not in a local paper (which I gave up many, many moons ago), one which, even though it was part of the Knight-Ridder Group at the time, did not publish any of the Landay/Strobel stories before the Iraq invasion. [Huffington Post always has the link-- I go there.]

My favorite part of the McClatchy story:

"One of the big things that has been a glaring omission (in U.S. policy) is the lack of face-to-face, even quiet, secret, negotiations," said one U.S. official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. "It wouldn't surprise me if that were to change."

"We might get to a point where that would be true, but we're not there yet," said an administration official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.

In an interview with McClatchy on Nov. 23, Iran's representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency outlined a diplomatic resolution that included U.S. acknowledgment that Iran's nuclear program is peaceful, which the new NIE appeared to do. In response, Iran would comply with U.N. Security Council demands that it suspend uranium enrichment, said Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh.

Even though the Bush-maladministration is not YET able to speak to any Iranians of substance, either publicly or in secret, honest-to-goodness reporters have no qualms about doing so. Maybe Landay & Strobel could offer the WH some kind of seminar or something... just to break the ice.