ME: "The Founders meant to create the President as a Dictator. Anyone who denies that is just quibbling with semnatics."

...

HIM: ..."The subjective, semantic debate here is on just how "near" to dictatorial power the President has on foreign policy and national security."

Glenn, I think you make my point for me in your response. Goldfarb and jschultz argue, in essence, that the founders intended the exec to have near-dictatorial power in the sphere of foreign policy and war.

You then characterize them as saying "The Founders meant to create the President as a Dictator" period.

That's what I call being reductive. Is that really what either was saying, in letter or spirit? Have you not mischaracterized what jschultz said to make it sound much more extreme than it really is?

Please read Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Jestaplero

Thanks, I've read it. Have you read my first post today, where I dismantle Goldfarb's argument? You know, the one he *actually* made, as opposed to a straw-man version of it?

Have you read Goldfarb's article, as I did? Did you read the entire Hamilton passage he cited to, as I did?

Please, anybody who wants to respond to me in this thread, please read everything else I've posted today and the referenced cites before you do.

I realize I am making a rather nuanced point, but it's supposed to be the rightwing blowhards who can't deal with "nuance", right?

Ha! I enjoy your wingnut parodies here so much I will forgive you for mistaking me for someone who disagrees with you.

Cheers!

You're making a very well reasonsed, very nuanced point; but I fear you're giving Goldfarb far more credit and latitude than his short blog entry warrants.

I don't think I give Goldfarb's point very much credit at all when I thoroughly repudiated it. Perhaps I'm a little impressed that he even bothered to cite to something one of the founders wrote - most wingnut screeds are just completely unmoored - but that's about it.

Thanks for making the point to ReganD. My point is that I think a lot of people missed the fact that I started out today critizing Goldfarb, and I was only defending jschultz inasmuch as I think his argument should be portrayed accurately.

It doesn't take that long to click on "read other letters" to see what someone has been saying during a particular thread. I do it all the time.

People delude themselves that they're being high-minded and reasonable and intellectually honest and nuanced by treating them as though they are good faith but mistaken ideas. By doing that, they permit those ideas to enter the mainstream and become legitimized. Those who do that seem to care more about proving how good and reasonable and fair-minded they are than they do about maintaining the necessary taboos on those pernicious concepts.

Just in case the above was directed at me -- and I'm fairly sure it was, at least in part -- allow me to be crystal-clear in summing up my complaint: you do yourself no service, Glenn, by mischacterizing the positions of people you disagree with to make those positions sound more extreme than they actually are. For the most part, their arguments are ludicrous enough as they are, and you are a fine enough debater to prevail in a completely fair fight.

If I may, I think the great value of what you do here, Glenn, is that it is persuasive. Preaching to the choir is of little value. But I think you are having concrete results in the marketplace of ideas. I see how Frank Rich, Keith Olbermann and others are directly influenced by your work. But I can't help but think you are getting through to some more odious types like Joe Klein, Howie Kurtz, and Chris Matthews.

But I get an uneasy feeling when I feel the ball is being hidden from me a little bit. I'm not alone. More days than not someone comes here and says "Ehhh, but Glenn, that's not exactly what he said..." Then the predictable flamewar erupts. If I were you I'd be a little less concerned with incinerating your critics with scorn and ridicule and more interested is exploring how this might be avoided.

My concern is not that I appear high-minded. My concern is that you don't get dismissed by people you need to influence because they don't entirely trust your rhetorical tactics. That's why I nitpick here.

Concern troll. In the most classic sense. IMO you nitpick because you would rather not face the fact that you are a willing dupe. You might want to consider taking your "near" hairsplitting somewhere more "serious."

Thanks for reducing me to a stereotype. I didn't know there was a cute little internet catchphrase for what I am.

You're entitled to your opinion. If I'm a willing dupe you're a monkey's uncle. Boo Bush? No, I think he should be impeached, then tried, convicted and jailed for war crimes. I guess I'm just more interested in my arguments being persuasive to the "undecideds" than dismissed for being a little too hyped. How's that?