Surely there are some liberal has-beens who can counterbalance wingnut has-been Ted Nugent.

But I think some posters here are incorrect in thinking that liberals can be found among the graying stars of "classic rock." By and large, the "classic rock" acts of the 70s (the Americans, anyway) combined the counterculture's sex, drugs and greasy long hair with the simple-minded "my country right or wrong" themes of C&W singers like Merle Haggard (not to damn him by the association; it's not his fault). They and their fans liked to call themselves "outlaws" or "shitkickers," which translates roughly into "self-indulgent assholes who want to act like the redneck stereotype because it gives them license to drink too much and make too much noise, and excuses the sorry state of their work and personal lives."

In the 80s, their fans became "Reagan Democrats," and later, "dittoheads." Nowadays, their fans are the core customers of Harley-Davidson and Jack Daniels.

To wit: Waylon Jennings, Charlie Daniels, Marshall Tucker, Grand Funk Railroad, Lynard Skynard, . . . , and Ted Nugent.

That said, some of their music is pretty good, and a lot of it seems to be permanently branded into my memory, so I perk up when it comes on the radio. But they're cretins, just the same.

Steve Symms, Helen Chenoweth, . . . and now Larry Craig. What is it with these Idaho Republicans that they can't keep their panties on when they get to Washington?

Doesn't it make sense that the GOP Senators would try to purge a clear transgressor of the party line? After all, we're trying to purge Bush Dogs and Blue Dogs and Joe Lieberman and other nonconforming animals. I mean, the GOP is against adultery but it's really against being gay, and really, really against gay trysts in public mens' rooms.

It's true that they're being sort of hypocritical. But that's only because their platform never made explicit the relative badness of adultery and homosexuality. They said, "sex out of marriage is bad," and we outsiders are now saying, "What hypocrites! They're opportunistically drawing a line between heterosexual adultery and homosexual adultery." C'mon. We all knew that's how they'd call it if the situation arose.

Worse, we're adapting a Right-Wing tactic. This reasoning puts us into bed (yuk) with the Michelle Malkins of the world, who frequently apply the algorithm: 1) Concoct an unrealistic interpretation of the liberal ethos; 2) Mock us for not hewing to their interpretation of how we think we should behave.

I think neutrals will discount Glenn's and similar commentary with Captain Renault whispering in their ear: "Those Lefties are shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that the Republicans think gay adultery is worse than straight adultery."

Shrill sermons merely undermine our cause. Just sit back and watch the show. As Lee Atwater liked to say, "If your opponent is making a fool of himself, don't interrupt."

Ronald Reagan, 1964:

[The Soviet Union is] "the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars ... "

Forty years later: If the GOP gets its way, that speech will be banned, or at least redacted, from the schools.

Souter went the way the wind was blowing in 2000, and he's doing it again with his sob story. Sorry, Davey. You -- YOU! -- were one of a handful of people who could have prevented the descent of the United States of America into a risible banana republic, and you didn't have the spine.

I hope you leave a long line of descendants with the family name "Souter" so each generation can cringe with embarrassment and shame.

I totally blundered in thinking Souter was with the majority in Bush v. Gore. My apologies to Justice Souter. I'd withdraw the post if I could.

-- is almost always in bad taste. And, as we know, such a fairly minor misstep is all it takes to unleash the foaming dogs of synthetic outrage and coordinated overreaction. So, (IMHO) MoveOn blundered, but not for the reasons you'll be hearing on Fox News.

It seems to me that Ted Olson's confirmation hearings would be a heaven-sent opportunity for Hillary Clinton to revive all our anger and indignation over the Arkansas Project Starr chamber inquisition. It's one thing to say, "Mr. Olson, wouldn't you agree that you went a little too far in the Whitewater and Paula Jones matters?" It's another to have the principal victim (in the public's eyes) either grilling Olson from a committee chair or testifying in the first person.

So, Bush might nominate Olson with the goal of strengthening Clinton over her rivals for the Democratic nomination, presumably because his (Bush's) handlers think Clinton's the weakest general-election candidate.

Just thinkin' out loud.

[T]his amendment would actually require the Army and Marine Corps staffs to keep track of how long every individual servicemember had spent in either Iraq or Afghanistan, how long they had been at home, how long the unit that they were now in had spent deployed, and how long it had been home.

Did Kagan really say that? He's more reckless than I'd thought. The military is almost certainly keeping track of these things already, if only for payroll purposes (combat pay, temporary duty pay, etc.). In any event, they should be doing so, Webb amendment or no Webb amendment. It's one thing to send troops into combat zones for inhumanely long periods as a deliberate policy decision. It's quite another to do it because you've lost track of who's serving where.