Tell me something, neocon:

Are you of the opinion that anybody who opposes the Bush administration should be tracked down and killed as a 'traitor'?

I can answer that one! No. Did I get it right?

I have records of dozens of pronouncements from the NYT forums from slimeballs like yourself saying precisely that.

So at this point, I am getting concerned. But then...

And worse, like a description of a plot to take down a small plane carrying Paul Wellstone two months before it happened.

...

-- walter_map

Awww, there ya go! That's it! The plot to bring down Paul Wellstone's plane. I knew it. Ya got me! I confess! Who leaked that one? Nobody was supposed to know! Did you trace the serial number from the surface-to-air missile? I thought we made those untraceable after the PanAm incident! Well, at least you haven't found out about the Big Bopper's plane, or Otis Redding's plane, or Payne Stewart's plane, or JFK Jr.'s plane. Or Princess Diana's Mercedes (that was a special 'no-plane' operation) or Hale Boggs' plane or Joe Kennedy Junior's plane or Glen Miller's plane or...

When you sign up for the DeLuxe Salon membership, do they give you the tin foil hat, or is that a separate purchase?

Mr. Anonymous, what is the source for this quotation?

"I don’t know that atheists should be considered patriots, nor should they be considered citizens".

George H.W.Bush

--Anonymous

After the last handful of Salon letters, it is all becoming a lot clearer to me. RealName's word-art, the American Atheist-Veterans website, quotations from the 'Rev.' Fred Phelps...

Uh, I think I have to go now.

Glenn Greenwald; good luck, dude. Your audience loves ya.

Trolls:

We won. You lost. Get over it.

-- rustyaustin

Rusty, do you mean, "Just get over 2006"? Or do you mean, "Just get over 2004"? Possibly, do you mean, "Just get over 2000"?

Which 'losers' were you addressing? Anyway, I know I am with you on the "Just win" part...

...is that we won't be treated to the posting of the Joe and Valerie Wilson deposition transcripts on The Smoking Gun. Pity, that. I was so looking forward to reading what daring missions the mother of the Plame twins had accomplished lately for the CIA...

...after all, Richardson was Clinton's go-to guy in order to secure a job in New York City for Monica Lewinsky when they thought they had to hustle her out of Washington.

I actually have to give Mark Benjamin a small amount of credit in this short newsbyte.

It would have been wrong, and a lie, to have reported, "the White House's program of interrogating al-Qaida types using torture..." Because that is not and never has been the policy.

So, resorting to honest reporting, Mr. Benjamin wrote, "Last fall, it seemed as if the White House had finally lost its fight to make sure the CIA could continue its program of interrogating al-Qaida types using coercive, harsh techniques."

Now, can we have a show of hands among the Salon readership, and then among all American voters, whether they'd like to be able to at least give our military and security services the power to utilize "coercive, harsh techniques" in terrorism cases?

Anything less, in my view, would be madness.

Is Hank Aaron also failing to "rise above the race issues that color Bonds in the public eye"?

I suppose this is a valuable article, in that it shows the lengths to which Salon will go in order to twist, tease and torture a left/liberal storyline out of what would ordinarily be the most mundane set of facts.

This book, I presume, had been planned and timed to coincide with a presidential campaign. Right? D'oh! Which publisher is taking the bath on this waste of paper? Isn't there some kind of carbon tax for the slaughter of innocent trees in the name of this enterprise?

Anyway, ya gotta love the mention of Eugene McCarthy's name in the same article as a mention of McCain-Feingold. For those of you too young to remember, the McCarthy insurgency campaign of 1968 would have been illegal if there had been a Russ Feingold then...

As George Will wrote shortly after McCarthy's death:

McCarthy's insurgency, the most luminous memory of many aging liberals, would today be impossible — criminal, actually — thanks to the recent "reform" most cherished by liberals, the McCain-Feingold campaign regulations. McCarthy's audacious challenge to an incumbent president was utterly dependent on large early contributions from five rich liberals. Stewart Mott's $210,000 would be more than $1.2 million in today's dollars. McCain-Feingold codifies two absurdities: Large contributions are inherently evil and political money can be limited without limiting political speech. McCain-Feingold criminalizes the sort of seed money that enabled McCarthy to be heard. Under McCain-Feingold's current limit of $2,100 per contributor, McCarthy's top five contributors combined could have given just $10,500, which in 1968 dollars would have been just $1,834.30. But, then, McCain-Feingold was written by incumbents to protect what they cherish: themselves.

Thanks, Russ, for keepin'it real...

Madison, Wisconsin; 16 square miles surrounded on all sides by reality...

I am so, so, sorry. I didn't mean to do it. I was that last dozen tangerines, I know, and I am sorry.

...unless of course, Democrat candidates are also willing to accept responsibility for the kind of stuff that is seen posted on Salon, Daly Kos or FireDogLake.

As for "protection from the enemy," that part is rich. Isn't the Bush Administration, the President of the United States, regarded by the most partisan of Democrats as "the enemy"? Forget bin Laden or Al Zawahiri. Forget about Hamas or Syria or Iran. Never mind North Korea or Castro or Chavez or Mugabe. The world's Public Enemy Number 1 is George W. Bush, right?

That's the pathology of the left nowadays.

Yeah, the Bush Presidency is no longer Public Enemy Number One with all the Democrats pointing toward 2008.

Never mind current affairs...

As usual, the WSJ Editorial Page is a step ahead and on point:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010389