She's already holding the rope. Let's see how long it takes to hang herself, and anyone who stands with her.

When decent people like Elizabeth Edwards speak and remind us how to be civilized, Ann Coulter and all her cronies look more and more deranged.

I can't remember what it was called, but there were 2 sisters. One was kind and polite, and when she spoke, jewels dropped from her lips. The other sister, who was nasty and spiteful, spat out bugs and snakes with all her words.

Tht's how I think of the exchange between Mrs Edwards and Ann Coulter.

Here's another glimpse into the Cheney mind: ("White House Drops Vice President’s Dual-Role Argument as Moot" by Jim Rutenberg)

"In interviews over the last two days, officials have said that while the vice president does, in fact, have the right of refusal, it is for the very opposite reason: He is not required to cooperate with National Archives officials seeking the data because he is a member of the executive branch, ***with power vested in him by the president.***" (asterisks mine)

and

In an interview, a White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said the executive order explicitly placed Mr. Cheney on equal footing with the president, who was the issuer and enforcer of the order, regardless of any other constitutional questions.

Speaking of the oversight office’s approaches to the vice president’s office, Mr. Fratto said, “It’s not appropriate for a subordinate office like that to investigate or require reporting from the enforcer of the executive order.”

I owe Dick Cheney an apology. I had completely misunderstood the role of vice-president! I, foolish me, thought I voted for a single candidate as President of the US. But, really, apparently "Vice-" means "Co-." Or that, the President nd the VP share one brain!

I also thought that we were a country based on popular sovereignty, that our elected officials serve at the pleasure of the voters. And as such, we were entitled to hold our elected officials to account for ther actions.

I was soooooo wrong!

Adolescent brains are not the same as adult brains. During puberty, brain development happens at a pace unseen since infancy and early toddlerhood (http://www.duke.edu/~amwhite/Adolescence/adolescent3.html for starters).

Centers of the brain that control long-term thinking develop long after parts of the brain that involve risk-taking. It is completely normal for tweens and teens to engage in risky behavior without thinking through the consequences and repercussions of their actions.

It is for *this reason* that societies have developed laws tthat protect aolescents from themnselves. These include laws against voting, employment, owning firearms, serving in the military, driving, drinking, or engaging in sex with adults before a certain age.

No matter how "mature" a girl might look, no matter how sophisticated she seems, no matter if she says she's willing ... a little girl is incapable of making decisions the way an adult woman can.

I find it fascinating that the defendant in this case is getting sucvh an easy ride in public opinion. The "it's not his fault; she looked old enough" is so stupid. He met a little girl in a park and got a blow job in a secluded part of the park. No one is calling him on his piss-poor judgement. If a woman had met a man in a bar, followed him to the bathroom and was brutally beaten and raped, how many of these same people would be saying "Well, she should have known bewtter ... she should have behaved more responsibly ... what did she think was going to happen ... she got what she deserved ..." ????

So here's a tip for any guy who doesn't know better. The only women who consent to sex in public within moments of meeting you are wither pros, or incompetent. Any way you look at it, accepting their offer is likely to be a crime. Now you've been warned.

What you been smokin'?

"Let me get this straight, John Edwards wishes Disk Cheney was killed by insurgents and gets a pass. Ann Coulter wishes the same on him and he sends out his sick wife to fight Ann Coulter?"

To the best of my (and Googles') knowledge, Edwards never said anything biout Cheney and insurgents.

Bill Maher made a point on his show that had Cheney been killed by terrorists, it is likely that many, many, many American, Iraqi and Afghan lives would have been saved. This was not a statement "I wish Cheney were dead," though many people can infer a death wish from his logic. Plenty of people (including some liberals) have criticized Maher for this comment.

Ann Coulter has attacked everyone who doesn't vote Republican with a viciousness matched only by its lunacy. She has said of Congressman Murtha "He's the reason fragging was invented." She has said of Muslims "We should invade their country, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." She has said of the 9/11 widows "I've never seen pwomen enjoying their husbands' deaths so much" and on and on and on.

What prompted Elizabeth Edwards to speak out againt Ann Coulter was Ann's increasingly vicious personal attacks against the Edwards family. Coulter's last statement was to say "I'll just wish he'd die in a terrorist attack." That's after calling Edwards a "faggot", and accusing the couple of exploiting the loss of their son. Were Edwards not a candidate, this would be considered stalking.

"At this point, I see only one choice in moving forward, and that is to enforce the rule of law set forth in these subpoenas."

Exactly how does one do that?

Send a lawsuit slowly through th Judiciary to a stacked Supreme Court?

Hire some goons to break the documents out of Cheney's man-sized safe?

Impeach Bush and Cheney?

Is there a way to enforce this, even assuming we had a willing congress and court?