Bethincary...

I don't think it's a matter of preferring Harman over Pelosi; as far as I'm concerned, they've both dug their graves with liberals. I guess I just see Harman as your usual Liebermanesque Fox News Democrat, unable to speak forcefully against the "weak on terror" meme, and I also heard a lot from her opponent, and pigeonholed her from that.

In general, I agree with a lot of people around here in that I think that hawkish, co-opted Democrats like Harman are not just part of the problem, but one of the roots of it, and therefore should never be taken at face value.

It has long been recognized among mediocrities of every race and profession, that selling oneself to the corporate right is a nifty alternative to getting ahead through talent and brains. To argue that making the mendacious and clueless Condoleezza Rice Secretary of State and the perverted and vindictive Clarence Thomas a Supreme Court Justice demonstrates inclusiveness on the right is flat-out nonsense. Ideology made them what they are; their unfitness for their roles makes them the sad jokes they've become.

I suppose paying off "journalist" Armstrong Williams was a similarly enlightened move.

Remember the dismal numbers of black votes Bush got, both times, and the preemptive voter purges that were based on the fact that Republicans know blacks won't vote for them.

The only ones fooled by Republican "inclusiveness," or at least think it will fool others, is you, Mr. Warning.

Ah, those sneaky qualifiers. It is obviously much nobler to merely court racists with subtle hints, and hire minorities only when their views jibe with racists, than to be a racist "per se," whatever that is.

I think that whatever air was left in that balloon was thoroughly let out with the vote-caging and anti-McCain slurs in 2000.

Like it or not, the Republicans rely on the racist vote, and use their surrogates on hate radio to make sure the message gets out, all the while keeping their grabby paws untainted by racism, "per se."

Nice try, though.

Which part of this sentence is funnier:

A) ..."they are not appointed as members of the African American community...."

I'll say. Just the opposite, but go on.

B)...."but as executives, cabinet members, judges, etc., on the basis of their achievements in their respective fields."

You mean like at the justice dept.? FEMA? Who, exactly in that entire adminstration was chosen for merit over ideology? That isn't long gone, anyway?

Thanks, Elmer

Pwoximity, you're the dwinkinest poster today.

Remember the last time you acted this way you got 86'd, and there was that expensive dental work. I know that a good offense can be a good, albeit last-ditch, defense, but honestly. We've all tried our best, but we'll be looking at those military schools in the NYT mag tomorrow.

Pack a fact; it's brown bag day.

"Rich people pay the tab for everyone else."

Well, then. I'll be sure to feel better about how they use their absurd piles of money to buy our political system, media stars, etc. and literally buy everybody out of house and home in the most expensive cities. It won't bother me that because the rich have created parallel lives for themselves, and abandoned the American experiment like last year's $1000 handbag, life for all of us has gotten worse. Little did I know, they've been pitching in, those little devils.

Surely, these long-suffering rich folk, whom we need so much, could show us who's boss and escape their onerous tax bills by moving to Dubai, tomorrow. I think that they're only sticking around because they like Shooter so much.

We'd all better watch out, or they'll take their offshore bank accounts and go. Oops.

Those eedgits never disappoint, do they?

Trees fall in the forest with such a loud sound.

What has been so notable, and depressing, isn't just how the political press chooses its favored candidates, but also how they all change their minds, simultaneously. What a short time ago McCain was "irrelevant" and Clinton was "inevitable." Proven wrong, they show no normal reticence about going out on a limb again and redouble their efforts, slinging some mud at their new non-favorites, while waxing lyrical about the genius/statemanship of the freshly anounted. Thus we are treated to the many and varied meanings of "second" and "third," and a whole host of other inanities about how Americans "really" feel.

There is some evidence, however, that voters are catching on, and doing pretty much the opposite of what they're told they should do. Today George Will wrote a deranged little screed that dismisses Edwards and Huckabee with such dripping condescension that it seems likely to boost both, if such claptrap has any effect at all.

Fox is also berating large portions of its audience; even such usually credulous viewers can't help be a little put off.

The beltway media may finally be getting the skepticism and open defiance it so richly deserves.

That Scalia question was something else. I don't remember the Constitution mentioning that the punishment should fit the crime. What then; shall we serve Dahmer-Nuggets to the families of that man's victims? That'd really show those would- be cannibals the meaning of the word "deterrent." (or better, as Archie Bunker said, "detergent.")

The insanity and vileness of wingnuts continues to amaze.

But in this case, the stupidity leaps out. From the same nutjob who LITERALLY mixed up "24" with real life, we now have proud and open sadism, in those hallowed chambers.

Remember, Bush said Scalia was one of his model Justices. And people still voted for Nader.