Remember, oh five minutes ago, when all the M$M had declared the war to be such a bang-up success that opposition to it was going to be a "problem" for the Democrats? The bad news is that this is not so, and Bush and the media are making asses of themselves denying this obvious fact. That last part is the good news. Poor Tom Friedman seems to be "on vacation," no doubt somewhere untouched by news of the world, which could very well be on his couch watching Fox News. It's really a long time until November, and the neocons have already played their last card to push the war out of view, and like all of their other plans, this one failed spectacularly.

Hillary and Obama can sully each other all they want, but McCain's support for the surge, at the cost of 900 more lives and hundreds more billions, is written all over his face, among the cancerous lumps, and even with the fawning support of TV news, he's toast. The more that the news fails to comport with reality, and the more Bush, McCain et al proudly model their cement shoes, the more it looks like a Democratic sweep in the fall.

Call me a cock-eyed optimist, but even the war drums for Iran, or worse, actual bombings, will only create more revulsion and fatigue among the electorate, and remind everyone that the Serious types are clearly out to lunch, and whatever they hear from the media is simply not to be believed.

Further, expect any hostile action against Iran to cause whatever military support remains for the neocons to dry up like cow piss on a hot rock.

Dumb, discredited, and delusional up to now, add desperate, and you've got what we're watching now, death, of the neocons.

Pinch me. Maybe I'm dreaming.

PS. Kitchencinque, I'm flattered to have helped draw you out of the lurking closet into the sunshine of being heard.... It's not the banality, but the ubiquity, of evil that is making it flourish.

Gordon... Full Sail is the special this month; a new brew called LTD is my favorite: 7.6% and counting..... But the month's almost over, new stock picks on Tuesday.

Jkalos, I'm a tad surprised you've never heard of the famous Digby. I was once deeply flattered here by a commenter who thought I was her. Her blog features the guy from "Network" on it's front page, in his "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore" moment. Definitely worth a read.

Derbig, your newfound fame is amply justified: I personally am holding out to hear those words from our dear VP to bask in glory, but we all must take our FU's where we can get them.

Jkalos,

Don't feel bad. We all have our yawning gaps in knowledge; that's why we're here. We can learn from each other. I've learned a lot from this comment line, and even retained quite a bit of it.

Did RMP ever contact you about our group? Email me about it at my sig at gmail dot com.

What is it about Republicans and their crocodile tears? Supposedly such big. tough he-men, they resort to the tactic of frustrated toddlers when the facts are against them.

Who can forget Randy "Duke" Cunningham turning on the waterworks when it looked like his fancy antiques and fetid hot tub were going to be snatched?

Then there was John Boehner, with streaks in his peanut-butter fake tan, blubbering drunkenly so frequently that all Washington probably flees when he walks in to a bar.

Indeed, it seems that Dick Cheney is about the only prominent Republican incapable, or more likely just uninterested, of dissolving into tears on cue. You've got to, in a weird way, give him some credit.....

He's going to the bank, alright, but snickering, rather than crying, all the way.

Glenn,

Great copy, especially the specific links with totalitatian countries.

One thing.... Remember that us lefty "bloggers" are often called commies, therefore, using the term "rich" as a pejorative will give ammo to those who will fight this ad hominem. (The only way they have....)

Perhaps substitute "richest" with "most powerful," and the last "rich" with "corrupt."

No need to (gag) "punish the successful," when you can slam them for worse things than wealth.

Also, some mention of their ample legal representation, compared to other lawbreakers might be in order.

T

A commenter posted a few weeks ago his/her experiences as an employee of, I believe, AT&T.

The central thrust of the post was the extent to which protecting customers' privacy was absolutely central to not just the legal obligations under the Telecommunications Act of 1934, but to the intrinsic corporate culture of the company. Breaches of privacy weren't just a firing offense, but an unconscionable betrayal of the trust placed by the government in such a powerful monopoly with such formidable power to rob Americans of their most private communications.

Like the US attorney who wrote "Bush League Justice," this former employee was not just angry, but deeply ashamed and insulted at the depths to which his/her former employer would plummet under Bushism.

I know that this concept of betrayal doesn't easily fit into a sound bite, but it emphasizes how demoralizing it is, and how new, that once proud organizations have abandoned the public interest, sullied their own reputations, and profited from joining the police state, while emphasizing that corporations aren't always evil, but under Bush they must become so.

Perhaps a brief reference, contained in a subordinate clause, that says, "these companies, who once took pride in guarding the privacy of their customers, now are paid to betray it."

For promises of amnesty, which in Bush-speak has become "immunity."