I remember in the 2006 election, there was an initiative on the Ballot here in the Windy City that called for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq.

It passed with around 75% of the vote.

It was not reported in the media at all. You had to look up election results online to see it.

Richard Milhouse Nixon!

And we all know how that ended...

From the article it stated he may yet lose his law license, not that it has already happened.

Not sure where he is licensed, but if they were to attempt to disbar him, it would certainly be an interesting case. First of all, I don't know the grounds on which they could disbar him.

If it's for treason (threatening nat'l security by releasing names that potentially aid terrorists - whatever), or failing to uphold the constitution, he could claim that the Sup. Ct. ruling had required it, and as an attorney, he had to follow precedent.

Whether or not this argument is successful, it would require all of the conduct at Guantanamo & the legal arguments applying to it to be thrust out in open court, which I'm sure the Bush Administration and their buddies in the Pentagon most certainly do not want. So I think his law license is safe for now.

Wonder who will have the stones to hire a marked man, though?

I don't trust any economic data coming from anyone who's job depends on the support of the Bush Administration. It's all politics with them... no substance. Playing fast and loose with the facts is pretty much the established modus operandi of these guys. Political expediency has trumped actual governance every time.

Was it last fall when they released the data showing the economy lost 80K jobs, when other private researchers said ther real number was closer to 400K?

The house of cards is getting unbelievably high, and the current admininstration has no problem adding to it. We're going to see some serious belt-tightening in '09, just like we had in '92.

Assuming the world imitates an episode of 24, which I seriously doubt, we would indeed be constantly beset by ticking time bombs about to go off, which can only be located by inflicting (or threatening) such greivous bodily harm on the perpetrators that they reveal all.

OK... but why can't the President just pardon anyone who uses torture to save the day? You can see how easy it was to commute Scooter Libby's sentence; there will likely be little, if any, opposition to pardoning an agent that justifiably tortures a suspect in order to gain critical intelligence. So why do we need to legitimize this practice, sullying our own moral high ground?

Kids should be taught this book in grade school, along with Chomsky. Reading some Chomsky was what opened my eyes to the slanted perspective we are really getting, dressed up as "the news." Glenn's column has helped to fine tune the BS detector. Topics like:

"Oh, THAT'S what they really mean by 'terrorism.'"

"Discerning FACT from OPINION on FOX"

"Weasel Words 101"

"What the Constitution REALLY says, and why it says it."

I don't see how you can be a true American citizen without getting some antidote to the daily propaganda eminating from the boob tube. Like an intellectual immunization... it can preserve some of the independent thought that's necessary for our democracy to thrive politically and economically.

Sorry, I misunderstood. I haven't paid much attention to anything the "other Clinton" says in this election campaign, because my support is firmly placed elsewhere in the Democratic party now.

Suffice to say, I do not think Hillary CLinton's rate freeze is a good idea; I don't agree with it in theory or even as a political talking point.

There are better ways to tailor gov't intervention than arbitrary price controls, floors and ceilings. In fact, I wouldn't even consider these valid ideas.

We are winning the war...

There are still many challenges left, but we are making progress...

The media is only reporting the "bad things..."

The Surge was a successful strategy (according to the LA Times in a story on McCain last week)...

These are not the Droids you are looking for...

Anyone who compares the circumstances of laissez-faire to those of socialism and finds laissez-faire to be worse is a complete jerk, or a product of a typical American University.

Oh... well, now not all of us could get into such illustrious institutions as Bob Jones U, or Oral Roberts, but we studied hard all the same.

Clinton had nothing to do with the "interest rate freeze." (whatever that was). The Fed sets rates, and the Fed is politically independent (or at least it was until 2005). Please, tell me where you studied. I'm really impressed.

Ronald:

Yes, paradoxically, when political corruption screws with market efficiency, I think the answer is more government.

Well, not necessarily more... but more transparent, and more professional. Regulatory agencies have to have teeth, and have to be independent enough to operate without political interference. I guess there's always the risk they go too far, but this is no excuse to take a completely hands off approach.

I think the current administration is FAR too political when it comes to allowing regulators (in every dept.) to do their jobs properly. Remember the neocon mantra "When we're done with the Federal Gov't, you'll be able to drown it in a bathtub." By failing to exercise proper oversight, these bums have allowed all sorts of negative externalities to creep back into the equation.

For example, lead paint in toys from China. Sure it's cheaper to have no oversight of toymakers. But who is measuring the cost to consumers of lead poisoning? Or the reduction in demand when people stop buying Chinese imports altogether because they have little faith the gov't is properly screening them?

Ignoring ALL the costs of an activity is just bad for business in the long run. I guess nobody thinks in the long run anymore...