As many have observed, the neo-cons who took over the Republican Party violated its traditional core principles and alienated principled conservatives with their Stalinist assault on the Constitution. In addition, the disastrous consequences of Bush's invasion of Iraq and bungling of the economy have left the Republican brand in ruins, headed for heavy losses in the next election.

But just as the neo-cons have no respect for conservative principles, they have no true loyalty for the Republican Party either. They are nothing but opportunistic parasites and the Republican Party has simply served as their host while they exploited it to gain enough power to loot the Federal Treasury.

The upcoming Republican electoral losses will not mark the end of the neo-con cabal, only its mutation into a neo-liberal cohort of parasites infecting the next juicy host: the Democratic Party. Ex-Republican operatives will blandly renounce their former association with the departed Bush regime as they affirm their commitment to work in "bi-partisan" cooperation to repair its excesses. These aren't candidates for office I'm talking about, but the advisers and appointees who work the system between elections.

The Democratic Party has been infiltrated for years with Blue Dog Republicrats whose primary allegiances are to their corporate and/or military-industrial patrons. The Democratic Party's indulgence in their corruption lowers the bar of integrity to a depth that ex-Republican operatives can readily fake. Many Democrats would in fact welcome collegues from the ravaged Republican carcass as seasoned political professionals.

I think the primary tactical justification for ousting Blue Dogs is to make the Democratic Party a cold and unfriendly environment for ex-Republicans. If they are allowed to establish comfortable niches within its ranks, they will swarm and devour it as they did the Republican Party. In order to maintain any hope of the Democrats restoring Constitutional rule of law, it will be necessary to disinfect them on a regular basis.

Glenn,

In the wake of this federal court ruling, could you briefly summarize the legal options Congress possesses to enforce its subpoenas on Bolten, Miers, and Rove?

Some readers may remember the first Presidential Debate of 2000, where Green Party Candidate Ralph Nader was physically barred from attending by private security forces and threatened with arrest by Massachusetts State Police. The organization which sponsored the debate, the Commission on Presidential Debates, was jointly co-chaired by prominent members of both Republican and Democratic Parties. This literally bi-partisan debate-rigging committee had previously excluded Ross Perot from 1996 Presidential debates. Nader, however, was not seeking to participate in the 2000 debate, but merely to attend it as a citizen.

Nader filed a lawsuit against the CPD, in which he demanded a letter of apology and a $25k donation to a non-profit electoral reform group at Harvard University. After failing to have the suit dismissed, the CPD settled out of court with a letter apologizing for their "mistake" and an undisclosed payment to Ralph Nader's lawyers. Nader responded with the following statement:

"This expression of contrition was what I asked for in a letter to the Commission soon after the expulsion on October 3, 2000, and this is what the Commission finally agreed to, however delayed. After our victory, they will think thrice before doing this again to any ticketed third-party candidates in the future."

A press release from the Green Party describing the events can be read here:

http://www.gp.org/press/pr_04_16_02.html

One point of interest in the press release is how the Republicrat Commission on Presidential Debates took over the debates from the League of Women Voters. The LWV had in earlier elections prohibited Demopublican officials from selecting debate panelists and had allowed third-party candidate John Anderson to participate in the 1980 debate.

After its establishment in 1987, the CPD ruled that in addition to appearing on State voting ballots, candidates must "have a level of support of at least 15% of the national electorate" to qualify to participate in their corporate-sponsored debates. The non-profit organization's graphic logo (www.debates.org) depicts a ravenous vulture perched upon a stars-and-stripes shield, ripping apart a banner which reads:

"THE UNION AND THE CONSTITUTION FOREVER."

Propaganda

Jackboots

Stormtroopers

Police State

Imperialist

Fascist

Nazi

As in "Unitary Socialist Surveillance State of America".

From Glenn's original article:

"We had a forcing function," a senior administration official said, referring to the intelligence community's public report last month that said al-Qaeda poses a growing threat to the United States ... lawmakers' desire to leave town in August. . . .

Reads much clearer that way, don't you think?

From aaronrothbaum:

"The problem with not bailing these companies out is that they have the potential to bring down the entire US financial market, which would wipe out your bank account, destroy your mortgage, make it impossible to get loans for anything including a credit card, eliminate the value of your stocks, and cause a deep, general, global recession.

So run it by me why those of us who do not have uninsured high-yield bank accounts, speculate in the housing bubble via home "ownership", make deals with loan shysters (aka "bankers"), or gamble on the stock market should underwrite the losses of those gullible enough to do so?

From aaronrothbaum:

"Imagine finance as a circulatory system for money, providing credit, loans, a safe place to store savings, checking, credit cards, ATMs etc. In a panic the circulation stops - regardless of what initially caused it - and all the pieces of the economy that rely on money/finance asphyxiate and atrophy."

So then economic productivity would have to fall back on enterprises that actually produce things of real tangible value? And all the money-shuffling Ponzi schemes (aka "financial products" such as http://www.aigfp.com/alternate.html) would wither into marginally profitable surcharge leeches on doing business, bottom-feeders that would be heavily patrolled by the kind of bastards who run the IRS?

"If you're willing to barter for the next six months and don't have any savings in a national currency, then maybe it would be more prudent to let them fail."

Sounds like a prudent plan to me.