If you look at the middle, it is gradually liberalizing and moving left at a fairly steady pace, and tends to be repelled by extremes, reacting hostilely to upheaval. If one wants to see the country move forward at the optimal pace, let the rt wingnuts piss the middle off and push them left, and don't let the left fringe do the same.

I certainly hope that the nation has been gradually moving left over time, and continues to so. The nation moved to the right during the last 20 years or so --- and a swing back the other way would be helpful at this point in time.

However, what is "left" to you? Several here proudly wear the 'collectivist' label and believe strongly in using government to "do what is right". Is this "leftist" in your book?

Or in other words, what is a "liberal" to you?

"What in the hell is that matter with people like you and Bucky to think that you can post stuff and then deny minutes later that you posted it and to think that you won't be called out on it?"

It is just that you can not read; or rather, you read what you want to read and disregard the rest. You aggressively want to read things "just so" to make you feel better about attacking the other people.

You look like a moron, but it is not that. You are just too self-centered to see that others may mean something besides what your own ego wants it to be.

An example on the other side: some fringe fundamentalists want to completely erode the barrier between church and state, and we see the blowback from that already. Historically, prohibition was another example of overreach from the right which helped usher in an era of increased liberalism.

I see your point; thanks for the explanation.

I agree that beating these Republicans is the main issue at this time and some "favorites from the wish list" will need to wait if the Democrats are to get the job done. I can not see why that bit of "street politics" sense was so controversial.

I hope you realise that you will not make much headway here; the culture here is one of throwing one fellow under the bus each day. Today you came along with a different idea and we have fireworks. I did understand what you said about Glenn's readership being far greater than the local commenters that you saw today, but it will not sink in because the hurling of insults covers over the argument so that the causal reader will not try to wade through. (my wager, I hope to lose that one)

Anyway, the prevailing wisdom just now is that the Democrats can win with any candidate since they have the GOP beat already due to the war. I hope they are right in this view, but a fellow like Fred Thompson can be a formidable foe. I saw the bastard up close when he ran for the Senate.

Sadly, I must now be blunt. Though I agree with almost nothing I've read in your posts since you've joined the discussion, you have been, in your interaction with me, at least civil, and for that I am grateful. However, I suspect you won't want to interact with me much in the future, as I am one of those "cowards" who hasn't seen fit to declare my voting allegiance despite the arrival of the campaign season, something you have decried on several occasions in past weeks. I'm also a fan of Glenn's work and while I don't always agree with every point he makes, I often agree with much he has posted, and therefore also, no doubt, fall into that category of Glenn's "cabal" you mentioned recently. In fact, just today I received my official "Glenn Greenwald Fan Club Inner Circle Membership Certificate!"

You are no coward, and the comment was not addressed to you. It was addressed to the very small group you see attacking and slimming people each day here. I call them the cabal, but I never call them Glenn's cabal --- what an insult that would be to Glenn. They attacked me over Ron Paul but would not say who they could support. As I recall, you never attacked me personally on the Ron Paul issue, or any other issue.

I am happy to hear you do not agree with me on issues --- that means you can disagree without becoming disagreeable. Bravo. Would it not be nice if all here were as forthright and polite as yourself? I think so.

I do disagree with your post in one regard. You are much more interested in politics than the average person; just the fact you read Glenn each day shows that. I know people in this town who can not name even one of the state's Senators.

I also disagree about the interaction --- that is up to you as I always answer people. That is what causes the trouble; I often answer back. I did stop on LWM when he started that silly crap of posting as 'anonymous' as if it were not obvious.

"I bet a metric shitload of citizens of the United States of America would've voted for Johnny Cash if he had run for office."

I agree. But that does not mean he could have won the presidency. Even if every American truly understood what he was saying by wearing the black, he would have had a very hard time winning office. And yes, I agree that is a sad commentary, but it is truth as I see it.