Isn't the left's inability to maintain power almost always the result of its failure to exercise any discipline and, instead, to get carried away pursuing ideas that the great majority of citizens--whether here in the US or even in Europe, consider crazy?

-- ehillesum

That is crazy talk. And stop including so many links in support of your position.

I fled DailyKos soon after Kos became a celebrity "A-list Blogger" because it became like taking shore leave on the Planet Vulcan.

That's simply an excellent line. Whenever I run into any of the Star Trek shows (especially TNG), I'm always mortified by the sterility of the sets, the scripts and the performances.

All of those guys would hate GG's blog because, after all, Rodenberry's idea of the future presupposes the suffocation of individuality. And the only concession to differences among people is the occasional bony ridge here and there on some guy's face.

(GG)

the White House's efforts to water down the "journalist shield law" to the point where it would easily enable the Government to compel disclosure of the identity of whistle-blowers in the national security context (i.e., the kind who told Dana Priest about CIA black sites and Eric Lichtblau about illegal NSA eavesdropping) -- a clear violation of Obama's campaign platform that was engineered by the White House in secret rather than out in the open

While I'm not a legal eagle, I simply do not understand how this

(NYTimes) judges would be instructed to be deferential to executive branch assertions about whether a leak caused or was likely to cause such harm, according to officials familiar with the proposal

can withstand judicial scrutiny.

What does that (deferential) even mean? One would think a certain preciseness of language would be a minimal requirement in any legislation, particularly of the sort that'll surely be contested in the courts.

And then we have, from the same article,

Opponents note that the unauthorized disclosure of classified information is illegal and argue that members of the news media should not be allowed to decide whether exposing national security secrets is justified

which simply means we're back to square one: forced to take the word of the Executive and the spy agencies that report to it that all that secret stuff really is secret and ought to remain so.

Unless a political goal can be achieved, like that of the recent Qom story, via Time, that has Panetta saying

we spent the next months trying to get better intel about what was going on there ... and conducting covert operations into that area.

But that's not damaging to national security? To speak publicly about covert operations within Iran? And this from the CIA Director, no less.

From aluminum tubes and yellow cake, to holes in hillsides and torture photos ... it's simply stunning to consider that "national security" is happily synonymous with "So, Rahm, will this make us look good, or what? And what'll Glenn Beck say about it in between alligator tears?"

you (GG) are birthing a new means of effective discourse.

That's a nice phrase, poetic as well as accurate.

the matter of anonymous sourcing and Iran's intentions (whatever they may be), I'm always struck by what are, to me, internal contradictions within the same article:

while American officials say the secretive nature of the program lends support to the view that it is truly an expanding weapons program, even United States intelligence officials acknowledge that there is no evidence that Iran has taken the final steps toward creating a bomb

followed by

The site was one of Iran’s most closely guarded secrets, the officials said, known only by senior members of Iran’s nuclear establishment.

So here we have a secret so closely guarded that only a handful of senior Iranians know about it, yet the NSA/CIA--the entire alphabet soup, I suppose--while seemingly acquiring this information almost casually (so profound are our intelligence gathering abilities), can't actually determine the site's purpose.

This despite Panetta's saying

we spent the next months trying to get better intel about what was going on there ... and conducting covert operations into that area.

And this in addition to the

what was being learned through the infiltration of Iranian computers.

It's rather like a Biblical prophet who, with a flick of the wrist, tells congregants, "Hey, as you guys are aware, I know the mind of God, and the Lord is mighty upset with you and has planned all sorts of nasty, eternal tortures for you unless you shape up. And if you do shape up, well there will be blessings aplenty."

And the assemblage naturally responds, "Oh, what sort of torture and/or good stuff can we anticipate?"

And the prophet frowns and says, "What, do you think I know the mind of God or something? I only say I know all. I never said I know all."

the year 2002. McConnell's statement might read thusly

This partisan Finance Committee proposal will never see the Senate floor since the real bill will be written by GOP leaders in a closed-to-the-public conference room somewhere in the Capitol. The real bill will be another 1,000-page, trillion-dollar experiment that slashes at least a half-trillion dollars from the wealthiest Americans' taxes, raises taxes on American families by at least $400 billion, increases health care premiums, and vastly expands the role of the federal government in the personal communications of every American, because, oh, by the way, wait'll we get done with FISA, all that NSA stuff, and so on. And did I mention it'll be glorious for the gated community set?