Immediately after the ruling there were a few stories that could be boiled down to "activist judges rule that Bush must let Terrorist free," but since then I haven't seen a thing in the MSM. It's already an old story. So it's working: do enough very bad things, and very bad things will no longer be newsworthy.

A very smart man I knew when I was a kid (a republican, actually) once told me "everyone is who they were in kindergarten." This sentiment strikes true with modern neocons: the playground bullies whose need to demonstrate their strength involved tormenting the weak. None of them ever wanted to attack someone strong enough to really fight back (China, Russia, say). Just kick sand on the weaklings and do a victory lap. However, there is a certain irony in deriding the real masculinity of such people, because we are critiquing their tendency to question the masculinity of their enemies. Are we better because our critique of their masculinity ("ugly fat slobs who never saw battle") is better than their critique or ours ("effeminate surrender monkeys")?

Opinionata, I'm not sure "antiabortion" is any better as a label than "pro-life." Many (if not most) of those in the pro-choice movement are also anti-abortion - it's a painful and invasive medical procedure and preventing unwanted pregnancy would be far better. Though a life-long progressive, I've never met anyone who was "pro-abortion." Most people think abortion is a sad thing when it happens. Most people "like life." The real label that clearly separates the two sides: pro-choice and anti-choice.

I spent a month in Spain last year and didn't meet anyone - though I worked with people politically left, right, and center - who didn't think Bush was some kind of idiot king.

Why do you insist on waking me up so early and making me feel so depressed? Turn the light off - I want to go be to sleep and dream of a better country.

our high standards for presidential behavior.

By supporting the over-throw of a party that won an election in a landside, supporting a new dictatorship led by corrupt and incompetent thugs. (given, Hamas is only different because they are uncorrupt, competent thugs). I'm not saying it's wrong to do so, but it makes everyone laugh at us when we say we're all about spreading democracy. We are about spreading pro-American puppets, always have been and always will. The problem is such actions lead to the creation of groups like the Khmer Rouge (who came to power in opposition to our unpopular puppet in Cambodia) and the Taliban (after we helped kick out the Soviets). We are also all about destabalizing whoever has popular support amongst the Palestinians. We opposed Fatah for decades when they really DID have a lot of popular support. No one should be surprised in a decade when Hamas has become corrupt and powerless and is opposed by an insurgent, popular, al qaeda-like group, and that is when the US will decide to give Hamas support, just like we support Fatah now. Yes, there are things worse than Hamas, and they are as likely to come to power when Hamas is destroyed as Fatah.

You seem to have missed my entire point. I'm sure that's my fault. These stupid decisions never do work out in the best interests of the US.

I think in my own head, when I think of H. Clinton, I've gone from "BOO!!!" to "boo." It's a big change.

This is why I want Guiliani to win the republican nomination. The hard-core 10-15% who vote entirely on which candidate will overturn Roe v. Wade might just stay home.

when dead people people are called "metrics."

When Cheney refused to give up the documents from the energy task force meetings, wasn't that because of his grand Executive Privilege? And now he claims to not be covered by the Presidential Records Act because he's not part of the executive branch? Does this mean we get to look at the task force minutes now? Or is his office on wheels and he gets to move it to whichever branch of government gives him the most power at the time?

Is Perino using "opining" correctly here? Is it too hard to say "giving an opinion"? Doesn't 'opine' mean something more like "speak at great lenght about nothing at all"?

Yes, that is what it is. The level of hatred of immigrants being expressed here and nationwide is staggering. Immigration, as a percentage of the population, isn't that different today from what it's been at any time over the past 300 years. The only difference is how hard it is today to be a legal immigrant. Immigrants have always come in and taken jobs at the lowest economic rung, while previous holders of those jobs moved up the economic ladder (e.g. the Irish, Eastern Europeans, African Americans, Koreans, etc.). History shows that those at the lowest rung don't get pushed off the ladder by immigrants, they get pushed up. Having said that, there is still a great need in this country for better labor laws (guaranteed minimum wages, work-place safety, union rights, etc.) to prevent immigrants from being exploited. I wish THAT were the focus of discussion. For those obsessed with punishing illegal activity, I propose that people who have ever in their lives committed any of the following misdemeanors and crimes also all be deported or exiled:

- driving above the speed limit;

- not paying social security for baby-sitters or yard workers;

- smoking marijuana;

- drinking under the age of 21;

- throwing a cigarette butt out a car window.