We are, IMHO, suffering from a scorn deficit, a recession of outrage...

I agree, and that is one of the reasons I come here to read. What I was trying to point out is no matter how true Glenn's description of the dead-ender right wing is, they are not our real problem. The real problem are the tiresome, endless parade of "sensible" pundits and "centerist" opinion makers and "fair and balanced" journalists that will work very hard to paint Glenn's hard-edged and fact-backed logic as the exact equivalent of whatever loony right blogger they happen to be familiar with.

Do you believe Glenn Greenwald is the exact same as Michelle Malkin? I don't believe that but I bet there are plenty of people who do who shouldn't. How could any thinking person think that? Because they aren't "thinking" at all. It is not because they are stupid, but because they are stupefied by media manipulation. Here is how the media will present it if they choose to comment:

GG: blogger - MM: blogger

GG: left (not really but they think so) -- MM: right (really)

GG: researches opinion, backed by verifiable facts. -- MM: often gets facts wrong, opinions based on ideology.

GG: rigorous consistency -- MM: flexible, but will retract sometimes.

GG: trained as a lawyer -- MM: easy on the eyes, used to look good in bikini

GG: angry -- MM: angry

So you tell me. Which of those attributes will the emphasize and which will they ignore? And when they do, what will those who don't read enough think?

I'm not calling for Glenn to stop doing what he is doing -- I am just saying I wish we had a good way of dealing with the real problem.

What is frequently missed is that it is possible to be conflicted on the war -- they are OK with the war in principle but they don't think it is "worth it." Winning or losing, if it hits them in the pocketbooks it is a different matter. When support for the war was highest, it was when it was going to "pay for itself." (A few dead grunts don't matter apparently.)

Never forget the money.

Having a litmus test of "love and passion" for Israel is arguably no less crazy than having a requirement that requires one to demonstrate fealty and devotion to an invisible sky spirit with a flowing beard and a night shirt. At least the existence of Isreal is not a myth and its ability to help us with our interests has some basis in reality.

I'm sure most here have, but in case you missed it make sure you read through Sarah Palin's debate flow chart:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/3/43222/8057

This is a taste of what the Republicans have in mind when Obama wins the election. They will do what it takes to make the country ungovernable if they can. At least it isn't personal. They would have been even worse for Gore or Kerry had they won because they would have had a legislative majority to do it with.

Ironically enough, this "false equivalence" game had to be called out the other week on Eric Alterman's blog of all places. One of his best regular contributors -- LTC Bateman, wrote a scathing attack on Glenn Greenwald for what he saw as Glenn's anti-military ignorance. It was written as far more personal than it should have been, and used argumentum ad hominem to paint Greenwald as some sort of left wing hysteric.

Anyway, one another letter writer objected -- not to Bateman's central point but to his non-constructive tactics, Batemen wrote another letter saying "nobody around here objected when I attacked Rush Limbaugh!"

Wow. Glenn Greenwald is the same as Rush Limbaugh. What was really disappointing is that Alterman himself did not react in his blog but at least his editor did publish a follow up letter that pointed out the obvious.

I was tempted to post here to ask Glenn to respond to Bateman because I think the original point was interesting: about the use of the military in relation to the Posse Comitatus Act, but at this point I fear the important issue would get lost in the fracas of rhetoric.

Victory has a thousand fathers -- defeat is an orphan.

Is there anything at all going well for the Right this year?

Actually, I think it is going pretty well for them overall. Sure it isn't going well for some individuals that are right wing, but over all the movement has a) succeeded in nearly ruining the government, b) destroyed our prestige and reputation around the world, c) made sure that economic crisis will make it almost impossible for progressives to achieve meaningful goals, d) expanded executive power to the point that it really a sort of elected monarchy (I don't see Obama rolling that back do you?) and e) completely de-balled the opposition party and got it to be the implementer of its plans.

About the only things they didn't get is social security. So what else didn't go right for the Right?

I have been wondering over this point for some time. At what point does what is being routinely said over cable TV news (either directly by the anchors on Fox or interviewees on microphone) rise past the level of free speech and fall into the realm of hate speech? Are there any legal standards set?

No wonder conservatives are almost uniformly against hate-crime and hate-speech laws. It would rob them of half their arsenal.