Glenn bleats and hollers about Democratic 'compromises' and endlessly asserts that Democrats are better situated to win national elections from the Left than from the center, but where's the evidence? The Democrats haven't won a national election on 'Democratic' principles since 1964. The few national electoral successes they've had - Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and the 2006 mid-terms - have all come at times of extreme GOP weakness, and the campaign strategy in all those elections was a run to the center from the Democratic candidate or candidates. There's no history of success for Democrats running a national campaign from the Left, so why do you think it will magically start working now?

Gandhi and King successfully pursued 'non-violent' protests because they were able to count on violence springing up in their wake. They were hypocrites who capitalized on the violence of others while avoiding the appearance of it themselves.

Malcolm X had the right of it when he pointed out that the authorities dealt with Dr. King because the alternative was dealing with him later. Power and freedom come only from the barrel of a gun.

...he represented the desires of the majority of his constituency. He gave a voice to millions who otherwise would have been left voiceless by those who found their worldview untenable. He was a man of great personal honor and integrity, and a consummate gentleman who was consistently among the most responsive members of Congress to the needs of the people who elected him. Whether one agreed with Senator No or not, you knew where he stood and who he stood for, which is a rarity in modern politics. He had a graciousness that is notably lacking from this particular conversation.

The problem that much of the mainstream anti-war movement has had in getting traction (despite the unpopularity of the war) has been the prominent presence among activists of people who are not so much anti-war as they are transparently anti-American, or at least opposed to the mere existence of American power. Code Pink is a case in point. They're rallying against any move toward sanctions on Iran, which is totally self-defeating. They say they're anti-war, but trying to eliminate diplomatic and economic leverage narrows the choices available to American leaders and makes war more, not less likely. It's a patently anti-American stance that has NOTHING to do with promoting peace.

Rush is right to complain about this one, and it isn't 'envy' talking. Chinese fuel subsidies continue to keep demand artificially high in China, and the costs are being born by consumers in countries without subsidies - the US, for instance.

The PBR revival didn't start as a bar band joke in the Midwest, or in a swanky pseudo-dive in Portland, or in any other grass roots fashion. The PBR revival was a deliberate and carefully conceived marketing campaign begun by Pabst in the early-to-mid 90s.

You see, Pabst had a major marketing problem, because:

A.) their beer is gross, and totally unappealing to beer snobs

but

B.) they lacked the deep pockets necessary to compete with the mainstream advertising muscle of A-B, Miller and Coors in selling beer to Joe Sixpack

So what they decided to do was create a niche market for themselves. To that end, they sent out lots of representatives to cut deals with funky, hip bars in funky, hip places - Portland, Austin, some of the Chicago suburbs, Asheville, Williamsburg, etc. - giving bar owners lots of cool brand schwag and sweetheart pricing in exchange for pushing PBR as the 'house' beer. Hipsters, being tasteless assclowns, just didn't realize they were being target marketed: that doesn't change the fact that the whole 'revival' was a marketing scheme to begin with.

A really good website about beer: http://beeradvocate.com/ (informed reviews about any beer you can think of).

Some of the professional reviews are quite good, on the other hand, there's plenty of beard stroking faggotry from the kind of tools who provide tasting notes on STROH'S FUCKING LIGHT.

What she's doing is as near to being physiologically impossible as you can get, so, frankly, her protestations aside, "doing it" in this case probably means designer steroids.

...they can't. They are constrained by existing precedent that cannot by overturned by normal legislation or executive fiat. To overturn Roe without a SCOTUS about face would require a Constitutional amendment, which, even in 2005-2006 (the greatest period of GOP strength in nearly a century), would not have had anything like the support to get cloture in the Senate, much less the 2/3 supermajority in both Houses or ratification of 2/3 of state legislatures as per the stipulations of Article V of the US Constitution.

Then again, pushing through two SCOTUS nominees who are very likely to vote to overturn Roe if it comes to a vote isn't exactly "doing nothing."

Thanks for playing though...

...but forcibly retired dictators are totally credible sources of unbiased information.

Or, you know, not.

Congratulations on signing up Howard Dean v.1.0! YEAAAAAARGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!111!1!!

The only 'evidence' of the conspiracy is the claim by a single, highly compromised source, that she overheard the men talking about shooting Obama. There's no way in hell that would stand up in court. Hearsay alone is not enough to convict, so why even bother trying to charge the men with a conspiracy you could never hope to prove in a court of law?

...that led him to plagiarize speeches (and another man's biography!) during his first Presidential campaign? Or the moral backbone that caused him to fail a law school course for cheating (plagiarism, again)? The guy has the ethical sense of a toothpick.

Obviously not. It doesn't make it any less tin-eared in the current news cycle. One of the problems that the last few Democratic Presidential campaigns have all suffered from is a lack of candidate discipline - you'd think they'd have learned this after the silly Bittergate bullshit.