And that snide remark addresses the premise of my reply to you in what way? Did I miss something?

No, you didn't. You are wrong about what constitutes either "flat denial or ignorance." Blue Dog/Conservative Democrats are what Indiana elects for the most part, and that is not going to change any time soon -- to not realize that is to be either ignorant or in denial. And I'd be delighted if one those Democrats replaced the execrable Mark Souder (R) in the House. But a Nancy Pelosi wouldn't have a snowball's chance.

Someone who's a strong believer in the 2nd Amendment is probably also a strong believer in the 4th Amendment as well.

I only wish. But as one who has spent decades in the trenches trying to get such people to understand that the drug "war" has been eviscerating the 4th Am and militarizing the police, I know better. Average Joe and Jane Sixpack hear "drugs" and at least until THEIR house has been raided by a SWAT team, they figure "whatever it takes" to get those nasty drug users and dealers.

With a lot of them, it is the same thing about "terrorists."

Guns and abortion touch these kinds of people directly (as they do everyone) and are easily demagogued. They are pretty simple issues, while the whole FISA thing is very obscure to them.

I'm a daughter of the Midwest, and outside of the major metropolitan areas, you may find populists, but you are not going to find lots of "progressives." Or even libertarians like me.

Montana is hardly San Franscisco or the upper west side, yet Tester is hardly an Ellsworth clone. Clearly, such voters are quite willing to support a progressive if they hold the core beliefs that the majority of them do.

Montana, Colorado, Arizona etc. are characterized by a strong libertarian streak in their populations; Tester is pro-gun and appeals to the "leave me alone" ethos that is popular there (and which I wish we had more of here in the Midwest).

Indiana is a horse of an entirely different color. (So are huge swathes of Michigan and Ohio.) There was a cross-burning in Northern Indiana only some five years ago, and the Klan almost completely ran the state legislature in the 20s. Evan Bayh is about as good as you are going to get, and he voted for the FISA amendments.

If I misunderstood you, I apologize. But there simply are places where if Democrats want to win -- and thus secure and retain Pelosi as Speaker -- you can't run a Pelosi. It is rather like a Republican such as Rudy could become mayor of NYC, while a Santorum wouldn't be given a first look.

I have grandparents who used to live in Wisconsin, and they love Russ Feingold. They think he is literally the only principled politician in Washington (perhaps they're right?) They are what I would call very moderate Democrats - by no means "loony" or "leftist."

Most of my life until age 39 I lived in WI. It is almost impossible to hate Russ Feingold because of his well-deserved reputation for honesty and integrity. Wisconsin and Minnesota, of course, have long traditions of literally Progressive (as in the very party) politics. Glenn is correct that the state is purple, and long has been -- it yielded both Bob LaFollette and Joe McCarthy.

I think the problem in our interaction was you took my indication that you do not understand Indiana as being "snide," when really I merely meant to be terse. Even when I tilted GOP I found the environs of the Hoosier state nearly intolerable.

Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "progressive," but I can't see what I take that to mean flying in very many precincts of IN.

Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, waste our time coming up with "real policy positions ..." concerning Ron Paul?

Um, because David Niewart's opinions are not those of god, whether they are about Paul or anyone else. What any "expert's" opinion of Person X may be is of great deal less importance that what Person X actually says and does. Unless smear and propaganda are what one is interested in -- about whoever is involved.

My innate bullshit detector tells me David Niewart is one of the good guys. He lays out clearly and concisely the case that Ron Paul is an extremist in many areas and we should be way of his charms.

'nuf said for me ...

So, some guy you admire says Ron Paul is icky, and it doesn't matter a shred what Paul really says or does? David Niewert has written some things I find valuable, but he isn't the Almighty. He has his biases like anyone else does.

Exactly what is the full panoply of Ron Paul's positions that you find so ghastly: or is your only answer "cuz Dave Niewert sez so"?

And I would point out, no court has ruled Dave Niewert competent as an "expert" to declare word one about Ron Paul, so your non sequitur about my views on expert witnesses is just that.

What are the positions Paul holds that you find dangerous to America?

Yes, and as the racists pointed out for years, the Stalinist, Communist Party USA approved of abolishing Jim Crow and of civil rights for blacks. The racists were therefore right, because those who backed a murderous totalitarian took the moral position in that instance.

Lew Rockwell loves Glenn. So Glenn Greenwald is wrong, wrong, wrong.