I am very far from being a libertarian. I am a liberal independent.

But Obama's endorsement of the assaults upon the fourth amendment (you know what I mean) and the first amendment (endorsing the expansion of giving taxpayer money to churches), among other issues, have turned me away from him.

A few months ago I was a supporter. Now - not so much.

I am going to look into Barr. True, his rank hypocrisy during the impeachment scandal 10 years ago, where he was whining about Clinton's escapade with Monica, while Barr himself was having an adulterous affair, is pretty disgusting.

I probably disagree with pretty much all of his positions on domestic issues like Social Security, Medicare, and so on. But increasingly, this election, for me, is becoming one of picking through the people I do not support to see which one of them offends me the least.

Barr needs to be checked out honestly. Let's see what he promises.

Which third party candidate am I going to support? I hate to vote Socialist Labor, but I would hate even more to not vote at all.

Barr will likely pull more votes from McCain than from Obama, but do not assume that all of Barr's votes will come from McCain. Here is one vote that just might move into the Libertarian column.

Had I been able to ask Dean and Sunstein a question it would have been: What kind of illegal behaviour could a president and/or members of his administration engage in that would move you to advocate prosecution?

I just watched the exchange between Glenn and Cass Sunstein. Sunstein's patronizing affect was maddening. He admits that we need to "criminalize criminal behavior" but when confronted with examples of obvious criminal behavior, he blows a smokescreen of vague, tongue-clucking nonsense.

This is pathetic. Hey, Obama supporters - this guy is someone Obama apparently listens to. Do you agree with him that:

a. Criminal behavior, even from the White House, should be treated seriously (whatever that means) but

b. There are plenty of other ways to (in a bi-partisan fashion) try to figure out what happened.

Is this your idea of justice?

I have had it. I am voting Green.

You won't believe the Republican Party platform from 1956:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=25838

Those guys were wild-eyed leftists, compared to today's crew. Karl Rove would throw that sissy "Ike" under the bus.

And those guys were fairly upfront about their interest in the Middle East:

The Middle East has been strengthened by the defensive unity of the four "northern tier" countries—Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan—which hold gateways to the vast oil resources upon which depend the industry and military strength of the free world. This was made possible by the liberation of Iran from the grip of the Communist Tudeh Party. Iran has again made its oil reserves available to the world under an equitable settlement negotiated by the United States.

We have maintained, and will maintain, friendly relations with all nations in this vital area, seeking to mediate differences among them, and encouraging their legitimate national aspirations.

Yes, fifty-two summers ago the Republicans weren't a bunch of authoritarian goons. Close analysis would be required to determine if they are to the left of the Blue Dogs.

Who wrote:

Considering that not one of them would ever have voted to excuse torture and other shredding of the constituion, I'd say even a quick not-so-detailed analysis would do the trick.

You know, I think you are absolutely correct.

Almost all the pols back then were behind on women's rights and civil rights, but on balance, and considering the tenor of the times, I would take Ike and Company over those Blue Hound Dogs (this was 1956, remember) in many ways.

And recall, this was still the days of the Solid (for the Democratic Party) South.

The letters here display the typical spectrum of quack medicine advocates.

We have one guy passionately complaining about how arrogant and close-minded are the people who try to tell him about "his" body. If you buy that line of attack, you better not argue that trepanation and bleeding people are without therapeutic value. After all, every quack medicine and treatment has advocates who swear it works, and who are you to tell anyone that opening a vein does not let the nasty energy flow out?

We have another guy who talks gibberish, blowing a smokescreen around the subject that even radiation oncologists cannot penetrate.

But there are more explanations for the popularity of quack medicine than just the placebo effect (or effects, plural, as one doctor argues).

For example, most conditions go away by themselves. If you eat a sugar pill in the middle of a pain cycle, sure enough, the end of the pain will follow the ingestion of the pill.

Medical science does not have all the answers. Lower back pain is not always easy to diagnose and treat, which is a very good reason why so many people with back pain resort to quackery like acupuncture.

I strongly recommend this web site:

http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/

It is a blog run by a small consortium of doctors. You can talk back, just like here. Test your CAM arguments over there and see how they fly.

Surely the obvious criminality of the Bush administration should not be allowed to get off scot-free? Do we really want a country where the guy who robs a liquor store winds up with Bruno as a long-term roommate, and the perpetrators of mass murder get a complete pass?

Oh, you say, Bush and his cronies aren't murderers, war criminals, and so on? Fine. But let a court and a jury make that determination.

They should be held accountable like anyone else.

But it is true. Obama is basically a typical cowardly Dem and will not raise a finger.