Getting to the bottom line: "It is simply an act of organized theft to hire the government to go out and shake them down, just so you can redistribute it to someone who pays no tax."

But it isn't true that any of the 40% you claim will be on welfare are not paying tax. Which is the point.

You are an amazing optimist if you think the subject of taxes in this country are not complex, or that the analysis of McCain's or Obama's tax plans is straightforward.

Here is a very good analysis of both of their tax plans:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411759_candidates_tax_proposals.pdf

If you bother to read this document (and/or other more or less objective analyses) and compare what it says to what McCain and Obama say about their plans you will find some notable discrepancies.

I tend to trust the Tax Policy Center more than the candidates, but one really could spend full time for a long time trying to predict what will happen given one or the other's current tax plan.

And what happens down the road when congress gets involved?

But complexity aside, the only way you can claim that Obama's tax plan is going to make permanent welfare recipients out of almost half of the country is by drastically re-defining the words 'permanent' and 'welfare'.

You may not like the use of taxes to re-distribute income, but unless you argue for flat taxes from top to bottom, the only difference is in the details.

Glenn, you are engaged in a practice I thought you spurned, namely, framing.

I agree with you. And what I agree with is the frame of reference you use with respect to the office of the President of the United States.

As Wills' article, to which you link, points out, Eisenhower knew that salutes are for uniforms. As President he wore no uniform and therefore, unlike the later civilian President, Reagan, did not expect nor return salutes.

I am not optimistic that the 'Commander in Chief' frame will soon be replaced with a more constitutionally-grounded approach, but we have to start somewhere.

She's a freaking war criminal.

I would like to hear from the rest of you on this. Are there any other liberals or Democrats out here who feel the way I do?

I am an old and white guy so I doubt I can feel quite like you do. Happily, the "old" part is probably the biggest cultural divide.

But on the whole, I am pretty much not interested in the slogans and the belief that Obama is amazing. I am not thrilled with many of his policy choices. I voted for him, but without a visceral enthusiasm.

However, we have had it so bad for the past 8 years that we have to start somewhere. Obama, at least, is very bright, and brilliantly competent and, so far as I can tell, he means well.

I think we are in deep waters right now, probably on the edge of the abyss. There is no choice now. We must figure out how to fix the mess.

I am struck by the haunting images and message of Lincoln's Second Inaugural in which he urged that we move "... with malice towards none, with charity towards all..."

I cannot help but feel malice toward the criminals who have been running this country. But I am not Lincoln.

Neither are you, but I think we both can relate to Doctrines of Perfection, and why we try, but fall short.

She was asking if the Democrats were going to allow the Republicans to define the limits of what can be done. So the Republicans can filibuster in the Senate - that is, stamp their feet and whine whenever they don't like what is going on.

Their plan is to use the filibuster threat as a guarantee that all legislation that gets through the Senate must first have been approved by the Republicans.

This is clearly not acceptable. If the Republicans want to filibuster, make them filibuster. Let them get the cots and make the all night speeches.

And let the rest of us raise holy hell about the regressive obstructionists. Let the Republicans further implode, ala the Gingrich-led disaster in which the Republicans shut down the government.

And by all means, kick Lieberman out of the caucus. I would personally go so far as to bend every effort towards making his professional life hell. Give him a broom closet for an office - whatever.

Obama is obviously not coming into office with a radically progressive agenda. But for pete's sakes, let's not let the Republicans (and their most prominent quasi-Democratic supporter) set the agenda.

I live near Seattle and I am going to attend an event next Saturday, November 15, at which Mr. Romero is going to be the main speaker. I look foward to hearing him in person.

We are in desperate need of constitutional healing and the ACLU is clearly going to be leading from the front.

I am not Obama's biggest fan. I voted for him but I never thought he was a huge progressive.

But on this front, I believe he will be on the ball and will pitch in to stop this kind of horror show.

It may be decades (if ever) before the full extent of the Bush-era malfeasance is uncovered.

By the way, prosecuting the people who are responsible for crimes like this would not constitute being 'overly partisan'. It would be a healthy return to the rule of law.