"I'd like to shun Bill Moyers every bit as much as some of you might like to shun Ann Coulter... The difference is that Bill Moyers is occupying time on my public broadcasting station, and Ann Coulter isn't."

Sorry Elephant, but you lost me there. Are you saying Bill Moyers called a Gop presidential candidate a "faggot"? Are you saying Bill Moyers accused a group of Republican women of enjoying their husbands' deaths in Iraq? Are you saying Bill Moyers expressed regret that more conservatives have not been killed by terrorist bombs? What exactly are you saying?

If Bill Moyers, one of the finest journalists of our time, somehow descended to the level of a Gop guttersnipe like Coulter, my respect for him would vanish -- just about as quickly as his media platform would be taken away. Until then, the question remains, why does the U.S. corporate media continue to help give voice to extremist right-wing hatemongers?

I've seen clips of the whole Coulter quote, and yes, she did call John Edwards a "faggot." That was the word she chose to use; and yes it does make her "a racist or a homophobe." Nor am I aware of any racist or anti-gay slurs being used against Republican presidential candidates at any Democratic gathering comparable to the one Coulter was addressing or on a corporate media show such as GE/MSNBC's 'Hardball.' The Gop should be ashamed.

There might be people on Teh Left who are as hostile to civilized discourse as Coulter; but such people wisely are not allowed anywhere near the corporate media or serious political gatherings. As long as GE/MSNBC (and TIME, etc.) provides platforms from which lunatics like her can spew hate, Dems will be placed in the awful position of having to either try to ignore unelected ratfuckers like the Swift Boat Vets for Bush or wading into the mud with them in order to respond. But never do I see any Gop wives being forced to defend their families from accusations of enjoying their child's death, etc. (And I hope I never do.)

1. "The Iraq war is not about Iraq." -- PoliticalUnrealityOnline

Good to know. That explains a lot.

2. ". . . the tyrants in Tehran and Damascus . . ." -- Id.

Actually, a "tyrant" is someone who seized power unlawfully. Bush-Cheney are "tyrants" to a far greater degree than their equally obnoxious (but elected) counterpart in Iran.

3. It took RealName 1500 attempts over the tedious course of just 86 days, but he/she finally wrote a good letter. Indeed this particular GOP Dick is already on record that his newly-discovered "opposition" to the occupation is just political theater and that he will continue to vote in the Senate for whatever Bush-Cheney want, no matter how silly.

4. Listening just now on CNN Int'l to Junior Bush harangue a captive audience about how the Iraqi insurgents are "the same people who attacked us on 9/11" and other nonsense, I found myself wondering whether he really believes his own lies. Does Junior know he's acting the fool as a front man for a military-industrial complex that wants permanent U.S. bases atop the oil, or does he sincerely believe the absurdities Cheney tells him? That will be the only real question for the historians concerning this, the worst presidency ever.

If I understand the argument, the neocons are saying that because the only role that is expressly set forth for the Vice President in the Constitution is "President of the Senate" the OVP therefore exists in some sort of legal netherworld -- not quite in the legislature, not quite part of the executive. Indeed, most vice presidents have done little except exist as presidents-in-waiting; and while every president as far back as I can remember has promised to give his running mate a "real" role in his administration, none really did so -- until Al Gore, who actually accomplished things such as reduce the federal bureaucracy.

Comes now Cakewalk Cheney, whose special projects include killing a half-million people in Iraq for the sake of permanent U.S. bases atop the oil; and suddenly what no doubt began as an exercise in some neocon think tank has the White House asserting, in effect, that everything the OVP has done in the last six years has been without any constitutional authority whatsoever. Because if the OVP is not part of the executive branch, then what is the source of its authority to do anything other than wait around to break ties in the Senate? And therefore hasn't everything ol' Deadeye Dick done since 2001 been illegal?

Of course, limiting the OVP's power to breaking ties in the Senate requires thinking like a strict constructionist judge. Maybe Old Cakewalk will get lucky, should the legality of his actions ever be challenged, and find himself in front of a liberal judge who legislates from the bench and is willing to "read into" the Constitution the implicit authority for the OVP to be doing the kinds of things Dick's been doing since January 2001. You know; the sort of reasoning the Supreme Court used to protect our privacy in Griswold and Roe v. Wade.