I'm not mad. Bush didn't "beat" Gore. Gore got approximately a half-million more votes than Bush Jr. The Gop did however beat the American people 5-4 in the Supreme Court. And a lot of people in Iraq and New Orleans and elsewhere have suffered and many have died as a result. Pity. And of course Osama bin-Forgotten in Pakistan six years after 9/11; and I've no doubt the neo-fascist swine in the White House ultimately will pardon poor lil' Scooter and protect the fall guy from having to take the fall. But January 2009 will come.

Elephant, that sounds like a smear to me. Pity ol' Cakewalk Cheney has nothing better to do than plot against those who have debunked the lies used to sell their half-baked "war." This is "wartime" after all. If your Gop pals had bothered to spend even half as much time on their War on Terra' (TM) as they've wasted fighting We the People, Osama and the real al-Qaeda would certainly be in custody (or dead), rather than still free (and bin-forgotten).

Your Gop leaders, who are shameless, are fond of comparing themselves with Lincoln and Churchill. But Lincoln and Churchill, unlike Bush-Cheney, had actual wars that kept them up at night. They didn't spend their time fighting their own citizens. Which come to think of it is probably one big reason why the Iraq Fiasco has already lasted longer than WWII or the US Civil War -- with no end in sight. That is why they'll be remembered as the worst.

Let's recap. In response to me pointing out that Bush-Cheney have spent FAR more time and effort fretting over their political opponents and We the People than actually fighting their bogus War on Terra' (TM), you say Lincoln temporarily suspended habeas corpus in order to put down the southern rebellion; and Churchill . . . fought Germany. Um, OK.

Compare that with Bush-Cheney's illegal wiretapping and detentions of U.S. citizens, and their lies about Iraqi WMD and connections to al-Qaeda in order to start a foolish war of choice that has killed perhaps a half-million mostly innocent persons. That is why Lincoln and Churchill will always be remembered as great men; while Bush-Cheney -- if they are remembered at all -- will be remembered as the worst presidency in U.S. history.

Elephant has been playing the violin for Poor Little Scooter here at Salon for several days now, in the letters to Sidney Blumenthal's column from last Thursday. The funniest thing he said is that Libby cooperated fully with Fitzgerald's investigation:

Elephant: "But Libby did "cooperate." He gave voluntary intereviews to the FBI, without benefit of counsel. He testified before the grand jury, also without an attorney at his side, and went back repeatedly every time he was asked to do so. He did everything that the investigators asked of him." [Everything except not perjure himself or obstruct justice!]

Elephant's comments perfectly illustrate the Bush-Cheney "L'Etat c'est Moi" mindset, with which the Gop views talking to co-equal branches of govt and/or law enforcement as some special favor above and beyond their job description. As I told Elephant, if Monica Goodling and her co-conspirators had attended real law schools, they might realize how shameful it is for the nation's top law enforcement officials to "take the 5th" before Congress, etc.

Salon please help me understand this. I thought the Dems won the Senate in the '06 elections. But every time they try to act, we hear they need not 50, but 60 votes. Yet when the Gops held the Senate, the Dems were unable to stop the Gop; and the Gops threatened to "go nuclear" if the Dems mentioned the word "filibuster" or so much as looked the wrong way at even the most extreme Bush-Cheney judicial nominees.

Can someone please explain why the Gops controlled the Senate with 50 votes, but the Dems are unable to pass anything with 51? What was the point of my voting in '06?

JeffM23 you're not a moron; my question is sincere; and Madam I assure you that even Americans are baffled by the workings of the Senate, or at least of this Senate. If Jeff is correct, then the problem is that the Gops are filibustering pretty much everything the Dems are trying to do; and I can't understand why this isn't a bigger issue. (Or is it?)

In other words, why are the Dems letting the Gops get away with this? Before 2007, the Gops threatened to take away the right to filibuster forever (ie. "go nuclear") if the Dems EVER tried to filibuster; and I understand the hypocrisy of the Gop knows no bounds. But why are the Dems then not also exploring the nuclear option if the Gops keep frustrating the people's business? I really do not get this. Unless the Dem plan really is to do nothing for the next two years, and simply hope for a bigger and more sweeping victory in '08?

Well, lazy sod though I am, I did some quick and dirty research courtesy of Teh Google.

1. Vondo says, "The Democrats filibustered plenty of bills (Social Security Reform? Drilling in the Arctic?) in the four years they were in the minority."

False. The Dems have filibustered against oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge (though apparently before 2000); but I found no (other) Dem filibusters in the Bush-Cheney era. Even the radical Gop attempt to gut Social Security died of its own accord without resort to the threat of a filibuster due to its extreme unpopularity with Gops as well as Dems.

2. Vondo says, "The "nuclear" part of this would have been the Democrats' response . . . which would be to . . . filibuster everything else, which is why it never happened."

False; though the Gop has tried to spin the issue to blame going nuclear on the Dems, and did succeed in confusing some not-too-bright corporate media types and Wikipedia.