Unlike a lot of others who imagine this article devoid of content, I must say: just so, at least in parts. I will never in a million years forgive James Kunstler for his homicidal ravings (wishing for the "people of California die for their fucking cars in their fucking cars and over their fucking cars"). You first, Jim.

The Democrats are either (a) timid or (b) secretly agree with the Republicans about Yooist theories of executive power but dare not say so in public.

Definitely, this is the "for the children" socialized medicine, just as is Medicare "for the old folks" socialized medicine -- both are attempts to get the camel's nose into the tent, one more successful (thus far) than the other. No matter whether the war or socialized medicine gets funded, you'll end up with a program that costs far more than projected.

p.s. Blaming Democrats for the desire for limitless state power is particularly pathetic during the current regime, when Republicans have been the ones pushing for more and more powers for the administration. Sigh, it seems that some kinds of propaganda defy the need for logical reconciliation with observations.

Why don't we start with F.D.R. and his attempts to turn the U.S. into a planned economy? Pretending that Dems are somehow friends of the Constitution when they were largely the ones responsible for gutting the tenth amendment is historically absurd. That today's Democrats are merely less publicly enthusiastic about the installation of an autocratic president is only a side effect of their being Outs.

about his ARM comments, and he insisted that he had been quoted out of context on them, saying that he felt at the time an ARM would be a good deal if you knew you could get out of the mortgage in a couple years. So it wasn't a flat endorsement (or so he claimed). If that's in fact true, the penguin is wildly overstating his case. As to his ridiculous comments about the alleged regressiveness of increasing taxes on wage earners to fund Social Security, the penguin needs to remember the basic politics of Social Security: everyone pays in and everyone gets a return (supposedly), a necessary sop lest it become tagged as a wealth redistribution scheme (which it is), vote-buying with a glossy cover letter.

You act as though the Democrats aren't largely enamored of state power. Well, duh. Chasing people like Feinstein out of office should be a priority, I agree, but like most Dems, she believes there ought to be no limits to what the state can do. It is this constant that keeps Guantanamo Bay open, FISA lawbreaking unpunished, and the war in Iraq going indefinitely.

<sarcasm>

You some kinda anti-semite or somethin'?

</sarcasm>

All it takes is one nitwit in Washington.

This problem does not occur without the helpful intervention of the Federal Reserve, which, in conjunction with fractional reserve banking, creates the ability to flood the world with cheap money, and the patsies at quasi-governmental agencies like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, who guarantee they will buy any loan under a certain size. Too bad you had to leave those things out, Tom, but then, it's just a cartoon.

Pick one or more of the following:

1) The Democrats don't want to appear "soft on terror".

2) Like most politicians, they are lazy, and would prefer that Bush be allowed to go away after a year and a half so they can help their party win big in 2008.

3) What I believe to be the case: some of them secretly approve of unchecked power, but simply disapprove of a Republican wielding it. They are therefore uninterested in actual investigations that would unearth and limit such power.

why don't you just put a cork in it and plunk down the $50,000 or so it would cost to cover your (daytime at least) electric bills with solar panels? Or could it be that these are complex issues with nontrivial solutions?

Because I see two of them that look exactly alike. Am I missing something?

Neither right nor left give a damn about upholding the Founders' ideals. The left wants a utopian nanny state complete with health care that will make sure you always buckle your seatbelt, don't talk on the cellphone while driving, and pay 60% of your income in taxes in tithe each year to the all-knowing, all-powerful State. The right wants to turn the country into a religious state, where a violent, Old Testament, Christianist God is worshipped, the children are kept safe from violent video games, the Internet, television, the press, and every other media is censored in the name of "the children" -- and you pay 60% of your income to pay for the all-knowing, all-powerful State.

Well, good luck with that.

The reason he hasn't been impeached is because the Democrats are cowards.

So, let's immediately erase any benefits of high gas prices (which are changing people's behavior, yay) by wealth redistribution (which will allow people to go back to their old habits)?

Are you thinking clearly?

I have said before and been twitted for suggesting that this sort of behavior was enabled by CALEA, which demanded centralized wiretapping capability. Is there anyone out there who can explain, besides with some dismissive, partisan handwave, why I should believe that the fruits of this Clinton-era law is not being used for this end?

Bill Clinton signed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) in 1994, which basically created the hardware that would make possible centralized wiretapping of the public switched telephone network. Those of us at the time who said this was an abuse waiting to happen have been subsequently vindicated. Glenn's rightful disgust with the Democratic Congress needs to acknowledge that Democrats have had a very large and deceitful role to play in this game as well, and for far longer than has been generally recognized.