After barring Ron Paul from their convention, the Republian fascists will give the main convention speaking slots to the sanctimonious neocon Lieberman, the crooked neocon Giuliani, and the neocon war criminals Cheney and Bush. But not that "lets follow the constitution" nut Ron Paul. I mean, follow the constitution? What's up with that?

At a McCain town meeting a questioner said the State needed a military draft to be able to kill enough foreigners, and McCain said he didn't disagree with anything she said. Let us have perpetual war for perpetual profits. (but profits only for the few)

Glenn, on the other hand, is a prophet for the many. :-)

But, it isn't the fault of the jesters that we, the people, have granted such enormous power to the professional manipulators, tellers of tall tales and flippant promises that we called politicians.

Yes, I can agree.

But, I would go a tad further and say that it is the fault of the people that they have vested such vast powers in those autocrats who can make big news by causing some global threat or imminent disaster.

If you give unlimited power to any government, what would you expect to happen? Flowers and sweets for all?

How did it happen that a man is "liberal", or "moderate", or "conservative" based on his favoring or disfavoring going to war against people who have not harmed us; or, in fact, could not do so?

When the "old right" rose up, it was non-interventionist and was smeared by being called "isolationist". These days, I am told that only "far-left" types are anti-war. What's up with that? When did being moderate or conservative guarantee that a man loved to kill backward natives in foreign lands?

I am led to believe that Democrats need to remind the population that they have become the "conservative" party in that they are against invading countries that have not harmed us, not willing to toss trillions away on new toys for generals, not willing to see the constitution raped, and most of all --- favor a Clinton style, hard-nosed budget restraint that led to surpluses under the last Democratic administration.

Less is more, and far-left is now "conservative"! Damn, my head hurts now.

Have you so soon forgotten how "radical" and "liberal" and DFH one needed to be in order to disagree with and protest America's dalliance in Vietnam? -- Kitt

What you describe is what a Rush Limbaugh would claim now, but it was not that way then. Oh perhaps on the surface some might have thought the only anti-war sentiment was in San Francisco among the love children, but it ran deep all over America by boys who faced the draft and by the women who loved them.

I admit I do not recall a lot of concern for the innocent women and children being murdered in little villages on the other side of the world. The concern was for the Americans that were at risk.

Damn, that is it. I see now. A man is a radical if he can see the pain and suffering from the viewpoint of the poor villager who has never done anything to harm the war-machine called America and could not do so even if he wanted to. That is it. That is a radical.

How many Americans hate the war (pick one, I hate them all) simply because we have become monsters and are killing innocent people? Whoever they are, and how ever many there are of them; they are your radical Americans.

But all this leads to another problem. When did a "radical" become a "liberal"? The two were not always the same, you know.

Cable back up for the moment. I have been under a tropical storm for days now. That is my excuse for missing any "snark".

Yep. That's my story and I am sticking to it, as the news folks sometimes claim.

Thanks for the link to your blog. I bookmarked it, and I'll give you a read.

The best blog on the net for me is to read "b" and the comments at Moon of Alabama. Glenn's blog is second, and perhaps you will win a medal for third place!

Peace.

That was a great post, bringing out an important issue for this campaign. Thanks.

You might add in a future post that McCain loves to play up his history as a POW; but he was not like some poor smuck from NYC (or wherever) because of his family. Look at the naval history of his dad and grandfather.

I also think that he lost several aircraft before he went down. Were in his story is any "heroism"?

Is being a screwup a requirement to be the Republican nominee?

http://www.newshounds.us/2008/08/22/for_fourth_night_in_a_row_hannity_
and_guests_accuse_barack_obama_of_wanting_to
_kill_infants.php

-- or click sig for more

"Another edition of FOX News’ Hannity & Colmes, another segment accusing Barack Obama of supporting infanticide. Actually, last night (8/21/08), it was another two segments accusing Obama of supporting infanticide. Sean Hannity outdid himself by baselessly accusing Obama of wanting babies who survive botched abortion procedures to die. I think Hannity should be fired for this. With video." ...

When I saw the title I thought the Fake News boys were hollering that Obama was a war monger who thought nothing of millions dead with the most vulnerable being the very young. I thought FOX was coming out against the USA murder machine killing third-worlders all over the globe.

Alas it is not that. No, FOX is still on board with industrialized murder on a vast scale. Was I wrong to hope they had seen the light?