Adnoto: "Over the past few years I have purposefully distanced myself from all the 'conservatives' in my life. I am done suffering them."

What would you recommend to someone whose dad is a true believer, an old acquaintance of Rumsfeld & Cheney (for real), and doesn't always respect my request to avoid political commentary at the table?

-- pointus

It would be helpful to know the age, religion, background, class and so forth of the gentleman in question. However, I'll take a blind shot at it. These opinions are worth every cent that you paid.

First, I'll wager that you do not know what “conservatism” is and neither does your father. That wild guess is based only on the fact that the original conservatism of America is mostly unknown to those who claim the mantle of “conservative” today. It would help to know the policies of Sen. Taft or Russell Kirk rather than just the fake-cons like Cheney or Rumsfeld.

Second, I think the main difference in “progressives” and “conservatives” is not the social goals that each has, but the means of obtaining those goals. We often overlook the common ground we share since we always concentrate on the methods rather than the hoped for outcomes. As and example, both “progressives” and “conservatives” claim to want a peaceful, safe, and secure world. Both claim to be working toward that goal. If your Dad agrees that a safe world is the goal, then the two of you have established common ground. You can find all sorts of “conservative” arguments that non-interventionism is the only way to build a safe, secure, friendly relationship with other nations. (or your next-door neighbors).

Almost every policy dispute in America boils down to people wanting to obtain “The Good” and disagreeing on how to do that. The first step in discussion, rather than argument, is to realize the common ground we all share.

Well, that and the ignorance that most Americans float in all their lives since almost everything you were taught in school in not true. (or entirely true) Sometimes the reason the insufferable people around you are as they are is not that they are “evil” but rather that they are ignorant of the facts. To be ignorant of the facts, especially in this country, is the norm rather than the exception.

I would really like to know where people like Soderberg get the idea that the U.S. President has the power to "order" private citizens to do anything, let alone to break the law, as even she admits happened here. I'm asking this literally: how did this warped and distinctly un-American mentality get implanted into our public discourse -- that the President can give "orders" to private citizens that must be complied with? Soderberg views the President as a monarch -- someone who can issue "orders" that must be obeyed, even when, as she acknowledges, the "orders" are illegal. --GG

She got it from our history.

Glenn, disobeying the government has become ever more difficult as the years have passed on in this country. Have you not seen what happens to the soldier who refuses an order because he thinks it is an illegal order? Have you not seen the power of the prosecutor to destroy innocent Americans that he happens to want to destroy? The FBI has destroyed innocent men often; and only God knows what the CIA does in the defense of "national security".

The American government has been strengthening the power of the elected dictator since Lincoln and the power only ratchets upwards; the presidency never gives any back.

The Democratic Party could save the country and go down in history as being heroic if they would simply make returning the USA to a land where the law ruled rather than men. Will it happen?

We could start by executing cops who frame people and get caught at it. Or federal employees who listen in on phone conversations when they know damn well it is illegal. Or whole swat teams who bust in home-invasion-style and kill old ladies and other innocent parties.

Only when we start caring for the rights of the least powerful among us will we be worthy of any protection ourselves. I think the Germans learned that lesson in the 1930s; I hope we do not have to endure a dictator to learn that lesson here.

The Establishment does not think that Obama is "strong enough" on American/Israeli policy. You have been pointing that out for some time now.

But look what 'b' found over at Moon of Alabama.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/07/red-versus-blue.html

The short of it is that the banner in the screen shot from the Jerusalem Post coverage of the U.S. election makes Obama look evil; and it is on purpose. You have to see the picture. To be clear, Fox News did the ham handed manipulation and news of this came from a Media Matters report on photo manipulation by Fox News.

"The red channel value of the Obama part of the montage is about 30% too low. No professional photographer has such a badly adjusted camera. The manipulation makes Obama's skin look blue, cold and pale. The McCain part seems to have a slightly lifted red channel value which lets him appear warm." -- b

We are in for a hell of a ride; but Obama wins in a landslide anyway.