What's so noble and originalist about being anti-choice? Abortion was not against the law at the time of the nation's founding; a ban was only recommended by the AMA in 1920, largely on the grounds of public health concerns, and it was 1960 before it was banned in all 50 states. Paul is a dime-store hypocrite - his concern for liberty and human rights end at the tip of the penis, apparently.

What's so noble and originalist about being anti-choice?

Who said it was?

Your post's thrust is that all of Paul's political positions are honestly grounded in his purist belief in constitutional principles, yet his abortion stance is clearly not supported in the constitution. Only if you base it on the religious claim that life begins at conception (which then becomes a question of personal liberty) can you justify a legal sanction against abortion. Let's not also forget that Paul enjoys no authority to claim what the US Constitution means any more than you or I do. The Constitution means only what the Supreme Court says it means, regardless of how many self-identified "strict-constructionists" continue to believe otherwise.

"You may not agree with that position (and I don’t), but it’s not a crazy one, and it’s not inconsistent with support for civil rights and individual freedoms."

Anyone who constructs a Sophie's Choice between the unviable fetus and the viable mother, who must nourish and carry the fetus in order for it to mature to viability, is pursuing a false dichotomy. Such a bias seems plausible if you view the mother as semi-captive vessel for reproduction instead of a free human agent.

That's all...

To his credit, Russert hit him with the 100-year question yesterday. McCain tries to compare Iraq to Japan and Germany. Such a feeble and weak candidate, a truly embarrasing shell of his former self - why are Kewl Kids so impressed?

MR. RUSSERT: ...and say, “I’d be all right with having U.S. troops in Iraq for the next 100 years”?

SEN. McCAIN: Most importantly, so would the American people if Americans aren’t dying. We have a base in, in the neighboring country of Kuwait, very large base. We have a base in Turkey. We have a base in Japan, Germany. We’ve had bases there. It’s not American presence that bothers the American people, it’s American casualties. And if Americans are safe wherever they are in the world, Americans—the American people don’t mind that. So what I believe we can achieve is a reduction in casualties to the point where the Iraqis are doing the fighting and dying, we’re supporting them, and, over time, then it’ll be the relation between the two countries. With Kuwait, they want us there and they want us there for a long time, so we’re glad to be there. The Saudis? They didn’t want us there for various reasons, so we left. That’s going to depend on relations between the United States government and the Iraqi government. My point was—everybody says, “How long are we going to stay?” My point is, how—when are we going to succeed? Which we are succeeding now so that the Iraqi government is functioning, and we have stability in the region. Instability in Iraq means instability...

Time for some of that change he keeps harping on about....

Situational ethics is back in, bruddah! Laws? We don' need no stinkin' laws - I dare you to challenge me!

Hagee is as much a highly-regarded prominent citizen in south Texas and the Hill Country as LBJ was/is. Nearly every major non-Catholic San Antonio politician either attends his church or snuggles up to him and his mega-congregation at every opportunity. If this story gets wings, the city of Brotherly Military Co-dependency is gonna cry foul on the librul media!!!

(here's mine)

Dear Mr. Hamilton:

No doubt by now you have heard the rather extraordinary claim that US Attorney General Michael Mukasky made in a speech on March 27, 2008, wherein he claimed that the 9/11 attacks would have been prevented if not for restrictions placed on our intelligence gathering by the FISA law. Here is an article citing the speech: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/28/BA69VROE9.DTL

When asked directly about this new information by Salon.com columnist Glenn Greenwald, the 9/11 Commision's Executive Director Philip Zelikow flatly denied in an e-mail that the terrorist call in question was ever intercepted by US intelligence, refuting the AG's claim. This leads one to the inevitable conclusion that the AG has deliberately fabricated the facts about intelligence gathered prior to the 9/11 attacks in a specious attempt to lobby for legislation that would radically expand the scope and legality of warrantless surveillance of American citizens.

As Vice-Chair of the 9/11 Commision, it behooves you to publicly call into question the Attorney General's statements, and further, to call upon him to testify under oath to Congress and explain to the American people this previously undisclosed information surrounding this tragic event. Please respond with your intentions in this matter.

Sincerely,

I have extreme tinnitus, so I will never again be able to sit in "silence" Am I going to Vedic-hell?

The House members who swayed this vote were motivated by pure political ambition, not by populist sentiment as Glenn implies. Don't think for a minute those very same Republicans won't sell all their constituents down the river two months after the election. Glenn, you're being romantically naive here, as if a true majority had any idea about what this bill would actually accomplish. The protest callers to Congress thought we were simply bailing out millionaires so they understandably balked, but to pretend that they are actually concerned about this particular legislation or even have any clue as to what it was is ridculaus. Don't look for a new people's revolt anytime soon.