“. . . the transformation of its base from Falwell/Robertson social conservatives obsessed with abortion and gay rights into a macro version of the Little Green Footballs comment section.”

This is exactly what has happened. It's hard to watch the events of the last five years and not think that there is an underlying racism that motors a lot of the current thought, rhetoric, and action of the GOP base. I think the acceptability of this mindset has been accomplished in baby steps, by referring to The Terrorists as an undifferentiated mass and through constant fear-stoking in popular and news media (the use of a “24” plot point in the GOP debate was so surreal that I’m still having a hard time getting my head around it).

Your posts this week have been incredibly important because you're addressing an underlying worldview driving hardest-core Bush supporters – something not discussed in mainstream political discussions. I have yet to see in any mainstream outlet any substantive consideration of the role of race, racism, ethnocentrism, and/or xenophobia in current anti-terror policies (to my mind, Ornicus currently proffers the best analysis of those issues).

The obvious blind spot in shooter’s post is so instructive. I read from war supporters on a near *daily* basis “advocating genocide of a nation.” That he thinks genocidal thoughts are the exclusive providence of The Enemy demonstrate a remarkable feat of psychological projection.

Glenn: I'm wondering if you have the time, space, or interest to comment on Naomi Wolf's recent article in the Guardian about America's lurch toward fascism, and the subsequent exchange between her and Alan Wolfe. If you haven't seen it already, you might find it pertinent to the issues you've covered recently. I especially think your writing & research sheds light on “step 3” toward fascism “the development of the thug class." Wolf writes about “the thug class” menacing poll workers who were counting the votes in Florida in 2000, but I think her conceptualization of thugishness could be usefully expanded to include a number of the things you've written about here that tend to go on in the right wing blogosphere, but are indicative of authoritarianism that has seeped into our culture more generally (here, I'm thinking of the *hilarious* "Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some Assembly Required" t-shirts).

I’m glad this post placed some blame for the skewed debate about Iraq on the shoulders of our broken media. Judy Miller’s bud Michael R. Gordon has a piece in the NYT today (w/ Alissa Rubin) titled: “Increased Strife Is Foreseen in Iraq if U.S. Troops Leave.” The first quote is from a Sunni Arab group in the Parliament “Many militias and terrorist groups are just waiting for the Americans to leave.” The second quote is from Odierno, basically saying that we can only “slowly remove ourselves” when the Iraqis get their act together, but that this should be done “thoughtfully and methodically when conditions permit.” The next quote is from Carl Levin who favors beginning a troop reduction as “an action-forcing mechanism.” Gordon & Rubin probably think that this quote provides “balance.” The final message they leave with readers is this quote from General Zinni: “If we back off we give it more room to breathe, and it may metastasize in some way and become a regional problem. We don’t have to be there at the same force level, but it is a five- to seven-year process to get any reasonable stability in Iraq.”

A five to seven year process! Should I cry or scream?

Howard Wolfston’s defense of the Daily Kos needed to be much more forceful and needed to target the method of O’Reilly’s attack as much as the content of it. Wolfston failed to make the points that need to be made about this type of smear. He should be able to explain, for example, the distinction between anonymous commenters and people who have a stable online identity writing posts, essays, and diaries. He should be able to explain the difference between blogs with open comment policies and blogs that do not allow comments or only heavily screened ones. He should be able to explain persuasively the importance of these distinctions. Instead, like the ambushed Jet Blue guy, he seemed uncomfortable, like he was talking about something he doesn’t fully understand. You mentioned that it took your research assistant Matthew Berman an hour to compile a case against Malkin’s hate site. Surely Wolfston could have done the same; it’s frustrating to watch all this defensiveness when the Democrats don’t have to be.

For the last five years, I’ve routinely made the bold prediction to anyone who looked remotely interested that bridge will become the new poker. “As soon as the poker fad dies,” I said “everyone will be into bridge. There will be bridge tournaments on TV, the rise of celebrity players, and talk of bidding conventions will fill the air.” So far, I’ve looked like a damn fool. Just because I find the game infinitely more exciting and engaging than poker is no reason to expect anyone else will. But this article gives me hope. Do others hear the growing sounds of a new American bridge revolution?