Glenn said this,

"...The campaign we began earlier this year with Accountability Now and are now vigorously developing and pursuing -- to devote all resources and energies to defeating incumbents in primary challenges -- is grounded in the premise that one's political beliefs and principles will be ignored until there is a price to pay for ignoring them. Democrats don't perceive there is a price to pay for ignoring progressives, and so they do..."

I understand this way of making people pay for not paying attention to and doing something to support ones political agenda. The idea is that one has certain beliefs or principles which others may and most likely will oppose or disagree with. So, many of us believe the wars in Iraq, etc, were counter productive because they do not change the beliefs or principles (the "hearts and minds") of people in those countries. So, by going into Iraq we are trying to make them pay for not doing enough to support our beliefs and principles.

There is something hypocritical about doing something to Obama, or his political allies, what we argue is innapropriate to do to the people we've invaded and destroyed.

There may be something right about Progressives not trying to twist Obama's arm to force him say he would support a Progressive agenda. I think the better plan would be to convince him to do Progressive things by giving him an argument for a Progressive program or policy .

I am not saying that Accountability Now should not promote candidates that support a Progressive agenda against others who do not. Those elections are about informing the electorate about the advantages of that Progressive agenda. They are not, or should not, be about twisting the arm of voters to make them vote in Progressives, and then punish them if they do not.

I suspect Progressives and others resort to arm twisting and making people pay for not going along with their agenda because they do not have any confidence in their arguments to stand up to scrutiny. This is what I believe about neoconservatives who twist arms to get their views adopted.

Progressives have to come up with an argument for what they want and promote it so they don't have to rely on arm twisting when Obama, et al, doesn't want to pay them any attention.

Glenn said this,

"The temptation is great even among the most rational to empower authority to do anything and everything -- without limits -- to punish those responsible and prevent repeat occurrences."

...and the comment was made that in past times people would have the book thrown at them instead.

My point is that shouldn't we first insist, as a matter of principle, on an investigation to determine as best we can, what happened. In this story about Mumbai I agree with the point that the Indian government should first thoroughly investigate what happened so that they know who was involved, what were their intentions, and so forth. The investigation has to come before claiming to know it was Al Queda, the Pakistanis, etc., etc.

I am frustrated that when things like this have happened to us an appreciation of this principle has been similarly ignored.

The United States Army and especially its combat brigades are trained killers. They are put together to kill on command regardless if there are unarmed men, women, or children in front of their guns and howitzers. There is no reason to deploy a combat brigade within the United States when there are National Guard units deployed in Iraq, etc, unless it is to be able to take advantage of their special training.

This is why the Roman Republic refused to have its legions cross the Rubicon, as I understood their situation. You have combat brigades deplyed on the streets when you anticipate the population aggresively opposing them. This is why Bush did not send in the New York police department into Bagdad, even though he said Americans would be greeted with cheers. They knew that was B.S. Similarly, you think to send in the combat troops when you expect to suppress a heavily armed population.

I will be less alarmed by the principle of what Bush is planning if and when President Obama addresses the situation and says no combat troops need be deployed in an American City. I want him to tell me there are other more appropriate federal employees to take care of every conceivable happening. Armed insurrections and rioting will not need nor justify Army, Naval, or Marine intervention.

Isn't it about stability and the perception that the political establishment is always about to be discredited?

So, we don't let the people know too much about what happend behind the scenes when JFK was assassinated, because that would undermine the legitimacy of our government. Same with Watergate. Same with all the scandals. Same with 9-11. There a big one.

Obama chooses a war cabinet and no one from the left in foreign policy or economics. That sends a message that there will be no tinkering with capitalism. Obama has to send a lot of messages that the way things have been done will not change much.

The nepotism is all about the reassurance that nuts don't fall too far from the tree.