I can't help but notice that you started posting July 10, and all but your first two comments seem to make the same point, nearly verbatim, regardless of the topic:

You raise some interesting points

Mr. Greenwald, but really, we shouldn't judge this until Gen. Petraeus gives his report in September.

Lather, rinse, repeat. Lather, rinse, repeat. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Permalink Thursday, July 19, 2007 07:42 AM

You raise some interesting points

Mr Greenwald, but really I don't think we should judge these things until Gen. Petraeus delivers his report in September.

Permalink Friday, July 20, 2007 12:20 PM

You raise some interesting points

Mr Greenwald, but really I don't think we should judge these things until Gen. Petraeus delivers his report in September.

Permalink Tuesday, July 31, 2007 08:59 AM

You raise some interesting points

Mr Powell (at 9:09 AM), but really I don't think we should judge these things until Gen. Petraeus delivers his report in September.

Permalink Tuesday, July 31, 2007 10:15 AM

You raise some interesting points

Mr Greenwald, but really I don't think we should judge these things until Gen. Petraeus delivers his report in September.

Permalink Wednesday, August 1, 2007 07:41 AM

A basic question for your panel discussion

Mr. Allen, why are you so interested and enthusiastic about the communications strategy of the administration? How does this affect your work in informing your readers/viewers?

And as always - you raise some interesting points, Mr. Greenwald, but really I don't think we should judge these things until Gen. Petraeus delivers his report in September.

Permalink Friday, August 3, 2007 06:07 AM

Are you going to be posting this same comment over and over until September? Perhaps you are one of the reasons Mr. Allen "is so interested and enthusiastic about the communication strategy of the administration."

Thanks, Kitt. I actually do appreciate LameMan's humor, intentional or not. He gave enough of a hint the first time he (or she) wrote it, "Lather, rinse, repeat," to give him (or her) the benefit of the doubt.

It is a little Strangelovian, (which is a compliment, I think).

Somewhat akin to:

Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones. You sure you got today's codes?

and this one:

God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids. God bless you all.

I have believed for a long time that the US does not have two distinct political parties but a single party with two factions. That single party has been called at times the Corporatist Party, the Property Party and the Elite Party. It is never called the Populist Party. That used to be the role the Democratic Party played and that is the role that established the Democratic Party as the dominant party from the 1930s until the mid-1990s.

But that is over.

It is not enough to say that fear dominates the Democratic party or to say that the Democratic party is weak. The Democratic leadership is voting its own self-interest. And that self-interest is to get elected and to get re-elected. To be a political leader in the most powerful nation in the history of civilization is worth the price of perceived "weakness." None of our congressional elected officials are poor, or homeless, or jobless, or without education or sufficient healthcare. They are elites. Even the least among them is an elite. They are connected - politically, economically, socially. Why should they exhibit "a fervent and passionate belief in our country's constitutional framework, the core liberties it secures, and the checks and balances it offers as a safeguard against tyrannical power?" It is not in their interest to do so.

This is not cynicism. There is a conflict in this country between the needs of its citizens and the greed and corruption of its ruling class. That ruling class is comprised of both Democrats and Republicans. It will do no good to elect people to replace those who are corrupted if the people who replace them are coopted the day they take office.

The Republican Party is the party of greed, division and corruption. Nothing new there. Everybody knows it. Sections of the general population support it in the degree that they think they benefit from it. But the Democratic party is supposed to be the party of the people. Obviously they are not. Perhaps Trent Lott is correct when he says, "Democrats are the ones taking the blame for not getting anything done." Perhaps it is the Democrats who are actually obstructing progress by their complacency and their own desire for power, wealth and status -- in other words, to get re-elected whatever the cost.