We invade their country, killing tens or hundreds of thousands, on false pretenses, against the advice of 90% of the rest of the world.

And they are not fit for civilization?

Oh-kay. Got it.

They probably now consider George W. "too liberal" for their tastes and an "islamofacist sympathizer."

Actually, yes, that is exactly what the right-wing radio talk show hosts have been saying for a few months now. I am pretty sure I heard it on Michael Medved and almost certainly on Savage.

And they say it with certainty, as if it were the most obvious thing in the world that GWB is left of center.

I know. It's amazing.

It's like hearing people compare Georgist economics to socialism. Even William F. Buckley, Jr. (a Georgist himself) laughs at that. You might as well call Churchill a socialist. He was a Georgist, too. Henry George was as American as apple pie and Mark Twain, (another Georgist). The same forces that put Henry George's ideas down the memory hole are at work on FDR and The New Deal. As Atrios says, "These are bad people."

I don't have much to add, I just appreciate that there are others who care about Georgism.

Have you seen http://www.progress.org?

I'm not sure that a constitutional amendment guaranteeing people the right to be free from prosecution for their sex lives is the best approach, but I would have no objection to such a thing in principle. (I suppose an amendment that reads "The government shall more or less basically leave people the hell alone" is too much to ask for.)

Not at all. That would be the Ninth:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In many respects, impeachment as a check on elective officials at the highest level; i.e. president and vice-president was taken off the table forty years ago when Nixon resigned and Ford pardoned him. Translation: You can break the law, resign, and be pardoned for your crimes (before conviction) by a political crony.

Impeachment of the President probably made more sense back in the days when the Vice-President was rarely of the same party.

I can't help wondering how Libby--with his personal talent, vast wealth, unlimited access to the best attorneys, and political connections--got convicted and sentenced to prison time for something that was not criminal.

Where did he go wrong? Forget about the jury, why wasn't this case thrown out in pretrial motions?

(This isn't for shooter, I swear, but I think it's a handy talking point for anyone who still has right-wing talk radio pals.)

From Glenn's article:

There has arisen a relatively recent orthodoxy among political journalists that, whether we agree or disagree with them, we're all supposed to show great respect to the "values voters" political faction, because it is grounded in deeply held moral convictions that merit real respect.

But the "peace voters" faction isn't?

And the "economic justice" faction isn't?

And the "racial equality" faction...

What is it about religious extremism? Why do the Christianists get all the respect?

In light of such overpowering evidence of false premises for the Iran war-mongers, why are the Democratic presidential candidates silent on this? When will even one candidate have the spine to stand up and say "These people are wrong, they were wrong on Iraq and they are wrong on Iran"?

Kucinich.

He didn't bother to "spin" it, he just pretended it said the exact opposite of what it actually said.

The other authoritarian candidates want to be elected so they can wield the enhanced powers of the Presidency, but they don't want to alarm the voters.

Romney, on the other hand, thinks that the idea of a monarchial Presidency will help him get elected.

From Theodore Franks's letter to the New York Times:

Mr. Edwards's multimillion-dollar medical malpractice verdicts almost certainly hurt the quality of health care in North Carolina.

On what basis does he make that claim?

If Edwards keeps winning malpractice suits, it would seem to indicate a great deal of malpractice going on. How is the malpractice the fault of the lawyer who comes on after the fact?

Is Mr. Franks claiming that a jury doesn't know a bad case when it sees one?

...is how little investigative reporting Glenn does.

Rarely does "Unclaimed Territory" do original research, because it's so rarely needed. The crimes and craziness of this administration are literally front-page news. They don't bother to hide this stuff. It's right out there.

If you're looking for Dominionists, about the last place to find them will be in a UCC congregation.

I agree with the others who are saying in essence that Obama is running these ads defensively, because "I'm not a Muslim!" is ineffective rhetoric. Really not the same thing as what Huckabee is doing.

Glenn wrote:

As the events of the last two months demonstrate, if citizen opposition is channeled the right way, it can make a genuine difference in affecting the course of events in Washington.

But furthermore, it demonstrates the effectiveness of straightforward, principle-based opposition. The Senate does its thing, in its bizarre ways, under procedures that normal people can't easily follow.

I'm afraid sometimes here the blogland we sometimes get too clever. From a citizen's point of view, triangulating doesn't work. Out here past the Beltway, the thing to do is demand what we want clearly, forcefully, and with consequences. Let the Senators worry about the maneuvering, that's what they're paid for.

So did Dodd go along with this "unanimous consent" agreement--and if so, why?

Maybe so, but wouldn't it be nice if Congress would do its job and quit passing legislation that is obviously unconstitutional?