The premise here appears to be that abortion is not merely one issue, but an issue of such overarching importance that having the wrong position there ought to preclude "any thinking person committed to individual rights" from supporting that individual, regardless of their views on every other issue.

Isn’t that the same premise that keeps so many Republicans from supporting Rudy Giuliani? For them, his “pro-life” position of “such overarching importance” that they can’t bring themselves to support him.

The difference is that Giuliani’s desire for an empire, and for more war, are positions already injected into our political discussions – indeed these neo-con ideas sometimes dominate the discourse. In contrast, the opposing position articulated by Paul is rarely heard and dismissed as not worthy of debate, and that’s why his candidacy brings “important positive elements” to the presidential race.

I agree with Glenn’s point on hypocrisy of a single “litmus” test on abortion regarding Paul, but there are quite a few other positions of Ron Paul that would keep me (and many others) from wanting him to be President. If it were only that one issue he would have far more support than he does.

Let’s not forget the glowing reports of Michael Fumento in National Review and the Weekly Standard. He always writes just what the military and the neo-cons want to hear – that’s what he’s paid to do

In 2005:

“Today Fallujah is on the mend and then some, a symbol of renewal and American-Iraqi cooperation….

“We’re certainly not trying to turn this into the equivalent of an American city,” says Williams. “But it will be first class for an Iraqi one and that’s going to win the hearts and minds of the people.” From the smiles, the thumbs up, the waves, and the cries of “Hello!” in Arabic I got from the children in even the worst parts of the city, I’d say they’re being won.”

And in May of 2006:

“But what’s happening now in Fallujah illustrates what must be done if we are to ultimately defeat the insurgents and terrorists throughout all of Iraq.”

Fumento has been in a “payola scandal” in the past and was dropped from Scripps Howard News Service for doing so. But that doesn’t keep him from still being imbedded with our military and writing for National Review and the Weekly Standard.

http://tinyurl.com/cx5u9

http://tinyurl.com/2b8x6z

http://tinyurl.com/2sdxzg

That one reason for Reid's actions might be that the telecommunications industry is our main intelligence capability? If they aren't granted immunity and decide to shut out the government, we could be rendered deaf, dumb, and blind.

And just how could they shut out our government – if we had a government willing to act within the law? With warrants and proper legal procedures the telecom industry would have nothing to fear from cooperating with such a government, no reason to shut them out, and no way to do it.

Really, this isn’t hard. Right now, we have a lawless government insisting that the telecom industry break the laws set up to protect U.S. citizens.

The alternative isn’t between immunity and “no intelligence capabilities” – that’s a false choice, and a ridiculous one at that.

The choice is between having a government that follows the laws, and one that doesn’t. This whole question of “immunity” only arises because we have the later – a government contemptuous of the law.

In short, the neo-cons use the charge of “anti-Semitism” in the same way they do “anti-American” and they do this to shut down all debate.

Consider Bill Kristol’s defense of Joe Lieberman:

“What drives so many Demo crats crazy about Lieberman is not simply his support for the Iraq war. It's that he's unashamedly pro-American.”

Thus, to be against Joe’s unabashed support for neo-con policies is, of course, “un-American.”

Using their (the neo-con’s) terms, the polls Glenn cited (and others) show that most Jews are anti-Semitic and most Americans hate America and, more recently, most of our troops “don’t support the troops.”

They’ve been getting away with these rhetorical distortions for so long that they’ve become short-hand in the corporate media, routinely used as if they were “facts” or “true” rather than the result of a quite successful propaganda campaign by the neo-cons.

In 2002 before the Iraq War, Jonah Goldberg wrote an article detailing all the benefits of war titled, “War: What Is It Good For? Quite a lot, actually.”

According to Jonah, all kinds of good things come from war including “material progress” and the number of medical breakthroughs attributable to war is “literally incalculable.”

He also writes: “Women's suffrage would not have been possible without war.”

Wow, women must love war.

Now if I were to attend Jonah’s talk today, I'd list some of numerous disasters that have happened in Iraq since we invaded and ask him to expand on this quote from before the war:

"The biggest favor the United States ever did to militaristic Japan was to crush it militarily. Our victory ushered in prosperity, democracy, and a productive peace. The Iraqi people would be lucky if we did them the same favor."

Do most Iraqis really feel “lucky” that we did them the “favor” of occupying their country? Do you really believe that, Jonah?

No wonder he’s nervous about “non-friendlies” attending his speech - they could ask some very awkward questions.

http://tinyurl.com/2dozrp