In her post, (item 6) Barbara O’Brian notes that righties are comparing Huckabee to Jimmy Carter as a form of an insult.

She doesn’t mention, however, the vast difference between Carter and Huckabee (and other GOP candidates) on religion: their respective views of the separation of church and state.

The GOP has been promoting this “separation” as a “myth” and have been working for years to “tear down that wall” – this is the opposite of what both Carter and Kennedy before him advocated when they spoke of religion.

From a Kos diary on this subject:

”The interview also makes clear that Carter was just as adamant as John Kennedy in placing an absolute barrier between church and state. He cites Jesus' admonition to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" as clear instruction that Christians should not insert their faith into political matters, saying that he considered the separation of church and state to be both a constitutional and a biblical mandate.”

That’s the difference between the two parties on religion. And indeed, it’s that difference that’s causing the GOP such consternation with both the Huckabee candidacy, and what to do with the religious right monster that they’ve created but can no longer control.

http://tinyurl.com/2vbw6r

Note: The documentary Manufacturing Consent (in item 3) is available from on-line DVD rental outlets and it’s definitely worth watching the whole thing.

And how can Senate Democrats pretend to be outraged at such policies when the leader they chose supports them?

Quite simply, they can’t.

As Marty Lederman put it:

“Really, isn’t it about time the Democrats select an effective Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, one who will treat this scandal with the seriousness it deserves, and who will shed much-needed light on the C.I.A. program of torture, cruel treatment and obstruction of evidence?”

It is quite clear that unless the Democrats do that, there will be no meaningful investigations into this scandal. As long as Rockefeller presides over this committee the administration has nothing to worry about – and they know that.

What isn’t clear is whether the Democrats know that. Will they recognize Rockefeller’s complicity – and thus their own – and do something about it?

Sadly, there is nothing in past actions that indicates that they will, and the result will be the leadership of the Democratic Party joining in the “cover up” and the “obstruction of justice” engaged in by this administration.

The administration wanted the Democratic leadership compromised on this issue – that’s why they showed them what they did – and it worked. They gambled that Rockefeller and the others would never dare to go public with this at the time and it turned out to be a pretty safe bet.

http://tinyurl.com/2l9zw3

Jules Crittenden, seconds Podhoretz’s “dark suspicion” because the intelligence community “allowed itself to be shamelessly manipulated by political leaders” in 2003. What he fails to mention is that it was Dick Cheney and his neo-con cabal who manipulated the intelligence.

It’s really hard to believe he’s saying this:

“I confess, I can’t help but entertain the same dark suspicions, with a grim sense of ironic foreboding … what if the intelligence community that failed to prevent a supposedly unnecessary war in 2003 when it allegedly allowed itself to be shamelessly manipulated by political leaders, thwarts a necessary action and inaugurates a worse war at some future date … after allowing itself to shamelessly manipulate the same political leaders.”

Shorter Jules: Because the intelligence community collapsed under pressure from Cheney to hype the threat from Saddam, we can’t trust them now when they didn’t collapse under pressure from Cheney to hype the threat from Iran.

Poor Jules. That doesn’t make any sense on so many different levels.

http://tinyurl.com/2ztaqw

But I entertain an even darker suspicion. It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again. This time the purpose is to head off the possibility that the President may order air strikes on the Iranian nuclear installations. ~Norman Podhoretz

So, as Nuke ‘em Norman sees it, this NIE is really a “conspiracy” by the pantywaists in our intelligence community to undermine our great leader Bush and his heroic efforts to save us from Islamofascism.

Once you take away the immediate “fear” that these guys have been promoting for years, their arguments melt into a mush of macho conspiracy theories by people who have never been right about anything.

http://tinyurl.com/26xcxy

So, I’m still wading through all the informed, in-depth, and well-thought out opinions given by media maven Howard Kurtz in his on-line chat today in response to all the questions regarding both the Joe Klein/Time scandal, as well as the National Review fabrications.

I’m having a bit of trouble trying to summarize his take on the most discussed media controversies of the last week.

Indeed, I’m having a bit of trouble even finding his take, or even questions that were allowed on these subjects by the Washington Post. Isn’t that strange?

Oh, wait, here it is, I found it:

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Ah, well, that certainly helps to explain Joe Klein’s actions and National Review’s non-controversy this week. I’m sure that works for Joe K. and K.J. Lopez.

I commend Howard Kurtz on dealing with these prominent scandals in such a forthright and meaningful way. It is, of course, what we’ve come to expect from him.