To one critic, Olbermann's actual performance at the debate and in similar situations was less important than the message sent by his presence.

In that one sentence, AP’s David Bauder gives away the game and exposes the double standard that "conservatives" want to apply: for them, it is not acceptable for anyone who has expressed “liberal” views (or openly challenged “conservative” positions) to question Presidential candidates during debates. However, that rule does not apply to those who have expressed “conservative” views.

Hume, who openly admits and expresses his conservative views, insists that he should be judged “upon his performance.” Yet, that is exactly what “conservatives” are trying to deny Keith Olbermann. They object to his very existence; his performance is irrelevant.

What conservatives want in the debates, and the criteria they want applied to the questioners, is the very same standard that Bradley Schlozman applied in the Bush Justice Department: “Is he one of us?”

That is their goal. And there is absolutely nothing “fair” about that at all.

If our trolls want to dispute Glenn’s point, then all they have to do is make a list of prominent neo-conservatives who have openly and forthrightly condemned the actions of Libby, Franklin, Wolfowitz and Black.

If what Glenn has put forth in this post is indeed false, that should be easy to prove. Where are their specific examples? Where are the neo-cons who have defended the investigators and prosecutors of these individuals?

So far, they haven’t provided a single one. Until they do, I think they can be properly ignored.

I think Orbitboy’s previous post about the Manichean and authoritarian worldview of the neo-cons answers the question "Why use "neo" when just plain "conservative" will do?"

Not all “conservatives” and Republicans share this Manichean worldview, but among those who do, they also share the neo-cons contempt for the rule of law, and this is why this attitude is so predominant in the Bush administration and the Republican Party.

Loyal Bushies are “loyal” precisely because they adhere to the “with us or against us” mentality of their leader, and their contempt for the rule of law has been made abundantly clear.

The “base” of the Republican Party (particularly the religious right) also share this same worldview. “Conservatives” who do not share this Manichean view have abandoned Bush and the Republican Party. John Cole at Balloon Juice is the perfect example. When he condemns his former party, it’s because of the authoritarian religious extremism, the lawlessness, and the tolerance for immoral conduct that is accepted. The same is true of the Libertarians we see here.

All neo-cons seem to be authoritarian; that’s not true of all “conservatives” or of everyone in the Republican Party.

And on the personal level, these oh-so-tough-on-crime warriors believe in complete immunity and unaccountability for their fellow comrades.

Riffing off from Glenn’s post, Digby has a quote from Kate O’Beirne where she says that “facts” are unnecessary when defending someone like Rush Limbaugh, whose character, she says, is simply beyond repute.

Such a defense of their “fellow comrades” (as Glenn calls them) is reflexive, instinctual and primitively tribal.

But the reverse is also true. They don’t need to know “the facts” to accept any smear against Pelosi (or the “liberal” punching bag of the day); that too is pure reflex, and why their smear machine is so effective within “the bubble” – the facts are unnecessary.

In contrast to crime fighters of days past who said things “just the facts ma’am” - today’s “conservatives” don’t need “the facts,” don’t care about the laws - they are simply “right” by being on the “conservative” team.

In their view of the political game, there is no need for referees. All fouls, all penalties are automatically called on the other team – for they have been given automatic “immunity” by virtue of their team membership.

I have applauded your recent focus on the failings of the press. But I completely agree that habeas corpus is the bright line between civilization and tyranny…

That bright line is precisely what the “press” failed to convey to the American people, and this monstrous bill was the result of this failure.

The “press” was also instrumental in failing to counter the climate of fear that the administration wanted to perpetuate in order to circumvent our rule of law.

That climate that turned politicians of both parties into cowards and they failed to stand up and point out the false choices presented to the public by a lawless administration.

The idea disseminated by the Rovian machine that those who didn’t support this bill were supporting the terrorists is simply obscene, and they should have never been in a position to make such an absurd claim in the first place.

This doesn’t excuse the Democrats one bit, but it does explain the necessity of focusing on the dysfunctional media without which this bill wouldn’t have ever passed in the first place.