Glenn should try to think of ways to protect the Constitution and the rule of law without resorting to extremist partisanship.

-- skeptonomist

1. We have a judicial system because no one has found another acceptable way.

2. It is necessary to enforce the rule of law. That is how you protect the constitution.

3. Why must bipartisanship always block effective action when the dems are in charge, but the repubs can do whatever they want when they are in charge?

tyrants -- our Leaders have so many Good and Important Things to do..."

Consider a ball rolling down hill and then up the next hill. It does not make it to the top of next one, but stops for an instant before rolling back. That instantaneous pause is the time that a benevolent dictatorship lasts, and the roll back down is where the country is headed.

Only the people can force the rule of law. Let those elected know what they must do.

...merely replacing someone in the position of a deeply influential Chairmanship who has strayed way too far to the Right and turned himself into a leading advocate for the most wretched policies is considered horribly divisive. To do that is a vindictive, partisan purge...

Then count me among the horribly divisive, and favoring a vindictive partisan purge.

One point to make to your favorite senator or representative is that no matter what the democrats do, the repubs will claim to hate it. You cannot get love, tough or otherwise, from the right. So therefore, you, the representative of the people, should seek the approval of your constituents, those folks who have voted for real change, by actually enacting the right stuff.

Never mind that many of them might as well be repubs, it is time to let them know what they ought to be. They must fear the people more than the repubs.

There are many ways to let them know. I suggest stopping short of total rudeness, but not much short of it.

Media bias is clearly demonstrated by the fact that ONLY Fox IS reporting them.

Or perhaps FOX is the only one misreporting them.

Many of the policies he is contemplating changing via Executive Order were ones that were improperly implemented by Executive Order in the first place.

So can such executive orders be rescinded (executive order #a is no longer in effect), or must a new order be put in place (executive order #b is issued with new action that in effect make executive order #a no longer apply)?

I would feel a lot more comfortable with the first.

So maybe these beer ads with sexy women but average Joes make men feel good about drinking low quality swill.

Those of us who have been in academics can attest how easy it is to feel removed from the practical consequences of whatever might be advocated, and how much easier it is to treat things as just a intellectual argument involving generalities.

I disagree. Could not disagree more. Much of the push for and support of practical societal change and justice in the US has come from academia.

Yes, I divide it into two parts:

1. the violation of our constitutional principles;

2. the application of these violations in the murder of hundreds of thousands of people.

Personally, the second excites the greater outrage by far.

As a father of two daughters and a son (all grown up now) I can appreciate the problems, too. One big change for me is this: rather than having a president with whom I would not want to have a beer, we will have a first family that I would love to invite over for dinner.

Ah, sorry to blame you for Bush's election; it must be his reelection I meant.

In 2004, those 30-44 in age voted 53-46 for Bush. Only those 60 and over had a higher percentage, and just by one point.

The election of W in 2000 was so close that all generational groupings must share the blame. Members of any one could have stopped it. Apparently you claim your generation is completely innocent. Is this exceptional or typical behavior for your generation?

I really enjoyed this article. Maybe US history fits conveniently into these divisions, or maybe not not. At the very least, it is very valuable to read the evidence for a framework that never would have occurred to me.

Why should anyone feel the need to apologize to the people who ELECTED Reagan?

Because they elected Bush.

You did not get it until his VICTORY speech? You are a dull lot indeed.

Was there ever any doubt?

You seem unable to decide yourself whether the biggest problem was what Clinton did, or the bad publicity driven by the republican "investigation".

No, I think what you call "getting it" is just your gut reaction. You have no justification to claim it as the truth.

Your digital image and watermark analogy is very good.

I do not believe that these opinion polls can be used to prove that no manipulation took place. But I do believe that they do indicate was Glenn was denying: "Just as was true in 2006, various factions from across the political spectrum insisted this election that the ultimate vote totals for the Democrats would be substantially lower than what polls predicted."

As for this: "If the various voting machine theories were valid (and/or if the "polls are biased against Republicans" theories were), then one would expect to find that, in key races, the actual results would be substantially worse for the Democratic candidates than final polls predicted. In the last two elections, that is plainly not true; if anything, the opposite is."

Not completely proven, I think. It is perfectly possible that such efforts were attempted but were not successful because the image could not be enhanced enough without potentially revealing the watermark.