Go Russ. He may or may not have made the right decision on his prospects as a presidential candidate, but it is a pleasure having him in the Senate at this time. He continues to impress me as a man of convictions, unafraid to say and do what he thinks is both right and best for the nation. He has to be one of the least "political" politicians of our time. He definitely doesn't hold his finger to the wind before he makes up his mind. And while that may make him superficially like Bush, Feingold has the additional qualities of intelligence, respect for the American people, and, perhaps most important, the strength to truly uphold and defend our Constitution.

I'm speechless.

Hasn't been to Iraq so he doesn't know if there's a civil war???? There are times when the designation of Bush as a sociopath seems like a correct diagnosis. Now I think we have to add delusional idiot.

Please make it stop. The man's incompetent and needs to be removed from office post haste.

He is either too simple-minded to understand what freedom truly is, or he is purposefully spewing empty rhetoric.

-- Dan

Bush is nothing if not simple-minded when it comes to anything of significant complexity. I've seen it argued in a number of venues that he's not stupid, but, for me, that assessment is too simple. Bush has a kind of political/social intelligence when it comes to manipulating people--particularly poorly informed or ideologically blind people--and circumstances to get what he wants, but beyond that, he is far below average in his ability to take in complex information and assess the ramifications of that information. How else to explain his inability to understand prior to invading Iraq that the three main factions were unlikely to peacefully coexist just because Saddam was removed from power?

Nonetheless, there is also ample evidence from previous speeches and press briefings that Bush spews a lot of empty rhetoric. Words that will provoke strong emotional reactions from his audience that, if examined closely, are found to either be at odds with the facts or empty.

My guess is that in this instance, he doesn't make the connection between Guantanamo and freedom because he makes an exception for "those people" given their "guilt." I also think he knows he's spewing empty rhetoric, but his purpose there is just to try and sweep some segment of his audience along on the emotion rather than a reasoned analysis of his words. I'd find the whole speech laughable, except for the knowledge that it is highly probable that many in Guantanamo are not terrorists and that it is one more stone being removed from our moral high ground.

Nice one Keef. I do think your cartoon art would be a good investment, but not Mallard Fillmore.

Thanks Glenn. The meeting between Tony Snow and the White House correspondents is just further proof that Stephen Colbert was spot on when he addressed the President and the press corps and basically called the press corps a bunch of stenographers. You'd think after that calling out and the attention it garnered on the web that the press would have figured out they have a problem. But no. They blame the messenger. If Wolffe's idea of his role is correct, we should just cut out the middle man and let the Administration publish its spin and propaganda directly to the newspapers and other media. Why bother with the additional (and inefficient) expense of employing reporters?

I decided some time ago that most of the evils of which the right accuses the left is pure projection, taking one's own characteristics (usually negative) and attributing them to your opponent/adversary. What Glenn is pointing out here is yet another instance of it. And it's so obvious that I, like Glenn, cannot understand why the media isn't able to see it and report on it.

I'm convinced of two things. First if it were objectively reported, the right would either have to stop or become much more sophisticated in its application. No reasonable, open-minded person would fail to see the hypocrisy. Second, the fact that it isn't widely reported shows that the MSM is either very lazy or biased or both. As Glenn points out, if the MSM is going to jump on the left for statements similar to those on the LGF, there must be reciprocity in the reporting.

At this point, I'm definitely convinced that most MSM journalism is shoddy and sensationalistic. All news channels would be better served by only reporting a few hours a day and spending the remainder of their time doing some serious research into the subjects they blather about so blithely.

That is bewildering. As a nation we've become desensitized to how insane things are in this country.

--m.b.f.

For those who dine on a steady diet of television, I agree. Alternatively, for those of us, myself included, who watch virtually nothing on the TV wasteland and who are old enough to remember what things were like before the counterbalance of the old Soviet Union disappeared and capitalism's faults were held in at least some check by the need to counter Soviet propaganda, the little bit of TV news we do see is revolting and obviously vapid.

The Daily Show may only be a "comedy" show, but they do more "serious" reporting and analysis each night than anything I've seen from the commercial stations (via Crooks and Liars).

I should add that Keith Olbermann does seem to be an exception.