Yes, speaking from beyond the grave, I have the early leading lights of the American conservative movement, who want to give their response to this video. First up is William F. Buckley. Mr. Buckley, what do you have to say regarding Ms. Jackson's comments?

Buckley: Mph! Sob! [Sound of uncontrolled sobbing.]

Well, Mr. Buckley seems unable to respond right now. We'll go to the spirit of Richard M. Nixon. President Nixon, what is your response to this video?

Nixon: Jesus H. Christ, what the fuck was that?

Thank you Mr. President. And Senator Goldwater, what do you have to say?

Goldwater: I TOLD you this was going to happen! I warned you long ago what would happen if you let those Christian Right idiots take over!

Very good Senator Goldwater. And you, President Reagan?

Reagan: Well, golly, I still don't have any clue what's going on. God bless America!

And there you have it, folks. Republicans speaking from beyond the grave!

I was going to write some response here, but I thought better of it. I know I'm breaking my own advice right now, but I just wanted to suggest this one thing.

Let it go, people. Turn around and walk away. Just let this ugly thing that is the monthly Paglia spew lay down and die.

has become mildly more critical of Obama in recent months; its screaming, red headline today: "White House May Cave on Public Option")

Good. Something like that should be in screaming red headlines.

With luck, soon they'll have screaming red headlines for items like, "Obama Continues Bush Detention Policies," or "Obama Expands Executive Secrecy."

The more high-profile criticism of Obama we see from the left, the more the Overton Window gets dragged back from the far right.

This raises all kinds of interesting questions as we start to approach the midterm elections. Because by then, it will be Obama's economy, politically speaking

Yes, it'll be Obama's economy, but who's going to be held accountable at that point? The Democratic congresspeople up for reelection then, that's who. Obama (and, especially, reputed headknocker Rahm Emmanuel) ought to be reminding the Dems of that fact.

The Republicans in Congress couldn't care less; the worse things get the better for them. They have every reason to be as obstructionist as possible.

Is Obama aware of that, or is he dreaming (David) Broderesque fantasies of "bipartisanship?"

From the conclusion of the July 3rd post, "Sarah Palin Crosses the Rubicon:"

She will now be the anti-Obama, standing up for her personal beliefs, free of the constraints the Alaskan people have placed on her. She is now free of them, and they of her - though I think they will be the ones to regret it first. [My emphasis.]

Goddamned Alaskan people!

Also, are they the slightest bit aware that Caesar crossing the Rubicon is generally not considered to be a good thing? At least, not for the Roman Republic.

Dear God, what a bizarre press conference! Did anyone make any sense of that whatsoever? I mean, other than, "Whaa whaa whaa people are mean to me!"

What does she mean about making change outside the government? Is she going to lead the armed wing of the Alaska Independence Party into the mountains or something?

That's gotta be the best summation of the 21st-century GOP I've ever heard.

'Cause, as we found out recently, there's another GOP figure who's forwarding emails from God, AKA "Trig’s Creator, Your Heavenly Father."

Sorry, Joe. Guess you're just not on Yahweh's email list, beeyotch!

There's no excusing "accidental" death here. If you kill someone in the commission of a felony, say, robbing a liquor store--even if you "didn't mean to"--guess what? You're guilty of first-degree murder.

If you kill a helpless prisoner in camp, while torturing him, same thing.

And, it should be needless to say, if you ordered the torture of numerous people who subsequently died, you are, once again, a murderer.

Apparently, the first successful Latin American coup in sixteen fucking years is not "news."

Linked below are pictures of the Tehran-style repression in Honduras. Don't click; it's not news.

I'm very familiar with the Neo-Cons and PNAC. They are a toxic bunch of pseudo-intellectual hacks who couldn't cut it in actual academia, so they've formed a sort of shadow academic echo-chamber to pretend they're actual intellectuals.

Agree 100%.

the very obvious motivating factors for the invasion of Iraq. Bush's obsession with restoring his father's legacy, Saddam's easily scapegoating "bogeyman" villain, and the need to act militarily tough after 9/11... to claim [helping Israel was] even a minor motivating factor is ludicrous.

Now you're doing exactly what you accuse Glenn of doing: arguing from conclusions. Why on Earth are your stated motivations so much more "obvious" than the Israeli situation? The former include no small bit of mind-reading, while the latter was a stated objective.

That fact is there is no clear reason, or set of reasons, for the Iraq war. They were certainly never coherently stated in the first place. Yes, your reasons, plus Israel, plus Just Because We Could. (Or, as Thomas Friedman put it: "Suck. On. This.")

Which goes a long way to explaining how "well" things worked out.