"For my part, I will use as much 'energy' as my needs warrant and I can afford - and I will vote for whatever measures & candidates that will provide me with the energy I need... Less energy is less 'progress' - so much for 'Progressives'."

-- Historybuff1

Progressives, from my experience, don't think solely in terms of "what's in it for me". They tend to think about what's best for society and aren't completely indifferent to how their actions can negatively affect others.

Since you're a right-winger (and I wouldn't be surprised if you're a "man of faith" like George W Bush), you probably would need counseling on why people would act benevolent and not think solely in terms of themselves. Why the one million + innocent people slaughtered in Iraq because they had the misfortune of living above oil reserves, is something that should make you hesitant to act so narcissistically and recklessly again. I know thinking in terms of "others" is a very liberal, progressive idea, and shares nothing with the self-importance of family-values Republicans, whose attitude - from Ronald Reagan to George W Bush - has been: I got mine, you get yours.

But that's actually an extremely fucked up and horrible way of thinking. Just so you know.

"Dual loyality I fear will be the demise and repeat of past horrors to Jewish people."

-- roroflyer

I fear that the lesson of past horrors is that man's inhumanity to man only applies to atrocities against Jewish people. That the cavalier talk of "obliterating Iran", a country of roughly 71 million people, will lead our delusional Connecticut cowboy to drop a nuclear device on Iran (with God's guidance, of course) and incinerate millions of innocent people in a way that the Führer could only dream of.

Are there any Republicans complaining about this?

I might be very well wrong, so could some please explain where I’m off base.

I can’t help but notice, as the GOP is very likely facing its swan song and will not control either the congress or the White House for years to come, how much executive power is being handed to the Democrats. If there’s a Democratic president, with a Democratic congress, how exactly does all this warrantless spying power in a Democratic leadership help the GOP? Are Republicans thinking so short term that protecting George W Bush and Dick Cheney (two people who couldn’t give a rat’s ass what happens to other Republicans) is a bigger priority than what will be a carte blanche ability for a Democratic administration to spy on Republicans after Bush/Cheney are gone?

As someone who sees the Elliot Spitzer scandal as very likely being a direct result of the illegal-monitoring-gone-wild state and a justice department that has become overwhelmingly partisan, are there not Republicans -- with the same MO as Spitzer (possibly much worse demons like Larry Craig and Mark Foley) -- thinking maybe, just maybe, their skeletons could bring them down post January 2009 with all this newly granted power?

I'm starting to see why some Democrats, more than Republicans, would want such a strong executive power.

Is there any direct contact information for Soderberg? I could find nothing in the LA Times and her website just has an email for media contacts (presumably to hire her for her brilliant legal expertise).

Do the Andrew Sullivan's, Nancy Soderberg's, Steny Hoyer's, and other ‘fair-minded’ apologists for this illegal activity ever address the issue of John Ashcroft, James Comey, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and other members of the DOJ all threatening to resign en masse unless the spying activities (referred to as “other intelligence activities”) ceased?

Even if you believe that the warrantless surveillance was exercised ‘responsibly’ (as ludicrous as that is), does the Ashcroft/DOJ aspect ever get addressed any more?

Glenn, you hit the nail on the head the other day when you said we’re dealing with a fetishization of the presidency. The warped, abhorrent worship of our Supreme Politicians (whether it’s Bush or Hillary or Obama) makes no difference. People defend the corrupt behavior of Barack Obama in EXACTLY the same way George W Bush has been defended for his corruption – “what he’s doing is too important to criticize.”

I was listening to you and Nancy Soderberg this morning on WNYC. I know it was a very abbreviated interview, particularly since there were audio problems, but it was driving me crazy that she kept saying “Bush’s directive” and “the President’s orders” in dismissing the telecoms law-breaking. She used those terms multiple times. I really wanted to hear you take her apart for her perverted view that ANY citizen or corporation takes orders from the Goddamn US president!! The acceptance of this upside down view -- no longer is the president a servant of the people, the people are now servants to the president – is at the crux of this whole fetishization of the president.

"As a Clinton supporter, I will now be accepting the apologies of you Obama fanatics."

-- cresttwo

The weight:

Barack Obama ........... Hillary Clinton

Fourth Amendment ....... one million men, women, and children dead

Fourth Amendment ....... one million men, women, and children dead

Fourth Amendment ....... one million men, women, and children dead

Really?

Apologies?

You feeling good today?

"To put on the shoulders of Clinton the deaths of millions is a reprehensible gimmick"

-- Independence_2008

Reality is a "gimmick"? So THAT'S how people voted for Clinton!

Ignorance is bliss.