including the interview, and I absolutely agree with Glenn. Avarosis was (understandably) flattering the host by calling him fair. It was neither phrased as a question nor was the inflection in his voice anything but a statement. By the way, I was so outraged by Kurtz' defense of Hume I considered boycotting the show from now on. That takes a lot.

A personality disorder masquerading as a political perspective. Call the book "The Politics of Personality Complex" or "Macho Madness: Inner Insecurites Turned Outward Against Society." Which begs the question, is this guy et. al. even unconsciously aware that they're NOT discussing politics at all, but proclaiming their psychoses?

"The Sissy Syndrome." Concise, creative, descriptive AND alliterative.

Howie's book about his own job? Seems he's pretty lousy at it. In this instance, he has reversed cause (Edwards losing the caucus) with effect (less coverage). While knowing quite well that his readers know it is precisely the opposite.

Time to read your own book again, Kurtz. Or maybe not. Maybe it was as lousy as your reporting.

Smug little pischer. No wonder his reporting stinks - it reeks of arrogance.

The title of Glenn's next book: Quid Pro Quo Nation.

I can't have read a more sickening - or boring - description of an event since Hardball's webmaster reported on Laura Ingraham's book publishing party. Or any of those Hardball newsletters, for that matter.

Every cell in my body rejects these people, their mindset, their values, their raison d'etre. And for that I am thankful.

...and I'm chopped liver.

...vehemently

to bipartisanship? They killed it. Guess they enjoy being the straightman for such an obvious retort.

is that he ran in 2006 knowing it was likely to be his last hurrah - that by the next election his constituents would not be fooled again. So he probably never intended to run in '12 - the deal he made with his devil.

the stupid ones, anyway, which I have never watched, but the promos during the not-stupid Sunday Criminal Intent marathon drive me to distraction. The kid - and he sounds very young - who does them must have skipped the subtlety chapter/class in voiceover school, because he comes across as a parody of an announcer. In a word, his exaggerated inflections are obnoxious.

"but I'm not above being petty and trivial, so I'll use the rhetorical device anyway." Brooks' naming of Obama's arms reminds me of a Keillor monologue in which the 4th grade students named the teacher's flabby arms "Bob" and "Hoppy." For some reason, I found THAT funny. Maybe because children were just being children.

"...I do not know the technical term to describe this kind of spectacularly specious reasoning."

That's easy: tortured logic.

Maybe laughable, if this is your idea of humor, but hardly tragic. More like self-absorbed and inconsequential.

with the word "potentially." Any decent editor would have deleted the qualifier.

wherever the rightwingers live is a depressing place.

he's your first cousin once removed. And my advice is to change your last name. Not being ashamed of it is irrelevant. You nullify the issue of prejudice against the name, and are judged, as all deserve to be, by your deeds.

"everyday." In his context, that's illiterate.

for another insider's view of an upside-down, inside-out, and backward other-end-of-the-kaleidoscope political terrain. Which makes even less sense in your "let's be reasonable" framework.

There may be room for fluff (which is arguable) but that's no rationale to include it. Not when it's more annoying than entertaining, which it definitely is.

that I think we lefties ought to spare you the pejorative "wingnut" - that is, you and only you. Which is not synonymous with agreeing with your argument, which I don't.

which is just slightly less despicable than this poster for bothering to mention the matter at all. But not for the reasons Sheppard thinks, of course.

You're not for real.

That "I've been more tortured on Fear Factor" crap reminds me of a line in a Coulter piece just post invasion to the effect of troops complaining about getting their hair mussed up. And now the 2 Michaels in the WSJ: oh, poor captives being waken from their beds....classic minimizing, or dismissing serious claims by comparing them to mere inconvenience. This must be the memo circulating on the torture revelations: don't deny they occurred, instead delegitimize them by making light of the techniques used.

How pathetically transparent are these rightwing creatures.

Laws (such as proposed gay marriage) force no one to accept or approve them, only to abide by them. And all your other arguments are even more irrelevant.

who, by the way, is a far better polemicist than you (not to mention an actual attorney). So here's an idea: hold a Salon contributors debate. And good luck making your case against Glenn. One argument I don't advise: this false dichotomy you constructed between prosecution and passing legislation. Different branches of govt., Mr. Keillor. Not to mention something about walking and chewing gum.

re: last week's column shaping up? Have you set the date yet? Sorry, but I can't read any subsequent columns but through the lens of that pile of crap.

Maybe Matthews is not your friend.

(or at least the parts you posted) are a "credibility killer" - of his.

Not even remotely. And, as long as we're reading minds, it's also not possible Limbaugh believes his own hype.

your opinion on torture prosecutions and your opinions on the other topics is that you actually believe the former, not the latter. Meanwhile, I love that passive-aggressive eff u to those of us justifiably offended by your bogus reasoning in the column 2 weeks ago. Speaking of which, set the date yet on the debate with Greenwald?

OR it may be constantly misdefined.

"The issue of consent is not necessarily as complicated as we make it out to be." Change "consent" to "sexuality," delete the word "necessarily," and I finally relate to a single sentence in this interview.

Please don't. It's very distracting - at best.