I think John Stewart said it best, something like...

"For months Giulianni was the front runner...and then people voted."

It makes you want to go after me. I would do some introspection about that comment if I were you.

Right back at ya.

How many have received a positive response? Page two, my positive response to DCLaw1 right before DCLaw ripped me a new a-$#@%$. Anywho, your points are taken and considered.

Anonymust. You're right, Bucky made a similar comment a while back and I agree that it probably going on, but never gave it much thought. I am curious as to how my responses would affect Glenn's reputation though. I'm probably missing something, but I can't think of a dynamic where that would occur.

I agree, "adversarial" journalism works best. But, I often wonder how it would play out. Who was the president that began the custom of the regular press briefing? I think it was Wilson...before that, Chief Executives did not believe they had any obligation to regularly brief the press--at least not on the press's terms--and neither did the public. The question remains, how do you get a supremely powerful person to sit down for what may be a challenging interview? In a market driven press, surely there will always be five to ten Russerts for every Amy Goodman.

Ok, I get you. But to clear up the record, I certainly don't "just" complain about not getting respect. Look at my post archive, the no-respect issues would be a spec. I've been writing posts here for over a year. I never rarely received a comment from anyone, until just recently when one or two responses from Glenn encouraged the rabble to go after EVERY single word in my posts. LWM and William Timberman hounded me for weeks on two ridiculuous issues, mischaracterizing my remarks at every opportunity. I was also accused of all sorts of duplicity along the way, including inventing my ethinicity (ies). This encouraged others to pile on. Not a very conducive environment. Again, I get your point. I'll take sixty percent of the blame and even more, but I won't take all of it.

Well, I suppose this is the best example of what you're talking about because I have to be clear, before I say that I agreed with everything you said, that I DON"T ENDORSE RON PAUL ;). What's interesting is that on any given day, you can log on here and think that there are just a few people running the posts. And then the next day, its a completely different group of people...

To be honest I had never known the context of the "first kill the lawyers" thing. As in most references, for some reason, it eventually becomes synonymous with the ideas it was meant to critique. But I would like to play devil's advocate for a moment. I think one of the reason that this idea is so attractive-that lawyers bear the responsibility for our corrupt society--is that so few people ever have a positive contact with a lawyer. I think DCLAW noted the unconfirmed statistic that the majority of lawsuits are initiated by corporations. Most people live in a confusing and frightening prison of legalese--their phone contract, their leases, their credit card bills, parking and moving violations, etc. Not being able to afford a lawyer, they live in constant terror of the LAWYERS OF OTHERS (and no, you cannot steal that as the name for your next novel). Just putting it out there, and I think someone also mentioned the idea that idea of giving poor people access to lawyers for capital offenses was once considered a threat to the establishment, or something like that....

...though I screed with the best of them, and I've gotten into a lot of real-world trouble for not being able to cage my political passions and emotions. I like GG's writing style most of the time, but he does have moments of venom that can be offputting--though understandable. I actually haven't read any of his books, so I can't comment on those. As a case in point, though, I was watching Real Time with Maher last night as well. I;m not sure of the names, Adam Goldberg? (the actor) and the lefty Jeremy Scahill. Scahill is so used to either talking with the like-minded or venting spleen at the Right Wing, that he didn't seem to know how to carry himself in an informal dialogue with a diverse group of voices (some, like Scarborough, leaning to the scummy side). His anger at Scarborough came out at all angles, and he didn't seem to be able to put his critiques in any kind of structure. Ironically, Goldberg, a veteran of some of the worst films ever made, was the one who came off reasonable and as better (if muted) advocate for progressive issues. We're all angry about what's going on, and I often feel as though we've actually not been loud and angry enough. But, we also have to realize how we come off to the less invested (and sleepy) public.

I think that's great. I don't see how that refers to my point, though. I would also submit that Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism is currently at Number 2 (just behind Valerie Bertinelli's "Losing It"). Just a quick glance at the hard cover non-fiction best sellers shows Newt Gingrich's Real Change, and Glenn Beck's An Inconvenient Book way up there too, though there is a scarcity of any books with a left or progressive perspective. Not to put to fine a point on my perspective--half-baked and recently acquired--but it would also seem that those books are being marketed as the RATIONAL response to our hysterical political correctness. A caveat, I am not invested enough in this point to continue much past this post...Take a look at the list here anyway, interesting...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/books/bestseller