thank you, joan. i appreciate this post from you.

"mccarthyism" seems so outdated. we need a new brand! bushism? cheneyism? fear-mongeringism?

glad we have glenngreenwaldism.

snark ... but also:

turning on the activist machines here, and at other mobilizing blogs, to arrange for mindfulness and (ultimately) "boycotting" of fear-mongering and distraction media. religion is no longer the opiate ... it is now: britney spears gone insane, reality tv fights & arguments, trickery and gamesmanship to win money ... the barrage of pure bullshit can be overwhelming. and ... such a source of zone out narcotic for many, many people. bringing awareness to this connection, and how it affects other processes (like elections) is crucial. So ... glad you are spreadin' the word, glenn. you are spot on. sadly.

i love your absurdist humor. i've been reading through the rss feeds ... so limited commentary from me in the past few months ... but this one caused me to LOL, as the kids say. keep up the good work.

because the backlash against in ... the faux outrage ... is designed to prove the meme that the liberal media and bloggers have no issue with ripping apart the "good honest american" folk ... like joe the plumber. the only way the repub can win the white house is if they can demonstrate their talking points: that there has been unfair coverage in the media, and therefore indy's should to toss aside /all/ media reports as biased and unfair. "there's something you don't know" about ... whatever ... because the media wants to trick you. it's rove tactics of calling the other out oon your vulnerability to win the spin cycle.

the inflammation of right-wing crowds is only designed to create an "us vs. them" mentality ... to personalize the "attacks" of dangerous folks like obama on small town america. what's sad and frustrating is how so many on the left are feeding right into this trap by researching "joe the plumber's" background around tax payment, business licenses, and other issues of complete bullshit. the "angery left" never seems to realize that by taking the bait around shit like this ... we discredit our valid research of republican hypocrisy. leave joe alone ... and leave cindy alone. focus on the issues ... and disclaim this jerry springer bullshit. find a way to rise above your own personal sense of outrage, please.

It's my experience that when folks start to argue their points based on how "others" are filled with invective, or anger, or some other /naughty/ emotion ... it points to one thing: projection.

For legal and academic types ... often stuck in their heads, intellectualizing such things ... this type of argument suggests that you have really, really, really gotten under Kerr's skin, Glenn. Keep it up ... with passion and logic!

What would be a repeat of politics as usual would be the partisan-based stripping of the Lieberman's chairmanship. This is the factor that is at play ... not some absurd "we hate the left, so we want to make sure they never get what they want" meme.

I invite you and others to see the wisdom of letting a rogue-ish, politically invalid Lieberman keep his position: it demonstrates clearly that an Obama administration isn't afraid of conflicting viewpoints, or burying them in some intellectual Gitmo ... as the Bush admin has done.

Rabid oversight is good for Obama and good for the country. I know that you aren't arguing for there to be no oversight ... but it does seem you are arguing for retribution for past sins.

What is required to move the country forward is for those of us on the left to suck it up and take some hits. Who cares what naughty things Lieberman said in the election. It didn't work, and the guy's numbers are in the tank.

Yes, he failed in his role to conduct oversight of Bush. And, yes ... he will use this position now to do the opposite and provide oversight over Obama. How is this bad? For the country? For Obama? Isn't this what you tend to argue for?

You're too smart for me to out-logic (no snark, I really mean that really). If it's OK I'd rather engage this way:

Obama ran as new approach to politics, one that transcends the typical back-and-forth. I'd characterize removing Lieberman from the post as "typical back and forth." You might disagree, and that's cool. There seem to be two arguments for why: 1) he was mean to Obama, and 2) he did a shitty job at it. I think acting to remove him because of #1 is "typical back and forth," and that Lieberman might be uniquely qualified to do the opposite of #2 because he is such an "anti-Obama" figure.

I think there is wisdom in picking one's battles ... and I get that you or others may disagree on which are the most critical. This one ranks very low to me.

I do, for the record, think it is a good idea to have Repubs in key administrative spots. It prompts a diversity of ideas, with should result in good policy. The solution to insulated right-wing isn't insulated left-wing.

I'm honestly surprised you don't agree.

not smokin' nuthin'. i swear.

i think the point of lieberman historically doing a non-waxman oversight job is because he /supports/ the bush agenda. overly simplified, but that's the assumption, right? he spoke at the repub convention, right? he campaigned for mccain, right? he is a repub in sheep's clothing, right?

so ... now that the guard has changed, why not embrace the oversight? why not let the baby keep his toys and actually govern with transparency? why not invite the oversight? invite the contrary opinion? is this what went wrong with bush ... isn't this his failure?

i think what's difficult for those of us on the left is that we want some retribution. isn't this what has gone wrong with our foreign policy ... gotten us into bad wars? seeking some kind of "revenge for bad things"? finding ways to digest this ... to move on ... to turn the page (or the other cheek). that's what we need.

:)