The term "hate speech" has a fairly specific meaning at this point, however. When it is used formally in university codes of conduct or laws it usually refers to pointedly violent, eliminationist speech.

There are variations in interpretation and the wider the latitude in what is called hate speech the less useful it is as a concept. Is calling someone a faggot hate speech? Most on the left agree that it is, those on the right - not so much. I personally think the concept of hate speech would be more useful if confined to those who actually advocate violence. But even that reveals my own prejudices.

Having said that, I can state with confidence that anyone who refers to Glenn's as a hate site, clearly has difficulties with reality beyond any assitance I could possibly provide.

There's only one way the administration position can be said to make sense but once conceded, it makes perfect sense. The only goal of the entire Iraqi operation is to have permanent bases in Iraq. The civil war doesn't matter. The situation on the ground doesn't matter. As long as US troops can operate, then we are successful, and roadside bombs and other sources of casualties are simply nuisances that can be ignored.

Of course, because the public was sold a bill of goods about our reasons for being there in the first place, it's still necessary to do the dance that we are actually trying to accomplish something. But those in the know already realize that our current status quo was indeed the desired end state.

Thats why to leave is to lose and to stay is to win. Nothing alse matters!

Do you intend to stay in Iraq forever?" Assuming his answer to be some variation of "no,

But there's no reason for him to answer any variation of "No" The original plan, still in place. is that a compliant friendly government will be in control in Iraq and we'll have permanent bases there to replace the ones we cleared in Saudi Arabia. Remember how long it took to amass troops on the Kuwait/Iraq border. Think of the time we'll save by having 150,000 troops permanently stationed in Iraq. From there they can influence the entire region.

To stay is to win. To leave is to lose. Nothing else matters.

I don't dismiss everthing you say as moronic but I do have one bit of advice. Everything you believe about Valerie Plame and Global Warming is factually incorrect. Every time you bring either subject up you automatically become the idiot the others here accuse you of being.

That the advertisers who pay the bills and presumably are better at taking the pulse of America than the pundits themselves (they after all spend millions on market research) would be raising a major stink by now. Are corporate boardrooms also that divorced from reality or do they honestly think they can shape public opinion by describing it inaccurately? I'm not being rhetorical...I really want to know.

It's pretty much what they do to every Democrat, isn't it? For that matter, every non-Bush. Nothing personal

I disagree. For whatever reason the animosity directed at Pelosi is greater than that at Democrats in general and it has all the hallmaks of being exceedingly personal.

the opportunity to observe the process of self-delusion up close to be quite educational. The key to avoiding hijacked threads is to confine post responses to those where one has a snowball's chance in Hell of imparting a touch of reality.

verbing oddballs speechifying?

what may turnip on one of these threads....

It's all about gender roles. The reason the attention paid to Giuliani and Gingrich's sins don't negate the premise of the post is because their behavior is consistent with the implied gender roles of Republicans. What after all could be more archetypically masculine than serial adultery?

I must respectfully disagree. I think the coverage is all about portraying him as effeminate. It he happens to also lose populist cred in the process, well then, those are bonus points.

eriday's comment here captures it well:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/18/beltway_wisdom/permalink/e8b9ae5d9a001d7f88d1072c5824978e.html

The ideal candidate will obviously be the one who can find a barber (not some metro-sexual stylist) who charges somewhere in the $10-20 range. When interviewed said barber will say that first they talked about NASCAR, then the prospects for the deer season, just touching on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but a 20 minute hair cut only allows so much conversation.

Never underestimate the power of archetypes. In elections they can be fatol.

Thank you HG.....

You've certainly identified the phenomenon as succinctly as I've seen it expressed in a while. What I find interesting about the whole mentality is the degree to which it is driven by the fantasy that Everything can be controled.

"if only someone had had the courage to jump the gunman then those people wouldn't have died."

"if only we had been more resolute we wouldn't have lost Viet nam"

"if only we extend the tours of all our soldiers, Iraq will suddenly stop being a disaster"

In every case, they're unwilling to consider the possibilty that certain things are simply physically unattainable. It's almost of matter of taking the power of positive thinking to fatal extremes.