But these are the kinds of stories I want to see much more of in the run-up to 2008.

There were plenty of these statements in the run-up to 2006. The GOP made the Democrats' opposition to detention, torture and warrantless eavesdropping a major theme in their campaign. The overwhelming majority of House Democrats voted against detention, torture and warrantless eavesdropping weeks before the election, and Rove made that a major campaign issue.

How did that work out? Maybe if you click the heels together a few more times, it'll work this time.

You're using amphiboly here to tar folks like me as unreasonable.

What's so odd about your comment here is that you have decided to place yourself within the scope of what I was criticizing in my reply to Che Pasa, even though (a) I wasn't thinking about you when I wrote that and, more significantly, (b) had I thought about you when I wrote it, I would have said that you were excluded from that.

I agree it wasn't clear in what I wrote, but there are, of course, different types of "systemic critics" of America. Some people embrace systemic criticisms but still work within that system to achieve what they consider to be constructive results.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are people who are committed so completely and exclusively to their systemic critique that they are actually uninterested in any incremental change - they only believe in, and are waiting for, some major paradigm shift or revolution -- because they believe that all change is meaningless so long as the fundamentally corrupt system remains. People in that group are not only indifferent to positive incremental reform within the system, they often also actively oppose (whether they say so or not) such reform, because incremental change can placate people; it can diffuse the anger that they want to milk to launch more systemic changes.

For the sake of the discussion, if one assume that only those two poles exist, I absolutely place you closer to the former, not the latter -- and that is apparent from many things, including your very first comment here today, were you argued that Democrats were superior to Republicans on the "security state" issue notwithstanding the numerous deficiencies of Democrats. A systemic critic indifferent to incremental improvements does not, by definition, think that way.

You are not someone who belittles the restoration of habeas corpus as more or less meaningless, because -- although you surely believe that it leaves all sorts of grave injustices unaddressed -- it is still a meaningful enough improvement for you to support. Therefore, you do not exemplify what I was criticizing.

Words are fine...up to a point.

Habeas Corpus is a corner stone of Amercia's republic. It's a main character of America. Bush and a large number in congress has changed that character for the worst, and not too many are upset about that. Yes, there are those that are trying to be heard about such matters, such as Greenwald; but the bottom line is: Words are fine...up to a point.

OK. So words are insufficient. The crisis is too grave for mere words to suffice. You said that three times (at least).

More is required. What beyond "words" needs to be done? Be specific.

The Primary Cause of the Beltway Mentality . . .But there's one cause of that disconnect that I don't think gets nearly enough the attention it deserves. In fact, I think it's by far the most important contributor to it: how much MONEY these pundits earn. Chris Matthews' annual income is in the seven and perhaps even eight figures. Broder's is almost certainly in the low seven figures as well.

As others have pointed out - not just today but other days, too - Bob Somerby at Daily Howler really has been writing with great insight about what motivates these punidts and media stars for as long as anyone else, if not longer. And he focuses on their wealth as a significant factor in what distorts their view of the world.

I agree it's definitely a factor - and it's one thing that distinguishes the modern journalist from journalists of the past -- but I think it's an overstatement to say it's "The Primary Cause."

Financial wealth by itself does not warp someone's personality, nor does it guarantee that someone will lose touch with how they thought before or how people who aren't wealthy think and live. There are plenty of wealthy people who don't become twisted and detatched in this way.

It takes some extra personality attributes/deficienices to cause that. Not all rich people want to be part of some overstuffed, grotesquely effete and soul-less royal court. Wealth is but one factor explaining their behavior, but there are several other ones that are, at least, equally important.

Roughly 50% of the comments so far are from you - the majority of which are one-line outbursts and most of which are completely unrelated to the topic of the post.

I barely ever delete posts and hate doing it, and ban people even less frequently, so I'm asking you to refrain from that behavior - it's disruptive and pointless.

Waxing Scalia, are we Glenn? (see: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.)

I love Scalia's dissent in Hamdi (joined by Justice Stevens) and quoted it at length in my book. He dissented because he thought the majority did not go far enough in placing limits on the President's power to detain Americans as "enemy combatants" and without due process (he thinks it's never constitutional, which is true). It's clear he would only apply that reasoning to citizens, but since that was the only issue in that case, it is a very potent bit of judicial reasoning.