Example: When the opposition in a political argument hits you with a reasoned argument for which you have no lucid response (or worse yet, a good point wrapped in genuine wit)...

-- Debra

Don't worry, Debra. When you manage to come up with a reasoned argument or a good point, you will be debated substantively.

Under the circumstances, and given the stakes of this scandal, it would be a total abdication of the duty of Congressional oversight not to compel Rove's testimony in a public forum and under rules where it is more difficult for him to lie. And that's true regardless of whether it's politically beneficial.

--Glenn Greenwald

This is a great point, especially in light of the many variations on "the Dems are just doing it to make political hay" talking point we've heard today.

Of course the Dems are going to get political hay from the Republicans being investigated for criminal wrongdoing. So, does that mean that they can never investigate any alleged Repub wrongdoing, because the idiot posse will immediately play the "this is just political" card? Do the Republicans want that to be the outcome the next time they want to investigate a Democratic president?

The Dems have to investigate this. The entire reason that this talking point is so bandied about is to make them back off from it, for fear of looking like partisan hacks. But the evidence is there - at least enough to look further. The Dems can't be cowed by the party of Whitewater/Starr/140 hours of testimony about the Christmas Card list crying that the investigation is "just politics."

To some degree, the problem is simply American's interest in shiny objects and the media's desire to pander to the lowest common denominator.

I know your post was posted hours ago, but it was something I had been considering this morning, as well. A USA Today/Gallup poll taken Friday - Sunday shows that Americans want the US Attorney scandal investigated by 3 to 1. BUT, the poll also says "Interest in this controversy is much lower than it was in the Lewinsky scandal, however. Only 14% are following the U.S. attorneys story very closely; 32% are following it somewhat closely. One in five say they aren't following it at all."

Why is that? Is it because people are far more interested in sex scandals than political ones? Or is it because the Lewinsky affair was on network and cable news 24/7, while anchors like Brian Williams are telling Americans that they don't care about the US Attorney scandal and don't want it investigated?

The Bush administration can not be trusted. It has violated the trust that was given to it ... we must remember the founders warning to trust no men living with power to endanger the republic. And I would say that men who have asserted the Yoo theory of executive power and who get their advice from quasi (if not actual) fascists like Mike Ledeen are certainly men who should not be trusted.

-- m.b.f.

Have you heard Cheney lately? He is getting increasingly shrill and hysterical. You can literally smell his fear, so he's ramping up the ridiculous rhetoric. He sounds a lot like Malkin, Ingrahm, et al.

But, the difference is that he has a vast amount of power. Cheney backed into a corner is something that frightens me to no end.

Charles Edison was one of the original John Birch Society supporters.

-- m.b.f.

And, I'm sure old Kar said it with no sense of irony.

The scary thing is that 30% of this country still buys into that sort of talk. 30% is a lot of people.

I agree with a previous poster: I'd rather be blown up than live in the nightmare the PNACers are dreaming about.

-- prunes

I would definitely rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

Of course, what we are currently presented with is the worst of both - having to live in the nightmare the PNACers are dreaming about AND being blown up. There is no indication that anything they have done has made or will make us safer.

Does that reflect giving as a percentage of income or net wealth? If so, why don't you cite us some relevant data?

-- orbitboy

I also want to know how much of it is required tithing or other donations to religious entities who don't have to pay taxes.

I also think that some reflection of the constant wingnut wailing about having to pay taxes for social programs to "welfare queens" and "lazy people" needs to be included in the analysis.

Where are the socialists?

A luta continua.

-- valentinian

Exactly.

Where does one have to sit on the spectrum to think that the only two parties in this country are "left and far left"? Most people here who identify with the left, or even far left, would still be considered right-leaning in most European countries. Where does this perspective come from?

The idea that Dems and Repubs are all the same is one I've dealt with myself. To an extent, I believe it. But, I believe that they're exactly as you describe - the furthest left they go is center right. After all, they cannot get elected without corporate campaign financing or inherited wealth. Why would any of them fall to the far left? It's nonsensical. Of course they're self interested, but that doesn't make them "left and further left." The two ideas don't go hand in hand, and I've seen no explanation for that.

I also believe that most of the citizenry is center-right. That's why they tend to gravitate toward the Democrats and people like Bill Clinton who was far more conservative than I would have liked.

There is a definite misunderstanding in this country of what constitutes socialism, communism, or even capitalism. Nothing makes me laugh harder when the right expresses the Rush et al. talking point that Hillary Clinton is some sort of raving socialist or communist.