Perhaps only 25% of the population identifies as Republican these days. That sounds about right. You know, that 25% that still supports Bush and was never playing with a full deck anyway, like you.

-- LWM

I read somewhere (and now can't find it, so take it with the requisite huge grain of salt) that the Republican party is currently 3rd in new voter registrations, with Democrats first and independents/decline to state second.

With a modern version of the domino theory, still shorn of any citations of actual data. He does seem to acknowledge that such data exists, however, even if he's not interested in looking at it or posting it. So he's coming along.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTVjMjVjNTAwZTc3NmFmOWY5NWRiYmZiZjBkODAwYWM=

-- Elvis Elvisberg

It sure didn't take long for the predicable: "Republicans are just poor, hapless victims of biased poll questions. If they'd asked the question correctly, I would be right about there 'not being a shred of evidence.'" Just more shifting goalposts from those who perfected the concept.

Coming along? Maybe. At least he said the answers still might have been the same... But, there's always a "but." I think you might be being a bit too generous.

This isn't quite fair of him. To give him a way out, I also suggested that he might simply be a refugee from the Austro-Hungarian Empire who was not familiar with our nation's political system. But he didn't admit to that.

-- Baldie McEagle

I've got an out for Mr. May. Generally, if one does not want to be called a liar, the appropriate way to avoid that is not to lie.

It's pretty easy.

I think their heads will explode, which is exactly why May won't include it or link to it.

-- GlennGreenwald

Normally I'd think the following would happen if he posted the poll: the readers would just claim that polls are inaccurate and historically biased to the left (see Shooter242, earlier), while presenting no evidence of either. Then, tomorrow, they (and NRO's own writers) would be claiming that there is "not a shred of evidence that a majority of Americans want us to leave Iraq" again and the whole thing would start all over again.

However, May's defensiveness, willingness to spend a good deal of time emailing back seemingly everyone who emailed him, and refusal to post the poll results seem to indicate that you're exactly right.

Shooter242 thinks Max Cleland was a screw up who had his arm and leg blown off reaching for a beer in Vietnam. Just ignore him.

-- LWM

I'll back you up on that, too. I saw it.

I've met Max. He's a truly amazing human being, in so many ways. I've never been so inspired by anyone. He'd probably tell us to ignore Shooter, too.

Do you smell Rove in this?

-- Jim Montague

I absolutely do. It's Iraq run up redux. Does ABC know what it's doing?

The Salon article didn't manage to come up with a single name of such a person, however.

Hello pot, calling kettle black?

-- No Name Given

Glenn didn't write that article. Glenn is not the editor or owner of Salon. Glenn does not implicitly approve of all actions taken by Salon because he is a Salon contributor. He has no power (that I know of) to change Salon's editorial policies or other author's work.

Furthermore, Glenn has never said that it was always unacceptable to use an anonymous source. In fact, in this very post, he laid out the conditions under which an anonymous source is acceptable. You don't say if the article you reference (but fail to link) met those requirements or not.

Furthermore, do you think that, if Salon engages in poor journalism, that it excuses ABC from being called out for its poor journalism, especially when such poor journalism has, in the past, been used, in part, as justification to invade another country?

You're gotcha isn't one.

Oops. Substitute "your" for "you're" in my last sentence.

The other question never answered when the issue of "how close are they" comes up is, "is there any evidence that they are going to use them against us?"

The best way for us to get them to use nuclear weapons on us is to attack them.

The warmongers (who both lust for war and need war because there is no "unitary executive" without a "time of war") don't want to hear that.

I have had a bumper sticker on my car for about 3 years that says, "Yee Haw is Not a Foreign Policy." I don't think anyone's listening to me.

But I think it's interesting that one of the more common criticisms aimed at liberals is that they're "too cerebral," and "don't show enough emotion."

-- orbitboy

Really? I'd never heard that. I often hear the 30% true believers claim that liberals make all decisions based on emotion. That's why they want to do crazy things like feed the poor and provide education. (It's not because doing both of those benefit the economy and reduce crime rates. It's because they're such pathetic bleeding hearts.)

Of course, these are people who also call liberals communist-socialist-fascists, though. I think they're more of the "if you throw enough s**t, some of it might stick" school.

For instance, they'll claim that we're basing our lack of support for Bush's Grand Iraq Adventure on a simple cost/benefit judgement, without any concern for how wonderful we've made life for the Iraqis (I feel the need to retch after typing that). And then, without even pausing for breath, they'll accuse us of opposing the war entirely because of our irrational hatred towards the greatest president of all time (ok, now I really am going to be sick).

-- Jared

Excellent point (I hope you were near a bathroom ;).

This is what happens when people argue based on convenience, rather than facts. The contradictions seem to multiply like rabbits.