From Anonymous Rethuglican Senator Buff Oone:

"I believe this Congress has many more important issues to confront than rehashing conspiracy theories related to a case that has already been solved and closed."

From Blue Dog Representative Hugh Jass:

"Liberal Score Settlers who are still looking for someone from the Bush Administration to hang for what they perceive to be poor policy decisions will not get my support to spend further time and resources when we have an economy in crisis, people without affordable healthcare, and two wars being waged overseas."

From former Vice-President Dick Cheney:

"Fuck you."

One wonders if he looks over his shoulder a lot when leaving buildings and restaurants at night.

I know I would.

Of course, someone as completely deranged and mentally ill as he must be to do the things he's done probably doesn't give it a second thought.

I call that "Rovism."

It continues to amaze me how these people can continue walking around and not be publicly stoned. We surely must look like fat, lazy, stupid citizens to the rest of the world. And we are.

...are, according to Politifact.com:

#180:

"Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration's initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens. As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law."

Note the weasel word "initial" in there so that he cannot be called out for his disgusting vote for the ultimate version of the FISA revisions. Also note how the greater oversight and accountability will only be vested in Congressional committees, vs more broadly changing the law to be less personally invasive to begin with.

#390:

"Will strengthen privacy protections for the digital age and will harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy."

Suh-Wiing...and a miss.

Link at sig.

(Ambinder's post will prompt me to resume efforts to invite onto Salon Radio those who are criticized here and to make note of those who refuse).

As you know, I've rambled about this topic in several letters that you should most definitely call these people out when they refuse to come onto your show or be interviewed by you. I know that being antagonistic is not always the best approach, but when you are otherwise completely rebuffed or ignored, who cares? There is no way to advance the discussion or engage in productive discourse if they outright refuse you, so call them out publicly on it! You are not exactly worried about your reputation of sounding "shrill" since you are already labeled that by those who fear you, and not regarded that way by anyone who bothers to read you or truly analyze your arguments.

It would not take long for you to have a very nice grid built which will highlight those you've asked, the topic of discussion, those who've refused, and the lame reasons given. Perhaps it could even include other journalists like Digby, Maddow, Moyers, or whomever would be willing to participate, which shows the myriad of chicken shits we have in our MSM and pundit/political class who truly have no courage of their convictions. What a great tool it could be to reference when writing future articles criticizing them: "It's worth mentioning that both Brit Hume and Chris Wallace of Fox News have refused my interview requests 17 times in the past year and a half...."

As the grid gets larger, and the names and number of times they've refused also get larger, it will become a very obvious and telling tool to show the public just how bankrupt are the ideas and discourse of these supposed "experts," especially when the grid includes other reputable journalists besides yourself.

I'd be willing to mock something up for you should you be interested. Call it the "IRG" or Interview Refusal Grid.

The point being: More light needs to be shined on frauds like Kristol, Krautheimer, Friedman, and the rest of their ilk to show the American public that the people they listen to are not credible. After all, when you are unwilling to be interviewed by someone who disagrees with you, why should your ideas even be considered by any critical thinking person?

Is it even theoretically possible to have a worse, more deceitful and more moronic press than the one we have?

No.