What the hell happened to strong-on-defense Republicans? Judging from Scalia's crybaby dissent and the tone of his letter-writing supporters, the entire right-wing is now dominated by lily-livered, chicken-shit, yellow-bellied cowards who quiver in fear at a bunch of untrained, poorly-armed but committed "terrorists."

These GOP cowards attempt to incite fear in others with talk of "beheadings" and "terrorists in your neighborhood." It's such fear-based talk that it deserves ridicule rather than respect. These cretins are essentially demanding that America surrender in the "war on terror" by giving up every ideal and practice which differentiate use from the enemy we face.

Let me go on record as saying this: I am one Republican who is not afraid of terrorists. I do not favor surrendering American values in the face of threats. Give the prisoners of Gitmo habeas hearings. Free them if the wheels of justice turn thusly.

I'm an American, and I'm not afraid. I'm a fearless Republican, and I'd like to rid my political party of these quivering crybabies (beginning with Scalia), so that perhaps we could get around to the business of supporting and defending America, rather than making defensive excuses supporting the many mistakes George W. Bush and his cronies.

No surprise you (or other Clintonistas) liked the speech, Joan. "Deadbeat black fathers" is one of the favorite kicking horses of privileged, racist, white women.

1. Alex Koppelman is no journalist.

2. Alex Koppelman is neither intellectually qualified nor morally capable of making balanced, informed editorial decisions.

These two qualities however make him the exemplary model of Joan Walsh's editorial policies and practices.

Indeed, Koppelman proves himself incapable of even the most basic understanding of reader complaints about his ignoring the issue: the focus of complaints was that Koppelman's philosophy deems impeachment "not newsworthy" while he devotes hundreds, perhaps thousands, of words to trivial, personality issues.

It basically amounts to this: Alex Koppelman's idea of "newsworthy" is "whatever is already in the headlines." By his own admission, in his vocabulary "reporting" is a synonym for "repeating."

That's some real groundbreaking journalism there, that is.

Running with a Republican would reinforce the message that Obama is serious about changing the way things are done in Washington, and that he really does aim to move the country past the partisan battles of the last couple of decades.

Really? Or does it provide just one more piece of evidence that the differences between the Republican and Democratic parties are growing increasingly slim?

(Harken, anon! The ghost of Ralph Nader is among us!)

...but no doubt Alex Koppelman deemed it "not newsworthy" since no one of TV was covering it.

It's increasingly amusing to me how Salon runs these features which have "shocking revelations" about "the press" ignoring a story, while this web magazine's own editor and her underlings have an openly admitted policy of basing their own editorial decisions on what everyone else is writing or talking about.

Salon's hindsight is both 20/20 and blinded.

(Irony: it's good for the blood.)