Until Democratic voters begin to demonstrate they are (1) educated, (2) informed, and (3) not driven by destructive emotions, then Congress should most definitely not give a damn what Democratic voters think.

Some Democratic voters are rabid in their insistence that the party take vengeance on Joe Lieberman for his opposing views. They insist on sacrificing a Democrat to right some imaginary wrong. "It is not retribution to hold someone accountable," they claim.

It is retribution when you're holding them accountable for what they say and what they believe. (It's also pretty un-American, and the kind of thing these same Democratic voices complain about when the Bush Administration does it.)

Joe Lieberman, as much as I dislike him, has committed no crime. The only "wrong" he has done is to buck the political orthodoxy of the Democratic Party. When it's motivated solely by the desire for revenge and/or political gain, then the demand for "accountability" is indeed a demand for "retribution."

This is a Democratic witch-hunt, pure and simple, demanded by uninformed voters who seem to care very little for actual democracy but are thirsty for revenge and bloodshed. Since they no longer have McCain and company to savage daily, they now turn on their own party, demanding the humiliation and destruction of a man who has served his country longer than many of these vengeful rats have been alive.

I'm glad the Democrats in Congress aren't as ignorant and dull-witted as the rubes who vote for them. Until Democratic voters can demonstrate political intelligence and maturity, their leaders in Congress should take their every request and demand with the proverbial grain of salt. (No, make that an entire salt block.)

"Clarity of consciousness..."

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

"...be-bop saxophonist..."

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

I think I was the last person to take Camille Paglia seriously.

The doorknob almost hit my ass on the way out.

Since these deranged citizens must have some sort of printed material to destroy, let them have their retail catalogs and shopping circulars. Maybe it will keep them away from the great works of literature they usually like to despoil.

Happy Holidays, Jesus Freaks!!!

Interesting choice of words, Joan Walsh. Using such religious, even Biblical language is oddly appropriate for such a totalitarian demand.

Monolithic party politics - especially the blind, self-destructive demands for party loyalty - are the true abomination to democracy. Demand that all Democrats think the same, act the same, believe the same - that's the abomination. Punishing Joe Lieberman for daring to differ - that's exactly the idea of "unity" I expect to her from you, someone who was prepared to sink the entire party's chance for victory in a petulant tantrum because your favored candidate ran a lousy campaign.

But thanks for reminding me what a selfish- self-serving, goddamn idiot you really are, Joan Walsh.

A little direct action could slow down and possibly prevent those constructions.

But that would be harder than sitting in a chair and posting online, about the extent of "progressive" activism for most Americans on the left.

The US Army can certainly manage to get its stooges over to the pages of Salon to boast, spin, discourage, and otherwise attempt to obfuscate a possible miscarriage of justice. In the end, these allegedly honorable, alleged former soldiers merely contribute to the victimization of their own.

Yes, the Army can fight the B.S. war rather well. But accomplish an unambiguous victory over an insurgent enemy which is outnumbered, outgunned, out-trained, and suffering from numerous other tactical disadvantages? Not so much. Maybe the USA would be better served if the keyboard warriors signed up for the action; their wisdom and genius belongs better on the battlefield than in the blogwar.

It's easy to cover - it's hard to discover.

In an interview with ThinkProgress, Army spokesman Paul Boyce insisted that injured vets are “free to exercise their First Amendment right” and speak with the media. But upon further questioning, Boyce acknowledged that if patients at Walter Reed wanted to speak to reporters inside the hospital, they must first receive approval from the hospital’s press relations office.

What if reporters want to speak to a reporter without getting approval from a PR office? “They can go to Starbucks,” Boyce said. Asked whether this was a reasonable solution for patients recuperating from physical and mental trauma, Boyce said yes. “It’s just a short trip, and many of them want to get out [of the hospital] anyway.”

Boyce repeatedly justified the restrictions on patients’ activities by citing the fact that Walter Reed hospital is a “government building.” ThinkProgress contacted several legal analysts and none of them could explain why this would justify media restrictions.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/01/veterans-starbucks/