Why is okay for Frank Rich to write about and criticize Broder, but it's not okay for Glenn?

To the letter writers who say they agree with Beck: Yes, the Zionist angle is an important aspect of this issue, but I really don't think that's what Beck meant. You're giving him too much credit. If he was speaking about a Jewish president strictly from the Zionist angle, he wouldn't have had to attach one of his famous prefaces explaining how much he likes Lieberman, before making his anti-semetic point. I really don't think the Zionist angle ever occured to him. His point was that HE wouldn't vote for a Jew for president--not because HE is a bigot, mind you--but because THOSE people OVER THERE are bigots. Get it? Isn't he such a sensitive fellow?

To Rich Emery: As far what what the hell RealName is talking about, get used to it. His letters are generally so convoluted, opaque and mixed with such a heavy dose of sarcasm (or not; who knows?), that it's impossible to ferret out his point. I'm all for making fun of people and using humor and sarcasm to make a point, but when the joke is lost on everyone BUT the letterwriter, the whole thing becomes a waste of time.

I know what you mean. I keep thinking "He's made his point now, no need for him to come back here again. And again. And again..."

Since Real Name has the smallest fan club (only himself), that makes him the "coolest" of all, right? He wins!! Yea for Real Name!

"opinions on opinions on opinions...." (to which your tendered ... your own opinion)

But that was the best part of his post!

If I'm standing in an antique store, and Dick Cheney knocks over an expensive vase, and I pick up the broken pieces and throw them in the trash, then it's my fault that the vase got thrown away? Or, if I decide to painstakingly glue the broken pieces back together, it's my fault that the vase has lost most of it's value?

Dick Cheney's version of the Pottery Barn Rule: He breaks it, we buy it.

...you think that Ms. Lewinsky was lying and that Bill Clinton never touched her breasts or genitalia?

Unless your name is Bill, Hillary, or Monica, it's none of your business. It never was, and it never will be.

I'm not going to argue with the notion that militarism is a central issue among conservatives and Republicans, but I don't think it can be stressed too strongly that the core issue that is the glue holding that group of people together is tax policy. I think the Bush tax cuts are what has endeared him to his base as much, if not more, than anything else he has done. His stubbornness with this policy, unlike his father, has made Bush a virtual holy man among his base.

This stance is also the carrot that attracts the majority of libertarian voters on election day, despite their reservations on social issues. People can cite lots of different factors leading to Clinton's 1992 win over the elder Bush. But Bush's reversal on his tax pledge ruined him in the eyes of the conservative base. Those folks don't have to worry about "W," that's for sure.

I agree that Guiliani current popularity is due to his tough guy stance, but I think the nomination will go to the guy who can be most trusted to hold the party line on taxation. And that person will likely be the tough guy, too, because tough guys can be trusted.

Anyone notice there's been no sign of the trolls on this issue? It's because they haven't received their Hannity/Limbaugh/O'Reilly marching order and talking points yet. They'll be back soon enough, but I relish these breaking stories that leave them stymied in their tracks for a while. This feels like being a parent when the kids are staying at the grandparents for the weekend.

The trolls have nothing to say, because no one has told then what to say. Yet.

The LAST thing they are going to do right now, though, is pass judgment on the behavior of Card and Gonzales, like they would have for a Democrat.

For anyone to suggest that Bush's actions are excused due to his role as "Commander and Chief" during "a time of war" has got to be pathologically ignorant, or hopelessly delusional.

Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc have made it quite clear since 9/11 that anyone not on board with their program is in league with the enemy. "You're either with us or against us." By this argument, anyone in Congress--let's take Russ Feingold for example--who regularly votes against the President's wishes, is "the enemy" in the eyes of this administration. Ditto for DNC Chair Howard Dean, and Terry McCauliff before him, since they were leading the effort to electorally unseat Bush. Under this rationale the Bush administration has put forth for their spying activities, it is within their rights to spy on them, wire-tap their phones, etc. In other words, we are not living in a free society anymore. This is not how Democracy works. This is how banana republics and fascist regimes behave.

George Bush has a lot of nerve to call out bin Laden and al Qaida for "hating our freedom." With "friends" like Bush, who needs the terrorists?