In a nutshell, isn't that the defining quality of a Republican? Someone who votes in his own self-interest over everything else? And Democrats vote more for the greater good in general? Even if someone votes for the Republicans against his own self-interest, he probable believes he's voting in his own self-interest.

No matter how many times a Republican tells me his candidate is "doing what's best for the country," it never sounds sincere. Either that, or the person comes off as a complete kool aid drinking tool. The Democrats are far from perfect, but there's something to be said for voting for the party that actually believes that government can make a positive difference under the right circumstances.

How anyone can believe that it's a good idea to put someone in charge of the government who fundamentally is against the concept of said government working to benefit the greater commonwealth--as opposed to the top 2% tax bracket--is beyond my comprehension. "Yeah, let's elect a guy who hates the government he's supposed to be in charge of..." great idea!

Of all things, this is what stirs your outrage? You claim to be too busy to let mundane minutia concern you, but Glenn plugging his own book is what really sent you over the edge? Amazing.

Why do we even need the MSM, if all we're going to get from them is blather like Glenn brings to our attention every day. Why don't we just have Tony Snow get on tleveision every evening, tell us what the administration wants us to hear, and leave it at that. All the rest is just a waste of time if the MSM refuses to do the job they're supposed to be doing.

someone writing in to ask "who cares"? If you don't care, why bother to write? I think a better phrase to write would be "I give up!"

As a "journalist" how much would you have to be paid to re-print the governments lies and talking points on a daily basis, and still not give a damn what the geveral public thinks of you.

Now, I wonder how much Cohen is paid. A lot less than most of us would require, I'm guessing...

I mean, with an idea like that being right on the tip of his tongue like that, it must've been considered as an option. Maybe even discussed and debated by the powers that be--to the extent that there's ever any disagreement with that crowd. Maybe by "deciding" not to, Bush overruled Cheney, who certainly would've thought it was a swell idea. I wonder what stopped the president? Just so Tony Snow could brag about his restraint in front of the press gaggle?

seems to boil down to:

a person who belives he has a right to know what his or her government is up to, and that those in power should be held accountable for their (mis)actions.

That is what is considered "radical," "fringe," and "Liberal moonbat" anymore.

"Evil" is basically irrelevant.

"Dangerous," is an infinitely more useful term.

"Suffice to say the left often fails to deliniate what is sane, mainstream left opinion, and who are vocal cranks."

When you're is accustomed thinking for yourself, it is considered unnecessary and often redundant to make such judgments. Unless you're just bored or pedantic by nature.

By and large, the lefties are harmless. Completely harmless. They don't wave guns around, don't bomb abortion clinics or federal buildings. They are jaded and lazy, too, going by my friends who are "fringe lefties." Being afraid of them or overstating their importance reveals certain paranoias and prejudices.

I said "by and large." You even quoted it, but just chose to ignore it. Even still, those you cited are harmless in comparison to the right wing fringe. How many people protested the WTF, vs how many NRA members, or Minutemen volunteers there are? Plus, the lefties you cite were never in an impressive number, except for maybe FORTY years ago. That's a loooong time. Enough time to render them irrelevent to the disussion at hand, that's for sure.

Hey, I'm perfectly willing to compromise... eventually. Compromise is bullshit though, if you don't put up a healthy fight first. I think it's the "give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile" philosophy. Eveything that has happened since 2000 has taught me that this crop of "consrvatives" will take 10 million miles if you give 'em an inch. Remember "I'm a uniter, not a divider," followed with "you're either with us or against us after 9/11? Fuck those guys. Compromise? Sure... eventually.

ps--Ask a Native American how he feels about "compromise" in the proper historical context, of course.

I imagine he came up with his "middle of the road..." quip AFTER Karl Rove ruined his political career, not before. I'll ask him next time I bump into him.

and there's the "right fringe"... and then there's that perfect little "island of one" known as "Real Name" that sits squarely in the middle of Lake Superior. I bet it gets cold out there all alone in the dead of winter.

Okay then, how would you apply the philosophy to Bush's tax policy? Where's the compromise there?

When I say "fight" I mean "hold your ground when you're right as long as you can, and compromise when you have to." That sounds QUITE reasonable to me. It's called "standing up for your convictions." People tend to respect you for it, or so I've heard.

At least I'm witty (not to mention right, too).