Just out of curiosity - given Cheney's popularity here in the states I think it would be interesting to find out exactly how people really do feel about him potentially biting it. I think a poll question something along the lines of:

Do you think the United States of America would ultimately be better or worse off if Vice President Cheney had been killed?

I would just be curious what the numbers would look like. I think it would be interesting to quote one of the many many calls for "liberal" executions, such as Gaffney's idea that congresspersons should be hanged for disagreeing with President Bush or Coulter's idea that certain Supreme Court justices be poisoned, and ask poll questions as to whether people believe that the United States would be better off if some of these things occurred. I know it would be in bad taste but I think it would be interesting to see how the majority of the public would respond.

If it is about considering what is best for America and people answered honestly what do you think the final count would be? What would your answer be? No need to post it obviously but it is an interesting question to my mind.

Has anyone had drawn the obvious conclusion that some--if not most--of these abusive comments might be made by right wing trolls? What better way to make sure the opposition sounds shrill by posting your own shrill comments on their site?

Bingo. Archive the fascist comments - and e-mail Kurtz a few thousand of them every time he gets the vapors over the crazy lefty blog commenters.

But in the bigger picture - I'm glad Glenn stays on Kurtz's ass, but in the overalla analysis we see that this is how the game is playing out. Overwhelming rejected by their country, which is tired of the war they ginned up, the conservative movement has ratcheted its fascistic whining up a notch, playing the "victim" card they play so well. Kurtz and others latch on to it - let them. The continued failure in Iraq and ultimately Iran - face it folks, these idiots are going to drag us in there - is going to further alienate the country from both the Howard Kurtzes of the world along with the subjects of his lame writings.

Glenn,

As Howard notes, Huffington Post took down the offensive comments. Their reason for doing so obviously escaped Howard. Huffington Post didn't just write a disclaimer and let the comments stand, they flatly denied giving a voice to those comments by eliminating them so they couldn't be spread around and around and around. And denying the posters their first amendment rights more than sufficiently demonstrates the comments were not consistent with or representative of Huffington Post editorial or its readers nor did they condone such sentiments. The fact that both Michelle Malkin and Howard Kurtz chose to give new voice to those comments makes them no different or better than the individuals who wrote them originally.

Jill

A few loonies wish these guys were dead. All you sons-o-bitches want them to live, and be in office, forever.

I want him brought to trial for war crimes. He and Bush are responsible for something like 100x the deaths bin Laden is. Even considering just American deaths, they have killed more Americans with their falsified intelligence than bin Laden has with his bombs.

Maybe they had the legal authority, but it's un-Christian, it's immoral, and it's wrong. And if you don't think it's wrong, there is something very wrong with you.

I mean, Republicans and conservatives would never stoop to wishing for the deaths of United States government personnel.

Is the condascending and patronizing crap from whatever right wingers are on the media panel discussions, with their bountiful compliments and hallelujahs to the site for taking the posts down.

All of us great patriots, left and right, must fight this sick left wing.

They should have left the posts up.

Give these pricks an inch, and down the road you pay for it.

That Freeper thread is very interesting. I'd love to see how the right would spin that.

Ummmm, one is rooting for the enemy during a war, one is not? Not to question anybody's patriotism, of course.

Both are immature and silly, though -- you know the commenters are 16-yr-old pimplefaced wusses.

And of course, Glenn would never -- NEVER!-- sift through rightie sites cherrypicking comments and attributing them to the rightie "mindset," right?

I mean, except when he does (as was documented yesterday).

And of course, Glenn would never -- NEVER!-- sift through rightie sites cherrypicking comments and attributing them to the rightie "mindset," right?

I mean, except when he does (as was documented yesterday).

Cherry pick: "to select with great care only a few items out of many."

Representative: "One that serves as an example or type for others of the same classification."

Selecting a few comments from one post in order to imply that an entire group feels a certain way is "cherry picking." That's what happened with the HuffPost.

Selecting HUNDREDS of comments from many posts from several different sites is called a "representative sample." That's what Glenn did.

Apples vs. oranges.

Ummmm, one is rooting for the enemy during a war, one is not? Not to question anybody's patriotism, of course.

I don't see how it is. I don't even think there exists "the enemy" as such, just largely unaffiliated, self-interested groups that this administration has lumped together for political purposes.

This division of the world into "us and them" is intellectually lazy, and frankly, pathetic in it's desperate desire for moral absolutes. A lot of the people who claim to be "us" are only out for themselves, and you'd be a fool to think otherwise.

Great article as usual, Glenn.

Noticed one typo that you must not have caught (as the post has been up for a while):

No, perish the though. Nobody would ever try to suggest that these 200 or so comments are reflective of anything important at all.

It should be "thought," I assume. Not to be nitpicky or anything.

Thanks for the wonderful work you do.