Paul wrote:

Oh! NOW I Understand!

i_ween:

When will it end? When you start voting third party.

If only Ralph Nader had gotten 97,489 votes in Florida in 2000, instead of 97,488, all would be solved!

Or, maybe if Harry Browne had gotten 16,416 in Florida, instead of 16,415, since you fail to distinguish at all between the wide array of third parties out there.

Perhaps Natural Law will do it? F=m*a! Now there's a slogan for ya!

actually, and here is a point I am sure you will not recall in your list, if Gore had gotten ANY (453) of the 300,000+ votes from Democrats that voted for Bush in Florida....

Ah, it is easy to place blame where blame belongs... Gore lost in Florida because he didn't get enough votes. Or, actually, he did and he handed the presidency to Bush in his role as VP in the Senate anyway...

Peace,

-Derek Java

I’ll admit it, when I first heard that Alberto was resigning my first reaction was not to celebrate but to say, “oh-oh, what are they up to now?”

Sinister theories about recess appointments were thrown about, the Democrats in Congress were demonized and, oddly, the far-right seemed to happier that Gonzalez is leaving than many in the progressive blogosphere.

How sad that we’re so used to getting screwed over that we can’t recognize a victory even when we’ve achieved one. I’ve been trying to get a handle on this resignation all day, but it wasn’t until I read Sidney Blumenthal that I realized what a victory this is.

All of these various investigations have been moving closer to their targets (Rove and Alberto). Gonzalez has been contradicted by his subordinates and numerous others and, as Blumenthal points out, “As a practiced attorney, he knew that once he left government service he would become less interesting to investigators and that whatever revelations were unearthed would have less political impact.”

The resignations of Rove and Gonzalez are evidence of an administration under siege in bunker mode attempting to cut their losses and doing it (extremely awkwardly) in late August when they hope no one will notice.

Getting rid of Rove and Alberto has been the culmination of the slow investigative progress that Glenn has been promoting here for so long. Instead of recognizing a victory, too many here are already conceding defeat.

When your team finally scores a goal it’s time to cheer, not leave the stadium in utter defeat.

WTF are you talking about, Glenn? When does "make a good living" mean "become extremely rich"? You complain of misrepresentation.

You accused Greenwald of not giving a shit about Third Parties only because he makes a comfortable living. The degree of lowness of that insult can not be overstated. Glenn's having come back at you with snark and ridicule was as warranted as can be. What the heck do you expect?

The charge of defeatism leveled at some of the posters here is a misrepresentation, and it doesn't even make much sense. While some posters have expressed disgust at how there seems to be no way out of this current mess, nobody at all has concluded that was should therefore give up all participation and do nothing. That was Glenn's (mocking) addition. What some of you seem to be suggesting is that to come to a forum like this and express exasperation and hopelessness about our chances of success is somehow counterproductive. Well, bullshit. It's all part of the process of diagnosing the problem and being realistic about what can be done, and just because some perspectives are bleak doesn't necessarily make them any less useful to all of us than the more inspirational posts.

And just as important, it's silly for anyone in this forum to accuse another of just complaining without doing anything. Because without knowledge of what any of us are doing outside this forum, we're all doing the same thing. By coming to this site and participating in this dialogue, we're all (except the trollers) contributing to the discussion, helping to shape public consciousness and participating in the democratic process (even if we express hopelessness). The difference between what any one of us posters is doing and what Glenn himself is doing is a difference only in degree, not in kind. So for Glenn to accuse someone who made an honest post of essentially sitting around doing nothing while he, Glenn, is actually doing something is just nonsense.

Glenn, I say this as someone with great admiration for you and what you do: Your posts in this comment thread today have generally come across as petulant and dishonest. Please spend less time commenting in this thread.

While some posters have expressed disgust at how there seems to be no way out of this current mess, nobody at all has concluded that was should therefore give up all participation and do nothing.

Balogny! There have been "why bother" posts all over this thread.

Kitt-

Hmmm. So, it's wrong for me to think that money matters to Glenn, eh? Then why would Glenn write this to Che Pasa earlier today:

"Big bloggers" are you call them didn't get to be that by lottery pick. People choose which bloggers they read. There ARE BLOGGERS who believe in street demonstrations and urge them on. If they don't have a large audience, it must be because there isn't a big market for people who believe in such protests.

"There isn't a big market for people who believe in such protests." That statement can *only* be written by someone who thinks about the market (and what they are doing in it... especially considering he was writing about blogging). It would seem from this statement that he believes there is a market for his type of blogging. And considering the responses he gets in the comment section... he's correct! Now, tell me again, how is it an insult to think he won't change his tactics because he's making good money with his current tactic? When he himself brings the point up?

Peace,

-Derek Java