Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Thanks for that Mies link where I learned that I think Ron Paul is the only viable candidate. One of my favorite things is reading about all the views I never expressed or implied but still somehow embrace.
I'll note two points more generally here relating to the broader discussion:
(1) Criticizing some Democrats and documenting their involvement in many of the worst Bush abuses is not the same as saying that it doesn't matter which party controls the various branches of government.
(2) The notion that there is no meaningful difference between the parties is one that is more pronounced and tempting -- understandably so -- on days like this, when new evidence emerges of just how complicit key Democrats are in so many things.
But many -- I'd say most -- people who react that way (again, completely understandably) on days when such stories are revealed are not going to harbor that "no-difference" belief for the next 12 months. When faced imminently with the prospect of a Giuliani administration or a Romney administration and all of the dreck that that would entail, my guess is that the perceived differences will become more pervasive.
But whatever the results are, one has to describe the corruption and complicity of Democrats when one sees it, and one sees it with incredible frequency. That's just true.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
