Americans fully support stormtrooopers kicking people's doors in in the middle of the night. Of course it never occurs to the average American that it might be his own door that will be kicked in next, he isn't doing anything wrong so has nothing to fear.

I had an argument with a man who said he saw nothing wrong with the government tapping our phones, reading our email, etc., because they were going after "criminals". My response was "define 'criminal'," to which he responded "well, those who break the law." I parried with "suppose the law gets changed to make that beer you're drinking illegal..." He finished his beer silently and left...

For Arizonans, the "tragically lost" and "principled" McCain of 2000 has always been a fact-free myth. His "selling out" is nothing new, and his "moderation" also a myth.

Granting the premise that McCain has changed from his "good old self" and has become a hardened, steely warmonger plays into the narrative that's always kept him popular in national politics -- that his "moderation" appeals to independents. This has been the chatter from the national media since 2000 about McCain, all the while his policies have been militaristic Hard Right, except for immigration, campaign finance reform, and how he avoids espousing fundamentalist Christian theology (but still maintains a Likud-style approach to Israel, which is good enough for the eschatologists).

Clearly, McCain is running as a strongman, hoping the all-white, all-moneyed, and nearly-all-Christian GOP can pull out one more election before overwhelming demographic changes erase the sentimentality for the faux-halcyon days of the 1950s Baby Boom era.

That's what I like about you Glenn, you slaughter them with the facts! What has Obama done indeed!

A better question though, is what will he do? I have no idea as to the details, but as cynical and disillusioned as I am, I believe he has good intent. This is not true for the other two...

In his Senate statement on the nomination of John Roberts, Senator Barack Obama made his position quite clear:

"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land.

...

The problem I face -- a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts -- is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled -- in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.

...

The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man."

Good, solid marshaling of the facts! Clear and able exposition of your position without rancour! I'm not surprised at your connection with the NYT.

I'd never heard of you until today's article, whose headline - and numerous "I-lines" - tempted me to ignore it. But, as pompous as I may be, I'm also a classically-educated liberal in the former, happier sense of that word, so I spent some eye-time with it. I won't make that mistake again - and will do my best to dissuade others from doing so as well.

He finished his beer silently and left...

Don't worry, you didn't change his mind, just temporarily shut him up.. These people are essentially immune to logic based arguments, if they weren't they wouldn't be the way they are in the first place.

I have a few of these people in my own family and have nearly driven myself nuts trying to talk sense to them. No matter how many times you think you have them trapped in a logical contradiction, they will not see it.

Nailing jello to the wall is trivially easy by comparison.

I have no idea as to the details, but as cynical and disillusioned as I am, I believe he has good intent.

Umm.. Obama supports stormtroopers kicking doors down in the middle of the night..

What's not to like?

Interesting that you say this is your first time here, yet you refer to him as GG.

I skimmed over the post again and I failed to see any ad-homs. While I know that he sometimes uses very colorful rhetoric to describe those whose views he disagrees with, I find that many times once you strip those away the underlying point is dead on.

I might not agree with his use of ad-homs, and I might personally prefer a more neutral tone, but that does not change how I feel about his points. I find myself in complete agreement with nearly every single point he ever makes.