Given the reception my message garners, even among supposed "liberals", I seriously doubt there is any hope of salvaging a free nation from the dregs of freedom we have left. Even "liberals" don't really care that our nation has become the largest incarcerator of human beings on the planet, and even "liberals" make jokes about prisoners not dropping the soap in the shower.

The black male canary of freedom in our coal mine has long since expired.. The rest of us will follow suit sooner or later.-- Aycharaych

Yes. Thank you... I know we have been traveling down this road for quite some time. I will assume you were lecturing for effect so that others, who are less well versed, might benefit.

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

You do know what this particular tidbit is in relation to, do you not?

I read some of your letters. You are not a "liberal" as I understand the word. Your fact free attack on Glenn was itself ad hominum.

You said you never heard of Glenn before today? And you claim that you are a liberal? That's like saying you are physicist and have never heard of Steven Hawking.

Maybe you should have smoked some of that dope at the Cream concert instead of complaining how it hurt your throat! It might have lightened you up a bit. Bad dope smokers! Bad! Lock em up! Right?

As for your threat to spread the word on Glenn - go ahead. I plan on spitting in the general direction of the White House today. That'll show em!

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

What's not to like?

Let's consider for a moment that some of Obama's statements indicate that he will continue to push for Pax Americana (which I personally consider pandering to the right-wing warmongerers, and by pandering I mean that he doesn't really believe in it but says he does to satisfy a political faction).

Giving you the benefit of my doubt, name one Presidential candidate who stands a chance of winning the general election who does not support bombing Iran.

As far as I know, Ron Paul is the only person you could possibly name. So, are you going to vote for someone who cannot win under any circumstances? Are you going to not vote for Obama because he wants to fight necessary fights, and instead vote for Clinton or McCain who want to fight unnecessary fights?

For the record, I like Ron Paul. I wish he was the nominee. I also like how he's still in the race...I fully expect him to split the Republican ticket in a few key states in the Rust Belt (Ohio, PA, etc), which will only help the Democrats.

"Herb" didn't appreciate GG's rebuttal of Herb's early disparaging comment. Go figure.

I think what our Herb meant was "classical liberal," in other words, a Hayekian, Friedmanian minarchist, in otherwords not liberal.

Glenn, thank you for writing about THE most important issue in the country today. The use of words like Empire and Monarchy to describe the United States should cause some serious concern in the minds of the people.

For a whole segment of our population the Constitution is meaningless and is getting in the way of the agenda of the Right. When Congress has no role we are a de facto Monarchy.

Based on the actions of Bush/Cheney it doesn't take great genius to see that they have failed their oaths to "protect and defend the Constitution." That's all we have a right to expect from our politicians. What the freak happened to the idea of IMPEACHMENT as a remedy?

A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

If I knowingly vote for what I consider to be evil, how can I maintain my self respect? Unfortunately for me my eyes have been opened and I see no choice that I can in good conscience vote for.

At best my vote will be an "against" vote.. Not that it will make any difference where I live, my state is almost certain to go for McThuselah anyway.

McCain AND Obama - THAT's the ticket!

Add this middle-aged male GOPer, active in his party, to the list urging McCain to invite Obama to be his Veep if Team Billary steals - that's the only way they can get it now - the nomination. The Master and The Apprentice, a solid, unifying team that will benefit America best! -- Herb Spencer

Permalink Tuesday, February 26, 2008 01:39 PM

This must be snark, correct? Because, as we all know, Herb is a liberal.

Yes, you are right. Obama is just as bad on the drug question as the rest - which makes him a hypocrite given his own admitted history. I assume he knows better. I agree with everything you say about the drug war, as I have told you before. And I agree that locking up 2.2 million (mostly black/Latino/poor) is insane and evil. I used to work for the prison service here in Canada at their national headquarters, and I know very well that prison, as a British Home Secretary said back in the 50's, is "a good way to make bad men worse".

But seriously what do you do? The American attitude toward drugs/incarceration is not really changing much. I am sure that you would agree with me that if Obama was to say the drug laws are stupid and counterproductive, let alone make noises about changing the laughably named "correctional" system, he would be finished.

All we can do is to try to educate people. It's a long slow, probably generational, process, but I can't think of a better alternative.

Here in Canada, our last Liberal government (yes they actually call themselves "Liberals") was actually going to legalise marijuana! Unfortunately, our new Prime Minister, elected with the help of Republican consultants, is now bringing in an American style crime bill with mandatory minimums et al. I am told that we will have to build 5 or 6 new prisons (we now have 42) just to handle the increase in bodies. Harper even plans on a new law that will mandate 6 months in jail for the possession of a single marijuana plant.