If obama loses, the next election a third party candidate wins. Either way teh gop is done. Either way, we can't lose.

This battle ended when the propgoandists lose nad reality won. back in 06. this election is already over. If people like some of you don't ruin it for us, before that. Are you sure yoru not republcains and clinton backers trying to sabotage?

Sorry if this is a repeat. I have not read the comment thread.

You no longer live in a country governed by laws. You live in a country governed by men. And the "men" are bought and paid for. Nothing short of a modern revolution is going to change things.

I shouldn't be laughing at a time like this, but that was classic, Glenn.

I read several of the posts.

Sounds to me like you two (at least) are now properly motivated.

Please pick up a rifle, drive to DC, and begin shooting the "undesirable" members of Congress. Heck, go for the administration members you might see, too.

As you two have made quite clear, it is ONLY through direct action that the US government can be influenced and changed for the better.

Voting in a booth is pointless.

Vote with a bullet, and make a REAL change.

Thank you. We'll be rooting for ya.

My response on the previous thread. I think you are emotionally disturbed (not a big deal, everyone on this thread is disturbed and emotional today) and having delusions of grandeur. That's what you should see someone about, the delusions of grandeur. The "Big Crusade" you think is on the verge of rising up with you leading them to Washington and the gates of the White House is all in your diseased and distuurbed mind. Good luck with the therapy I hope you get.

Before climbing all the way on the Nader bandwagon, please keep in mind that there are differences between the parties, even on this issue. The Republicans do this sort of thing enthusiastically, the Democrats do it out of cowardice and lust for power. An initiative like Glenn's would have absolutely no chance of swaying the Republicans, who are talking to and representing people who like it and don't care about anyone else, but it does influence the Dems, at least in part, I think, because they know on one level or another that what they are doing is morally wrong. That difference might not seem like much, but it ought to be enough to earn a vote -- it is for me. I've come to dislike Obama for many reasons (I saw this sort of doubledealing in him several months ago), but comparing him to McCain or any other Republican who could win their party's nomination -- and only in light of that comparison -- he's almost the man his insane supporters have been screaming he is.

One other point: it would be unfortunate if, after so many people went so crazy over him, those same people ended up turning on Obama now, setting him up to be Clintonized once he gets in office. A month ago, nobody could criticize Obama without being subject to a storm of abuse; now people are heaping dirt on the guy with impunity. There has to be a balance between holding him accountable for the "change" he's been babbling on about for over a year on the one hand, and criticizing him so harshly he becomes politically wounded in the process on the other. We have an obligation to demand he lives up to his rhetoric, but we also have to avoid the kind of excesses that we've seen along these lines "He's no different than a Republican," "In the pockets of the corporations," "Spineless" and so on, which have crippled the Dem brand name, and have, in a roundabout way, led to the situation where Dems quake and cower like they now so often do.

So, Obama's office tells you:

Senator Obama believes strongly in accountability, and when he is President, there will be no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens;

How very good of him. Of course there wouldn't be any more illegal spying on Americans...because he and his cohort will have made it what WAS illegal legal with the magic words from the AG's mouth: "We assure you, after 'review' we have determined that this spying without warrant is legal."

Ta-da!

How very disingenuous. How very craven. How very wrong.

Obama is part of the problem unless he, as THE leader of the party by virtue of him being THE nominee for President, doesn't shut this f*cker down cold with a flat-out, loud, vocal "NO!"

It is not good enough that we have to count on the kindness of a particular President whether or not crimes against the Constitution and the People are carried out. You cannot allow even a millimeter of space for that. There must be no question that it is illegal in all cases, all the time, period, to spy on Americans without a valid, court reviewed and signed warrant. It is that simple because that is what the f*cking Constitution says.

There IS no wiggle room here. Obama IS part of the problem until he proves, in no uncertain terms, that he is part of the solution. The ONLY way to be part of the solution is NOT to say, "You can trust ME not to use these magical, legal powers because I personally disagree with them", but to actual step up the plate and yell "NO! Stand down and stand back!"

Update needed. Is this having any effect? Or is our little project going to be one of retribution.

(Still under the weather, sorry for coherence faults, etc.)

Rage, hunh? Sure. I'm all for it. Give me Mario Savio-throw-your-bodies-on-the-gears-of-the-Machine rage any time. But that's not what this is. No Machine will be brought to a halt, no bodies will be sacrificed. No, the workings of the Autocracy will be smoother than ever, the gears and wires will hum with ever more vim and vigor, and the Marketplace of Ideas will expand ever so slightly once again.

But my question is, where does this notion of loyalty to the Constitution come from? Clearly, it's not taught any more. And the oath our Federal officers take long ago was reinterpreted to mean loyalty to the government -- of which they are a part. Government = Constitution? In their minds, obviously. And as they go about their business, the loyalty they feel most strongly is 1) to one another, ;that is to say one another's "service," not necessarily to one another's person; 2) the institutions of centralized, autocratic government which -- in many cases -- they themselves have either created or believe they control.

That is what "Loyalty to the Constitution" means to them.

To the People? I submit it means practically nothing. The Constitution isn't taught, its functions aren't well known, and to the extent there is knowledge of "the Constitution" it is in the context of historical grievances. It's been a document, in other words, that has historically been used to subjugate rather than liberate.

Not everybody goes to law school, perhaps more's the pity.

I'm struck by how much the ActBlue page shows being raised the last few days; I'm also struck by the relatively small number of donors, still well under 4,000. This is of course not the entirety of the Constitutional Constituency, but it often seems that the number of Americans who really would and do "protect and defend the Constitution" is actually almost that small.

Surely the majority of our Representatives in Congress Assembled forgot the meaning of their oaths of office a long time ago, much as the key members of the Bushevik regime never knew -- or cared -- what the oath meant.

Is there something inherent in the Constitution itself that allows and perhaps requires this situation to develop?

Do whatever it takes to right this ship of state...