If Barr "spoils it" for anyone it's going to be McCain, not Obama.

um... duh? By "they will blame Barr", I meant the McCain apologists.

If Obama had such a tool as an adviser, there is no way he would have lasted a few days let alone months.

Brooks is very dangerous. First, he has a large print and a small, but influential, broadcast audience. Second, as much as I detest him, he is the slickest and slimiest propagandist for the right wing Repugs. Brooks often pretends to be criticizing his own party when in fact, he is fully supporting it and the Repug message of the day/week/month/year.

Brooks weaves in the Repug mantra in such a way that too many don’t realize he is doing it, including, apparently, PBS management. I conclude that or otherwise why would PBS keep giving him a platform he doesn’t deserve and then provide an opponent, good ole Mark Shields, who is very overmatched. I am commenting primarily on his News Hour gig because I stopped reading his articles quite some time ago. I have also stopped watching Brooks and Shields, but my memory is fresher on Brook’s broadcast skills. Before others challenge me, the other reason would be corporate influence.

John McCain’s challenge is to recreate this model. He will never get as many cheers in Germany as Barack Obama,

The charismatic uppity Negro.

but for a century his family has embodied American heroism.

Unlike the uppity Negro who's ancestors were slaves.

He will never seem as young and forward-leaning as his opponent,

Possibly because he's old and in the way and exceedingly backward-leaning. But why quibble?

but he did have his values formed in an age that people now look back to with respect.

And that is supposed to automatically buy John McCain respect? Hell, if it were that easy I guess people would pay me just to show up simply because someone I am related to is a really superb musician.

I am more than happy to be proven wrong about Barr attracting major media attention to Accountability Now/Strange Bedfellows. Obviously, you were on the call and I wasn't, so if you are confident that the NYT will cover the subject fairly, so much the better.

However, I'll take a wait and see attitude on what the NYT ultimately publishes, how it characterizes the AN/SB program, and what angle it takes on Barr's endorsement. Reporters have a nasty habit of setting a tone in an interview that it is at odds with the tone of the story actually published.

But in any event, let me say it again - thank you so much for being so relentless in pushing a pro-active agenda to restore the rule of law in the USA. If you ever need a volunteer for some legal research (I'm a practicing attorney, albeit of the union-side labor lawyer ilk) or any other assistance, keep me in mind.

KO is reporting that Phil Gramm is stepping down as McCain co-chair...

Need an update?

How about our favorite right-wing BS machine, David Brooks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18brooks.html?hp

The last paragraph:

If McCain is going to win this election, it will because he can communicate an essential truth — that people in a great and successful nation do not want change for its own sake. But they do realize that it’s only through careful reform that they can preserve what they and their ancestors have so laboriously built.

This from the party that just voted en bloc to eviscerate the 4th Amendment while suckering their entire constituency that the bill was a "compromise" due only to some compromised Dems. I guess I shouldn't start on the reform part because I would here typing all day.

So anyways, Mr. Greenwald has been very right about what David Brooks tries to do.

Beyond the social vs. political debate, there are some issues that are just not covered by the kind of civil liberties, rule of law and cosntitutional defense, and foreign policy platform. There would still be lots of corporate regulatory concerns. The kind of platform that Glenn envisions, doesn't include labor issues, because they are largely invisible as far as the consitution is concerned beyond certain ideas of parity. Also, waste disposal, land and property rights and use, etc., well you get the picture. I still believe that there is a danger putting all of our eggs in one basket. If we are after the preservation and improvement of justice, which I would think all agree is the raison d'etre of belonging to a society to begin with, there are many things that the consitution was not meant to address. If I understand correctly, politics and state craft are the game, and the consitution is the rule book--you still need to play the game, but that doesn't mean the rules can tell you whether you can slam dunk or lay up, if you'll permit me to use a metaphor for a sport I care little for.

I'm not saying Glenn is advocating a strict focus on civil liberties and constitutional issues and foreign policy to the exclusion of other political issues (not just social); to be honest, since none of those are the focus of this blog, I don't know where he stands on such issues. I just want to declare my unease at siding with certain entitities.

From having sniffed women's undergarments all through the 1990's as he prosecuted the Clinton impeachment.

Just because you consider social issues "entirely secondary," [...]

____________________________________________

In case Glenn is in the restroom or otherwise momentarily indisposed, allow me to recommend that you re-read the phrase you quoted in context.

Glenn isn't declaring, affirming, or advocating that these issue are, or ought to be "entirely secondary" in general.

As I read it, the phrase is descriptive, in the context of describing a political shift. You may dispute the description, but I believe it's a misunderstanding to conclude that Glenn himself broadly considers social issues entirely secondary, whatever that may mean, or is presuming to dictate anyone's political priorities-- except insofar as his reporting, analysis, and argument necessarily includes Glenn's ideas on propitious stances, attitudes, and action to achieve desirable ends.