...republican friends to vote for Barr.

Che, in an inspired comment, says this:

"Too many of them [Democrats], as has oft been said, agree with the Rs on major issues. Especially civil libertaries and constitutional issues.

They have thrown their lot with The Government, of which they are a part; We, the People are not part of their conception of The Government, except to the extent that we can be manipulated to agree to the Plans set forth for us. Rs and Ds do this, it's not at all an exclusive characteristic of one party or the other."

He has a coherent view of what large swathes of the party are about. They aren't cowering in all cases, often they are just hooribly, irredemmably wrong. And besides that they're convictionless cynics just in it for the free meals.

Glenn, however, says this to GaletaZeke:

"Besides, it wasn't as though Democrats were unified and just didn't have enough votes. Take a look at the AUMF-Iraq vote -- or the various Patriot Act, FISA and Military Commission votes -- and let me know if you really want to claim that the only reason the Democrats didn't do more was because -- poor little souls that they are -- they were just outnumbered by the big, bad, mean Republicans."

Glenn uses more and more rehtorical questions in his response to Galeta, but never offers his theory of Democratic abdication. I have never understood preiceisely what his view of Democrats is. Are they primarily a paty that cowers before perceived threat and betrays their principles, or is it more the case that they agree with Bush on these issues? Obviously it is largely a case-by-case situation. But becuse Accountability Now will be working case-by-case, I'd like to know who's worse in the Democratic party: capitulators or Administration policy supporters? Does Glenn admit of a distinction, and if not, what is the alternative diagnosis he offers fow what ails the party on Constitutional/politics of terror matters?

I'm going to vote for him. It's true that Barr has a history as a Gingrichite Republican, but right now, I don't care. FISA has killed my interest in Obama. Obama is allegedly a constitutional lawyer. I would expect a lot more from a constitutional lawyer than the cold shrug Obama has given us on this issue. Any politician who would throw the 4th Amendment under the bus to get elected does not deserve my vote.

Barr's track record is concerning, but I don't expect him to win. What I want is for him to get 25% of the vote -- enough to scare the hell out of the Democrats and convince them that civil liberties are not political footballs.

By voting for Barr I avoid voting for McCain, but still make my point. Barr needs enough support to earn a place in the debates. If he can get that far, maybe we can expose the Democratic party for the sham it really is.

I don't think he can be labeled as simply a "Third party kook". He was a congressman for many years.

So what? What if he was and still is a ten term congressman? I ask because it didn't stop the establishment or any of your buddies in the comment section on this blog from applying the label to Ron Paul.

And Barr already has a role, the John McCain spoiler. Barr is polling above 5% in quite a few places. There are a lot of uninformed True Believers out there that aren't paying attention and absolutely love Obama. Obama has to do something really really REALLY stupid to lose the election. No matter how badly he loses though, Barr will be the one they blame. Not the fact that McCain is an insane warmonger, no no no, but because Bob Barr spoiled it for him.

Polls in swing states show Obama leading over McCain. In those states where Bob Barr is running the difference is even more striking. Barr is pulling votes off of McCain. Yes go vote for Barr, the libertarian-no taxes ever, candidate, it's helping Obama

Of course running fast towards third party candidates because you don't get get everything you want is the reason we keep ending up with these terrible Republicans.

This s a 2 party system, work within the party. Obama is having Platform events across the country. Participate and have and have a real impact.

This s a 2 party system, work within the party.

Good to see you've been paying attention...

Obama is having Platform events across the country. Participate and have and have a real impact.

Like the "real impact" The People had in ending the war after "working within the system" to "Elect Democrats" in 2006?

Barr will be the one they blame. Not the fact that McCain is an insane warmonger, no no no, but because Bob Barr spoiled it for him.

-- Chris Sinnard

So what?

so McCain doesn't win, that's what. But I guess you don't care about that.

Besides, the second paragraph was just in general, and not directed towards you specifically.

Maybe you should follow the example of your imperial apologist buddy and MoveOn?

For a second there I forgot that you're just another apologist for intervention and empire.

This s a 2 party system, work within the party. Obama is having Platform events across the country. Participate and have and have a real impact. -- bernbart

Are your saying that I should choose one of the two parties no matter what they stand for? That is hard for me, being an anti-war type and all. You seem to be saying that I just have to vote for the least war-mongering fellow that the rulers in the imperial city offer me.

I forget; where in the constitution does it say that there shall be only two parties? Where does it say that the game will be rigged so that there shall be no realistic chance for any party but the big two? I must have slept through that lesson on the constitution.

Is it near the part that says federal officials shall swear an oath of personal loyalty to the president-emperor?

So confusing.