I can't wait to hear your take on the GG/RP debacle (acronyms only! we don't want to rouse the suspicions of the google enabled RP drones!); as well as the award for an article garnering the most comments in a 12 hour period (remember remember the 6th of November?)..

In both Mukasey and Ron Paul we have men who understand how to apply the abstract principle to the specific inside the bounds of intellectual integrity. Knowing how to do something doesn't always translate into doing it. Mukasey hates torture in the abstract but can't apply it to waterboarding, and he is a Bush enabler. Paul is a libertarian who supports patriarchal control over women's reproductive decisions. It makes no sense to me, either, Joan, but I'm not going to join Schumer and Feinstein, or Ron Paul, in torturing logic. I wish I didn't like Ron Paul so much, personally. I love the guy. But I love my wife, too, and abortion is not a man's issue, unless he's really unconscious of the reality that mammalian females have the drive to not nuture as well as the drive to nurture. Only they know which drive dominates in them at a specific time. The only law that can change it is a new law of nature, and I'm not holding my breath on that one. Nobody is going to force women to have children they don't want to have and nobody is going to force people to not smoke weeds that grow in the back yard if they want to smoke them. All the lawmakers can do is torture the citizenry with unenforceable laws, which seems to be an increasingly popular sport.

I am disappointed by the trivializing slippery slope joke/argument that: abortion = murder -> smoking = murder

Why not provide an argument on why aborting a fetus is not murder? Or why woman's choice/`liberty' is more important than the fetus? Or whatever it is that your argument is? Even a link would have been better than this George W. Bush-style intellectual shallowness on a serious matter.

Let us not be surprised. Look at Lindsay Graham, McCain Warner and Specter on the Republican side; and Feinstein, Schumer, Nelson and even Reid on the Democratic side. They are all practitioners of the politics of accommodation. They more often talk the talk but rarely walk the walk. McCain may be great on torture, but look at his vote.

The "world's greatest deliberative body"is filled with the preening sort. Joe Biden is a perfect example: he phones President Musharraf of Pakistan to conduct his own diplomacy. Anything more ridiculous?

Abortion is not murder. If you don't believe me, go ask a prosecutor or district attorney to prosecute a woman or doctor involved in an abortion for murder. He'll tell you that he can't, it's not murder.

Yes, according to Roe vs. Wade and (I'm guessing) local laws in many parts of the U.S., abortion is not murder, but, Joan's post and my response look at the issue from a moral/intellectual viewpoint, not a primarily legal one.

I am not advocating one stance or the other, but I would strongly

argue that there is some moral ambiguity here (within most common systems of morality), and I would hope that someone in Joan's position would treat the issue more `substantially' than she did in her post. Again, I think good vs. evil Bushisms as well as Guiliani's sleep deprivation comments fall into the same class of

`arguments' -- dismissive over-simplification of complex matters.

Remarkably, Harry Reid has said that he will vote against Mukasey. If he truly feels that way, I think there is another plan Reid could undertake.

Because Schumer has at least gotten Mukasey to say that he would enforce a law passed to declare waterboarding torture, all Reid needs to do is to delay the vote on Mukasey while passing just such a bill.

Reid could inform Bush that a veto of the bill would keep Mukasey's confirmation vote tabled forever. Then, after getting the law enacted, one last hearing for Mukasey could be held to make sure he intends to follow the law as he has assured Schumer.

That would be real leadership from our Senate Majority Leader, so I am sure that it has no chance of happening.

Anyone claiming to come from a moral perspective shouldn't be using the term "murderer" in the abortion debate. There may be women present who have gone through that intense and emotional decision. Some who felt they had no outs. Some who went through it in absolute turmoil.

They really don't need or deserve some gorilla calling them a murderer.

I'd suggest taking a gander of the doctrine of pre-emptive war, which the anti-abortion crowd seems to embrace.

I'm through giving money and support to any senatorial candidate that Schumer recommends. His judgement stinks! We expect Feinstein to be befuddled but Schumer is a traitor.

Yep, the last time he saw wood was when he visited Home Depot. Doesn't anyone in the beltway have any common sense anymore? If it looks like a duck; walks like a duck; and craps like a duck; it must be a jackass. This is exactly why We the People need to have term limits on our elected officials. Two terms and then you are out. Go get a real job not a lobbyist position. Go teach; volunteer in the Peace Corps; anything but working in the beltway. There is definitely a lack of oxygen in that zone. These elephants & jackasses will do and say anything to keep their gravy-train spilling in their laps. Maybe Mr. Paul knows something we don't know? Oh yeah, Tricky Dick was a lot better liar than these honorable men.

I apologize if my use of the `word' murder traumatized anyone. The fact of the matter is, most abortion opponents view abortion as the immoral taking of life which is usually described as murder. A counter-argument should address this view, should it not? If their view is obviously wrong, I think it would still be helpful to carefully point out why it is wrong.

Regarding the Democratic congress, what, exactly does the Democratic party stand for? Is it not primarily a strange collection of special interests (trial lawyers, teachers, union workers,...) plus advocacy for a social safety net (when politically expedient) with a bit of not-Republican thrown in?

Change requires ideological coherence. Bush never looks more intelligent (less unintelligent?) than when he argues against ill-conceived proposals from the incoherent Democrats.