I've said it before, the Powerline hacks are the worst. Self-absorbed, insufferable asswipes. I don't know how you can stand to read their tripe.

Nice.

Maybe if I just make stuff up, next year I can be Time Magazine's favorite blog. Are hallucogens necessary, or is that "kool-aid" that people talk about a real thing?

That makes me laugh on an off-topic note. I grew up in Hampton Roads and was (just about) the only kid in Elem and Junior High who didn't recieve the newspaper at home (still had to do those current event reports though). When I asked my parents about the phenomenon they said they refused to get the paper because it was "too liberal" and therefore, unreliable. ('Cause, of course, we all know that Rush Limbaugh is the *pinnacle* of unbiased "jounalism".)

Thanks for articulating exactly what I thought when I read that earlier today.

Some may use pedophilia in an attack against Carol Platt Liebau. But I just don't think that's right.

Hypothetical Senate Democrats need to wise up if we are going to win in '06.

It would be nice to have one of them crystal balls these right wingies use. Having your own weather predictions sure can come in handy.

Luttig, by the way, is brilliant.

He's a young Scalia who is indisputably qualified for the Court. In my opinion, he's too conservative, and is results oriented in his decision-making. He once overturned the judge I clerked for by ruling from the Fourth Circuit that a witness we had heard testify right before us, and whom we had believed, had no credibility.

Our worst nightmare.

Excellent post. It shows in a nutshell how the radical right has foresworn reason in favor of drumbeats. Liebau's speculations will disturb the troops but don't, as Apostropher makes clear, have any substance whatsoever.

On top of that, though, there's something about the Liebau "argument" that reminds me of Star Trek I and Contact. Perhaps it's an echo of the shrill New Left hysteria that, decades ago, furthered the erosion of the liberal consensus. It has come back from outer space in this weird, but still recognizable, form.

Maybe real Senate Democrats aren't pissing off the Powerline folks enough, so they have to get hypothetical Senate Democrats to keep the adrenaline flowing.

Some may be poised to raise the issue of bestiality when discussing the proclivities of the Powerline bloggers. I think that would be going too far into their private lives.

Agree with Keefe above. How is it this signal is sent out and then returns bearing no resemblence to its orignal waveform? And then, though not recognizing it, these PL folks claim it as their own spawn and pronounce their own definition.

You time-travelling fiend!

Seriously though, my attention would generally wander off after the first three words: "Hugh Hewitt directs..." I hated that movie!

Yup, but I posted the comment in that lady's blog making the exact argument at 11 am so, uhh, thanks. You must have read what I wrote there. I am taking my ball and going home. I'm switching teams.

Whatever, man.

On top of that, though, there's something about the Liebau "argument" that reminds me of Star Trek I and Contact. Perhaps it's an echo of the shrill New Left hysteria that, decades ago, furthered the erosion of the liberal consensus. It has come back from outer space in this weird, but still recognizable, form.

Am I the only person who took V'Ger from ST:TMP as a symbol of the very film itself -- a nice piece of 1960s space technology that comes back years later in a horribly bloated, overengineered form?

One of my (many) pet peaves about our current jury system is the exclusion of jurors who oppose the death penalty from capital cases. I trust most jurors to follow rules they may not fully agree with. And having the penalty phase separate from the trial further cushions the process from a dishonest juror. If the POSSIBILITY a juror may be corrupt disqualifies her, then no juror is suitable. And why should I believe this judge will put aside his biases any more than an anti-capital punishment juror would?

Systematically tossing anti-capital punishment jurors may bias the vote in the jury box in a demostrable way. Finally, why should a citizen have to declare his purely political views to gain access to the jury box, a privilege and duty of citizenship?

No, the judge is not disqualified by any anger he may harbor toward those accused of murder (my deepest sympathy for his loss), and neither should citizens who oppose the death penalty be excluded from the system.

Or was this just a political, not policy, post?

So Bush is going to nominate Michael Luttig to the Supreme Court. I wonder if the Senate Democrats can mount in opposition that Mr. Luttig's loss of his father to murder has nade him mentally unstable and unfit for the office?

Who needs logic? What's more important, tone or substance? It seems that the rigid thinking right swoons over tone every time. Science? Pushaw. A confident faithful denial will win over their hearts. Minds? They gave them up for lent years ago and never found them again. Its as though we are re-entering the Dark Ages.

Procedure on making a conservative arguement:

1) Stuff old clothes with straw, creating a Strawman.

2) Blame Strawman for all problems reasonable and unreasonable.

3) Light Strawman on fire.

4) Bask in accolades of fellow conservative illuminati for daring to standup to the elite strawmen of the world.

How dare the senate dems do what some rightwingers speculate that they might do in the future!

You know, liberals have a long history of advocating for a system of justice that is... well... just: one that treats each person as an equal under the law, and gives due deliberation to be as certain as possible that the result that is reached is not only fair, but achieves the righting and/or prevention of wrongs that is the purpose of our idea of "justice". In the end, liberals would likely discount the theory that a potential judge is compromised by personal experience with a murder case, but we would give the possibility due consideration! We would try to make sure that all applicable law and precedent were satisfied with regard to his possible pre-judgment of capital cases, and we would make every effort to seat him only if he was capable of rendering proper legal judgements without bias or prejudice.

It is because we stand on these principles that wankers like Powerline find it easy to formulate smear attacks against "liberal bed-wetters".

I'm glad that we, as a constituency, are getting better at pointing out that these attacks serve to undermine the cause of justice and equality for all. I'm glad we are getting better at deflecting these attacks, and using them to expose the attackers as the enemy of liberty and justice.

And it even works when they have made up the factual basis for the attack... Hey! These guys are liars, but look -- they think its bad for us to be concerned about how the justice system that we all depend on can be compromised. They put political attacks above preserving our American Democracy.

I do believe that you guys are in fact crazy!!!!!

Wow. NewDem was right. You may not have directly plagiarized his post at Kos but you certainly lifted from his comments at Liebau site.

or, back to powerline:

Republicans may be poised to argue that since there is still a threat of terrorism, we should drop the Constitution and make George Bush king and protector.

There are no matching quotes in apostropher's and cincinnatus' posts. There's nothing wrong with using your own words to make a common argument. A half sentence of recognition by apostropher for cincinnatus and there would be no problem between them. Apostropher was impolite, but if cincinnatus wants to make a federal case of it, someone will be obliged to dig up instances of the same argument prior to cinci's post. I've seen the "criticizing their opponents' hypothetical actions" point made long before this. It's a useful response to the idle ruminations of people like Rush "I've got three hours to fill" Limbaugh.

you guys are ridiculous. it's a blog post about a blog post about a blog post, not a pharmaceutical patent. both come to the same logical conclusion that anybody who clicked through the links would. what do you want, cincinnatus, a cookie because you *might* have read it FRIST?

OF course, if Luttig were, say, a Democratic nominee, you can be damn sure we'd be hearing from the likes of Brit Hume that "some have questioned his mental stability" as a result of the murder of his father.

Reminds me of the old LBJ ploy.

Tells his press guy to leak a story about his opponent having sex with a pig.

Objecting, the guy protests: Why, that isn't true!

Of course not, replies LBJ. I just want to see the sonofabitch deny it.