Free Republic

Good article. As a libertarian-liberal, I find the two-party winner-takes-all system to be abysmally inadequate. What drives me crazy is when Democrats and Republicans each blame the other for authoritarian behavior. It's a completely different axis, but we don't currently have the apparatus to make these distinctions in the general political dialog.

...I can't help but wonder how the national debate would have gone if the USA decided to go to Rawanda to stop the killing.

A very interesting question, PJT. I'd guess that, depending on how our involvement in Rwanda had gone, the American people would have either been far more inclined or for less inclined to go into Iraq with humanitarian goals. Thus, this wouldn't just affect the post-Iraq discussion, but would have made for a dramatically different pre-Iraq discussion.

Bush is just catering to his left-wing constituency.

Hey! I'm in his left-wing constituency, and he wasn't catering to me!

Liberals don't listen to talk radio. They listen to music or shock-jock carnival programs.

I'm a liberal, and I listen to talk radio :)

(But then, I also hang out on FreeRepublic, so I'm probably not the norm.)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, HHFi.

Like many here, I think this will fail.

Unlike many here, I don't think it will fail because it's a liberal venture. I think it will fail because these people don't seem to have any sense of how the talk-radio industry functions; indeed, they're ignoring the basic rules of a market-driven system. The moment they started using the words "liberal talk-radio network", I knew it was doomed, because they had no idea how even to frame such a project from a public relations standpoint. I mean, look at FOX -- is their tagline "Finally giving time to the conservative view"? Hell no! It's "Fair and balanced"!

Now, being a liberal, I'm not happy about this, but that's the way it is. I still think they should've looked to the Daily Show as their model for entertaining left-leaning news commentary. Oh well.

...Robert F. Kennedy Jr...

OMG! Once again -- I find him to be an effective writer, but he's got a terrible speaking voice! Oh well. Screw it.

Why is it that liberals come off as snide, condescending and dismissive?

You can make criticisms like that in both directions; I think it might be the nature of punditry. I find Al Franken, Dennis Miller, Hillary Clinton, and William Bennett all equally condescending and dismissive.

As a liberal-leaner, I'm concerned about this. I've seen a lot of interviews with Franken, and while I find him an effective writer, he's not a very charismatic presence. He tends to come off coarse and dismissive. It'll hurt the cause.

They'd be much better off with Jon Stewart (or any of the other folks from the Daily Show.)

It was a long post for such a short retort. Were you unable to read past the first line newbie?

Yes, I'm new to this "Inter-web" of yours, and thus it's difficult for me to read past the first line of most forum posts.

As for the short retort, that's because the only portion of your post that addressed mine was "Rant away trolls".

There was nothing in your (yes, admirably lengthy) post actually addressing the issue I'd raised -- namely, President Bush taking cover in 1998's House Resolution 4655 and presuming that a vague policy of regime change justified a preventive invasion of a sovereign nation.

Rant away trolls.

Hey, way to raise the level of discourse.

So what's all the hubbub about?

I hope I don't have to rant about the significant difference between a policy of regime change and a preventive first-strike war. :)

Immigration could kill him.

Except... where are those people going to go? There's no viable Perot for 2004. I suppose his conservative base could fail to turn out in high numbers... but it seems unlikely.

D'oh!

The government cannot suspend constitutional rights just because they feel like it.

Ummmmmmmmmmm - Lincoln did! In a time of war no less!

Yes, and 5 years later Lincoln was forced to restore those rights because the Supreme Court was threatening to rule against him on appeal.

No, treat him as a enemy combatant. Medicate, interrogate, analyze, exploit, and when he is no further use give him a fair trial and a fast hanging.

How do you know he's guilty?

Diogenesis, those 9/11 pictures are as powerful and infuriating as ever, but it looks like you accidentally posted them to the wrong thread. This story was about Iraq and our inability to find WMD.

Agreed, though, we've got to hunt down Bin Laden and bring him to justice.

Well Bingo! Except you are wrong. In communism you work for the good of the elite. The entire society never thrives under communism only the power elites.

That's right, and that's why communism failed -- humans will always be corrupted by greed and power. So what you're describing is the ugly real-world implementation of communism, which is unavoidable. Just like any attempted implementation of fascism quickly degenerates into anarchy and then oligarchy.

Not my definition. Miriam Webster.

8)

Right Wing: the rightist division of a group or party

RIGHTEOUS, UPRIGHT CORRECT SUITABLE, APPROPRIATE STRAIGHT GENUINE, REAL

Left wing: the leftist division of a group (as a political party)

BEQUEATH DEPART DESERT, ABANDON

hedgetrimmer, I'm not sure where the conversation can go if you can only be bothered to define one side as "right" and the other side as "wrong".

NO when you blend the LEFT Wing globalists with the federal government you get fascism.

I'm not sure that's right. The extreme end of the left is communism -- where the entire society is saddled with the responsiblity of supporting all its members, the weak and the strong alike. "Work according to ability, recieve according to need." In communism, you're always working for the good of the entire society. (And the downside, of course, is that you never see the benefits of your individual contribution.)

Fascism is the extreme end of the right -- where those who can't support themselves are ignored and the strongest & most capable prosper in accordance with their strength and capability. In fascism, you're always working for the good of yourself alone. (The downside being that if, for whatever reason, you can't compete, then you're screwed.)

I'd say, and I think most Americans feel this way, that neither of these extremes is desirable. In fact, most democracies in the world live in this centrist gray area.