Frankly, I’m more worried about Democrats tying themselves into knots trying to feel empathy for a party that has taken America to the brink. I see it as another troubling sign of that soft, victim-society mentality where we’re so busy trying to be nice that we screw things up worse.

 I used to run on this track around a field that would occasionally have youth soccer games. 2 things sort of surprised me: Hearing these 8-year-olds trash-talking each other, and then seeing them make a terrible soccer move and have their parents jump in to congratulate them anyway.

 The Republicans have been acting like trash-talking 8-year-olds performing horribly. I don’t think it’s helpful for us or this country to sit around encouraging them with false emotions. I’m more like the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks - “Not Ready to Make Nice.”

 You remember Natalie Raines, who called President Bush an embarrassment, risking her career and life? I say we need more of that kind of courage right now: The courage of the Truth. We need to go after these people for what they’ve done rather than coddle them as they try and spin their crimes into victories.

 P.S. Peggy Noonan is a loser.

As always Carla, I appreciate your clear writing style. Noonan accurately describes what has led to the current downfall of the r party. You accurately bring up that a similar mindset befell the d party about 10 years ago. Unfortunately, the Obama party of change has many in its ranks that really wants to continue slash and burn politics, sending naysayers off the island and repeating the mistakes made by both parties.

One area not explored is the effect both party die-hards have had on the growing movement of concerned, active voters who choose neither party designation. Perhaps a better approach will grow out of both party excesses to their philisophical extremes - somehow I doubt it. The d's will not change anymore thab the r's will. The pendulum will continue in its arc and we will "Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss" until enough decide they "Won't Get Fooled Again".

Thank you for that Carla.

If you want a good column try Maureen Dowd's latest. She gets it about the GOP trying to reinvent themselves as the party of checks and balances. Oh, it's a wonder to behold. Suddenly they care about the Constitution again!

   So what specifically do I disagree with in Peggy's work reprinted here? For decades we've been told that the GOP stands for strong defense.

And there it is again as Peggy's first tent pole.

  I think it's time we summon the courage to say, "Strong defense does not mean you have a bigger defense budget than the rest of the world combined - especially if it's threatening to drive us under."

   Ironically it was a GOP president who first warned us about the military-industrial complex, that has turned America into an empire in decline.

   When the GOP talks about strong defense they are really just saying, "Special interest defense contractors run our party." And for years the Dems have been too scared to argue - lest they look weak on defense. 
   Instead of just reprinting this stuff unchallenged, we should point it out.

   Peggy admits all the cliches in her piece are tired, so why do we let her get away with this? The Republican Big Tent was a circus tent, and it's time for all the clowns to hop back into the little circus car and drive away.

Carla - Good observations.

Instead of cheering at the demise of our elephant opponents we need to make sure we as Democrats don't repeat their foolish mistakes.

The so called Club for Growth acts as the right wing thought police. It's their way or the highway. If you as an elected Republican don't vote exactly their way they run someone against you who will even if the right wing lunatic they nominate loses to a Donkey.

Barack Obama has shown us a perfect example of embracing diversity of thought within our party. After Joe Lieberman actively campaigned against him he still had the wisdom and maturity to welcome Joe back into the Democratic caucus (and committee chairmanships) with open arms.

Let's not be like the Republican Brown Shirts. Instead let's use the proximity of our more moderate and conservative party members to politely and respectively convince them about our more liberal positions. If all else fails then the time honored practice of political horsetrading is easier with your own party than the opposition.

"The poles that keep up the tent are the party's essential beliefs. Republicans over the next few years should define what each of their tent poles stands for—a strong defense being an obvious pole, a less demanding and intrusive government being another, a natural affection and respect for tradition and for life being a third—and how many poles there are."

So, what's the point if the Republicans get their "tent poles" if they are going to abandon them as soon as it becomes politically expedient for some power players and a majority of self-serving sycophants to do so?

We have a Constitution to which all people in Congress swear an oath to uphold. We have laws and are signatories to treaties. But when it was politically expedient for elected officials in Congress - Republican and Democratic - to shred the Constitution and ignore the laws that is what they did. And the vast majority of the American people didn't care. To the contrary, many cheered them on.

It came to me in my sleep this morning. I know why conservatism is failing. It's all been a clever and devious plot by the Democrats to sabotage the republican party. It involves Democrats secretly selecting George Bush, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney to run this country into the ditch and over the cliff, ruining for a generation any chance the republicans have of being considered a serious entity.

Of course this conspiracy couldn't of worked without the help of the United States Supreme Court stealing the election for Bush in 2000 and John Kerry going down in 2004 like he was paid off; or as Lewis Black has said, "It was a like a normal person losing in the Special Olympics."

The fix is in republicans. It's all one big conspiracy by Barack Obama plotted and implemented from his position as a state legislator in Illinois.

Soon the permanent republican majority will be small enough to drown in a bath tub.

I wasn't aware the party was kicking anyone out of the tent. In fact, the Dems just let Arlen Spector into the tent - a man who, by the way, came up with the Magic Bullet theory that covered up JFK's assassination. Who exactly isn't being allowed in?

There are plenty of mirrors to look into once the smoke clears, but this smacks of that same old overly cautious, micromanaged, focus-group drivel the GOP did.

How about standing for things you believe are right? Wouldn't that be refreshing? Wouldn't that draw these unimpressed voters who are turning away from both parties?

  I read that 43 only became the Decider because Karl Rove believed being decisive would impress the voters. The whole thing was designed to look right in the mirror.

 Look, I'm grateful to Peggy for writing the "Read My Lips" speech that  led to 41's defeat. I'm less grateful to her for the "Kinder Gentler Nation" line. When's that start? But at some point in the bio, I have to acknowledge she's been on the team that I think practically destroyed America.

We should hold up a mirror to that.

 I don't get why you think she's a "brilliant and interesting writer". I think that's kind to the point of being ridiculous. How could she write a line as stupid as "those...who don't accept every pole"? Doesn't she get how funny that is?

  What the Dems have to avoid is being everything to everyone. Then they'll hold up the mirror and there won't be any reflection at all.

Is it time for some maladroit to make a Pole joke?

"I don't get why you think she's a 'brilliant and interesting writer'."

It is possible, as many writers in the mainstream media repeatedly prove, to be a skilled, brilliant and interesting writer at the same time being full of crap. William Buckley, often alleged to be the father or source of the modern conservative movement, fit that description.

Here's what I think is going on. I've seen several of these "We're so concerned about the GOP" posts here and I'd like to cut through the phony grace and translate for you:

"We are so delighted and overjoyed that the GOP crashed and burned that we can't even talk about it without giggling and crying at the same time. We want to gloat but that would be unseemly for Dems - especially since we always hated it when they gloated. 
 So we'll throw some posts together about how much empathy we have for the Republican Party but what we're really saying is that we are so overjoyed and frankly surprised that we can barely contain ourselves. We are actually hurting our health trying to suppress these feelings when we should be dancing in the streets.

 The only reason we're not laughing and pounding the floor in glee is that they left such a mess that we don't have time right now. But when you hear us somberly discussing the tragedy that has befallen the party of Dick Cheney, do not be fooled.

  What we are really saying is we are thrilled beyond words at how this played out. Thanks for pretending we aren't. If you start giggling for joy, we might join in, and once we do, we'll never be able to stop. Seeing these assholes suffer as they lose power is one of the great memories of our entire lives. In fact, it's enough to convince us that the universe is inherently a good place.

--Thank you. Now let's put our sad face back on and discuss how tragic this is for America."

Here's a number I think should be remembered in the present context of Republican self destruction: 45.7%.

This is the percentage of American voters who walked into a voting booth (or post office) last fall and, with open eyes, in the face of economic crisis, chose John McCain and Sarah Palin to be President and Vice President.

The number is only 5 percentage points less than the 50.7% won by George W. Bush in 2004.

Yes, the trajectory does not look good for them. But Jim DeMint and his friends have recent evidence that most American voters are willing to support Gingrich-style Republicanism, if the context is right.

People: this could all change. The President understands this; he made this clear at the press conference this week. As Karl Rove would correctly advise you, after a few drinks: take the expectation of a permanent majority with care and skepticism.

This is a theme Noonan first discovered about two years ago, when the Bush White House and its allies of the moment attacked her [perhaps not her specifically, but anyone who took her position] as unpatriotic for disagreeing with the WH on immigration policy.

Of course at that point her party had, for five or six years, been saying the same thing about Democrats who dared disagree with the president about anything. But it was clearly a new experience for Noonan to have her own party--the party for whom she was "present at the revolution"--trying to throw her under the train of un-Americanism. She decided a line had finally been crossed. (I was unimpressed by her conversion, though I honestly doubt if she much cared.)

Her arithmetic is correct: The GOP can't survive as a national party by reducing its numbers. But I doubt--not deny, but doubt--that she's ready to walk the talk beyond re-establishing her own place inside the tent again.

bn

"I suspect many say similar about me on a regular basis."

Carla: I was just making a point that skill, etc. did not automatically mean competence or wisdom. I didn't have anyone in mind when I started to write that comment. Buckley just happened to come to mind later. Then there are the likes of Bill Kristol, George Will, etc.

The arrogance is breath-taking. Hubris that only Republicans could match.

"In his first 100 days, Obama has excused torture, opposed habeas corpus and demanded more secret government. He has kept Bush's gulag intact and at least 17,000 prisoners beyond the reach of justice. On 24 April, his lawyers won an appeal that ruled Guantanamo Bay prisoners were not "persons", and therefore had no right not to be tortured. His national intelligence director, Admiral Dennis Blair, says he believes torture works. One of his senior US intelligence officials in Latin America is accused of covering up the torture of an American nun in Guatemala in 1989; another is a Pinochet apologist. As Daniel Ellsberg has pointed out, the US experienced a military coup under Bush, whose secretary of "defence", Robert Gates, along with the same warmaking officials, has been retained by Obama."

(Obama's 100 Days -- The Mad Men Did Well)

For some reason, my link was de-activated.

Obama's 100 Days -- The Mad Men Did Well

My opinion is that the Republicans should just hunker down and ride this thing out. The reason is because either everything libertarians understand about economics is wrong (i.e. the Austrian school) or in a year or two we are going to see an economic collapse of such massive and complete proportions that it will be the democrats going all Dinosaur by either being swept out of office or simply creating a real dictatorship, but either way their ideology will be thorougly discredited.

In the interim, if the GOP adopts a "moderate" position, it will be swept aside in the aftermath as irrelevant by a new party, but if it can purge itself of the Specter's and McCain's and enable a new generation of principled leaders, it could become the new majority party overnight with a sweeping mandate to rebuild the government and economy on sound principles.

"My opinion is that the Republicans should just hunker down and ride this thing out."

Not a very good idea if you are in a leaky boat. On the other hand, given the current crop of prominent national Republicans, maybe that would be a good idea, especially if they aren't wearing lifejackets.

Bill, If I'm right, you might consider being nice to Bob Tiernan around here...In a few years he may be our next governor :)

If I were an eloquent and gifted writer, I might say the same thing that Bill McD did. Since I am not, "what he said" will have to suffice.

"Bill, If I'm right, you might consider being nice to Bob Tiernan around here...In a few years he may be our next governor :)"

Old D: Bob and I have had a couple of tussles on BO, but I bear him no grudge and am sure, though we are of different political and philosophical persuasions, I have little to fear personally if he becomes governor.

"Hunker down and ride it out," is no kind of a recipe for a conservative/republican comeback. It's entirely based on the assumption that Obama's policies will fail massively and that large numbers of democrats and independents, who are currently disgusted with the republican party, will re-defect in a relatively short period of time and join the current twenty percent of voters who self identify as republican to 'throw the rascals out.'

Could happen and I could win the lottery too. Could happen, but, not the most likely outcome. We've just been through a last disastrous eight years of the Bush presidency that seemed to be the cataclysmic climax of twenty eight years of republican dominance of politics.

Obama and the Democrats are likely to do well enough without even having to be brilliant that economic progress will probably be seen before the next election.

Voters have seen republicans in action and that's their problem. We have seen enough. Obama and the democrats have inherited a republican engineered total economic disaster; it will take a long time to fix, will not be easy, and mistakes will be made; but to think that in 2010 or 2012 voters will suddenly be flocking back to the party responsible for those problems in the first place, a party that is, at this very moment having a very public nervous breakdown, is ........... what are you smoking?

I sense more of a movement toward a third party rather than putting the old Reagan coalition back together. St. Reagan's dead and has been for a long time. Ron Paul has probably more devoted followers than any mainstream republican at this point.

If the republican Taliban are not catered to, they may walk. If the party purifies itself to please them, they won't win elections. Big tent, pup tent, no tent, tarp, poncho?

Pass the popcorn. It will be interesting.

"It is possible, as many writers in the mainstream media repeatedly prove, to be a skilled, brilliant and interesting writer at the same time being full of crap."

As a corollary to this, I recall an acquaintance of mine several years ago saying of another person who could speak four or five languages that he never heard him make sense in any one of them.

For many of us, the George W. Bush era was 8 of the longest years in human history. Most progressives are probably still wounded by them. I know I am. This could be the first time people suffered the Stockholm Syndrome just from living through an administration.

 So you can write what you genuinely feel and still have it be skewed by the trauma of the past 8 years. I see and hear so many instances of little mind games installed during those days. We've got to break through all that.

 Carla, if you are genuinely upset about how the Republicans are doing, I'd send them a contribution. Maybe that'll help.

 What I'm going to do is try and get back on my own personal track - a track that I felt I had to drop when it became clear that we had to fight these maniacs. That was the worst part of the Bush years - they dominated our time.

  And now that it's supposed to be over, we're still stuck in the wreckage. It ended but it didn't really end because the damage didn't end. Not yet anyway.

  I'm not ready to be gracious towards these losers - even if they hold some sort of semi-valid point about anything. Carla, when you write about Peggy Noonan, you sound like a hostage, for God's sake.

 Try looking in the mirror and repeating these words: "These people really sucked and it's okay if I believe that."

 We've got to shake out of this weird politeness or we are going to spend the rest of our lives fighting the myth that the Bush Years weren't that bad. Incidentally, that's what they are currently trying to sell, and it scares the hell out of me.

  We have to process these years correctly so we can move forward. Right now I see way too much respect being granted to the worst cabal of criminals ever to take power in this country.

 Future generations are going to have some real questions about how we responded to all this once the power shifted back. How are we going to explain being this gracious to the likes of Cheney, Alberto, Ashcroft, Condi, and Rumsfeld?

 Maybe we're so worn down that we're unable to deal with it all, but we had better get back on the case.

  If we don't, our spirits can't recover from this. Remember: Our economy and way of life are still hanging very much in the balance.

 If we don't snap out of it with Peggy and the Big Tent, we'll be living in tents for real.

Bill McDonald misses the point carla is trying to make. He misses it by a wide mark. There will be some rebuilding, perhaps some rebranding, certainly a sort of resurgence. It may not be the r's as some point out it could be another party.

Either way, Carla's writing is intended to be a canary in the coal mine for scorched earth d's such as McDonald. Voters won't put up with straight party politics (as evidenced by Peter Buckley's blatant pandering to the power elite) regardless which party is engaged in perpetrating the foul. That could well be the legacy of the past 8 years. If the d's don't learn they will fail, and then another political movement will speak for a while.

TA, I think the point is something different. Ben Nelson represents the state of Nebraska. Wasn't that the state Bob Kerrey represented? How many other Democrats have been elected from there? If Nebraskans get tired of him, they can vote him out. Otherwise, do you want Nebraskans telling us why the don't like Wyden or Merkley?

For many years, Democrats have prided themselves on NOT being a "talking points" party like the GOP but rather a party where individuals have the right of independent thought that Minnis, Scott et al never allowed the members of their majority caucus. There are lots of Democrats who have worked on campaigns for years if not for decades. If someone were to try to force conformity of views--esp. if it was conformity to Portland viewpoints given how diverse this state is--would those volunteers stick around? Or would they find other ways to use their time?
The attempt has been made before--in previous decades some tried to decree what "good Democrats " believed. In one case, that led to the state party booth flying a flag about a controversial issue. The long time volunteers who didn't agree and gotten flak for their views were called to schedule their usual shift in the state fair booth, and would say things like "Remember? I'm not a real Democrat! But I can give you names of people who support that side of the issue and you can ask one of them to work my shift". Such are the people who are every bit as much "poles holding up the tent" of the Democratic party as any particular issue.

Then there was the time the state party campaign committee wanted all candidates to agree on 5 issues. Problem was, 2 of those issues disqualified a coastal state senator that some people had worked very hard to elect.

Many of us worked very hard to elect Brian Clem a state rep. Do I agree with him on everything? No more so than many of my other friends. When I disagree, I contact his office. But I wouldn't like someone from outside Marion County telling me that we should forget all our hard work because someone somewhere thinks he's a Ben Nelson type or whatever and shouldn't be in public office.

I happen to think it will take the years to regroup and reinvent the GOP that it took Democrats after the Mondale defeat (from 1984-1992). It will be interesting to watch. But it is also a cautionary tale in these days of a large fraction not registered with major parties to think twice before imposing a party litmus test.

Even if the Republican party is sidelined and limited to obstructionism and hostile propaganda it still won't make much difference to the people. See Carla's other thread, "In which we elect good guys and still get screwed by the U.S. Senate." Corporate America owns most of Congress and has the deck stacked in its favor.

Bill, I agree with you about corporate america, but probably not for the same reason. Corporate america figured out a long time ago that an investment in politics pays a much higher return with far less risk than investing in the marketplace.

This is actually a powerful argument for limited government and the separation of economics from politics.

Carla, the problem with your interpretation of Noonan, if I understand it correctly, is that you are using it as a cautionary note for the Democratic left: don't repeat the mistakes of the Republican right.

There are several difficulties with this analogy, in my opinion. First of all, there is where America is on the left-right "number line," if you will. We are so far to the right, by the measure of comparison to the rest of the western democracies - and they themselves are not an especially left wing bunch - that we would have to travel quite a bit to the left before we even approached an approximate neutral "center" where there was, for example, a meaningful social safety net, our "defense" expenditures would not dwarf those of the rest of the planet, where so many of our brothers and sister, many of them racial minorities, would not be routinely imprisoned, etc. Until these things happen, it's disingenuous to compare the Republican project to the much more feeble efforts (so far) of what we sometimes misleadingly call the Democratic left.

This suggests difference number two: the false moral equivalence between the Republican project, which essentially wishes to continue a 40 year old process of transferring wealth from the poor and the middle class to the rich and hyper-rich, to the Democratic left project which wishes to reverse that process and drive the Gini coefficient back to a less scandalous, less humiliating level (right now we're approaching Mexico and Brazil for income disparity, levels of inequality that we haven't seen since the days of the late 19th century robber barons).

Finally, difference number three - and I bet others can think of more - this cautionary advice completely ignores the wishes of the people themselves in a democracy that has been dominated by corporate control of the media, strategic voter suppression, historic denial of the right to vote to whole races (take note of last Wednesday's SCOTUS hearing of Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder if you doubt this is still in play) . . . the struggle is not between "left" and "right" but, simply, between democracy and not-democracy.

The last thing we (on the Democratic and democratic left) need to do is to be even MORE patient and tolerant with the Democrats who, for example, recently voted with the banks the other day against the very, very mild Durbin amendment, which would have allowed judges in bankruptcy courts to treat residential mortgages the way they treat business mortgages, vacation home mortgages, secured mortgages on boats . . . you know, rich people's loans.

And who were the 11 Democrats who lined up with the banks to kill this? Glad you asked. Max Baucus (MT), Michael Bennet (CO), Robert Byrd (WV), Tom Carper (DE), Byron Dorgan (ND), Tim Johnson (SD), Mary Landrieu (LA), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Ben Nelson (NE), Mark Pryor (AR), Arlen Specter (PA), and Jon Tester (MT).

Any of these guys that we could primary and get better Democrats and still hold the seat . . . count on my and mine for a donation.

We have to start making it clear what it means to be a Democrat.

It is unlikely that the oligarchs of the Democratic Party will allow the Republican Party to fail. Their partnership in the duopoly that has run the government for the benefit of corporate America and both parties for generations is too important for all concerned. By creating an image for the voter that he or she must vote for their party otherwise tragedy will occur and bring the nation to a catastrophic collapse both parties have set up onerous barriers to a viable third party. Johnson's portrayal of Goldwater bringing on a nuclear Armageddon has been a model applied successfully ever since in different forms.

A recent poll showed independents are now the largest bloc in America with a little over 40% in the political arena. This might suggest a new party could be formed from this group, but that is unlikely. This poll can also be interpreted to mean that more than half of the people adhere to the Democratic and Republican parties, suggesting they have a preference for being lied to. In other cases, getting THEIR crook in office applies. With a little more competence in campaign strategists' offices more skillful lies might return a good percentage of today's "independents" to one or the other fold, especially if they can be persuaded it is important to vote for the lesser evil.

The last challenge the Democratic oligarchy wants to face is a one-on-one contest with a truly independent party, especially when the latter has so much evidence of the former's corruption. The Dems can, however, count on the corporate media to come to their rescue and stack the deck in their favor giving them the benefit of the many years they have practiced their skills in mendacity, fiction and distortion.

I don't often post here, I just read with intense fascination.....sometimes disgust. This one, however begs my small two cents.

I have been involved in local government for several years and I am one of those pesky "unaffiliated" folks that seem to annoy "the party".

Why am I unaffiliated? To answer that question go back and read the comments in this line and think about the powerful words and attitudes being used here. Its certainly not about "the people", its not about whats best for our "Democracy", its not about "checks and balances", its about "politics" and "the party" and the promotion and continuation of its ideology.It won't be the "D's" or the "R's" ideology that destroy our forefathers dreams. It will be this infernal hatred of each other and the effort to "rub each other out of existence". You would think you were talking about the Nazis instead of fellow Americans.

I long for statesmen; individuals "of the people" that remember the words of our Constitution....and live by them. Individuals that remember the Code of Ethics words,"Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department". Notice it says "above party".

So, go ahead and pat me on the head and scream naivety. I don't really care. I'll continue to serve and vote as "unaffiliated", as it seems the only way to be a statesman in this political childish tantrum fight of "finger pointing".

Respectfully to all of you; MStauffer

I'm trying to avoid reading comments these days since I seem more into reacting to them than the article itself...so I just scrolled to the bottom. In 2000 I cheered Joe Lieberman going to Synagogue in Portland. In 2006 I watched him get screwed for his support of the war in Iraq despite the fact he voted in favor of things I support 90ish percent of the time. Then we had to deal with him speaking at the RNC to boos.

Barack Obama really said it best. Right now the Republicans say he isn't being bipartisan because he thinks their ideas are bunk. He adopts parts of their plans (which sometimes are actually good ideas) and melds them with his plans. Then he goes back to them with a modified plan and they say screw you because it isn't their plan.

Granted Lieberman was wrong about Iraq in 2006 and he was dead wrong in 2008 to support McCain...but I still didn't like the tone that happened there. In 2006 if the big tent folks would have adopted that line then it probably would have been a non-issue.

Cue in the people that will cut me down for saying Joe Lieberman isn't such a bad guy and I'd have been OK with him being my Veep and perhaps President...

Keep in mind Iraq woulda never happened without Cheney pulling the puppet strings.

Rural Oregonian, about this:

I long for statesmen; individuals "of the people" that remember the words of our Constitution....and live by them.<<

As has been said elsewhere, Jack Kemp was such a person. So is Gov. Roberts and her husband St. Sen. Frank Roberts was also.

It never hurts to debate the words of the Constitution, what the exact words are, what they mean.

Even someone who has no use for Peggy Noonan must realize the wisdom of these lines, "the people inside can't always be kicking people out of the tent. A great party cannot live by constantly subtracting, by removing or shunning those who are not faithful to every aspect of its beliefs"

There have been times when Democrats wanted everyone who would vote for their candidates under their tent, even if they had big battles over issues. There have been other times when some leading Democrats wanted ideological purity.

Democrats are stronger when they have diverse people in their camp. That is what is so nice about the 36 House Democrats this year--they come from all over the state. They don't all agree on every issue. That is what makes a healthy party.

LT: "Democrats are stronger when they have diverse people in their camp. That is what is so nice about the 36 House Democrats this year--they come from all over the state. They don't all agree on every issue. That is what makes a healthy party".

Again, the "party" defenses and justifications. Talk to the "R's" in Salem and they will tell you they feel a bit like potted plants. Also noteworthy is the fact not too many of the "D's" are from rural Oregon. Bottom line is, you missed my point....Statesmen don't pander to "party". They represent "the people", people of all ideological backgrounds, and they try to find the common ground for the public good.

I had upfront experience with this "party" thing this year. Although I fought long and hard on the "unintended consequences" of the "ethic's" law rewrite, had support for some changes from the OGEC and all of the "R's", the "D's" ultimately had their way. A lot of wrongs were never addressed.

Lately, I was intrigued by Senator Devlin's statement in the Oregonian regarding the Virtual School Bill. "What's more, Senate Majority Leader Richard Devlin, D-Tualatin, a sponsor of the bill, leads the rules committee. In response to those who threaten to kill the proposal, Devlin notes that bills that come out of his committee have a history of passing on the Senate floor".

Note the use of "His Committee" and not "Our Committee".

I wonder why?

Peggy Noonan was on "This Week" Sunday saying we should just keep walking and not investigate the torture stuff. One of her reasons was that life has to be "mysterious."

I can't decide if that's brilliant or interesting. Oh, I know. Neither.

Even George Will jumped in and made the point that this is a fundamental difference in two legal opinions - the Unitarian President that can do anything he or she wants, and the one found in the Constitution. In short we have to address it now or it will live on in other forms with other Presidents. Does anything Presidents do, automatically become legal, as Condi reaffirmed recently?

  It doesn't matter how many people you have in your tent if you abandon the Constitutional framework that got us there. And calling it a scorched earth policy to want some accountability is just more spin.

 A legal debate has started and it hasn't been settled. Walking away, as Peggy wants, will not work. This will follow us until we deal with it.

  Peggy Noonan - whether it was during the Reagan years or later - has had her hands on more of the destructive GOP trends in America, than almost any other writer.

   As she likes to say, she was present at the revolution. It's an unusual revolution where a small percentage at the top got richer and more powerful while the Middle Class got screwed.

   I don't think promoting Peggy Noonan's brilliance here makes any sense. Why give her a pass? Because she's a success? So is her old colleague Pat Buchanan. So is Bill Bennett. That doesn't mean we should fawn over them.

  We're not going to heal America with Happy Talk about people and policies we loathe. Let's drop the wishy-washy politeness and call more of these people out for what they have done. We're in the middle of a legal debate about the future of the country and Peggy just wants us to walk away.

In re. Bill McD's business above, just remembering something from my past only nine years back: in Chile, I shit you not, they said the same thing about Pinochet. Attorneys, doctors, business people: "He's an old man; he's ill; just leave it alone and live for the future". These, of course, were nasty little middle class Scottish implants who'd lived a good life off that country all of their lives and had NO intentions of thinking or doing anything tha made it so they must go back home to Scotland and live the way they REALLY were meant to had they not gone Colonial in Mum and Dad's time.

They even all toild me how glad they were when Pinochet got in: you could buy good shoes and have more dress and shirt collar choices after he arrived.

Guess you could call that a good trade: mass graves in exchange for good shoes on import.