But given that Lewis will be on the ticket -- or rather at this point he intends to be on the ticket (you never know what federal investigators will find or do...) -- it wouldn't be wise to gloss over this district whatsoever.
Now, this is Machiavellian (sp?). What if for purely partisan reasons the DoJ goes after Lewis (R-CA), to knock him out of the race and save the seat?
I think what Broder yearns for is the civility of yesteryear when issues/ideas were hard fought but politics was not necessarily personal.
It's easy for everyone to be civil when one party has a healthy majority and a lock on maintaining it indefinitely, as Congressional Democrats had through the 60s, 70s and 80s. Everyone can relax and cut deals, secure in the belief that when the time comes to settle up, nobody's status will have changed very much. Tip O'Neill and Jerry Ford can do business knowing that over the long haul, all the debts will be paid.
Incivility comes when the parties are roughly in balance, or when it is becoming apparent that the majority's days are numbered. Each dispute has to be settled now, not in the long run, no compromise, no logrolling, because there's too much risk that everybody's status will have changed after the next election.
That's why the Gingrich-Armey-DeLay "take no prisoners" style of incivility was so telling. They knew that their situation was precarious. They wanted to wreck the government, but they had to do it fast, before the voters caught on. For them there was no long run where logs could roll the other way.
Seen this way, Broder's call for civility seems intended to set the table for demands that the Democrats not play tit-for-tat when they solidify their majority in 2008. What a weasel.
Look. No war, no war president. No war president, no unitary executive theory making Bush the Czar of all the Rooshians. No Czar, no stonewalling the congress. All the evil details of the Bush regime will come oozing out.
Bush's ego, brinkmanship, denial, etc. are all secondary. He can't possibly withdraw from Iraq. He needs a war to keep himself and his co-conspirators out of jail.
McCain's temper might be the only human trait in the whole lot of 'em.
McCain "f--king" fellow senators, in my book, is OK, the same as it's OK for me to "f--k" my peers. For me, the crucial question is, does McCain do the Bush trick of venting his anger on reporters and others who can't fight back? (Actually, no question is crucial -- I can't imagine voting for him no matter what the answer is.)
Also, isn't it better to court the Howard Stern demographic by cursing at Republican senators (face it -- something most myDD.com readers themselves want to do) than by salivating over the prospect of torturing people?
I'm surprised the theocons will accept a Mormon. A lot of fundies don't even accept Mormons as Christian. Moreover, there's fierce competition in the Rocky Mountain states, at least, between the Mormons and the fundies for warm bodies -- fannies in the pews, as George Steinbrenner might say.
Every time I think about the Mormons I'm reminded of one of the early Star Trek movies -- the one where the gang time-travels to 1980s San Fransicso to save the whales -- where Kirk, trying to explain Spock's odd behavior, says, "Don't mind him. He fried his brains on LDS."
"Blogger ethics?" Gimme a break. Do you know how much you sound like David Broder with this crap? Are you running for "dean" of the blogosphere? A blogger is nothing but an old-fashioned soap box orator with a bigger megaphone. He can say whatever he wants, short of defamation. It's called freedom of speech.
If you're going to have rules, you have to have penalties for infractions of the rules. Where are the penalties for violating the blogger ethics rules? Maybe we can all rub one index finger with the other and chant, "shame, shame."
The only possible punishment one can inflict on a blogger is to erase his link from your site. Otherwise, it's up to his readers. If they like what he's saying, he'll continue to say it, ethics or no ethics.
Bloggers who'll be deterred by the loss of the good opinion of the prematurely graying heads of the bloggers-in-chief, will hew to a high standard, no matter what your ethics rules say. Bloggers who aren't will ignore you. Both groups will take you for a chump. Worse, they'll think you want to join Broder and his ilk, equating "quality" and "ethical" commentary with "doing it the way we think you should."
Remember the last scene in "Animal Farm?" We do. Embrace the near-anarchy. Stop trying to teach the pig to wear cufflinks. As the man said, it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Like Alan S., I think the disparity has to do with the authoritarianism gap. Republicans visit web sites and passively listen to today's talking points and marching orders. Democrats visit web sites and interact: commenting, arguing, questioning authority.
Ask any street musician. Get 'em interacting with you, joking, making requests, etc., and their wallet's halfway out of their pocket. Passive listeners pause a moment then go on their way.
Part of the relative gap between Dems' and Goops' reported prosperity has to be simply that Dems are so disgusted with the whole kit 'n' kaboodle that their default answer to poll questions is the negative one. (Some Goops might default the other way.)
Also, Dems might finally be fed up with the MSM's knack for looking in a cloud of bad poll results for Bush and digging out and emphasizing the one thread of a silver lining. So, they exaggerate the negative, whatever the question. I'd at least think about doing the same.
This is a down side of basing political debate and policy choices on 800-person poll samples. As people start to comprehend that their responses might actually make a difference, they'll exaggerate (four syllables meaning lie) to promote their own political preferences.