Well the Iraqi's have now weighed in on the debate between uber-hawks and the rest on whether we should even set a timetable to withdraw from Iraq.  Quess what?  The Hawks were wrong again.  As much as I fancy myself a 'tough' JFK Democrat, prepared to defend liberty anywhere, I had a sneaking suspicion that we had become a big part of the problem over there, not the solution.  Try as I might I could not rid my mind of the notion that those who said that we are now the focus of the resistance were right.  Of course, the hawks disparaged that notion as cutting and running, being cowardly, unpatriotic and the like.  Sometimes a cool headed hawk would produce real arguments why the notion of a timetable to get out was wrong.  But now the Iraqi's weigh in on the debate and it turns out the people who got us in this mess, or sat by while others did so, were wrong all over again.  We ARE part of the problem according to those we are saving.

How long will people who are wrong about an issue over and over and over again hold sway over the public imagination?  Murtha was completely correct.   We need to set a timetable now.  And we most of all need to be very, very cautious in the future and examine with a very critical mind when people want to take us down this path again.  Those who marshalled civil arguments about why we should not have done this in the first place, and the terrible things that might happen if we did, those are true American hero's who spoke with courage at a time when most of us were silent in the Post 9/11 world.

At the Moderate Voice today a little gratuitous piling on the ACLU in my judgment. There are plenty of cheerleaders for the Administration and for a super tough approach towards suspected terrorists. There are not that many effective public bodies which aggressively protect our freedoms. Our system and our freedoms depend on having an ACLU to push back against the government, which, after all, wants it all. It has always been governments which have sought to deny people their freedom and only a watchful people can ensure that the government is restrained. Does anyone doubt for a minute that our Founding Fathers would agree with this completely? Particularly finding out today that a possibly innocent man was gunned down in London (and everyone I mentioned the shooting to yesterday responded 'About time'), I am more thankful for the ACLU than ever. No harm at all will come from their watching out for us. Let everyone else do the cheerleading. http://www.themoderatevoice.com/

Interestingly, in the discussions on the Roberts nomination, it has been written on several blog sites and opinion pieces that since Roberts appears to reject the Thomas view of a strictly libertarian attitude toward property takings, and seems to support less than absolute notions of property rights, that liberals should be heartened.  My own views on the Kelo decision posted above were accused of being libertarian, or better yet, libertarian and populist.

May I ask when a broad view of the Takings Clause, lack of protection of notions of private property, and anti-libertarianism became part of liberal dogma?   I  would think that liberals would favor an absolutist notion of the Bill of Rights, which is what libertarianism is all about.  No finer document exists in the world for the protection of the rights of people than our Bill of Rights and I am proud to consider myself libertarian.  I would think that the protection of the weak and powerless is what progressives are all about.  I would think that liberals would recognize that populism was a big part of what allowed Bill Clinton to win election twice.  On the other hand, most progressives I know rejected Clinton as too conservative and seem perfectly prepared to continue to lose elections rather than settle for a candidate whom they disagree with on any issue.

Considering how Josh Marshall has continually pushed here for Democrats to recognize that they have to WIN elections to have a voice, I see little sign that progressives-liberals have learned the lesson on how to win elections and appeal to red state voters.

I am surprised to see so little if any comment today on this site regarding the Supreme Court decision in Kelo, the Connecticutt taking case.  I think this is a truly catastrophic decision, but the most surprising part of it was that the justices who sided with big business were the very one's I would have expected to defend the defenseless.  How Ginsburg, Stevens et al could allow the law of condemnation to evolve to the point where a public purpose is served if the tax base is increased is quite frankly beyond me.

I submit that this decision will go a long way to grease the skids for Congress to appoint extremely conservative justices to the court, and that people, such as myself, who might have objected loudly and vocally to such appointments will think twice.

Given the fact that the GOP has been taken over by the WINGNUTS, and the Democrats have lost almost all of their spine as well as their ability to stir up some outrage at the direction the country is going in, perhaps a (new) Libertarian third party would be in order.