Yawn

Colin Powell is resigning his post at the end of the year. And in other meaningless news, Loyal Opposition bought a couple of pairs of socks this weekend.

Further down the rabbit hole

The same forces that bankrolled the Governator's run are now bankrolling ads advocating for a constitutional amendment allowing immigrants to run for the presidency. This has to be the first time right-wing backers have backed anything regarding immigrants that hasn't involved chasing them away from our borders. Who knew?

All that aside, the prospect of a Schwarzenegger candidacy scares Loyal Opposition--no doubt Arnold'd win in a walk. And L.O. thought Dubya was hard to listen to.......

More on this if reason should not prevail and we somehow travel further down the rabbit hole. Please PLEASE let reason prevail--it's not that L.O. doesn't want immigrants to have the chance to run for the White House, but doesn't anyone see how this particular situation is like bizarroworld???

I was a teenage werewolf

Thursday was Veterans Day. It is a day when we honor the sacrifice and bravery of the men and women who've served our country on the field of battle. It is also an important to day to honor the veterans of the WWII generation. Slogging out of the Great Depression, they enlisted in a war against fascism mostly out of economic necessity and were plunged into horrific combat. We should honor them because when they returned, they used their hero status to insist upon a society that had more upward mobility. They helped build the great American middle class and a more meritocratic, just, and economically and socially stable society. For opening the door and insisting on common sense and prosperity, they should be commended. Loyal Opposition recently read an article in a hometown newspaper about Veterans Day. It was one of those touchy feely articles the newspaper writes around certain holidays to make us "think." The article was about a Vietnam veteran who spends his time delivering food and providing rides to incapacitated veterans, and the article focused on two particular Vietnam veterans. One was a nurse who'd been a POW and had the muscle under her tongue cut during her captivity--but who nevertheless could speak, albeit with a little difficulty. Although she had children, she lived alone and her only means of support was public aid. She spoke of how grateful she was and how it was wonderful to be remembered on Veterans Day. The other veteran was a former Green Beret who had also been a POW. He had recently run into a Vietnamese immigrant who'd moved to his town who remembered him giving her candy in Vietnam. After being prodded by the veteran who delivers him his aid, the former Green Beret said that his neighbor at the Hanoi Hilton had been John McCain. Loyal Opposition read this article with skepticism. To the best of L.O.'s knowledge, there never had been female POWs in Vietnam. Also, the Green Beret's story seemed a little fanciful and uncorroborated--one would think that, after the attention given to the Hanoi Hilton and to John McCain, that there'd be at least some mention of his existence previously. But, L.O. suspended his skepticism---because L.O. recognizes that coincidence and serendipity exist in the world. Sure enough, however, the next day an article validated L.O.'s skepticism. After a few readers contacted the paper with their doubts, the paper checked up on the stories. It turns out that there ARE no records of female POWs or MIAs in Vietnam. What's more---there was no record of service in the Armed Services whatsoever for either person. The veteran, as well as the two would-bes, continued to vouch for their authenticity. The woman insisted she had been a POW and told the reporter to check for her service at the Vietnam Memorial--upon being told it was for the deceased, she responded that the government thinks she's dead. The man said that all his records perished in a government building fire.

It is possible that the government doesn't know everything about POWS and MIAs or that all its records did perish in a fire. It is possible the government could just be trying to save some money by not having to disperse benefits to these folks. However, the POW issue has been an important one, and the government has tried to keep accurate records assiduously. It is possible that he actually did live with John McCain in a POW camp. But there's no one to corroborate his story and no record of his service. But in the end this is irrelevant. What this is about is the danger of self-serving and self-protecting belief and its power. The newspaper wanted to believe the stories--otherwise it ruined a perfectly structured news article that could move people and give the paper an opportunity to sermonize about how we should remember our vets. They didn't check the veracity until people complained. That is ridiculous--but its wonderful to hear people can still smell bullshit through plate glass. The Vietnamese woman wanted to believe he was the vet that was kind to her because she wanted the chance to thank him and the kindness amidst the horror, and because it gave her some familiarity and a warm memory in an unfamiliar place. The veteran believed because he wanted to believe he was being useful and providng a needed service to those who deserved it--not shelling out goodies to swindelers. And those two liars wanted to believe it. Without their veteran status they're just two older, sickly people with no real family and nothing to show for their life--just failure and illness. So no one was hurt by this symbiosis of belief, right? Sorry, wrong answer. Just like George W. Bush and the Swift Boat Liars, a mockery was being made of true heroes and true sacrifice for their own selfish benefit. It does dishonor to those who served. Service isn't always selfish and sacrifice and heroism isn't always simple. But these people putting their mouths at the trough while spouting these stories is just a con game. When L.O. read the article, he felt pity for these pathetic slobs. But then L.O. felt very angry and upset. So next time you see a veteran, give him or her a pat on the shoulder. And the next time you see one of these charlatans, tell him or her to shut the door and not to come out again until they've learned some respect for real heroes.

Coming later today:

A healthy dose of indignation with a twist of lime.

Lay off Nixon

That's right. L.O. wants all of these damned bloggers and left-wing journalists to leave Nixon out of this current situation. Loyal Opposition has been hearing a lot of "Well, even Nixon had a second term!" followed by snickers of derision. You leave Nixon alone. L.O. doesn't have to go into the litany of what was wrong with Nixon and the horrible things that Nixon and his aides and advisers did. We all know that. But Nixon is no George W. Bush. Not by a long shot. Say what you want about Nixon but Nixon WORKED to become the 37th President of the United States. Nixon came from nothing, had nothing, got into college and law school on his own merit and did well, served in the Navy, became a Congressman and Senator, all of which he did largely through his own wit and ambition. Nixon likely had the 1960 election stolen from him by the Democratic machine in Chicago, but he conceded rather than rend the nation in twain.

He was a conservative, and worked zealously for the conservative cause--he inspired the Solid South and the takeover of the court. It's because of him we have Rehnquist. But because of him we also got Harry Blackmun. And Nixon thought the religious right and their zealots were nuts. And coming from Nixon, that's saying something. As President, Nixon kept his own counsel--he wasn't a convenient tool for the conservative radicals like President Gerald Ford would be. Nixon did more for the environment than any U.S. President since Teddy Roosevelt. Nixon felt an obligation towards the poor, and did not engage in the severe slashing of social services that Reagan would engage in, and would actually deign to speak of the poor as if they actually existed. And as for foreign policy, Nixon certainly was no Bush. Cambodia's tragic fate is Nixon's fault--and he should be pilloried for it. But Nixon inherited an unwinnable war, and while he continued it, he used it intelligently, to bring us towards a rapproachment with China, possibly the most important development in terms of large-scale, long-term global stability. Nixon opened the door to China, and that's what brought the Russians into signing SALT and brought them into a phase of detente, setting the stage for Gorbachev's peaceful overtures.

What's more, Nixon was a thoughtful, intelligent man who wrote and read widely. He was crass and was a boor (bore, as well?) but damn it, he was deep. There's a lot of there there.

So with all due respect to L.O.'s compatriots, lay off Nixon. George W. Bush isn't even in HIS league. A more apt comparison would be "Well, even U.S. Grant got a second term!"

Autumn Sunday Afternoon

Happy Sunday. Loyal Oppositon very much enjoys Sundays. Sundays have a wonderful feel to them--the luxurious approach to certain doom. Sundays are like Fat Tuesday--you enjoy them fully and revel in sloth and gluttony until the realization that Monday is approaching begins to settle in at about 8:30p.m., and then every minute of relaxation becomes an act of defiance.

Today Loyal Opposition woke up late, grabbed the paper, cooked up some bacon and made some toast, sat down with a cup of earl grey tea, and read the paper while listening to Jonathan Schwartz on the radio. It's all very nice.

I don't care if Monday's blue....

Happy weekend everybody! Coming soon: what's coming down the pike in the second Bush administration. The feces will be flung, and some will hit the fan, that's for sure.

Yes sir, Arafat is dead

L.O. has been asked by people who read the blog but have not deigned to comment (you know who you are, you cowardly, selfish tortfeasors!) why there have been no comments on the death of Yassir Arafat. The reason is L.O. genuinely doesn't know what to say. L.O. is certain that one of the latter half of the 20th Century's largest figures---with regard to his influence, his notoriety, his flair, his resilience---has passed into history. How that largeness will be interpreted--whether he will be regarded as one of the most remarkable con men, one of the most remarkable scoundrels, one of the most remarkable peacemakers, a destabilizing force, a force for self-determination---is for history to judge. The fact remains is that he was a little bit of everything. It is remarkable (there's that word again) that an Egyptian (to the best of L.O.'s recollection) should be the man most associated with the idea of Palestinian identity and statehood.

What is interesting is how his passing is yet another reminder of how far in the rear view the order of the last half century is traveling. These large personalities, complex, for good or for ill, are all passing. For good or for ill they were a lot of things--and L.O. can't help but notice that those who are taking their place are of a decidedly different character. They don't seem to be much of anything. Save for spin meisters. Where are the people that are something? It's not the lawyers that seem to be inheriting the earth--it's the hack publicists. Whatever Yassir Arafat was, he was something. He will cast a long shadow.

Random Thought

The Empire Strikes Back is a movie full of bad writing and bad acting. Young Loyal Opposition used to love this movie, as well as the trilogy. But the sad truth is---there's some bad stuff in there. Darth Vader, however, is still the best. Loyal Opposition wishes Vader could have convinced Skywalker to team up and kill the emperor, and then rule the galaxy. That would have been sweet.

This just in

Well, it's now official. Alberto Gonzales, the White House Counsel, is the new Attorney General--confirmation will no doubt go smoothly. Alberto replaces John "Anoint Me, Baby" Ashcroft, who is resigning due to health reasons, namely, that he'll probably be Bush's pick for Chief Justice. Al is famous for the executive order establishing the miltary tribunals that have, to date, not convicted a single actual terrorist. Loyal Opposition has studied very closely the executive order---it must have, like the Laffer Curve, been written on the back of a napkin. It is the legal equivalent of trying to spin silk out of a sow's ear. Loyal Opposition congratulates Mr. Gonzales, and looks forward to another four years of hackery masquerading as law enforcement.

Potpourri

It has been postulated that a Dem prez starting in 2009 could swing the Supreme Court away from extremism. Possible. Firstly, that depends on the Democratic Party managing to construct a winning coalition. Secondly, it's not just about winning the elections, but more successfully framing the issues. The big picture--it's not enough, as Bill Clinton showed, to win the White House. You have to control the national debate to create a strong, effective political party. The Dems seem to be perfectly happy working from the paradigms the Republicans and their radicals create. This is nonsense. When speaking with Bush voters (not supporters, there's a difference), Loyal Opposition was told many times that "We just shouldn't change Presidents in the middle of a war." Loyal Opposition would often times ask them "Which war are you talking about?" Many times, people would answer "Iraq" when they were thinking more in terms of "the war on terror." The war on terror is a lie. It's a useful construct designed not to describe the reality of the situation, but rather to create a brand that carries a certain recognition and subsequent psychological response. Unlike the war on drugs, the war on terror has a more immediate and cursory resemblance to an actual war. But the reality just isn't there. And it hurt the Democrats. The Dems played ball with this characterization, out of fear, out of cynical intention to use it for their own benefit, whatever. But it isn't benefitting them. John Kerry's biggest mistake was not making his own frame and subscribing to the war on terror. However you criticize the war on terror's prosecution, you're on ground that's favorable to the president--because it's his war. He created the terms. He knows the terrain--and he can use it better to his advantage because of its connotations and implications. The way to reframe is to show how "the war on terror" conception hasn't kept us safe at all. That's just one example of the folly of following a Republican, radical script. It applies to domestic policy as well---without a frame, there is no chance to establish yourself as having a true, differing vision.

So before we even get to the Supreme Court, there's that.

Rehnquist is going. There a replacement is merely an increase in degree. But Stevens will likely go--there you replace a liberal leaning justice with a radical. You have then a 6-3 majority. O'Connor has expressed a will to retire---she has been generally favorable to women's rights. If you replace her with a dogmatic radical, you lose even that slight bit of moderation. That will have tremendous impact on constitutional law even if a Dem president can replace one of those 6. Which is assuming that a Dem president can get elected and not encounter obstruction from a Republican congress, both of which are large assumptions. Even if a Dem president is elected, odds are he'd merely be replacing liberals with moderates, which doesn't change the score. Now, there's room for hope--life is unpredictable. But it looks, at the moment, like there's more cause for battening down the hatches than hoping for 2008.

How bad is it?

So you wake up on Wednesday, November 3rd and molasses seems to be running in your veins. You're finding it hard to do the things you need to do and go to the places you need to go because in addition to the molasses in your veins, you've got an incredibly vicious and stinky monkey alternately screeching, attacking your legs and scrambling up and down your back. The forecast calls for patches of demoralization with desolate visibility. So there you are walking with your molasses, your monkey, under a greasy, grey sky. And you ask "How bad is it?"

It's bad.

In the aftermath of the Nov-Dec. 2000 post-election period, Loyal Opposition was clinging to optimism that our institutions, the moderate character of our people, and Bush's own experienced, pragmatic team of advisers would keep the more radical elements in check. "There won't be too much damage done--and what damage there is will likely result in gains for the Democrats!" Now, as we've heard, 9/11 changed everything. Bush's was a presidency adrift. That's a lie. His popularity levels were at 50% and the senate was in Democratic hands by one vote. That's the extent of the bad. BEFORE 9-11, Bush passed his misguided tax cut, his energy bill, No Child Left Behind, rescinded most of the latter day Clinton Administration environmental controls, withdrew from the Kyoto Treaty, started the process of further radicalizing the Federal courts, and obstructed federal stem cell research.

All before 9/11 gave him his aura. Now he has four more years. Now the Congress is even more in his control. Most Dems are scrambling just to keep up. We're not dealing with a process that can be reversed from 2008-2012. The radicals and the President's advisers have been tactically moving towards long-term Republican control. If the Democrats don't start thinking strategically and make the right choices, they will find themselves institutionally irrelevant. It could possibly be this election was the best thing to happen to the Dems, but only if they start the process of backing away from the precipice.

This is an enemy that moves on many levels and on many fronts. 2008 is not a foregone conclusion. And the damage that will be done will be done at a systemic level that will not be solved by one election. It's bad, people. Get out your drawing boards.

Random Thought

The radio show Majority Report is an entertaining and satisfying radio listening experience. Go check it out at Airamericaradio.com. That is all, for now.

Happy birthday

Loyal Opposition takes this moment to wish Field Rabbit #3 a wonderful birthday. Though you abandon those of us in the blue states, you do so as a missionary of our values to those poor lost souls. Loyal Opposition will miss both you and Mrs. Field Rabbit #3 terribly when you go, but promises to venture, with shield and copy of The New Yorker in hand, into the cursed but warm, sunny, and snowless land you will soon call home and pay you both a visit. Enjoy the day.

5-4

That, incidentally, has been the vote in many a controversial case over the last ten years of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence. The future is Bush v. Gore, a case the court, had it adhered to precedent, should have found non-justiciable. There, on a 5-4 margin, the majority cast aside its long held principles of federalism, and endorsed a dubious equal protection argument, where previously they had been loath to find an equal protection argument without subjecting the argument to a rigorous standard. In a weird loophole, the Court stated that this was a one-time only instance, that stare decisis was not to apply to this decision. The majority was whom you might have expected--Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor, and Kennedy. It's a black mark on the court, and everyone knows the reasons--and if comments from law clerks and asides from the actual Justices are to be believed, so do the Justices. Bush v. Gore may not be a legal precedent--but it is a precedent nonetheless, with Bush in for four more years. Judges putting reason, precedent, and the law aside for extra-judicial reasons.

This current Court has been together longer than any previous makeup. Rehnquist is a Nixon appointee. Stevens is a Ford appointee. O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy are Reagan appointees. Souter and Thomas were appointed by Bush, Breyer and Ginsburg by Clinton. 2 of them are over 80. 2 of them are over 70. All but Thomas are in their 60s. Some have had heart problems, some have had brushes with cancer. Rehnquist most recently has been stricken with thyroid cancer and underwent a tracheotomy--and is undergoing chemotherapy. It is a certainty that Rehnquist's time on the court is at an end. Certainly, before his term is through, barring impeachment or other circumstances, Bush quite possibly will be in a position to appoint 3, if not 4, Supreme Court justices, not to mention the large number of Federal judgeships he will be able to fill.

So that is where the situation is at.

Why does this matter?

Well, as a result of sane Democratic social policy and foreign policy which created the necessary conditions, and despite Republican efforts to the contrary, life expectancy and quality of life has gone up in this country over the past 40 years. People are living longer and are living better in their old age. Rehnquist has perched like a large, ugly bird on the Supreme Court for more than 30 years. Whoever replaces him is likely to last just as long.

And now George W. Bush is the one who will replace him. Yes. The events of 11/2 have now made it certain that, in addition to the many other walls in our national house that he has marked with crayon scrawls, Dubya will now make his indelible mark on federal jurisprudence even more boldly.

It wouldn't be a problem if he knew what he was doing. Sadly, however, Dubya has thus far shown himself to be of the same mindset as many of the social and political radicals in his party.

Before going further, Loyal Opposition must confess that he is currently studying law--and so, perhaps, Loyal Opposition's perspective with regard to this being a central issue might be slightly biased. Even though Loyal Opposition admits that many lawyers and law students are evil, hamster-wheel-running stunted personalities, the law itself and our nation's history of jurisprudence and its legal principles are to be accorded respect and never taken for granted.

The radicals who make up Dubya's wing of the Republican party have shown a consistent disregard for many independent disciplines, using and defiling many in rabid pursuit of their irrational goals. Political scientists, theologians, economists, foreign policy experts, intelligence analysts----no discipline has proved too steeped in independent tradition, integrity, and history for them to fiddle with. For the last twenty-five years, there has been an increase in number of those who now wish to use the law and the judiciary as an appropriate tool to use in the service of their ideology. This is disgusting.

The law has been misused in the past. Judges have been corrupt. Hey, take a look at the Salem Witch Trials, where judges conducted trials and pronounced sentence based on conclusions from religious faith, not from reason and deduction in the service of socially and economically efficient and just outcome. Most certainly wouldn't want that to happen again. Except for the radicals.

But our common law system stems from ideas forged in the Enlightenment---that reason trumps everything. Judges are supposed to be impartial expert analysts who base their decision on stare decisis and principles of efficiency and justice. Stare decisis means that one generally respects, except where distinguishable by facts or overwhelming public policy interests, the law of the land.

Good judges know this. Analysis does not take place in a vacuum, but most recognize that the decisions they make will echo down and be judged by other judges, lawyers, and private citizens. Good judges respect the reputation of the independent judiciary as worth protecting.

But the radicals don't care. Stare decisis means nothing to them where it stands in the way of their ultimate goals.

Which is why this current situation is so dangerous---in the post 11/2 world, the independent judiciary is at stake, and, indeed, the process of selecting an independent judiciary is at stake. Ever since the Reagan years, when the radicals started to poison the judicial pool with reactionaries and fundamentalists, the confirmation process has heated up. There was a time when nominees wouldn't even have to show up at their confirmation hearings. Until Robert Bork. And after he was forbidden a seat on the Supreme Court, the radicals redoubled their efforts to take the circuit courts. The position of Chairman of the Judiciary Committee has become very important. All in all, Orrin Hatch has straddled the fence between hackery and propriety, after all, it was his advice to Clinton to propose a moderate voice like Breyer, rather than risk the possibility of another, more rabidly liberal nominee being Borked. Arlen Specter, who many, before this week, thought would be the next Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, has been pilloried with ferocity by the radical forces who backed Bush for the express purpose of being able to mold Constitutional law in their image. The fact that Democrats and the media didn't make this a larger issue than the Swift Boat Adventure is a profound system failure. Specter actually dared profess his desire that judicial appointees be more concerned with proper analysis and respect for an independent judicial voice, rather than be (and Loyal Opposition hates to swear, but,) batshit crazy. Then the hammer came down.

Now, Arlen Specter is no angel--there's a lot to be said against him. But. The White House, fellow senators, policy organizations, and certain media cheap-shot-artists felt it incumbent on them to reeducate Specter away from the position that what we need are more competent judges. This is very bad. And it, so far, has worked--Specter has backed away from his previous position, and started singing the radicals' tune. Party discipline will extend to three branches.

The concept of separation of powers is there for a reason. In Nazi Germany, it was the acquiescence of the judges that lent Hitler's initial oppressive laws and policies legitimacy and the force of law. The judiciary is important. It serves as a check and balance. The Senate and House serves a check and balance. Well, no more. They no longer serve to rein in an overbearing executive or an overreaching legislature.

The radical element has threatened the framers' intent for institutional independence, integrity, and the balance of power and checks and balances that flow therefrom--principles that have been argued about in the courts in proper, rational fashion for years. Petty politics has always been part of the system. But whatever intellectual approach to the issues was carved out by the judiciary, whatever evolution in jurisprudence flowed from the give and take, it was largely rational, based on precedent or policy.

Loyal Opposition has no beef with those who in good faith espouse conservative principles--Loyal Opposition has been known to agree with many a Scalia decision (he's not always ranting about how the homosexual army will one day make us all wear purple fuzzy slippers). If you get to where you get because you thought it through, and you're balanced in your analysis based on facts, more power to you. But we're moving towards faith based analysis these days.

And when it comes to Clarence Thomas, Loyal Opposition doesn't know WHAT to think. He has often been described as Scalia's lapdog. Not true. Scalia is a pompous bully and has his own ethical lapses and fundamentalist worldview with respect to some things. But Scalia is a mensch--he's a true strict constructionist (with some exceptions). He respects history and the rule of stare decisis. Clarence Thomas, if you read enough opinions, has a different attitude. He could care less about 200 years of judicial precedent if he doesn't like the result. Many times his dissents amount to: "Well, there's a lot of precedents here, but I'd really like to proceed as if they didn't happen, because they had no idea what they were talking about. Pass the Sanka."
Thomas also is a strict constructionist, but, unlike Scalia, who occasionally will just grumble about how far we've fallen from 1789 but recognize modern reality, Thomas wants us to put on our blindfolds and pretend that it actually IS 1789. Too bad for him. As Al Sharpton said, if it wasn't for those pesky post-1789 cases, Thomas never would have gotten to law school. Sometimes progress is a two-edged sword.

He's been described by George W. Bush as an ideal picture of a Supreme Court justice. And would Bush pass up the chance to appoint the first African-American Chief Justice? Time will tell. Bush has already appointed an openly racist judge to the federal judiciary in a sneaky recess appointment. His appointees have, on the whole, been fundamentalist in nature--concerned about those ineffable heartland values we hear so much about. However, there doesn't seem to be much concern for the value of independent analysis. With Bush's appointees hanging on into their 80s, we will be looking forward to judicial pronouncements that are more like sermons than legal opinions. The fear is that the dignity of the judicial robe will cloak what are merely reactionary, prejudiced faith-based opinions. Fortunately, if things progress as they have, the judicial branch won't have that dignified position for very much longer. Thus endeth Loyal Opposition's own sermon.

Jimmy Swaggart for Chief Justice

How wonderful that would be. This man has given us so much over the years, but his latest gem is one of those statements that has so much wrong with it, it makes your eyes bleed. Mr. Swaggart decried the concept of gay marriage, imagining a hypothetical scenario where a gay man, overcome with lust for the super-annuated Swaggart, casts lascivious glances his way. Swaggart said if such situation ever did occur, he would "kill him and tell God he died." Loyal Opposition is sure that Swaggart replays this scenario in his head, probably with varying degrees of blood and body oil. But it's tough to know where to begin---sex and violence always seem to go together for these social radicals that make up the evangelical right. The married Mr. Swaggart certainly didn't murder the women who cast similarly lascivious looks (the Lord works in mysterious ways) at him in his televangelist heyday. Swaggart apparently believes he possesses the ability to fool God. Swaggart wouldn't be able to fool the dumbest cracker in Texarkana about his HAIR COLOR. Good luck with that other project. And if you think gay people are so bad, why lie to God at all? Why not put the guy's head on a stick and use it for a tiki torch?

Oh, yeah, the judiciary. Loyal Opposition is exhausted and spent from thinking about Jimmy Swaggart and his sexy murderous impulses. Loyal Opposition is going to change out of its sweat-soaked shirt and flog itself while listening to Jim Nabors records. Good night all.

The Looming Specter

Coming soon: Loyal Opposition addresses the latest atrocities committed against the idea of a pure, competent judiciary

One other thing

Just to show that Loyal Opposition isn't all fire and brimstone with no chocolately center, Loyal Opposition would like to offer best wishes for a speedy and full recovery to its dear friend Shiv. Get well soon, buddy!

Tora! Tora! Tora!

The Loyal Opposition welcomes you.

11/2 changed everything. Those of us who belong to what has been termed "the reality based community" naturally had to realize the reality that "those other people" weren't going away. This detour wasn't a fluke--in fact, it wasn't a detour at all. Suddenly, our nation wasn't just taking a circuitous route through Bizarroworld on the way to Peace and Prosperity. Those folks in the driver's seat had decided to park the car, stay a while, and hit the White Castle. And a whole lot of people seem to welcome that. Well, let Loyal Opposition tell you, dear reader---you eat more than 5 of those sliders and you're gonna get one heck of a stomachache down the line. Loyal Opposition sees itself as the voice in the back that says "Hey! White Castle sucks!" and starts pounding the back of the seat.

Because let's face it. It's even more the Republican's ball field now. The Dems have enough for fillibuster, but don't have the strength in numbers that they had to pose an effective obstruction. Even when the Senate was damn near evenly split, the Dems didn't use their power effectively. They just rolled over for Porter Goss, for instance. Now, you could say "But Loyal Opposition, surely if the Dems had fought it, they would have been pegged as not being serious enough about our security!" Loyal Opposition says "Shut up, fool. You're missing the point. Here is a man who, by his own admission, wouldnt have the qualifications to have been hired to work as an AGENT in the CIA. Furthermore, Porter Goss' record in Congress and his public statements reveal him to be more skilled in partisan hackery than analysis and administration. The only administration he's interested in is the Bush administration." That's the case that could have been made, and should have been made. THEY are the party not serious about national security.

But that is what a loyal opposition would have said. The loyal opposition does not take half measures and hug President Bush for photo-ops. The loyal opposition gives voice to those 49 million who said "Yeah, Bush? Rather drink a can of toilet cleanser." The remaining Dems have the opportunity now to be the true loyal opposition---they have nothing else to lose, and much to gain. It's slash and burn time, folks. We have to make them eat their liver. And that is what Loyal Opposition wants to do. To be an unrelenting polemic. Trying to appeal to self-interest did not work. But perhaps throwing things at them will--after all, the 51 percent have shown intimidation works well with them. It's better than Loyal Opposition's first plan, which was to change registration to the Republican Party and move to Oklahoma, finding work as a sniper for hire for anti-abortion groups.

That is where Loyal Opposition stands. More to follow.