Krauthammer is confined to a wheelchair because of a spinal cord injury resulting from a diving accident. He may even be a full-blown quadraplegic.

I've known about this for awhile, and at the time I found out I wondered how it was that I hadn't known before. Then it came to me. If he'd been a liberal commentator, imagine how many photo ops we'd have been treated to with him and his wheelchair.

That's a steaming load of crap, Brian.

The people YOU know in a wheelchair must be different than the ones I know.

They don't want "photo ops."

So, I got a question for you. Do you spend all your time thinking of ways that liberals are full of shit? How depressing.

You remind me of Cardinal Richelieu who once said: "Give me one paragraph written by the most virtuous man in the realm and I will find a word or two that will send him to the gallows."

Get a life!

This is the first time in my life I've ever been compared, favorably or un- (some help here?) with Cardinal Richelieu.

However, while I don't usually have to expend much energy to find reasons to do so (I just read the op/ed pages in any major city newspaper), I didn't say anybody was full of shit. And while I usually stay away from the "I bet if he was black/I bet if it'd been a woman/I bet if he'd been a liberal," I couldn't resist this time. So sue me.

Drat. I really wish I'd caught this little exchange sooner. I don't generally tolerate direct ad hominem attacks. Mr. Strong, you are generally welcome to comment here but directly attacking others who comment here is considered rude and uncalled for.

We all lose our tempers now and then, of course. Let's just try to avoid it, shall we?

By the way, in terms of "liberals," it would behoove us to note that FDR always hated that people knew he was wheelchair-bound and would be angry at anyone who took a picture of him in a wheelchair. On the other hand, FDR would be considered pretty conservative by today's standards, so you be the judge.

In any case, it does seem to be the case that people on the Left generally want to talk about how the differently-abled should be out and about and proud, while people on the Right generally don't want to make a big deal out of it. It probably suits Krauthammer's temperament not to make a big deal out of it. Maybe it would be different if he were a man of the Left, but it's hard to say.

In any case, he's quote a writer. Partisan, true, but deeply and thoughtfully so I'd say. I'm glad I know about this now so I don't have it as a distraction.

Mr. Esmay,

I regret my prior outburst. My sincere apologies to Mr. Jones and to your readers, Mr. Esmay. It won't happen again.

However, it is becoming a depressingly familiar theme in your site (which I have only recently begun reading) that all things distasteful must have liberal roots. Conversely, all things having liberal roots must be distasteful.

Am I wrong?

This kind of thinking does not strike me as evidence of a finely tuned and discriminating intellect.

Rather it strikes me as "preaching to the choir."

Yes, you're wrong.

A theme we do often explore is the deep illiberalism that has come to pervade much of the political left in general and the Democratic Party in particular. I left the Democratic Party in large part for that reason, and crticize it often.

As a society, we have come to equate "liberal" with negative politics: coercion, control, envy, racial balkanization, class warfare, moral relativism, and contempt for religion and tradition. Such things are, in truth, highly illiberal. We explore that here a lot.

I make no secret of the fact that I think the left has lost its way, that its control of the education establishment and Hollywood have allowed it to whitewash its own horrible mistakes, and to demonize people who don't deserve it. We explore that theme a lot here too.

But as has been discussed, liberalism itself is a noble thing, and the political left has won many battles for which we are all better off.

For more on this, you may want to see the Best of Dean's Articles page. You may especially want to see Are You A Liberal?, Kaus Whiffs It, and When Did It Happen?

It sounds to me what Dean means by liberal is classical liberalism. It sounds to me that which Mr. Strong opines is that liberals today embody the opposite of that. I can agree with both these premises.

Liberals have simply forgotten how to be liberal. Liberalism used to mean open-mindedness and a vigorous application of the scientific method of inquiry. They sadly lack either of these today. They replaced scientific inquiry with an anything-to-win mentality.

Liberals have done one big volte-face since losing control of congress in 1994. This is due entirely to their own arrogance. Democrats believed they had such a lock on the U.S. Congress that they could treat it as their own private playground making and enforcing rules making it easy for Democrats to win and impossible for Republicans.

They sure got their comeuppance in November 1994 where NO Republicans lost any seats and where Dems lost three score. This is because liberal policies finally ran their course and Democrats lacked imagination in keeping these programs afloat.

Liberal programs since the Great Society have become financially unsustainable. The Democrats have only one solution: higher taxes. They have only one solution to any problem: more taxes. Taxpayer/voters sent Democrats their message loud and clear November 1994.

Since then Democrats have been fighting tooth and nail to keep these increasingly untenable programs intact. This includes doing ANYTHING to win any elections. It also includes behaving in any rude manner. It also includes using any fallacious argument to support your position. It also includes using any inaccurate fact to back your argument. It also includes reversing burden of proof at any time to smear your opponent. You get the idea. Democrats will do anything to win.

It also shows the extent to which they control the state courts in America. Therefore, in order to get control of the federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court they intend to use the state courts to steal an election! This is just too rich. Will these shameless people stop at nothing?

Just witness what the Dems are doing in NJ. After they chose their nominee for the U.S. Senate, they decide to use the court system to undo their own choice! Is this is not proof positive that Democrats/liberals will do anything to win? They could have chosen a better nominee in the primary; but they did not. Now they want to change the rules in mid-stream so they can have a better chance of winning. These people are shameless.

The Democrats are well aware that 80% of the liberal policies they advocate were given imprimatur using the court system. They knew their ideas would not fly with voters. Therefore, it is paramount they control all federal judicial appointments, including the United States Supreme Court. Liberals have not yet gotten over losing the Presidency by a nose in 2000. They needed this office to appoint all their liberal judges. Now, they control the Senate by a nose. They are about to lose that, too.

The Dems can kill any conservative appointment since they control the Senate; and the Senate approves all federal executive branch appointments, including appointments to the federal bench. They desperately need to win this Senate seat in New Jersey.

At least you can say the Democrats know it’s about winning and losing. That’s all you can say for them.

One should point out that Democrats hardly invented brutal campaigning. Just at the Presidential level, Richard Nixon was often a real bruiser--and did, after all, lose the Presidency for being caught in some very dirty tricks. In fairness, it wasn't much worse than things Kennedy and Johnson had done, but he got so arrogant about it he tried to use the FBI and the CIA to cover up his actions.

On the other hand, it's not as if brutal campaign tactics started with Tricky Dick either. John Kennedy was just as Tricky as his old buddy Nixon. And frankly, as admirable as the man was in many ways, I think that Harry Truman deserves the award for the 20th Century's most savage campaigner. The man compared Thomas Dewey to Hitler, in 1948 for God's sake. (Hmm, note to self: was it here that Democrats first started their bad habit of comparing Republicans to fascists?)

Anyway: It's clear that with things the way they are, politics will tend to be more shrill these days. As always, I argue that what we should really care about is the ideas. Good ideas will eventually triumph--I do believe that.

--

As for liberalism: it is being increasingly noted that today's Republicans increasingly look less like Tories and more like Gladstone Liberals. I believe that's an apt description.

Regarding federal judicial appointees, it is notoriously difficult for either party to have their nominees confirmed. The Republicans played just as badly during the Clinton administration.

They were bad but not "just" as bad. They didn't disqualify any judges simply for being too liberal. As far as I know, anyway.

And I believe that in Clinton's first 2 years they confirmed upwards of ~173 give or take a few.

Bush has had around 70 confirmed. So you be the judge.

Frankly they all suck. I think its worse when a perfectlt qualified judge is disqualified for being too conservative or too liberal and NO other reason.

Regarding New Jersey:

Yes, the Dems don't want to lose that seat. Yes, they will do whatever it takes to win. So would the Republicans.

The fact is if they are gonna lose New Jersey its gonna be because the voters oust them. If any Democrat (except Torricelli) is better than the Republican, who is ahead in the polls, so be it.

Honestly, Torricelli should have withdrawn LONG ago. He should be in jail like Traficant.

The voters aren't children. They should have been offered a better candidate sooner. I hope Bill Bradley comes back. He may win it but at least he seems to be honest - how refreshing that would be.

If the Republicans are meant to be in control of the Senate they will win it back. If not they won't. How very American...

No need to suggest this is brutal or dirty campaigning. If they aren't in it to win they shouldn't be in it!

Rosemary,

I agree that politics has gotten coarser the past few years. But this anything-to-win mentality eventually has to end. If not, then there are no rules. Or even worse, the rules will be for losers. In which case, there will be no rules.

I am not naive. I understand that politics is a rough game, even more so these days. One side will successfully undermine the will of the voters if allowed to election laws. They will completely undermine the election process.

This has serious implications. If one side realizes their votes do not count then they may simply stop voting. This is what happened in Dunwoody, GA where voter turnout is around 30%. If not, then the opposing side, in this case the Republicans, will simply start cheating, too. Do you want this to happen?

If Republicans begin cheating as Democrats already do then who will enforce election laws? Will Democrats prosecute Republicans? Will Republicans have the guts to prosecute Democrats? Will either side prosecute its own party for voter fraud? Can you see the mess this will create?

The worse case scenario I can see is that both sides steal copious votes as they did in 1880. If this happens then may the devil hold the doors because we will have a real donnybrook on our hands.