cogent explanation of the Bush Administration's complete disregard for the Constitution.

If it were not for Fein and others of his ilk, screaming for years for Clinton's head even before his first term, Gore would have wiped out the stuttering, uncaring, What--Me Worry? decider.  But Fein and Ann Coulter, Ben Epstein, Mark Levin, Sean, Rush, Barbara Olson (how we miss her sacharine smile as she would lie through her large teeth about Clinton's criminality, even before Monica came on the scene), Victoria Toensig, Gibson, and others, all contributed to a climate of hate that was enough to carry over to Gore's non-election, costing Al God knows how many votes in a close race.

And all this for what?  Because Monica fortuitously appeared after all the other so-called "scandals" turned out to be dust, and it turned out the Prez lied about having consentual sex, testifying in a trial that had nothing to do with that issue.  Read the transcript of the trial and you can see why the judge threw the case out, despite Clinton's lie.

But for these guardians of our morality, like Fein and Georgetown Law professor, J. Turley, constantly lending their learned opinions about Clinton's sins and deserved impeachment over a matter that had absolutely nothing to do with your and my life, we would not be in Iraq today, we would not be feeling that our government has been taken over by thugs resembling those in 1930's newsreels of Germany and Italy, and 3,600 of our soldiers would be alive and 26,000 unwounded.  And 75,000 Iraqis would still be breathing, as well.

I look back and remain as ticked off today as then that Fein and the others had not kept their damned mouths shut about a minor moral transgression that mattered not a whit to our lives (like gay marriage), but led to tragedy for thousands.

on one level, but on another level the only way to get the attention of some of those who are not in the least bothered by the Bush/Cheney evisceration of our constitutional rights is to put someone with Republican street cred in front of them who will tell them why they should be worried.  It's the only way to get their attention.

I don't know Turley's views first-hand on social issues, but I don't get the sense that he is especially conservative in this regard.  (in the FWIW category, he's also a prof. at George Washington U., not Georgetown -- I'm sure that the folks at GWU would want this distinction to be made).

Fein from everything that I've been able to gather is more of a social and economic libertarian.  His views regarding the Constitution are conservative, but not in the radical sense of someone like Douglas Kmeic, Rivkin, Ken Starr, or John Yoo. 

To his credit, at least Fein is being consistent in his views regarding impeachment.

As far as scapegoating is concerned, I think there are better places to look for our nation's problems than outspoken Constitutional law profs, and columnists.  Our democracy is in a bad way if the media celebrities along the lines of Coulter, Rush, Sean, and Mark Levin are viewed as experts on anything that relates to economic, Constitutional law issues, or military and foreign policy affairs.  At the end of the day, political leaders make choices that happen in the political realm; and the people bear a secondary responsibility if they select poor leaders to represent their interests.

folks turn on conservative radio or Fox news each day at the same time listen to the lies and declare it the truth.  I live in a neighborhood of educated, semi-affluent families and I hear Rush's words and opinions all the time from my neighbors.  We can only look to election results in my area in Central Virginia (the ususal 65% Republican 35% Democrat) to know that these pundits are successful. 

The diarist, to me, doesn't seem to be scapegoating these corrupt, vicious and duplicitous (first it's Clinton and now it's Bush...smiling all the way to the bank) pundits but rather is alluding to the formidable and ominous influence that these "journalists/lawyers, etc." have on the uneducated and uninformed masses that buy their spew as fact.  This is the point.  And what is the proper response...a response, which too often never comes from Democrats or is "qualified" so as to not offend. 

These pundits influenced the electortate enough (while lining their greedy pockets) to give us Bush not Gore.  And until, we as Democrats, stop trying to categorize and analyze these pundits' (who should be the guardians of honest information) positions and opinions, and respond in kind, then Democrats will continue not to be the choice of voters.  Let's be more like Jim Webb!

And remember listening to Rush when I was 11 or 12.  I think Rush probably does have a greater appeal in some regions of the state and country more than others.  However, based on my experience, his biggest appeal seems to break down along generational lines.  If a person is over 60 and younger than 75, white, and male, odds are more likely that Rush will speak to their "reality" than if the person does not fit within that narrow demographic. 

I agree here that Limbaugh's very existence is a challenge.  However, I see the biggest challenge with the audience itself.  If Rush didn't exist, there would be another guy like him filling the void. 

Take Rush and Coulter off the air, and the prejudices which make them a viable market commodity are still present in the audience.  Overturning those prejudices isn't easy, but that's where the problem exists in my view. 

Every time I hear or read of someone defending Bill Clinton's wanton disregard for his oath of office, which implicitly assumes deference to the rule of law I want to throw up.

Bill Clinton LIED UNDER OATH!  Bill Clinton lied to the American people repeatedly about his tawdry affair, until he could lie no more. Then he trots out the V.P., Sec. of State and his wife at a news conference in the Rose Garden, to show how they still supported their President. PATHETIC.

Bill Clinton sexually harassed women throughout his career and when it finally caught up with him via the Paula Jones lawsuit; his teamed trashed the "trailer park trash" reputation without batting an eye. Really it was done with smug grins from the ever smiling James Carvelle.Clinton was impeached as he should have been.... what an utter embaressment.

It's astonishing to me that typically women come to his defense on this matter. And the principal reason Hillary will not get my vote is that she's the consumate careerist politician. My God, look at all the Bullshit she's put up with from her Husband over the years .... and never had the INTEGRITY to Divorce him???  Why that would not have been a Good Career Move.

We all agree that the Bush / Cheney regime is far worse and more seriously offensive to the Constitution. Libertarians / Consertives like Bruce Fein and many others project the same arguments that Al Gore delivered a year and a half ago concerning the assault on the Constitution. One hears these concerns from many different political persuasions .... and consequently more calls for IMPEACHMENT!!

I agree and aplaud those efforts!!! But spare me the Bill Clinton rationalizations.

So putting aside your hatred of Bill Clinton (and Hillary), you are saying you don't agree that the right wing pundits helped give us George Bush? I'm not sure how long you've been following politics but among most Democrats I think it's pretty well accepted and believed that Republicans and Conservatives talking heads substantially helped Bush slide right into office. 

So then I guess what you're also saying is that we would have been better off with George Herbert Walker Bush than Bill Clinton?  Oh BTW, Bush 1 had at least one affair....

Finally, what are you going to do if Hillary is nominated?  Not vote for her?  Great!

Hate Bill & Hillary?? No I just see them for what they are? Careerist Politicians. Nothing more nothing less. Each made their trade offs a long time ago. Does that make any of them good Presidential Timber ? NO ? not in my book. I'm looking elsewhere ? of the current field I like Obama and dread another polarizing figurehead / leader ? of either or any party.

As far as having Conservatives make arguments against the war or against the Bush Administration in general? particularly on Constitutional matters ? I welcome their input.  Must be my Libertarian streak. I'm not for Big Government from either Liberals or Conservatives. Both have their problems. Good Governance is a balancing act ? but the less Government in my life the better for the most part. And please try to recognize the fact that not every conservative is a Neo-Con ?. Which has brought this country where it is today; at a Crossroads.

At this junction, particularly for the Democratic Party ?. I'm not looking back at the past (FULL of FAILURE I might add) ? I'm looking toward a broad and positive future that includes conservatives and libertarians like myself. If you can't allow for a good argument (conservative or otherwise) against this failed president, then maybe you're not so open minded. Just maybe you're the flip side of the Bush coin?. Coming from the other side of the pole.

I appreciate your responding and do understand your viewpoint now.  I had assumed that you were a Democrat.  My mistake.  I apologize for sounding condescending to you. 

I feel quite opposite to your viewpoint.  I'm a liberal and welcome government programs that the Democrats have given us like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid for the poor, Minimum Wage Laws, the Clean Air Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Voting Rights Act, Unemployment Compensation, the Security and Exchange Act and a host of other programs that have made our country great as we have grown.  I don't consider, as you do, that the Democratic Party is, in your words,
"Full of Failure". 

If you could be more specific as to your problems with Hillary and Bill Clinton, then there would be a basis for discussion.  Just calling them "Careerist Politicians" describes them and every other politician holding and running for office today and doesn't identify what they have done that you object to!  The country and world love and approve of Bill Clinton and New York feels the same about their Senator.

I'm glad you like Barrak O'Bama, another Careerist Politician.  And luckily, he's a liberal Democrat!

is exactly what these talking heads are, Fox News especially. It is due mainly to the concentration of control of media outlets in the hands of a few rightwingnuts, Rupert Murdoch among them.  It is senseless to rail against the talking heads; they only do what they are directed to, or allowed to do by their corporate owners.

The neo-conservative dominance of "public information" is far more profound than even that of Stalin's Russia, and the only media still beyond their control is the Internet, and they are working on that (see my recentdiary on "Let's ColdCock the Neo-con Effort to Control the Internet.")

What we need is a progressive billionaire to start and sustain a major television network to compete with Fox, just as Murdoch started Fox. Another point, we need to force the break-up of these information conglomerates and spread out ownership to restore balance and provide alternate viewpoints.

Teddy, don't you think that those "talking heads", like their corporate owners, are also making money hand over fist and deserve being railed against? 

Realistically, today we must face the opposition and call them like they are.  We don't have a billionaire philanthropist to save us and it's going to be a long, long haul before conglomerates are busted.  What we need is to do is act now and the only thing that comes to mind and is affordable is challenging these vermin every chance we get(from the top down....from Senators down to the "lowly" Democratic volunteer). 

Or else I'm afraid we'll just have to play in their sandbox.

fawning, it is the strongest weapon the Republicans have. I agree, of course, that my little fantasy of persuading, say, Soros, to drop a few billion into a new television network is just that, a fantasy. But changing some of the rules on how we now permit the same mega corporations control all the media in a market area (newspapers, radio, television) would bring competition back. Also, protecting the Internet from falling into the same greedy hands as the rest of the media is something else we can do. But we have to find ways of countering the current flood of distorted conservative propaganda, something beyond blogs, documentary movies, and books exposing the disaster. Any other ideas? Say, comic books and graphic novels?

First, my apology to G.W.U.--in the rush of writing I slipped a gear and forgot Turley's professorial residence.

What I'd like to make clear is that I'm furious that people like Turley, Fein, repenters like Bob Barr and, at times, Lindsey Graham, and Spector, are all so concerned about our liberties under the Constitution after their piling-on all over the airwaves about Clinton's lies about Monica.  If the lies were about weapons of mass destruction, about torture, about outing a CIA covert agent, about, say, violating the Act against selling arms to our enemies (Reagan, Ollie, Bud), I could see impeachment being demanded.  But an affair?  Jumping in on this?  It polluted the atmosphere for Gore, a few years later.

Perhaps you didn't see Fein, Epstein, Levin, et. al., but I did.  Every day and night.  I know the public can make choices and should be responsible for their choices, but, to put it bluntly, the public's education is seriously lacking.  You know the surveys.  People who can't find their home state on a map.  Who don't know the name of the VP.  Who need a calculator to figure out the sales price of a $100 item on a 50%  off clearance.  People over 62 who will vote against Social Security if it would ensure that a teenager doesn't get an abortion or two gays get married.

What I'm saying is that people like Fein and Turley should have recognized their importance in a close election and not have weighed in on an issue so trivial.  Yes, Clinton lied, but it was not a material lie since the issue he lied about (sex with a willing partner) was not material to the Paula Jones case.  But whether he should have been impeached for this lie is, to me, a shame.  As many figures later said, anyone in Congress would have (and did) lie about sex.  And they swore oaths to be morally upright, whether a wedding oath before God or an oath of office with a hand on the Bible swearing to uphold the law (as if adultry weren't a crime).

Further, this is a public that believes Rush's and CNBC's argument (mainly Kudlow, repeatedly) that the greatest economic expansion we had (under Clinton) was due to Reagan's tax cut.  This, despite Reagan's later tax raises, the Bush (read my lips) tax raise that cost him credibility, and Clinton's 1994 tax raise ("the largest in our history": Rush).  What a display of logic that is.

Those Rightists (scads of them) also repeatedly stated (about Clinton prosperity) that the President has nothing to do with the economy, so Clinton shouldn't get credit.  Yet, these same toadies give Bush credit for his economic upturn, and it's bought by the same pundits on TV and radio who denied Clinton credit.  Men like Matthews and Russert just nod in agreement when the Right mentions this.

And the other arguments!  "Democrats want power."  No kiddin.  Like the Republicans don't.

Democrats will say anything to win.  Like, perhaps, the Right and Sean did in "Kalifornia", supporting Arnold in the primaries against an anti-abortion foe, after Sean had been saying for years that abortion is the major issue of our time!  (Sean saw a winner and wouldn't let go of Arnold's coattails, despite the ethics of it all.)

Democrats want to control you.  Yeah, like giving you freedom of choice, freedom not to have a Bible shoved in your face, job training, unemployment extensions, etc. 

When Turley amd Fein appeared on TV during the run to impeachment and thereafter, they gave credence to the jackals.  To the great unwashed.  To the haters.  And, to repeat, in a close election people like Turley could have swung enough votes by justifying impeachment, which later stuck to the upright Gore like glue (with Gore himself later branded as a serial liar by the same crowd (Levin, et al.)

That is my complaint.  In a society where so many people are TOTALLY unimformed, men like Turley and Fein should be stewards of the public, recognizing the consequences of their words, and not later lamenting the tragedy they caused.

And to the poster who referred to me as Soccer "Mom".... well you got it wrong. 

responsibly -- I agree with this. 

As far as Fein and Turley silencing themselves to achieve some outcome -- I fundamentally disagree with this idea.

Judge Louis Brandeis once said: "The best remedy for bad speech is more speech.  Not enforced silence."  I think there is more than a little wisdom to this.  If Fein and Turley were winning the debate based on the quality of their arguments, then more power to them -- that's exactly how a deliberative system of government is supposed to work.  If Fein and Turley were making an argument that wasn't persuasive and losing, more power to them -- that's also how a deliberative system of government is supposed to work. 

As long as the argument was made on the basis of good faith, and some degree of reflection, I have no complaints.  The argument will sink or swim on its own merits.

If one side "wins" the debate because they've simply silenced the opposition, then they haven't truly won.  I suspect this is why so many people don't respect the Hannity's or Rush's of the world.  The only world where these kinds would be considered experts is one where they control the microphone, the questions, the format, and the guests.  It doesn't take much otherwise to shatter the illusion. 

Fein and Turley both allow themselves to be subject to hostile questioners -- Fein has even appeared in front of Senate committees in recent years and taken hostile questions.  Could you imagine the Hannities or Rushes of the world holding their own in a similar setting?

Probably not.

"Experts" obviously have an influence in the public debate -- whether justified or not.  However, I think that saying that Fein "gave us Bush" is overstating the man's influence among the general public.  If that's the case, he really has gotten a raw deal from the Bush people.

In 2004 Bush won re-election by even larger numbers than in 2000.  In 2000 Gore may have won the popular vote, but he also failed to bring the Big Kahuna, Bill Clinton, with him on the campaign trail; he didn't even win his home state.  He had so many factors working in his favor that it shouldn't have even come down to a dispute in Florida.  Gore was robbed, but his people also ran a campaign that was less than exceptional.

But yet, it was the fault of a Constitutional law professor?  Come on.  If Constitutional law professors really wielded that much power they would be commanding better salaries.