**Has been any doubt for the last 12 years that the ACLU is just as wholly integrated into the Democratic party as right-to-life groups are into the GOP?

-Wow, I didn't know that Bob Barr was wholly integrated into the Democratic Party. Heck, I'm not even sure I want him. And you know all those Democrats who are helping out Rush Limbaugh's legal defense team? Man oh man, I tell you, the Democrats are just lining up to help him out with those charges in Florida. By the thousands.

Eric,

Can I imagine? I don't know, but no imagination is required to remember the story of the juvenile mocking laugh that was George Bush's sharing of his response to the plea for mercy by convicted killer Karla Faye Tucker.

Dean's impression...of Rush Limbaugh snorting cocaine...Don't get me wrong. I'm not shedding any tears for Limbaugh. He's done his share of mocking figures on the left.

Yeah, but Rush mocks stuff the left actually does. Rush has never been tied to cocaine or any other recreational drug use. (Getting hooked on OxyContin in the attempt to fight intense physical pain is not "recreational.")

Speaking of which, I heard on the radio the other day that many teens are raiding the parents' medicine cabinets for prescription drugs to get high on, especially OxyContin and Vicodin. Why people would take Vicodin when they don't have to is beyond me. I was prescribed it after some dental bone grafts. Couldn't focus enough to do anything but sleep. I don't know what a "high" feels like, but I think I can safely assume that fatigue and delirium don't qualify.

Alan,

Many Americans get hooked on illegal drugs in response to fighting intense emotional pain or in order to stay alert working long hours. Rush mocked those folks.

"**Has been any doubt for the last 12 years that the ACLU is just as wholly integrated into the Democratic party as right-to-life groups are into the GOP?". There has been absolutely no doubt on that issue in the minds of those who let ideology blind them to anything vaguely resembling facts.

Wow, I didn't know that Bob Barr was wholly integrated into the Democratic Party.

And former Democratic PA governor Robert Casey was staunchly pro-life. There are exceptions to every rule. I'm just saying that if the ACLU wants to claim to be non-partisan, having the national chairman of the Democratic party speaking at their fundraiser might not be such a good idea. Also, the way the folks in attendance lapped up Dean's joke betrayed their partisanship.

no imagination is required to remember the story of the juvenile mocking laugh that was George Bush's sharing of his response to the plea for mercy by convicted killer Karla Faye Tucker.

You bring up an interesting point, Joel. Let's look at how that was reported in talk Magazine by Tucker Carlson (transcript from this page:

--------------------------

In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, Bianca Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Tucker. 'Did you meet with any of them?' I ask.

Bush whips around and stares at me. 'No, I didn't meet with any of them,' he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. 'I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' 'What was her answer?' I wonder.

'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'don't kill me.'

I must look shocked -- ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel, even for someone as militantly anticrime as Bush -- because he immediately stops smirking.

'It's tough stuff,' Bush says, suddenly somber, 'but my job is to enforce the law.' As it turns out, the Larry King-Karla Faye Tucker exchange Bush recounted never took place, at least not on television. During her interview with King, however, Tucker did imply that Bush was succumbing to election-year pressure from pro-death penalty voters. Apparently Bush never forgot it. He has a long memory for slights."

-------------------------------

(emphasis mine) Now, it seems to me Bush was not using Karla Faye Tucker for a cheap laugh. It seems that he was angry that the Larry King interview wasn't fair to him, and/or gave ammunition to his opponents during a Presidential election. So while Bush shouldn't have said that, and it may in fact indicate that he doesn't have much compassion for convicted murderers, it doesn't seem to be what the left tries to make out of it.

And while we're talking about Karla Faye Tucker, that was definitely a no-win situation for Bush. If he had granted clemency, the left would have howled that he did so because of her jailhouse conversion to Christianity.

That's an awfully big hypothetical there, Eric. Do you mean to say that if Bush would have granted clemency, death penalty opponents would have changed their minds about the wrongness of the death penalty? Nonsense. Those who opposed the death penalty were on record as urging Bush to grant clemency here, and he might easily have done so for any excuse whatsoever. Instead, he breezed past the real issues of the case--culture of life, anyone?--and used it to make a cheap political joke. It's revolting every way you look at it.

Eric doesn't say that opponents would've changed their minds on the issue, but he reasonably asserts that many DP opponents are partisan and cynical enough to "howl" at Bush over clemency for Ms. Tucker.

It doesn't take much of an imagination to conjure up such a person's statement to the media: "Bush didn't do this because he cares one whit about the injustice of the death penalty, he did it to give lip service to a block of Christian voters for political reasons. Bah humbug."

back on topic... the weirdest part of this for me is that Dean is filling the exact same role as he did leading up to the primaries 18 months ago - that of the attention-getter. When some Bush policy or statement 'needed' to be mocked, who did the dirty work? Dean. He said what other people were thinking but were afraid, for political reasons, to say.

The difference now is that Dean is not a maverick candidate; he is the face, voice, and body of the whole damn political party, and he looks, sounds, and gestures a lot more like Al Franken or Whoopi Goldberg than Hillary Clinton or Mark Warner.

Eric,

Fine. How about the time Bush referred to a reporter as a major league asshole?

The truth is that we live in a society (including me at times, unfortunately),that has become rougher around the edges and both sides have contributed significantly to that event.

So, you don't see a difference between Dean mocking Rush Limbaugh for something he's never done (cocaine) in order to get cheap laughs from a bunch of extreme-left lawyers and Bush angrily mimicking a murder's plea for mercy in order to show his disgust for shenanigans from the media?

So there really isn't a difference between Dean who lies and Bush who doesn't have much esteem for murderers?

Just keep drinking that Kool-Aid.

(And to the guy who didn't think the ACLU is part of the Democrat party, you're right. The ACLU is far to the left of the Democrats.)

Fine. How about the time Bush referred to a reporter as a major league asshole?

That's even less comparable to what Dean did, because that remark was intended only as a side remark to Cheney. At least in the Karla Faye Tucker case, Bush knew he was talking to a reporter, so his remark could be considered public.

I'm not arguing that Democrats in general are ruder or nastier than the GOP (although they've certainly been angrier for the past 4.5 years). There's plenty of incivility on both sides. But Dean is already proving to be a huge liability as DNC chairman.

I'm not greatly interested in defending Dean. However, I see the Democrats' dillemma. We don't have the great multitude of talk show hosts such as Sean Hannity who acts drunk every time he mentions Ted Kennedy's name or who refers to Robert "KKK" Byrd. That leaves something of a vacuum for responding in kind. So if there aren't liberal broadcasters who can throw it back at the Republicans, it is rather natural, even if not ideal, that Democratic leaders will step up to the plate. (One conservative broadcaster, whose name slips my mind, proposed that Mary Jo Kopechne be named a saint by the Catholic Church for drowning in order to keep Ted Kennedy from becoming president.)

Ted's never gonna be president. Not even a GOP nomination of John McCain could make that possible.

Many Americans get hooked on illegal drugs in response to fighting intense emotional pain or in order to stay alert working long hours. Rush mocked those folks.

I don't recall Rush ever mocking drug users. Rush mocks policy and policymakers. Hugh Grant ain't in the show prep "stack of stuff."

Comparing physical and emotional pain Apple computers and oranges. There are godzillions of ways that you can confront deep emotional pain (constructively or with a band-aid) without resorting to drugs. There's only two ways to kill chronic physical pain - drugs and physician treatment.

Rush's experience is atypical of drug abuse. Most drug users begin their habits not to escape pain (of either sort) but simply to have fun. Rush suffered an ailment that could have been corrected through surgery, but the procedure would have threatened his chief source of income: his ability to speak. So he tried to control the pain with OxyContin. Palliative medicine has a proper place, and if I recall correctly, Rush went through the proper channels in the beginning. But physical addiction set in, and the rest is history.

BTW, what's the proper way to dispose of old prescription medicine?

That should be "emotional pain is Apple computers..."

With all due respect Alan, unless you are a manic-depressive such as myself, I'm not sure you know what you are talking about. As a young man in the military I had my right foot badly crushed, mangled and broken. However, the intense pain never caused me to consider suicide. However, in later years as manic-depressive illness manifested itself, I did entertain suicidal thoughts and I can tell you the pain far exceeded anything that ever happened to my foot. I'm on lithium and I deeply resent the implication that I could or should be doing without it. (If I were off lithium, I'd have been banned from this site long ago.) ;-)

The best way to compare Bush and Dean for me is that neither seems to know when to keep there mouth shut. Although Dean dosn't seem quite as stupid as Bush every time he says something unscripted I don't think either man is really qualified for there current positions. I won't go into the legion of other reasons Bush in unqualified to be the U.S. president as it's not the appropriate venue.

People in important representative positions don't have the luxury putting their emotions ahead of their responsibilities. They need to watch every word that comes out of their mouth, those they represent are judged by their words. Bush, who claims to represent the American people, lacks even a semblance of eloquence. He also seems to be inexcusably uninformed. While Dean's style and demeanor would be more appropriate to an old fashioned tent revival than a major representative of the democratic party. And his sophomoric drug poke at Limbaugh only drop him down to Limbaughs level.

Personally I like to rant. It kind of makes me feel good. But of course I'm just a high school drop out who works in construction. I'm neither liberal nor conservative, (I doubt I'll really bring down the staunchly moderates)I'm not a republicrat, in fact I represent nobody but myself so it's ok for me to rant. It's even ok for me to say Rush is a juvenile, simian jackass with no redeeming qualities. It reflects on me and me alone. Anyone who represents others on the other hand has a responsibility to consider those they represent every time they open their mouths especially in public. At that both Bush and Dean fail miserably.

" When some Bush policy or statement 'needed' to be mocked, who did the dirty work? Dean. "

And Karl Roves thanks God for the former governor of Vermont every night.

The tiny minority of emotional distress that is ultimately physiological in origin (manic-depression, paranoia-schizophrenia, etc.) is easy to miss if one doesn't deal with it every day. Read the context of what I wrote. It should be clear that I was differentiating physical pain from the vast majority of emotional distress that has nothing to do with chemical imbalances.