Mitch,

I assume you’re equally concerned with Fred Barnes’s call in the Weekly Standard for the White House to respond to Democratic criticism with “a clear delineation of what's permissible and what's out of bounds in dissent on Iraq.”

Slash,

I'm sure you realize that Barnes was not calling for censorship. He's calling for rhetorically shaping the argument, barring strawmen from the room, and not letting the Democrats misdirect the debate.

Kind of like I have to do when arguing with you all the time.

:-)

Mitch,

So you have powers that allow you to determine that Governor Gregoire *was* calling for censorship when she linked the vitriolic discourse on talk radio with a death threat, while Fred Barnes was *not* talking about censorship when he called for the White House to define what consitutes "permissible" dissent.

Not that you read other people's thoughts much.
/jc

Y'see, Slash, now we're getting into that "misdirection" that we were talking about.

Gregoire is trying to generate ostracism of those on talk radio and the blogosphere who criticize her and the very irregular election that brought her into office. Note that NOBODY has found anybody, on any talk-radio stations or (that I've heard) blogs calling for any violence against Gregoire.

But truth be damned.

So, in the spirit of Fred Barnes - a man who was concerned about civil liberties BEFORE John Ashcroft became AG - let's try to stay on topic here, Slash...ooh, wait, by your standards, what I just did was censor you.

Sorry.

This is not even to mention the fact that Barnes's subject, dissent during wartime, is a completely different animal than Gregoire's misleading whine over robust criticism. Like it or not, a state of war imposes on critics at home certain responsibilities - first to the common good, and only a distant second to the truth. I know that's hard for you to swallow, Slash, and believe it or not, I respect you for it.

Fortunately for you, but not for the country, Ted Kennedy and John F. Kerry (to name but two) have proven themselves such poor stewards of *either* the common good or the truth that your horror would be wasted on them.

PS Did you just criticize Mitch for not reading people's minds? I only ask because I once (or twice) got some pretty severe ostracization for surmising that liberals thought they could do that.