This insidious "lack of accomplishment" meme is expressed in the following way:  some reporter interviews a bunch of energized young Obama supporters (or even a former colleague in the Illinois state senate) and after chit chatting a bit, asks them to name one Obama  accomplishment.

What follows is the sound of crickets, followed by embarrassment, followed by some pathetic response.

It's easy to go learn what he's done by looking at his website, but who has time for that?

I find this line of questioning patently unfair.  Young voters don't know jack about any candidate.  How many young Hillary supporters could name a single accomplishment she's made?  I daresay the percentage of voters who support one candidate or another and could actually name one significant accomplishment that candidate has made during his/her career is in the single digits.

If you're going to ask that to Obama voters, ask it to McCain voters and Clinton voters and Huckabee voters.  The answer will be the same every time: "I dunno, but I like him/her."

It kills me to see these bloviators like Jack Kingston and David Frum continuing to try and frame Democrats as weaker on defense and/or Bush-style foreign policy as worthy of credit for the lack of a terrorist attack inside the U.S. since 9/11.  But what's even worse, from my point of view, is the way no-one ever seems to swing at this hanging curveball.  It's so freaking easy.

Why have we not been attacked again at home?

Because they don't need to attack us anymore.  We're doing much worse to ourselves than they could ever do with an attack.

The real goal of the 9/11 atrocity was not to kill people.  Simply killing that many people, however spectacular and gory, won't do any lasting harm to the U.S. (we lose roughly that many people each year to workplace accidents).

The goal was to goad us into bankrupting ourselves on fool's quests.  Who better to fall for the trap than the trigger-happy, xenophobic, history-amnesiac right wing.  An attack like 9/11 could only happen with the GOP in control, because it would have been a waste of al Qaeda's money otherwise.

What is ironic is that "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them at home" turns out to be right, because they are getting a much better return on their investment from the colossal blunder that is our foreign policy than they would by trying to stage an attack in the U.S.

Won't somebody just say it?

Why have we not been attacked again at home?

That's like asking why the robberies have stopped since we started leaving piles of $100 bills on the sidewalk every night.

Is it really so bad that debate and discussion has finally been re-introduced to the U.S. Congress?

The pundits can't get excited enough about how Democrats are "divided" on how to approach Iraq, who should be the majority leader, etc., and haven't come forward with a clear, precise, party line from which no loyal partisan should ever waver. You know, like the Republicans did when they were in charge.

Isn't that the point?  Senators and representatives are supposed to represent their constituencies. Their constituencies are divided. Congressmen are supposed to argue, no matter what their party.

When will the Democrats and progressive guests who have to respond to this crap stand up and say, "Since when is disagreement a bad thing for America? Look how bad the ideas were when we had an argument-free Congress. Look how badly voters rejected it. 'Rubber stamp' was our single most effective campaign weapon. You say that's a repudiation of Bush. I say it's a demand for real representation. You say the message is, 'Change your Iraq policy'. I say the message is, 'For the love of God, start thinking for yourselves, people!'"

It would be good for us to repeat ad nauseum a liberal talking-point answer to this oft-repeated challenge from Cavuto et al., until they quit it, because it's about all they have left now.

"That's like saying: 'After the house was robbed, we built a big fence around it out of $100 bills, and there haven't been any more break-ins.'"

"That's like saying: 'After they snatched our purse, we put $1000 in cash in another purse across town every day for the last five years.  What do you know, they stole that purse each time instead of stealing ours again.'"

"We weren't attacked here for 5 years before 9/11 either, except by a homegrown terrorist in Oklahoma; and we were only attacked twice abroad, instead of thousands of times."

Help me out here, people.

I believe it went something like, "For too long, our culture has sent the message, 'If it feels good, do it. If you've got a problem, blame somebody else.'"

Replace "our culture" with "Republicans", and then you've got something.

OK, you 34 clear-headed senators.  Better get ready for the jujitsu that is headed your way.

"Senator X is one of the ultra-liberals in Congress who supports burning the American Flag. Vote for a real patriot instead."

Responses: "Candidate Y doesn't know the difference between a symbol and a country. He may call that patriotism, but I call it idol-worship."

"I see. And Candidate Y obviously cheats on his/her spouse since he/she hasn't supported an adultery amendment."

Keep 'em coming.

Thanks to Steve, who was voting "no" on principle until Hastert twisted his arm, the anti-family, anti-child budget cutting bill passed early this morning.  Kinda reminds you of CAFTA's shenanigans, no?

Ohio NPR had the two interviews, one after the "no" vote and one after the "yes" vote.  His response to the question of "What about those constituents who you spoke so passionately about before, when you voted no?" was, "Well, Chardon is under 12 inches of snow, so they don't really care too much about this vote."

Incredible how he manages to win elections.  Who can the Democrats put up against him next year?

Write a letter to NPR in response to the crass, patronizing, and offensive "Open Letter to Cindy Sheehan" by Steven Mansfield which aired yesterday on All Things Considered.  I have sent two, which are reprinted below the fold for your comments.