Reply #38: Did you get it?

[gottaB]

Did you get it when I showed your claim to hold the intellectual high ground to be spurious? Your distinction bewteen abstract and situational thinking is misapplied here, as is your idiomatic interpretation of the argument that one should not be permitted to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre (for the canonical view of what that expression means, see the opinion of Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States; Note the use of the word "falsely": "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."). I also have a sense of what the situation is, and a sense of the strategic objectives and possibilities open to the various parties. It seems to me that all that you have established up to this point is that hysterical loudmouth twits come in a wide variety of flavors. When you have tired of tilting at strawmen, I would welcome the challenge to a reasonable debate of our respective positions.

In the meantime, I maintain that (a) the advantages to a principled and forceful opposition to the confirmation of Gonzales are many; and (b) the disadvantages to such opposition are few. The arguments against opposing Gonzales that I have heard thus far--and I will gladly give you credit for meaning more than you have stated--, seem to me to be allpurpose arguments against opposing the Republicans, or at best, arguments against opposing the Republicans at this particular juncture. As I see it the first class of arguments are worthless, the preliminary "not at this juncture" arguments have been rebutted, and it is now incumbent upon those who advocate Democratic inaction to defend their view. Furthermore, I have yet to hear coherent, logical, grounded arguments for not opposing this particular nominee, Judge Alberto Gonzales.