Fred: Sorry. I guess I missed that section of the Constitution that says people can’t join together and pay to get out their political speech. Under your belief that it is okay to deny paid political speech, then books, newspaper articles, college speeches, etc. should be illegal if the person pays to get the article out or receives compensation for his speech. What is it about freedom of political speech that bothers liberals so much?

As for conservatives lining up on the anti-Arab bandwagon, you are right. I never denied that. The point is that kneejerk liberals tried to use the issue to pretend that they care about national security so they could score political points. Then Feingold comes up with the insane censure motion. Liberals – the gift that keeps on giving.

One, Bush broke the law otherwise why all the scrambling GOP senators seeking to pass a law absolving him of the crime and then legalize it in the future?

Feingold knows this has no chance and wants to get his name more visible with the netroots and the other activists within the party. I don’t view it as being much different than McCain’s current sucking up to Bush and company. It’s more about 2008 than anything else.

Democrats scored points with the kneejerk reaction about the UAE port deal.

On what planet? It was mostly conservatives who torpedoed the deal.

And for the record, for all the doom and gloom, McCain-Feingold doesn’t “deny free political speech” — it denies, under very limited circumstances, paid political speech. And the 2004 election showed us that it didn’t really put a stop to anything; it just changed the rules of the game a little bit.

BTW, isn’t it ironic that the senator who led the charge to deny free political speech is now accusing someone else of violating the Constitution?