I don’t really disagree with you, and wrote as much on Glenn’s blog. I have a background as a journalist, and I think that was tugging at me to not get too hyperbolic by claiming she’s pro-dictatorship, which is basically what I did.

But that’s why I left the quote there and the headline the same. She put it ou there, the NYT ran it, for some unfathomable reason, and I’m sure there are plenty of people who read it and immediately thought: “Yeah, why can’t Bush make the laws?”

So basically, I backed off a bit to mollify myself more than anything. But the fact is, someone like Althouse obviously sees the Internet as a place to catapult them to some type of stardom. So what are slings and arrows directed at her are fair game, really, as she has thrust herself into the public realm. So she’s without recourse if anyone wants to blast her as an idealogue, which obviously I believe she is.

In the end, I guess I just want to keep a self-editor working at a time that I’m just aghast at what a small group of people have tried to make the U.S. into, and how well they’ve succeeded. The more any sensible person looks into the happenings at the top of the U.S., the more they just want to hurl expletives at all of them. I suppose I, like many of us are trying to learn a balancing act through it all.

Bill

Then why did she put it out there?
Just another reminder that words have consequenses.

That after going back to it I felt I took it [the italicized comment] too far out of context. She was trying to make a point in her ill-conceived, pandering, partisan opinion piece. So I don’t believe she was actually trying to make a case that the President should decide on laws and judges shouldn’t.

Though I do believe the whole piece was basically nob-gobbling in hopes that someone from Bushco would notice her.

–WKW