You seem willing to trust Mitt...

I would support your idea in theory if it were practically doable. I'm not sure it is, especially if it were a public trial and it dragged on.

I'm against the use of drones, except in a real war. So I would stop their use.

I guess that means trying to stop attacks at the border or through cooperation with local intelligence and police in the countries involved.

I think that means some attacks may well get through (they may anyway) and the American public needs to be educated about this reality, so that we don't lunge toward fascism any faster than we already are.

We should brag loudly and often about why we're doing it this way so that everyone know we're trying to live out our values.

The now much-maligned Mahrer once held up a picture of Galveston after a hurricane had destroyed it and said that, had this wreckage been the result of a terrorist attack, we Americans would have lost our collective shit and invaded 10 countries.

But because it was only a hurricane, we went quietly about the business of rebuilding and burying our dead.

Maybe a Republican needs to be the one to do this educating. Democrats who try, however feebly, end up being likened to Jimmy Carter or worse. Is there worse?

CTFO?

Keep it on substantive issues?

Perhaps you missed the primaries.

Anyway...

Here's what I find interesting. For the first three years, Obama tried the bipartisan approach to governing, assuming that the GOP would want to meet in the middle, hash out differences, and solve problems for the good of the country.

But almost from the beginning, progressives yelled: "Fuck that shit! Don't you see who you're dealing with? Look at what they're doing. Beat their heads in!"

And beyond this, progressives complained that congressional obstructionism shouldn't hold him back. He acquiesced too much to Congress and needed to take action on his own, even when non-existent congressional approval would be required.

So then we had Libya, pretty clearly a humanitarian attempt to save Libyan lives, and progressives complained, "Hey, you went around Congress!" And the GOP joined in, not because they objected to the use of military force abroad, but because it was a good opportunity to team up with Obama "supporters" to bash Obama.

And now we have this ad. Yes, it's hardball. Yes, it may be close a line. But hey, progressives have implored Obama to play hardball even in cases where defeat in Congress was virtually certain.

I find this a rather tame politicization of an important event in the effort to defeat a party that has politicized EVERYTHING--real and imagined--in an effort to defeat us. Moreover, it's a real accomplishment, a decision he said clearly he would make back when progressives were thrilled with him.

If he can't campaign on things he said he would do and did--what can he campaign on? If he can't point out differences between him and his opponent, what can he do?

If Romney, ever the pursuer of substance, is willing to say of course he would have ordered the killing of OBL, "even Jimmy Carter would have made that decision," when he clearly intimated he would not have, then I say too bad for him.

Yeah because there is absolutely no disagreement about what the exact wording of the Bible is amongst Christians, and nor can one find where there is any disagreement about how to interpret those lines in the Bible, and nor can one find any disagreement amongst Christians about how to apply those interpretations into real world policies and rules by which to live.  What is really great is to see all the harmony over how to view same-sex marriage amongst all the Christians.

Of course if we were all Amish, the world would be a better place.