I was about to comment that this post operates on a level of subtlety that is simply beyond the comprehesion of anyone that it attempts to convince.

I like your formulation just as much.

What a huge, steaming PILE!

"media that strengthens our democracy" = "get Arianna Huffington and Katrina Van Den Heuvel off the air"

"local stations that are actually local" = "no letting unions and minorities know that there are other people like them elsewhere to organize with"

"media that looks and sounds like America" -- WTF does THAT mean?!

"news that isn't canned and radio playlists that aren't for sale" = classic Bush tactic of up=down, light=dark; so "isn't canned" = "is canned by the GOP" and "isn't for sale" = "for sale by the GOP"

"programming that isn't so damned bad so damned often" = "programming that isn't so damned bad for the GOP's image so damned often", i.e., "use the FCC to bring the hammer down on rap music, political criticism, reports of investigations, Keith Olbermann, the popularity of peace, documentaries about moderate Islam, the Dalai Lama, stem cell research success, alternative energy, diplomacy, France, Gandhi, shrinking ice caps, exploding budgets, exploding IEDs, the reasons why US/Iran relations are so bad, and all the other things that aren't 'I'm proud to be an American' on the radio and 'Fox News' on TV."

I understand your concerns, but I really wonder what portion of your assessment relies on the principle of the pre-defined outcome.  

I am not confident at all that McCain's politics would be the same today if he were in his first term as VP under Kerry.  I suspect that McCain felt in 2004 that he simply could not survive as a politician on the fence.  He had to decide which camp to go with.  It seems now that he asked to join the Dems, and we shunned him, driving him into the Bush camp.  He knew that he had to be a Bush-team player, and, to his "credit" (in a Machiavellian way), he has held up his end of that deal with the devil.

I personally believe that the Democratic Party is strong enough to survive intense debate on priciples and platform.  I disagreed with Dean when he apologized for inviting southerners with gun racks and the Southern Cross flag to vote for him -- votes are votes:  we don't move forward by preaching to the choir.  I say let them in and then they'll change.

Same goes for McCain:  I think that Kerry made a huge error by rejecting McCain's overtures.  A cross party ticket would have been the very thing to combat the über-partisan Bush "with-us-or-against-us," "dissent-equals-treason" craziness.

JMHO.

I'm sorry, but with all the talk about a Kerry/McCain ticket being a Bush-killer combination, I think that this makes Kerry look very, very foolish.

In 2004, McCain still had backbone and was not a GOP patsy yet.  His presence on the Kerry ticket would have been huge.  

I always assumed that Kerry's long delay in choosing a running mate was due to HIS approaching McCain about joining and McCain using this to negotiate with the GOP -- I always thought that Rove promised McCain the 2008 GOP nomination to keep him in the fold.

Now we hear that he came to us?  Big mistake to give up a ticket that showed true non-partisan rejection of Bush's 1st term idiocy.

I was never a big Kerry fan, and this makes him look even less insightful, even less innovative, even less independent of the Dem machine, and even less impressive to me.

I believe that it's always worth pointing out all the possible courses of action that we have to help people take responsibility for their actions.  :-)

...and here's my humble suggestion of what it's based on.

Of course, if I were putting together a complaint for the Texas State Bar ethics committee, then I agree that I'd have to lay out exactly what Gonzales has done in violation of the rules.  Unfortunately, I'm not admitted in Texas, don't live near Texas, and should spend my time doing my homeword rather than blogging about the AG.

If it's about specificity, I agree that we should be specific.  Just keep in mind that the rules do not require an out-and-out demonstrable lie -- garden-variety misleading statements to a legislative body will do.  (FWIW, I do believe that the combination of his statements, such as that the Bush Admin. was compeletly committed to Senate-confirmed US Atty.s, plus the e-mail trail, amount to lies.)

I also agree that the state bar doesn't need to disbar him.  However, if they open an inquiry as to disciplinary action, then he will most certainly be forced to resign.  Whether they disbar him or not depends on how much damage to their reputation the Texas bar is willing to suffer.

As for indictments, I disagree that this is easier.  More effective if it were to happen?  Yes.  Likelihood of occuring?  0%.  Why?  Because such an investigation would have to originate from the DOJ, and we already know that Gonzales quashed an investigation into warrantless wiretapping since it would have focused on him.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm all for indictments.  I just like to hope for things that could come true.  If we had some thinking attorneys in Texas willing to take a shot at the AG, they could file a complaint.

"[T]the next call asking you to pay may come not from an Internal Revenue Service officer, but from a private debt collector."