Eavesdropping deceit from Bush supporters -- Democratic unity over Lamont, Iraq

I virtually never use the words "liar" or "lying" in political discussions because those words are so overused and inflammatory -- and have become such cheap and banal insults by those with nothing substantive to say-- that they have virtually lost all meaning. If someone is really lying, it is, in my view, far more effective to simply demonstrate that and let others draw the conclusion, rather than just toss the accusation around.

But adhering to that rule is exceptionally difficult when I read posts like this one from John Hinderaker. The "argument" he advances in the last two paragraphs in order to politically exploit the U.K. terrorist plot is, for reasons I explain here at Salon, nothing other than deliberately deceitful. And it is an "argument" often repeated by numerous right-wing commentators, just not usually in as nakedly deceitful fashion as Hinderaker put it today.

Also at Salon, I have a post examining a new Zogby poll revealing that Democrats are remarkably, perhaps unprecedentedly, united regarding: (a) the defeat of Joe Lieberman, (b) their opposition to the Iraq war and (c) their optimism over their prospects this November. Now matter how much bluster and bravado emanates from the White House, the thing that they fear most is a united and impassioned Democratic Party motivated, at least in part, by opposition to a deeply unpopular, failed war.