And Mr. Stein is a wuss.

Stein is not a traitor to his country, not yet, not at the present level of hostilities.

At some point in the future, he may be guilty of sedition, which is not the same thing as treason; we only lock people up for sedition. He most certainly is a poltroon, which I think is what you mean by "Punk."

Let the seditious poltroons rave on, let them hit bottom and dig. Without the draft to motivate "anti-war" sentiment, the peace-creep mentality has no chance of gaining acceptance. All they are doing is making themselves look worse, and praising the troops, for the hate of the hateful is praise..

... he's not important enough to be a traitor ... Maybe not, but the management over at the LATimes is important enough to be held accountable for printing this drivel.

According to Drudge the NYT's earning went down by an astounding 41% this year. Can the LAT be far behind?

Let's compromise: he's a traitor and a punk.

David: By selecting every other paragraph in Mr. Stein's typing you've obscured its most reprehensible aspect--he thinks that rooting for America to lose & arguing that soldiers deserve to die is all a big joke.

Ah yes, the old trifecta---perversity, confusion, madness.

Just another feeble joker basking in what he feels is his moral superiority of his untenable position. To parahprase Orwell, "(the absolute) weakness (of his argument) is (its supposed) strength."

We're just supposed to be too stunned by his perverse logic to respond.

Pearl before swine.

Stein's actually a little cutting edge in a way -- just as the rumblings from the underground left about impeaching Bush began about the time the 2004 election votes were counted and took about 12 months to make it into the mouths of elected Democrats in Washington, Stein's "I don't support the troops" has been bubbling around the edges for a while, and now may be coming out in the open at mainstream media sites like the L.A. Times. Republicans can only hope and pray this becomes more and more common, to the point that Democrats decide by election day these are the talking points they need to really activate their base to get out and vote.

And 50.7%? The last time I recall, Bush got ~52.5% of the popular vote and Kerry got 47.5%.

Here's an interview with him if anyone's interested.

what a little twerp. hopefully he got his in high school...

The interview that Joe links is worth reading. There are two things of particular interest. First, he also opposed the invasion of Afghanistan because, reading between the lines, he's a law enforcement paradigm kind of guy. Second, he's just an unbelievable weasel.

David Cohen:

Note also how easily flustered Stein becomes by Mr. Hewitt's questions. He has apparently not given his own opinions too much thought and, as far as I can tell, only holds them because they're predominant within his social circle (he's tied into the celebrity circuit).

I also read the interview and most of his meanderings.

He's calling the dems out on hypocrisy.

What Hugh didn't ask him is who he wants as the world's policeman.

But then, Hugh might have burst out laughing if his response was the UN. That line of questioning would have been like shooting fish in a barrel.

Did Stein anywhere offer anything even remotely like an alternative?

(other than the implicit French option, that is)

Hugh's interview of Stein is a classic. Stein was hopelessly out of his league. A thing of beauty.

In about 30 hours, this guy has gone from a chatty LA snob (ok, punk) to a national embarrassment. Quite a thing, the blogosphere.

Perhaps he thought he was filling the shoes of Robert Scheer.

Of course, he probably earned brownie points with Frank Rich, Phil Donahue, and Molly Ivins. But was it really worth it?

That wasn't an interview, it was an evisceration . . . without benefit of anesthesia.

hugh skinned him alive, then sepuku'd him, then lit the remains on fire, then put out the fire with recycled budweiser.

I thought the article was kind of witty.