Fundamentally though, GG is wrong. GOP voters are a much less homogeneous than most liberals realize. Most don't even like bush, but dislike him less than they dislike the dem candidates.

I believe GG is addressing the candidates in the current field, all of whom are for continuing the war, doubling the size of Gitmo, etc. etc. etc. They are in many ways more bellicose than Bush is regarding both the Iraq occupation and ridding the country of illegal aliens, most of whom happen to be brown.

If commentors feel that somehow each and every Republican candidate is misreading his party, then perhaps they need to find some new candidates, or a new party.

Absolutely. No conservative worth his or her salt will view Rouge Gangs with anything but Fear and Loathing.

But it is difficult to understand why any GOP opponent would want to help that party distance itself from the Iraq war by claiming that it is politically lethal for a GOP candidate to support it or, worse, that the leading GOP candidates are some sort of war skeptics. Aside from being flatly false, that suggestion also seems quite counter-productive.

It certainly does seem so. But then again, if only two of the countless radical conservative blogs out there object to her reasoning, perhaps there is something to it after all.

It's not as if the entire right-o-sphere is outraged and all a-twitter about her post. They haven't launched any of their famous "pledges". There have been no fatwas issued by Malkin or that insane skeletal blond chick, calling for Huffington's head. So maybe she's on to something.

getting it right is more important that getting it in- that tactical efficiency cannot, must not, supplant moral standing.

heckuva good comment.

GG said: I just picked two representative ones that were available at the time I wrote the Update. There are plenty of others...

Well good then. I'm glad that many of them are rising to the occasion and pledging their undying support for our occupation of Iraq. I'm also glad that you're looking at them instead of me. I count myself fortunate.

At the risk of being tactical, if there is a big negative reaction to Huffington's post from the vast sweep of diverse viewpoints on the right, then her post will have been worthwhile, and perhaps useful later on (when their candidates start tacking hard--and rediculously--to port).

It's even funnier when you imagine Rudy GiuliAndrews performing the vocal.

I don't know if that would be considered art, but it sure is entertainment. Laugh-out-loud funny. Thanks.

Ideally, Barack Obama or someone (anyone but Hillary) gets the nomination...

Mona, glad to see you back. I was surprised to see the headline that Joe Wilson just endorsed Clinton. Haven't read the story yet.

Republican voters are looking for a more conservative candidate.

I don't see how one could conclude anything else. I believe the marketing plan is to pump up maximum fear among the electorate on one hand, and to pump up the testosterone level of the candidates on the other. By the election, Republican strategists want to see terrified soccer moms flailing at the "Oh God Please Defend Me" lever in the polling booth, and a Republican candidate with...oh, 7 or 8 sets of cojones surgically implanted. Thompson, the heap-big ladies man who can deliver a carefully-worded message with all the conviction of a successful TV actor, certainly might fill the bill. In fact, I think he's your republican candidate.

The welcome signs of vertebral evolution among senate democrats is refreshing. Now, Reid is not going to cave in on the mere threat of filibuster, he's actually going allow Republicans to filibuster, and has courteously set aside time for them to do so, should that continue to be their strategy. Trent Lott has openly stated that obstruction has been working nicely for Republicans (good going Trent--you idiot). So Reid's move should actually enhance those Republican efforts.

But now we're hearing that it is Reid who is "Forcing" the filibuster. He's not doing any such thing. It is the Republicans who will be insisting on filibuster. The democrats simply want to vote.

"Greg Sargent / Election Central: Breaking: Reid Will Force An All-Night Filibuster On Iraq"

Hello Kit,

Harry Reid just announced on the Senate floor that if the GOP continues their obstruction of the Reed-Levin amendment mandating withdrawal, he'll hold the Senate in session through the night on Tuesday.

That would force Republicans to filibuster the Iraq measure in person, right on the Senate floor.

Perhaps it's the way this is worded, but nobody, Reid or anyone else, is "forcing" the Republicans to filibuster. As you point out, Reid is simply saying that the threat of filibuster is no longer going to be sufficient to stop votes on legislation. But that is not the same as "forcing" them to do so. The Republicans (who, when they were in the majority, threatened to do away with filibuster altogether) have a choice.