(which would be ironic given their party's love of divisiveness!)

Yes, live by dividing, and die by dividing.

Your idea of splintering the GOP's votes even more is pretty interesting, but I really don't think Huckabee is going to be the nominee. Remember, it's always a "beauty contest" for the GOP. So, that can only mean one thing at the end. Romney. His hair says it all.

I only wish I could see it so clearly for our side, but I can't, since we don't have any criteria as predictable as the beauty part. And the press is suppressing our more qualified candidates, just because they don't want to have to write about substance themselves. Since it's just soooo much hard work...

The thought of a Bloomberg entry, though, just gives me a heavy feeling in the pit of my stomach, since he probably won't appeal to hard-core "values voters," but might actually attract some Democratic votes.

I suspect that there are others who are appalled at what has happened but refuse to speak up for fear of reprisal.

I suspect that Chris Dodd could give you a few names. In one of his campaign videos (not an ad, just a posted video), he mentions knowing Republicans who also want to work to accomplish things in congress. He just doesn't say who. Probably because that could also bring reprisal.

I do have a different reaction when someone like Dodd talks about Democrats and Republicans working together... since he's talking from his own experience with the FMLA, and other progressive bills/issues.

Otherwise, this buzz about centrism, and bipartisanship and Unity '08 just gives me a sick headache for now. Until I think of an appropriate response.

Ironically, in 2004, I kept predicting that the disaffected Republicans would be the real "swing" voters. Guess I was just a little bit ahead of the curve.

Someone else referred to a Times editorial today that "scolded" voters for our previous choices.

I think I just read that editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

It begins:

"There are too many moments these days when we cannot recognize our country."

And I don't think it was intended ironically, either.

From the middle:

"The White House used the fear of terrorism and the sense of national unity to ram laws through Congress that gave law-enforcement agencies far more power than they truly needed to respond to the threat — and at the same time fulfilled the imperial fantasies of Vice President Dick Cheney and others determined to use the tragedy of 9/11 to arrogate as much power as they could."

And to conclude:

" These are not the only shocking abuses of President Bush’s two terms in office, made in the name of fighting terrorism. There is much more — so much that the next president will have a full agenda simply discovering all the wrongs that have been done and then righting them.

We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably. Then when we look in the mirror as a nation, we will see, once again, the reflection of the United States of America."

* * *

OH, PLEEEAZE! How about a little help from the Fourth Estate? Some relevant and timely news that your editors have not been sitting on-- in order not to affect an election?!

But, noooo, just more criticism of the great, unwashed masses. And the cherry on the top of this mess? They've hired Kristol! Surely, Sulzberger is now suffering from some sort of cognitive deficiency?

Otherwise, I am at a loss to reconcile this editorial with that personnel decision. After all, it's not as if the NYTimes has really had a serious firewall between news and opinion in recent memory.

I saw it, too!

Hmmmm....

Kathleen Reardon (at HuffPo) offers her husband's letter as a model for anyone else intending to write and complain about Kristol, or who might also wish to cancel their subscription:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-reardon/my-husbands-farewell-to-_b_78674.html

I don't have a paid subscription, but I guess I could cancel my online registration. That'll show 'em!

Seriously, what were they thinking? They just did away with the paywall in order to give their columnists more air/play time, and now they do the one thing that is likely to have a plurality of the left wing threatening to cancel their subscriptions, if not actually doing so...

To everyone here... all the best in this New Year. Undoubtedly, it will be full of surprises. I'm just glad I can come here to sort things out... and especially for a RealityCheck. Leavened with wit and good humor.

Glenn, you've really built something wonderful here.

Wabanatta_3: I saw him, too, but I didn't completely believe him. He's not ready to say yet...