In this interview TW demonstrates a great deal more grace, tact and compassion than did the late blowhard in his long, judgemental career.

Giuliani's put-down of Ron Paul's comment about 9/11 being a response to US presence in the Middle East is classic hypocrisy. In 2003 Republican Pat Buchanan stated this very fact in his book "How the Right went Wrong". Giuliani's "I've never heard such a far-fetched idea" is total b.s.; many informed opinions agree with this analysis. But I suppose it's easier just to say "they hate freedom".

If Giuliani obtains the Repub nomination, I'll be happy to subscribe to a Swift Boat-for-Rudy fund. Let's see, we could start with the New York firefighters. Then a few 9/11 widows and widowers. Then some family members.

Just wanted to say found your coverage of the debate highly entertaining. With these guys, it's all negative: fear, prejudice. There's little I can see to admire in any of them, with McCain (the only one with any redeeming personal attributes) doing his best to descend to the others' level.

Don't see any of these prospects thinking on their feet the way a leader needs to, in these suddenly changing times.

I'm a progressive who has voted for every Democrat - and against every Republican - for the past six years. But I don't think it's at all true to say that Democrats would not vote for Bloomberg. The principal concern seen among my like-minded friends is that a Republican not win the White House in 2008. While generally we like and admire Hillary, Obama and Edwards, there are substantial concerns about their electability; Hillary too brittle, Obama unproven, Edwards...maybe, vulnerable? Added to this a perception that the Dems haven't had much traction despite the 2006 victories, and the feeling that we could certainly use a third party in this country, a Bloomberg/Hagel pairing - fiscally conservative, socially liberal sounds good to me - would almost certainly get my vote.

Some may view this as a tasteless comment - too bad - but it's disappointing that Tony Snow, confronted head on with his own mortality, hasn't reflected on just what his endless slick arguments, propagandizing, bobbing and weaving are actually enabling. Someone as smart as he must surely have the capability to see the truth of Bushland; especially given that Snow was quite critical of Bush in his prior-to-Enabler In Chief job. Is he just that shallow?

The greatest downside of pot is that it can make you feel paranoid. Other than that, it's a relatively benign, non-phusically addictive, creativity-enhancing substance, infinitely better than alcohol.

However, since it's illegal, smoking pot can make you fearful. Of course, cops love to use this technicality to harass minorities, liberals etc. Writers are quite correct that many authorities conduct witch hunts over pot. I think it's been shown quite conclusively that cocaine use, for example, has a great deal more in common with alcohol than marijuana.

The pot issue here is, as called, peripheral to the mother's general behavior. I know plenty of mothers who smoke pot and keep everything together superbly. Nor do their kids have an attitude about it; they just aren't interested (it's their parents' drug). Mom here doesn't have her act together.

The kid sounds like a little prick. If he's not careful he'll grow up to be a Republican.

Marijuana use is not an unqualified benefit. I can't think of many things that are. Drinking alcohol was for many years demonized. Now even conservative people think it's pretty normal to have some wine at dinner.

Mrs. Enabler should pay a visit to Austin if she wants to really hear what people think of her husband. I can guarantee it will be a different set of opinions from the Bushes' normal preaching to the choir outings.

Tony Snow is smart and thinks on his feet, but that doesn't mean he doesn't lack any kind of integrity or regard for the truth. Just another Bush-enabling prostitute....are these people so flattered by their association with the rich and powerful that they never look at themselves?

David Brooks is a prissy little fruit.

LW is a nice normal person and he is, not surprisingly, afraid of his neighbor. This is what is driving his earnest desire to confront the lout face to face, though since LW is a good citizen he wants a peaceful confrontation. A successful coming-to-terms would assuage the feelings of inadequacy created by LW's perfectly normal fear.

In a situation like this it's important to consider the source of the problem; namely an anti-social loser who is not amenable to sweet reason or fairness. LW won't get his money back, barring a St. Paul moment for the oaf. LW should realize that the majority of people are on his side, and withdraw the hem of his garment from any contact with the neighbor. Then, any further anti-social behavior will be free of any provocation by LW, intended or not. This makes it much easier to complain officially.

So withdraw, LW, and immediately enlist your natural allies - authorities and neighbors - if there is ANY further trouble. You will be on much firmer ground if you don't go out on an attempted reconciliation limb. As many letters correctly state, you can't have a successful negotiation one-on-one with this man. Since you are a good citizen, don't feel bad that scum next door cause you disquiet. It doesn't mean you are a weakling because you are less violent and selfish than he. Ostracize him!

You mean they DON'T have them?

It's amusing that if for some reason Republicans are broken out of their lockstep, they turn on and rend each other like starving hyenas. Maybe that's why they have to be so disciplined in toeing the party line.

Bob's sounding pretty salty! Has his erectile disfunction returned, or has the strain of being married to Elizabeth finally worn down his relative equanimity?