We shouldn't have to wait that long. Cuchulain has posited, here and now, that the evidence supports a more likely than not conclusion that Oswald had collaborators. I await his/her follow-up post with citations to such evidence, as well as the names of Oswald's assistants and the status of prosecutions against them.

Oops, that would be too . . . um, logical? I suspect we won't hear from C07, or John Anderson, again on this subject.

Let's see them stick to their other fantasty instead -- that Obamacare is being sunk by racial tensions and . . . wait . . . vast warmed over conspiracies. Why is it always a conspiracy with the left?

To Joan Walsh and others, there is a simple reason that Obamacare doesn't resonate. It is premised on an enhanced version of crimping the "have more's" of society (e.g., by forcing people out of favored private insurance, rationing Medicare, etc.).

Why "enhanced"? If you just tax people to pay for the semi-poor, that's one thing. You can still use your excess money to buy other goods, including the best health care. But if you force people into sub-par health care to help the semi-poor, and then drive private alternatives out of the marketplace -- ah, there's the rub.

Is that written in the legislation, and how does it fare in the MSM fact checking? Nope. It's in the realm of unintended consequences. That's why support dropped to 41% in Rasmussen this morning. People have brains, and occasionally use them. It's liberalism's worst nightmare.

I don't give two figs about your "quotes."

And I don't care to argue with your silly contra thesis.

If you go back and look at 1908, the GOP published a fascinating book consisting of Taft speeches and the party's platform.

Palin's speech was a de facto conservative platform. Couple it with her Facebook messages, and you have something similar to the Taft program.

I draw this comparison, notwithstanding that Taft co-opted much of the progressivism of both Roosevelt and Bryan.

Palin, by contrast, is much more of a McKinleyite -- particularly with her new focus on sound money. In other words, a true conservative -- on the right fringe of modern GOPdom.

What about her rivals? To quote Hyman Roth, they're small potatoes. None of them has expressed a thought this year that Sarah did not express first.

Oops, I meant to seem pompous, not zealous.

Just showing off the trivia I picked up from the 6th floor museum in Dallas and some readings on the JFK tragedy.

Incidentally, the greyhound bus station is a relatively mammoth landmark just south of the school bus depository. If you envision Oswald passing it en route to the tough south side of Dallas, it really is hard to imagine where he was going, and how he intended to escape.

* * *

Of course, in the imagination of you and Cuchulain, there were probably some invisible CIA hands out there to pick him up and move him on to his next assignment. The truth, I suspect, was more prosaic.

I won't argue with you about the Hong Kong event.

I don't need to.

She did great. She looked great. She made a great amount of money.

I also enjoyed seeing Lou Holtz, the old Notre Dame football coach, give her a shout out later that week on Fox. Notable, because Palin loves the movie Rudy, and has commented before that her Catholic grandfather loved Notre Dame University more than anything else in the world. That's got to be nice, seeing Lou in your corner. I wouldn't trade Lou's support for a convention hall full of National Review writers.

Weir's book is very personal and feminine -- it doesn't focus much on the Armada and stuff like that. I felt like I needed to kill a deer and smother myself in blood after reading it, just to balance out the estrogen.

As for Sarah's father, and Henry VIII, I don't know enough about Alaskan Pentecostalism and its divisions to know whether they started their own branch up there. Maybe we'll find out when we read her memoir. :)

Elizabeth was a conservative ruler and devout Christian who unabashedly played upon her femininity to advance her agenda.

She liked hunting and sports, and caught the occasional criticism for devoting too much attention to her appearance.

The book caught my attention on the shelf due to our American crawl -- fast becoming a trot -- toward a woman president. When you study Elizabeth, it is striking how our country's own earliest roots are tied so closely to a famous woman's rule.

Cuchulain, note too that your original post called Oswald a "patsy." That, of course, was the very word Oswald used to declare his innocence upon his arrest. You say he was a patsy for other groups, but what exactly does that mean? By patsy, Oswald apparently meant he was being framed, not that he acted at the behest of others.

John Anderson, it's disappointing to find that you believe in an invisible conspiracy, evidence of which you cannot substantiate. Kind of like belief in the merits of Obamacare, I suppose. I'm beginning to understand.

Fyi, your initial post was vague.

When you wrote that "they found" a crazy lefty to kill JFK, it implied the "they" was the Dallas police. Now, you clarify that the "they" was the gang behind the shooting - those who put crazy Lee up to it.

You also say your theory (that Oswald had collaborators) is more likely than not the truth.

I'd be curious to see your evidence.

Okay. What is your evidence that Oswald acted at the behest of others?

This was exhaustively investigated, as you know. The only scrap I have ever heard of is the Odio incident, and that could be explained away, if you are interested.

You got anything else?