1.Although Andrew O'Hehir certainly makes Ms Chua's book sound like an interesting read, I don't buy the notion that empires decline because of a lack of cultural cohesion. Just in the example he cites(perhaps ironically) of Darius's empire coming apart, he mentions the cruelty of his successors, which I imagine had some impact on various ethnic groups deciding they didn't want to be part of an empire. You think?

I really think this old chestnut is an argument that gets lazily offered by historians largely because:

they've heard other historians offer it, without anyone calling them on it,

and

how do you disprove it? for the most part, you can't.

2. I haven't read the book-- I may. But I wonder if she cites Kruschev's famous quip about how the Soviets didn't have to attack the US to destroy American hegemony because we'd spend ourselves to death first. To my eyes, we look like we're on track to do just that, and prove his particular thesis on our empire.

the reason Ron Paul has struck a chord with so many people has nothing to do with his sundry libertarian ideas, or his sundry simply odd ideas.

I'd argue most of his supporters favor him in spite of his stand on the gold standard(for example), and even if he was elected there's no way he or any president is going to successfully withdraw the US out of the UN. It's just a non-starter.

But for people who are tired of hearing mainstream presidential candidates who hem and haw about when (and if) they'd pull troops out of Iraq and who are unwilling to simply state that a second "war of choice" with Iran would be compounding the madness, when they hear Ron Paul speak they finally hear someone who speaks for them.

End the Iraq war. Stop the Iran war. Save the constitution.

If you're right about these, and actually willing to boldly and simply declare where you stand on these three things, then a lot of the other issues seem much less pressing.

the Iowa caucus is economically efficient, if monstrously so. Insofar as its purpose is to kneecap the less well-heeled candidates and make it difficult to impossible for them to mount an effective challenge to the candidates representing the big money donors.

I thought I just said that.

I'm glad you asked him about a possible run as a 3rd party candidate, and I imagine many of his supporters would like to see him run as an independent.

I also note that:

1.It doesn't seem the front-tier democratic candidates have seriously considered how to address the possibility that Paul will break from his party after it's statistically impossible for him to get the GOP nomination, and

2.here in Texas,

independent candidates have until May 12th to turn in signatures to get on the ballot as an independent, and can start collecting petition signatures no earlier than March 5th, after the Texas primary. I'm guessing other states have similar stipulations. The point being he has time, should he change his mind.

for this article-- it may seem lost amid a lot of your flashier stuff, but I hope you know stuff like this still has an audience here.

I've had conversations with otherwise-intelligent friends trying to explain precisely your point: that Cramer is a charlatan, and that a lot of the things you need to do to be a successful investor are pretty simple and common-sense, and are completely unrelated to his melodramatic TV style.

But they respond defensively(and nonsensically), asserting that his methods have "proven track records" and that he "beats the spread", ad nauseum. But further probing generally leads me to the conclusion that people watching him think his advice is valuable because,

1.he's on TV, and

2.because his style suggests that he's a "gutsy insider" who's revealing the "magical secrets" of Wall Street to us hoi polloi.

Usually I end up giving up on trying to persuade them. Maybe they'd listen if I was on teevee.

as an earlier commenter pointed out, the radio show in question is comedic. it'll make liberals who dump on her look like humorless jerks who are far too strident and fussy, undoubtedly to distract people from the myriad ways in which many conservos are humorless jerks who are too strident and fussy.

"Is Huckabee's claim true that the GOP has obliterated the economic prospects of its own middle- and lower-middle-class followers?"

I don't really think Huckabee is being treated dismissively by the press-- if anything they're being protective. Monday night CNN said that Huckabee was "vulnerable" because of having given a convicted rapist an early release because he went on to "commit other crimes."

!!!@#!??

other crimes? like another rape and murder, which Dimond did, or maybe just shoplifting? Who knows? Not CNN viewers, if CNN has anything to say about it. And last week Anderson Cooper said Huckabee's opponents were "trying to smear him" by discussing the Dimond case.

Moreover, Huckabee's rhetoric about the middle class is just shtick, when you try to square them with his specific policy positions.