The core arguments about what China will do assumes they'll do the most economical rational thing, and if we determine what that is, then we'll know what they'll do. Nationalism might not be rational, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. There was nothing rational about forcing down a navy surveillance plane in 2001, nothing rational about insisting the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was deliberate, nothing rational about being scared of the Dalia Lama ... you get the point. The issue isn't what they'll do with their economic hold over us, or even how strong it is, but what they'll do with it. Their calculation of an acceptable loss might not be what we would make. It would be far better to change the economic relationship than wonder when or if they'll do something.

I don't express myself like Kucinich does, but he takes the right positions, and he doesn't back off when denounced as "fringe", even by a debate moderator. For crying out loud, it's only August: if we can't support whoever we want now, when can we?! I can't comprehend the people who've let the media decide which candidates are "serious" enough to support.

Which brings up Gravel's best point. He meant specifically the LGBT audience, but it applies to everyone. Why do you insist on backing candidates who only partly back you, and ignore the ones who support you completely? Kucinich won me over by supporting single-payer, and at this point I don't care about the polls.

I don't know about state fairs in other parts of the country, but in Midwestern states, candidates always work the state fair, as do incumbents and state parties. The only difference apparent between Iowa and Minnesota is it sounds like the candidates in Iowa didn't set up booths, but I'd bet somewhere on the fairgrounds the parties and candidates for other offices were set up.

Regarding Romney's answers, he hasn't a clue, and hasn't even thought about it. I can't believe he's even taken seriously until I consider his opponents.

I doubt the Bush administration set up all this just to distract from the straw poll. There wasn't enough time to set this up, when clearly they were fully prepared for Rove's departure. If they wanted some distraction, any distraction, they could have found something, like rattling the sabers against Iran again. They certainly wanted the buzz or they wouldn't have announced this on Monday morning over two weeks before Rove's departure. They also must know the "more time with family" crap is recognized as crap, so either they want it known the real reason is hidden or they really are that dumb.

Could the investigations of the White House be getting closer than realized? Could they be hoping we'll leave Rove alone?

One more thought, did anyone predict Rove's departure? I didn't, nor have I heard of anyone who did.

I realize this is hardly definitive, but I have another theory as to why Rove's leaving any why with the big send-off. Perhaps the send-off was an honorific to one of Bush's favorites, making him important by making his departure the story for the week. The reason for leaving was hinted at in stories mentioning he might write a book. It occurs to me that while he can only play defense while working for Bush, he's at his peak in terms of getting a big advance from a publisher. Once Bush goes and legitimately elected --- oops, was that my outside voice? --- president is getting the attention, Rove's price goes down, so he's cashing in. If he gets that book cranked out now, he can do the interview circuit during the next campaign, or maybe be done in time to participate in the campaign.

On a side note, I find the brain cancer remark in a prior letter inappropriate.

Mr. Blumenthal, I share your opinion that Bush won because he was able to carry momentum from public support for a president in wartime. In fact, never in US history has an incumbent lost a general election with a war going, even when the war went badly. However, don't forget that there are many allegations of election fraud giving Bush the "win" in 2004, even more than in 2000. The proof is sufficient so that while it might not be proven conclusively, it seems nearly impossible all that evidence allows another conclusion. The election was close anyway. I see that, and Kerry was a lousy candidate, which I thought during the primaries but what can you do.

You do disappoint me in one way though: I thought I was brilliant enough to be the only one to think of the book deal as the reason for Rove leaving. Guess not.

OK, he's giving up his seat, but at least he can travel home on that nice highway he earmarked to go near his property, with a big increase in the property value. http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/22038

After being subjected to abominable treatment, surely he confessed to everything they demanded, and the evidence has to be incredibly suspect. I don't buy for a second that he did anything, and if he did, surely he's been punished enough.

Guiliani might not look viable, but who'd have thought anyone could take Bush seriously? Nonetheless, he got close enough to steal two elections. Though I dislike the odds for any Republican --- unless Hillary is the Democratic candidate, in which case call it even --- let's not take a chance. Guiliani has one issue, and it all rests on 911. He's vulnerable to Swift Boat campaign without even the necessity of lying about him. Let's encourage the Democrats to hit him hard on that. Even if the public merely concludes they don't know the truth, that was enough to defeat Kerry.