As far as I know, Howard Dean invented the "X wing of the X party" line when he described himself as representing "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party" in contrast to the Republican-lite DLC crowd. It made sense then; he was one of the few true liberals in the race in 2004, and if we had nominated a firebrand like Dean instead of the safe, centrist, "electable" Kerry, we might well now be debating the chances of re-election for an incumbent Democratic President against the Republican challengers. What the hell does "Republican wing of the Republican party" mean, except to say, "I can be even more of a nutcase than my opponent!" It's like talking about "the Islamist wing of the Taliban party."

I look forward to future Republican appropriations of Democratic tag lines. Perhaps next we'll hear Giuliani laughing maniacally as he describes torturing POW's: "I looove feeling your pain!"

I'd suggest that maybe instead of using an arbitrary two-day time limit, it might be more reasonable to close a discussion based on posting patterns -- say, if a discussion doesn't get any posts for twenty-four hours, it's closed. Some topics generate more discussion than others, and if there's an active discussion going on, it's silly to close it off in the middle. Obviously there has to be some overall limit, but two days seems too short. How about the twenty-four hour rule above, plus a one-week absolute limit? Worthwhile discussions can easily go on that long.

This is a familiar pattern. When accusations of infidelity come out of thin air, they pretty much always mean that the accuser has already done what they're accusing the other party of doing, or at least is seriously contemplating doing it. The traitor is always the first to cry treason. I saw this in my first marriage and I've seen it in many of my friends' relationships as well. Whether it's a man accusing a woman, a woman accusing a man, or a gay partner of either sex -- doesn't matter, it's a consistent enough pattern to put money on.

I'm very sorry for your wife's psychological problems (my ex didn't even have that excuse) but they are not your fault, and you are not obligated to let them ruin your life. Cary's advice is way off the mark. She's never going to trust you; she's going to have to learn to trust a psychiatrist or someone else who has the training and experience to help her work through her problems before she's going to be able to trust anyone enough to have a decent long-term relationship. And as hard as it is, if that ever happens, that's going to be someone else. Get the hell out of the relationship before someone gets physically hurt, and get on with your life.

By the way ... Cary? You joined in his wife's baseless accusation against the LW, and you advised him to humiliate himself in a desperate attempt to stop physical abuse. That's one of the scummiest pieces of advice I've heard anyone give, ever. You need to take a good long look in the mirror tonight and ask yourself if whatever reward you get out of writing an advice column is worth the potential damage you're doing to other people's lives.

... Ugg is right. Giuliani's a wimp. So are the rest of the leading Republican contenders. So are Republicans in general. It's one of the (many) things that makes their macho rhetoric so pathetic. The GOP has been the party of wimps playing tough guys ever since Ronald "I remember the Big One because I made movies about it" Reagan.

The more I think about it, the more I'd like to see elections settled in the future by pro-wrestling-style cage matches. Can you imagine what a Kerry-Edwards vs. Bush-Cheney tag team match would have looked like? The challengers would have wiped the floor with the current title holders, no question about it. Not only would such a system be more entertaining and, let's face it, more dignified than our current system, I can pretty much guarantee you that the Democrats will win every time.

I heard he once shot a man in Memphis just to watch him die.

Oh, no, wait, that was someone with talent. Never mind.

... you're a psycho. Seriously. Get some help before you turn into the star of your own horror movie.

Why, damn it, did some Senator not make the obvious rejoinder: "This is not a matter of congeniality, Mr. Mukasey. This is not a tea party. You are appearing before the United States Senate, under oath, to show whether or not you are fit to hold the position of Attorney General of the United States. If you cannot or will not answer the question, you are clearly unfit for that position. Now answer the question, or go home."

People who can figure out a way to run out of water in one of the wettest parts of the country deserve to die of thirst. We're not talking about Tucson here, folks. Hell, we're not even talking about Denver. If Atlanta's out of water, too damn bad. I hear they have some extra in New Orleans -- maybe the Atlantans can take it off their hands?

When yellow people do it to white people, it's torture.

When white people do it to brown people, it's Defending Freedom.

Hope this clears things up.

Republicans will go on shouting about how they "support the troops" and calling the Democrats soldier-hating traitors ... and the Democrats will let them. If the Dems in the Senate had any guts, they'd use Peake's confirmation hearings as a way to nail the Republicans' callous disregard for the actual people serving in uniform rather than the abstraction of "the troops" ... but don't count on it.