I'm not someone who believes that there are no meaningful differences between the two parties. There are some. And it's vital, for countless reasons, that Republicans be removed from power.

I'm rather more ambivalent about this. The insane foreign policy, the insane use of military force, the insane spending on the military cannot continue. Unfortunately as Glenn has documented the top Democratic candidates will continue it.

Bush's radicalism has awoken many people to our political problems. More and more of us realize that our democracy is dying, hijacked by a bunch of self-serving plutocrats; that our money is being squandered; and that our press doesn't care. Largely because of Bush's radicalism South America has found its own voice and has rejected our imperialistic foreign policy. US backed right wing dictators have fallen like flies, replaced by people who are more committed to their citizens. Nestor Kirchner of Argentina sent the World Bank packing with 33 cents on the dollar for their debt. Hugo Chaves has probably managed to derail the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), an ambitious extension of NAFTA. This could not have happened prior to Bush's disastrous regime.

All this is a good thing. Americans now are more aware of the problems facing our people precisely because of Bush's radicalism. I hate to say it but it will have to get worse before it gets better, until the American people finally wake up and say "Enough!" A return to Democrats will put a veneer of respectability over these atrocious policies, weakening opposition to them, and thus perpetuating them. We already see this in the actions of Harry Reid and his allies. I am no Ron Pauliac for a variety of reasons, but I am prepared to overlook my disagreements with him because he is right-on about the most vitally important issues facing us (including the odious War on Drugs), and the mainstream Democrats are wrong wrong wrong about them.

When the fire comes they talk.

Yup, Bush ain't that guy. Rather, he's like the firefighter who is also the arsonist; he sets the fire for excitement, for aggrandizement, whatever, risking the lives of innocents in order to display his manliness to satisfy his own ego.

Of course, one key difference is that he is not actually fighting the fire he started, is he?

GG:

It's been less than 24 hours and Pakistan is an incredibly complex country. You want me to just start churning out analysis just for the sake of it?

Right on, Glenn. What is currently occurring amongst the pundits and the presidential candidates resembles some sort of pageant, to see who has the best statement on Bhutto. Naturally neither the candidates themselves or those sitting in judgment on their statements has the first clue as to what has just occurred, and their pronouncements on the subject are just as vapid as those given by actual pageant contestants. The Peggy Noonans of the world may believe everything is a house fire, but some situations call for calm deliberation. This infatuation of instant response and instant action is a blight on our current political landscape.

To put it another way: those of us who have played a computer chess program know that the way to beat them is to limit the time they have to consider their position. Likewise, by limiting the time any person has to consider something as complicated as what just occurred in Pakistan we almost guarantee that a mistake will be made.

For what it's worth, anyone truly interested in understanding Benazir Bhutto and what is happening in Pakistan should read the works of Tariq Ali, a contributor to the London Review of Books, Counterpunch, and The Guardian. Mr. Ali wrote an excellent piece on Bhutto called "Daughter of the West" just before Bhutto's assassination. It can be found at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n24/ali_01_.html.

Bipartisanship is just a Republican code word for continuing their vile agenda after they lose power. They've done enough damage and in a just world they would have earned the contempt of all for decades to come. Just Say No to Bipartisanship. Just Say No to Republicans. Just Say No to traitorous "centrist" Democrats. No more!

The Honourable East India Company was immensely rich and powerful during the British Empire. Business was good, and stockholders got rich. But to allow this rapine the British Public were required to foot the bill for the protection that His Majesty's Navy and Army provided John Company. This is what Noam Chomski refers to as socialized risk, privatized profit. And nobody gave a damn about what the people of India thought about all this, of course.

Nothing new here. We're footing the bill for our military through our taxes (and our children's taxes; the chart on 2006 tax allocations omits deficit spending). Most of this money goes to enrich the military-industrial complex, and multinationals get rich doing "business" in helpless 3d world countries we intimidate or subjugate. And nobody gives a damn about the people of the countries we pillage, of course, breeding our current terrorists.

This is a great racket for the rich and powerful elites of this country, which is why no one is allowed to question it in the forums owned by these self-same rich and powerful elites (i.e., all the mass media and mainstream political parties).

I'm wondering if Fox News did not commit a serious blunder by excluding Paul. I live in a piece of rural Red America, where Fox News is the preferred source of news to many people. But I also see more than a few Ron Paul for President signs on people's lawns, and, come to think about it, I've yet to see any signs for any other GOP candidate. This is not some dispute with "liberals." This is Fox News showing its true colors to people who normally might be core Fox News viewers.