I suppose you could argue that we should just let any poor unfortunate soul rot in whatever foreign nation seizes them. Price they pay for straying from home, you might say. But that's not the position that most Americans want taken, and not the position we as a nation have been taking for quite some time now.

And it doesn't seem that Bolton is arguing for that point. Instead, it appears that he believes we should threaten the offending country with annihilation. Which I suppose is also a point worth arguing, but only if you actually have the will and the ability to implement whatever punishment you seek to impose. And this is where Bolton loses his argument, because quite frankly we are not capable of invading North Korea at present (his former boss saw to it that our military was "otherwise occupied" so to speak).

Of course, Bolton might advocate ACTUALLY ANNIHILATING the offending nation: a full scale nuclear strike wiping them off the face of the earth. "That'll show the rest of those pissants" he might say with a harrumph. But that would seem to be a bit counterproductive, as it would certainly kill the poor unfortunate hostage, not to mention stirring up a bit of trouble with the rest of the world. And it would cement the impression that we seem to believe nukes are bad EXCEPT when they're our nukes. (Perhaps the "doing God's will exemption" applies?)

But for obvious reasons we're not going to take Bolton's route in any event, which means we've then made a very serious threat but failed to back it up. And that makes us far weaker than any negotiation might.

For all his claimed brilliance, Bolton appears to have missed the lesson every parent learns. Threatening to send the little buggers to bed without supper only works if you're actually prepared to sent them to bed without supper. If they call your bluff and you back down, you've lost.

For those like wakerobyn, can you posit for a moment what result if nothing had been done about the banking crisis?

I'm happy to concede that what had to be done stunk to high heaven. But note that something drastic did, in fact, have to be done. Or does the potential collapse of the entire world financial system appeal to some anarchic, granola-eating segment of the population eager to go back to an agrarian community?

I'll also concede that many of the dolts (Congress, the financial industry, etc) who let us get to the point of crisis are the same ones now overseeing the "fix". That does not please me, but again, your alternative please?

So Obama is actually . . . . British?

My god. This poor woman best stear clear of my big irish family! With very few exceptions, everyone kisses everyone on the mouth, regardless of relationship or gender.

I feel sorry for her, and her husband. She's clearly got issues with a capital I. While I wouldn't fault someone for being uncomfortable with kissing for themselves, being "grossed out" by seeing others kiss (we're assuming, of course, that it's a friendly kiss hello/goodby, and not full-on making out, right?), is just whacked.

Cary may not want to judge, but I'm happy to!

I think there's another reason (which doesn't negate the others GG lists) that Politico and other sites like to trumpet a potential GOP resurgence. The same reason TV/Radio sports producers hate a blowout: nobody is interested.

What drives ratings in sports is a close game, and these days, politics is treated exactly like sports in the world of media (thus the frequent "horse race" references). If the GOP is dead, there's no ballgame to cover, and no reason for any but the most hard-core geeks to seek out sites like Politico.

The words you're looking for are "bat-shit crazy".

"no matter what, even when you’re right, you don’t talk shit to the police"

Good advice for anyone, regardless of skin tone. Cops don't like to be fucked with. Actually, nobody likes to be fucked with; but cops have badges and guns, so when you fuck with them, they can respond immediately in ways that regular folks can't. Most cops aren't assholes. But they've all got tough jobs, and especially if you happen to be the 10th one to fuck with them that day, you ARE going to get the full treatment.

That's reality for everyone, man.

You have it exactly correct.

I don't think Sotomayor "favors" one position or another in any of her opinions. It seems to me that she really strives to find the correct interpretation of the law as applied to the facts presented.

But for most of American history, the laws have been written to favor commerce. I'm not sure why this should surprise anyone; America's founding was predicated upon a perception that it's merchants were getting the squeeze from mother England, not that the poor schmucks in the fields were getting a raw deal. We're a capitalist economy, which means that our system is meant to increase commerce. Only in small fits and starts have people realized that if EVERYONE is doing well, business will be better.

I would note that Liz Cheney could have volunteered to serve in the military at any time as well, but hasn't.