Can I just for a moment revel in the sweet irony of the GOP monolith crumbling under the weight of a growing sex scandal and cover up? Is that so wrong?

I watched the puritans and zealots nearly hound out of office one of the best presidents of the 20th Century (yes, Clinton, and no he wasn't perfect -- I'm not nominating him for Mt Rushmore, like the idiot acolytes of RR) over a blow job from a consenting female adult. They said it was lying, and some of that is true, but it was also largely about the sex -- it was the sex that kept it on the front page.

I'm not losing sight of the very serious issue of what Foley was trying to do to/with minors he claimed to be trying to protect. Not for a minute. But I can't escape the notion that god really does exist, and that he indeed has a truly delicious sense of humor.

Literally. And spit part of my lunch onto the keyboard for good measure. Thank you for brightening my Friday afternoon!

Love the shirt, but after that fellow got inspected, detected and neglected for noting that the TSA's administrator is an idiot -- not out loud, mind you -- but by writing same on the clear plastic bag holding his toiletries, I doubt that the AUTHORITIES would be amused should you decide to stir things up by wearing one through security.

I'll consider wearing one when I have time to arrive at the airport 5 hours before my flight. Few are bigger fans of free speech and agitating the system than I, but I also like to actually board the plane for which I have a ticket. And there's the rub, these days.

The ACLU might keep me out of stir, but they won't help me catch my flight to Fresno!

Rogers' actions present a number of troubling concerns. Two are primary in my view.

Certainly, the voters have a right to know if the person for whom they've previously voted is being a hypocrite on a key issue. In that respect, calling bullshit can be seen as a positive. But the person likely to be hurt more by the action is the closeted gay staffer, not the politician. Additionally, I've often heard Conservative Christians use the phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner." An office-holder could certainly claim that was exactly what he was doing in employing someone he knew to be gay, but who was not living an openly gay lifestyle.

And even if the Conservative Christian base is riled by the outing -- riled enough separate itself from mainstream Republican party activities -- that riling is likely to negatively impact the gay rights movement. Already talk among the far right is of "the homosexual agenda." It is not unlikely that they will see the presence of closeted gays among GOP staff and office-holders as an "enemy infiltration," proof of a "gay counter-insurgency" and as a reason to more vigorously react against efforts to remove barriers to the full participation of gay and lesbian citizens in all of the rights they should be enjoying in our country.

In short, I don't see that whatever positives Rogers perceives in his actions will outweigh the real and potential negatives at this juncture.

I'd be tempted to respond to the GOP's most recent round of attacks on Clinton by offering that "hey, this is coming from the party of Richard Nixon."

The problem is, that's being too kind to today's GOP. The half-dozen or so Nixon desciples in and around the admininstration would also tend to see that as a compliment.

And, while Nixon was indeed a lying, cheating, thieving, dirty bastard, at least he was a relatively intelligent, coherent, lying cheating, thieving, dirty bastard. The former two characteristics being utterly lacking among the present Republican leadership.

It wasn't until RR visited my own home town, Chicago, for her $40/day show that I realized what a real joke it was.

The only way you could have done Chicago on the $40 she recommended was if you blew $75 in cab fare and spent any time NOT eating sitting in traffic. So even if someone was willing to keep within budget by stiffing the waitstaff on tips, flirting with the bartender to get an extra drink and crashing school cafeterias, you still couldn't possibly eat in the locations she described on one single day (unless you also had your own private driver and producer).

Independent thinks that Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter will be easier to take once the GOP loses control? C'mon. They're raving lunatics ranting about leftist conspiracies when THEY REPRESENT THE PARTY CONTROLLING EVERY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT! Do you really think they'll mellow with Democrats actually running something? I think we have yet to see the worst of this scurrilous lot.

As for Murdoch fils one day taking the network to the left, I assume he's no idiot. The network makes money hand over fist with its current presentation, why in the world would a network executive change that?

Mr. November just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Senator Clinton has just blown any chance that I will support her in any way, shape or form in 2008 or any other year.

While I always believed that a Hillary candidacy in 08 would be bad for the party and the country, due to the incredible hatred some still hold and will always hold for her, I also believed that in general she was qualified. Her actions in piling on John Kerry, which serve only to legitimize the outrageous right wing attacks, disqualify her in my mind. She has put personal ambition above truth, honor and "doing what's right." Sadly, in the process she has also lent credence to those who have long tried to paint her as a brazen opportunist.