I guess it comes down to this: If you assume that anyone who wants to get out of Iraq is part of the left wing base, and you habitually disregard the left wing base, then what remains, no matter if that number is actually a smaller group than the "left wing base," then it is still the majority opinion in your mind.

Barack Obama has proven himself to be as lacking in integrity as any of the slime who walk the floor of the Senate and he will not get my vote in November. Yes, I know that there is a big difference between John McCain and Barack Obama, but I will not sell my vote to the most effective extoriionist. For that's what this amounts to. Obama and his camp are saying, "Hey, I know we told you one thing and are now doing another. I know we sold you on the idea of 'change' in Washington. I know you expected us to care about the Constitution. I know you are probably disappointed that none of that is true. But you'll still vote for me because McCain is even worse than me." Sorry, Barack, but you don't deserve my vote and you will not get it.

I begin to sympathize with the right-wing's fear that a president from the Democratic party will appease Iran and other international entities with which the U.S. has conflict. Why wouldn't they think that? Their whole experience of Democrats, now including Obama, is that they roll over at the drop of the hat. Why would they expect Obama or any Democrat to hang tough in a tense international showdown?

We have two cats in our house. As soon as we come near them, they flop to the floor and roll over onto their backs. We've taken to calling them Pelosi and Reid.

... if, based on the evidence of the recent New Yorker cover, George Bush has Barack Obama declared an enemy combatant and shipped off to nowhere.

Glenn,

I know you lecture us from time to time about the folly of NOT voting for Obama, when he is so much better than McCain. However, I just don't see how anyone can cast their ballot for a party which has such clear contempt for their core constituents, as well as so little integrity. These people do not deserve our support. They just don't.

Isn't it just as likely that Brian Ross fabricated the information about the high-placed government sources? That his real motivation in not "revealing" their identities is that he's protecting himself? Perhaps he heard a rumour that there was bentonite in the Anthrax linking it with Iraq and was so eager to get credit for breaking this story that he conjured up the sources.

Why should Brian Ross receive the benefit of our doubt about this?

Glenn,

You forget that George Bush is the decider and has virtually unlimited power. He has determined that the 21st century actually started on August 8, 2008. We haven't started any wars since then, at least I don't think so.

Glenn,

In response to a previous poster you suggest that the media were as subserviant to the Clinton administration as they have been to the Bush administration. I do not agree with you. Recall the press's response to two early Clinton initiatives: The don't ask, don't tell policy in the military and Hillary's health care plan. In neither case did the media play lapdog to Clinton... I'm not saying whether they were fair or unfair, just that they were free with criticisms. I don't believe they would have been so critical of Bush. In large part, these two issues got the Clinton administration off to a rocky start from which it never really recovered.

Additionally, you don't necessarily have to compare administrations here. You can see the way the media treated Al Gore during the 2000 campaign -- if they treat the candidate that way, why wouldn't they treat the president?

The parallels between Sarah Palin and George Bush are rather remarkable. She's governor of a big state, but has no national or international political experience; her teen daughter is a bit unruly; she is an anti-choice Christian; and she is an oil-industry insider. And, if you check out this letter from a long-time resident of Wasilla, Alaska, you'll find several other similarities in approach to governing:

http://www.andrys.com/palin-kilkenny.html

Some people would like us to believe that the choice of Palin as his running mate shows what a maverick John McCain is, but it shows more clearly that a McCain presidency would truly be a third Bush term.

Sounds to me like the federal government is worried that, if the economy collapses, the citizens may decide to storm the White House.

The surest sign that a candidacy is bankrupt of ideas is when it begins the character assasination of its opponent. McCain may once have been a man of integrity, but that is all gone now. This man is nothing but a sleazy liar, and Sarah Palin is his wretched homunculus.

Republican William Milliken, former governor of Michigan, says that he is disappointed in the campaign that John McCain is running.

"He is not the McCain I endorsed," said Milliken, reached at his Traverse City home Thursday. "He keeps saying, 'Who is Barack Obama?' I would ask the question, 'Who is John McCain?' because his campaign has become rather disappointing to me.

Read the article, here: http://www.mlive.com/grpress/news/index.ssf/2008/10/former_governor_milliken_backs.html

Before the steaming corpse of the GOP has had a chance to grow cold and stiff, Sarah Palin will have lined up her next gig... talk show host for Fox News, MSNBC (now that the election is over, they will run back to the center/right), or syndicated radio.