Thank you for torturing detainees here and abroad. Everyone knows that it's the best way to get reliable information. And it shows the world the strength of American values.

Thank you for protecting us these past 6 years from another terrorist attack in the United States.

In a stunning move, which some decried as folly, you redirected our efforts from Afghanistan (the base of the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11) and turned your eye to Iraq. By starting a pre-emptive war with Iraq, you created a training ground and stage for Al Qaeda in Iraq. Now we're fighting them over in Iraq so they don't attack us here in The Homeland.

Until, of course, they're sufficiently trained for another spectacular attack here. Then we're screwed.

I'm starting to wonder if there's a part of the Secret Republican Cabal that wants to keep sexual pecadilloes front page news. For now at least.

Because it's a distraction from what really matters: torture, warrantless wire-tapping, Iraq and all of the domestic issues on which Bush has achieved absolutely nothing since taking office. Clearly the whole MoveOn.org issue and other useless "Sense of the Senate" votes were an obvious distraction.

But could Republicans be so desperate for distraction that they want us to be talking about Vitter and Craig? Heck, maybe they'll even start manufacturing sex scandals.

The more I think about it, the more I like this wacky theory. Think about who the Republican front-runners are: John McCain, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani. Nasty, naughty boys all. For any of them to be elected, the GOP base will need to develop a jaded, blasé, so-what? attitude towards sex scandals.

I'm not sure it even matters which human being you're taking care of. These caretakers are volunteering their own time to take care of another human being. You know what happens when there are no volunteers? The State winds up taking care of most of these sick people with tax dollars. Even among people who have the means to hire a caretaker, it gets expensive fast. In a couple months time, you've reached the "spend down" amount and qualify for state assistance.

will convince some Fox News viewers that not all Democrats are godless troop-haters.

Maybe? Huh?

Wishful thinking.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown "told lawmakers the plan follows the success of the U.S. troop increase this summer."

So, as the U.S. troops stand up, British troops can stand down?

Do Republican primary voters even vote on the basis of electability? I was under the impression that, as of late, they were disproportionately social conservatives who were "values voters."

Voting on the basis of "electability" seems to be more of a Democratic trait.

Maybe not directly, but the card companies get a transaction fee from the merchant when you use your credit card. Also, card companies encourage people to use their debit cards (PIN needed) as credit cards (signature needed) because then they get to collect transaction fees from the merchant.

So if you pay by card, you're likely enabling the card companies to take more money from the merchants. And don't think merchants won't pass the costs along to consumers.

We are no longer doing movies with women in the lead.

Really? How will we know the difference? The number of movies with women in the lead are already few and far between. There are some ensemble movies where leading male and leading female are on almost-equal footing, but what's mainly out there are "men in the lead" movies.

I also immediately thought of John Kerry regarding the electability issue. In Kerry's defense, the top vote-getter of all-time is George W. Bush in 2004. The number two vote getter of all-time is John Kerry. It was a tough election year.

So Kerry isn't a perfect analogy (who or what is?) considering people's reluctance to change leaders in the middle of a war. That being said, I think Kerry's handlers got so caught up in the notion of electability that they completely stripped the life out of him. The John Kerry we've seen since 2004 has been a much more impassioned Kerry.

Global warming doesn't mean that it will be 85 degrees in October. It means that the average temperature will rise a handful of degrees, creating floods and so forth. An 85-degree day in October is not evidence of global warming.

In order for the average temperature to rise a handful of degrees doesn't that mean 1) the temperature each day must be higher a handful of degrees, 2) a smaller number of days must rise to even greater temperatures or 3) some combination of the two? So an 85-degree October day might not be evidence of global warming, but it could be a result?

I'd appreciate a correction/explanation if I'm wrong.

In any event, the real upside to climate change: regions that used to produce crap wine and bad skiing conditions now have great wine and skiing. Downside: some of the better wine and ski regions are declining. I guess that's a wash. Unless you happen to live/operate out of one of the declining regions. Then you're kinda screwed.

John Edwards has been campaigning hard for what, years now? But other than that, I don't see how he's distinguished himself enough to be president. He doesn't have Clinton's campaign machine or foreign policy gravitas. He doesn't have Obama's hopeful, above-the-fray message. He doesn't have Joe Biden's intellect. He doesn't even have Bill Richardson's governing experience.

What does Edwards bring to the table? His "Two Americas" message seems to be having an effect in Iowa. And it should considering he's practically been living there.

I fear that all Edwards really brings to the table is that he's a southern, white male. And although he can have subordinates hint around at it, Edwards can't come out and say: Hillary's a woman, Obama's black, but I'm electable.

Your "Memo to Democrats" pretty much nailed it.

Republican leaders play to their base. And Democratic leaders have also been playing to the Republican base.