Slackie Onassis is absolutely right. John McCain is 100% Republican. That he sometimes works with the Democrats to pass legislation doesn't make him a Democrat or an Independent, it makes him a senator. Isn't that what senators are supposed to do?

Fear not, Bob Dole: Limbaugh and Company's attacks on McCain are just desperate attempts to remain relevant (Pat Robertson took the opposite approach in endorsing Giuliani). They're just trying to spook McCain so he'll pander to them again the way he did the beginning of the campaign season (That, incidentally, was the moment I lost all respect for McCain. I used to just be able to disagree with him--strongly-- but still think he was a man of principle. But I digress.)

There's a small group of dedicated Huckabee-ites who'll stand on principle. And some Republicans will just sit out the election because they're not excited about their candidates. But the rest of the so-called conservatives will fall in line because they want power.

want winner-take-all primaries. So they can pull sh-t like this. I'm no fan of any of the Republican candidates, but it sucks that Romney won by a clear margin in the first round of votes but failed miserably in the second round because the McCain delegates flipped him the bird.

And none of that matters because all of the delegates go to Mike "United States of God" Huckabee.

"[Cheney] is the best vice president in history. Mother may have a different opinion. But don't tell her I said this, but my opinion is the one that counts."

Wow. A dig at your own mother and your father in the same breath as a "me, me, me" attitude. The elder Bushes must be so proud to have raised such a class act.

The remarks, complete with parenthetical applause:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080208.html

A fascinating read if you like fiction. Have I been living in the same world as the CPACkers the past 7 years? Because they've got a wildly different interpretation of events.

Karl Rove is going to donate to whoever the [presumptive] G.O.P. nominee is.

"Why don't you go away already? Who cares about any of the other primaries or caucuses when it's mathematically impossible for you to win the delegate count?"

1. Michigan and Florida broke the party rules. They could have chosen to play by the rules as the other states did.

2. To count Michigan in Clinton's favor would be unfair because only Clinton and "Uncommitted" were listed on the ballot.

3. To count Florida now, which Clinton won, would be unfair to Obama who campaigned under the rules that Florida didn't count and voters who likely sat out knowing their vote wouldn't count.

4. To hold caucuses now would favor Obama, who does better than Clinton in caucuses.

5. To hold new votes now in Michigan and Florida allows them the play king- or queen-maker, which not only undoes their punishment but gives them a boon to boot.

Decisions have consequences and greater restrictions are already permitted for primary elections versus the general election. So I don't see this as a major disenfranchisement issue. If Michigan and Florida are looking for someone to blame, they should look no further than their state party officials.

Renegade states. Tee hee. Now I'm picturing bad boys in leather jackets instead of wonks in suits.

But really, I'm concerned that conducting a do-over now for MI and FL allows The Renegades to play king- or queen-maker in a closely-divided, passions-inflamed primary.

Jeffrey P. Harrison makes some good points. However, I'd like to make some distinctions between different types of covert intelligence.

Eavesdropping is lazy intelligence. We need hard intelligence, eyes and ears on the ground, particularly in the Middle East. This means having friends and contacts in the Middle East. Having U.S. agents and soldiers living among the people, knowing the language and knowing the culture. And gaining the trust of people such that they will volunteer intel (or at least provide better paid intel).

You need the hard intelligence to sift through the lazy intelligence and find information that's actually useful.

Excited about a presidential candidate. Engaged in the electoral process. Believing that your vote matters. Feeling that you can make a difference. Being optimistic about the future.

Those fools.

After CNN contributor Bill Bennett's "Blame the messenger" speech this morning and CNN headlines of "Scandal or Smear," CNN Newsroom anchor Tony Harris was prompted to point out that 1.) this is as an evolving story, 2.) many great stories start out with "anonymous" sources, and 3.) "anonymous" doesn't mean liar.

The New York Times is good enough when the Bush Administration wants to leak info. It's good enough when the Bush Administration wants to lead us into war with Iraq. It's good enough when NYT executive editor Bill Keller speaks to McCain personally about the story. And it's good enough when it endorses John McCain. But say something you don't like, and it's a liberal, tabloid rag.

This is an evolving story. NYT could have waited until right before the general election to run it. They didn't. They could have waited until right before the Texas and Ohio primaries. They didn't. NYT played it fair, respectable and non-partisan. And, frankly, Team McCain prefers that the story came out now rather than later. So long as McCain runs as Captain Reform, whether or not he gave a lobbyist special treatment is a fair question.