Its not that I don't believe you, viz the Wingnut Welfare. In fact, the idea fits conveniently into my world view. Which is why I distrust it, a little. Where's the proof here?

The NYT doesn't seem like a very reliable way to gauge sales--the process is completely opaque and no one apparently knows how it's conducted. I have often wondered who buys Ann Coulter's books. It 's one thing to see her on Hannity and Colmes and get a laugh (if you're a psychopath, that is). Quite another to drop twenty or thirty bucks to own the hard copy.

...whatever. I want to bring up Oberweis again. I made a comment earlier, based more on a superficial knowledge and gut feeling, this morning, which Glenn shot down, and rightly so. I've been doing a little reading, though, and my feeling remains strong despite the facts. I just can't figure out what the Republicans thought was going to happen. A tapped out milk-baron like Oberweis already had a lengthy list of defeats in his own party. And certainly, Hastert stepping down mysteriously with nearly a year left to his reign, certainly didn't do anything for the party's image. Just what were they thinking. I said they should have cut their losses because any SANE party apparatchiks would have!

This is an excerpt from the NYT today, with the Repubs trying to explain the defeat.

"Republicans said that Mr. Oberweis, a wealthy dairy owner, had lingering public disapproval from three failed campaigns

Well, duh, but apparently Hastert fought to prevent another contender from Lausen from running in Oberweis' place...wouldn't any Republican have done better than Oberweis? Or was the party so dependent on Oberweis financing his run that they couldn't have funded Lausen enough to run a decent race...

anyone have any answers on this one?

Then calling it 'hand-wringing' and 'wining', probably won't turn the trick.

I take people at their word, though to be honest, I do find the idea of a Republican Obereis toppler whistling through the Greenwald posts to be a fantastical notion. But someone recently posted a hilarious refutation of my existance here--specifically unable to believe that I am Palestinian-Colombian, among other things--so I like to extend the trust rather than risk blow-hardedness.

At face value, I would have thought that Oberweis' loss had more to do with Republicans staying home, than crossing over. Also I've read in several places that the constituency of that district had changed considerably in the past few years, and that it hewed to the Latino and independent--in short that it could no longer be flatly characterized as a red district...what do you opine about these ideas?

Interesting, SL...why do you suppose the GOP backed Oberweis rather than Lauzen then? I don't know anything about it really, but it seemed that Lauzen was popular in his state senate district and at the least he had proven he could win elections? This is very strange to me, unless the only real answer is that the GOP just did not have enough money to run a candidate unless that candidate pitched in with (what turned out to be) two thirds of the cash.

El Cid, just for the sake of veracity, the Post article is paraphrasing the next paragraph in the transcript that "Angel" will "work it through the black market" and that "he would give them an oil concession for export" (rough and dirty translation). My understanding is that its ok to paraphrase as long as the content is supported in the original quote.

This is interesting. If you look at the presidents of that led the US into wars--Wilson, FDR, Truman--they would all be considered effete intellectuals by today's standards, much like Obama.

not to imply Obama is an effete intellectual. I don't give a crap if Obama wear's panties or if McCain uses a butt-plug; seriously the question is beneath us all.

Yes, I thought about mentioning JFK, but then some people put Vietnam on LBJ more than him...

One reason porn is legal is that the entire internet would collapse if it wasn't

But seriously on the question of the legality of porn. I've never thought about it. But if I had to hazard a guess -- and just for the sake of arguing-- the pornography industry (that is the one involving sexual relations between two adults) is highly regulated, with tons of standards and hoops for actors, producers and everyone involved to jump through. The government maintains ultimate control. In a certain way, it is the same as asking why certain drugs are legal with a prescription, while they are illegal without a prescription. Or why caffeine and alcohol is legal, while other drugs are not. The answer is regulation and strict government control. The production IS illegal under many circumstances, in fact. That is the only difference between legal and illegal activity to begin with.

On the question of Spitzer. I have no moral reaction. But last year I got a 500 dollar speeding ticket for running a red light ON A BICYCLE!!!! Because I couldn't pay the ticket, I had to do about forty hours of community service, which made my life hell. SERIOUSLY HELL!! Do I think Spitzer should resign. My visceral answer is yes, why do I have to obey the law and pay so much of my money (compared to my salary) and Spitzer can break the law so flagrantly and walk? Certainly, both laws are ridiculous, but that's beside the point.

And lastly, i've come to believe that part of the reason men become politicians in the first place--for the most part--IS to be able to go to high priced prostitutes. Its been one of the perks of high office since the dawn of time!