While it's nice to see even a National Review writer giving a prop to the Democrats, but I think York's missing the larger point: the GOP clay pigeons are all competing more strenuously for what has, over time, become an ever-smaller pool of donors.

The GOP's hard-right course might play well with the brimstoners that make up their base, but those folks aren't as wealthy or numerous as the majority the GOP has alienated in their efforts solidify their political hold -- the pool of donors willing to give to the Democrats is both larger and wealthier overall, which yields more money for those candidates. In playing hardball, the GOP has found much of the country crying foul -- and they can't pretend to be in the mainstream, as they did the last 20 years. The "Silent Majority" is now a very vocal minority of Americans, but they're still a minority.

Sure, the GOP has the reactionary diehard and theocratic market cornered, but the Democrats have access to their own partisans, as well as moderates, most minorities, and displeased independents -- even Wall Street seems to favor the Democrats more these days. Fiscal responsibility probably doesn't have much to do with it, compared to the larger pool the Democrats can draw from.

But, as others have pointed out, it is definitely indicative of the need for public financing of campaigns. Maybe as the GOP continues to lose the funding game, they'll embrace that as an issue, in an attempt to appear interested in fairness, so long as it brings them some kind of advantage. The GOP needs a new snake oil isotope to hawk if they're going to hoodwink voters again, since "afraidium" apparently has a shorter half-life than they expected!

I really think the whole "obesity epidemic" thing we face is more likely a result of more sedentary lives and the proliferation of high-fructose corn syrup (remember sugar? what a quaint thing it is, when compared with the might of the Corn Lobby, who give us corn syrup and ethanol subsidies, eh?)

But I still think environmental estrogen mimics by way of plastics pollution are a serious health concern, definitely worth fair investigation; it's just a pity that the industrial science chaff will keep this issue off the radar for another generation or two, assuming enough people are still able to reproduce naturally by then, that we won't have chemically sterilized ourselves before then. It's reminiscent of the "debate" on global warming, which stalled, delayed, challenged, obscured, and confused to keep oil company profits untouched -- fiddling while the icecaps melted!

An ongoing theme, the same tune: where industry profits are in any way challenged by evidence, they will fund or invent research to ensure no deviations in the bottom line. All part of the way our economics works, where externalities aren't factored into the production process, where profits are concerned. Our economics has to change to recognize the finite nature of our habitat.

So, Joe Wilson, lifetime Republican and latter-day significant Bush critic, endorses Clinton? That's great.

Any other Republicans want to endorse Clinton? John Warner, perhaps? Chuck Hagel? Anthony Kennedy? Elizabeth Dole? I understand that Plamegate is a thorn in the Bush League's side, but maybe the Clinton crew would like some more Democratic endorsements, just to shake things up some? Or are Democrats the new Republicans these days?

So tell me again, why do Republicans hate Clinton so much when they keep insisting that they're all just like him?

That's why they hate him. He stole all their best tricks, left them with nothing but hellfire-and-brimstone politicking. Those Christian politicos do hold a grudge, don't they?

As for Vitter, it makes the psychological dodge of fundie religiosity all the plainer; any time their deeds don't match up with their words, they cop a mea culpa and keep on going; introspection really isn't the strong suit of the fundamentalist, versus finger-pointing and condemnation of others.

I hope this scumbag is voted out.

Novak's working the circuit, trying to generate what passes for interest in him and his new book (I just saw him in the weekend NYT magazine, too; grrreat).

His arrogance and presumption drips from his head to his toes -- Prince of Darkness, indeed -- wishful thinking! His book seems like the ruminations of a hollow man, looking back on a journalistic soul sold to power long, long ago -- top of D.C.'s journalistic heap, eh? What kind of heap is that? Trash? Dung? Lord of the landfill? He'll leave the world eventually and another sycophant will fill his shoes; power always needs its apologists, and hollow people like Novak are only too happy to line up for their turn.