Right. That's my fear in a nutshell. Although I spin it a little differently? Given a choice between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani, the choice is an easy one... even for me. Given that any number of Republicans, who otherwise are quite frightened by Giuliani, but have a real antipathy toward Hillary Clinton, if Paul goes third party, I think that's an easy choice for some, too. So, it's not just who the Republicans select as their primary candidate. And, not just if Ron Paul goes third party. But, IMHO, it's who gets the Democratic nomination as well. I'm not sure Ron Paul would pull as many progressive voters if, for example, Obama got the nomination. Could be wrong about that, but folks from the full spectrum are either okay Hillary, or they absolutely aren't okay with her. And, that's where I think the effect of a Ron Paul candidacy will be felt.

Thanks. We're cool. Often in comments Social Security comes to mean a lot of different things; some of it pretty illegitimate. Thanks for the clarification. Correct. Social Security is NOT in crisis. We DO have a health care crisis. But in this discussion, Social Security does not equal Medicare. I concur with you on this.

Good one, Hans B. Touché.

I had crafted a response... but, you said it better. Thank you.

Good catch!

I've been reading too long. It's time for me to back away from the keyboard... and get myself a stiff drink.

Via Crooks and Liars. For those who have been off-put by Senator Feinstein's recent, er, choices, an outfit called the Courage Campaign is mounting an effort to censure her. For those of you who concur with:

Our Senator, Dianne Feinstein, has been ignoring us for far too long. She has voted again and again and again to enable the worst elements of Bush policy: war, torture, racism, homophobia. I've had enough of my representative in Washington ignoring me. Let's do what we have to do to hold the Senator accountable for her actions. Join the coalition of Californians moving to Censure the Senator by visiting http://www.couragecampaign.org/censurethesenator

See all the details below, from Rick Jacobs.

The link for this page is at my signature, and the deadline is Friday at 12 PM.

Heh. When I read it as a typo, I also thought, it kinda fits. Overcooked, loyalty has about the same consistency. :-)

Hate. Hatred. Hater. Currently, these have got to be three of the most misapplied words in the lexicon. All three have been hurled at me, at one time or another, in regard to Bush and RWA Conservatism and, in truth, I feel no such overwhelming animosity. I hold both in contempt, with disgust, in aversion and/or you could add 'dismissive' as a qualifier to all three - but hate? Nope. Don't feel that one. The only thing I can think of to explain individual Bush apologists and defenders is the one encapsulated in the concept of Psychological Entrapment (http://tinyurl.com/35telh).

As JackHughes noted, Bush Derangement Syndrome seems to apply best to those who've advanced Bush's career. And, anyone who opposes(d) Bush has to be - just must be - guilty of some extreme irrationality, or the supporters are. Their ego defenses will admit to no such admission for themselves. It's as though their overwhelming adoration for Bush requires (can only be explained, or justified by?) an equivalent countervailing emotion in those who oppose him.

Interesting that a (formerly?) world class financial newspaper would fail to "ignore sunk costs." The issue of the WSJ's insistent editorial support for Bush, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, speaks to a more sinister element in the press. The willing and willful distortion of the evidence, is the phenomenon I view with a mixture of loathing and horror.

Thanks for that Molly Ivins link. Missed it, and it wasn't one to be missed.

Prof. Berkowitz on Starr's analysis as a recipe for inoculating others against hating presidents to come:

The recipe consists above all in recognizing that constitutional liberalism in America "is the common heritage of both modern conservatives and modern liberals, as those terms are understood in the Anglo-American world," writes Prof. Starr. We are divided not by our commitment to the Constitution but by disagreements--often, to be sure, with a great deal of blood and treasure at stake--over how to defend that Constitution and secure its promise of liberty under law.

Irony is absolutely lost on these folks.

@ Jim White

Madame Defarge is absolutely one of my favorite characters from literature.

Exhibit 1 can be found at virtue001.

We are being a bit tough on you. You stepped into a clutch of "old hands" and they're (can't include myself here - I'm a relative newcomer)hazing you a bit. For all your good intentions, you do have some catching up to do. It really is the Democratic Party.

See Wikipedia: http://tinyurl.com/29g9c9 Or, click on my signature.

One more time Mikes (with apology) the link is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

Even has it in the URL.

The more voices available to push back at Berkowitz, the better.

Thanks for the reminder Chris Dowd.

In response to that question of a father's service and his sons':

Senator Jim Webb, Marines, Vietnam

Lance Webb, Marines, Iraq

*****************

No disappearing acts Bebop. We've much White House cleaning to do. I have a very special mop for the occasion, and it has your name on it ;-)