As somebody who frequently reads your excellent pieces and usually agrees with your insights, I do have one thing to point out. Although polls do indeed show that the majority of Americans want out of Iraq, I do think that the truth about this country is that most people would rather win the war if they thought we could.

Please remember how popular this disaster was back when America was "victorious." Bush's approval rating was high and most people polled thought the Iraq invasion was a good thing, despite overwhelming evidence that it was based on lies, was illegal, and hugely immoral, among other things. Also remember that Kerry didn't win the presidency, even though he seemed to represent the only hope of getting out of a worsening situation. Also note that of the three remaining candidates for president only one claims to really want us to get out, and Obama is tepid about that, at best. If Americans really wanted to get out of Iraq we'd have nominees like the stridently antiwar candidates Paul and Kucinich. But we don't. We have a warrior-politician, who claims he can win the thing, coming out better in polls against Clinton (who also voted for the disaster) and Obama (who isn't stridently antiwar enough, in my opinion). I'm afraid the sad truth is that the Cokie Roberts of the country do understand something about the American people, they would indeed rather follow and install somebody who promised them pie in the sky ideas about victory, rather than face up to the reality that the USA has lost, and cannot and will not win.

Charley Reese is not and never has been a Republican (he's stated he'd never join the party that started the war against the South). He's a conservative Democrat. Other than that your comment was excellent.

Reese would be the first paleo who wasn't a Republican once.

He is currently a registered Democrat, but has been previously a Republican as well. In his Dec. 26, 2005 column he writes he was a Democrat but went Republican after JFK got in office; he thought JFK was a lousy president. After the presidency of George H. W. Bush (1989-1993), he returned to the Democratic Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charley_Reese

Elephantman isn't a conservative. He's an anti-intellectual!

If I am in error I stand corrected; I don't recall the article mentioned in your wikipedia link.

But he did write this, which led me to my statement:

"I'm registered as a Democrat. My political philosophy is best described by reading George Washington's farewell address. He didn't say one word with which I disagree...Therefore, I am a conservative in the old, traditional sense...Neither political party represents my views, but unlike a lot of Southerners, I'd rather deal with an honest socialist in the Democratic Party than a socialist or a fascist in the Republican Party who hides behind conservative rhetoric...Besides, I haven't forgiven the Republicans for the war and Reconstruction and the destruction of the republic"

As for Elephantman being conservative or anti-intellectual, I didn't make any statement about that either way. But if you really must know, I think he's rather more the latter.

I don't think Mr. Reese is in a position to understand Washington's Farewell Address in it's historical context. I doubt he knows much about socialism or fascism either. As for Elephant, I don't see much difference between him or Charley Reese or Jonah Goldberg.

-- L.W.M

If you're really trying to bait me in some way, at least make it an interesting attempt. I don't pretend to know what is in the mind of Mr. Reese and therefore can't tell you how well he understands the historical context. I'm equally ignorant of just how much he knows about socialism or fascism, so I can't comment on that either.

As for not seeing the difference between Reese, and Elephant and Jonah Goldberg. I suggest you get some glasses with which you might be better able to read.

Why do you assume that the ad team is female?

Just f-ing brilliant. And anybody wondering why he would go there, just look at the reaction he got to the HC in the anxiety closet strip.

So why should anybody vote for her? How would she run against McCain? "I'll bomb Iran into more oblivion than he will"? She deserves to lose. I don't love Obama, but at least he represents something of an antiwar choice. She just represent more death and destruction, followed by economic ruin.

She's impressed with people who frequent Thai hookers. She can't stop mentioning how she's a writer and hangs out with writers and desperately wants to do writerly things. Her husband has been around Europe so much that he needs Rick Steves guide (sorry they didn't honor that discount), doesn't even know that you have to stamp your tickets before you board the train, and that drinks cost more sitting than standing. Morevery, quite frankly, after living a year in Barcelona, his Spanish/Catalan should be good enough that he can, if neccessary, communicate with Italians with just a bit of effort. Neither she, nor her cosmpolitan husband can deal with rude service at a restaurant (and I have my doubts about her story), and we're supposed to care? This was the most juvenile piece of garabage I've read in a long time. I'd expect better from her daughter's "what I did last summer" essay.

excuse the typos from the last post. But also, forgot to mention: the person who confessed that she had to go on trips and then have her parents bail her out and get her a ticket home each time, is NOT a real traveler. She's a flake. A real traveler gets a job, finds money, keeps going. What a piece of drivel this article was in absolutely every way.

or even mildly amusing. Doesn't matter how I read it, as satire, as offensive, as completely innocuous and sincere, it's just no good.