Bucky, count me as one more reader who doesn't understand your positions on most issues. The reason for my shameful ignorance in this regard is that the great majority of what you write seems to be attacking others' positions, real, or more often, imagined. Do you really imagine that all of us "socialists" are busily rehabilitating LBJ? Interestingly, my copy of the Liberal Agenda makes no mention of such a pointless endeavor. Perhaps your suspicion arises from the Right's fevered project to rehabilitate Reagan? ...You yourself seem to find it insufficiently derogatory, and have thus moved on to "Socialist."

Unless you are a sock-puppet, there is no reason that you should know the long standing argument that William T. and I have over LBJ. Ask him yourself about LBJ; you might be surprised. My opinion of LBJ is that he was a monster and a war criminal. What Reagan did in South America means he was a war criminal also. The right is not rehabilitating Reagan however, they have him on the 'fast track' for sainthood. Blah!

William Timberman is a socialist, and the characterization was aimed at him; you, I do not know. (unless you are another of LWM's sock-puppets)

I would certainly agree that the only candidate who embodies libertarianism, intermittently, is Ron Paul, but one of his chief attractions is that he seldom engages in the kind of personal attacks you are employing here.

I think you would find more common ground, and less acrimony, if you followed your own advice, and stick to what you've actually read, rather than ascribe to others a load of righty baloney you picked up from the Freepers.

I am no Ron Paul, that is for certain. But the argument between WT and myself predates the latest election cycle. I can find no common ground with warmongers such as WT; not that WT would ever want common ground.

What is a 'Freeper"? What "righty" baloney are you talking about?

You call for a leap of faith, CMcC and eloquently, too, if you don't mind my saying so. Honestly, though, I lack that faith. What is wrong with our country is structural as much as it is personal. While applauding Obama's appeal to a bipartisanship of mutual respect, what am I to make of his policy statements, which seem largely designed to avoid upsetting any significant portion of the electorate? Why should I believe that he represents anything more than a new gimmick?

You may find Obama charismatic; I do not. Even if I did, that would hardly be sufficient motivation for me to support him.

But here's my challenge to you. What would you have said in response to these words in 1865? "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

-- CMcC

Then he got shot and it all went to hell anyway. Screw that. This is different. This has been going on since the revolution. Maybe we should have had our own version of The Reign of Terror here.

Unless you are a sock-puppet, there is no reason that you should know the long standing argument that William T. and I have over LBJ.

A challenger comes forward! Cabals to the left of him! Cabals to the far left of him!

A male who does not eat 'density nutrient' food can unknowingly be deficient in nutriment such as simple, natural, Zink! (sp)

A commercial grower may grow oranges etc., etc., een mango's, figs, and for quantity production, however, the fruit etc., may be nutrient deficient.

More commercial money! More Filthy Lucre! More Money! Yet!

Beware. Consumers.

No flavor or taste? Production, maybe. More filthy money, and that only....

If food lacks Zink a male's c*ck may just hang a dangling? heh.

Yet, he lacks natural nutriments. But NO zest or natural zink...

No zink! Oh, NO. Trouble? I'm no nutritionist or culinary cook.

Oh, who knows why co*ks fail?

Zink deficiency? Maybe. O, it's a male's snail thing? a wagging 'ting?

A failed prostrate?

Oh, ah, O, maybe?

I'm no gynecologist.

I'm not a believer in the phrase, "Anything's possible". It applies to some degree to some subjects, I suppose. But I very much doubt that it applies to the possibility that Bloomberg - Hagel or no Hagel - could sincerely be anti-war after having dismissed and disrespected those who helped defeat Joe Leiberman in the Democratic primary. Bloomberg jumped in in a big way to back the horrendously putrid and dishonest pro-war Joe Lieberman of the Lieberman for Lieberman Party before and after Leiberman's primary defeat.

Glenn linked to this quote:

Bloomberg, in fact, identifies strongly with the defeated Democrat from Connecticut. "I think what they're doing to Joe Lieberman is a disgrace," the mayor volunteered when I met with him in his offices in July, shortly before anti-war bloggers helped Ned Lamont beat Lieberman in the primary. . . . A few days later, Bloomberg was offering to campaign for Lieberman.

William Timberman is a socialist, and the characterization was aimed at him... -- bucky1

This bucky knows because the God of Righteousness whispered it to him in the midst of an ideological ass-whupping a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. (You wouldn't be expected to remember it.)

Anyway, pay no attention to what that warmonger timberman says. Everyone knows he's a liar.

unless you are another of LWM's sock-puppets

...has enough feet to rival a centipede.

JFC! Is the circus back in town already?

if there's time, an interesting subject for a follow-up column might be: who gets hurt more if Bloomberg runs? I've already seen opinion on both sides. That the Democratic party nominee would lose if Bloomberg ran, and that his candidacy is, to some degree, a tactic of the GOP to squeek out a victory the way the Dems did when Perot ran.

Or, that Bloomberg will steal more votes from the GOP candidate.

So, what do you think? Who has more trouble with a Bloomberg candidacy? Strikes me the Dems would have more to worry about, even though Bloomberg is far more GOP than dem... if Dems actually voted for the guy it would simply prove, yet again, how pathetically ignorance our voting public is..