Well, 242, is job interviewed.

Hay is not very good if moldy.

And the "flat feet" do stink!

I've been 'round 58 years too.

Feed them(applause)straw-choke!

Poofter is on the Death-Parolee!

Hay! 123, and more Greed-Murders!

Mercy my. O me. O momma, You right!

The dead souls are lame brain dead!

Clearly, this is just exactly what our country desperately needs, what it is missing most -- a neoconservative, combat-avoiding, Bush-supporting, Middle-East-warmonger who sees U.S. and Israeli interests as indistinguishable and inextricably linked, with a fetish for ever-increasing government control and surveillance, and a background as a Wall St. billionaire. We just haven't had enough of those in our political culture. Our political system, more than anything, is missing the influence of people like that. That's why it's broken: not enough of those.

But here's an important point, I think.

In fact -- despite his steadfast neoconservatism -- it's hard to see how the candidacy of a divorced, unmarried, stridently pro-gun-control, pro-choice, socially liberal New York City billionaire would accomplish anything other than offering the Republicans their best hope of winning in 2008. All of this seems to be intended as punishment meted out by the Establishment to the Democrats -- using Bloomberg's billions as the weapon -- for not repudiating their loudmouth, restless liberal base strongly enough. That, more than anything, seems to be the oh-so-noble and trans-partisan purpose of David Broder, David Boren and Sam Nunn: to find a way to stifle the populist anger at our political establishment after 8 years of unrestrained Bush-Cheney devastation, increasingly represented (on the Democratic side) by the Scary, Angry, Intemperate John Edwards campaign.

[emphasis mine]

Looks weird, but I can't figure out the html tags. The quotes are GG's, from the post, obviously.

Happy New Year.

Keep the great work of exposing "Serious" anti-Human DC elite .

My best wishes . Your avid reader.

P.S. Also check D.Larison take on the same problem at Eunomia blog. Great post as well and could be a nice addition to yours....

Sorry. You reminded me of the parable: If you waste a persons time you are worst than a horse thief.

Send the batch of GOPS to the glue factory.

In Natures Name- They waste the world's Time!

I say Justice will catch up and give them hemorrhoids?

Or- A Fate much-much-much more severe, and worst than getting run-flat and crunched by a roaring Shoo-Choo Train or a Mack Truck.

Squashed.

Why did I say that?

I'll blame Mr. Glenn.

The three latest Iowa polls indicate a horse race developing in both parties. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are neck and neck and neck. The second tier candidates (Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel) manage to garner about 16% of the vote. It is highly unlikely any of them will hit the viability threshold of 15% on the first round of voting, so their supporters will have to make a second choice. Earlier polls showed that the second choice was Edwards by 2 to 1.

Miller and I are going to let John Breaux take the first shot. Meanwhile, Miller and I are going to keep our powder dry.

GG doesn't mention that Mayor Mike is living in sin. A live-in squeeze is nothing to us DFHs and not much of a bump for the disinterested great unwashed masses of middle America, but should send the religionist manipulator whack-pack anchor of the cult of republicanism into orbit.

.

They'd do well to remember some of Bloomberg's rather insensitive and sexist comments toward a pregnant employee, "Get rid of it," as I recall.

...but apparently it's only his choice that matters.

Without Perot, Clinton would never have been elected. A Bloomberg candidacy would be a massive gift to the Democratic candidate, splitting the Repub vote, IMHO.

However, he may well be more like Lieberman - drawing all the Repub vote, and enough timid Dems to get in. But I think a living-in-sin NY City Jewish type might find it hard to scare up votes among the bible-thumpers.

Oh, I agree with you. The gods are not mocked -- not forever, anyway. And yes, Nature's retribution is long overdue. I'm an urban guy, or was when I had the strength to cope with cities. I like my technology, and I like the pace of life that enables a nimble person to accomplish things he'd never have aspired to on the farm.

On the other hand, my family's roots were on farms, and I'm old enough to have learned from some of them who hadn't yet left the land the core values which you espouse here every day. Whatever we do in life, and wherever we do it, must be informed by these values, or we lose our way. I believe that as deeply as you do, I think.

My problem with the comeuppance that is surely coming, is that it will punish the innocent along with the guilty. Given my age, I expect to escape the worst of it, but I fear for my daughter, and for her children to come (I hope) as well as for everyone else's children and grandchildren.

So I do what I can, but when I reflect on the reasons why, I hear voices like yours, and try to heed them. Truly.

Mr. Bloomberg, who has tried to seize a national platform on gun control, the environment and other issues, has been regularly briefed in recent months on foreign policy by, among others, Henry A. Kissinger, his friend and the former secretary of state,

http://tinyurl.com/2rxnnz

Is this 'Bloomberg for Pres' thing some kind of cruel joke?

"increasingly represented (on the Democratic side) by the Scary, Angry, Intemperate John Edwards campaign."

Are you serious or is this Der snark? It's not often I can't tell with you, but this is one of those times.

Perot had populist appeal. He was a grassroots candidate. Bloomberg is a populist. Not!

Borat!

"Without Perot, Clinton would have never been elected."

Oh, I am so very, very, very, very weary of hearing this.

I remember very well back then the Perot campaign. He attracted left-leaning and right-leaning independents, as well as weak Dems and weak Republicans, in roughly equal numbers. That was the compelling storyline of Perot: he didn't appeal only to one side or the other. He was the pre-Unity08 unity candidate. If you say, 'well Clinton only got 42% of the vote', I'd say, 'yeah, but the sitting incumbent only got 34%.' Not exactly a ringing endorsement. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that without Perot, Clinton would have won in a modest landslide.

Of course this was pre-Clinton witchhunt and it's now hard to remember that the partisan divide wasn't quite so divided before the Republicans decided that Reagan had won the White House for Republicans for all time and no Democrat could possibly legitimately occupy that residence, therefore a constitutional coup was called for.

As for Bloomberg... the man has no national stature whatsoever. I sincerely hope Unity 08 runs him, so that the whole Unity 08 idea can deservedly crash and burn.

One last thought... the whole 'let's be above partisan politics/let's bypass that whole messy primary business' reminds me of nothing so much as Communism. Communist parties preach unity; the votes of their deliberative and legislative bodies and committees are often unanimous. In Italy at least, the Italian Communist party's newspaper was called, "L'Unità" (Unity) for many years before Communism fell out of fashion in the early 90s. (The paper still exists under that name, but the party changed its name).

Unity is a nice concept; but the flip side of unity is that when it's pursued for unity's sake, it ends up as quashing dissent.

And isn't that the whole point of "Unity '08", even if it's not acknowledged as such? "Let's just all stop the bickering and do things the GOP way. The rest of you, shut the fuck up!"