We might as well be a third world country. It wouldn't bother me. Let McPalin win, it's really not going to make any material difference either way. Obama will be forced to back away from his tax plan. Congress has been on autopilot for 2 years and won't change now. Come 2010 you'll have the same complaints.

Karma is kicking in big time here. The wingers who have steered this country - and the world - with such unconsciousness and intolerance are done like dinner. It is a new time. There will be growing pains for the new movement, but it's under way. And the buttheads who have spiritually and economically bankrupted us will gradually be buried in a landslide of humaness and cooperation. What a novel idea!

As for the buttheads, like Palin and Dubya, go to:

www.buttheadpolice.com

and Vote for them and others like them to get asses stamped on their heads. Spread the word! Buttheads will roll!!

McCain and company eminently qualified to run our country back to Swiss-watch precision.

Given that it is conservative idiology itself which has landed us in the ditch where we are, the idea of McCain and Palin somehow improving the situation strikes directly at the broadest definition of the word stupid: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Bush Doctrine? That varies based on the latest events: Sarah asked in regard to what. Nobody knows which doctrine they're speaking of - the first one or the current one.

Varies, does it? Maybe if you don't know what you're talking about, the definition of the most substantial change in our foreign policy approach could seem to vary. To anyone paying the least bit of attention (which should include a vice presidential candidate), there is only one answer: the decision to wage aggressive war to combat perceived threats which may not be imminent at all. This is a major change for our country, introduced in the last 8 years to incredible disaster, and for a political candidate not to know what it is is inexcusable.

I think Sarah's Russia answer was tongue-in-cheek without anybody fathoming the humor.

Right. Good luck with that.

About Biden's interview with Barbara West, thanks for pointing that out to me as I didn't know about it. Biden handled himself brilliantly with an interviewer who makes Bill O'Reilly look like an objective journalist. (Note: West has retreated to O'Reilly's show to deliver her comeback.) Now, if Palin ever gets subjected to that kind of grilling by, say, Keith Olberman, please let me know. As for the bit about the station being banned and West's husband being investigated, I saw no mention of that.

Sleazy friend appointments are not apparent... Probably minions from ACORN or campaign workers; people we have no knowledge of.

I see. In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about regarding sleazy appointments.

Bush's appointments are qualified for the position with an occasional exception. When they slip up like Craig they are dismissed instead of being appointed to a different committee.

Rumsfeld prosecuted the war in a deeply incompetent manner, lied about its justification, and screwed the pooch diplomatically for 5 years before he was sacked.

Remember Brownie? Heckuva job he did.

How about Alberto Gonzalez? Monica Goodling? All qualified? Any of these names ring a bell?

If republicans view Bush's appointees as qualified, that speaks directly to the dumbing down of that party.

How's the fairy tale? There is an easy way to finance the programs of Obama. Cut the Military budget by 50% or so. There is no rational reason for us to be outspending the world on arms. Military spending is completely hollow spending it generates no sustaining wealth, only scrap metal and bodies. The present fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan show the real futility of military power as any type of real solution to long term problems. Heed Eisenhour's warning.

There are two parties in America and two types of socialism.

Dems: Take funds and try to salvage the middle class by giving them tax cuts.

GOP: Take funds and give it to the wealthy by in tax cuts.

The GOP socialism talking point is inane.

The biggest piece of stupidity that the Bush juggernaut may be remembered for (in the end) is the strategically incompetent use of the office of VP; utilized for decades to ween the next president. Bush/Cheney just couldn't wipe away their drool (over their next bit of subterfuge and powergrabbing) long enough to void the spot for a lieutenant that a) could be trained on the job, and b) could be handed power in the next election.

Bush is over due to term-limits. Cheney is over due to his massive unpopularity.

Any stonewalling, unrecalcitrant idiot from the Bush years (Take your pick!; Wolfowitz, Rice, Ridge) had a better chance than McCain, probably even in the face of economic disaster. Popularity be damned, Reagan was able to hand stuffed-shirt George H. Bush power even as his own approval numbers hit the toilet.

I hear about "this type of conservatism" or "that type of conservatism," "neoconservatism" vs. "classical conservatism," and for me, none of these philosophies has any merit.

This year I've seen a lot of people get very passionate about Ron Paul. Really, their fervor and fanaticism for the man is the stuff of messianic movements, easily the equal of the passion I've seen for Obama. "Finally," they told everyone who would listen, "here is a return to rational conservative thinking! He wants to legalize marijuana! He wants to stay out of foreign entanglements!" And that's nice. I agree with the first notion wholeheartedly and with the second to a degree.

But at bottom, Ron Paul is a conservative of the most radical and extreme kind. His brand of economic anarchism is dangerous quackery.

There's apparently some kind of "war over the soul of conservatism" being waged right now. It appears to be between the religious, pro-life, culturally intrusive crowd (the Sarah Palins) and the secular, pro-choice, hands-off crowd (the Tom Ridges). I don't care who wins, as long as it's the faction that's easier for progressives to defeat, because conservatism just doesn't seem to work. I don't care how polite it is, or how rude it is, whether it believes the world is 6,000 years old, or whether it believes maybe scientists ought to be listened to. I don't care whether it's the type of "true conservatism" that would de-criminalize drugs, leave Roe v. Wade alone, and keep the Ten Commandments out of my parish courthouse, or whether it's the type of "true conservatism" that's 180° removed from all those positions, or whatever. These issues, though certainly not immaterial, are meant to distract us from the central battleground in politics, which is, always has been, and always will be economics. It's about class. Not culture. Not religion. Not even foreign policy. No, economics is what matters above all else. Who's got how much, and how did they get it? And all conservatives have marched in lockstep on this issue. Even before the Gospel According To Friedman became their first and last word in economics, conservatives always professed to believe and needed to believe, deep in their hearts, that

1. The playing field is perfectly level;

2. Those who have, have because they deserve; and

3. Those who have not, have not because they deserve not.

It is childish and simplistic, devoid of nuance, willfully ignorant of true human nature and social realities. It is cynicism under a layer of fake naiveté, masked as "common sense." It's a phony religious belief system, and they will strap themselves to this R.M.S. Titanic even as 60-foot waves of bleak economic reality swamp the deck. They'll draw their last breath telling you the economy is "not a zero-sum game" while expending their last drop of energy, power, and influence to make sure it is, and stays that way.

So from a purely philosophical standpoint, I don't care whether the ultimate victors are the "crazy" conservatives who think Adam and Eve put saddles on dinosaurs or the "sane" ones who abstain from the culture wars. When it comes to economics, they're all full of baloney.

Also, it's getting harder and harder for me to believe John McCain has ever taken a "principled stand" on anything. I know he used to be a Maverick™ and I know that, in early 2000, he was the Republican Whom Democrats Loved Not To Hate, but he's jettisoned every principle he once pretended to have. He has zero credibility.