1 Martha Stewart got caught up in the frenzy of the Enron aftermath when the Left was calling for heads. She was the closest thing to Marie Antoinette this country had. Remember those "fag hag" articles in Salon emag? I wrote her a long letter right when it all stated and told her to hold a press conference before the Congressional hearing and say that she had been a stock broker, she knows how ambiguous those insider trading rules can be, so she is giving ten times the profit she made on the transaction to charity. Surprisingly she chose another route--hiring at least two independent legal teams and three jury consultants. My way would have been a bargain, even if you don't factor her stock losses.

2 I hope this was your "good girl" pet. . .Your training program, if you didn't catch my drift.

1 Are you so desperate to win elections that you simply don't give a crap how? Pragmatism is precisely why republicans are no longer conservative, and vise versa. It has nothing to do with "appeasing" the liberals. Its outright becoming liberal. There is a difference. Twixt principles and pragmatism, never the twain shall meet...

2 Sure. Calling people "faggots" is the epitome of principled debate: color me convinced.

3 Absolutely not what I was talking about, but okay. And who, precisely was alienated? The "conservatives" who were going to vote for Guiliani or the "conservatives" who were going to vote for McCain, or the "conservatives" who were going to vote for Romney? And just for the record, Coulter wasn't "debating" anybody. No one's voting for her, as she isn't running for anything. The "middle of the road" independents aren't going to even remember this come the primaries, and the galvanized factions are all lined up for their preference anyhow.

4 Are you so desperate to win elections that you simply don't give a crap how? Ah, yes, the all or nothing approach. Garranteed to never produce a winning hand, ever. That seems to be an attribute you share with the howling moonbat faction on the left. This is good that such people will never seen the reigns of power, much less actually grasp them.

5 Talking about electability, I'd like to pose a question and get some feedback. It seems to be a consensus on much of the right side of the 'sphere that the War on Terror is the single most important issue facing America, and that all other political considerations should be subsumed to finding and promoting the politicians who both will vigorously pursue this war and have a realistic probability of winning the election. Recently we observed the specter of left extremists hounding War on Terror supporter Joe Lieberman out of his Democratic primary victory in Conneticut. He of course went on to win the general election as an Independent. And more recently there have been back-room whispers that the Republican Party is courting and wooing Lieberman to make the switch all the way into the R column. If we define "electability" as it seems to be defined here, as "appealing to as many people on the left as possible, without completely alienating more than a handful on the right", then would a Giuliani/Lieberman ticket be acceptable for the right-blogosphere to promote and embrace? Think about it: you have a tough, "take-no-prisoners" former prosecutor and Mayor of the toughest city in America who is a staunch supporter of the War on Terror, albeit a liberal on domestic issues, teamed with an erstwhile moderate Democrat who is also a staunch supporter of the War on Terror, and who ought to be capable of reaching across the aisle to those Democrat voters not consumed by Bush Derangement Syndrome. Tough on terror and straddling the great political divide. What do you think?

6 Ah, yes, the win-no-matter-what approach. Guaranteed to subvert genuine conservative interests every single time.

7 Huck: on the other side of the spectrum, we have those who are so obsessed with ideological purity that very few people really meet their standards, and among this select group, no one has good political skills, charisma, likeability, or name recognition. DC: I think at this point if Lieberman wanted an R after his name he'd be a nice enhancer to any ticket--especially with Rudy, because in Rudy's case the election would constitute a "deal" between Rudy and the Right-to-Life movement, and having a devout Jew on hand--one whom many respect--could help people to feel they can trust Rudy to appoint strict constructionist judges.

8 Also, Lieberman is more soft-spoken, and might temper Rudy's rep for "meanness." (Though of course that is also his primary appeal in this day and age.)