The "next Newt" may even BE Newt Gingrich... stranger things have happened. But you are right to point out that relative unknowns could be the real threat.

And I like the Mogadishu metaphor. "Zero government = good" is a stupid thing to shoot for, and that's a great way to point it out.

OsborneInk -

Next time, I'll credit your quote! I promise! Sorry for the last-minute attempt to get permission, it won't happen again.

:-)

LewDan -

Sorry, I should run some sort of warning label: "WARNING: inane blather ahead!" when quoting Kristol.

I find it highly amusing, though, when conservatives are backed into such a corner that they start to become honest to their own base: "We got nothin'. Sorry about that. We'll try to obstruct everything until we get some new ideas."

I hear rumors that the IL legislature is thinking about getting up off its collective rear end and stopping this Burris soap opera by calling a special election. About time!

As for the DC thing, keep in mind that while it's a permanent seat for DC, Utah's will get reshuffled with all the rest after the 2010 census, so they could lose the seat almost as fast as they gained it.

I think it's a brilliant "don't throw me in the briar patch" strategy for Obama's White House to spotlight Rush Limbaugh. The more influential he gets (RNC head Steele was the latest to be forced to apologize to Rush, I see), the worse off the Republicans chances in upcoming elections. So why wouldn't Obama help the media crown Rush king of the GOP? The more extreme they appear, the more centrist voters flee the party.

But I could be wrong...

-CW

As a personal favor I'd really appreciate it if you'd limit references to Kristol's rantings -- I mean writings. First, if we comment it forces us to publicly admit to reading him, which is humiliating enough, but worse, it may force us to read him. Second, I don't believe he's actually been right about anything. So whenever he accidentally arranges words into something that could sound sensible or, heaven forbid! something I might actually agree with, it sends chills down my spine. I'm always convinced that I just must be missing something obvious if I don't see the flaws in a Kristol screed. So please, show some mercy, we're under enough stress already.

Burris -- another point of disgust. The Senate had its chance to reject him, now its too late. Burris shares the same narcissistic personality that afflicted Blago -- and afflicted us WITH Blago. Like Blago, Burris will never resign. He won't be good for anything but feeding his own ego, but he'll never give up a Senate seat.

New D.C./Utah Reps -- I find it interesting that the Fed, once again belying the myth of American Democracy, goes without notice. Yes, as you stated in your earlier piece this is typical D.C horsetrading --- But -- This time what's being traded is the ability to have voters' votes matter. Once again D.C proves that government is afraid of democratic elections, just as the Founding Father's were when they conceived the Electoral College. And having trampled the Constitution in every respect for eight years, now the Republicans, even out of power, are Gerrymandering Congress -- and NOBODY CARES! Amazing.

Republicans -- As to your other observations -- all true. But its a mistake not to reiterate with ever rebuttal, that NOTHING the Republicans are saying is true. Their only motivation is to regain power. EVERTHING else is sophistry.

Rush Limbaugh is the only honest one left, he admits to wanting the U.S to fail -- think about that... We know Republicans are in a deep hole -- but imagine how far down you have to be for Limbagh to be above everyone else in HONESTY!?

Obama -- An elected Federal Official actually doing his job -- and doing it expeditiously and well! Now THAT is REALLY a change in D.C.

Expanding on this talking point just a bit, a good follow-up might be:

"Governor, unemployment compensation is one of only a few things governors CAN veto for their states, given the direct-to-local nature of much stimulus spending. So which of the following program monies would you also refuse, given the chance? Head Start, SCHIP, food stamps, etc.?"

On the Socialism charge, I think comparisons between Mogadishu and Scandinavia need to be made. At this point Mogadishu and greater Somalia have little or no real government. Which also means little or no taxes. No government, no taxes, is this not the GOP wet dream? How's that working for them? Scandinavia on the other hand is much more socialistic than us, has much higher taxes, and has some of the highest standards of living in the world. But this really brings the conversation to the important point: we need government and taxes to run it. What is the right or ideal level of taxation? It easy to cry lower taxes but much more difficult to pin down a single number. Following this line of logic, puts the "lower taxes at any cost" type on the defensive which counters that argument quite nicely as anti-tax as a tactic is much more effective when used offensively.