@ JEM:
You sure you wouldn't rather be U238 or maybe 90SR? JK - I'll propose you as JEM + [first available serial number]. Check your e-mails for response probably from Allah Pundit.

@ narciso:
Don't see the point of that - although from skimming the piece it makes me re-think my bending over badkwards to be evenhanded between him and RS McCain, since I think Kilgore may actually be a pretty thoughtful guy for a partisan Dem (I know, not saying much, but still).

What a wonderful bench we have, especially if Meg Whitman wins in Ca. and if Paul Ryan continues to get face time.

You should see the ads that the true conservative or wanna-be true conservative is running against Whitman. She's not my dream ideal, but Poizner is claiming she "has Barack Obama's immigration policy" and "agrees with Barbara Boxer on taxes" or some such. "Isn't it time for a real Republican?" Nothing unusually vicious, and Whitman's been negative on him for a long time, so probably deserves to take some hits - and probably doesn't mind at all being painted as too squishy in a state where BO is still >+10 approval. Point is, I think she's far to the squishy left of the con-cons.

Don't get me started on that Ryan person.

@ Ken:
I was thinking about Christie today, too, actually. But he's got a war to win first. Interesting also that he's NJ's first pro-life governor in ages. I would have guessed he was pro-choice just from where he is.

He's articulate and funny and I'd vote for him - but it seems unlikely he'll be even remotely ready for a presidential campaign as soon as 2012 - unless all of the conventional thinking about preparation is wrong (something I'm quite willing to consider, but not quite ready to bet on).

@ Ken:
I think you're reading things into what I wrote - or defining anything that goes beyond furthest right lowest common denominator Tea Party principles as "squishy compromise with the Left." That attitude - not yours personally, since I don't know really where you stand - may turn out to be the best thing Obama has going for him when he runs for re-election, or further on down the line for the left generally, regardless of how 2012 turns out.

@ Ken:
Tiananmen?

McCain seems to believe that just ardently being ardent constitutionalists will be enough to win power in 2012 and change history, and won't require any possibly uncomfortable self-reflection and coalition-building. I think he's wrong. The Tea Party is overall helpful, but it's not enough.

@ narciso:
Well, I suggested that both may be whistling past their own graveyards. 2012 may not be a rewind of 2008 or of any other year, but simply assuming that the Tea Party just needs to keep protesting strikes me as rather unrealistic. Let's say the whole country has decided by 2012 that we have to do something big about the fiscal crisis: After 2 years of watching the Rs in Congress get nowhere, the electorate may very well choose the Obama-led stationary state/barrel over the falls with room for everyone, over "angry white chaos."

Hey, JEM, sorry to hear you haven't been well, though I hope the fact that you've been working indicates that the illness hasn't been too serious. Have you been having e-mail problems, too!? What I need is an alternate user-name for HA, "JEM" having been taken.

speaking of which, I still haven't heard back from JEM. I hope you don't mind if I give him to the end of the today before I bother the HA powers about the reg problems.

@ fuster:
The line's also weak because it assumes some sympathy for his perspective, and I was struggling to find something nice to say while anticipating an HA or HA-ish response. I'll work on it.