Probably not. But I'm going to link it favorably anyway because I dislike libertarians and it sounds pretty truthy to me.

Congratulations, Ron Paul. You've once again managed to come in dead last among candidates who actually campaigned in a primary - except this time, you can't blame it all on those Jesus freaks in Iowa. This was New Hampshire, which should have been your most fertile territory in all the early primary states. And unfortunately, it looks like "your most fertile territory" still pretty much equates to "Republicans don't like you or your message." At this point, I'd favor action by the Congressional Republican Caucus to extricate you from their ranks. There are lots of reasons for this: the fact that you were, ahem, apparently totally unaware of the racist contents of numerous eponymous newsletters (I swear, that's believable, really), the fact that you thought that the way that Pol Pot cleaned up the mess after we left Vietnam was great, the fact that you've publicly stated that we should not defend South Korea if the North Koreans attacked, the fact that you see Jack Kemp and Bob Dole as terrorists, but not the PLO, and well, we could go on and on. I think there are plenty of reasons listed above that the Republicans in Congress wouldn't want to be associated with you - and it appears that Republican primary voters are also not comfortable with you being associated with our party. And while nobody wants to kick members out of the Caucus when we're in the minority, in extreme cases, it's necessary for people to know that there's a certain level of scum we won't be associated with. Now, maybe it doesn't have to come to that. Maybe you can just recognize the obvious and declare that the antipathy is mutual and run as the Libertarian Party member that you really are. I mean, it's not exactly like it would be a new experience for you. And then, when you're done losing as a Libertarian, this time you could not come back and pretend to be a Republican again. It can all be very simple and painless, see? Look, even the anti-war Republicans have loudly proclaimed that you're not their guy, so the sooner we can stop pretending that the liberals, conspiracy theorists and other Libertarians you've got voting for you have any interest in getting a Republican elected, the better. We're saying it with our votes as loud as we can, Ron: get lost. If you need the message repeated in some different format, we're happy to oblige with that as well.

I did not watch the Democratic debate last night, as I was busy doing penance for the whole "playoffs" thing by watching Licensed to Wed with Mrs. Red Sox Republican last night. It wasn't a very good movie, but I'm betting it was better than the Donks anyway. All the buzz today, though, seems to be about Hillary's non-answer answer with respect to Elliot Spitzer's plan to defy the NY State Legislature and give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, a plan which is opposed by *72% of New Yorkers* (I'm too lazy to find a cite for this, but the Baseball Crank said it and he's never wrong, so that's good enough for me.) The nearly universal reaction, as typified by Jim Geraghty, is that her answer was tremendously bad and opened a window of opportunity. Maybe not for the Democrats, who are but gnats to her right now, but for her eventual Republican opponent, certainly.

To me, though, the real story here is something I've been saying all along: Republicans really don't need to worry about Hillary near as much as they do. She's got such high negatives that she starts from a position of vulnerability, but people assume that she'll overcome them because they're thinking that she's basically Bill. But she's not. She's not even close. She lacks his presence, his speaking ability, his political instincts, his television empathy, nada. All she has right now is name recognition and Bill's coattails - and as she hits the campaign trail, people are going to be reminded in forceful ways that Hillary is *not* Bill, and I think she's going to struggle to get the 43% of the vote that Bill got his first year, even without a significant third-party challenger.

Hillary is chewing up the Democrats right now by not making huge mistakes, and by being the person the Democrats think is most likely to win the White House, which they are desperate to do (kind of like Giuliani for the Republicans). But any reasonably competent campaigner will be able to exploit her weaknesses and defeat her.

Too excited to say anything other than... Open Thread!

With many apologies, I got caught up in doing other things, and I didn't get the open thread up until the Sox were already up 6-0! Thus far the Sox are pounding the Rocks who are playing with the aid of the home plate umpire - open thread!

Via LGF, comes this story about Stormfronter money going to Ron Paul. I'm not sure whether the Stormfronters are more or less crazy than the Alex Jones crowd that gave Paul his jumpstart in this campaign, so I'm perhaps less scandalized than others. Wonder whether Paul will keep the money?

In other news, concrete evidence surfaces that the moRons are liberals by a nearly 2:1 margin. Also, not surprising at all.

What else is there to say about Curt Schilling at this point? He looked a little wobbly in the first inning, but then gutted it out into the 6th with no further damage, which is what the team needed him to do. I think the Sox brass prefers to move on without him next year, but I hope they bring him back; I really do.

Ubaldo Jimenez was his usual electrifying self, but as he sometimes does, he went haywire in the middle innings and it cost him. Not a lot, mind you, but just enough for the Sox to take advantage. The really bad news for the Rockies is that J.D. Drew has joined the team. That makes an already tough lineup next to impossible. The question, heading in to Coors, is who do you sit: Lowell, Ortiz, or Youkilis? I know this is crazy, but I think the obvious answer here is Ortiz, given how the others are playing, and given the glaring questions about his defensive ability. Ortiz is not a bad fielder when he's healthy - with that knee, it could get ugly. The fact that this is even arguable right now indicates the strength of the Sox lineup. Nevertheless, I think that Terry Francona probably *will* sit Youkilis rather than Ortiz, at least for games 3 and 4.

Just a couple of comments about the announcing in last night's game. First, here's a brief on defense to Tim McCarver - when a ball is hit to third base that pulls the third baseman off the bag, the *shortstop* is supposed to cover third. Not the pitcher. The fact that Schilling got there *late* is testimony to the fact that he got there at *all* and makes you wonder what the hell Lugo was doing. The pitcher has two defensive responsibilities other than fielding his own position - covering first on ground balls hit to the left side, and backing up home plate on throws from the outfield. McCarver should know that. He should also know that the Rockies don't play in Mile High Stadium anymore. I was, however, proud of Buck and McCarver for learning, after 9 consecutive games of covering the Red Sox, that Okajima is better against righties than lefties. *golf clap*

I've been sick over the last couple of days, and dealing with flareups regarding the Ron Paul brouhaha. If you don't know, don't ask. So, apologies for the lack of content, but, open thread!

GO SOX!!!

I have no idea why Mike Huckabee isn't getting hammered on this worse than Mitt Romney ever did. Huckabee's positions on immigration, as recent as a year ago, have been well documented in various places. It is widely known that, as governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee supported state-subsidized tuition for illegal immigrants (a fascinating proposition, given that, for instance, a resident of southern Missouri could not get in-state tuition at an Arkansas college without proving legal residence in Arkansas for six months). Furthermore, he vociferously opposed a bill that would have required verified identification before voting and denied taxpayer-funded benefits and services to illegal aliens. Furthermore, Mike Huckabee supported President Bush's immigration bill that was decried as "amnesty" by opponents of illegal immigration. But Mike Huckabee went quite a bit beyond aggressively defending government subsidization of illegal immigrants, he openly questioned the Christianity of those who opposed him, and implied that they were racists:

Gov. Mike Huckabee on Thursday heaped criticism upon immigration legislation in the Arkansas Legislature, describing it as "inflammatory . . . race-baiting and demagoguery." He also challenged the Christian values of its main sponsor.

Huckabee said the bill, seeking to forbid public assistance and voting rights to undocumented immigrants, "inflames those who are racist and bigots and makes them think there's a real problem. But there's not."

The bill is modeled after Proposition 200, approved by Arizona voters in November. The Arkansas measure was filed by Republican Sens. Jim Holt of Springdale and Denny Altes of Fort Smith.

Huckabee, also a Republican and a Baptist minister, said Arkansans should be welcoming hard-working immigrants of all races. He singled out Holt, who often talks of his strong Christian beliefs, saying, "I drink a different kind of Jesus juice. My faith says don't make false accusations against somebody.

"In the Bible, it's called don't bear false witness."

In response, Holt said he was hurt by the governor's questioning his faith.

          "I just want to uphold the law and protect the benefits that apply to citizens," Holt said.

Now, it so happens that I'm pretty liberal on immigration, and I don't always care for some of the rhetoric of my brethren who are more conservative on this issue. I don't, however, think that those who are on the other side are racists, or automatically jump to the conclusion that a lot of them are racists. Huckabee's entitled to come to that conclusion, I guess, but he ought to expect a reaction from questioning people's motives that way for no apparent reason.

What I wonder, though, is how Huckabee goes before the FRC and gives a speech and talks like Tom Tancredo - "We don't need amnesty or anything like it! We need to enforce the laws!" and people cheer and nobody bats an eye over the fact that Huckabee has a record of being the candidate in the field most opposed to enforcing the immigration laws of this country. Nobody wonders why he doesn't tell the folks at the FRC that it's un-Christian to oppose taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal immigrants, or that it's racist to ask people to show a legal ID before they vote. And, I haven't been following him on the stump in Iowa, but I learned about Iowans that they are pretty monolithically immigration hard-liners, so I'll bet he's not calling all of *them* un-Christian racists, either.

Now again, this is not *my* ox that's getting gored, here, so maybe I shouldn't care. I know that when Mitt Romney came trying a similar trick on life issues, we were immediately suspicious, and Mitt never even called us un-Christian racists for being pro-life, or supporting pro-life measures. So I'm kind of wondering, what gives for the immigration hardliners? Are you prepared to accept this blatant pandering without serious question? The only thing I can figure is that maybe you haven't heard the "I'll still respect you in the morning" line as often as we pro-lifers have? And furthermore, why isn't anyone else - the media, other candidates, etc. - taking him to task on this?

I dunno, maybe it's just that Mitt isn't in the best position to throw stones on this particular issue, but if I were Mitt, I'd be upset that Huckabee is getting a pass while every time someone mentions an unnamed candidate with "multiple positions" everyone automatically hears "Mitt Romney" in their heads; meanwhile, everyone seems to just accept that today's Mike Huckabee is just the same as last year's Mike Huckabee on immigration, which just isn't true.

Which Dice-K will show up tonight?

With the exception of Game 2, most of the games in this series have not really been close. I think this is going to be a crazy game. Open thread.