[Alberta's Child]

How can you possibly say that you're "interested in results" when you have no idea what the results are going to be if Rudy Giuliani were to be elected to the White House?

Do you reserve this illogic for those two, or do you apply it as well to folks like William F. Buckley, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage?

I don't know Buckley and Coulter well enough to comment on that, but I do know that Sean Hannity is a marginal conservative at best -- and I've taken a lot of grief for pointing out that Michael Savage is one of the biggest frauds in the media today.

[One-Four-Five]

You don't make any sense. You're trying to tell us that seeing someone elected whose accomplishments are miniscule in comparison is more conducive to desirable results?

I don't agree, but regardless, you are clinging to this implausible notion of Podhoretz as a quasi-Marxist.

I've been reading this guy for years. I'm still waiting for you to produce an example of his political philosophy that resembles Marxism in any way, but I suspect I'll be waiting for quite some time.

That you don't know enough about Ann Coulter to dismiss the thought of her as a quasi-Marxist out of hand is among the more enlightening tidbits of wisdom you've dropped into this thread.

It's quite amusing, really.

[George W. Bush]

William F. Buckley, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage

I found this list strange. As though they're even comparable.

Buckley is the godfather of American conservatives. Bar none.

Coulter, a flamboyant columnist. Hannity, a radio/TV guy with a limited bag of tricks. Savage, the most rabid and far-out of the major right-wing radio personalities.

To include Buckley with the others is just odd. Besides, he's retired.