[Gay State Conservative]

You are too invested in proving the imperfection of the analogy to realize the validity of it in part.

I didn't reject the analogy as being completely invalid,just noticeably flawed...as previously noted.

The article was mainly about the coke-new coke part of the equation from the POV of the coke fans. On that point, the analogy does hold.

Got it.

Now, whether either will overtake the “free” Pepsi is a related topic, but not the point of the article. That won’t be the main issue until first the “coke v new coke” discussion is settled.

Ah,but that's where you're wrong.I do understand that new vs old coke is the main theme of this piece but the importance of that pales in comparison to the question "how do we run against Santa Claus?". Except,perhaps,for the "Romney was a Commie atheist" crowd,a crowd which,although Romney wasn't my first (or even third) choice,I absolutely refused to pal around with.

So the analogy isn’t perfect, but again, on the main point, the immediate point, it is valid.

The analogy,as far as it goes,is very worthy of consideration *after* the Santa Claus issue is resolved.On this vital issue we place the cart before the horse here at the nation's peril.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Ah,but that's where you're wrong.I do understand that new vs old coke is the main theme of this piece but the importance of that pales in comparison to the question "how do we run against Santa Claus?

First, I enjoy the give and take we are having. Second, I would only say that while you are right, the ultimate battle is us versus Santa Claus -- However, not every single conversation, or article, will address that. Nor should it.

I bet the writer of this article would agree with you on that - but I take the article on the face value of what it was about: which was only the battle from the POV of Coke drinkers. It is intellectually flawed to assume every article will address every issue. They will not, and they cannot.

FWIW, Rush jsut more or less agreed with me on air...