What they're saying

Some folks of the R persuasion have slowly awakened, albeit in fits and starts, to the looming November catastrophe that seems set to engulf their little criminal enterprise.

Take, for example, Senate aspirant Michael Steele, of Maryland. Steele complained to the Washington Post that his party 'R' was akin to a scarlet letter; that letter being, perhaps, a blazing W.

Others, including Allen in Virginia and Burns in Montana, stress their ability to deliver pork - mounds of it - to their constituents. Not a word about small government and all that jazz of yesteryear.

But the prize for today goes to a writer on Nazional Review, who posted this on his contribution to the war on terror Democrats, in response to an earlier op-ed piece that had heretically claimed that the armed forces were of greater consequence than the fighting keyboarders:

There is a war of arms. And there is a war of ideas. They are not just inter-related, they are interdependent. They are equally consequential.

…Let’s take just one example: In the 1930s, Churchill fought a war of ideas. He tried to warn the world about Hitler; tried to warn Europe and America that Hitler’s hatred and ambition had to be checked. But most people did not listen. Churchill’s ideas did not prevail. They called Churchill a “war monger.”

…So yes, Kathryn, you are fighting a war. And your e-mailer is ignorant about how wars are fought, about how wars are won and lost, and about the way the world actually works.

Chickenhawks, rejoice! Your keyboard-pounding is Churchillian! Meanwhile, the rest of us, who already know that Rs just don't get it, can rest secure in knowing we are right in that assessment.