Ah, now we may perhaps begin. I suspect that only the fiercest sense of public service, combined with the essential nature of the post, can lure a suitable person to the Badministration these days—Bernanke at the Fed comes to mind as possibly such a hero—however, don’t forget our need to insult and humiliate the qualified whenever possible, as by passing over them noisily. I mean really, would there not have been someone more obviously qualified than Brownie, slightly refurbished reputation and all, willing to take the political risk in exchange for a shot at making something of FEMA? (Come to think of it, I’d like to see the three-ring circus that did result in Ben Bernanke and not, say, the twins fourth-grade math tutor, being named as the new Fed Chairman.)

Elsewhere, … change your routine for a few days and things around here really get to jumping. Congratulations on the great posts and comments of late.

I’m pretty sure this is not a “vetting problem.†Who, exactly, could they vet that would agree with the administration’s policy prescriptions and adopt their rhetoric, who would also be supported by the American public? Anyone with a clue (O’Neil, Clarke, Powell, Whitman, etc.) has fled the intellectual and moral bankruptcy the Republican movement currently represents. Their “best and brightest†are people like Dick Cheney, Condi Rice and Donald Rumsfeld, for God’s sake. They have a vacuousness problem.

I think that it’s important that we not lose sight of the miniscule number of actual adherents to the governing ideology we are experiencing, thanks to Republican power. The neoconservatives are a very small number of ideologues and few Americans would agree with Bill Kristol’s vision of the use of American military might in the world if he were to publicly articulate it. Likewise the, “drown [government] in the bathtub,†ideology of Grover Norquist, which animates U. S. tax policy.

Bush’ own (secret) vision (and that of like minded modern robber-barons) of a radically de-regulated world for multi-national corporations is rejected even among business elites who understand how desperately the rule of law and regulation are needed for markets to work. Now would be the perfect moment to ask Republicans if they don’t think that government is needed to protect the markets and the public from corporate excess. Shouldn’t corporations that make $ billions in America have to pay taxes here? Is the market really working for people if the CEOs of failed and corrupt corporations are being paid 1,000 times more than hard-working teachers, nurses and policemen? Do we want an economy and a society based upon buying things from other countries with money we borrow from them?

Only Evangelical social conservatism is widely understood and favored by large numbers of Americans. But it is rejected by the majority of Americans and, perhaps, even by a majority of the Republican coalition itself. In any event, it is more political tool than governing ideology. “Should we have religious leaders like James Dobson determine U.S. law†is a question that no Republican wants to be asked.

The fact is, Republicans have succeeded by obscuring and otherwise deceiving the public about their motives and goals and the impossible contradictions posed by libertarians, social conservatives, neoconservatives and traditional conservatives, in the same governing coalition, proves it. It wouldn’t hurt, as Democrats are painting Republicans as the party that hates government, to keep asking Republicans what in the hell they are trying to accomplish as they turn the world against us, bankrupt the treasury and pass the scorched earth and the bill to our children.