For starters, that there weren't five guys inside the house standing there trying to quietly hold a big screen TV without dropping it.

"Could have become" obvious ... didn't because Gates is a grandstanding (and quite possibly from the available info demented) asshole. Who would likely have been tazed, cuffed, and dragged to the car pissing on himself if he had been a white redneck living in a trailer.


If you think trying to thoroughly investigate a possible burglary report is "exceptional police powers" then you must have some incredibly shitty cops.

Sadly though, we know now that this was a losing proposition for the cops who answered the call from the get-go. If they do their job, they get blasted by the racists from the White House all the way down. But if they don't investigate it thoroughly, then they would doubtless be accused by the same group of racists & white guilters of not being interested in crimes against blacks.

I gotta tell you though, if I'm a burglar in the area, I'm just waiting for the reporters to leave the yard before I hit that house. What cop in their right mind would give the house much more than a quick drive-by on a call to that address?

Sometimes in college you need to find large amounts of beer for very little money. In upstate NY, molson was often the best option, at least in the stores that didn't sell Utica Club Draft.

No one's claimed he searched the residence. Those five guys could have still been there.

God help him if he had tried to do a truly thorough search, look what happened when he dared to cross the threshold of the poor widdle downtwodden bwack man's door.

More seriously though, until he deals with the raving blithering nutjob in front of him, he can't do a room by room search anyway. That's asking to get attacked from behind & no cop in the world should ever be that stupid.

If the cops get a 911 call of a break-in, they're going in to check it out if identity isn't established at the door (after a knock and announce).

That's true regardless of the city, state, race of officer, race of anyone at the scene, economic status of neighborhood, etc.

If you a have a problem with that as a general policy that's fine, but this isn't something this officer made up on the spot

So entering the home didn't accomplish anything useful.

Sure, not in this case. 95% of officer's actions don't accomplish anything useful. They check so then can help in the 5% of situations where they're needed.

Only because of the obstruction by the (eventually determined) homeowner.

Which is what Gates ought to be prosecuted for, obstruction (or the equivalent wording under locally applicable law).

More facts come out!

The Audacity of Hops - Political Punch


At least he isn't foisting his bad beer choice on them :mad:
Crowley and Gates both made decent choices (I prefer Blue Moon over Red Stripe, but that's probably because I'm a subconcious racist or something :cool: )

God I hate it when I agree with you, Jon. :)

To many pages to dig through, but my friend just sent me this...the ACLU created this one.

Ordering Pizza in 2012
hxxp://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

Red Stripe's a decent beer (especially with some lime), and I do like Blue Moon in the summer. Call me deeply disappointed by Obama's beer choice, though. Frankly, I regret voting for him now.

:D

Imagine the hilarity that would have ensued if Obama had picked a Kenyan beer. :D

Or even better, a non-alcoholic Kenyan beer.

That's it. I've fully supported Obama this whole time in everything that he is done. But drinking Bud Light is just going too far.

I thought he said he was going to get everybody together for a beer. Not beer-flavored water.

Impeach Obama!

Hell, Bud isn't even American anymore. It was bought out by Belgian/Brazilian InBev last year! :mad:

I will be donating money to Harry Reid's opponent in 2010.

I don't know what all you hippies are complaining about. Since Obama's picked Bud Light, I've come to realize that he's a regular joe, just like me. Now it all makes sense. I've been so foolish.

I'll send you the pony he gave me, then. It's tainted to me, now.

Good choice. Drink Bud Light. Beer snobs are insufferable.

If he'd picked anything else, I'm sure he would've been called "elitist". :)

I like how this is reported in big letters as breaking "political" news

SI

Asshattery is still not against the law. I often wish it was, but it's not. Gates is a douchebag no doubt, but he didn't break any laws. Sometimes the best thing to do when an old crazy guy is spouting off is to laugh and walk away.

Listen, I just pulled a link from Drudge. I thought that link covered the story pretty well (it said he had been suspended). It wasn't meant to hide anything as the page was filled with more detailed links to the story. It was just a link I saw on Drudge and didn't go through the rest of the stories to post them.

I don't have 100% hatred toward any cops. Most of them are real good guys. I was the best man at a Wisconsin State Troopers wedding a few years back. You are the one who believes that if you criticize a cop, you must hate them all. My gripe with them is that they protect one another too much instead of rooting out the 1% of them who shits on their image. A perfect example would be this story from Miami.

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-b...ter-Crash.html

I also have a much different history than you. My aunt was murdered by her husband and two police officers. The officers had enough pull to literally halt the investigation for many years and cover-up the murder. This was a huge story in the Chicago area many years ago and was made into multiple books and a TV movie on NBC. When you grow up with that in your life, it gives you a different perspective. You see the power they yield and what they can do if they choose to. It's why I'm so adamant about getting bad cops out and having the good ones rat on them. When the FBI had to station people outside our home because they thought the cops would do us harm, you don't grow up with the sunny image you seem to have.

Bullshit. He interfered with a police officer in the performance of their duties and that's a crime in every jurisdiction I've ever dealt with, it's hard to imagine that even in Cambridge that isn't the case.

He didn't interfere in anything according to the police report. He was arrested for yelling as the officer walked away outside after concluding his investigation. There is nothing in the report that states anything about interfering with his duties.

Where are you getting your information from?

That's a crime, as discussed earlier, c272 S53, MA Code. One can reasonably argue that the officer could have looked the other way, or just issued a citation, or can disagree with Supreme Court precedent that any crime is arrestable, but if you yell at anyone in public, officers included, particularly if it's in this type of manner (yelling about racism), it's a crime. People are arrested ALL the time for being disorderly, usually, as in this case, after multiple warnings. Only a portion of those cases involve yelling at officers. Not every incident of disorderly conduct involves an arrest of course, but officers aren't required to arrest everyone or nobody of any crime. If you go to a Walmart tonight, or the street outside your house, and start yelling at someone, calling them racist, yelling about their 'mama, telling them they don't know who they're messing with - you'll get arrested if there's a cop nearby, and you ignore his warnings to knock it off.

I'm pretty much on the page here with Molson. The cop's behavior was in bounds. Gates' not so much. Gates didn't have to be arrested for yelling at the cops and dishing out abuse, but once you cross a certain line your behavior becomes susceptible to arrest. Gates crossed that line.

For his trouble the cop at least gets to meet the President, and have a beer and a shit sandwich at the White House.

Charges were dropped though. Obviously the DA feels a bit differently about his chances in court.

Do you really believe it had anything to do with "his chances in court"?

The DA simply took the politically correct route & proved himself to be a chickenshit that wasn't willing to accept the whining that would go along with doing his job.

God forbid people yell. Do you suggest we arrest everyone at a college football game? Everyone who yells at the guy who cut them off? The guy is a loudmouth blowhard. Who gives a shit? He wasn't hurting anyone and the community wasn't any safer for the arrest.

Cops and DAs should go after real criminals. Not a guy who's pissed off that cops demanded identification so he could be in his own house.

I think it had to do with both and that was why it was a no-brainer. When I was in college I got arrested for disturbing the peace and I was really actually disturbing the peace. And the DA didn't think it was worth the time or money to press charges. There's no doubt though that the threat of negative PR made the decision all the easier for the DA is this case.

once again - they had no proof that it was his house at the time the yelling began

I'm pretty bummed out about the Bud Light. I wish Hillary had won now.

Most criminal charges end up getting dropped.

Yelling at a football game doesn't fall under that statute, IMO, because you're not being "disorderly", you're acting appropriately for where you are. But yes, obviously everyone who commits that crime isn't arrested, very few are. That's very common with low-level offenses. I actually believe, as I stated a few pages ago, that state legislatures need to make these disturbing the peace/disorderly conduct statutes more specific, so officers have more guidance and less discretion as to what conduct is covered. But the thing is, the legislatures (through the people), LIKE the fact that cops have so much discretion. Generally, the people want officers to use their gut instincts, their knowledge of the streets, to use their discretion in a wise way. But once there's discretion, there will ALWAYS be disagreement about how officers use it, no matter what. I think officers, in general, want to have less discretion - they'd rather the arrest decision be black and white, easy, someone else's call.

They arrested him while they were leaving and had already verified it was his place. Some of you guys need to read the arrest report.

That doesn't mean that they weren't legitimate, just not worth pursuing.

This has nothing to do with what DT said.

Wow, according to a Research 2000 poll 28% of Republicans believe Obama wasn't born in the U.S. Now I understand why Congressional Republicans are so reluctant to engage the issue directly.

I REALLY need a new party :(

Wasn't the left side going after McCain being born a US-born citizen? Both parties do the same thing.

I also like the governor of Texas fighting D.C. over health care with secession.

I don't think it was pushed real hard on the left. I mean the Obama birther movement has stretched to top politicians in Washington and many of the mouthpieces that fuel the party.

I'm sure the left has some odd factions inside, but the fact the birther movement has gotten so mainstream in the Republican party is pretty sad.

Then begging the CDC to send flu vaccines when H1N1 broke.

It's a little different. McCain was quite clearly born in the Panama Canal Zone and the question of whether or not he could be President was more one of legal technicalities, as summarized here: McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out - New York Times

Obama's birth certificate has now become a matter of record, with copies posted all over the internet and verified by countless people. The 28% of Republicans who don't think he was born in the U.S. just think he's just lying about the validity of this official document, even when it's been confirmed valid by the proper authorities.

The original birth certificate has never been released. If that was a case with a Republican, there'd be similar controversy.

And what's the latest numbers about how many Democrats think 9/11 was an inside job?

I looked it up, 35% of Dems think Bush knew of 9/11 ahead of time, which I think would qualify as an "inside job":

Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

While the "truthers" exist, that poll isn't a good gauge. Asking whether Bush knew in advance means a lot of things to people. Is it he knew the exact plan that would take place? Or that he simply knew there was a threat to fly planes into buildings? There were those in the CIA who felt that was a very credible threat and had briefed high level officials about that.

Asking whether 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush administration would be a better poll.

This seems to me to be a great chance for us all to hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and admit that both Birthers and Truthers are fucking crazy.

It is kind of odd that the debate is whether there's more birthers or truthers, when there's no birthers or truthers here.

It's just something about the Democrats' superority complex that annoys me. Maybe it's because I'm closer to them than Republicans in demographics and some views. So goofy Republicans are just goofy. Goofy liberals should know better, and then are thus somehow worse.

Everyone has to think their side is better than the other side.

Here is the primary difference in my mind. Both sides have a lot of fucking loons. Birthers, truthers, nazis, anarchists, etc. I think the difference though is that the Republican Party in this era has given some of those loons more credibility over the last few years.

We've seen many top Republican politicians give the birther movement legs. The top voices in the party have been pushing the argument as well. While the truthers was always a retarded movement pushed on crappy blogs and forums, the birther movement seems much more mainstream.

It used to be the other way around with the parties. Can you imagine the party giving any credibility to the birther movement in Reagan's days? He would have shut that shit down fast.

Exhibit B, Cindy Sheehan.

You really think she's mainstream Democrat once she went crazy? I mean she ran against Nancy Pelosi for her House seat.

I think the big difference is the number of sponsors for the so-called Birther bill as well as the number of reps and Senators that have publicly stated they think the birthers have a point. I'm not as interested in the number of birthers as I am the effect of those birthers on elected officials.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that there are lots of problems with the Democrats.

I STILL DON'T GET WHY THE REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT TO FIX THEIR PARTY.

Birthers are stupid and wrong. Birthers are bad for this country. Birthers keep people with the ability to apply logic to facts and reach conclusions from taking the GOP seriously.

So, even assuming that there are lots of Truthers and Michael Moore worshipers on the Democratic side, WHY DOES THAT MATTER? Why wouldn't the GOP still want to get its own house in order for the good of the party?

It's like a team with a horrible defensive line refusing to improve it "because the other team has a horrible WR core." It makes no sense.

If you want to win arguments on FOFC, then spend your time attacking Democrats. OK. You win the great FOFC debates of 2009. Our grandkids are still going to live under socialized medicine because FOFC isn't part of the electoral college.

If you want to win elections and actually let your ideas become law, then spend your time attacking the assholes and nutjobs in your party and getting confidence in your brand back.

Tell the Birthers to shut-the-fuck-up. Demand that your elected officials put out a comprehensive health care plan so we can all get behind it instead of just falling into the "party of NO" stereotype.

I'm a liberal, and even I'm getting a bit tired of what the Dems are doing and what they are failing to do. BUT I DON'T HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE TO GO TO. Unless I want to rant along with Sarah about the Media, or Glenn about Obama's racism, or the Birthers about how far up my own ass my head can go, I see no place for me at the GOP table.

Why, I guess this all comes down to, don't you want my vote?

Dola:

Like, why won't a smart guy with some clout--thinking here of maybe Newt--just flatly say that the Birthers are wrong, that they are bad for Democracy, and that he sees no place for them when the country has so many real problems to confront.

Start leading the country instead of following the rump.

I think there's probably some fear of running into a Gingrey/Steele vs. Limbaugh situation where they'd be forced to apologize later.

Well, maybe that needs to happen. A guy with nothing could not stand up to Rush. But Gingrich? Its not like he lacks conservative bona fides.

I don't think there's any Republicans that use that as justifications. The reason Republicans don't speak out more against the extreme is not because that Democrats don't. It's the same reasons that Democrats don't speak out against their fringes - they need the votes and money.

The comparison with Democrats come more, I think, from people in the middle seeing the Democrats bitch about the other party while ignoring their own failings. Why don't they speak out on Michael Moore? That fringe is why I don't want to associate with Democrats or vote for them. (Same with Republicans). Both parties have pretty horrible associations in my mind.

Seriously molson, do you have anything else to say? It seems like 90% of your posts in political threads are about how "oh, but the Democrats did that too", "you liberals were criticizing Bush/Palin/xxxx for doing the same thing", "where were you guys when Bush....".

Let's just assume that you will post that in response to every comment made by a liberal, so you won't have to waste your time actually typing it out anymore. Hopefully, the time saved will allow you to actually provide some original thought on the point being made.

90% of my posts? Can you back that up?

Otherwise, shut up. I've just skimmed over your incredible recent contributions to FOFC. What do you think you bring to the table that's so great?

I'm just trying to inject a little sanity into the liberal ballwashing at FOFC. If you start a "larrymch42's opinions only" thread, I promise to stay out of it. I assumed this thread was open to anyone

Eh, Gingrich (who still has his solid moments IMO) has enough problems that his bona fides aren't strong enough to overcome a whole lot.

Again, the difference is elected officials. I don't know if the number of crazies is equal and I don't much care. All I'm worried about is the effect of the fringe on those in office. What worries me about the recent incarnation of the GOP is that the crazies have way too much influence over the decision makers. Some of that's the natural tendency of a smaller party, but the crazies are also encouraged at every level of GOP politics.

The truthers/birthers comparison actually makes that point fairly well. Democratic politicians weren't running out to validate the truthers, but GOP politicians are doing just that.

I'm not going to ever be apart of the GOP, but I do think a strong, rational opposition party is important in a two party system like ours. I'd love to see rational arguments and counter proposals that would moderate the party in power, but the GOP elected officials are spending too much time placating the birthers and tea party whackos.

Who's the most prominent republican office-holder that has claimed that Obama is not an citizen? I'm not disputing that any of them have, I just haven't heard it about it at that level.

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, apparently a bill was drawn up in the House requiring a birth certificate be produced as part of Presidential paperwork and co-sponsored by 10 GOP Representatives while Senator Coburn from Oklahoma said he would support it, if it got there (which it won't).

I don't think it's going out on a limb to say that was to support this nonsense.

Tho, yes, they didn't openly claim he was not a citizen.

SI

Movement to impeach George W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Equivalence?

Sen. Inhofe:

Sen. Blunt:


There are at least 11 House GOP cosponsors to the so-called Birther Bill that would require a candidate to show a birth certificate.

There are also Dem birthers, as the craze may have started with the PUMAs, but no Dem politician that I have seen has endorsed those views.

I think Obama's a citizen, but I would support that bill. Why shouldn't Obama be required to produce his birth certificate? Why shouldn't every presidential candidate? That seems like a no-brainer.

Yeah, they've all left themselves an out by saying it's really just to make sure rumors like this don't start again. Coburn openly stated that Obama is eligible to be President.

The defensive line needs to improve, no doubt. My big argument is always that we constantly hear about how bad the defensive line is but we never hear about the lack of WR's. Why does ESPN care so much about my defensive line and not your WR weakness? The best analogy from here then is gamblers then are betting on the team with no problems. When that teams fucks up and can't score, everybody feels duped. ESPN should be reporting both teams weaknesses so we have all the facts.

No, because impeachment has just become an extreme form of political speech. There are plenty of calls to impeach Obama that I wouldn't classify as crazy. Certainly for some of the birthers this is just another form of extreme political posturing, but when you see videos it seems that there are plenty of people that believe the certificate of live birth, the newspaper notifications, etc. are all faked. The way Congressmen are playing to that crowd is disturbing.

Largely because the birth certificate doesn't solve anything. Would Obama still be a natural born citizen if he was born in Kenya to an American mother? What about a child born in Europe during a vacation? Congress said McCain was, but that's never been clearly established either. Natural born has never been clearly defined so using a birth certificate as the sole means of proof is very problematic. It's actually a very thorny question that could likely only be settled at the Supreme Court level.

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.: Asked about the president's eligibility at an Alabama town hall meeting back in February, Shelby said, "Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate. You have to be born in America to be president."

Because the birthers are still a strong part of the base. National Review came out the other day and said that birthers were bad for the party and to get over it. They were torn apart and had tons of people threaten to cancel subscriptions. A couple days later they had to put this out to calm things down.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...DMzZjZlYTVmZmU=

I'm a small government guy who would love to see our country gain some fiscal restraints. But the Republican Party is fucked man. Check out a Sarah Palin rally or read some of their sites like Free Republic. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and there is no one in the party at this time who is strong enough to lock them back up.

There's definitely grey areas with citizenship. The existence of grey areas, though, doesn't seem like an adequate justification to say, "no, you can't have my birth certificate".

Some would still challege the citizenship even if the original certificate was produced by Hawaii, no doubt. That doesn't seem like a justification either.

It's like if Bush had phone records the morning of 9/11 between himself and unidentified contacts in Saudi Arabia. The recordings exist, but Bush said, "no, you can't have them, it wouldn't solve anything anyway, and you people will still think I'm involved no matter what"

You can see the certificate of live birth here:

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

You can read the Snopes page here:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...ertificate.asp

There's nothing being hidden.

Which he hasn't done. He released the copy given to him by the Hawaiian officals.


Which the Birthers still are. The Hawaiian governor (a Republican) and the head of the department that issues birth certificates have verified and validated his birth record.

Hasn't he posted his official birth certificate and even given it to the media? Hasn't the State of Hawaii come out and confirmed his birth certificate is legal and that he was born in their state?

I just don't get what the argument is about. I keep hearing about a birth certificate and from what I've seen it's out there and it's been confirmed as legit.

Right, but from what I read on the wiki site, that's not the original but the "short-form". And Hawaii claims that they would release the original to Obama or his representives if they ask, yet we haven't seen that one.

I don't think he's hiding lack of citizenship, since Hawaii has confirmed that that birth certificate exists, but I wonder if he's hiding an even more Muslim-sounding name, etc.

Careful Alice, you're starting to go down the rabbit hole. From Politifact:

All the dumbfuck conspiracy theories go the same route. Make a claim, get debunked, make another claim, get debunked, etc.

First he had no birth certificate, so he posts it. Then it's a fake certificate, so Hawaii verifies it's real. Now it's that there is a secret alternative birth certificate that claims he's a Muslim or something. If somehow they provided every document they want, it would just turn into Hawaii covering for him. No way you can win with conpiracy theorists on any issue whether it's this, moon landings, 9/11, etc.

Actually, I'd be quite satisfied with the original (long) birth certificate. If that was provided, I would not claim Hawaii was covering for him.

So you think Hawaii is covering for him?

The point was that the birther thing was far more mainstream than the truthers, and I don't buy that. I've heard a lot more about truthers than birthers, personally.

No, my point is that the birthers have more influence on elected officials.

Hawaii could be innocent here. Obama may have used the campaign funds to build a time machine and find a way to go back, sneak into the hospital on the day of his birth, and throw in a forged birth certificate with his info. I would say he could just have told his Mother he was Barack from the future and she needs to deliver him in Hawaii (not Kenya), but that may have sparked off a butterfly effect of sorts that when he transported back to present time he wouldn't be President.

CAT FIGHT!!!!!!

I don't know the numbers of birthers vs truthers. I know there are a lot of both. The issue is that you have leaders in the Republican Party giving the story credibility. Multiple Senators, bunch of representatives, and virtually all the talk show hosts that these politicians hold in high regard (and must apologize to if they disagree with).

It's akin to seeing Joe Biden and Dick Durbin giving 9/11 conspiracy nuts credibility.

Didn't we used to have a truther here? Where'd he go?

I liked how uncomfortable he made the regular liberals.

I think the birther crowd is making enough of an ass of themselves that the snopes stuff shows how asinine they are, if that was a reference to me, so IOW posting of the Snopes bit is enough for me coupled with the quotes from the people from, you know, the state and the dept. that handles it. I also admit that it doesnt matter....the people upset about losing will continue to drum up conspiracy theories. I didnt believe Bush planned 9/11 and I dont think Obama is ineligible and I think people who find themselves in either camp are showing their asses. Ive also gotten insanely busy training new hires and selling a boatload of new homes {shrug}.

That just seems like an attempt to lump them together. Most Republicans aren't birthers (and I'm not sure we can count someone who wants to see a birth certificate as a "birther"), so instead they can be criticized because "they don't speak out against them enough", or "they have influence in the party."

Who exactly are you criticizing? Birthers (fair enough, nobody disagrees), or Republicans because birthers are in the party? It sounds like Republicans are criticized as being the party of the whackos, which seems just a tad arrogant considering the beliefs of some that make up the Democrat ranks.

I have some Republican opinions on things, but I assure you I'm in no way influenced by birthers.

I'm saying that too many GOP elected officials pander to the crazies in the party and hence the party has very little to offer in terms of ideas outside of conspiracy theories and over the top lies about legislation. That critique doesn't apply to all Republicans as I think many are frustrated and/or embarrassed by what the party has become. What's the last constructive policy solution the elected GOP has offered? Instead we get Schiavo, birthers, euthanasia, Marxism, czars, etc.

Some of this is natural as the party has shrunk a great deal, and has too large of a base in one location(less than half of Southern respondents thought Obama was born in the U.S.), but a lot of this is a fear of or refusal to distance the elected officials from the crazies. Until the heat is applied to GOP elected officials to stop placating the crazies, the crazies will have a disproportionate influence in the party.

I really think it's smart on Obama's part to not release his original birth certificate. It just makes the republicans look like nut jobs with no policy to stand on.

As for myself, Obama has presented all the legal documents regarding his birth that he's required to do. These documents were upheld by the Supreme Court. Case closed.

And that's where I think that the GOP moderates and intellectuals are falling down. They are not putting that pressure on.

What are they supposed to do? It's not like this birthers thing is all over the papers.

I think they try but get blown up by the rest of the party. I mean Steele came out after taking over the GOP and made some comments about opening up the party more and so forth. He got crushed for it. Run a search on any right-leaning site for Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, and even at one time Arlen Specter. If you don't agree on every issue, you're a RINO.

Take Illinois for example. We'll have a Senate seat open in 2010. Mark Kirk will run for the Republicans and would be a great Senator. He's a smart guy, experienced, and not fucking crazy. He's not uber-conservative, but that's fine since you can't win in this state if you are. But the Republicans have shit on him for years. Run a search for Mark Kirk traitor and it's a who's who of Republican sites calling him every name in the book.

This is a party that will probably be down to 36 or 37 Senate seats come November 2010.

It is in every paper though. It's made it's way through all the cable news networks and is a major story online and on the radio.

As for what they are supposed to do. Say it's stupid, it's ridiculous and that people should move on. Treat them the same way we treat other conspiracy lunatics. You don't have top Senators in your party giving it legitimacy.

Exactly right. There are plenty of Republican moderates, but they get attacked left and right. There are a number of Republican moderates in the punditocracy, but see what the Rush's of the world are saying about David Brooks or Ross Douthat (to name the two NY Times Op-Ed writers) or Reihan Salam or, even, Megan McCain.