Say Yes to Dr. No!

So it may finally be time.

It may well be that with Hillary's presidential hopes fading, the Republican Unification team is having to turn to Plan B.

There's no one who can unite the Red States in hatred the way Hillary Clinton can. But if anyone comes close, it would have to be The New York Times.

What the Republicans actually hate is not he New York Times, but the The New York Times Editorial Page. The Times is a huge (some would say monolithic) newspaper, of which about 2 pages are devoted to editorials. It is these 2 little pages that Republicans love to rail against. But even the steady minded right-wingers get confused sometimes and think that the editorial page and the rest of the newspaper are the same thing. They're not.

In fact, there is a pretty convincing firewall between the newsroom and the editorial page. The two departments are not in contact with each other it all. This is, of course, necessary to ensure objectivity in reporting, and freedom of expression/opinion in editorializing.

Cross-contamination would wash away any kind of journalistic standard of integrity, and with it, the fabric of our democracy. That's not entirely an overstatement. Go read the papers in Venezuela, Russia, and China from the journalists who are not in prison, and you'll see an extreme example. A less extreme example would be what passes as news on cable television in this country.

But still, for most newspapers, the Times included, the firewall would appear to be absolute (read the elaboration by Richard Stevenson of the Times on this page). And this week, some high-level reporting emerged from the newsroom describing a discrepancy between John McCain's highly touted moral positions and a set of questionable actions and associations in his past. Particular attention is being drawn to one attractive, younger lobbyist, whose recurring presence at McCain events aroused concerns in his staff that if nothing romantic were going on between then, it at least did not appear that way.

The response against the article has been intense and overwhelming, and much of it has focused, errantly, on the Times's alleged Liberal Bias. So again to mention the firewall- that the 'Liberal' part comes from the opiners and not from the reporters who were the ones in charge of uncovering this story.

But for war waging purposes, everyone is fair game, and a full fledged attack, successful or not, against a perceived enemy (guilty or not) looks like the best way to bring the far right on board with John McCain - and also to give cover to those who vehemently opposed him (like Limabugh & Co.) to turn coat and back McCain as a victim of the Liberal Media Establishment.

Also if the claims against him turn out to be true, at least he'll have irrational anger on his side.

Whatever the purpose, the Republicans and the Times seem set up to go to war (read that sentence again for the second entendre). If the Times loses (and it can't because it will always be reporting even about how it lost), it'll be overtime and a last minute scramble for the Right Wing radio crazies to discredit anything they choose to. But if McCain loses, as his Brokeback Buddy David Brooks even admitted, his career is over. By outright denying any impropriety, McCain will have straight-talked his way into a corner from which he can not emerge. He will be finished.

And now here comes the silver lining (for those of you who might have thought a cloud was developing above).

There are only two Republican candidates left in the race besides McCain- Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul.

It may well be that Mike Huckabee will become President as an Act of God. A McCain implosion at this point would certainly look like the work of the Almighty from Huck's point of view. And for those of you waiting for the end of days in 2012, Mike would almost certainly deliver.

While George W. Bush has done great things for Secularism in recent years (the way Hillary has done great things for Conservatism), the focused power of intention behind modern American Christianity really should not be underestimated. If government is the reflection of the will of the people, then it remains to be seen if George Bush has delivered enough of a blow to faith based politics that the people don't still desire to have God's Left Tenant as their president.

But if we don't, the Republicans offer an even more unlikely candidate than Mike Huckabee. A man even more humble, more honest, and more clear about what he stands for politically. A man who knows the power of getting out of the way to make things happen rather than sticking his nose in and mucking things up. A man whose polices leave room for the higher purpose served by Mike Huckabee as well as the one served by Neil de Grasse Tyson. A man who looks like he wouldn't know how to turn on a computer but who has nonetheless raised tens of millions of dollars over the internet without doing anything at all. A Texas Republican who is backed by Liberals in California and Massachusetts. A guy who can get endorsed by Pat Robertson and still be adored by Left-Wingers around the country (talk about crossing partisan divides!). A guy I back 100% even though he's a medical doctor. And let's face it, he's the only guy who makes any kind of sense about anything- and actually, about everything.

Ron Paul for President 2008. Enough Already. When it comes to government, less is more.