You could write an article about the Miami Dolphins potential comeback next year, but that a huge difference from a comeback actually occurring.

You said "back in 2003"?!? How r we supposed to verify that? C'mon you're jerking our chain!

If the old Tacitus site were up, you could search for it in the comments there. That's one of the several places I made the comment.

I'm surprised by your statement that al Qaeda is making a comeback.

Do a Google search for "al Qaeda comeback."

I'm surprised by your statement that al Qaeda is making a comeback. Things are bleak for them in Iraq, their stated central front. They've lost men, money, logistics, intelligence, etc. They are looking more and more like they have been defeated and humiliated by a combination of Americans and locals.

Pakistan has moved into Swat, with current (and admittedly of limited reliability) reports positive.

Afghanistan certainly isn't great, but that is partially a result of al Qaeda leaving Iraq and refocusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I can certainly be accused of wearing rose colored glasses, but you seem to be wearing an arc welding mask.

You've been kicked (a good thing) - Trackback from ConservativeKicks.com...

You said "back in 2003"?!? How r we supposed to verify that? C'mon you're jerking our chain!

LOL jk

He’s right, I think, that running against Bush is a poor strategy. Bush isn’t on the ballot and the choice is among those who are.

Of course, Republican nominees and Republican presidents have never run against prior Democratic presidents.

... Bush’s approval ratings are moving in a positive direction.

This, of course, is a false statement.

It would be foolish for any of the Republican candidates to run on a platform of “as close as you can get to a third Bush term.”

And, it would be equally foolish for the Democratic nominee not to run heavily against Bush as he is only merely hated by independents.

After 8 years of a president, who has an approval rating in the mid-30s, any candidate of the opposition party would be a fool not to tie his opponent to the incumbent administration and run against both.

Any candidate of the incumbent party would be a fool not to run against the president, or at least clearly establish distance.

Rove is after his own buzz, sure, but he is also working still for Bush (unofficially of course). What he is doing here is some legacy spade work.

The Washington Times, incidentally, has exactly the same function as Rove.

And yet, that's exactly what Romney and Giuliani have been doing.

My question is why, all of a sudden, is Karl all over the place?

He's a pundit now rather than a behind-the-scenes operative. His job now is to create buzz for himself. Before, it was to make his boss look good.

My question is why, all of a sudden, is Karl all over the place? This is a guy who would rarely engage the media in his official capacity. Sure, he may have more "freedom" now to make his views on things known.

But it seems like he's trying to dole out his wisdom in the press in an attempt to get hired by some campaign. The fact that he is being treated as "damaged goods" by the current Republican field of presidential candidates suggests that he is in a state of desperation.