Such a great column - thanks for highlighting it. Just think - Santorum will be at a public event an easy commuter train ride from Seattle this evening!

@1 - There are better things to do with your time.

I responded to Kirby Wilbur's invitation by saying I would prefer if any of the local Washington State republicans who voted for ME were running for President instead as they more rightly represent 21st century America.

@2, I've never seen Santorum with glitter on top, though - just imagine!

@5 - That would be a waste of perfectly good glitter.

Of course there will be a rally downtown. I don't know all the details, but let's assume Westlake. I will be there (singing!). Come say hi, and keep your glitter clean.

Some great comments on that article - from "John": "The money masters who call the shots in the GOP let the Morlocks out of the basement with their lethal cocktail of god, guns and gays and now they've taken over the house and are burning the furniture."

@4: I've never seen Santorum with glitter on top, though - just imagine!

Then someone has never let his lust for a male stripper allow him to go through with an alley fuck outside the club after work even though he wasn't...ahem... ready for it.

The first pullquote from Krugman's article can best be summarized, by me at least, as "told you so!" Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of assholes.

Oops, to be clear, glitter santorum has never happened to me, despite how that attempt at humor may have read.

"...tinfoil hats have become a common, if not mandatory, G.O.P. fashion accessory."

Poetry.

So let's say the Dems win back the Presidency, House, and filibuster-proof majority in the Senate this November. Who's to say they won't snatch defeat from the hands of victory, giving the keys to the Asylum to the minority party and securing another defeat in 2014 like we saw in 2010?

Nice that in one of the most profound columns Krugman has ever written that Savage gets a shoutout.

@11 - Even if that happened, it wouldn't really be a fillibuster-proof Senate. There would be too many Democrats elected in conservative districts or states that would break from the party line when tough issues are debated. Despite the GOP's former rhetoric to the contrary, the Democrats have always been much more "big tent" than the Republicans, embracing differing viewpoints and allowing for more votes of conscience, while the GOP is more likely to fall in line. In general. (Tea Party may be changing that in the GOP.) I don't think it's really fair to characterize 60 Democrats in the Senate as a sure-fire filibuster-proof majority when there are folks like Ben Nelson (NE) and Joe Macnhin (WV) who will buck the party at every turn.

@11 - That said, I agree with the general premise that the Democrats sadly have a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Santorum is following exactly the fascistic footsteps of Mussolini.
Everything about him and his plans say Italian dictator. We should only wish him the same ending.

considering that they won back the house in the most recent national election, i don't thing they're "destroyed" yet. but i wish them all the luck in the world with that goal.

www.spreadingsantorum.com/ it's a good thing.

@16: The Tea Party won the house, but without the Tea Party, it's more likely Republicans would have won the Senate. In other words, the Tea Party cost the Republicans the Senate.

The idea that the RepubliKKKan party is somehow "finished" is pure fantastical wish-fulfillment. They control the US House, the Suepreem KKKort, the majority of the federal courts, the majority of governorships and state legislatures, not to mention the military, the budget, right-wing propaganda media, including television and radio, and consequently the national dialogue and political process.

The "Left" has no actual representation in US government at any significant level, except perhaps Bernie Sanders in the US Senate, and zero political power.

Indeed, even after causing a total national collapse in the last decade, the RepubliKKKan party is more powerful than ever.

The problem isn't necessarily the politicians, it's the ignorant, hate-crazed, neo-fascist, right-wing voters who keep electing them. Until we somehow get better Americans, we're going to have horrendous politicians.

Throwing "KKK" into the middle of words always ensures that your ideas will be taken more seriously.

Elsewhere, Thomas Freidman (of all people) observes:

You know how in Scrabble sometimes you look at your seven letters and you've got only vowels that spell nothing? ... You throw your letters back and hope to pick up better ones to work with. That's what Republican primary voters seem to be doing. They just keep going back to the pile but still coming up with only vowels that spell nothing.

Same column: "you can't address the great challenges America faces today with that incoherent mix". Did the original draft include the word "frothy"?

@ 20 You've criticized the style, but not the substance. The right-wing majority in this country simply has no positive agenda. All they have and all they offer are aggressive ignorance, psychopathic greed, and hatred of homos, women, and people of color.

@4: Honey, the economy HAS been picking up. And Obama doesn't even need the economy to win against the clowns that you guys are considering. No sir, he's been fixing the economy because unlike today's GOP, he cares more about the well-being of the country than his own political advancement.

#7/Agony: There were some really good comments, but the one that struck me most was this one, by reader Joe Beckmann:

"Romney's opportunism is at the expense of an entire generation and ignores the most dramatic impact of the Heritage health plan: in his state the number of new HIV/AIDS cases is down nearly 90% - indeed it might be said that Romney cured the epidemic - not the disease, but its rate of infection. Guaranteed coverage increases the rate of HIV testing; tests access earlier treatment; early treatment guarantees safer living and dramatically lower "community infectivity." Yet politics make him afraid to take credit and gags Obama from acknowledge one of the greatest 'side-effects' in medical history."

As a nurse, it should (and does, of course, in the medical sense) have made me a really happy woman. But as a citizen, I was left feeling just depressed. I'm old enough to have seen an iron lung, and to remember an aunt going door-to-door collecting change for those cardboard March of Dimes folders. As a young student nurse, I even had (probably one of the last) a polio patient. News like this sixty years ago would have been not only medical tidings of joy, but would also have inspired national attention and pride. Now, somehow, this is light to be hidden under a bushel? I just don't understand where I live anymore, and how such good news can also feel like such a slap..

@ 23 I was talking to my financial manager the other day. This is a woman who has been working in the financial sector for thirty years or more, has run her own very successful small investment firm for twenty. Kept me from losing my shirt in 2008, and made money for me last year, not all that easy a feat. So, not an ivory tower idealist, not a wild haired looney, but a solid hard headed businesswoman.

We were discussing whether it's time to dip a toe back into the American market. Her opinion was that Obama has been doing everything right when it comes to the economy, and there is starting to be tentative hope for the US economy. If a Republican gets into the White House in the fall? All bets are off.

When even their own natural constituency - money people, business people - think they'd be a disaster, that's not a good sign.

Kinda surprised at how much flack Krugman got for that article. The comments are all, "You're a crazy partisan leftist who's stooping even lower than the crazy partisan rightists". WTF?

As I read it, he was focussing on how the cynical Republican bait-and-switch/divide-and-conquer rhetorical tactics work, and how these have affected the ideology of the party. If anything he was giving free advice to the less "severely conservative" among them.

Did I miss something?

The depressing thing about this is that the American reactionary right starts out with about a quarter of the most active, committed, reliable voters in the country. Liberals or centrists or progressives can not and do not reliably turn out to vote en bloc the way that angry moron and authoritarian and evangelical conservatives do. In essence, people who favour a tolerant and open country and sane social and financial policies start each and over election about 25% in the hole before anything else is done. That's pathetic.

For example, if every student and every person under 30 voted in every election no blue Dem or hardcore GOPer could get elected in much of the country. They don't, and so the gob-botherers, data-resistant and loonies rule.

Seeker, excellent comment, and excellent point. Sometime, and the sooner the better, we have to exercise some of the same hardcore we-will-by-god vote and vote-en-masse- or-else discipline that conservatives manage so well. No matter the outcome of 2012, 2016 will roll around, and we have to plan, prepare, and act--or we will get the government we don't want.