I suspect his message will play well there for quite a while.  So, if that's all he aspires to, he's in good shape.

Not so for the national GOP scene.

Anita Hill for Solicitor General?

Hmmm.  Howz 'bout a few photo ops eating Freedom Fries at McDonald's?

Cultural Conservatism, for one.  Start with xenophobia (gay bashing, immigrant bashing, residual racism) and throw in a helping of anti-abortion activism.

Fiscal Conservatism certainly isn't in the mix.  Well, maybe if you count replacing tax-and-spend with borrow-and-spend as Fiscal Conservatism, it is.  But really, that's one of the things that's tarnished their brand.  That and the discrediting of their laissez-faire anti-regulation ideology.

Foreign-Policy Conservatism?  Seems like that boils down to bluster and swagger for them.  Unilateralism combined with U.N. bashing.  Sanford would likely want to keep that in the mix.

It'll be interesting to see how the GOP sorts things out.  I expect to see two years of anarchy followed by two years of shake-out based on the 2010 mid-terms.  Until then, I don't forsee any consensus emerging among them about what they want to be.

Thanks for sparing me the wasted time of reading it :-)

So, who is it he wants to exclude from the GOP?  Who perpetrated the tarnishing of the Conservative brand?  It sure as hell wasn't the moderates.

OMFG!  The sky will have been falling!  Yep, very, very trippy.

Maybe he decided to let each prospective appointee decide for him/herself about those future political implications?

BO:  Hi, Janet.  Look, you're the best person for the job, but we can't offer it to you.  We need you to run for Senator in 2010.

JN:  You dumb shit.  OK, how about if I resign my Governorship right now and retire from politics?

BO:  Oh!  That works out great!  OK, you've got the job.

I mean, it's not as if Napolitano can't run for the Senate in 2010 after she's done a fair job straightening out Homeland Security.

Nah.  If nothing else, Tweety is a one-man filibuster.  They don't do filibuster in the House.

Seems weird?  Insufficient cynicism!

There's a Cold War history there.  Pakistan was allied with the US and India with the USSR.  Lots of neocons are sufferers of the Cold War withdrawal syndrome.

Plus, it's a lot easier to deal with a dictator (Musharraf) than a democracy.

Plus, the War on Terror is in large part a marketing gimmick designed to keep the American electorate in line.

And, of course, Pakistan borders Afghanistan.  The war in Afghanistan on the Taliban necessitates dealing with Pakistan.

And while you'd like to think (me, too) that America would naturally align herself with democracies, all you have to do is look at the USA's involvement in South and Central America over the last 60 years.  Democracies are harder to roll than puppet dictatorships.

Can't ya tell I'm feeling that Holiday Spirit?  :-)