Even while traveling, Glenn has a good roundup of links about the collapse of the credibility of Joe Wilson, and continuing pathetic efforts to defend him.

This is the kind of thing that (like all of the lying, spinning and prevarication, and unashamed defense of it, in defense of Bill Clinton in the nineties) make it impossible for me to even consider voting for a Democrat any more. As a one-time Democrat in my youth, I went through the eighties thinking that I simply had policy disagreements with them, but since the Clinton years, and particularly since 911, I now think that it's simply too dangerous to put the fate of the nation back in the hands of such people. Joe Lieberman would have been the only possible candidate who could overwhelm my increasing distaste for the Donkeys, but they rejected him, and anyone like him, quite decisively.

Golda Meier once said that the Middle East situation would only be resolved when the Palestinians started to love their children more than they hated Jews. I'll think that we'll once again have a functional two-party system, in which I can vote for the candidate rather than the affiliation, when it starts to appear that the Democrats love truth and integrity more than they hate George Bush and Republicans in general. (Which is not to say that I'll necessarily vote Republican--with the ridiculous things coming out of the Libertarian Party since September 11, right now, I have no party.)

[Update at noon Eastern]

Michael Ledeen has more.

"Even while traveling, Glenn has a good roundup of links about the collapse of the credibility of Joe Wilson, and continuing pathetic efforts to defend him."

In this opening sentence you commit what I consider one of the popular sins of blogging, which is assuming that your readers automatically know the subject as well as you do and instantly know what you are talking about. (It is one of the things that makes the blogoverse so insular.) But many people may not know who Joe Wilson is, or at the very least may not instantly recognize his name on a Monday morning. And many may not know how his credibility is collapsing because they did not read the Washington Post article on Saturday (nobody reads Saturday newspapers anyway, except for bloggers).

Now admittedly you provide a link so that people can go to another site and see what is being discussed. But that link is to another blog, which tends to commit the same sin. And besides, as soon as somebody links there, they are no longer reading your blog. So the result is that you've just directed someone off of your website because you've confused them, which is not your goal at all. I assume that your goal is to give them enough information to let them decide to go elsewhere, rather than force them to go elsewhere because you left out information.

My suggestion is to not be so cryptic and instead add another sentence or two to clarify the subject. For instance, all you had to say is "For those who don't know, Wilson is the former ambassador who went to Niger to investigate whether Iraq was trying to acquire uranium yellowcake, and whose wife's CIA employment was revealed in the press. The recently released Senate Intelligence Committee report indicates that Wilson is not telling the truth."

I know how you feel. I'm a monarchist — honest to Pete. Who in the hell do I vote for?

Unfortunately my new position requires me to avoid saying things that might create needless political obstacles. Suffice to say I'm a single bit flip away from agreeing with you, Rand, but it's the MSB :-)

bchan - Write me in. If I win, I'll make you Grand Vizier of something or other.

I've long hoped somebody would start up a party with the "stay out of your face" government attitude, but not quite so strident as the Libertarian party. I always thought the "Demopublican" and "Republicrat" comments were pushing thing too far - but this Bush and the people under him love spending, bureaucracy and laws way too much. I may vote for the lesser of two evils - but it will be very painful.

I assume that your goal is to give them enough information to let them decide to go elsewhere, rather than force them to go elsewhere because you left out information.

My goal is to inform. I don't get paid to keep people at my site, and I assume that my readership knows who Joe Wilson is, and what the story is about, yes.

You look at it as providing useful information. Others might look at it as insulting their knowledge. You can't please everyone.