[Disclaimer: I work with one or more companies who have a stake in the outcome of this discussion. I do not work with them w/r/t any of these issues, nor have I discussed these issues with any of these companies. Any opinions I might state on these issues are entirely my own.]
The distinction between IP Video and Cable Video is essentially meaningless. Without getting too far into the details, all digital video is data. Data can be encapsulated in any number of data formats, and shipped to the end decoder in any number of transport formats. Most cable digital video is encoded and transported in the MPEG-2 digital video format. But you can take MPEG-2 digital video packets and stuff them into IP transport packets; they get unpacked, re-sequenced, and decoded at the receiver. I used to work for a company that did exactly that.
You can also encode video using things like H.264 or MPEG-4 video encoding (or Flash, for YouTube), and then stuff that data into IP packets. It's all bits.
The main difference is that the cable systems are designed to deliver video (and now digital video, following a major upgrade over the last decade or so) AND they figured out a way to deliver data (including VOIP) to end users. Near as I can tell, in that same decade the telcos mostly did a big long-haul fiber build out and fought the CLECs to retain local loop capacity and rack space.
So the telcos are now caught flat-footed, which means that they want to take some of their existing network (or some of a buildout) to compete head to head with the cable cos.
That's what all this is about.
(incidentally, for true Hi-Def TV (1080 lines at a 16:9 aspect ratio, and progressive scanning, even after encoding and video compression you need a committed 19.2 megabits per second -- you might not use all of it, but you need it. It's a ton of bandwidth.)
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but the question is this: can Rudy win a primary without support and with near-unanimous opposition from that fundie base? They turn out. And they will NEVER vote for someone who is even a little soft on choice.
I think the answer is no, but obviously, opinions differ.
The electoral strategy seems sound. California Republicans have a dwindling influence in the state, and they have tended to skew moderate. Florida has a stronger vein of conservatism, but still trends more moderate.
I don't know what CQ is thinking here. If discussing the General election, maybe they would have some kind of point.
But the California Republican base is really hard right. Their few statewide electeds aren't, but they depend on a sclerotic CDP leadership and non-party voters for election. If you look at the CA state legislators and the CA Republican Congressional delegation you get a much better picture of how far right the Republicans in CA are.
Similarly, I suspect that Florida Republicans are essentially Southern Culture Warriors, though I'm far less knowledgeable on that score. I suspect Rudy is hosed in the primaries in both of these states based on his position on choice.
So, Edwards should have faked believing in a completely made up, infinitely extendable war on a tactic so that the Republicans won't exploit it? Yeah, that's a good model.
The Republicans will exploit everything, all the time, including agreement with their bullshit positions. You can't win by guessing what the Republicans will and won't exploit -- all you can do is look like a fake Republican.
Well, most of the people who hate taxes aren't objecting to the spending on militarism. That's the only part they really want to keep. They object to all the other spending, which they are convinced go to undesirables of one sort or another, unless it goes to them, in which case, that's the only program they want to keep.
Yes, of course this is a colonial war, which is resistance to occupation by a foreign power. I'm not trying to quibble about whether or not people are killing each other.
I'm trying to suggest that as long as we keep calling it a "war", we're suggesting that there's some kind of clear victory condition, that there's a clear enemy, and we're using the Republican militarist frame (a militarist frame that many Americans of different political stripes reflexively share) of this entire colonialist adventure.
So the goal is to call the situation by a factually correct name that doesn't also reinforce the Republican militarism and "nation at war" revanchism.
Even leaving aside the obvious formal problem that there's no declaration of war, what our military is doing at this point is not a war. It's a colonialist occupation -- propped-up local puppet government, diffuse guerilla activity, no clear victory condition, no obvious withdrawal point, no clear rationale for staying other than "we're already here and people are shooting at us."
He was my rep for a long time when I was younger, and I still have family there. Everyone except the wingnuttiest wingnuts (thugh AK has plenty) knows Young is at best a dunce, but he brings the bacon home.
Actually, this means that the Republicans in Congress want to do this, because they are basically totalitarians with no understanding of our Constitution.
Also, when Conyers lets the bill die in committee, they'll start their braying about how Democrats want to coddle pedophiles, soft on crime, Democrats, pedophiles, crime Democrats pedophiles crime Democratspedophilescrime (repeat ad nauseum).
Since when does Bush (a) compromise or (b) keep his promises if he does compromise. He signed the anti-torture bill with a signing statement that said "nyah, nyah, won't stop me".
Further, the unitary executive theory that Bush and his coterie of madmen keep pushing says that no one can stop him as long as he wears the magic "commander in chief" hat, which makes him supreme dictator.
IOW, bargaining with Bush is at best a stall, and more likely, self-deceit.