QED?

[John McCain is] wrong but it's not like he hasn't thought about this stuff or is some small-time governor being manipulated by his devilish speechwriters. These are his ideas and they're bad ideas and lifelong Republicans who don't like these ideas and don't want to see them implemented should support his opponent. -- Matt Yglesias

Bob Barr, I presume? A lot of hay has been made this week about the zombie-like return of Rev. Wright. But arguably the more interesting recurrence, in the wide view, is the persistent disappointment felt by large numbers of voters in both parties over the candidate field. Do not be fooled by the crossover potential this year (Democrats who'd vote McCain over Clinton, Republicans who'd vote Obama over McCain). This is a depth indicator of desperation and disorientation. Everyone's second choice appears to be Oh To Hell With It, and everyone's third choice Certain Doom.

Which is why Matt's syllogism hits a wall. Every Republican I know who doesn't like McCain worries that Obama will also run a 'neoconnish' foreign policy -- although every Republican I know who doesn't like McCain and plans to vote for Obama  plans to do so because the difference between Certain Doom and Oh To Hell With It is withdrawing from Iraq.

Surely there are some Republicans out there whose idea of a good foreign policy excludes Obama's position on Iraq without including McCain's position on, say, Russia. (I can vouch for personally for the existence of at least one.) Which opponent of McCain's are these people supposed to support?

The key to cracking that code involves the recognition among as many powerful and intelligent people as possible that ideas are one thing and actions are another. I'll have more to say about this later.