An excellent new topic for occasional discussion here, Andrew. I hope in posts to come, we can get into the nitty-gritty of comparing the relatively conservative original series with the NextGen/Picard version and the later spinoffs.

I cringed when Capt. Picard first encountered the new "villains" of the new 24th century--the Ferengi. "Heh, heh, what can we trade for, Picard Captain?", as they greedily rubbed their palms while sniveling in their short bodies with the large noses ears. How much more unsubtly anti-Semitic could they have been? Remember the episode of TNG where they found the three cryogenically preserved humans from the 20th century, and all one of them wanted was a copy of the Wall Street Journal, so he could see how his stock market investments had performed? Picard: "This is the 24th century. We don't need money". So evolved they were in their 24th century socialist utopia, weren't they?

Somehow money re-asserted itself in a vengeance on Deep Space Nine (a much better show than NextGen), with the previously comic relief/evil Ferengi and their "gold-pressed latinum" economy becoming quite important. Amazingly, the writers had realized that socialist utopias sound great--until you have to imagine how such a society could possibly operate in real life, with we flawed humanoids at the helm.....

Uh-huh. But don't foret the timely references from the 21st century: "The Bible. The Code of Hammurabi. And Justinian. The Magna Carta. The Bill of Rights. The Fundamental Declarations of the Martian Colonies!".

They always threw one or two of those in there. :)

It's not a coincidence: The kerfuffle between the Catholic Church and BHO surely was a large factor in Rick's hat trick performance tonight.

Not that this is a bad thing, or in any way diminishes this evening's events. We all know that Santorum is the truest social conservative. Today on The Five, Beckel correctly pointed out that the upper-Midwest/rust-belt states are the primary battleground for November. The more that BHO asserts his arrogant "POTUS knows best" schtick, the more attractive Santorum becomes as the best candidate to oppose him.

Nice job, Rick. You're keeping it interesting. Chances of Santorum winning the nomination--30%. Chances of Romney winning the nomination--50%. Gingrich--zero. Chances of nobody having enough delegates to win on the first ballot at the close of the primary season--20%.

And why would Newt let himself be used by Trump in this manner? Let's face it--this endorsement was all about Trump, it had almost nothing to do with Mitt vs. Newt.

H'mm, lessee, whom should I endorse? The guy who is the odds-on favorite, or the guy who has less than a 10% chance at the nomination? Like the true profile in courage he is, Trump goes with the guy who is about to clinch the nomination, and then he can say, "See? I knew it all along."

Back before the first caucus, when this whole thing was a total scrum, and Newt was a potential game-changer (the first time), where was Trump? Milking the process, making noises about running himself (why does NOBODY remember that in at least two prior Presidential cycles, he also made noises about running, but on those occasions it was as a Dem?), having each candidate come to kiss his ring in the Donald Trump primary, etc, and in general, getting himself all sorts of free attention.

Meh, I've wasted too much space on this already. If Newt wants to win, he has to stop sniffing for endorsements from worthless turds like DJT. He needs to work on counter-punching against the multi-million RoboCandidate from Massachusetts/New Hampshire/Michigan/Salt Lake City.

Who ever thought Trump would endorse anyone but Romney? Think about it: Adelsohn is giving money to Newt. Why would Trump, another casino guy, give money to the same candidate? He would obviously look for his own guy, so as to get preferential treatment for his own casino interests, rather than have to "share" Newt with Adelsohn.

Funny thing about this movie being done by the same guys who did "Recount"...

I found the entire 2000 Florida fiasco to be one of the most exciting, interesting, and compelling news stories in my lifetime (as I'm sure many of us did). Even knowing the political biases of the creative team behind the movie, there was no way I wasn't going to watch it. While the biases of Strong and Roach came through for sure, I found the movie to be less biased than I had expected. Tom Wilkinson's James Baker and Bob Balaban's Ben Ginsberg were two very strong performances. Heck, several Bush 43 alumni actually made themselves available as consultants for the film, and I believe there was a premiere screening in Texas, prior to its airing on HBO. Originally, I had held out some hope for this movie as well. Unfortunately...

Everything I'm seeing in the trailer is focused entirely on the Palin component of the 2008 campaign. "Game Change" (the book) was about the entire campaign--the entire phenomenon which was the BHO candidacy, and how Hillary was outmaneuvered, the riches to rags to riches story of the McCain campaign, the ins and outs of both parties' VP choices, and more generally, about the changing nature of Presidential campaigns as we proceed through the 21st century.

Instead, it appears that we'll be getting a "serious movie" which will be nothing other than a ripoff of the SNL Tina Fey schtick, extended to a ghastly two hours. I'm very disappointed. "Recount" was a very good film despite the flaws and biases. Strong and Roach could have turned out another equally good effort. Rather than that, we're going to be presented with a pretty awful waste of time.

Meh.....

Internal organization of a political party should be left to the party; don't like the rules, start your own party.

How is this more manifestly "wrong" than (for example) the "open primary" system in New Hampshire? Part of the reason for Romney's big score there was that a voter of either party could walk into a polling place and decide to take a Republican ballot. A large chunk of his vote total came from Dems who will not be there for him in the general election.

Personally, I think this system is nutso, but that's how the people of NH want it, apparently. I'm just glad that I live in a state that requires a voter to be enrolled in a party since before the prior year's general, in order to vote in the current primary.

So Ohio is another state with crappy rules for registration and party organization. These sorts of things happen in many states, but I find it difficult to get fired up over this one...

I'd doubt it--but I beg God every night for a brokered convention, before I hit the sack...

I've never cared much for Romney, he's always seemed to me to be like Hillary Clinton, but without the sincerity. I've never believed in the "he's the most electable candidate" argument--in order to be electable, one has to know one's own principles, not tacking with each change of the winds.

I loved Newt when he first became Speaker. He seemed to be quite a shaker-upper in the 90s. In the years since, I've often questioned how much he has "gone native" as he became an inside the Beltway guy. I still contend that 2008 could easily have been his year--he would have wiped the floor with BHO in the debates, and would have been far more willing to let the nominally independent PACs attack him for Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, et al, than McCain was.

Santorum seems like a nice guy and all, but I just don't know if he has the right stuff to go the distance with BHO. I wish I could understand why Glenn Beck likes him so much--I was totally with him on his first choice of Michele Bachmann, but Santorum has much of the same baggage of a generic Senator/Congressman: Big earmarker when he was in office, flip-floppy on subsidies to certain preferred lobbies such as Big Agriculture, etc.

Where am I at? I still don't know. Fortunately, my state's primary isn't until April so I have time to decide. One thing is certain. Contrary to the pundits' general contention, I think a long primary contest is a positive thing. The more these guys are debating and campaigning, the less free coverage BHO gets from the mainstream media. They have to focus on the GOP and our ideas for how to fix the damage done by the current occupant of the White House.

And once again: Why do we seem to have so few good choices this year? Where is there a true Tea Party candidate in this mess? Why didn't Sarah run? Will I really have to close my eyes and check the Newt or Santorum box and hope for the best come November (and beyond)?

Brokered convention, anyone?