For all his talk about transparency and access, President Obama harbors a shattering secret-well, shattering to some people. It was blown wide open months before the election that made him president, and it recently surfaced again. Most of you have heard by now that Mr. Obama is gay. His favorite sexual partner is his personal assistant-his "body man"-Reggie Love. It also seems that Mr. Obama has a "penchant for receiving fellatio from older white men," a group that has included Bill Frist, the former Republican majority leader in the Senate.

Would it were so! You could imagine, if Mr. Obama is reelected, how he might begin his Second Inaugural Address: "My fellow Americans, you're gonna laugh, but I have something else historic to tell you ..." The idea of "older" top Senate Republicans lined up outside the White House is heavenly. Alas, though, the rumor of Mr. Obama's homosexuality is just that, an empty rumor, spread like HPV along the lunatic axial lines of right-wing blogs and Web sites, from one of which I took that ridiculous quote.

Still, the function of this "secret" about Mr. Obama's personal life is remarkably complex. It provides a whopping catharsis to a tremendous anxiety. For the rumor's originators, the very fact of a black man becoming president means that forces are at work that are beyond not just their control, but outside the reach of knowledge and information. Secret forces. And this impregnable secrecy is the source of Mr. Obama's power. Therefore, the way to breach it is to create a secret about Mr. Obama that goes even deeper than the impersonal secret forces that created him. Make it a personal secret that all the impersonal powers in the world cannot repeal. Implant the secret in the president and then empower yourself by exploding it yourself.

It's an ugly fantasy, yes; downright antebellum in its savage envy and resentment, not to mention its horrified lustfulness toward the object of its hatred. But our democracy has a tortured relationship to secrecy that often produces backlashes that are just as anti-democratic, if not as sordid.

American democracy hates secrets. We hate secrets because the very nature of democracy is to be visible to the people in whose name it operates. The furtive workings of cabals, the construction of clandestine deals, exclusive coteries and cliques operating behind sealed doors are the conventions of older political systems that the American experiment was supposed to dispel. The very symbol of unjust monarchy was the lettres de cachet, secret letters signed by the French king ordering some innocent subject to be imprisoned or exiled without trial. Stalin thrived on secrets. North Korea is a secret wrapped inside a secret hidden inside a secret. Americans, foreign visitors almost proverbially report, are extraordinarily "open." The proof of our democracy is in our very personalities.

But you have to wonder whether our intolerance for secrets as being inherently anti-democratic and thus anti-American has not gone too far. Secrets used to be synonymous with illegal or unethical behavior. Daniel Ellsberg, industrial whistle-blowers, gangsters turning state's evidence-these were all busters of secrets that were undermining the public good. Now it seems that simply having a secret makes you unethical, regardless of what type of secret it is.

It's doubtful that there has ever been a society so obsessed with destroying the careers of public figures on the basis of their sexual lives. Though we might cringe at the hypocrisy of the Spitzers and Woods et al., the discrepancy between their public image and their private conduct is nothing compared to the crimes of state, finance or commerce. We know that just as democracy is defined by openness, sexuality is defined by secrecy. We used to know it, anyway, before the exposure of someone's sexual conduct became a sort of citizen's arrest-a reminder that just as the public can turn mediocrity into celebrity it can also reduce excellence to dust. 

Perhaps our expectation of democratic transparency has reached such a stratospheric height that personal secrets offend us as much as official ones. Maybe our democratic zeal is creating an anti-democratic backlash where we least expect it. Shattering a secret used to serve the function of correcting a power imbalance. Nixon operated a secret campaign slush fund? Expose it, depose Nixon and restore social and political justice.

Now, however, shattering a secret seems to serve the purpose of creating a new power imbalance. John Edwards cheated outrageously on his wife? Get him, screw him, expose him over and over and over again, even when his infidelity is years in the past and restore ... what, precisely? The only effect exposure of such trivial secrets has in the end is to puff us, the exposers and consumers of secret foibles, up into little gods, policing the public realm in order to prove that no order of accomplishment is larger than our insatiable egos. You might call this an egalitarian anti-democracy, since discovery of the most trivial indiscretion will soon obliterate the democratic levers of talent and merit.

There might yet be something else afoot. In this age of instantaneous exposure and Facebook disclosure, it could be that the person with secrets is about to go the way of the dinosaur. American democracy will, at last, have become secret-proof. The New Man will be absolutely transparent. You will look straight through the New Man to the universal, open and accessible conditions that create and determine him. Individuality itself, with its enigmas and opacities, will be an intolerable deceit, and the greatest act of dissent will not be to speak truth to power-everyone will be tweeting that-but to do something in private and not speak the truth about it, ever, to anyone at all.

editorial@observer.com

But earlier today, the reformed donut-hound and fast-foodie-in chief trekked up to the airy reaches of Washington Heights to deliver a talk on cardiac health -- and to help celebrate the groundbreaking for New York-Presbyterian's new cardiology palace: the Vivan and Seymour Milstein Family Heart Center. Mr. Clinton, of course, became the hospital's most famous cardio patient nearly two years ago when he underwent quadruple bypass surgery there. He is now the honorary chair of the steering committee for the new heart center.

Looking trim and, we have to admit, a little bit orange, the former president spoke for roughly ten minutes, during which he "confessed" that he had eaten a bran muffin for breakfast (low-fat, however) and warned against the "explosion of obesity" in this country and New York's "virtual epidemic of diabetes." He also took a few minutes to wonk out on health care policy -- that famously missed oportunity of his presidency.

"I think it's important that we realize that the medical professionals who labor here will, unless we change our ways, labor under enormous burdens because of the complexity and cost of the system we have constructed in America, which leaves huge numbers of people without insurance, spends 34 percent of all health care dollars on administrative costs, doesn't have electronic records, and, as a result of that creates all kinds of financial squeezes for every single serious healthcare provider," he told the crowd of doctors and donors. "No other country in the world spends 16 percent of its income on health care. Indeed, no one spends more than 11 percent, and yet others get as good or better outcomes as we do, because they don't finance their system in the crazy way we do. And we have to do something about that."

Mr. Clinton didn't get to offer much in the way of solutions during his address, but he did make a point of plugging some of his wife's work in this area -- namely, her Electronic Records Bill. Mrs. Clinton recently introduced it alongside another presidential hopeful, Bill Frist.

-- Lizzy Ratner

She wonders, first of all, why Bill Weld wasn't there when John Faso was. ("Is William Weld running for governor of New York? It seems like he turns down a lot of good opportunities to do retail politics.")

And don't miss her take on Bill Frist's continuing, abysmal poor public performance, which seems to follow him to venues large and small.

-Matthew Schuerman

In the message she emailed out to supporters, widely reported today, she wrote: "I take responsibility for my vote."

You take responsibility for mistakes. And unless she's reminding us that she, and not Bill Frist, physically cast her vote, that's what she's doing there. For the first time.

The Times kind of buried the story, and I'm not sure they or anyone else noted the importance of this shift.

But this is a subtle, important advance. She's said in the past that, had we known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote. Now, for the first time, she says she should have voted "No."

"[I]f Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed" to give the president the authority to go to war, she wrote yesterday.

Whatever those investigations may conclude, however, the facts that have emerged so far cast a deep shadow on the integrity of Dr. Frist and the standards of the U.S. Senate.

Ever since the telegenic surgeon from Tennessee entered the Senate in 1995, he has been plagued by questions about H.C.A., the gigantic, highly profitable hospital and insurance conglomerate founded by his father and brother. While Dr. Frist billed himself as a health-care expert with a “free-market” orientation, he also had tens of millions of dollars invested in H.C.A. stock.

For a legislator involved in creating national health policy, the conflicts of interest were obvious, and those conflicts only intensified after Dr. Frist replaced Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi as the Senate Majority Leader during the winter of 2003.

Cultivating his image as a kindly and caring physician, he never failed to mention his pious concern for patients while casting his vote against their interests. He is the most reliable Senate ally of the pharmaceutical and insurance lobbyists. He voted to kill the Patients’ Bill of Rights. He voted to limit awards to medical-malpractice victims to $250,00, a “reform” that directly benefited his family business. He sought to limit regulation of profit-making hospitals and other providers by Medicare, which would likewise protect the Frist empire.

In return, he has collected millions of dollars from health-care industry lobbyists to finance his own campaigns and his war chest at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which he chaired before taking over the Senate leadership.

Dr. Frist has broadly promoted the ideology of the health-care industry as well as its legislative agenda. He wants government to “get out of the way” of privatized health care, except when it’s providing billions in subsidies to shareholders like him.

Of course he knows that H.C.A.’s profits depended on such unsavory practices as bribing doctors and inflating costs. (Over the past several years, the company has disgorged about $1.7 billion to settle fraud charges brought by the Justice Department, the largest such payments in American history.)

He also knows that ruthless cost-cutting is inconsistent with adequate care—and that his family’s company dumped poor patients from its hospitals to improve profits. But whenever anyone has pointed out that his connections with H.C.A. clashed with his duties as a Senator—not to mention the Hippocratic Oath—Dr. Frist forcefully demurred: “There is a stone wall that comes between any money that I get or interests that I have, and what I do [in the Senate].”

Upon taking over as majority leader in January 2003, he repeatedly responded to press queries about H.C.A. by noting that he had put all his investments, including any H.C.A. stock, in a blind trust. He told a television interviewer that his holdings, along with those of his wife and children, had been placed beyond his authority and oversight.

“Well, I think really, for our viewers, it should be understood that I put this into a blind trust,” he said. “So as far as I know, I own no H.C.A. stock ... I have no control. It is illegal right now for me to know what the composition of those trusts are [sic]. So I have no idea.”

The Jan. 4, 2003 issue of National Journal similarly quoted Dr. Frist claiming ignorance of his holdings: “Right now, I don’t know if I own HCA [stock] because it’s a qualified blind trust.”

Yet he did know, according to documents recently uncovered by the Associated Press, because the “blind” trust’s manager had informed him about his H.C.A. stockholdings during the months prior to those interviews.

Now that the press has exposed how he dumped those H.C.A. shares last June, he no longer claims that he didn’t know he owned them. Naturally, he insists that he possessed no inside information about the bad earnings report that H.C.A. made public just two weeks after he had sold off the stock at the peak price. And most amusingly, he claims that when he sold the stock, he simply was trying to satisfy his implacable critics.

“The complaints and questions have persisted,” he told reporters on Sept. 26. “Because of these continuing questions, and looking ahead at my final years in the Senate and what might come next, I have for some time wanted to eliminate even the possibility of an appearance of a conflict by totally divesting of any H.C.A. stock in my family’s trust.”

So he was just trying to purify his ethics—and preserved his capital purely by accident. That’s an explanation only a Senator could believe.

Dr. should be used in all references for physicians or dentists whose practice is their primary current occupation, or who work in a closely related field, like medical writing, research or pharmaceutical manufacturing: Dr. Alex E. Baranek; Dr. Baranek; the doctor. (Those who practice only incidentally, or not at all, should be called Mr., Ms., Miss or Mrs.)
Anyone else with an earned doctorate, like a Ph.D. degree, may request the title, but only if it is germane to the holder's primary current occupation (academic, for example, or laboratory research). For a Ph.D., the title should appear only in second and later references. The holder of a Ph.D. or equivalent degree may also choose not to use the title.
Do not use the title for someone whose doctorate is honorary.

The rule, standards editor Allan M. Siegal wrote in a staff e-mail, is meant "to level the playing field when we write about politics and public life, removing any suggestion of special authority that might attach to people who use a title that isn't relevant to the field in which they are working or competing."

Such as? "There are many examples," Times spokesperson Toby Usnik writes, "including Senator Bill Frist and Howard Dean."

And Henry Kissinger, Ph.D.? Is his title germane to his work?

"The point is mostly (no pun intended) academic," Usnik writes, "since Henry Kissinger always preferred us to call him Mr., and we did. (Condoleezza Rice also prefers Ms.)

"If Kissinger were in government service today, and teaching was not his primary occupation," Usnik continues, "he would be Mr. under our current rule, and we would not ask for a preference."

In fact, a pass through the archives reveals that under the old system, Mr. Kissinger and Ms. Rice didn't always get treatment befitting their modesty. Usage went both ways; even sometimes--for Ms. Rice, under joint bylines--in the same piece.

Number of appearances of selected honorifics in the two years prior to the new rule:

"Mr. Frist" 34
"Dr. Frist" 205

"Mr. Dean" 65
"Dr. Dean" 830

"Mr. Kissinger" 47
"Dr. Kissinger" 3

"Ms. Rice" 400
"Dr. Rice" 20

"Mr. Erving" 0
"Dr. J" 4

This is a disturbing moment for Americans who wonder where Republican hegemony will take us. Senators and Congressional leaders utter threatening language, brandish weapons and sound as if they're excusing violence against sitting judges. Ministers share the stage with demagogues who mutter Stalinist death threats against Supreme Court justices. "Conservatism" is becoming a radical ideology that discards constitutional balances for the pursuit of unchecked power.

On "Justice Sunday," Mr. Frist will advance that ideology in a television feed sponsored by the Family Research Council and allied fundamentalist groups. His co-stars will include the evangelical broadcaster and author James C. Dobson, the born-again Watergate felon Chuck Colson and Southern Baptist theologian R. Albert Mohler Jr.

In announcing this extravaganza, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council outlined the alleged grievances of his movement, which consists of people who believe they are Christians and anyone who disagrees with them-about anything-is not. According to him, the Democratic filibusters against a dozen of President Bush's judicial nominees represent an ongoing assault by "radicals" on "people of faith."

"Many of these nominees," he writes, "are being blocked because they are people of faith and moral conviction. These are people whose only offense is to say that abortion is wrong or that marriage should be between one man and one woman."

Clearly, Mr. Perkins has no compunctions about bearing false witness when that serves his political aims. As he well knows, the tiny percentage of blocked Bush nominees weren't filibustered because of their religious faith, and the controversies surrounding them had little to do with abortion and nothing to do with gay marriage.

Consider Carolyn Kuhl of California, whose nomination was eventually withdrawn. Like many Bush nominees, she is a right-wing judicial activist who would seek to overturn most environmental and consumer protections in the name of property rights. During her stint in the Reagan Justice Department, Ms. Kuhl wrote a memo urging the government to reverse longstanding policy by renewing the federal tax exemption of the infamously bigoted Bob Jones University. As a judge in Los Angeles, she dismissed a lawsuit brought by a cancer patient whose doctor allowed her breast examination to be observed in his office-without her informed consent-by a drug-company salesman.

Or consider Priscilla Owen of Texas, a protégé of Bush political guru Karl Rove, whose decisions on the Texas Supreme Court tended to be most favorable to corporations that bankrolled her judicial campaigns, such as Enron and Dow Chemical. Alberto Gonzales, now serving as U.S. Attorney General, repeatedly criticized her extreme opinions when they were colleagues on the Texas Supreme Court.

These corporate servants in black robes were all too typical of the nominees sent up by the White House. It's hard to understand how rejecting them offended any religious faith. And when Mr. Perkins implies that Democrats apply a religious test to the Bush nominees, he is lying about that, too.

Surely Mr. Perkins knows that the Senate has not hesitated to confirm ultra-conservative, faith-professing nominees. These include Timothy Tymkovich, the stridently anti-gay former Solicitor General of Colorado who argued against Medicaid funding of abortion even in cases of rape and incest; John Roberts, another committed abortion opponent who argued that public schools should be allowed to hold religious graduation ceremonies; and former Pennsylvania Attorney General Mike Fisher, who fought state funding for contraceptive services and likes to mention "the important role that God and Jesus Christ have played in my life."

Addressing a National Right to Life convention in 2002, the year before he was elevated to the bench, Mr. Fisher said, "All of us are hoping and praying that the day will come under the leadership of George W. Bush that we'll have a Supreme Court with justices who will leave [abortion] to the state to decide the legality of this issue by overturning Roe v. Wade."

Although there were certainly reasons to object to those three nominees, including their ideologically rigid views on reproductive choice, none of them was stopped by filibuster. That option has been reserved for the least qualified and most extreme of the President's nominees.

Mr. Perkins, Mr. Dobson and Mr. Frist are exploiting religion to advance an agenda that has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with the Chamber of Commerce. Their mouths prattle incessantly about the Holy Spirit, yet their eyes are fixed on the golden calf.

With a mixture of concern and delight, Republicans are looking ahead to the struggle for succession in a party whose identity crisis has escalated even as its grip on the government has tightened. Republicans control the House, the Senate and the Presidency, but their program and values-Christian or libertarian, tax-cutters or big spenders, neocon or paleocon-remain contested.

Much of this uncertainty stems from a quirk of the Bush administration: George W. Bush has no clear successor. His Vice President, Dick Cheney, is 63 years old and has a history of heart problems.

"The rules for 2008 were established when we put the guy with a bad heart on as Vice President," said conservative strategist Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform. Mr. Cheney's health means that nobody is threatened by this ticket, as Hillary Clinton is threatened by Democratic Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards. But it also leaves wide open the field to succeed Mr. Bush, win or lose, as the Republican nominee.

The President hasn't clearly identified a protégé or favorite in the party, and installing brother Jeb would be considered a bit tacky. So the New York gala will mark the moment when contenders for the next Republican nomination begin in earnest-hosting the right parties, meeting the right money men and scouting out the right hired guns for a Presidential bid.

The likely contenders in a 2008 primary, surprisingly, skew left. The stars are party mavericks like Arizona Senator John McCain and former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. The governors of two big blue states, New York and Massachusetts, also seem to be testing the waters. And three of those unorthodox Republicans-Mr. McCain, Mr. Giuliani and New York Governor George Pataki-will have a chance to impress the party faithful with prime-time convention speaking slots.

But the conservatives who now control the White House have no comparable champion. When former Bush speechwriter David Frum cooked up a list of contenders last January, Colorado Governor Bill Owens was the only true conservative on the list, and he's untested on a national stage. More than a year ago, Bush advisor Karl Rove was rumored to be set on Tennessee Senator Bill Frist, a doctor, anti-AIDS crusader, good soldier and reliable member of the Republican establishment. But Dr. Frist has now been tested, and he's stumbled since Mr. Rove helped install him as Senate Majority Leader at the end of 2002. The chatter at his planned Wednesday night AIDS Charity after-party (odd combination, but never mind) will be more about recovery than coronation.

All this uncertainty, writes conservative commentator and onetime Presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan, can only mean one thing: A "civil war is going to break out inside the Republican Party along the old trench lines of the Goldwater-Rockefeller wars of the 1960s, a war for the heart and soul and future of the party for the new century."

But other observers say there are two ways this can go. If Mr. Bush wins re-election, the struggle for succession will play out in the form of a court drama. The markers for success and failure in the first two years of the second Bush administration could be subtle: Who does Mr. Rove whisper he's likely to work for? Who's standing next to the President in the Rose Garden? Or they could be obvious: Who is Mr. Cheney's surprise replacement?

But if Mr. Bush loses on Nov. 2, the blood starts flowing the next day.

"If Bush wins, you'll see a decent Republican field with a lot of the usual suspects," said Republican consultant Rick Davis, who has worked for Mr. Giuliani and Mr. McCain. "If Bush loses, you're going to see every damn Congressman and his brother out there. You're going to see the circular firing squad."

THE LOYALISTS

Generally, adherents to good old-fashioned conservative principles (lower taxes! military strength! family values-when they're popular!), the Loyalists are also true believers in the Bush dynasty. They'll be busy defending what they've built against insurgents within the party for a long time after the balloons drop on George W. Bush on Sept. 2.

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee: One of the leading contenders for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008, those who know what conventions are really all about say this one is all about him. Dr. Frist values Christ's example of humility so much that he once climbed the Mount of Olives to recite the Sermon on the Mount. That quality will stand him in good stead as he courts the rank and file of his party aggressively at the convention. As chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Dr. Frist oversaw a successful effort to gain control of the Senate in the midterm elections-the first time a sitting President's party had ever done so. The Loyalists aren't likely to let other Republicans forget that feat.

Governor Bill Owens of Colorado: Named "the best governor in America" by the National Review and "one of the top 10 rising political stars" by columnist Robert Novak, since 1998 he's pushed conservative policies and values such as tort reform, tax cuts and the sanctity of marriage and the family-although he separated from his wife last year.

Governor Jeb Bush of Florida: Once he was the first among Bush brothers, the one thought most likely to follow in his father's footsteps. Presiding over his ne'er-do-well brother's Florida triumph in 2000 may have been bittersweet, but his bid to extend his father's dynasty in 2008 is now stronger than ever.

Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao: The Labor Department may not seem like the place to get noticed in the Bush administration (reportedly, nobody remembered to tell Ms. Chao that the Sept. 11 attacks were underway), but the first Asian-American woman ever appointed to the cabinet wields substantial power through her marriage to Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority whip.

Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina: Defeated by Hillary Rodham Clinton in the race for First Lady in 1996, Bob Dole's spouse joined Ms. Clinton in the Senate in 2002, elected largely due to her name recognition. As Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Transportation, she was credited with pushing for the installation of a third brake light in automobiles. She was also Secretary of Labor for the first President Bush (take heart, Ms. Chao!) and has been spotted on the Senate floor in dark glasses, apparently protecting her youthful looks for the 2008 Presidential campaign.

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert: Best known as "That Guy Who's Not Newt Gingrich," the former high-school wrestling coach has a modest manner that belies his strategic smarts. This allows him to push his agenda as Speaker of the House where Mr. Gingrich could not. Conservative on social positions (anti-abortion, pro–death penalty), Mr. Hastert is known for his consensus-building skills and pragmatism.

Representative Katherine Harris of Florida: The former Secretary of State of Florida parlayed her fame as the lacquer-faced villainess of the disputed 2000 election (think Natasha to Jeb's Boris) into a Congressional seat in 2002.

Ed Gillespie: The powerful chair of the Republican National Committee, Mr. Gillespie once was a lobbyist for clients like Enron and Tyson Foods (who were accused of smuggling illegal immigrants to work at their poultry plants for paltry wages). The convention is his baby elephant-but will the message it sends now still be ringing in the ears of voters in 2008?

Karl Rove: Known as "Bush's brain," Mr. Rove is the true strategist of the Bush White House and Dubya's political career, transforming Mr. Bush from a failed oilman into a successful candidate. After all, Mr. Rove learned his stuff at the feet of Lee Atwater, the infamous trickster who turned Daddy Bush's fortunes around and managed Mr. Rove's campaign for president of the College Republicans. Rumored to be pulling strings for Bill Frist's Presidential ambitions after this election, Mr. Rove has worked his magic on the campaigns of over 75 Republican politicos in statewide and federal races, as well as for the Moderate Party of Sweden.

Karen Hughes: Bush's most trusted advisor-slash-enforcer, Ms. Hughes left the White House saying that she wanted to spend more time with her family. Ahem! We've heard that one before. But then she went on a nationwide book tour to tell the real story of why she left the White House-to spend more time with her family. Live to fight another day!

THE HIGH PRIESTS

Supporters of bans on abortion and gay marriage, the "God, gays and guns" Republicans will be a strange sight in New York City. But as the mobilizers of perhaps the most effective grass-roots campaign in recent political history, they won't soon be forgotten. In fact, remarking upon the fact that practicing Methodist and non-drinking W. had taken the White House, former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed declared: "You're no longer throwing rocks at the building, you're in the building."

Attorney General John Ashcroft: The biggest favor that Mr. Bush granted the Religious Right-and the anti-religious left-was to nominate the Crisco-anointed, patriotic-anthem-singing Mr. Ashcroft as Attorney General. Through his efforts to cover up the shiny metal breasts of the Lady Justice statue as well as his promulgation of the Patriot Act, Mr. Ashcroft has become a ready-made symbol of everything that's right or wrong with the Bush administration, depending on one's persuasion. And it places him-for better and for worse-at the center of the party's contest for redefinition.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay: Mr. DeLay picked up two things while running an exterminating company: a contempt for federal regulations and a knack for dealing death. Both came in handy when he reportedly roped in the F.A.A. to help track down wayward Texas Democrats so the state's Republican majority could implement a DDT-laced midterm redistricting plan.

Jerry Falwell: The founder of Liberty University and foe of Hustler publisher Larry Flynt is giving the opening prayer at the convention.

Senator Rick Santorum: The Pennsylvania Senator, who spanked his more liberal Republican flank when he equated homosexuality with bestiality, gets the Christian Coalition's highest ratings. His right-to-life convictions extend to keeping a picture of a miscarried Santorum fetus in his office as a family photo.

Senator Sam Brownback: The publicity-savvy Kansan has been known to pass the time in Senate hearings by autographing photos of himself.

THE METRO-CONSERVATIVES

To red-meat-chomping conservatives in the heartland, RINO's (Republicans In Name Only) are considered to the left of most Democrats. Either out of political expediency or through prolonged exposure to Chardonnay-sipping liberals at cocktail parties, they are fiscally conservative but socially tolerant with their pro-choice, pro-gay-rights positions. Sometimes they're even willing to expand government social services. In New York, they're on their home turf.

Governor George Pataki: His staff has been swatting away rumors that he's using the convention as a testing ground for an '08 Presidential bid of his own. But what better place to do it? It's his party: New reports show the city stands to lose-not gain-some $300 million throwing it. And the party must owe him something by now for his long-suffering loyalty.

Rudolph Giuliani: The face of official bravery on Sept. 11, Mr. Giuliani served W. his first draught of gravitas at Ground Zero, and the bunker-hunkered administration has been drunk on it ever since. Is that Rudy they're seeing in '08, or is it just beer goggles?

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg: This time around, he's getting the check. But it's a hell of an initiation into the national party, if he can take the hazing.

Arizona Senator John McCain: The phosphorescent-haired veteran is the Republican liberal Democrats love to love. Sweet-talking New York's media elite aboard his Straight Talk Express bus during the 2000 Presidential primary, the former Vietnam P.O.W. has defended John Kerry from attacks on his combat record. But his testy relationship with W. has survived more than that-including a virulent rumor he was contemplating the second spot on the Kerry ticket. That back-slapping you're hearing all week is a great big bear hug from the Republican mainline.

Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel: Call him McCain manqué : Like his senior Senator, Mr. Hagel's incisive criticisms of the intelligence system under Mr. Bush were hardly well-timed for this convention, as the administration gives its foreign policy the hard sell; nor is his long-standing contempt for the right-wing Swift-boat gang. But as with his mentor, that may make his gold star even shinier now that it seems the Bushies have come around on both fronts.

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney: The Mormon governor helped dig the Salt Lake City Olympics out of the scandalous bog of bribes-and-hookers allegations.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger: His recall-campaign victory in California thrilled Republicans jealous of the Hollywood elite's love affair with Democrats. Hard-line conservatives are less excited about having a movie star of their own-and suspicious of anyone who supports gay marriage and makes the party look good in a "posing pouch."

Christine Todd Whitman: The former governor of New Jersey was one of the few public defections from the Bush administration, bailing out as E.P.A. chief after discovering there weren't enough environmental protections to administer. Now she's making her comeback as a maverick Republican, spitting out harsh critiques during appearances on Real Time with Bill Maher and hyping her new book, It's My Party, Too .

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter: His long tenure on the Hill balancing G.O.P. water-carrying with "independent" positioning (against the Clinton impeachment and the nomination of Robert Bork) has earned him the unlikely support of big liberals like George Soros and Harold Ickes Jr. But he's also had to fend off a fierce intra-party attack from his right flank in this past spring's primary. That should burnish his credentials if the party ends up running for the Big Tent in '08.

THE LIBERTARIANS

They straddle a thin line between fighting for less government and standing up for relatively liberal social policies.

Kansas Senator Pat Roberts: The chair of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr. Roberts made news recently for coming up with a plan for the breakup of the C.I.A., an old Bush père stronghold; W. went for it.

Ohio Representative Deborah Pryce: The highest-ranking Republican woman in the House, since heading up the House Republican Conference in 2002, Ms. Pryce has been part of the G.O.P.'s new efforts at a more diverse profile; she's one of a slate of minority and women Republicans named as a chair to the convention.

THE NEOCONS

Conservatives who believe in exporting, by force if necessary, the values of American democracy around the world, the neocons got their real power when the Bush administration adopted their ideological arguments for the Iraq war. Whether they can keep from tearing themselves apart now that that project's real-world success is so widely questioned remains to be seen.

Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith: The intellectual trio behind the war in Iraq and the bogeymen of anti-war peaceniks. Mr. Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, was dubbed the "intellectual godfather of the war" in Iraq by Time magazine. A longtime advocate of using military force to advance the principles of the country, Mr. Wolfowitz also stirred up a hornets' nest in the den of neoconservatism, with older advocates attacking him as fiercely as they used to snipe at socialists. Mr. Perle, a longtime Cold Warrior, recently resigned as Pentagon policy advisor. Due to his close ties to the Likud Party, he's been accused of leveraging Israeli influence on White House foreign policy. Mr. Feith, the youngster of the group, worked his way quickly up to the third-ranking civilian spot in the Pentagon-and there's room to grow.

William F. Buckley Jr., William Kristol: The dissenting duo, these two neoconservative stalwarts have been using up airtime on cable news and spilling ink in the National Review and The Weekly Standard to rip apart the Bush administration's foreign policy, especially the war in Iraq. Mr. Buckley, the granddaddy of the counter-counterculture and founder of the National Review , recently quit his editorial post but still wields plenty of influence with his lopsided gaze and affected accent. Mr. Kristol, who seems too mild-mannered to be a true conservative warrior, is the editor of the influential Weekly Standard , which was required reading in the early days of the Bush White House, before he started getting cranky about the war.

THE PALEOCONS

They were conservative before it was, uh, cool-and haven't quite caught up yet. Wistful that the country wasn't buried in a time capsule in 1850 for them to dig up today, the paleocons have settled on anti-immigrant policies as their main sounding-off point; the rest is pure, wacky conservative fun.

Pat Buchanan: The old-line Nixon speechwriter turned Reform Party nutcase has been exiled to the outer reaches of MSNBC, where he preaches against the war from the right-wing isolationist booth.

Grover Norquist: Mr. Norquist contains multitudes as head and chief engine of both Americans for Tax Reform and the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project. As the former, he fights to limit the reach of government by opposing every tax increase; as the latter, he fights to extend the reach of government by forcing every state to name something after the now-deceased President. Dubbed a member of the "Gang of Five," leaders of the modern conservative movement, Mr. Norquist makes Wednesday meetings of the Leave Us Alone coalition required for his acolytes. Occasionally he dabbles in the outer reaches of Republican politics, as in his condemnations of the Patriot Act and his advocacy on behalf of Arab-American groups targeted by the F.B.I. And he's not exactly a hero to his fellow conservatives: Bow-tied columnist Tucker Carlson once called him a "mean-spirited, humorless, dishonest little creep … the leering, drunken uncle everyone else wishes would stay home."

Robert Novak: The cranky co-host of CNN's Crossfire found himself in the crosshairs of the media for once when he revealed earlier this year that former-ambassador-turned-White-House-critic Joseph Wilson's wife was a C.I.A. officer. He's further in than we thought!

Alan Keyes: The frighteningly giddy perennial candidate and sometimes TV host was shut out of the 2000 Republican convention after refusing to drop out of the primary race against George W. Bush. Now he's on the inside again, after agreeing to drop into the Illinois Senate race (from his Maryland home) against Democratic savior Barack Obama-a move that had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Mr. Keyes, like Mr. Obama, is black.

THE RANGERS

Whether they earned or inherited their billions, these fat cats-"Rangers" in the R.N.C. fund-raising regimental parlance-embody the stereotype of the G.O.P.: cigar-smoking white guys who sip Old-Fashioneds at the country club.

William DeWitt Jr. and Mercer Reynolds III: Mr. Reynolds, the President's national fund-raising chairman, started an investment firm with Mr. DeWitt that later bailed out Mr. Bush's financially troubled oil company back in 1984. They were also there with the stumpy when Mr. Bush sought major co-investors in the Texas Rangers. Together, they've helped raise at least $500,000 for the Republicans. Mr. Reynolds was named ambassador to Switzerland, while Mr. DeWitt was named to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

Richard Egan: Along with sons Christopher F. Egan (who recently produced an anti-Kerry documentary) and Michael Egan, he's part of the only family to include three Rangers (donors who give at least $200,000 to the G.O.P.). Together, the clan has offered over $900,000 to Republican federal candidates since 1999. The elder Egan was named ambassador to Ireland, but resigned to go back into the private sector and raise some punts for the Prez.

THE JUNIORS

Republicans by birth who inherited their parents' politics, the Juniors seem to be more open-minded about the company they keep. Five of these G.O.P. Juniors are hosting "The Next Generation of Leaders," a shindig at Gotham Hall, during the convention.

The Bush twins, Jenna and Barbara: The 22-year-old twin First Daughters made headlines for their college high jinks, but now they're partying for the right to fight for the Right, judging from their lineup during the convention and all their time on the campaign trail.

Emma Bloomberg: She's like an alcoholic, but for workahol! The Mayoral daughter will have to unbury her head from the pile of papers sitting in her in-box if she wants to be recognized. And she needs to appease some of her neighbors in Greenwich Village, who've apparently called 311 to complain about the noise made by Ms. Bloomberg's bodyguards.

Emily Pataki: The Governor's daughter, a Yale graduate, has certainly gotten noticed. She was recently named "Republican Babe of the Week" by www.jerseygop.com, and she worked on her father's 2002 campaign.

Michael Reagan: Help my dead dad! No, don't help my dead dad! After Presidential offspring Ron Reagan's Democratic National Convention speech helped establish stem-cell research as a promising wedge issue for the Democrats, the G.O.P. aims to close the gap with Presidential offspring Michael Reagan arguing against that research.

In an ugly personal assault that must have thrilled the Fox News audience, Mr. Frist called Mr. Clarke's critical new book, Against All Enemies , "an appalling act of profiteering." He mocked Mr. Clarke's "theatrical apology" before the 9/11 commission for failing to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks. He distorted some of Mr. Clarke's remarks and ignored the rest. He predictably echoed the White House sniping at Mr. Clarke's credibility, and then he went still further.

The Senator strongly suggested that Mr. Clarke had committed perjury during his sharply critical testimony about anti-terror policy (or the lack thereof) in the Bush White House. "Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," he charged.

That was a cowardly statement for which, as we now know, Mr. Frist can provide no factual justification. It was cowardly because the Senator's accusation was plain, and he even seemed to threaten an inquest that might lead to criminal charges-while adding an "if" to cover himself. It was cowardly, too, because Mr. Frist's utterances on the floor are privileged against the slander lawsuit that he might otherwise be forced to defend.

Within hours after the Frist speech, his spokesman was admitting to reporters that the majority leader possessed no actual evidence to support his accusations. Pressed for details, the spokesman said that some other legislators had called the majority leader after Mr. Clarke's dramatic testimony before the 9/11 commission on March 24, complaining that his "tone" differed from what he had said before a joint Congressional investigation two years ago. He had no direct evidence, in other words, just hearsay.

Unsurprisingly, a number of Democratic legislators immediately leaped to Mr. Clarke's defense, including Florida Senator Bob Graham and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi. Both had participated in the joint investigation and heard Mr. Clarke's testimony; both said that his March 24 testimony had in no way contradicted his earlier statements.

On April 4, The Washington Post published a front-page analysis by Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank that upheld Mr. Clarke's truthfulness, despite a few minor alleged errors in his book. According to The Post , "a review of dozens of declassified citations from Clarke's 2002 testimony provides no evidence of contradiction, and White House officials familiar with the testimony agree that any differences are matters of emphasis, not fact. Indeed, the declassified 838-page report of the 2002 congressional inquiry includes many passages that appear to bolster the arguments Clarke has made."

The Post reporters asked Eleanor Hill, the former staff director of the House-Senate intelligence committee inquiry, about the Frist accusations. She told them that she had listened to Mr. Clarke's March 24 testimony and remembered his 2002 testimony.

"I was there, and without a transcript I can't have a final conclusion, but nothing jumped out at me, no contradiction," she said.

If those rebukes aren't plain enough, consider what Richard Lugar, the Indiana Republican who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told George Stephanopoulos last Sunday on the ABC News program This Week . Like Mr. Graham and Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Lugar also served on the joint Congressional committee. Mr. Lugar didn't recall any "substantial contradictions" between what Mr. Clarke had told that panel and what he said later to the 9/11 commission.

Of Mr. Frist's harsh attack on Mr. Clarke, Mr. Lugar said dryly: "I really wouldn't go there."

Unfortunately, Mr. Frist already went there. Even before this sorry episode, he lacked credibility. Coming from a politician who wrote a quickie book to profit from the anthrax scare, his whine about profiteering is ludicrous. (Perhaps the majority leader envies Mr. Clarke's success. Apparently, his bioterror book didn't sell quite as well as Against All Enemies. Neither did his vanity tome on Frist family genealogy, which bore the self-parodic title Good People Beget Good People .) Coming from a millionaire whose family company grew bloated through Medicare fraud, his insinuation of dishonesty is laughable.

Unless he suddenly can bring forth evidence to support his accusations, Mr. Frist should apologize to the man he slandered. Then he should apologize to his fellow Senators and resign his post. Conduct that would be unbecoming in an obscure backbencher should be unacceptable in a Senate leader.