Sam--

GLTY. Nice to hear your perspective.

jeff-for-progress, i agree that rove is that devisou, but i think bloomberg is too smart to do something like that. he's a democrat at heart and basically executes liberal ideas in a way that is good for private market and economy. he's going to be busy running his foundation (he just bought a $45mm building that will house it). i think he knows that runningg for pres isn't the right thing for him and he can do more with a private market based non-profit a la gates, buffet etc.

corzine is the same type of guy who can make economic sense of liberal and progressive values. his best poll numbers were after the budget passed and voters blamed the legislature more for the standoff than the governor. corzine actually slept at his office three days in a row during july 4th week and the voters respected that.

he's gaining respect as an executive who has backbone and ambitious plans to fix new jersey.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/nyregion/31corzine.html

also, he won nj governorship by 9 points. nj has a recent history of having polls that are a statistical tie. when the votes were actually counted in '04 nj went to kerry by a double digit margin and corzine won by 9. he won the female vote by 20%, latinos with 66% of the vote and african americans with 98%.

now with his budget and plans going forward he has helped enough groups that the hurt was cushioned. his base stuck with him and he gained some friends, particularly in the small business community.

he'd be a great candidate and has what it takes to win. fundraising, great private market and public service record highlighted by a strong background for the economy/taxes (which is slowing), voting against the war, and homeland security strength.

the only question in my opinion, will the timing be right for '08. i think it's a long-shot, but a good bet that he'd run and win.

"American Muslim you sound rather like some of the Evangelicals I call friends - a man of faith AND reason. It's too bad all people of faith are not like you and I wish the Muslims I had met overseas were like you."

mikeB, remember there ARE plenty of us around of all faiths and philosophies. moderates know that it's ok to believe differently therefore don't scream loudly like the extremes. our job is to step up, particularly moderate Muslims, and combat the fear mongering, sabre rattling, and ignorance of the extremes who are either in charge like iran/bush admin, or have power/influence independent of govts.

drindle, mikeB, and others, good to see an open-minded evolving discussion going on...thanks

also, the transportation idea. i say go full speed ahead with it. long-term infrastructure planning is key and like you pointed out, combatting climate change is good for the economy.

Thank you Colin. It is really just common sense, using existing technology. It would have some construction costs associated with it, but nothing at all compared to our boondoggle in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. For less than a quarter of what we are spending there, we could do this...bu it would require politcial leadership and vision and a concern for this country instead of the treasonous wealthy jerks that run the Bush White House. Some day we will do this, I expect, and it will be someone like Edwards or Kerry or Gore doing it...

MikeB -- That is a FASCINATING idea. Seriously, I think you should be the new Energy Secretary when a Dem wins the Whitehouse in '08. It's amazing to me that people aren't writing about alternative energy ideas, given how important they are from both an environmental standpoint AND a national security standpoint.

"American Muslim" you sound rather like some of the Evangelicals I call friends - a man of faith AND reason. It's too bad all people of faith are not like you and I wish the Muslims I had met overseas were like you.

As for the energy saving idea, it was onw some engineering friends and I were tossing around. My wife and I purchased a new Prius last July and the mileage we get from it is so much better than that advertised that we cannot figure out what trhe government was driving during their tests. On a recent vacation we drove it over the Cascade Mountain range from Eugene, Oregon to Bend and from there up through Eastern, Washintgton, through Yakima over another pass (I-80) thrpough Cle Elum and on into Seattle. We **averaged** 62 mile per gallon! A friend retro-fitted his Prius with an auxilliary battery in the rear and tops off the charge on the battery array when the car is parked in his garage at night. He **averages** 160 miles per gallon. This got us to thinking. Everyone knows that the electrical loss from transmission lines is in excess of 65%. So, we figured, why not take them off the polls up in the air and simply stick them in the center of freeway lanes. The loss, then, generates an elctrical field that can be tapped into by any car or truck having a hybrid motor. And, it is a very simply retrofit that would allow the electrical motor of a hybrid motor array to use that energy to power the vehicle. This would mean, you could drive, on I-5, from (say) Seattle to Los Angeles with the only fuel being consummed when you pulled off the freeway for a bathroom or food stop....say one gallon of gas total. Cummings, the big diesel truck engine manufacturer, has developed a hybrid dieel truck motor, too. SO you could actually have a truck that would cover the same miles using only a couple of gallons of diesel at most.

Now, all of this would lead the much touted "law of supply and demand" to motivate anyone who could aford one to drive a hybrid motor vehicle. So, the savings would just be the savings from driving on the interstate hghway system, it would be anywhere people drive (remeber that 67 miles per gallon we get with our Prius). The fuel savings would correspond with similar savings in CO2 and other hydrocarbon emission cavings. So, pretty much at one fell swoop, you would put a very large dent in global warming AND energy independence.

Further, just imagine the hundreds of thousands of jobs created to fit our interstate highway system with either an electical grid or a channel for high voltage power transmission, the incredible hnuber of new jobs created to engineer and manufacture the millions of hybrid motor powered vehicles (nad, if done right, it WOULD be right here in the U.S.), etc. It could just turn this country around.

About the only downside we could think of was how government would tax these cars to pay for highway construction, safety, and maintenance, but we figured that these cars could have a GPS system hardwired into them that would allow government to figure how many miles they were driven and coud base the tax on something like that.

OIf course, all of this would require a nartional vision and direction. I don't see Bush or any Republican doing it (but...Gulliani or Hagel could prove me wrong there), but then I don't see most Democrats having the good sense to push this either...Kerry certainly would, so would Gore, and I think John Edwards at least the common sense to see what it would lead to, but I think Clinton would form committees and study it to death with the result that it would be a public emloyee boondoggle going nowhere and costing teh times what it needs to cost....but maybe people are actually concerned about national survival now.....

american muslim, thank you for your patient efforts to explain islam. and to all who hope for a brighter future than pulling bodies of children [any children] out of the rubble of our civilizations.

Corzine barely won in the governorship race and even he doesn't have enough money to spend on a per capita basis what it took to win the NJ governorship on a national basis. Even with this massive spending, his election margin was narrow.

I don't follow NJ politics close enough to know how his show-down over raising revenue is playing in NJ, but I doubt he has gained much popularity since his election.

I think the Bloomberg boomlet is probably the brainshild of those seeking to insure a Republican victory. This is a particularly bad idea (no wonder John Fund of the WSJ editorial page is promoting it), that Karl Rove probably loves. This sounds like a fall-back contingency plan for Rove, using a Perot style candidate (this time favoring the Republicans) to eke out a 1992 Clinton-style victory for the Republicans in 2008. Similar planning helped to secure Ohio for the Republicans in 2004. (Oh, yes it is crucial that the thickness of the paper be of a certain weight for absentee ballots. Let's move all our voting machines to Republican suburbs so there aren't enough in inner-cities, etc.)

Rove only appears to be brilliant, in retrospect not so much for his strategy, but for his preparation for future contingencies. That a half smart or three-quarter smart punditry consistently falls for these gambits, indicates to me that there is a reason why mediocrity is so often rewarded in the media.

This third way Independent boomlet is just a Trojan horse vehicle IMO, to further insure a Republican victory in 2008, in case of a close election. A sort of insurance policy.

BTW, I know that Gore ran in 2000, not 2004 as mentioned in the last post. I probably was thinking, he should have run, when I was writing it. Perhaps, I was being just plain stupid at the time (look at my grammar in my previous post), stuff happens.

by the way, jon corzine is just like bloomberg but i think he is actually going to run and actually has a shot to win. he's also buddies with bloomberg and my guess is that bloomie will be an ally of corzine and will help him raise money.

mikeB. i finally had a chance to go back and read all your post. on one hand, i think we probably agree on most things (especially the environment), but on the other hand, you're spreading ignorance and hate of islam.

first of all, your sources of islamic history are likely western orientalists. those are western writers who looked at islam from a critical know-thy-enemy perspective. they were rarely objective and like many reporters, lazy and didn't do their homework. muslims have been in palestine/israel since the beginning of the religion and there were muslim leaders like saladin who let everyone live in jerusalem in peace. remember, it was the christians who 'bathed in blood up to their knees' during the crusades.

if you want to learn about islam from an objective western orientalist i would suggest reading Islam, a Short History by Karen Armstrong. Another great book that explains the fundamental philosophies and beliefs is Islam, Religion of Life. Please read them and you'll see why you and I agree on so much else except for this issue. if you're really a liberal you'll do your homework and read some works from intellectual and democratic minded muslims with an open mind, rather than judge based on the worst governments and peoples. like i said earlier, i do apologize for your bad experiences.

i don't let what george bush, karl rove, ohio and florida have done to democracy ruin democracy for me. you shouldn't let your experience with islam, lead to so much hate and fear of a beautiful religion that you probably would see at least some truth and humanity, if you actually made the effort to learn the real basics and fundamentals. some other highlights:

- islam greatly reveres Jesus, Moses, and Abraham and others as Prophets.
- we fast during ramadan because it instills discipline and humility. the philosophy is that we give up food and water during daylight hours to gain self-control and also a knowing of what it's like to be hungry or poor. it makes you appreciate every breath you take and every meal you have.
- islam specifically forbids extremism and nationalism because quite frankly, those are the main causes of war and hate.
- 'the ink of a scholar's pen, weighs greater than the blood of a martyr'. islam has made significant achievment in its history in medicine, chemistry, algebra (al-jabra), chemistry (al-chemy), ARABIC numberals, medicine etc. one of the first theories of the structure of the atom was by a muslim scientist in the 11th or 12th century. it was widely respected and turned out to be right. the scientist, whose name i unfortunately cannot remember stopped his study. in his writings he explained his reasoning 'the energy derived from the atom is enough to destroy the city of baghdad'. ironic that he said baghdad which was the rome/nyc of the time.

also, as drindle and someone else pointed out, criticizing israel's response is not necessarily anti-semitic. anti-semitism, anti islamism or any sort of hate against a race or religion is what makes the world an f-ed up place. let's not confuse real anti-semitism with constructive criticism of israeli politics. i have a lot of jewish friends, a couple who i consider brothers. they are upset with israeli right wing politics for the same reason they don't like bush and the warmongers in iraq.

majority of jews, muslims, buddhists, atheists, christians, agnostics don't like to see a lot of people die, especially innocent civilians who have no control over hezbollah.

i think israel was within their rights to respond to hezbollah. however, i do think their response was disproportionate. by destroying the whole infrastructure of the country and killing many civilians in non-hezbollah areas (56 were killed last night, 34 of them children) israel and america have united the arab street behind hezbollah. that's not what we wanted.

and mikeB, you also said that israel was the only democracy in the middle east. not true because lebanon is a democracy that has people from different religions who came together to form a real government that finally had syria off it's back. it's a tragedy that 750 lebanese civilians have been killed, just as it is a tragedy that many israeli civilians have died.

the country that has gained the most during the bush presidency has been iran. in this case iran wins as well because hezbollah is their arm in lebanon and hezbollah is going to be considered the winner in this situation because they've lasted this long and got many of the people behind them.

today's world is proof that right wing ideologues, neocons, and the military industrial complex are the greatest evils in the world. this is the case in america, iran, and with bin laden. global war is exactly what the ideologues want. i hope cooler heads prevail, but i'm not so sure given who the leaders of the world are these days.

also, i just want to leave to any and all on this blog one thing. this coming from someone who believes deeply in islam and also loves the opportunity that was given to me in america. we all agree that islamic extremism is bad. one of the best things each of us can do individually is read about islam and pick up the Quran or those books i mentioned and educate themselves and recognize that the fearmongering is overblow and most of us (admittedly not some of the main islamic governments) are moderate and tolerant people. the second thing you can do to combat islamic extremism is to cut your oil consumption and decrease your carbon footprint.

the less money we give these oil b@strds the less power they'll have.

Drindl,

I think the key to downgrade the culture wars has to do with something that Thomas Friedman said this morning on Meet the Press about resolving the problem in the Middle East, the importance of listening to people and showing them respect. Once you do that it is amazing what you can say to people and be listened to. That is the first step in resolving much of our problems, both here in America and in the world. The restriction on Democratic dialogue from restriction to who you "invite to campaign rallies" like W in 2004 to the nation's you will listen to in the Middle East. The rationale that you reward people by just listening to them, as the Bush Administration gives its excuse for not talking to Syria and Iran, as Bob Schieffer, mentioned this morning on Face the Nation, is just plain nuts.

As to the Mike Bloomberg mentioned by John Fund of the WSJ possibly running as an Independent, I think it might be some trouble for the Democrats, however, it would mean that Rudy isn't running. That would be a net plus for Democrats. I think a more important prediction came from a member of the panel on Chris Mathews that a senior Gore aide has relocated to Tennessee, indicating that Gore may be seriously be considering running for President. This would be good news for Democrats as I believe he would be their strongest candidate.

What was interesting on the Hardball panel was their attitude of "why bother with talking about the Democrats chances in 2008" if someone without pertinent experience in national security experience doesn't run (this lead the panel to think that only Gore or Kerry had a chance to win under these circumstances).

While I think this is too pessimistic, I would encourage folks to think why Gore is the only one of the candidates who can virtually run with anyone as his VP? Why Gore who actually won the election in 2004 using a strict method of ballot counting would not be thrown by whoever he ran against and whoever else joined the field. A Bloomberg run, except as that of a spoiler, could not even get off the ground if Gore ran (this would greatly marginalize Bloomberg's impact).

As much as I've gotten to like Edwards and appreciate Obama's potential, they unfortunately would not be the strongest persons to be put at the top of the ticket. BTW, the Hardball panel also thought that Hillary's chances were almost nil given her limited experience on national security issues. Certainly she would be most vulnerable to a three-way race with Bloomberg in it.

One additional thing I like about Gore he addressed the root problem of authoritarianism in his MLK address on January 16th this year. Folks like Giliani (and even more so Newt) are very troubling on this issue. A "broken windows" policy on crime if taken to extremes is just the mirror image of Krystal Nacht. While I do not suggest in anyway that Rudy is sympathetic to anti-semitism (or fascism), he has a too authoritarian mind capable of cracking down too far to maintain order. Hence, Rove's apparent preference for Rudy as a follow-on to W, building on the Imperial Presidency.

Gore is a good person to run as an antidote on a range of issues from global warming, to anti-authoritarianism, to good governance, etc. Edwards has an excellent rationale running on Equality, while Obama's Democratic Dialogue with folks who don't necessarily agree with you, is an excellent prescription for the problems of the world in general. We have the talent how we put it together is important not only for the Democratic party, but for the future of the world.

As Tom Friedman said this morning, an important role for America is give the world hope (through our optimism), rather than to assert our power through fear. I have absolutely no faith that authoritarians of any stripe have the self-awareness to make a good president and world leader. I mentioned three Democrats (Gore, Edwards, and Obama) who would have a good chance if the American people gave them a chance.

Giving a respectful hearing to Evangelicals increases the odds that the US can work itself out of this authoritarian morass. A similar RESPECT for world opinion is and listening to others is similarly the best way to assert our influence in the world.

BTW, the disgusting John Fund, of the WSJ, thinks that Mike Bloomberg might run for president in '08, as in independent. Fund loves the idea because he thinks it will hurt the Dems more than the Repugs. But I'm not sure... and I'm intrigued by Bloomberg. He IS a maverick -- the real thing, not a phony one like McCain.

Chris-- and others--what do you think about Bloomberg in '08?

I appreciated so much the posts by all the good and decent people of different religions. I don't oppose religion at all-- I just hope that we can accomodate each other's differences and be free to practice what we believe, not have imposed on us what others believe.

I think it's summed by the difference between W and JFK [and just writing that depresses me, because how far we have fallen]. JFK, I believe, was a man of deep and true faith--but he never said that God told him to follow a particular course. Whereas bush has the audacity, the blasphemy, to say that he knows the mind of God, that his way is God's way.

I hope that you are right, Jeff, that the theocrats who threaten freedom of thought, of science, of conscience, of religion itself, in this country, are on the wane.

An "Anomoly" Foreshadowing a Trend?

I agree with an earlier poster who stated that Democrats need not substantively change their positions (perhaps soften them a bit around the edges) to gain more evangelical support. In treating Evangelicals with respect we have much more to gain and very little to lose. Evangelicals are beginning to resent being considered an adjunct of the Republican party- whose hot buttons only need to be punched to get their B.F. Skinner stimulus-response support. Evidence of this can be found in today's NYTimes ("Disowning Conservative Politics, Pastor Rattles Flock"):

MAPLEWOOD, Minn. -- Like most pastors who lead thriving evangelical megachurches, the Rev. Gregory A. Boyd was asked frequently to give his blessing -- and the church's -- to conservative political candidates and causes.

The requests came from church members and visitors alike: Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services? Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit? Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortion work? Would the church distribute "voters' guides" that all but endorsed Republican candidates? And with the country at war, please couldn't the church hang an American flag in the sanctuary?

After refusing each time, Mr. Boyd finally became fed up, he said. Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called "The Cross and the Sword" in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a "Christian nation" and stop glorifying American military campaigns.

"When the church wins the culture wars, it inevitably loses," Mr. Boyd preached. "When it conquers the world, it becomes the world. When you put your trust in the sword, you lose the cross."

Mr. Boyd says he is no liberal. He is opposed to abortion and thinks homosexuality is not God's ideal. The response from his congregation at Woodland Hills Church here in suburban St. Paul -- packed mostly with politically and theologically conservative, middle-class evangelicals -- was passionate. Some members walked out of a sermon and never returned. By the time the dust had settled, Woodland Hills, which Mr. Boyd founded in 1992, had lost about 1,000 of its 5,000 members.

But there were also congregants who thanked Mr. Boyd, telling him they were moved to tears to hear him voice concerns they had been too afraid to share...

He (Boyd) said he first became alarmed while visiting another megachurch's worship service on a Fourth of July years ago. The service finished with the chorus singing "God Bless America" and a video of fighter jets flying over a hill silhouetted with crosses.

"I thought to myself, 'What just happened? Fighter jets mixed up with the cross?' " he said in an interview...

In his six sermons, Mr. Boyd laid out a broad argument that the role of Christians was not to seek "power over" others -- by controlling governments, passing legislation or fighting wars. Christians should instead seek to have "power under" others -- "winning people's hearts" by sacrificing for those in need, as Jesus did, Mr. Boyd said.

"America wasn't founded as a theocracy," he said. "America was founded by people trying to escape theocracies. Never in history have we had a Christian theocracy where it wasn't bloody and barbaric. That's why our Constitution wisely put in a separation of church and state.

"I am sorry to tell you," he continued, "that America is not the light of the world and the hope of the world. The light of the world and the hope of the world is Jesus Christ."

Mr. Boyd lambasted the "hypocrisy and pettiness" of Christians who focus on "sexual issues" like homosexuality, abortion or Janet Jackson's breast-revealing performance at the Super Bowl halftime show. He said Christians these days were constantly outraged about sex and perceived violations of their rights to display their faith in public.

"Those are the two buttons to push if you want to get Christians to act," he said. "And those are the two buttons Jesus never pushed."

Some Woodland Hills members said they applauded the sermons because they had resolved their conflicted feelings. David Churchill, a truck driver for U.P.S. and a Teamster for 26 years, said he had been "raised in a religious-right home" but was torn between the Republican expectations of faith and family and the Democratic expectations of his union.

When Mr. Boyd preached his sermons, "it was liberating to me," Mr. Churchill said.

Mr. Boyd gave his sermons while his church was in the midst of a $7 million fund-raising campaign. But only $4 million came in, and 7 of the more than 50 staff members were laid off, he said.

Mary Van Sickle, the family pastor at Woodland Hills, said she lost 20 volunteers who had been the backbone of the church's Sunday school.

"They said, 'You're not doing what the church is supposed to be doing, which is supporting the Republican way,' " she said. "It was some of my best volunteers."

The Rev. Paul Eddy, a theology professor at Bethel College and the teaching pastor at Woodland Hills, said: "Greg is an anomaly in the megachurch world. He didn't give a whit about church leadership, never read a book about church growth. His biggest fear is that people will think that all church is is a weekend carnival, with people liking the worship, the music, his speaking, and that's it."

In the end, those who left tended to be white, middle-class suburbanites, church staff members said. In their place, the church has added more members who live in the surrounding community -- African-Americans, Hispanics and Hmong immigrants from Laos.

This suits Mr. Boyd. His vision for his church is an ethnically and economically diverse congregation that exemplifies Jesus' teachings by its members' actions. He, his wife and three other families from the church moved from the suburbs three years ago to a predominantly black neighborhood in St. Paul.

Mr. Boyd now says of the upheaval: "I don't regret any aspect of it at all. It was a defining moment for us. We let go of something we were never called to be. We just didn't know the price we were going to pay for doing it."

His congregation of about 4,000 is still digesting his message. Mr. Boyd arranged a forum on a recent Wednesday night to allow members to sound off on his new book. The reception was warm, but many of the 56 questions submitted in writing were pointed: Isn't abortion an evil that Christians should prevent? Are you saying Christians should not join the military? How can Christians possibly have "power under" Osama bin Laden? Didn't the church play an enormously positive role in the civil rights movement?

One woman asked: "So why NOT us? If we contain the wisdom and grace and love and creativity of Jesus, why shouldn't we be the ones involved in politics and setting laws?"

Mr. Boyd responded: "I don't think there's a particular angle we have on society that others lack. All good, decent people want good and order and justice. Just don't slap the label 'Christian' on it."

Bravo! Pastor Boyd. Perhaps the American Theocracy that Kevin Phillip's warned of is beginning to wane. I think all of this is very much of prime importance for the 2008 presidential election and perhaps accounts for why so many self-styled Republican fundamentalist political leaders are no longer being found in the first tier of Republican party contenders.

mikeB, i apologize once again, this time because i assumed you were conservative. i skimmed through and didn't see all of your comments.

much respect on your knowledge of clean technologies and your reference to yourself as a 'radical nutcase on environmental issues'. it's good to see an engineer with 50 patents with that sort of mentality. slowly but surely, the environmental movement is happening in this country.

in one of your earlier posts (i think it was yours) you asked, what do muslims have in common with liberals? first, my definition of liberal is open-minded, tolerant, and instinctually concerned for less fortunate. i don't necessarily think that all liberals act this way nor do i think that's the only form of liberalism.

- the Quran says it's humanity's duty to take care of the natural world. the philosophy behind it is that nature in most cases is defenseless from humans. nature and science is also considered a reflection of God
- one of the main pillars of islam is to donate to the poor. after the Prophet died a break away group of muslims did not want to have it be mandatory to pay a 'poor tax'. a smallish civil war erupted but the first Caliph (basically the next leader after the Prophet). this is established the donation as a fundamental of islam
- the Quran says the leaders of the community should be representative of the people.

the list is much longer than that but i wanted to highlight the main points. i've been lucky enough to travel through out a decent part of the world including saudi and egypt and i can tell you many muslims there and around the world respect the idea of america and want to come here for the same reason any immigrant does. the usual beef they have is not with our ideals, values, constitution or most of our people. it's usually with our government. i actually think a lot of liberals feel that way and want to take our country back to the time of clinton, jfk, and fdr. that's when the rest of the world respected america as a global leader.

my mother was a teenager in pakistan and she remembers exactly where she was when jfk was shot. she also remembers crying.

close family friends of mine are pakistani and have lived in america but now have moved back. they came to america for the first time about thirty years ago and one of the first things they did was visit jfk's gravesite.

i think that's the type of inspiring leadership that the world needs right now and i am optimistic that it can be done.

i will end this post by saying that what happened in seattle was equally as tragic and disgusting to american muslims as it was to anyone else. i really pray that all of us start banding together and keep the peace domestically. we HAVE to.

my dear drindl (and other severely secular lefties)--

please do not misunderstand. my belief that the dems need to appeal to religious voters is simply an observation that there are around 40 to 50 million of them. such a sizable constituency in any democracy is ignored only by the eventual loser. however, "appealing to" should NOT be taken to mean "let's have pat robertson declared Pontiff of the USA." i should point out that in 1996, some FORTY percent of self-identified evangelicals cast their vote for Bill Clinton. moreover, in 2004, despite being completely ignored (once again) and heavily courted by the other side, an astonishing twenty percent still voted for the liberal, prochoice, anti-school prayer, pro-darwin, gay-loving, northeasterner kerry. OBVIOUSLY, then this is very far from being a politically homogenous group. we have to get past our silly sanctimonious stereotypes and work on our appeal to these voters (which can be done without changing a single part of the democratic platform) if we want to start winning senate and house seats in the south and midwest again, not to mention the white house.

Drindl,

We do live in a democracy (so far) and that includes the right to practice your own religion. I belong to a fairly liberal church (Episcopal) and do not seek to impose my beliefs on anyone. I am a centrist who is deeply suspicious of the religious right. I am concerned about a country in which a majority of people (according to one poll I read about) do not believe in evolution. I am deeply concerned about a country in which ayatollahs like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have major followings. Remember the prayer "Dear Lord, protect me from your followers". But, remember that religious people and clergy played important roles in the civil rights movement (Dr. King was the Reverend Doctor King after all) and peace movements. Religious people and clergy are playing important roles in anti-poverty efforts, assisting the homeless, and, of course, against the war in Iraq. From reading your posts, I don't think you would be opposed to people getting involved in those causes because of their religious beliefs. Being a democracy people are free to vote their consciences, even if you or I do not agree with where that leads them.

Chris, you wrote: A successful presidential candidate needs to be committed to regular repetition of the basic message each day. Can Richardson stick to that kind of rigid script?

While I'm more interested in watching the 2006 races and haven't yet really thought about 2008, I saw this and had to ask: Isn't this what lost the presidential races for Gore and Kerry? The voters seemed to think they were "wooden" and "too much on message". At least that's the opinion I have.

just when I thought I couldn't care less about the 2008 Presidential picks, I find out I was wrong. Chris, most people on this blog don't want to hear abotu the first 5 on each side, never mind 6-10.

'the dems must appeal to religious voters if they want any branch of the gvt back'

That comment may perhaps be true, but it depresses me more than anything. I thought I lived in a democracy -- not a theocracy. I read an interesting piece in the nYtimes this morning about Spinoza and reason, and how he was excommunicated for saying that no religion could claim to be the one true word of God. The writer of the piece noted Spinoza's influence on Jefferson, and how Jefferson had sought to craft a government free from religious influence.

And yet--here we are today, all of the rest of slaves to those who believe that only they own the one True Way. Excuse me, but whatever happened to the Age of Reason and sane and rational public policy?

I feel like the world is slipping back into the Dark Ages.

Foisted on my own Petard! Well, I was a bit 'causual' with casual. MikeB, Dirndl, we can agree that Italy is nice. And Being that I was born and raised in Texas, I wouldn't miss Midland either.

I agree with those pushing Clark for president. While his candidacy did flop in '04, he has been out campaigning vigorously for Democratic candidates. One hopes he has learned from the experience and will be more polished in his presentation. A four star general who prosecuted a successful war and opposed the invasion of Iraq will have instant credibility on national security issue, the Democrats' perennial weak spot. Obama for VP.

What if Rudy G. ran for the nomination in Democratic Primary, his views are much more in line with the base on that side of the aisle. He may have a chance in Iowa and NH as the voters seem to be pragmatic in those states

as a native kansan, please trust me when i say do NOT underestimate brownback. despite his recent ridiculous floor speech (the talking, singing, dancing embryos) he's actually a consummate campaigner and a brilliant speaker. i met him once, challenged him on a couple of things, and he actually had my liberal leanings moving the other direction (thank god i eventually came to my senses).

also, there's been a lot of talk about who would make a great vp candidate and here's my nominee for the dems: gov. ted strickland of ohio. given his state's extraordinary importance not to mention his status as a minister (the dems must appeal to religious voters if they want any branch of the gvt back) and self-made man he'd be absolutely perfect. no, he hasn't won yet, but i can't see a majority of the sensible people of ohio ever choosing a semi-psychotic fanatic to lead their state...despite their choice in presidents of late!

ps anyone who's shocked by there being a liberal in kansas, should simply take a look at our current governor and her (that's right, her) prospects for reelection this fall.

Clinton/Warner has been my pick for a long time now and on the pub side, I just can't see Rudy or Frist playing any role except fundraising.

huh?

Richardson on the ticket may hamper the Democrats chances of pulling Ohio because the latino vote is only 3% of the popular vote. It is sad too because here in Ohio they are very anti-latinos and it may turn off a great sum of voters here. I would stick with Evan Bayh whose appeal from the next door neighbor state will boost the tickets chances of pulling Ohio and Iowa instead of Richardson who would help in say New Mexico.

Again Bill Richardson could be on the ticket but I can see no way in hell that he could win the actual nomination. I don't think he will run at all and his political skills will not carry him to win. Evan Bayh is not charasmatic like Bill Clinton or John Edwards but he knows what he is doing as far as politics is concerned. Wes Clark will not win. He will not garner enough cash and media attention to win. Feingold will come on strong and fizzle out like Dean. Gore could run an anti-Hillary storm but for God sakes for the general election let's hope not. Remember his favorable rating is almost as low as Dick Cheney's and this is pretty bad. Although with Gore it is unwaranted. The only people on this list that I can see be on the Dems ticket is Richardson or Clark. Here are the rankings that I think will be most likely:

Dems
1) Hillary Clinton and John Edwards
2) Mark Warner
3) Evan Bayh

I don't think any other Democrat will come close to winning. Vilsack? He did such a bad job in that poll that showed Edwards winning in his home state...pathetic. If he can't win over his home state support he will not win over the country.

For Republicans:
1) George Allen and John McCain
2)Mitt Romney
3) Rudy G.

George Allen will surprise everyone. He is a very neo-conservative Bush type rallying effect Republican that can win the hearts and minds of the Republican Party. John McCain could wrestle the grip of the Republican Party from the neocons but I think they will keep their influence on the party much to the GOP's downfall. Plus, McCain has a low approval rating from the Republican Party. His and Rudy G's support comes fromt that no other GOP candidate is known. At least in the Dems Iowa poll Edwards, HRC and Kerry all had similar name ID so it was more represenative torward those candidates. Every Republican candidate will make it known that Rudy is prochoice and pro-gay rights plus his scandals makes me think he will not win.

My predications for 2008:

Edwards/Bayh or Edwards/Richardson
v

Allen/McCain

MikeB, I think you're right about the Hollywood effect, but I also think any country whose government is heavily influenced by a religion, whether Catholic or whatever, tends to devalue women, and enable sexual predators. There's this whole patriarchial/dominant macho guy thing that's present in all authoritarian power structures.

But I love Italy too--such food!

drindl, one quick story about Italy and Italian's. I was shopping in a store in Rome and forgot my wallet and passport. The store owner sent a clerk out into the crowds to track me down and return it. I love Italian's! Never had a bad experience there and my wife was always treated well. Now, Greece and Mexico....they were kind of strange. Some of this, I think, has to do with the Hollywood effect...the men in these countries think Amercian women just expect to be pawed and they will jump in the sack with you. I mean, they see it in the movies all the time. Kind of stupid, but there you are.

I am pretty sure he wont get the nomination, but I would *love* to have President Kerry. What a good and decent man!

I forgot Italy...

I think we have a lot in common, MikeB.

And I think american muslim does a really good job of talking about why condemning an entire faith just makes it harder for good people of that faith. It radicalizes people who would otherwise not be -- to be hated without reason.

And I have to say, I have never been to the Middle East, but when I traveled as a younger woman, the places where I had the most trouble with men following and harrassing me, were Greece, Spain, Mexico--and the US.

He doesn't have complete name recognition yet, but Mitt Romney is the most qualified of any candidate out there, and the big dig just proves it. He has five months left of his term as Governor, and he's leading. He's taken the big dig by the horns and showing just what he's made of. Now with the CEO of the Mass Turnpike Authority gone, he'll only be able to prove that point more.

Great Commentary on the subject can be read here http://www.hubpolitics.com/archives/000812.php#comments and here http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/index.php?title=governor_romney_continues_to_impress&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1.

Not to mention his stellar Olympics job, his previous experience in the private sector at both Bain & Company and Bain Capital.

He's also highly educated graduating cum laude from both BYU for his undergrad and Harvard Law and Business Schools CONCURRENTLY.

He's turned bad situations around time and time again, plus he has the ability to work with Democrats (just look at the landmark Universal Health Care Initiative that he and legislative Democrats crafted). In 2008 this is the type of individual we're going to need.

"American Muslim". I am most manifestly NOT a conservative. I am one of "those sorts" that goes out and knocks on doors for (usually) Democratic candidates. I would classify myself as a moderate liberal and a genuine radical nutcase when it comes to environmental issues. So, you bet, we need to reduce our dependence on imported oil. I even think, given present technology, that could be done and provide jobs for Amercian's at the same time. We could install an electrical or magnetic grid under the road surface of our interstate highways. Using that electrical field we could charge the batteries and run hybrid cars and trucks whule they were travelling the interstate highway system. Since it is estimated that about half of the miles travelled is over that system you could assume that roughly half of the fuel consumed is there, also. Adding this grid would accelerate demand for cars and trucks with hybrid motors, too. The win, as I see it, is we would cut oil consumption by two-thirds! (About half of this saving from hybrid motors and about half from the grid itself.) And, it would cut the oil revenues for the people in Midland, Texas, leaving them with less money with which to play with elections and politcics, but I see that as a good thing. "Just imagine a world without Texas or Texans!"

anyone pay attention to jon corzine? if you look at his resume he's an ideal candidate:
general:
- grew up on a farm
- was in the marine reserves
- high school quarterback and walked on to his bball team at illinois and was captain
- MBA from university of chicago
- rose from the bottom of goldman sachs as a bond trader to CEO. solely based on his financial wizardry and knowledge of markets

senate career:
- voted against war
- was on foreign relations, intelligence, and budget committee
- voted against all bush tax cuts for wealthy and proposed middle class tax packages in response that were ignored by republican leadership
- tried to pass an ammendment that required chemical companies to guard their facilities. failed because republicans are easy to bribe/donate to
- brought forth legislation to end genocide in darfur along with sam brownback.
- wrote much of sarbanes-oxley corporate accountability act
- great record on environment, alternative energy, homeland security, job creaton, worker protection

governor of nj:
- passed a budget where he cut spending $2bn and raised taxes $1.9bn. very painful but necessary budget that he shut down the government in order to get passed. came out with higher approval ratings than he started with and nj voters gave him credit for having conviction and standing up to his own party.
- budget was fiscally responsible, pro small business/job creation, helped the poor, cut government waste, pro union
- created extensive state homeland security department that is run by a security expert who he convinced to move from california to nj
- plans to reduce property taxes, fund stem-cell research, end pay to play.

he's a true progressive/liberal and isn't afraid to stand up for his beliefs. he knows a ton of rich people and would be able to raise enough money for a campaign. his best friend is chief fundraiser for the DNC. a lot of conservative wall street types like him a lot and he has a great rep on the street.

i think it might be a long shot for him to run in '08 but he's very ambitious, plans ahead, and is an expert in timing things right. stranger things have happened. a corzine/obama or corzine/warner ticket would be unbeatable.

certain groups overwhelmingly approve of and voted for him including african americans, women, seniors, latinos. enough conservative/moderate white males like his busines background/american dream story and the fact that he's a regular all-american midwest type. oh and to top it all off, he's sincerely religious and is comfortable like obama, to talk about his faith.

drawbacks: he's divorced, slightly balding and has a beard.

I have to fully support Ellen in her comments. General Clark's lack of elected experience is a strength, not a weakness. He can still be viewed as the "non-politician" as an ACTUAL leader.

His work on behalf of Democratic candidates has been amazing. He is the ONLY potential 08' candidate putting all his time and 90% of his fundraising dollars to work directly for the good of the Democratic party. When asked in an interview how much money he intended to raise through WesPAC, his answer was telling. "As little as possible." The fact that he has only raised $250,000 directly only proves that his committment is to those running in 06, without regard to himself. That is a selfless action, something that no other Democratic candidate could probably even understand. Most of them are good people, but every one of them selfish to a fault. Isn't it time we get the President we deserve? That we actualy elect the BEST person for the job? Enough with the horse race chatter, This country is desperate for a true leader. Time and time again throughout his life, Wesley Clark has proven with his actions, and paid for with his blood, that he is a true leader.

You want prior office holder status to be a requirement? Look how well the former Governor of Texas is handling the job. Some litmus test...

mike B. i'm sorry that you've had that experience. it's terrible that some of my co-religionists exhibit the same intolerance of bhoomes, klansmen, some evangelicals, some extreme atheists, some extreme jews, some republicans, some extreme leftists etc etc.

you also have to recognize that you've had anecdotal experiences from some bad places. muslims in europe are treated like african americans were before the civil rights era. ghettoisation is not a good policy and it's no surprise that some are angry and ignorant.

in america and britain, where they do immigration right, muslims have flourished. the places in the middle east you've mentioned are dictatorial oil-rich sheiks who take away individual rights in exchange for a very generous welfare state. they've also let the fundamentalist wahhabis do their thing. this group is super narrow minded and hates everyone including moderate muslims who don't follow their brand of intolerance/hate. it's unfortunate that they have a decent following, but that's what ignorance and oil riches do to a country. oh by the way, let's not forget that you and everyone on this blog is an enabler because our country is in bed with those corrupt middle east oil regimes and we need someone to sell us cheap gas.

before you start stereotyping muslims, maybe you should look in the mirror at yourself and your own conservative party's policies to be butt buddies with greasy oil men. also, look at the muslim countries that don't have that much oil and you see a lot more progress and moderation (malaysia, indonesia, dubai, qatar, even most of pakistan).

if you really want to take a stand, stop guzzling gas and reduce your carbon footprint.

Will: This is a blog about ideas...not spelling. At best, these posts are rough-drafts. By the way, "causual with your mistakes here" do you mean casual.

B2O, you don't have to convince me! I know those monsters control (or are controlled by...I'm not sure which) Bush and I reject them and him totally. What I fail to understand is, knowing all of that and knowing the history and practice if Islam, why on earth is the left adopting them? Do they feel some sort of need to have their own pet fanatics just like Bush has Dobson, Pat Robertson, et al? It's true, I *do* see a bit more thought coming from Amercian liberals, at least there is a debate amoungst liberals as to the morality of Israel's defending themselves against the terrorist attacks, but our European collegues appear to have bought the Palestinian's and Lebanese as victims lock, stock, and sinker. It's really quite unbelievable. Liberals have nothing in common with Islam, at least as it is practiced in most of the world. I see Kerry, Edwards, and Dean defending Israel, but I am not hearing much from anyone else on our side.

Clearly, as both Israel and America know, but choose to ignore, attacking muslim countries is exactly the wrong thing to do. Just think of how strongly the extremists have been emboldened since we invaded Iraq. And now Lebanon. I think the real answer is oil. We simply need to replace this oil monopoly in America by vastly decreasing the need for petroleum through alternative energy. We dont need petroleum, as alternative forms of energy have only begun to be used and because oil will get so expensive as to be cost-prohibitive for everyday American citizens. B/c it WILL get that expensive. But if we can prevent greedy Westerners like Bush/Blair from invading oil-rich Arab countries, the Middle East, especially moderate and progressive countries, would have less of a reason to hate us. Extremism/Fundamentalism would be reduced throughout the Arab world (the whole world actually including Africa and S.America), and it would take some of the pressure off Israel/Palestine. All of these things would enable western-minded Arab countries like Jordan, UAE, to some extent Egypt, SA, etc, to approach peace talks with Israel. They want peace. They're no dummies, they know that oil is impermanent. They want in on modernization. The Arab League has already put out a peace deal that would normalize relations with Israel I believe for the first time with the entire Arab World. The demands (to the 1949 borders) might not have been readily met by Israel, but that alone was quite a step. Then Iraq happened. Then Lebanon. Both obviously total disasters. We need a total policy change, and it starts with getting rid of the corrupt oil cartel in the United States asap! Bush, Cheney, Domenici, Burns, Pombo, Stevens, Joe Barton, DeLay, Murkowski, etc.

www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.asp?Ind=E01&cycle=ALL&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U

It also wouldnt hurt to have a competent American foreign policy operation too.

It's well past time for you to update your basic talking point on Wes Clark. Sure he has a strong Internet following, as you point out, and yes he doesn't have millions piled up sitting in the bank for a 2008 run, which you also point out. That states the obvious with about as much insight and nuance as a science reporter revealing that planet Earth is mostly covered by ocean.

The impression I get from your summary is of General Clark hunched over a keyboard in his personal office, corresponding with supporters over the Internet. It's true, he does do that, but actually Wes Clark is seldom in his personal office because he is much more often on the road, keynoting State and Regional Democratic gatherings and campaigning for a host of candidates now running for election in 2006.

Wes Clark may not be a fixture on the Sunday morning Washington TV circuit, but he is a frequent traveler to States and Congressional Districts where new and talented Democrats are fighting to unseat Republican incumbents.

Clark's support isn't just an Internet phenomena. More and more that aspect of his base is being eclipsed in enthusiasm by Democratic activists from districts and States that the National Democratic Party usually writes off during the 4 year Presidential election cycles. Clark is out there fighting for them, and they have taken note and they appreciate it.

Clark's PAC can't keep up with all the requests he receives to campaign for Democrats fighting for the very upset victories it will take for the Democratic Party to regain control of Congress this November. And Democrats in those States and Districts choose Delegates to the Democratic National Convention in 2008 just as surely as do those in Maryland and Illinois.

Wes Clark consciously chose to throw his heart and soul and the wallets of his potential contributors into the Democratic fight to retake Congress in 2006, and that takes him to a lot of unglamorous places speaking on behalf of Democrats who are by no means yet recognized power brokers in the Party. It may not do a lot for "Presidential Buzz" but it does a Hell of a lot for the Democratic Party, and it seems shoddy for you to not have even noted the strenuous road schedule Wes Clark is keeping appearing before Democrats across the nation. There is a lot more to report on than just Clark's "active and loyal web "following".

And when you wrote: "The depth and acuity of his foreign policy knowledge is unmatched among the Democrats considering a 2008 bid and he presents his disagreements with the Bush administration in clear and concise language" are you sure there wasn't some mistake? I could swear you were describing General Clark, but that text somehow got inserted next to Joe Biden.

MikeB - Is that the best you can do to call me unemployed? I'll have you know I'm a Software developer with a bachelor of science (not English), but I'm not so intellectually lazy that I cannot bother to learn to spell. If you're so causual with your mistakes here, what else are you cavalier about? It undermines your arguments, which quite frankly are in a desperate need of a good foundation. But wait, you're an engineer! No doubt you can reinforce them. Crisis averted.

MikeB:

"Islam and American Fundimentalism are two faces of the same coin and the world would be better off without both of them."

And the latter controls the GOP. 35% of Bush's votes in 2004 came from self-described "white evangelicals". A little fact that the mainstream media politely tiptoes around. We HAVE a theocratic party in power in this country.

I'm a little dismayed that Chris writes about Joe Biden: "The depth and acuity of his foreign policy knowledge is unmatched among the Democrats considering a 2008 bid..." and then follows up with a write-up on General Wes Clark that doesn't even mention qualifications for the job.

Excuse me? I have every respect for Senator Biden, but let's remember that he is and has always been only a legislator -- all his "foreign policy knowledge" is based on talking about people who do it for real. People like Clark.

Clark was Supreme Allied Commander during NATO's first and only war, negotiator for the Dayton Accords, commanded both European and Latin American regional forces and so represented US interests to over a hundred foreign governments on four continents, and has continued to provide US leadership and advice to both US and allied officials overseas during the years since his military retirement.

Clark's prospects for 2008 will no doubt depend upon more than his resume and job qualifications, but it's absurd to blow past all that he brings to the table only to dwell on whether he can out-raise Hillary Clinton.

Well, drindl, we agree on something. If the American people had elected Kerry (and they DID elect Gore...we ought to have had riots in the streets when that election was stolen) none of this mess would even *be*. We traded in our international stature, any pretense of being even handed, heck our entire moral basis for leadership, for Bush and his gang of wealthy country club robber barrons. I only hope the American people have learned their lesson and will vote a Democratic Congress and Senate into power this Fall to stop this idiot, and in 2008 elect a Democratic President that will begin the work of repairing the damage done this country by these fools.

"Frankly (Allen) I never heard anything about him hitting his sister when he was little but that tells me the DNC oppo research must be concerned about his potential."

No, it should tell you how in bed with the local power structure the WaPo is. They can't seem to get over their denial that his sister has written this book. At least I've never seen them mention it in any of their Allen coverage.

I know how you feel, Mike B, I get godawful tired of christian fundamentalists here imposing their beliefs on me. That's why I'm opposed to any and all theocracies.

I think when a religion takes control of a country, the fundamentalists' worst traits emerge--it can't help but be dictatorial, and generally militarized as well. I have friends in Israel who think the government listens far too much to the military.

No thanks for a trip to Saudi, that's where the 9/11 terrorists were from. You might want to send your prsident, he's the one that likes to hold hands with them.

As far as Muslims here, as I said, they're my neighbors. Just like everybody else, perfectly nice. That's been my experience so that's all I know. But I know that criticizing every single member worldwide of an ancient religion is unhelpful.

And by the way, I do think Hizbollah should be crushed--they ARE terrorists-- by a multinational force--if blair and bush have enough credibility left to put one together. And I wonder if the US's addiction to mideast oil has made us hesitant to do that before now?

Will, I'm an engineer with more than 50 patents and, quite frankly, we hire unemployed english majors like you to correct our typographical and spelling errors. If you haven't got anything more constructive to contribute than finding spelling errors in someone's post, then you're critiques are a complete waste of everyones time.

And, as for Amercian Muslem and drindl, I have worked and lived all over the world. I only know a few American practitioners of Islam, but the ones I met in Europe and the Middle East were pretty awful. And I mean that universally. My wife and daughter were followed home and threatened. We had freinds who were Christian's who were warned and threated about sharing their belief's...especially with Muslems. Flat out, we were warned that you *would* be put to death for that and could be for any one of a number of other acts. I was just god awful sick of those people impossing their views on me and my family. To be sure, in the U.S. where they are a tiny minority, Muslems appear to be pretty open minded, but in Swedish towns and communities, same in France, and in Oman, Saudi Arabic, and Kuwait they were unbelievably dictitorial. I learned from those Muslems to fear what would happen if the Fundimentalist ever got real power here. If we could somehow arrange for drindl to spend a (month) week in Saudi Arabia, I expect she would be singing a whole different tune. And "American Muslem" would likely dump Islam PDQ.

Thank you colin, I was getting tired of beating back the stupid all alone.

As far as bhummes is concerned, his solution for everything, like most conservatives, is kill someone. Anyone. He is what we like to call a 'useless idiot' and I quote him:

'how mindless sycophants pretend to be intellectually honest, they just refuse to believe the evidence no matter how strong'-

isn't it amazing how talented some of his ilk are at projection?

And muslim american, I have a number of neighbors who are muslims, and really nice people--I apologize for the ignorance and bigotry of some of my countrymen.

And let me correct was it MikeB? Who said that Fundamentalist Christianity and Islam were two faces of the same coin --yes, if you're talking about fundamentalist islam, I agree. The fundamentalists of every religion are fanatical and insane control-freaks.

PLEASE stop ADVERTISING that Hillary is the front runner, when all she is is the media's favorite; you all are 'making her' whatever you say she is.

General Clark gets his support from the netroots now, and will get his money from the netroots AND EVERYWHERE after he announces, assuming he does; you MIGHT remember that he amassed more funds than ANY candidate did after he announced his candidacy, and was well on the way to a first or second in NH until the Iowa event.

I don't recall a 'classic Washington blame game' after he dropped out, but rather the logical conclusion that had he made it to Iowa, he likely would have done very well thenceforth.

And please stop conflating General Clark's 'difficulties' with the Clintons; his staff is and will be devoted and expert, and he has been spending most of his time seeking funds and support for numerous Democratic candidates for Congress and other state positions.

General Clark made the affirmative decision to help Democratic candidates get us a Democratic majority, without which we all will be up a creek. He has not wanted to absorb funds for himself, but rather to help Democratic candidates collect funds and support, so that we all might benefit from a Congressional majority.

General Clark SHOULD be the next Democratic candidate, and the NEXT President of the United States; NO ONE ELSE can handle the incredible mess we and the world are now in.

colin is right. the muslims who are killing innocent people in the world aren't true to their religion. extremists are extremists and they tend to make the most noise. there are plenty of muslims in this country who are here because of the american dream (my parents and the rest of my family included). we're tax paying, highly educated, and value adding citizens (think of how many drs. and engineers are pakistani, arab, etc)

democracy is actually mandated in the Quran and in the past muslim societies were better at implementing this. there's hope today in malaysia and indonesia, which are both muslim democracies that participate in globalization. right now, the leadership of the muslim world needs to step up and take away the ignorance that has resulting from bad US policy and oil dictators who bribe their people and let fundamentalists do their thing.

i think muslim world will go through it's reformation in the next 50 years. we all have a lot more in common than we have different. unfortunately during polarized times, a-hole extremists focus on the difference and exploit it for their own purposes.

everything that you say about those people can easily flipped back to the neocons and evangelicals who unfortunately run our country.

MikeB and Bhoomes-

Learn to spell. Quite frankly it's pretty hard to take you seriously when you make so many simple mistakes.

Here:
Sensitive
anti-Semitism
Muslim
Fundamentalist
Useful

You're smart enough to quote Stalin, you're smart enough to learn to spell.

bhoomes. you support a wife beating, red neck, confederate flag waving george allen and you're actually criticizing islam.

'I was raised a catholic but not much of a church goer and not much into organized religion, but