Since they oppose free speech and the opposition to the war, I think a better name would be, North Korean Legion

For all their talk about the "Big Tent", The modern GOP are the most secluded party in history. The major candidates have climbed inside Bush's bubble because they know that's were GOP loyalists still are. The party absolutists never abondoned him and they want a future candidate in the same vien. As for Guilliani, 9/11 is all he has. He's pro-choice and thinks gays should actually be treated as human so he really has nothing else to offer the base.

Most red-staters still see the war on terror and Iraq as an old episode of "G.I. Joe", they want "good" and "evil", they don't want to understand the enemy. Ron Paul shatters that illusion, and the media have done enough of that for them thank you very much! He will not now or ever will get the nomination for that very reason. Most cons. want a black and white world, and will not allow intrusions into that fantasy, how else do you explain their willingness to put up with such failure for this long?

I disagree with your assertion that Falwell added nothing to the christian movement; because of him, christianity is no longer a religion, it is a political party. Even today many christians feel they have to defend their faith unnecessarily because of built in associations with the religious right. I personally question this newfound interest in social wellfare issues that conviently sprang up only after the GOP lost the 2006 elections. It seems more like a desperate attempt to continue to sound relevant in an era where gay bashing has long since lost social acceptance and there is a growing backlash to religious politics and an increase in libertarianism.

The death of Falwell may very well be symbolic of the state that the "old school" christian political movement. They are dying for lack of new leaders and new ideas. D. James Kennedy's Corral Ridge Ministries had to recently shut down two of it's centers for shaping public policy because, well, they hadn't shaped it all that much. The blind association with the republican party and it's ups and downs doesn't help matters either.

On other message boards, when I talk about how I fear the religoius right being as much a theat to my freedoms as the terrorists are, I get no one defending them. Every christian I talk to wants to distance themselves from the religious right. This could be a good sign for the future.

If Moore's trip to Cuba was illegal, why didn't the Justice Department investigate him at the time of the filming? Why did they wait until the movie came out at Cannes? The answer is simple politics. The administration can't stop him from filming it around the world, but they can cause problems for him just before it is scheduled to be released.

All that aside...

Hopefully this movie will win Moore some fans among people who hate him who aren't even affiliated with the right or either party. Moore has a lot of enemies among even moderates and people who would be considered "on the fence". Most people, regardless of their party affiliation, can't afford basic healthcare. I've believed for a long time that the "culture war" was designed to distract people from issues exactly like this one. With the culture wars now in a slow, but steady decline, let's hope this issue finally get's the attention it deserves.

Basically what was said was that Gonzolas will never resign or be asked to resign because he is a wall between the president and a real investigation. This makes sense given all that has happened. As long as the press corps and the congress has the AG to beat up on, they can't get to Bush, Cheney or Rove.

My mother was raised catholic and when she was very young her father was nearly excommunicated for getting a divorce! The local arch-bishop had to write a letter to the vatican to get them to make an exception. When it was discovered that it was his wife that had initiated the divorce, he was reinstated. My mother walked away from the faith back in college largely due to these arbitrary rules and has since never regretted it. She believes we were given a conscience to make our own moral decisions, not to have someone else make them for us.

I think there's another reason why the public won't support a Bush impeachment: They don't want to go through two presidents being impeached in a row. The Clinton experience soured the country on the whole impeachment process. Doing it twice in a row would make us look incompetent at the very least. For all intents and purposes, Bush was given a "get out of jail free" card the moment he steeped into the Oval Office. Couple that with the fact that he has little over a year left anyway and I don't see an impeachment coming down the pipes anytime soon.

Congress's reasons are a little less forgivable, I think they are still afraid of that minority that still stands by Bush. They may be in the minority, but they are a very vocal, and loyal, minority and impeaching Bush is a sure-fire way to get cons. to the polls next year. People who might otherwise stay home. Living in the bible belt, I personally question the poll numbers knowing how many people still stand by this "president". He is still very popular here and I think many in congress know it. In my home state of Missouri, senator Claire McCaskill wouldn't dare call for a Bush impeachment because she knows what that would do to her chances next year.