...if Edwards had been the candidate. Think where we'd be right now.

But John Edwards(whom I not only used to support, I even gave him money in '04, the only candidate I ever have) didn't give a shit. Not about his supportive, dying wife, not about the fractured, suffering nation, none of this. This repulsive, lying narcissist, of which there are plenty in my original home state(I was born and raised in SC, and the fact that Edwards was the rare liberal from the south played a big part in my support), never really took his run seriously, even if everyone else did.

Think of it. Giving this man support and belief, and what was he doing with it? But even more so, his wife, expending what remains of her life to help him achieve it. And him, knowing that she's gaining him supporters just by her likable presence. And then he does this?

And he could have handed the election to McCain & Palin. THINK OF IT. He knew that could happen and he couldn't restrain himself, even for a little while. I've never cared about politicians' affairs except one matter: how it reflects on their judgment. For instance, Larry Craig--even if he weren't a RW Republican, I wouldn't care about his toilet trading. But what kind of moron does that in a way like he WANTS to be caught, and then insists they let him go because he's a senator? And then turns around and aids in homophobic legislation? Or Gary Hart. What kind of idiot dares the press in an election cycle to "follow me, you'll be bored" and then is shocked that they did? Do you want someone that dumb near the button?

And this? This showed Edwards is not serious, has no heart, and didn't take his own rhetoric seriously, if he couldn't even keep it in his pants with so much at stake. Which might not be so bad except that taking these things seriously was the whole point of his campaign, supposedly.

All he thought of was himself, and stroking his own ego, and has no goddamn conscience. On that level, how is he different then than Little prince Dubya?

But you think she has let him at all off the hook? No, because Edwards himself knows whose kid it is. So she can let him squirm with that, with whatever little conscience he has left screaming forever.

Thing is, you folks may not know Southern women. They're tough, and behind the veneer of niceness is an intellect that would make Machiavelli wary. She is making sure Edwards will be haunted by this.

My own mother, a very tough and very Southern woman, died of cancer, and the man she'd been married to (a NC-ian, as it happens, and that's where she died two years ago) since 1990 accidentally revealed some things right before she died that negated almost everything she'd known about him. (not an affair, but serious stuff just the same) She made sure he'd have to live with knowing that, but did not waste what remained of her life on him either. It might be a little like that.

But John Edwards is the damned. When I look at that kewpie smile of his now I just think, you've got a face that'd be lovely to punch. You would have lost and still been rich and comfortable and wouldn't have had to care. You betrayed a good woman who gave herself to you like few ever do in this life. And you didn't care. There's a special place in hell for betrayers like him.

>>This takes you back to the old days when scifi movies didn't take themselves so seriously -- the lighthearted days of the original Star Wars and Star Trek Wrath of Khan, the original Superman movie. I'm tired of the dark, dank seriousness or heavy irony and this hit the spot...

While it might not be the kind of dark we know now, WOK is, among the Trek movies, pretty damn dark. I mean, it's a film about three things: hate, obsession, and friendship.

They did. That's what the most recent DVD release is, I think.

You didn't really address the examples in the questions even slightly. I could have read any mumber of party position papers that would have told me this.

Often this column reminds me of the Onion's "Ask A..." columns, in which a question will be answered(usually irrelevantly) by something that cannot stop talking about its own concerns. Such as "Ask A Bee" where all answers have to do with finding honey, no matter what the question.

This column is a waste of time, like your party. You think you're going to find converts, and have no interest in objectively explaining your party. We're not interested in your happy talk about the GOP. We're trying to understand what looks like complete and utter divorce from reality. But with this pamphlet of a column you merely illustrated it.

Maybe if the questions are phrased differently. How about this: why does the GOP oppose science whenever it conflicts with their politics? But you won't answer that, or you'll just say they don't without disproving any examples given, so why bother giving you any?

You've proven that Republicans are all for science when they can make a buck from it or if it results in cool explosions. But nobody asked you that because we already know. Try actually addressing the question.

Kids taught science in Red states(or counties, I guess is the scale of it now) will be behind other kids on the subject. And thus less likely to get into college and less likely nto become scientists.

So if the GOP wants to reduce these states to simply producing football players and politicians, they're doing a great job, and giving an enormous advantage to the rest of the country. So keep going. We might be better off without scientists from Kansas, who knows.