I bothered to read this after avoiding it since the science column.

So it's increasingly less likely he was a lone nut, and Randall Terry is just crazy and stupid enough to think this is a good moment to call attention to his organization. And it's obvious he thinks it's a good thing and is encouraging more of it by not condemning it.

I think an investigation of OR is in order.

What you're watching when you see O'Reilly is nothing more than the ongoing, internal-narrative story of Bill O'Reilly. It's just being liberal would not allow him to be as bitter, paternally judgmental and snarly. It's not about politics or ideology, they're just a framework and vehicle.

It's just about him, just as much as with Lonesome Rhodes. (and if you'd like to really see the heart of all these people, see A FACE IN THE CROWD)

So of course his only concern tonight was defending himself, rather than the victim or his family or friends.

Over the weekend, he admitted that there was no link between Iraq and 9/11.

The response from the right has been twofold: total silence on that point, and defense of someone who shot a doctor in cold blood in a church to distract from it.

Consider then the fact that they'd rather defend murder in a church than admit the war was a lie.

(and I have no idea who they are)

...that is...the kind of thing that they like, as Jean Brodie would say.

Rusty nails. This guy. To the wall.

That, and the same purpose Ann Coulter serves: to throw the worst shit out into the discussion so the GOP can see if any of it sticks.

I imagine too that the dinosaurs made some angry noises cursing everything once they realized the tarpit wasn't getting any less sticky. But they went down all the same eventually.

...fine. Because he's showing that the present Republican party doesn't even have a place for HIM.

David Horowitz.

Think about that, when David Horowitz is sounding like the reasonable part of the conservative movement.

As usual, it was no help at all.

I'm quite serious when I say this: if this column isn't just another outlet for conservative talking points, I'll eat my hat. This told me nothing I haven't already heard from gingrich. In addition, the concept that there's any doubt about Sotomayor's ability to judge when race enters the equation has been wrecked by her rather solid record indicating otherwise. In fact, there may be more for cons to like about her than liberals.

This column is simply redundant. There's a whole noise machine to put this info out, folks. One more node isn't needed, especially here. I suggest that if this guy doesn't start giving some kind of actual insight BEHIND the talking points--which I don't expect to agree with but at least something new would be said--that all Salon readers don't even click on this to bitch about it. Just avoid the column, and if it loses clicks, it's gone.

The reason we get angry with you is not that we differ. It's that you're frustrating because you're no more than an echo.

>>(It didn't help that he didn't answer the question. And in answer to him, no, we don't continue to talk about FDR, Truman, and JFK to nearly the same extent. We're not trying to put Truman on the $5 bill, are we?)

We certainly aren't. By contrast, if anything, the GOP loves to invoke all three of those when it suits them. For instance, when losing an election, they invoke Truman, almost like clockwork.

Which is also how they lose elections now. And deservedly so.

No, they don't always oppose Latinos. They've made much use of them. For instance, Gonzales.

There's always a place in the GOP for a minority that knows their place. They need cannon fodder politically as well as militarily.

Which side has a network where they let Geraldo Rivera broadcast troop movements?

The network in question is Fox News, of course.

With that in mind: even if the rest of the media is liberal, which they aren't really, why are we to presuppose that's bad?

Not a single woman I've ever worked with, and almost all had children, ever had this option of deciding what work-life balance to go for. Instead, what I saw were women summoning god knows how much energy, working longer hours than anyone else, which did mean that when they could spend time with their kids, that time would be a decent chunk, but less frequent. There's a friend of mine who has a six-year-old son, who may lose her job at the U. of Washington entirely soon, and is making herself sick making herself indispensable. And gets to see her son less than she might want to. But the long-term priorities come before the short-term. Long-term like getting a better place for the kid to live in, like building up savings for college, like taking care of even one kid is damn expensive.

The women who dominate the false narrative discussed here, by contrast, are the ones who were our bosses, and the only true difference in this between themselves and the males at that class level(at least within my working life; I'm 40) is that the males more often cared less about the kids. But on the other hand, it seemed to me that it was more expected of my female bosses that they ostentatiously care about their kids than of male ones.

Stop whining. You make us all look bad.