"Let me guess, you're an atheist."

Yes, I am and it's not a guess on your part since I've said it before.

That was me being ironic again. As for religious faith, I've left organized religion some time back. That doesn't mean I automatically dismiss its relevance to others, particularly the American electorate.

"Hagee may be a nut, he may preach to thousands of nuts, but those thousands of nuts can potentially exert electoral pressure;

By 'thousands of nuts' you are referring infact to Evangelical Christians (most of whom don't have anything to do with Hagee)

I'm referring to the reported 5,200 who attend his mega-church, to say nothing of the thousands more he reaches through books, tapes and broadcasts.

their 'influence' on social policy is basically in the areas of abortion, stem cells, absistence programmes and the like.

Which in and of themselves have profound effects on the health and safety of our country and the world in general. A chilling prospect when you think about it.

In that respect they are no different from labor unions or others lobbys whose cosy relationships with party machines assures them influence. However, all of that - abortion, stem cells etc - has nothing to do with the reasons Hagee is regard as a nut.

I'd quibble on the first sentence, but you are correct that regardless of his focus, Hagee is so far beyond the pale he could only be insane. The trouble is he has a large following, a long reach, a very big bank account, and people who actually listen to him and take their cues from him.

"Wright by contrast call only for social justice and sanity."

This is what makes me suspicious of you. You cannot reconcile that claim with a man who has made palpably insane statements.

I don't reconcile the nonsense about AIDS, but I listen to the fully message and find myself much in agreement.

His statement about AIDs was either wicked and cynical or deranged. There's no splitting the difference.

There is actually. I've often found one's belief system is NOT an "all or nothing" matter. The same here; I disagree with his claim about the origins of AIDS, but I do acknowledge there are problems with how our society operates.

Apologies for misquoting you, but I still find your apologetics for Wright to be misguided.

For the last time, I'm not 'apologizing' for nor excusing Rev. Wright's claims concerning AIDS. I simply understand it to be one component of his message, one that is shared by a great many others in the African-American community and elsewhere. I don't accept it veracity nor think its a decent topic of conversation, but that's my personal take on it.

Simple as that.

Oh please! You are perfectly free to vehemently disagree with Professor Yoo about his views about Presidential powers in a wartime crisis,

First mistake: we aren't either "at war" or in "crisis" (at least not in terms of our national security).

but gratuitous insults like calling him a war criminal only reflect badly on yourself.

Second mistake: forgetting the conduct under discussion has been explicitly outlawed by international treaty and conventions.

Any rational discussion of these serious matters can only begin by acknowledging that Professor Yoo is a distinguished legal scholar and a dedicated public servant.

Third mistake: failing to address the central issue and attempting to divert the discussion to CVs, which are irrelevant.

-- nabalzbbfr

Fourth mistake: continuing to hide behind that ridiculous handle. Its just silly at this point.

What it really is, is the unmitigated and unrestrained use of libel by Glenn Greenwald

"Libel" (n)

a. defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.

b. the act or crime of publishing it.

c. a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libel

Exactly how Glenn's very factual, remarkably restrained post qualifies as the above escapes me.

But then Elephantman seems to think Senator McCain will bring about lower taxation and limited government. Go figure.

If you think about it for 10 seconds or so,

Its been long established shooter242 doesn't think. There's some debate as to whether or not he's actually capable of it in the first place.

So how exactly do you connect John Yoo to Abu Ghraib?

Three easy steps:

1. Yoo writes his torture memo.

2. President Bush uses this as basis for authorizing 'enhanced interrogation techniques'.

3. Said techniques are used by US service members in Abu Ghraib.

Simple, isn't it? You'd have to be blind not to see this coming.

This is some of the filthiest character assasination I've ever seen on Salon, which is saying quite a lot.

Given the sort of agony your party of choice has inflicted on its many critics and whistleblowers? This is downright tame.

Cha Ching !!!

Do you actually have something to add here, or are you just standing in for The Major?