Um, I'm pretty sure there's not Christian Jihad going on right now. Give me a neighborhood full of Palins, and I'd be happy to live among them.

No difference between Christian Fundamentalists and Islamic Fundamentalists, eh? None at all?

I can't believe the myopic, rabid, anti-Christian sentiment in a lot of these comments. To you all on the political left, "Right" is synonymous with "extreme", and "Christian" can never be used without the modifier, "Fundamentalist", either, I've noticed.

Theocracy? Please! Do you even know what you're talking about?

Stupid question. Obviously, the answer is "no".

If this were true, wouldn't Bristol have been stoned to death by her family by now?

Yeah, no difference at all.

Well, they're apparently not trying to kill soldiers and their dates to advance their cause, or bomb the Pentagon. They appear to be merely promoting an idea via peaceful means, which they have the right to do. I'm going to consider that +1 for the Palins, -1 for Obama.

Liberal was, in fact, the word used to describe what our founding fathers were. It was a liberal idea to put the power in the people's hands and let people live their own lives.

In the first half of the 20th century, it was used to mean the opposite ... to put the power back in the State's hands. These self-described liberals (well first it was Progressive, and when people saw through that they changed it to Liberal, and then people saw through that and they changed it back to Progressive ... and now that that brand name is tainted apparently they're considering going back to "Liberal".)

I am an originalist, which should make me a classical Liberal. But these days holding those opinions on things means I'm a Conservative.

Frankly, I don't care. Y'all call it whatever you want. Until you change what you want the "new" word to actually mean, it's still big-government socialism and social engineering. No thanks.

"We cannot rid Iraq of all who oppose America or sympathize with our adversaries. We cannot police Iraq's streets until they are completely safe, nor stay until Iraq's union is perfected

Another Obama straw man. Who ever said that we thought we could or should?

We're leaving Iraq (for the most part) in 2010 because we're done. We won. The Iraqi people won. It's because we didn't pull out in 2004 like the Left wanted us two when the war was declared "lost".

So I am to abandon my values because even people who support them often have trouble living up to them? Is that what this article is saying?

Give me the imperfect man who supports my ideals over the imperfect man who says they don't matter anyway.

Because they do matter whether we manage to live up to them or not.

"Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in. " - Hub, from Second Hand Lions

My problem really isn't with Christians unable to follow Paul, but with the hypocrisy of saying "I believe," and then ignoring the rest of what their religion dictates when it suits them. Why not just be secular, like everyone else?

It's my contention all of us (Christians included!) really live in a secular society; Americans merely pay lip service to religious ideals.

Christ recognized that men aren't perfect. Even the just man sins seven times daily, he said. Yes, we often fail to live up to our standards. But abandoning the standards because we have failed lowers who we are. Democrats are basically arguing, "Can't reach the bar? Get rid of the bar!" Lower standards encourages lower behavior.

So I read this stunningly level-headed, even-handed article (this is Salon, after all -- hence the shock) and then I waded into the cesspool of comments.

What's in the comments? A flood of ationalization about why it's ok to paint white southerners as racist, uneducated, backward, and otherwise generally unworthy to participate in the citizenry. They should apparently just shut up and let the self-annointed enlightened ones lead them to salvation.

One that really baffled me pontificated on how conservative voting blocks seek to destroy the vision of the founders, when those who defend the founders ideas most fiercely are, in today's world, labeled Right Wing Extremists.

But no, really, go ahead, folks. Keep it up. Alienate half of America as un-American. Have a ball. Probably the best way to knock the Progressives out of power and restore some sanity to our government -- get the rest of us really p*ssed off.

The question is, is the Republican Party good or bad for the Tea Partiers?

The Tea Partiers are about as disgusted with the Republicans as they are of the Democrats. You'd never know that by listening to most of the press, who just assume it is a Republican run movement. It is not. A lot of people in the movement USED to be Republicans ...

Will the Republicans join us, or continue on their merry way to irrelevance as Democrat Lite™