"By the way, I'm not gay, nor am I black or latino or Muslem. I'm just a concerned citizen of the United States. So I concern myself with the rights of all citizens of the United States. Well, except for maybe Dick Cheney and few others."

- Word.

"Maybe the fact that I'm Agnostic makes me feel a bit more strongly about the choice of Warren than if I were Christian."

- I'm an atheist. (I win!) I think all relgious people are nuts on some level. I don't really want to defend Warren himself, rather, I think Obama's choice of Warren was a smart political move. There's a huge difference. Others have commented to the effect that we don't really need a religious invocation at all. While I agree in priciple with that, the ceremonial aspects of a Presidential Inauguration are less about the President and more about having the people (many of which are none too bright) celebrate/feel at ease with/come to terms with the elected individual.

"I doubt it though. Warren is extreme even in the eyes of millions of Christians. For example let's say that Obama had chosen Reverend Barry Lynn..."

- Reverend Barrymawhooo??? While I agree with you in principle that such a choice would be far more pleasing to sensibilities such as ours, 1) I bet I'm not the only one who has no idea who that is and, 2) let's not forget that there are about five brain cells south of I-80, and Obama will be their President too.

Obama could have played this in a very politically correct manner to please a political subgroup, but by giving a slice of pie (with LOTS of whipped cream) to the likes of Warren, I think Obama is simultanteously sapping a bit of Warren's followers' powers of criticism.

They might have better luck with JPS...

being really annoying and not having much book-learnin'.

Brilliant!

Okay, even if one thinks racists jokes are funny or even if one is a racist to the core, one sure the hell doesn't endorse such "jokes" if he expects to hold a job as chairman of a national party. Unless, of course, the Republicans are no longer a national party and are instead becoming the party of southern rural ignorant stupid white racists...

Oh, wait, never mind.

I loved that - it was like one-stop shopping.

Sure, we could all go to the various sites individually, but there was something unique about having side-by-side compteting L/R commentary in the same place. Even if half of the blogs Salon linked to were off one deep end or the other, it was a great way to see what people were rightly or wrongly thinking.

You forgot W - he has been nothing if not a world-changer.

You are aware that Obama isn't actually President yet, aren't you?

1) Does anybody else think that Coulter looks like a malnourished Marilyn Manson?

2) Every time assholes like Coulter open their goddamned pie-holes, the entire CONservative movement looks more like a bowel movement. She reinforces the ridiculousness of her "cause."

Never mind that with the whole Internet thingy (tubes and all), a multitude of cable/satellite channels, and various forms of "narrowcasting" having virtually replaced broadcasting, such a doctrine is effectively obsolete. It might have made more sense back when your TV could only get three stations.

How does one define a viewpoint as being opposed to another viewpoint anyway? Must they be polar opposites? Should two sides of a story be presented even if there's really only one acceptable side?

Besides, I'm glad CONservative talk programs exists. I can't think of a better way to ensure the continued stupidity and subsequent decreasing relevance of the CONservative movement.

"Despite its apparent irrelevance, whats wrong with requiring networks, using public airwaves to provide opposing viewpoints?"

Your assumption is that the opposing viewpoints would be based upon factual analysis of the issues. Often, there should be rigorous debate, but a mandated requirement that every view presented also be challenged would cut two ways. If you present a piece that details the impending impacts of global warming, for example, you would be required to follow it with a piece that pretends that global warming doesn't exist. Never mind that one "view" is rooted in fact and the other in fantasy. Now, apply this template to virtually any issue, and you might as well not report anything at all.

is sort of like the Detroit Lions decrying ESPN's anti-Deroit bias for reporting the fact that the Lions went 0-16.

one of the local channels carried the proceedings live from Springfield and it actually made for fun television.

Somehow, though, I can't think of a better person to represent modern CONservatives' relationship with reality.

You have provided me with hours of free entertainment. Please keep it up and remind everyone on a daily basis just how insane the Republican Party has become.

but the GOP has been on a downward slide for a while now. They have been jettisoning intelligent people since at least the 1980's, but it was a slow process then and it is now a process that is clearly in exponential expansion. I don't see this trend reversing. The only thing they can hope for is another "emergency" to scare people into a militaristic posture. Absent that, the GOP is all but finished being relevant for the forseeable future.

Perhaps it is time for a new/third party; maybe a real conservative party.

Well done, FOX. This is about what we can expect from the channel that blamed last week's crash of USAirways #1549 on the Democrats:

http://www.newshounds.us/2009/01/18/hannity_blames_sen_charles_schumer_for_us_airways_crash.php

Welcome to intellectual bankruptcy, conservatives. You've earned it.