The Mormon support of President Bush, because of his spiritual faith, continues to surprise me. Somebody should ask Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, or any of the Christian Right leaders what they think of the Latter Day Saints. Not what they think of the individuals in the church, but what they think about the faith itself and whether its adherents are Heaven-bound. They'd find out pretty quickly that the Christian Right is using the Mormons for votes, but thinks the people are on the fast track to eternal damnation.

I understand the intent, but it saddens me to see the phrase "you know" added to your lede paragraph of this item ("... to see if she, you know, actually worked there.")

For too long this kind of activity has been seen as some sort of game by people in Washington from both parties. And this has further alienated everyday voters from what goes on in the Capitol.

I'm of the opinion that you take away from the seriousness of your article -- and the potential seriousness of the charge -- when you toss in terms like "you know."

If midterm elections are all about motivating your base to get out and vote, then bringing Clinton into the spotlight and getting him to raise his voice and point his finger makes sense as a GOP strategy. Although the percentage of people who dislike him (measured nationally) is relatively small, they're key in many districts. The real question is whether the number of people Clinton brings to the polls to vote for Democratic candidates is larger than the number that he brings out to vote against Democrats.

The dislike of Clinton is a powerful, if irrational, force. Indeed, I've remarked to friends that the only good thing about the Bush administration for me, as a Democrat, is that it has given me a chance to feel as strongly negative about a president as the Clinton-haters did from 1992-2000. I don't like the feeling, but I can't deny it; I would like to think that the Clinton-haters, in the end, feel the same way.

Karl Rove is also Norwegian-American. I'd like to think he wouldn't get a warm reception at our Sons of Norway lodge.

... it could be argued that this victory means MORE for the Democratic candidates because the surge for them -- and against the Republicans -- came not because of some marketing ploy (read: Contract with America), but due to genuine disappointment with the ruling party.

I generally think this country has functioned better with divided government -- that is, an executive from one party and a legislature from another. However, I'm not sure that President Bush and his current administration are willing or able to work in those circumstances. With any luck, we'll see.

Maybe it says "I'm Jesus Christ, and I approved this message."

The Cheech & Chong reference in the headline made my morning. Thanks!

If you want to learn more about the EPA library closure plan, listen to the archive at NPR's Science Friday (Talk of the Nation) program.

http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2006/Sep/hour2_092906.html

This sentence in this article sums up a lot of the problems this country has right now:

"His tactical successes have laid the groundwork for strategic failure. "

Sad to say, but so many decisions these days, from government, corporations, and even individuals, reflect short-term tactical thinking rather than long-term strategic thinking.

Some top-of-the-head examples: Torture. Oil-based energy policy. Quarterly earnings reports. Offshoring of manufacturing. Credit card debt. Even celebrity culture could fall under this sad banner. (It's the old saw: we should idolize and overpay doctors and scientists and teachers rather than movie, music, and sports stars.)

I wonder if a leader with true strategic vision can lead us out of the messes we're in. I hope so, and I hope he or she appears soon.

To me, the worst thing about all this is that even in denial Haggard feeds the flames of bigotry. He finds his sexuality "repugnant and dark" -- but it's only that because he identifies it as such. He doesn't need to.

... where he filed that envelope containing W's military and arrest records, just in case he needs them in the immediate future.

As much as anything, this debate has to do with your definition of "conservative."

The last President to balance the budget -- what might be considered a conservative position -- was a Democrat.

Meanwhile, a sizeable portion of the Republican party still wants to expand government's role in our private lives -- what some might describe as a liberal position. (I'm happy to note that the media is increasingly using the term "social conservative" or "religious conservative" to describe these folks.)

Rev. Sheldon says he tried to "inspire" his supporters. I suspect that, rather than filling them with the Holy Spirit, he instead just spouted a bunch of Hot Air.

I haven't read through all 60+ letters posted at this time, so maybe somebody's already suggested this, but ...

Why not set up a custodial account for your nieces & nephews and contribute to that on a monthly basis. I did this for mine through a low-cost online brokerage and have put $50 per month in it for several years. I send them quarterly statements showing how the money is invested (S&P index funds) and how it has behaved. It's a chance to teach them about the power of saving and investing -- since their dad probably isn't going to do it for them.

Sure, it's not a thing they can open on Christmas morning -- buy something little and fun for that. But they'll appreciate it someday, you can bet.

On Prairie Home Companion last weekend, the house band did a song in memory of Robert Altman with the refrain built around the word "adequte." It must be an Altman phrase. (Though I'd imagine Keillor's band looked up how to spell it.)