Steele just wants the TV exposure. Part of his hip-hoppification of the GOP strategy is reaching out to younger voters, and he knows the demographics of Colbert's show. The only thing he may be underestimating is Colber's balls of steel when it comes to publicly humiliating Republicans (see the White House Correspondents Dinner).

This could be a good-natured romp, or Colbert could put his nuts in a vice and twist. I have a feeling Stephen and his writers are going for option #2. This outta be good.

Emmanuel knew exactly what he was doing when he called Rush the de facto leader of the GOP. He knew Steele was too insecure to sit idly by. So now with the simple utterance of a few words, he's managed to create the kind of GOP infighting that could finally lead to the death of the party (here's hoping!).

Our country's inability to comprehend complex issues, like "not all earmarks are bad", requires politicians to campaign in sound bites and not intellectually. This had to drive Obama the most nuts during the campaign - he knew the issue was more complicated than that, but good luck getting the droolers in this country to listen for more than 10 seconds and understand an issue that can't be boiled down to 7 words. He campaigned on getting rid of wasteful spending. Not all earmarks are wasteful spending. Duh.

Is there such a thing as a Stepford Partisan Hack? I refuse to believe she's an actual person - she's a FebBot created in a secret underground lair programmed to speak only in GOP talking points, which are becoming increasingly detached from reality with each passing hour.

The only difference is that a larger percentage of pro wrestling's audience realizes it's fake.

If you're going to be intentionally contrarian, at least give it the old college try. You know, make an attempt to convince us you actually believe this stuff, and that you're not just saying outrageous shit on purpose to rile people up.

These are exciting times. Fortune favors the bold. I genuinely miss your column ... it was appointment reading for me every day. Look forward to reading more whenever you get the itch to write, and good luck strategerizin'.

How sad to be too stupid to realize how stupid you are.

The Wingnut is not saying HE believes this stuff, but that this is the conservative's position. Sure, it's frustrating that much of what the Wingnut has written is just rehashed conservative talking points that are utterly devoid of logic and reason and about which we've all become so tired of hearing.

But people here seem ANGRY about this column. Are you shocked that this is what millions of people in our country believe? Were you in a coma during the past 2 years? By getting all fired up with righteous indignation, you only feed the stereotype of the frothing-at-the-mouth liberal. The key is being able to calmly and coherently refute each point, which is not easy to do because each point is filled with gaping holes in logic. Many posters here have already done a good job of explaining these gaping holes, so I don't need to rehash them here. I did like the poster who accurately boiled it down to one of two things: 1) god hates fags and 2) ick. When you cut through all the crap, that's really what's at the base of this argument from the conservative viewpoint.

I'm not saying to be weak or a pushover. I'm saying screaming at the Wingnut will do no good.

I meant to say "easy to do" and not "not easy to do" - as in, refuting the conservative position on gay marriage is easy because of the gaping holes in logic found in each point.

You got it right. When the right can exploit science for their (and their corporate partners') gain, they're for it - such as government weapons systems, business technology, and and fancy sound systems at megachurches. When science threatens their tightly held beliefs and power structures, they're against it - such as anything that challenges the Good Book, business growth, or the rise of international competition. It's not "science" per se that they're for or against, it's maintaining their exploitation of the left side of the American bell curve.

But yes, it would have been nice if the Wingnut actually answered the questions. How can anyone defend young-Earth quackery in 2009? And the anti-intellectualism that has poisoned the GOP may very well be the cause of its ultimate downfall. It would have been nice to read his discussion of these topics, rather than his pantywaist defense of GOP scientific principles and his lame attempt to explain away climate change with some bromides. Weak sauce, Wingnut.

The mothers did. Nobody put a gun to the head of the thousands of women who sought Tiller to terminate their pregnancies. Tiller did not kidnap them, push them down the stairs, or perform abortions against their will. He merely carried out the wishes of his patients. The intent to terminate the pregnancy was theirs, not his.

Why does this fact seem lost on O'Reilly? Could it be implicit sexism? Could O'Reilly be clinging to the belief that these women are too ill-equipped to handle such a decision, and that Tiller must be the one to blame rather than the grown adults who ACTUALLY MAKE THE DECISION?