This goes hand-in-hand with Newt Gingrich's recent comment that Obama's White House is "anti-religious."

As to Sammon, most Americans do not attend church "regularly."

As to the Newster, he should understand the difference between "anti" religious and "non" religious. The latter more closely resembles the Obama administration's position, and is appropriate given the fact that our Constitution requires such a stance from the government. Of course, it is quite a change from the Bush administration, which had no problem with turning the White House into a branch office of the conservative Christian movement.

Why in the world would a sitting governor and one-time vice presidential candidate want to get into a public spat with a high-schooler?

Oh wait, could it be that she's an idiot?

The Christo-facicsts of the Right can no longer come right out and accuse the left of being "nigger loving" "faggots" -- at least, not in public -- so "socialist" is all they have left.

Not that they don't WANT to call us all "nigger loving" "faggots." After all, that's why they keep talking about "big city" "san francisco" liberals. But that's a little vague for most of the country. They know, however, than in many only moderately-informed minds, "socialism" equals the damn Russkies.

But the post and many of the commenters have pointed out the huge flaw in their argument: capitalism is obviously not serving the masses very well right now, and most of the country WANTS government to fix this and at the same time provide a wide range of services, including a reliable safety net. If the Right continues to define that as socialism, the numbers in the polls will continue to trend towards folks thinking "hey, socialism don't sound too bad."

In other words, while extortion it may be, 'tis LEGAL extortion. And if a state truly wants to secede over it, I would remind them of the fate which befell the last group of states to try that gambit.

Oh god, please let them do it. Pretty please with sugar on top?

Nominating Newt Gingrich would be the final nail in the coffin of the GOP. A list of his idiotic pronouncements, erroneous predictions and personal failings would require a one-hour infomercial.

They're not really that stupid, are they?

While I do believe that there can and should be prosecutions for the actions carried out in our name, I tend to agree with the notion that the men and women who actually performed these acts deserve the protection of the government that told them to do it. Instead, if prosecution can be had, it should be of the officials who authorized the actions in the first place: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez and Yoo. These are the individuals responsible, and to pursue the agents in the field would only be a pursuit of the instruments of this misguided policy.

You know you're stupid when you don't even realize how stupid you are.

But perhaps he's having a hard time understanding plate tectonics because, after all, the earth is only 6,000 years old.

I think most people are approaching this issue in the wrong way when they refer to the "ticking time bomb" and whether torture has "worked" in the past.

The proper analogy is the killing of another person. Most jurisdictions have such a thing as "justified homicide." But it is, generally, an affirmative defense to an otherwise criminal act, and must be proved by the person asserting it.

Likewise, where one believes that torture is necessary, and thereafter commits the crime of torture, one can assert the defense of necessity or justification in any proceeding brought as a result, and be put to one's proofs. In other words, if you have tortured someone, you should be investigated and brought to trial, and provided the oppportunity to present the evidence you believe supports your defense of justification.

If you truly believe the safety of your nation is at risk, you should be willing to take the chance that you'll be called to account for your actions. To give interrogators carte-blanche in advance, as the Bush administration and its apologists seem to want, is to ensure that torture will be done even where it may not be "necessary". Essentially, the pro-torture crowd believes there really is such a thing as the Bondian "license to kill" and that we should issue a similar license to torture.

They could not be more mistaken.

Look, the GOP has a death-wish. They want to be known now and forever as the party of "no." That's the only reason there could possibly be for this.

The rules for lo these many years has been clear. Unless the nominee is unqualified, from a LEGAL standpoint, the nominee should be confirmed. You can ask tough questions, you can make your political statements, but at the end of the day, you give the president the cabinet he wants. You can even vote against the nominee, but you don't block the vote itself.

What the GOP is doing is bullshit obstructionism and nothing else.