Well, maybe not, but at least here's someone carrying an equally lethal dose of batshit-crazy, gonna-ram-my-religion-down-your-throat dedication!

Keep in mind, people, as you watch this and wonder to yourself, "What the fuck is he going on about?", that this video was edited to be like this. Scientologists actually think this makes him look good! Gahh. Gimme good old-fashioned Mormon Holy Underwear any day of the week.

On the other hand, I do feel inspired to start a band called Freedom Medal of Valor. Probably get mugged by a battallion of Scientology lawyers, though.

Evangelicals believe in an intense, highly personal relationship with God, while Fundamentalists also believe in Biblical inerrancy. Fundamentalists are, for the most part, an extremist subset of Evangelists.

Evangelicals are not necessarily Creationists. There are liberal Evangelicals; there are Evangelical scientists. A Fundamentalist scientist is a contradiction in terms.

In reference to a comment upthread: there's no primary challenge to Rockefeller and no serious Republican opposition in the wings? What the hell? Is there no one in all of West Virginia willing and able to run against him? Even if said opponent--and it could conceivably be either a populist Dem in the primary, or a Pauliac-type, libertarian Repub in the general--really didn't have a chance to win, I'll bet such person could take a very large chunk out of Rockefeller's support and put him and the other Vichy Dems on notice. I would gladly donate money to someone willing to fight the guy.

Any insights from West Virginia readers?

(Sorry, I just had to use that subject line.)

I don't believe there's any insult specific to men that carries quite the sting of "cunt." "Dick" was mentioned above, especially when referring to the Cheney variety, but it's a lower-level insult. Consider: male friends call each other "dick" fairly regularly. I could get called a dick just for, for instance, playing a trick on somebody. Or, if a friend did something vaguely rude, I wouldn't hesitate to say, "Geez, whatta dick!"

In contrast, I have never heard a woman use "cunt" when referring to a friend. As a matter of fact, when a woman refers to an acquaintance as a cunt it is practically a flashing neon sign declaring that said person is, now and forevermore, an ex-friend. As a poster mentioned above, there's a real tinge of betrayal to the word; the word says, "I despise her."

Which, perhaps, is giving it too much power. Nevertheless, I don't think the word is going to be defused any time soon due to usage by America's church-going, self-proclaimed moral-bedrock conservatives.

So Romney's bowing out because, obviously, his support was flip-flopping...er, flopping. And instead of taking his (expensive!) loss gracefully, like a man, he issues this nasty little fatwa against, well, half of the country. Apparently, either we're having too much sex, or watching it, or accepting aid from the government, or living in the state that brought him to political prominence, or not cheering the war or going to church enough. At the end of this dark road: the fate of Europe, which is ominously not producing enough white people!

(Wait a minute: doesn't that mean they're not promiscuous enough? Hmmm.)

Americans don't want the damn Republican holy war anymore, Mitt, and you didn't really impress anybody by prostrating yourself before the kulturkreigers who don't accept your religion as part of their culture. So the feeling is mutual, Mitt: fuck you too.

I look forward to Meghan's next kicky, hip video detailing her fun adventures in boot and, subsequently, at a forward position somewhere in Baghdad.

Come on, kid, no griping now, we got a hundred years to go. Hup, hup!

I've been saying exactly that for many years to explain why liberals should support either Ralph Nader or the Green Party candidate for president...Of course Obama and Clinton ARE better than McCain, but that's not how you move politics in this country to the left; it's how you let it continue moving to the right.

You ask a good question: What is the difference between threatening a) (implicitly, by criticizing a Blue Dog) to vote for a true liberal in a future Dem primary, and b) to vote for Nader or a Green Party candidate?

The difference is a) has a chance in hell of succeeding, as we have seen recently, and b) does not.

To move that Overton Window, a little bit of actual electoral success is required. For the same reason, the Green Party should be focussing on winning local, State, or Congressional elections. I'd support good candidates. Seriously!

Otherwise, you argue that losing elections moves the country in one direction or the other. Case in point: the 2000 Presidential election. Are you seriously going to argue that the country moved left as a result?

"celling" is actually spelled with an "s."

(Sorry, folks, I just had to add another swat at the hive.)

But there is no alternative to "the two party mishigaz" under the present system. (Is it spelled "mishegas?" Good word, either way.) It's a matter of arithmetic, plus a bit of Game Theory. There have never been three viable parties at one time in our country. The Greens can only replace the Dems, at best, and then they'll probably end up exactly the same way: mildly center-left, corrupted by corporate graft, supported, or not, by grumbling, sullen lefty citizens.

I'm open to talk about switching to a parliamentary system, or proportional representation, etc, but those would require movements to change the Constitution. Changing the parties can eliminate parties that have had their day, but it isn't going to eliminate the essential problems of the congressional system.

And casual_observer: yes, I think the country moved left, in the long term. In the future, I think I'd rather do so without a million people getting killed in the Middle East.