There are a litany of problems with Wingnut's statistics and how he defines hard work and family values (if someone denies funds to help feed children, does that person really value families?). I'm sure Salon's readers will point out many of the other logical and statistical problems with his article as they seem to be several steps ahead of Wingnut at all times. However, I would like to briefly discuss the use of the recent Gallup poll that suggests 51% of the country is pro-life.

Many people have noted that the poll poses the pro-choice and pro-life question very poorly. The question is not phrased in a way that would suggest the answer should reflect political views, but rather the question can be taken for one's personal views. Therefore, a respondent can state that he or she is pro-life as a personal choice but still believe the government should take a pro-choice stance. Others have noted that abortion is becoming more and more of a personal choice rather than a political belief (this falls in line with a pro-life philosophy).

The problem with Wingnut is not that he espouses a conservative viewpoint, but that he regurgitates Republican talking points and his analysis is either lazy or disingenuous. If this is the best conservatives can do, then they can expect to continue losing elections well into the near future.

I've noticed a trend in this column where Wingnut will mention Democratic Presidential equivalence to their conservative counterparts. He might do so to point out a similar philosophy or state of mind regarding their tenure. What Wingnut doesn't realize is that unlike conservatives, liberals do not stand lockstep behind our leaders. We stand for principle before party. Look at how the only truly intelligent criticism of Obama has come from the left in recent months. I think this is a very interesting difference between our two sides. While conservatives are looking for a paternal father figure they can adore, liberals are looking for someone who espouses the liberal ideology first, but that leader steps outside of their principles, then we have no problem criticizing them.

Last week was an exercise in avoiding major scientific issues like global warming and evolution. By their absence I would assume Wingnut believes in neither.

The most hyperbolic assertion of this week's column, that socialized medicine KILLS people, is very easily applied to market run systems. Obviously if you cannot afford to go to the doctor you cannot get help for either chronic problems or problems that are more serious than you first suspect. This is a dangerous situation that can often lead to death.

What I find most fascinating about this column is how flimsy the arguments are. Last week Wingnut barely answered the question while this week he misses a very obvious flaw in his argument. Are these the ideas we were supposed to be afraid of for so long? It seems to me the American public has already rejected these ideas and if conservatives are going to push the same old arguments, then they are going to be out in the wilderness for quite some time. That means that we can actually get some things done in this country.

The most eye opening thing about this column isn't the answers, I can usually guess the response by the time I've read the questions, but the fact that so many responses harp on the media. I always thought the "liberal media" was a political tool, not a true belief. However, time and again Wingnut goes back to the media, even if unprompted. In this case he spends so much time attacking the media that he barely touches upon global warming, which was at the heart of those questions. I cannot imagine the kind of ideological blinders one must wear in order believe there is a liberal media when Fox News exists or after the clearly biased reporting running up to the Iraq War. This only furthers my distrust of talk of bipartisanship. If the right is so convinced that the world is set against them, even when they had eight years of little to no opposition, then there truly is no compromising with these people. They are truly in their own universe.

is the observation that Obama is more popular than his policies. I think this will pose a problem for Obama in the long run. However, I don't think this is because he is because he is too radical (as others have noted, the limited government debate was prominent in the 2008 election and the conservatives lost).

Instead, I think Obama has not been able to control the populist anger out there right now. It may be he does not utilize this energy because it is portrayed as "irrational" anger, or perhaps he does not know how to harness this energy yet. Whatever the case, Obama will have to deal with this issue head on at some point. He is giving an awful lot of money to banks who are still spending like the recession never happened, and people understand that this is indicative of a much larger problem. Namely, that government is too close to business. If Obama does not recognize and do something about this growing anger, then he risks ceding Senate and House seats to Republicans and maybe even the presidency in 2012.