"And as Thom Hartmann pointed out today, the media sensation surrounding this really obscures recent further revelations about the Bush administrations apparently deliberate attempts to ignore warnings about 9/11.

-- Zaynab D."

John Q. & Jane Sixpak could not possibly care less about claims that the Bush administration deliberately ignored warnings about 9/11. For one thing, most of them won't believe it. They'll put it down to more "propaganda" from the "liberal MSM." For another, they'll think - at the exact same time -- that the Dem's would have been even worse, since after all, Clinton had many chances to "get" Osama, and didn't. And finally -- and again at the same time -- they'll think this is all ancient history and doesn't matter; only who is "strong" enough to "keep us safe" matters, and hey, they haven't struck again since 9/11, so Bush IS keeping us safe, isn't he?

But the funny thing is, Jane & John really are pretty creeped out by anything sexual -- and way more so if it's teh GAY -- and they are very open to the concept that maybe these Republicans have had just a bit too much power for just a bit too long.

So why is it that you want us to throw away something that (regardless of whether you think it *should* or not) could very well have a huge impact on the Sixpaks' votes -- to go pay more attention to something that almost certainly won't? Do you, as so many of our elected "leaders" and "representatives" (not to mention legions of consultants who get paid an awful lot regardless of who wins) seem to, LIKE being a permanent minority?

Cause I sure don't. And I'm sick to death of "sensible" liberals supporting behaviors, policies, and stances that are doomed to keep us there.

Somebody upthread pointed out that this is a literal gift from God. Maybe He is as sick and tired of seeing His name abused for vile political ends. I'm with that; you don't turn away free manna.

...just to see the faces of Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, and all the other sanctimonious hypocrites when they wind up there.

Tom Tomorrow likes to ask the questions about the wingnuts in general, "Are they crazy, or just stupid? Are they lying, or just wrong?" With the Christianists, you have to wonder what we'd find if we polygraphed them as to whether they actually believe at all, or ever did.

"There are three PSAs, but the one featured most prominently on the WVWV website (and the one that has already gotten the most online pick-up, naturally) features spliced interviews with actresses Felicity Huffman, Tyne Daly, Regina King, and Angie Harmon talking about their virgin voting experiences as if they were talking about...well, wink-wink nudge-nudge...you know…

The truth is, the other two ads in WVWV's 'Remember Your First Time' series do much better than the 'sex' one."

No, the other two ads obviously don't "do much better." They can't "do much better" -- they can't do anything at all -- if they're not being watched and listened to in the first place.

Progressives, leftists, whatever name we're using these days, and the Dem's who ostensibly stand for us, keep losing election after election after election for exactly this reason: we've been trying to appeal to the American voter on the basis of fact and reason. Since the utter failure of this approach has been apparent since at least the 1950s*, you'd think we would have learned better by now. How can we make any claim to be the "reality-based community" if we persist in not learning from our mistakes?**

Not that I want to sound like a Randian here, but we have to deal with the world -- and the voters -- as they are, not as we wish they were. Until we learn to do so, perhaps we deserve to keep losing.

*Wikipedia: It was alleged that during one of Stevenson's presidential campaigns, a supporter told him that he was sure to "get the vote of every thinking man" in America, to which Stevenson is said to have replied, "Thank you, but I need a majority to win."

** Einstein: "Insanity [is] doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Maybe it's just me, but looking at that picture, I don't read her facial expression as anything but neutral. Thre are no frown lines on her face; if there's anything of a downturn to her lips (and I'm not buying that there is), seems to me that's imposed by the camera angle, not by any expression of the woman's.

Then again, is it possible that we're so thoroughly ingrained with the cultural expectation that a part of women's "duties" in the world is always to be smiling, cheerful, etc (and all the more so when pregnant), that any expression of less than thoroughgoing radiant bliss gets read as "somber"? (I don't remember seeing any posts about that here, but over at BitchPhd's blog, there are occasional postings of women sharing their stories of men -- utter strangers -- asking them, out of the blue, things like "where's your smile?") Just askin...

Yes, Phylmom, in fact there's an old line that goes, "Hollywood's idea of an ugly woman is a gorgeous woman with glasses." I just googled it but gave up before finding its origin, sorry.

But the concept has been a constant, with the best-known examples probably being "The Truth About Cats and Dogs" (1996) in which the very beautiful Janeane Garofolo -- wearing glasses -- is the "ugly" chick to the very beautiful Uma Thurman's "gorgeous" one, and "Not Another Teen Movie" (2001) in which the very beautiful Chyler Leigh is transformed from ugly to gorgeous in two seconds with the removal of her glasses and the rubber band holding her hair back in a pony tail. Hilarity ensues.

eat no pork chops either.

Funny how different individuals draw the lines in different places. I wonder if Christians are like snowflakes -- no two exactly alike?