I heard him on the radio, too, repeating the same lie:

That the positions of the radical right are what were moderate positions a short while ago, and that the liberals are shifting the culture, and so on and so on. It's lying crap, straight out of Mallard Fillmore or Prickly City. It has the usual RNC crap that, where the right is completely in the wrong, both sides are obviously equally to blame, etc. etc. Because government is the problem, all politicians are equally bad, but it so happens the GOP will not tax you as heavily. And "neither side" understands the other, etc.

The reality is much closer to today's moderate Democrats being, essentially, Eisenhower Republicans. At best.

I think if you're such a weak, cringing jackal as to buy into the worst lies of the right a priori before you even begin talking to them, they'll sense that, and it will reinforce their feeling that you're a spineless weakling afraid to commit to ANYTHING or protect or defend ANYTHING, and that includes America.

And boy, is Andrew O'Hehir wrong about the "blasts the right" part. Mann is trying desperately to make a case for moral equivalence between the "Clinton Chronicles" people and truly insightful people like Thomas Frank, a former Young Republican who just happens to have lived in his extremely conservative Red State, and is not in any sense "out of touch."

I hope it has a quick trip to the remainder bin. I bet the New Republic and people like Peter Beinart (and maybe David Brooks) will love it.

The idea that those "60's" events you described were somehow a big part of the "rural/metro divide" is problematic not because those events didn't occur but because they were not the basis for the pre-existing attitudes. They were simply "justifications" for beliefs that were already held.

Heh, every once in awhile I stumble upon something.

The point, dimbulb, is that American history, fraught with mistakes and bloodshed as it has been, has still been, until recently, and inexhorable movement toward the expansion of rights to include all Americans, not just you goosestepping, Bible thumping, inbreeding white males. That obviously offends many of you (like Fat Tony on the Krispy Kreme Kourt, and his sock puppet Clarence Dumbass), but the pattern is as clearly discernable as global warming. Oh, wait; y'all deny that's true too. Go re-read Leviticus and get back to us, "Guy".

you have to look at the evidence and make a rational judgement. What we can say with absolute certainty is that there is no non religious rational basis for attributing the acquisition of humanity to the moment of conception. The psycholigical desire for abolute clairity does not define truth.

Hey Gerry, try using something called a "search engine" to look up the facts on fetal viability and their relationship to abortion. The threshold isn't arbitrary, but you're going to have to do some work to find out why third-trimester abortions should be more limited than earlier ones. Of course, none of this matters if you have a religion-based belief that "life begins at conception," which of course ignores the true question, which is "when do legally protected rights begin?"

So you think that John Marshall's view of the function of the Supreme Court is extra-legal? Because of course it wasn't established by amendment of the Constitution. Seriously, you ought to learn something beyond your right-wing palaver if you're going to try to argue. You also ought to realize your "choose life" argument has no Constitutional standing, either. And, much to the dismay of your "coherent worldview," a clump of cells is exactly what a blastocyst is; if I showed it to you under a microscope, I highly doubt your liberal arts background would enable you to accurately identify it as the "baby" you claim it is. (I notice you didn't respond much about your "coherent worldview," which I imagine owes a lot more to religion than politics). Since it's all you seem worked up about, I take it you're one of those pathetic people for whom abortion is the defining issue of our nation. I assume you're ignorant about the history of abortion, too.

Of course women's "rights" aren't rights to you; original intent, of course, denied the majority gender it gave to white men of property (you ARE a white man of property, aren't you?) By your lights, the only right women have is the right to vote, since that's the only one addressed by Constitutional amendment; the ERA failed to pass, so tough luck for the gals.

Basically, AG, you're showing me nothing. I still say you're an expensive education wasted. And yes, that's condescension, but then you, individually, have earned it.

Ok, then, anon, but where do we draw the line. Based on what criteria that aren't completely arbitrary?

is either a relgious fanatic, an ignoramus, or a liar and nothing else that they say can be taken at face value.

As far as women's rights, in 1776 and 1787, they had none.--tom payne

That's what legislatures are for. If you think something should be so, do it the way the Consitution calls for: convince enough people you're right and get them to vote the way you want. Don't get a judge to go on a fishing expedition through the Consitution and invent a right out of thin air.

That's why the abortion issue won't go away. If you fight for an issue in the venue the Constitution calls for, even if you lose you know you at least had a fair chance. But when a judge with the whack of his gavel takes the issue away from all 50 states simultaneously and forever removes any possiblity of changing it, then opposite feel aggrieved because they were never given a chance.

And the Left claims to be the smart ones ...

The founders owned slaves. Only landed white males could vote. Original intent? My ass. Of course, the Bill of Rights was not originally part of the Constitution. Original intent? As far as women's rights, in 1776 and 1787, they had none. they were chattel, arm candy, and glorified breeders, just like today's republikan party would like 'em. If you can't menstruate, conceive, or bear children, "a guy" who forces women to carry to term regarless of circumstance is a thug and a prick. Or, a thug with a prick. Works both ways.