I really don't mean to stir up controversy or offend anyone by this. I respect that others have very odd beliefs from my perspective. Frankly, I take the view, to take from Wicca,"If it harms none, believe what though wilt." However, I have real problems with Mormonism because it is so evangelical in its bent. It bothers me that it is so focused on converting everyone, and has so little respect for other belief systems. Why not leave others alone? How is it ethical to go into undeveloped areas and prey on the populations with what are essentially high-pressure and deceptive sales practices? In short, my beef with Mormonism is the same as it is with any evangelical religion, from varieties of protestantism to atheism. People should be allowed to find their way religiously without being proselytized to. If your belief system is truly the only correct one, and if it matters (an important distinction - Zoroastrians believe they are absolutely correct, but they also believe that God doesn't care what you believe), then people will figure that out on their own (yes, my views on religious exceptionalism can be read from this comment, I imagine). Mormonism rankles me more than most because it is so focused and organized in its disrespect for others and effort to sell itself as widely as possible. Again, why not leave others alone? Would it really be so hard?

Again, no offense to any Mormons on this board, but that is how I feel.

I am still not sure, but you make a good point I had not considered. Given how craven and cynical these folks tend to be, I wouldn't be surprised if you are right.

I noticed that, too, and I am glad it bothered someone else. I can understand that it might just be a piece of detail thrown in to set the scene better, but, given that it could be interpreted as a gratuitous slight, it really should have been left out. I don't think Scherer thought it mattered that she had a speech impediment, though (or at least I home he didn't).

Ladies and gentlemen, my point has been made and reinforced.

Can we all agree that someone who comes around referring to anyone who is politically to the left of them even to the slightest degree as "radical libs", uses "Democrat" as an adjective, and prattles on about supposed liberal conspiracies to create a "nanny state" (I hate to break it to you, but I don't think you actually know any liberals if you think that is what we want), and describes the "values voters" posing the questions reported on as "swing voters" (in what parallel universe?) while declaring a complete understanding of the majority of Americans want/don't want is very likely a troll and thus to be ignored or at least not taken seriously?

The problem with your point is this: The escalation known as the surge was ostensibly designed to improve security to allow the Iraqi government to use that opportunity to create political order that could be a basis for unifying and pacifying the country. The Iraqi government did no such thing. Though there has been slight securiy improvement in Iraq due to the escalation, the Iraqi government has actually declined in effectiveness. What do we do if the Iraqi government <<never>> gets its house in order? Do we stay forever? At what point do we cut our losses and realize that we are not helping to fix what we broke, and that we are in the process of breaking our own country's military, political, and economic future? As it stands, the American people have almost totally lost confidence in their own government, given that the Republicans, led by Bush, have shown no interest in stopping this war, and the Democrats' numbers are too small in Congress to overcome Republican opposition. What do we do if our people completely lose faith that democratic government can actually lead to action based the desires and needs of the people? I think this is an issue we need to face up to. Iraq is not going to get better. Are we to wait until all the Iraqis have fled, and we have peace because Iraq is empty? Are we to place a new brutal dictator in power there? It is not that there are no easy answers about how to fix Iraq, it is that there are no answers at all. The real question is that of whether or not we will completely break America before we learn that lesson.

Go back to the coverage of job numbers prior to the 2004 election, and you will find plenty of stories. The thing is, and I don't understand why "conservatives" can't face this, while there has been job growth during Bush's second term, it has been quite anemic. Indeed, job growth has largely lagged far behind what would be expected under the pattern seen in most recoveries. You can't blame 9/11 for this (though I know you will), as it reflects changes in the American economy that make it more difficult to hold on to decent jobs and create new, good jobs, and which have been exacerbated by "conservative" policies. So why the coverage now? Well, because it its into a broader economic picture that includes the sub-prime mortgage problems and stock market problems, and points to the possibility of a major economic slow-down or even recession. Do you not think this is relevant simply because it has the likelihood of reflecting poorly on your beloved "conservative" king George? Are you one of those "conservatives" who believes that any time any news is reported that is not officially sanctioned government propaganda it is simply a reflection of liberal bias? If so, that is too bad.