Ralph Reed, once head of the Christian coalition and radical-right king maker, couldn't even win the primary for Lt. Governor of Georgia in 2006!! Georgia is a bright red state. He had piles of cash.

Because he was involved with the Jack Abramoff scandal, not because Ga. voters were worried he's promoting a Christian Reconstructionist agenda (which they probably don't even know exists.)

What about all the members of Congress that do support it? What about Kevin Phillips documenting in American Theocracy that the party is being overtaken from the bottom up.

Wouldn't it be even less likely that Reed or anyone who supports a similar agenga would be elected if more of the public was actually aware of it (the agenda) in the first place?

I'm with you. It's possible that the current storm is passing, but that does not imply that the conditions that made us vulnerable are gone - we seem to lack storm shutters. What worries me is that the vulnerability in the system is clear. If Bush had just pushed a bit earlier for war with Iran, if the neo-cons had had just a bit more control over the resistance on the business side of things, we probably wouldn't be having this argument today.

And don't believe that the ambitious out there don't see the opportunity. Without some systemic change, neo-cons under new names, or their analogues will come back. Remember, a number of the neo-cons were Trotskyites - when that program failed, they just relabeled themselves and found new allies to subvert.

We'll see how things go with the summit. If Condi is in control, we have little hope - that means Kissinger is still at the helm, and we know from his "Diplomacy" that he considers Stalin to be the greatest political genius of the 20th century.

Yes, yes. Individuals are individuals. The conservative movement is not a monolith.

But the conservative movement is a movement. You can't talk about the movement without saying things about it that do not apply to individuals within it, I take for granted that much is obvious.

Regarding O'Reilly, the point is that by doing what he does ... when people hear him saying that ACLU is the most dangerous organization in America, when they hear him say there is a "S-P" war on traditional Americans ... they see him on Fox News and think he's a mainstream. So when people hear a Rev. Rushdoony say the same thing they think he's mainstream, too ... and then vote for him.

Well, they're going to be terribly dissapointed when they find out that by "war" Rev. Rushdoony does not mean, like O'Reilly, that Wal-Mart wished him Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas ... that he actually means overthrowing the Constitution and replacing the Bill of Rights with the Old Testament (stoning adulters and what not).

Its that sort of dynamic which is why the Bush administration happened in the first place. The more people that understand that, the better.

Hey, I'm willing to come over and help you dig your bomb shelter is you supply the beer. But I'll be digging with a smile on my face.

There are lots of "ifs" attached to your doomsday predictions.

As I said earlier, I don't think anyone questions that bad things could happen to our republic and our freedoms if another big terrorist attack took place. Even a sound foreign policy can't guarantee that will never happen.

But I reject your fearful vision of the future, and I do it with my feet firmly planted in reality. Yours is not a message designed to motivate people, to bring people together or to move us forward.

With a rubber stamp Congress in place, Bush was able to embrace the Yoo Doctrine you mention. But Congress, the courts and political reality are already forcing the rollback of many of those radical assertions. Even with the failure of Congress, the system is working.

Your paranoid vision of the future is not based on the trendline. To some degree, you are fighting the last war. Your argument is now completely dependant on uncertain negative events in the future.

The opportunity here is to give people an optimistic view of the future, to show them the kind of America we can become, with greater freedoms, compassion and opportunity. That's how we prevent the dark forces from surging again.

Let the right get more shrill. Ultimately, it will only turn people off. The less relevant they become, the louder they will grow. Let them starve. Or mock them. They hate that. If you hate back, they win.

Kurtz is quoting Malkin in his online column again today, sounding "reasonable" on the subject of Rudy Giuliani. Maybe I'm a raving paranoid, but he seems to be part of an orchestrated campaign to "mainstream" her.

In 'The New Yorker' ...by the way, Price is a steep $4.50.

...someone by the name --eh..."We declined the good-night kiss, realizing that the slightest spark could ignite the poorly stored munitions of out love."

The sketch has two shy looking potential 'lovers' making that 1,000 mile stare into where? A moon is above them in the sky, and a cat sits off to the side...

...someone ought to talk to George Bush etc., I say, do not kiss some people. Shy away and come back another day. Lies, lies...hey...your shoe is untied and your pants are on fire. I forgot it was P-and-P day. Yikes!

Merci ME, head for the hills? TGIF-Right! What fine hospitality! It's too bad, a crying shame, a good attorney's is far and in between a rock and a good hard place, at times like this, too? Mother, more purgatory?

Some days we feel like a motherless child, has said what's True. Gracious.

No mainstream evangelical organization accepts Rushdooney, because not only is he a loon, but he's a heretic, advocating Old Testament law when the New Testament clearly states that it has been fulfilled.

D. James Kennedy cannot be linked to Rushdooney, because Kennedy always advocates peaceful, lawful change through the ballot box, not militant overthrow.

No go back and take your meds like a good paranoid delusional boy.