A movement figuratively led by the likes of Ann Coulter (or literally by Newt Gingrich, who is lurking on the sidelines, ready to run) cannot win a general election in this country.

Rather than questioning their bedrock values, the natural reactionary response to this problem would be to do away with elections, right? DeLay and Company certainly tried with their redistricting and assorted strongarm lobbying tactics. What else to do? Create a climate of perpetual crisis, maintained indefinitely -- state of emergency! Then they can stay in power. What would create that crisis? Another terrorist attack?

How far would committed reactionary zealots, convinced that they were right, go to ensure that their side would prevail in a conflict, when they put party interest ahead of national security? Trading arms for hostages is almost quaint by comparison.

I have to admit I'm worried. I THINK they are, but we are on a knife edge or close to it all the time, the politics of the last 27 years and especially since 1992 make that crystal clear, and the underlying disease, while it MAY prove to be containable by our political immune system, is not going away any time soon.

Not that I disagree, but, like, duh.

In other news:

Be careful! Your use of the "N" word is not that much different than Isaih whatshisface's latest use of the word that has brought Coulter so much attention-I mean trouble.

Seriously, at some awards ceremony dude said:

"I did not call him a faggot" and everyone jumped his ass for using the word (again).

And the N word is nuclear, biological, and chemical compared to the F word (I mean the one that slanders gays, not the other one).

While I hate Ann Coulter from her size 15s to her adam's apple, I should point out that she never actually called Edwards a "faggot".

She said she would have, but she didn't want to get into trouble. LOL!

Still, I think it's kind of disingenuous to write "Ann Coulter called Edwards a faggot." As that's just the kind of playful speech twisting that the righties love so much.

Too true, too true.

The canned right-wing responses(impugn patriotism, say something nasty about Barbra Steisand or a Clinton or a Kennedy) now seem so out of sinc with the problems we face that it's like a badly dubbed foreign movie. You try to follow along, but it's really impossible.

Can people ever return from that place to meaningful participation in society? Or is our best hope that they simply stay home with the shades drawn?

What a brilliant précis of what the right stands for, absolutely nothing.

gets exactly the results she wants and the "progressives" fall for it every time. She takes them off their message while they rush to attack her and brand conservatives as just like her.

Meanwhile "progressives" show that they don't practice what they preach in their attacks and people see that.

Keep going guys. She's laughing to the bank. I'm just laughing.

This is pretty good. It is true that the culture wars is largely bogus, though, and I am speaking now from the key swing state of Florida, the antiabortion thing plays well down here where people marry young and love their kids, which in many cases are their only assets.

A considerable chunk of the population down here is pretty much illiterate, has limited understanding of political issues, or of the world outside this state, gets its employment largely from the military, prisons, law enforcement etc. and is pretty vulnerable to this "four legs good, two legs bad" political sloganeering that is delivered to them through their TVs or by Rush Limbaugh by radio into their trucks on the way to and from work.

On the other hand, the Democrats don't seem to want a well informed electorate either, and readily descend to politics by slogans as well. Although we do have free elections, it isn't particularly easy to pick between a candidate who is

"tough on crime" and another candidate who is also "tough on crime" if they don't want to discuss the theoretical basis for their plans to reduce crime.

I am a potential voter for a Democrat presidential candidate, but all I am hearing about is who is getting the most money for the campaign. Frankly I have no knowledge of the policy differences between Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama, and although I lean slightly towards Obama at this point, I want to hear more from all of them, not about money, but about why I should vote for them.

I also had high hopes that the American people would see the light and reject the nihilism of the Reich-wing party.

Then I woke up on a Wednesday morning in November 2004 ....

...I so wish that I could fully buy in to Gary Kamiya's claims about the right including "A movement figuratively led by the likes of Ann Coulter (or literally by Newt Gingrich, who is lurking on the sidelines, ready to run) cannot win a general election in this country."

Unfortunately, I can still remember my incredulity as I sat in front of the television and watched as Gore not only didn't win in a landslide over Bush (surely the American public was too smart to elect such a dunce President?!?!), but, in fact, Supreme Court tampering or not, lost the election.

Four years later, I assured myself that America had learned its lesson and prepared for a Kerry presidency (despite the fact that he's not my favorite guy, even Mickey Mouse seemed better than Bush!). Again, the disappointment led me to question whether I was really in touch with the Americans who were casting these votes.

I think it's a dangerous thing, on the dawn of a new Democrat-led Congress, to assume that the era of Coulter and Gingrich is past, or that a moderate will take the White House in 2008. Only by diligent grass-roots organizing can those of us who so desperately want to believe Kamiya's words make his view of the demise of the neocons a reality in this country.