not apt to believe journalism (too conclusionary, too reliant on "authority") when it flatly conteradicts history and our own life experience, NEVER bought this nonsense about a durable Republican majority. By definition, the Republicans cannot be a majority party. They win a lot because they are fierce campaigners, and tell a few small truths while peddling the backhanded forms of populism.

So, now I cannot buy this journalistic notion that the Republicans will vanish.

In truth, the U.S. is a mildly progressive country. Has been in my entire lifetime. This means endless struggle and contradiction. So be it.

Get struggling!

They also asked stupid questions instead of anything substantive. Remember Biden will not abide any tough questions regarding Obama. Strictly softball please. Sarah routed the entrenched political scum from Alaska and she can do it in Washington. Obama would appoint his sleazy pals to cushy positions, then Washington would be beyond cesspool.

They also asked stupid questions instead of anything substantive.

Yeah! How dare they ask her what she thought about the Bush Doctrine when they could have asked her what Russia looks like, or what kind of clothes $150k gets you. How dare they inquire about the bridge to nowhere and Palin's fraudulent claim that she was against it? It's not fair, I tell you!! Waaaaaaaa!

Remember Biden will not abide any tough questions regarding Obama.

Um...no, I don't seem to remember anything like that. Can you substantiate that?

Obama would appoint his sleazy pals to cushy positions, then Washington would be beyond cesspool.

Two questions about this: exactly which "sleazy pals" do you expect Obama to appoint to cushy positions? And, since it seems you object to sleazy pals being appointed to cushy positions, could you please explain your views regarding this practice and how it relates to the Bush Administration? Before taking you seriously, I'm interested in whether or not you're simply a hypocrite.

I could have sworn in 1998 that the culture war was dead after the whole Clinton impeachment debacle went belly up for the republicans. Two years later we get saddled with a know nothing man/child just because he said Jesus was his favorite philosopher. The public tends to have the memory span of goldfish and they don't learn long term lessons very well. Don't be too surpirsed if they put another stupid culture warrior on the ticket in four years and half the country falls for her (ahem, I think we all know who I'm talking about).

Gary: Nearly everything you said is bang on, except your lumping God in with all the conservative values that are being swept away.

God isn't the problem. It's that idea of God. It's people behaving like idiots. It's the Dominionists, it's televangelist scam artists, it's politicians cynically using "God" like a brand name.

I don't believe the future is atheism. I don't think we need to dispense with the idea that there might be a God, in order to behave with sanity and common sense.

You've heard of the lesser of two evils. I don't agree with McCain on amnesty or not drilling in ANWR. But these shrink in comparison to the damage which will be inflicted by Obama, all incremental of course. He'll ease us into Marxism but after four years, like Carter, much pain. Status quo is not desirable but we need capitalism to stay great. Russia wants to take Saudi out of the oil business and crush our economy, to name a future Obama problem.

Isn't Grover Norquist the one who wanted to drown the New Deal in the bathtub? That scratching sound you hear is poor Grover's fingernails on the bathroom floor as he is dragged to an overflowing Democratic bathtub. After the 1964 Goldwater debacle Newsweek had a cover with an Elephant holding an icebag to it's head asking "What Happened?" 16 years later Ronald Reagan and unfettered Capitalism. Now changes are coming that will make the Great Society and the New Deal seem like kid's play. After January 20th it really will be a Brave New World.

I see you were unable to address any issues I brought up, and instead have slightly shifted your talking points. In other words, you're simply a right wing troll who can no more defend his viewpoint than Palin can defend hers. Thanks for the disclosure, involuntary though it was.

to run our country back to Swiss-watch precision.

Questions from Couric and Gibson are tantamount to asking who the current tinpot dictator is of Jerkministan. Why not pertinent questions about looming problems?

Bush Doctrine? That varies based on the latest events: Sarah asked in regard to what. Nobody knows which doctrine they're speaking of - the first one or the current one.

I think Sarah's Russia answer was tongue-in-cheek without anybody fathoming the humor.

Biden was in the news the past couple days denouncing Ms. West in Orlando asking about Obama's wealth redistribution and Marxism, then banning the station from further interviews, then investigating Ms. West's husband as when they used Ohio state computers to check Joe the Plumber.

Sleazy friend appointments are not apparent with Wright retired, Rezko in jail, Ayers and wife already ensconced in cushy university jobs instilling their retro garbage into young skulls. Probably minions from ACORN or campaign workers; people we have no knowledge of.

Bush's appointments are qualified for the position with an occasional exception. When they slip up like Craig they are dismissed instead of being appointed to a different committee.

Jesse Jackson accused Clinton of having a vanilla milkshake administration since the unfortunate accident(?) of Ron Brown's plane crash. Yet the blacks flock to Democrats with Republican Lincoln and benefactors up to Nixon and affirmative action not taken into account. Bull Connor and all the rest aren't considered. Al Gore's father voted against the civil rights bill.

The letters here are among the best for any Salon article I've read in recent years. All kinds of valid, well thought through notions streaming along, and hardly a twit to be found. Nice to see such high levels of discourse and civility around here.