Ms. Parker on the money again.

[HowardRoark]

Jonah......

I don't know what's more grating, the quasi-bigotry that has you calling religious Christians low brows, gorillas and oogedy-boogedy types or the bravery-on-the-cheap as you salute — in that winsome way — your own courage for saying what (according to you) needs to be said. Please stop bragging about how courageous you are for weathering a storm of nasty email you invite on yourself by dancing to a liberal tune. You aren't special for getting nasty email, from the right or the left. You aren't a martyr smoking your last cigarette. You're just another columnist, talented and charming to be sure, but just another columnist. You are not Joan of the Op-Ed Page. Perhaps the typical Washington Post reader (or editor) doesn't understand that. But you should, and most conservatives familiar with these issues can see through what you're doing.

For the record, I have no problem with arguments about how the GOP has become too religious. I ended my book with pretty much that argument. I opposed Mike Huckabee vociferously because he seemed the quintessential rightwing progressive imbued with a rightwing social gospel. These are all good arguments to make and they have good responses to them. But please drop the nonsense about how the G-O-D people or the Palin people are low brows and beasts. There are low brows and beasts everywhere, on every side of the ideological spectrum. Maybe if you got more ecumenical hate email you'd realize that.

[Zool]

3) Reading your skewed opinions on a messageboard

Window or aisle, Mr. Drool? No, sorry, the baggage compartment is off limits to passengers.

I thought Tex said you guys arent name callers?

[texaspackerbacker]

I thought it was kinda interesting. Boring is what this forum has been the past few days.

It sounded like she was more trying to convince and give a pep talk to her own side than anything else. It's hard to argue with most of what she wrote. There was a lot left unsaid, though.

Kiwon's map says volumes of counterpoint to Parker's article. For now, I will leave it at that.

BTW, assuming that "gorilla in the pulpit" meant Obama, isn't that just a tad bit RACIST? I guess liberals feel like they can get away with that sort of thing.

Did I really say that, Zool? I don't remember.

[Kiwon]

3) Reading your skewed opinions on a messageboard

Window or aisle, Mr. Drool? No, sorry, the baggage compartment is off limits to passengers.

I thought Tex said you guys arent name callers?

Sorry*

*read the message on your icon.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm familar with that editorial becomes Alan Colmes read it excitedly on his radio show. It is a very shallow piece of thinking, really just name calling. Its a feel-good piece for people who dislike Republicans.

I don't have the stats in my head, but evangelical Christians voted in significant numbers for OBama. Like Bill Clinton in 92, Obama worked very hard to portray himself as a religous man, and it payed off in votes. The notion that the Republicans should become more secular like the Democrats is a joke.

This campaign did not turn on social issues. Perhaps Palin's view on abortion turned-off some voters, but they weren't going to vote for pro-Life McCain anyway. McCain hardly ran a campaign geared to bible thumpers.

The gay issue was decided largely by gay-hostile black and hispanic voters who also voted overwhelmingly Democratic.

I think politics is depressing. It just brings out peoples worst tribal instincts.

[sheepshead]

Barry and Hillary dragged out religion when they thought they needed it.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/R5TrN0RTKFI/AAAAAAAAAfE/OcHrLrst7z4/s1600-h/obama2.png

Or Hillary wearing a crucifix when it suited her.

[sheepshead]

Posted: 4:17 am
November 20, 2008

Congratulations to Hillary (and Bill) Clinton - who seem to have won the presidential election, despite the official results on Nov. 4.

That's certainly a reasonable conclusion, anyway, based on the folks President-elect Obama is eyeing for his administration - folks such as former Clinton officials Eric Holder and Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton herself.

It's déjà vu all over again for Team Clinton - and America. And it's already prompting reminders of all the sordid affairs that attended that era.

On Tuesday, for instance, it was reported that Holder would be Obama's attorney general. As deputy AG under then-President Bill Clinton, Holder played a key role in a Clinton-era scandal: the pardoning of fugitive financier Marc Rich.

Meanwhile, talk swirls that Hillary herself might be secretary of state. Obama's folks are now sorting through Bill Clinton's complex financial arrangements to assess conflicts of interest, a process that in itself recalls the spaghetti-like ethical issues from his presidency.

Earlier, Obama named Emanuel, a hard-knuckled veteran of the Clinton White House, to be his chief of staff.

Who knew when Obama talked about the need for the nation to "turn a page," he meant turning it backward?

There's more: Tapped as White House counsel was Clinton's lead legal aide for his impeachment fight, Greg Craig.

And yesterday Obama also named ex-Sen. Tom Daschle to be secretary of Health and Human Services. Daschle wasn't part of Team Clinton, but the former Senate majority leader isn't exactly a fresh face, either.

True, a new administration needs solid veterans on board. And Obama's picks surely all have pluses as well as minuses.

But much of the president-elect's appeal was his promise to bring change - not to return to the hyper-partisan and ethically mired days of the Clinton era.

On the other hand, it's early yet. And there's certainly room for improvement.



The most powerful man in the free world on Jan 20th will be Bill Clinton-what is this guy thinking?

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm familar with that editorial becomes Alan Colmes read it excitedly on his radio show. It is a very shallow piece of thinking, really just name calling. Its a feel-good piece for people who dislike Republicans.

I don't have the stats in my head, but evangelical Christians voted in significant numbers for OBama. Like Bill Clinton in 92, Obama worked very hard to portray himself as a religous man, and it payed off in votes. The notion that the Republicans should become more secular like the Democrats is a joke.

This campaign did not turn on social issues. Perhaps Palin's view on abortion turned-off some voters, but they weren't going to vote for pro-Life McCain anyway. McCain hardly ran a campaign geared to bible thumpers.

The gay issue was decided largely by gay-hostile black and hispanic voters who also voted overwhelmingly Democratic.

I think politics is depressing. It just brings out peoples worst tribal instincts.

ALL of which could be summed up by saying GULLIBLE PEOPLE GOT CONNED BY THE LEFT-SATURATED MAINSTREAM MEDIA--if your post is correct, Harlan, depressingly, even a lot of evangelical Christians.

If the good normal majority of Americans are going to re-assert political power, they/we are going to have to find a way to counter this rotten situation. Sadly, I don't see any solution coming up to that end.

The Great Communicator, Reagan managed to overcome the sinister leftist media; The Rush Limbaugh phenomenon did the same. Reagan, however, is long gone, and Rush has peaked and is mainly preaching to the choir these days, not convincing new people.

Maybe Palin or Jindal will step up; Maybe Obama will self-destruct; But none of that seems very likely, given the formidable enemy we have in the leftist mainstream media. We/America are in for a rough road until this problem can be solved.

Sheepshead, the huge majority of voters who are not true leftist believers, but were conned to vote for Obama anyway, are NOT going to be swayed by this stuff. They aren't even gonna know these names, and you can depend on the leftist medai to fluff up all of his appointees, just as they did their best to tear down Bush's appointees.