This idea that religion is too sacred to be criticized is manipulative nonsense despite the fact that it's been going on for thousands of years. It's in our DNA, but if you believe science, as I do, and we don't blow ourselves to kingdom come, we've got more then enough time to work it OUT of our DNA.

The right wing fascists that are even now, as we speak, taking over the court system and trashing the constitution for their own ends are indeed using Christianity to their benefit, just as Eisenhower said they would!

So put that in your pipe and smoke it, unless you want to fall through the cracks of unconstitutional law in 21st century America. By the way, John Edwards has a lot to learn about how drug laws have torn the fabric of that constitution. He is very strict about marijuana prosecution.

Sorry, but I've got marijuana prosecution, (persecution), on my mind today because some jackass congressman was on the Tucker Carlson show today stating unequivocally that 65% of all drug related admissions to the emergency room are for marijuana. A comment that made me fantasize about putting a congressman in the emergency room.

I haven't smoked any since just after the stolen election of 2004 so you can't say it's the marijuana that gave me violent thoughts either.

The christofascists in the white house can be stopped under the power of abstract constitutional text.

Whether the christofascists will be stopped or not is a function of the makeup of the current congress, not the makeup of the current constitution. Those who confuse these two concepts do so at the peril of their own confusion.

My statement that the president is not co-equal to the congress in matters of war was met with official criticism here on this blog recently.

The experts are in agreement with me as recent congressional hearings, chaired by Senator Feingold, have shown.

When it comes to starting and ending war, Congress is superior to the president, not co-equal.

End of case. Now congressmen, do your thing. Stop it.

In other news, John McCain is struggling with his feelings about Michelle Malkin, in light of his "Gook" statements from the "Straight Talk Express"...

The One Corps website has been carrying lots of back-and-forth exchanges about the impact, the propriety and civility, and the importance of this little episode. It seems the regulars are divided in their feelings about what happened, the fallout and the resolution. I find it very instructive that the dialogue has been very sharp and open. I think this is a mark of integrity and fairness too.

I happen to think Edwards is a sound candidate and he did the right thing. And I think critics like Donohoe are self-appointed defenders of the Faith who, lacking other marketable skills, likes to shoot of his mouth like---well, like most non-Catholic charismatic religious leaders who expect to be lionized by their fans for pseudo-expressions of faith---or maybe that is expressions of pseudo-faith. In any case. Edwards seems to have asked his bloggers to adopt a more civil tone for the duration and kept them on. Would Wal-Mart have done the same if they had a website? I doubt it.

this is good for a laugh--->Bush looks to groundhog for Iran intelligence estimate

Have a nice day

I have to make an embarrassing correction to my post above.

It seems Eisenhower would have been the last person to ever accuse Christians of being used for any wrong doing.

I WAS WRONG!

It does seem to be the case that Ike was all in favor of putting the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance and happily signed it into law.

Of course Christians ARE being used by THIS administration and I wish they were more angered by it.

I have read the stuff from those two bloggers and I don't buy your the double standards thing. For one thing none of the mass media can really use their really bad stuff because it can't be played on regular TV. The double standard I see here is that its ok to say anything about catholics but not other relegious groups.

Of course other blogger are vulgar, but those two are the worst that I have seen of the group that is supposed to be serious. I mean bloggers are more like op-ed writers and for sure, their stuff can be used against them if they go into politics.

In the end, I think hiring those 2 was a stupid move for john edwards, it make him weaker by potentially alienating a large group of poeple, not just catholics but all of the enemies that those two women have made over the years, plus this incident has forced him to give up the high ground and have to engage (or at least his supporters) in a smear campaing against the like of Donahue and Malkin. I don't particularly think much of Donahue and Malkin and don't know much about them, but it looks to me that since Edwards is the one running and not them, he has more to loose in a mud mudslinging match then they have. In a war, its really a good startegy to give up the high ground, but to loose the high ground over two such stupid and in many ways insignificant individuals makes me think thas he's not really thinking that he can win, not even VP this time.

Jack D

I agree with you and Donohue about the suitability of these bloggers for a presidential campaign, but Edwards' filthy despicable speech for the Herzliya Conference really tore it for me, and that was before he trotted out his poor judgment for us with these two bawdy bloggers.

Jack D, admittedly I have not read much by the two bloggers in question outside of the quotes provided in the many articles about the controversy. Though, one would think those making a stink would have scoured every last post for the worst of it. But based on what I have seen, I can categorically state that Michelle Malkin has said and written much worse in the MSM. I'm also not sure what you mean by supporters of Edwards smearing Malkin and Donahue. I honestly did not think that was even possible.

And while your point about battling Malkin and Donahue is a good one, as mudslinging is what they do for a living, I'm not sure what other choice Edwards had. They picked the battle, not him. And giving in to their demands is never really an option as they would view it as showing weakness which is a far worse transgression than the writings of two bloggers could ever be.

It's the same philosophy shared throughout the Middle East and by the White House today. Listen to Dick Cheney carefully and his greatest fear about leaving Iraq really comes down to us looking weak to our enemies rather than the worry about civil war or greater death and destruction. Similarly, Israel continued its war with Lebanon last year, with our blessing, in hopes of winning a big battle or causing a lot of hurt in order to win back some of the deterrence that comes with a showing of strength. Of course, this never materialized.

The point being, however, that had Edwards fired the bloggers as Malkin and Donahue demanded, they would not have shown him gratitude but ridiculed him for it. Comments like "how could we count on Edwards to stand up to our enemies when he couldn't even stand up to little 'ol Michelle" would be repeated everywhere.

Bill Clinton understood this and John Kerry did not. And it looks like Edwards did learn some valuable lessons from 2004 as well.

Agent 99:

Many thanks for posting the "filthy despicable speech" by Edwards.

I am very disheartened, as I truly thought he was our bright hope.
Forget it. He is a lost cause.

I hope you post this link everywhere you visit, as we need to spread the truth about these traitors to our nation as soon as we become aware.

I am cutting my losses NOW and will also post the link everywhere I go.

I still wish Feingold was running.
Is it Kucinich whom we can trust?

Meanwhile, McCain's insanely wingnutty blogger, Patrick Hynes, is given hugs and kisses from the GOP/Media Complex. How sweet!