The biggest problem with Mitt Romney's attempt to channel JFK was that he completely refuted JFK's affirmation of the absolute separation between church and state, while making enemies out of the over 20 million Americans who consider themselves non believers, by grouping them together with "radical Islamists" as enemies of freedom. It's the secularists in this country, who Romney demonizes, who are the true patriots, championing the true intent of our Diest forefathers by fighting to make sure the uniquely American experiment in secularism they undertook, continues to succeed.

Sent by Stan Zielinski | 10:14 PM ET | 12-11-2007

More than 40% of those answering Gallup's phone calls..........

And there you have the rub about the validity of polls.

Look, you want to know how voters feel? You talk to them on the golf course and the tennis courts and when you're sitting around having a beer after the game. That's a poll.

You spend some time west of the Mississippi. Then you get an idea how many Mormons there really are in America. You can figure every state west of the Mississippi will vote Mitt.

Then you can figure Jeb Bush's influence in Florida will give Mitt those electoral votes (and, c'mon...did you expect any southern state to go Democrat again, anytime in the foreseeable future? Be real.)

And Rudy will take New York from Hillary. Flat out. The Romney name is big in Michigan.

Phone polls are about as useless as telemarketing phone calls. The only people who waste their time answering dumb questions over the phone are the lonely and the depressed.

And the internet's virtual reality creation of the anti-war movement is coming apart right before your very eyes. Where are the so-called real anti-war activists on the streets when the election is becoming more real? They're nowhere....because they never existed. They were Tommy in Cleveland emailing Linda in San Francisco. And that is not an electoral majority.

About the only thing the anti-war bloggers have managed to accomplish is to enflame the passions of the right.

Like I said, anti-war blogging is not protesting. It's typing.

To all the Luddites and anarchists who believe that America is the evil empire worse than Stalin's Russia or Mao's China, you guys need to move to Brazil where you can regularly get mowed over in a drive-by shooting by a street gang.

And always remember: Korea and Vietnam was begun by Democrats. Get over that delusion that the Democratic Party is the anti-war party.

The number one issue in the election will continue to be national defense. The Democrats look weak. The Republicans look strong. Guess who's going to win?

Vote and bet early and often.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 9:47 AM ET | 12-12-2007

Fred Call says: "And the internet's virtual reality creation of the anti-war movement is coming apart right before your very eyes. Where are the so-called real anti-war activists on the streets when the election is becoming more real? They're nowhere....because they never existed."

So Fred, you're saying that in Feb. of 2003 when I saw somewhere between 50k and 80k citizens on the streets of San Francisco, that I was really watching some kind of hologram? A virtual reality so real that it fooled me and the entire media? Hmmmm ... And what about all those who marched in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles? They were all just computer graphics that the media was hoodwinked into putting on the front pages of the next day's newspapers? No doubt the anti-war movement is now much more online than in the streets, no question about that. But entirely made up on the Internet? Fred, I think you should really get out A) from behind your computer and B) the South, a huge conservative bubble which seems to regard the idea of demonstrating against war as more a matter of treason than engaging in the right to peacefully assemble to redress grievances. My bet, after the 2008 election the war in Iraq will still be dragging on, regardless of who wins, and sooner or later they'll have to start a military draft again. When that happens, you'll see just how 'virtual' the anti-war movement really is. A lot of people are sitting on the fence right now because they don't have to go fight, yet. Remember, that it was the draft that pumped up the anti-war movement during Vietnam, more so than any other factor.

Sent by John R. Otten | 2:45 PM ET | 12-12-2007

Fred, I think you should really get out A) from behind your computer and B) the South, a huge conservative bubble...

John, I'm in New Mexico right now. And some of you guys should have been listening to New Mexico's governor Bill Richardson. But none of you were listening. And it's pretty much too late...which is fine with most New Mexicans. They want Richardson to stay here.

And when I'm in the southern bubble of South Florida, you come sit on the beach and debate me all you want. Just bring your suntan bubble lotion and your portable DVD player so we can watch 'Miami Vice' or 'Girls Gone Wild on Spring Break.' Conservative? Oh, okay. I guess conservative is drinking Corona instead of Bud on the beach.

And, yes, during Vietnam the draft and the lottery did pump up the anti-war movement. And John, you talk about fifty thousand demonstators as a big deal? Excuse me. When we marched on Washington with Norman Mailer and the crew, to levitate the Pentagon, we had fifty thousand protestors just to the right of us. That didn't count the numbers to our left, and the numbers behind us.

And it didn't count the numbers of the second wave of protestors coming in for the next march on the Pentagon the next day.

And I marched with Martin Luther King in Chicago, with a heckuva lot more than fifty thousand in attendance.

That's because we had an anti-war movement. You guys don't. All you had was the FBI getting the few straggling protestors together in one place so they could photograph them all, instead of the FBI wasting manpower going all over the country to photograph the few protestors.

And, as for your comment about the military draft....No, they won't have to start one. And I'll tell you why.

First of all, the draft was one of the reasons Vietnam was so screwed up. Way too many crazy people were drafted and given automatic rifles. It got seriously nuts and out of control. Now, you go drafting the crazies running around the streets today, and give them automatic rifles, and you are really looking at mass chaos. Why not give your girlfriend's husband your home address while you're at it.

The Pentagon learned a serious lesson from Vietnam that a small, highly disciplined and technologically superior army is far more efficient than a large, unwieldy army that got itself lost in bureaucracy in Vietnam. Today's average grunt on the ground carries the firepower of at least twenty grunts in Vietnam.

Today's military is just so much more trim and efficient it boggles my mind. You should really take a look at what today's soldier is capable of doing in a combat situation.

Let me say this unequivocally, if the army would let me play with some of their nifty guns they got today, shoot, I might go on over to Iraq. Just to say I shot off some of these 'Make My Day' weapons they got.

No, the draft is over with, John. For practical reasons. One grunt can fire a one kiloton shoulder launch nuclear warhead about two times a minute, all day long.

And you just don't need that many more soldiers to fire off that many more one kiloton shoulder launch rockets.

Ergo, you guys sitting at home don't have to think about running off to Canada to freeze your butts off. You really don't realize how good you got it.

fred call

PS....I got a wireless laptop and I write to you even while I'm deer hunting over in the mountains. Hold on, John....I see a twelve point buck.....and I'm gon'na nuke the sucker.......

Sent by fred call | 6:15 PM ET | 12-12-2007

So how do you explain the back door draft already in place by extending the service of those already in uniform? How about the recruiting problems the Army is facing right now? If there won't be a draft, how do you resolve the problem of a modern army that's already stretched to it's limits? What will they do when they start to withdraw from Iraq, Al Qaeda vs. Shiite violence escalates and the only way to keep the thing from spreading into a wider war is to put more American troops back in? Granted, if the Iraqi goverment gets its you-know-what-together then maybe we can draw down and Iraq will indeed start to be a non-issue. But that hasn't happened yet. What if it doesn't? How will a draft be avoided, especially if we go to war with Iran as well?

Sent by John R. Otten | 7:27 PM ET | 12-12-2007

Wasting words on faith? A most apt topic. What about wasting words on tabloid gossip rather than endeavoring in thought provoking, objective commentary?

Earlier in this blog topic I made comments supporting our American troops in Iraq. I've noticed a pattern where comments supporting our American troops do not get posted. All I can assume is that supporting our troops in Iraq is not fashionable in NPR blogs. And I intend to address this issue of neglect on a taxpayer supported public broadcasting medium.

Which leads to the overall controversy over NPR blogging bias versus balanced journalistic commentary and reporting.

Wasting words on faith? That is an apt discussion. Why not wasting tax payers money on too much tabloid personal opinion and gossip bloging, and not enough factual journalistic reporting.? Why not ask if these so-called debates are nothing more than beauty contests and fluff. Many expressed disappointment over NPR's recent Democratic Party so-called debate that most critics deemed as fluff? The questions asked were padded. The in-depth analysis non-extant.

There is a world of difference between educational journalism and back yard fence gossiping.

Which leads to the topic of the Constitutional provision of separation of church and state as relates to NPR blogging and the needs of the public from a public broadcasting outlet. Or, in more precise words, what of the topic of separation of church from taxpayer supported corporate information media, such as NPR?

To what extent should NPR blogging, as a public broadcasting medium, blog religious topics as opposed to blogging secular topics to maintain fair and balanced blogging?

As for the balance of religious blogging, which religions should be blogged about? How much religious blogging should be personal opinion as compared to theological fact and documents to maintain a balanced and fair blogging assessment on religious topics?

How much NPR religious blogging should be performed by accredited theologians, as opposed to religious blogging by non-accredited theologians?

In short, NPR blogging has devolved into bloggers quoting scriptures and stating their personal beliefs, as opposed to in depth commentary or insight.

So, let's try something that hints of a genuine issue in the coming election, rather than dabbling in tabloid gossip blogging on the NPR blogs. Let's see if, with some effort, NPR blogging can evolve into a useful journalistic tool.

I'm going to give it my best shot and start complaining to no end. Because NPR is not a tax payer outlet for backyard gossiping and scripture quoting. There has to be a balance, and that balance is not being met by NPR blogging. Not just this blog, but every NPR blog I've visited is slanting to personal backyard, slanted blogging.

In an earlier remark I comment that the Clinton and Obama feud is leaving the Demoratic party in disarray. Here is the latest fallout with the Democratic Party ranks. Because maybe it's time for the public to ask more from blogging than scripture quoting.

Clinton adviser resigns over Obama drug remarks
Will aide's remark sink Clinton's ship?

Will Shaheen help sink Clinton's ship? Rival campaigns try to exploit apparent campaign blunder

By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC
updated 2 hours, 57 minutes ago

Much of the rhetoric in the spin room Thursday afternoon after the Democratic presidential debate in Iowa was about an apparent blunder committed by Bill Shaheen, the master New Hampshire political operative and until Thursday the co-chairman of the Clinton campaign.
*****

Now that journalistic facts have been set forth for discussion, here is a commentary: It is not un-American to support the troops in Iraq on an NPR blog. It may be even more important to express support for our troops in Iraq than to quote scriptural commentary and express personal religious beliefs without balance. Religious commentary needs balance. And there are other blogging outlets designed expressly for religious commentary. Again, NPR is taxpayer supported, and the question of separation of corporation and church should be considered.

Thank you

Fred call

Sent by fred call | 10:09 AM ET | 12-14-2007