Thanks! I was worried I was being too subtle.

Seriously, though, its time to let this go, and we certainly don't need others joining in the fun and trying to make the fire bigger.

Jetstream, let me take this opportunity to admit that my charges against you yesterday were totally baseless and completely knee-jerk and hyper-sensitive. Your humor was most certainly original, clever, and incredibly hilarious. Furthermore, please know that I don't regard your desire to bring that disagreement up here in a totally unrelated thread as the least bit petty or immature.

No, I read that when you linked to it in a previous post. You go well, well beyond what Weigel lays out in that article. As for your request that I "read between the lines," that is precisely the speculative and overreaching conclusion drawing I am complaining about. I don't want to read between the lines because there are many different things that one could read, or read into, between those lines. I'd rather get a direct reaction from Weigel or someone of his authority himself.

I don't claim that Romney will be able to do this. Only that he has a better chance than the other GOP candidates.

Which makes the dismal performance of his rivals all the more pathetic, doesn't it, Mollie. And kind of proves my point.

I wouldn't call myself a "huge Romney fan" merely a pragmatic conservative who has accepted the obvious and plentiful weaknesses of the alternatives to Romney. If I sometimes seem strident in my defense of Romney, it is because I grow frustrated at the mental gymnastics and strained arguments employed by many conservatives to deny the obvious facts about the field as well as the nature and mindset of the general electorate. Conservatives aren't supposed to champion magical thinking and construct arguments full of tortured logic in defense of the fantastical results they'd like to see. To put it succinctly, my umbrage doesn't rise from outrage on Romney's behalf, it's from disillusionment with the foolishness of conservatives.

As fare as what this poll tells us, if you feel compelled to run with the results of a single poll, when I doubt you've even looked into the assumptions behind the respondent screen, and take that single snapshot as indicative of anything meaningful, be my guest. The polls have told us all sorts of things this elections season, just about all of it has been garbage.

Wait, a poll of likely republican primary voters, a small subset of the general population, finds that about a third of them don't mind a preachy, staunch social conservative, and to Mollie that is proof that people who speculate that Santorum will have trouble in the general election, where a lot more people beside republican primary voters will come out, are showing media bias. Color me unimpressed with that analysis.

What are you saying Logo, that I need to switch to decaf?!?!

:)

As much as I appreciate Prof. Rahe's attention on the Catholic Church in America, I hardly consider him an expert on this matter, and I find myself agreeing with about half of his points, while the other half seem tainted with too much speculation, too much anecdotal support, or too little hard evidence to support the claims he wants to admit as facts. There are many important themes and observations in Prof. Rahe's posts that deserve to have a light shone upon them, but I can't help but feel he's trying to punch above his weight.

Is there any chance we could get George Weigel or someone with similarly stellar bona fides on the matter of the US Church, its history, and inner workings to comment as a guest contributor on these matters or critique the posts Dr. Rahe has put so much thought into?

I think the comments about the clergy being silent about the evils of abortion are way, way, way overdone. I certainly developed my respect for human life and belief the life begins at conception from my Catholic instruction and the examples of many of the religious sisters and priests that shaped my conscience growing up in the seventies and eighties. I sat in the pew last fall almost moved to tears as a visiting nun who works with poor women who are pregnant spoke to our congregation and exhorted my parish in the most beautiful, passionate, and inspiring manner about the issue of abortion and not turning our backs on the unborn.

So while I agree that our church has given too much cover to democratic pols who champion abortion. They certainly have not been silent on the horrors of abortion.

Actually, I think it's more like saying, "You know, I would respect Sen. Lieberman a lot more if would just eat some bacon once in awhile."

JS, you made a crack about Mormons and are desperately trying to characterize it as something else. No one buys that you weren't taking a piss at the expense of LDS beliefs. It would be more respectable and honest if you'd just own up to it instead of pretending you weren't. I don't think it's the most offensive thing I've heard. It's definitely PG on the scale of religious snark, but with admittedly so much legitimate material to use in making fun of Mitt, it seems strange you feel the need to take a poke at his religious belief and practice.

It was a joke about the fact that Mormons don't drink coffee and you're not convincing anyone that your point was simply a scientific observation.

It may be, but youre still claiming that his LDS beliefs make him less capable to be president. I know you think it's funny, but it's actually just dumb and that you try to pretend you're not going after the LDS religion is pretty cowardly.

You know, if you want to take a stab at the guys religion, have the cojones to come out and say it and then stand behind it. Don't veil it as some tongue in cheek pseudo-science and then put up the cute and disingenuous defense that you're simply citing medical facts. Quite lame.

A Mormon joke? Really?

I think you're wrong, Prof. Rahe. He may be coy and nuanced in his campaigning. However, his record when in a leadership position is one of decisive, effective action. In every executive role he's taken, both public and private, his performance is not timid or wishy-washy.