You're right. What were we thinking in linking to Michelle Malkin? After all, she linked to Newsday and WBAL-TV in her post.

And of course we often link to AP, the New York Times, the Washington Post in our ongoing effort to reprint the 'talking points' of the Bush Administration...

Keep sending the deeply-informed comments, True Patriot, we need you!

On this particluar post, which you haven't commented on at all, yes, I believe the links to Newsday and WBAL-TV are relevant. But I know that doesn't matter to you. Your mind is already made up.

Also, I didn't say we didn't have a political viewpoint, which anyone can see for themselves. For God's sake, we're obviously somewhere in the libertarian/conservative universe -- we make no secret of that.

As for our viewership, you couldn't be more wrong. Just like your notion that we follow the Busn Administration's "talking points."

What the story said was the Sen. Schumer (D-NY), who is the Democratic Senatorial Campaign chair, had aides who obtained the credit report of Maryland's Lt. Gov. Steele (R). That is illegal. Thus far, there has been no investigation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is currently an investigation of Rep. DeLay's associates here in Texas. So there is an ongoing investigation.

Currently, there is has been no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Karl Rove, only speculation by partisans on the Democratic side of the aisle.

As for any comparisons between the rhetoric used on this Web site and that of the far Left (and increasingly mainstream part of the Democratic Party), I'll leave that up to you.

I think the evidence speaks for itself.

We disagree about what constitutes a 'moderate,' then. In my view, today's Democratic Party is decidedly not run by moderates. Just look at the makeup of the Dems' delegates to the party's national convention. I'd be glad to show you some polling information that asked those delegates what they believed in. It was way to the left of the rest of the electorate.

Second, I’m not sure what you mean by, “Where is the outrage that 34% of Bush’s voters in 2004 considered themselves ‘Evangelical Christians’?” Do you read the New York Times? Do you think Evangelicals get favorable coverage in this country? Additionally, the fact that you say, “Evangelical Christian or Born-Again is a code word for fanatic,” speaks volumes about what you believe. By this definition, you must believe that President Carter was a “fanatic.”

I’m not sure what you mean by “Bush’s failure to investigate PlameGate.” He appointed a special prosecutor. That special prosecutor is now investigating. How does that constitute a failure to investigate?

Here is a piece I wrote in 2004 on the subject of the Dems' continued move to the far Left -- away from the mainstream of their constituents:

http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/964-Democratic-Convention-Delegates-Are-Not-Mainstream.html

Here are my answers to your questions:

- Fitzgerald was appointed a special prosecutor by the Justice Department in December 2003.

- I am not an Evangelical, but was raised a Catholic, and am not devout.

- I am concerned about the environment, but often find myself disagreeing with environmentalists.

- I think seniors should be able to get the cheapest medicine available.

Much of the medicine coming from Canada is, in fact, not manufactured in the US, and does not therefore have to adhere to FDA standards.

- Stem cell research is being funded in this country, and I am for it – with a proper cautious approach regarding the ethical implications. I think your question refers federal funding of all stem cell research. I do not favor creating human life simply to provide the rest of us with research data or spare parts, and feel we should move cautiously before wantonly allowing any and all research.

- I believe in the Theory of Evolution, and think it should be taught in science classes, and think the teaching of intelligent design should not be done in a science class.

- I personally have no problem with civil unions (or some form of it) for gay couples.

- It is commonly stated that the justification for the invasion of Iraq has changed as time has gone on. This is simply not true. While it is true that Western intelligence seems almost certainly to have been wrong about Iraq’s possession of WMD, the issue was not the only reason for invading Iraq. In fact, Bush said that after 9/11, bringing democracy to the Middle East was of paramount strategic concern, and stated so in a major speech before the UN in 2002, in his 2003 State of the Union address, and in a major speech (I think it was at West Point, but I may be wrong on the location of the speech) – all made before the invasion of Iraq. Additionally, Bush has never said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. However, it is unquestionable that for many years Saddam supported terrorism financially and had ties to both terrorists and terrorist acts.

- I fully support the War in Iraq, but have never been in the military, and at age 45, cannot join. I think the “chickenhawk” argument, which you did not enunciate, but clearly implied in your question, is a red herring.

The civilian leadership in this country runs the military, not the other way around. Would you use the “chickenhawk” charge in arguing against the views held on various wars held by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, or Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Because none of them served in the military, yet variously supported the American Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II (the three bloodiest wars in US history by percentage of population killed).

I know that members of my family that fought, were killed, severely wounded, or captured during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, or various deployments in the Middle East would say that the “chickenhawk” argument is completely specious at best.