aaarrrgggh. I just lost 30 minutes of commentary on this show. Basically, Anna Greenberg has been good. Everyone else is so so. I like the moderator actually, but the other panel people are mediocre. Barone is kind of testy.
David Winston - Republican pollster.
Adam Nagourney - chief political correspondent for the times, semi-neandertal
Rachel Zoll - religion writer for the AP
Anna Greenberg - democratic pollster, rachel dratch lookalike
Michael Greenfield - senior CNN douche
Michael "Joey" Barone - senior writer for US News & World Report / angry bastard
Jimmy Carter was more anti-abortion than Gerald Ford, according to Barone.
When Johnson signed the civil rights act he said, "We just gave the South to Republicans for a generation." - that's what Greenfield said, I remember hearing that before.
Anna is kicking ass again. She talks fast, she knows her facts, and she makes sense.
Oh yeah, Rachel Zoll said that Bush has been good about taking care of Sudan because that issue is important to the religious right. So that's interesting. I just assumed that Bush hadn't done a good job with Sudan. But it also explains why there was thay guy from "American Clergy Magazine" at the Sudan conference.
Barone says that the Dallas Morning News has a section about sermons. He also said that the historian Robert Vogel believes that the US is in the middle of a fourth "religious awakening." I've never heard of him.
I'm at 9.26 miles. Niiice.
Zoll is talking about how people who are "spiritual" on the left are definitely not as organized as people on the right who are religious.
By the way, Marvin Kalb is the moderator. He's good. he used to be a correspondent for CBS and NBC.
Jeff Greenfield said that 9/11 showed that "there is evil around. Real, no-complexity evil." I don't believe that at all. What the hell is "no complexity evil?" It's a magical force. Freaking magic. The simple fact is that evil is complex, at least if you see it as a part of the natural world, and not some inexplainable force.
Nag has posture problems.
Zoll said these "blocks of voters" are not as monolithic as people think, and are much more diverse. I think that is the constant cry of people who study religioun, that it is a myth to call someone Christian or Muslim, or Protestant or Evangelical. The range of opinions and behaviors within these groups is incredibly broad. Of course there are patterns, but when you toss around these terms you start to assume that all these people believe the same things, and it's just not true.
It's amazing that 23 percent of homosexuals voted for Bush, down from 25.
Ooh, there is a questioner from Fairleigh Dickenson. I wonder where this is taking place. Maybe New York? No, in DC. I wonder what that guy is doing there.
People take so long to get to their question. Spit it out.
Religious leaders cannot endorse a candidate from the pulpit or they risk their tax exempt status. That's interesting.
Yes, milling around, I love it.
Okay, so that's it. 10.56 miles for the day. Juicy.