I am a person of faith. What faith? None of your business.

And for pundits to claim that "people of faith" are reassured by Romney's speech today is to deny that anyone who isn't a wingnut can be a person of faith.

Romney calls for a religious state, a nation where religion rules "the public square."

That proposition unconstitutional and against what the Founding Fathers established more than 200 years ago.

I'd say more, but John F. Kennedy said it better.

First he says that his religion doesn't matter. And then he argues for the establishment of religion by the state.

Oh, I'm sure he would deny that. Of course. He couldn't possibly admit what he's really saying. But when he's claiming that the amazing religious freedom that we enjoy in this country is not enough for him, that he wants more, what is he really saying? Government sponsorship of religion?

Which religion?

Who decides?

I ask you: Would you buy a used car from this guy?

Play of the Day: Romney's No Democrat

Well, duh! The guy is trying to be the scariest man since Himmler.

Edwards labels Clinton an Insider

Oooooh! I never saw that coming! Gotta admit, though: the MSM love a good fight (and will do what they can to spur it on).

Giuliani talks about his prostate cancer

And the issue is not whether he's healthy enough to take on this demanding office. No. It's the hook for his own health insurance plan. Thanks, AP. That's a great headline. Very informative.

Clinton, Giuliani top scary costume poll

Once again, Hillary Rodham Clinton leads in a poll. This time, she's the top choice when people are asked which major 2008 presidential candidate would make the scariest Halloween costume.

What does this mean? Is AP trying out for the writing staff of Saturday Night Live?

This one I just love:

Clinton dominates campaign news

This one we have to hand to Reuters. Nothing like the news media reporting their own behavior as news. I guess that's one way to try to boost circulation.

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has dominated news coverage of the 2008 White House race, partly due to negative segments about her on conservative talk radio, according to a new study released on Monday.

At some point, someone new is going to be hired in journalism schools that is going to shake the orthodoxy up a bit. "Today a somebody said something about someone, according to something we heard somewhere, at some point." Now that's a way to hook a reader!

Giuliani blasts Clinton

Do you detect a theme here? I have yet to come across any other presidential candidate in my feed reader today. --Whoops! I'm back to yesterday!

Oh, wait. I did miss this:

Obama singer wins cheers despite protest

A Grammy-winning singer whose role in a Barack Obama campaign event riled gay activists served as master of ceremonies of a gospel concert promoting the Democratic presidential hopeful Sunday night.

I guess that is news. I'm not sure it's good news, though.

Oh, wait. I see the pattern now. Late night Sunday night is the time to post articles about Richardson, Dodd, McCain, Huckabee, Thompson, Putin -- oops.

Interesting how there are so many invisible candidates.

Ah, but at least the mainstream media are onto their own game.

When it comes to presidential politics, the news media loves front-runners. And seems to hate them, too.

Don't you feel reassured? Doesn't that just make you want to read more mainstream media manufacture?

Oh, and by the way, Ron Paul supporters, nada regarding your man in the past several days, though the "liberal" New York Times found you.

Smugness in mainstream obscurity, apparently. Morons indeed. Ha!

What's absent through all the coverage? Substance. What do the candidates actually say about healthcare? The deficit? National security? Social Security? Global warming? Energy policy? Education?

Not a whole lot. That crap is boring! Or so say the "news" editors of these mainstream outlets.

And of course we'll get a story about how we don't know much about the positions of any of the candidates.

That is what we call "news."

Good night, and good luck!

Republican candidates don't get the internet at all, it seems:

Conservative bloggers associated with the “Save the Debate” petition seem to be unconvinced that Republican candidates have really grasped the significance of the YouTube debate. George Ajjan, writing in New Jersey’s Herald News, takes Republicans to task for their failure to understand basic aspects of the political internet:

The comments of those skeptical about the YouTube debates sadly exemplify many of the traditional and stereotypical shortcomings of Republicans. The GOP has got to shatter the image of country-club elitism that plagues the party. Giuliani’s campaign prioritizing fundraising over a one-day commitment to appear before millions of viewers and answer tough questions directly from the electorate is deplorable and plays right into that regrettable typecast….
As far as YouTube itself goes, the issue is not that national Republicans don’t want to use new technologies. Both Giuliani and Romney have invested heavily in their online efforts and have specifically touted their embrace of YouTube as a campaigning medium. But their behavior seems to indicate the belief that the internet is a switch they can turn on and off, depending upon whether they’re in the mood to communicate. But the internet is always “on,” although it’s not always “on your terms.”
Until our party truly grasps that, we will continue to alienate voters and activists, especially young people for whom the internet is not “new,” but an integral part of their political upbringing.

The Republicans don’t have a technology problem, per se. They have an arrogance problem, and it’s spilling over into their online outreach efforts. Coming at a time when polls show young voters abandoning the GOP en masse, this bodes ill for the elephants.

The Right Field.

This is more than just arrogance, though. The internet is a medium that lends itself to free speech, egalitarian values (at least as far as right to ones own opinion goes), empowering the people.

The internet might have made sense in the old Republican party of Barry Goldwater, but it is really nothing but a threat to (or at best only a tool to be exploited by) modern day neo-Republicans who have ditched libertarian values in favor of big government as big brother.

In other words, it is not modern Republican arrogance that puts them at odds with the internet, but rather modern Republican culture that is diametrically opposed to a medium that gives us peasants a way of talking back at them ... and talking amongst ourselves.

Can the neo-Republicans and their vision of authoritarian government keeping the people in line succeed in the internet age? I doubt it. The party is already fraying and showing serious signs of breaking. They are going to have to reinvent themselves or destroy the internet to preserve their privilege.