[CatoRenasci]

You thoroughly misunderstand my point. If I read the temper of the American body politic at all correctly, there is unlikely to ever be a majority that would support a hard religious right candidate or policies. That's simply my assessment of the facts, based upon historical knowledge and interest in contemporary affairs, not distate for their views. If my assessment is correct, then my analysis follows that the religious right's alternatives are the existing conservative party (the 'pubbies) or letting the left rule.

[Mamzelle]

there is unlikely to ever be a majority that would support a hard religious right candidate or policies. )))

Cheewillikers, what condescension.

Yup, we pore barefoots out chere cain't wrap our unsophisticated bumpkin-brains around such notions as "compromise" and "negotiation". Any sign that religious rightwards expect a place at the conservative table--that they have as much right to push an agenda as the Sierra Club, Log Cabin Republicans, et cetera--and look how you characterize them--as naifs. What makes you think that they expect the whole pie, when you know that even the best activism will only give you slices of that pie? Why wouldn't they know what you know? Unless you think they're just too dumb to figure it out...

Keep on underestimating them. Here's a clue--not only do they have your number, but they'll play on that kind of intellectual vanity to further their own ends.

I'm kind of disappointed in Horowitz (I've been a fan of his since "Destructive Generation"). He's feeling way too sorry for Andrew Sullivan--alientating allies isn't going to cure his friend.