change here meaning back to the past, and the liberal-socialist agenda of the New Deal, Johnson, and the social democracies of Europe and the English speaking industrial nations. The Republican Southern Strategy, appeal to racism, and Vietnam diverted that agenda and it is time to get back to it.

is Edwards, not Obama - that is what needs to get across to the voters. How? (Yes, I'm beginning to warm to Edwards)

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

Do my eyes deceive me?

WB!!!!

Edwards has not dropped out, but I do not see how he can win at this point.

but I'm not willing to throw in the towel on Edwards just yet. Let's see if he shows the resilience he could not access as Kerry's running mate (now *that* man had the charisma of a box turtle)....

-5.75,-4.05
Certainly there are things in life that money can't buy, but it's very funny--
Did you ever try buying them without money?
-- Ogden Nash

Whatever it was, that wasn't it.

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080102/cm_thenation/45264629

...
Obama: $9 million and climbing, for more than 11,000 television spots.

Clinton, $7.2 million, for 8,000 spots.

Edwards, $3.2 million, for 3,700.

Independent advertising by labor unions and labor-tied groups has benefited Clinton (around $700,000 in ads put up by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) and Edwards (around $600,000 from a Service Employees International Union political action committee and a Carpenters union PAC).
...

I saw Edwards later say he spent a fifth of the money of the other two, so that jibes. I may have mis-heard him, or maybe he corrected himself.

Anyway, Edwards spent far less than half what the others did, yet his message resonated almost as well. That should give us some notion of his potential.
.
"Adapt or perish." Murphy's Law? Nope, Darwin's Guarantee.

shot themselves in their feet by not going hard for one candidate Mr. Anan. The results are close enough that I'm quite positive that if the unions had gone hard for Edwards they could have pushed him over. But worse than not voting their soul, they split themselves between two of the top 3 candidates, and if Obama slips through the middle, it's not going to be good for them. That's worse than doing the morally wrong thing; that was the strategically wrong thing to do.

And I agree on Obama. He wants to "fix" social security, he supported Liberman (his self-proclaimed mentor) hard.

I could be wrong. I pray I'm wrong. But at this point I'm honestly not sure I wouldn't prefer Clinton over Obama. Still thinking on that. The best Republican president of my lifetime (Clinton) is infinitely preferable to Joe Lieberman's student.

The only one of the three I could support without gagging was Edwards. He wasn't perfect, but he was more on the right side than the wrong.

As much as I agree with you that unions should have forcefully backed Edwards I don't think their half-hearted support was a significant factor. Obama got a huge youth vote. I have my doubts that union support, even with "boots on the ground," could have swayed the new young voters.

They were charmed by a dream. I forget who it was at TpmCafe that hoped that Obama would fulfill the lost dream of the '60s, but that's actually a concern that I have. The dream of the '60s was a populist one and it was dashed by politicians and political circumstances (and murder). The jaded sense left by those events had much to do with the end of the social movements of that time. John McCain is allowed to make a crack about pharmaceutical events of the '60s that he couldn't attend because he was "tied up" at the time, ignoring the fact that if not for those events he likely would still be "tied up." It's those sentiments, that America lost the Vietnam war because of the flower children and the dirty hippies, that helped kill any belief in the value of shared sacrifice, effort and achievement. After that America turned to the age of greed.

Now if Obama is elected and he turns out to be a Republican, turning all the "hope" he builds into heaps of despair and cynicism, the Republicans will have taken a great loss and quickly turned it around. At the same time, the new generation of voters that are supposed to be life long Democrats, won't be. That's the big danger of Obama and his rhetoric, that new Democrats will never trust Democrats again and never trust in a dream of a cooperative future.

The last year of Democrat (sic) ineptitude and duplicity has generated enormous frustration. If Obama doesn't deliver on his hope dreams that frustration will be magnified a thousand fold. "Progressive" bloggers don't make the money that conservative bloggers and "pundits" do. Without some sense of effect and achievement, that movement itself might die and the wait for the next great depression to inspire a third party will be needed. Unfortunately by then America may be a third world nation.

I share your disappointment but I don't have the same anger towards unions.

really serious muscle behind it, they certainly were good for 5%. They have the best ground machines in the country outside the Republican party.

I do agree that Obama changed the calculus, but even so--only 5%. That could be made up.

WSJ - John Edwards's slim victory over Hillary Clinton in Iowa allowed him to keep his campaign alive in New Hampshire.

How did he pull it off? One reason: Bob Crowder, a 45-year-old steelworker at the local Firestone tire plant who led Edwards supporters in Iowa's tiny 31st precinct, a working-class neighborhood in eastern Des Moines.

All his work as the unofficial chairman of Mr. Edwards's campaign in the precinct came to a climax in the library of Brubaker Elementary School on Thursday evening, amid stacks of Ranger Rick magazines, as the more than 100 Democrats who constitute the precinct debated who should be their presidential nominee: The vote tally showed a three-way split among Mr. Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. That's when Mr. Crowder seized the floor to try to clinch victory for Mr. Edwards.

Indeed, for all the attention on money in campaigning, it is the work of thousands of little-known foot soldiers like Mr. Crowder that makes the difference for their candidates. He had spent countless hours in recent months knocking on doors, handing out leaflets and recruiting voters, and on caucus day he had turned his local union hall into a surrogate headquarters, orchestrating a wave of calls to supporters and dispatching union workers to bring voters to the caucus.

The stakes weren't that high: Iowa 31 controlled just six of the 2,501 Democratic delegates. Still, the drama in the Brubaker library offered a personal glimpse into how Iowans selected their candidates and provided for an agonizing end to a day of campaigning for Mr. Crowder.

Caucus day began at 6 a.m. outside the Firestone plant, where workers clock 12-hour shifts. There, dressed in a jacket and cap with the logo of the United Steelworkers of America, Mr. Crowder urged his colleagues to vote for Mr. Edwards.

After stopping by a speech by Mr. Edwards, Mr. Crowder traveled to the campaign war room he set up on a faded shuffle board court as his union hall. When he arrived, a dozen brand-new black cellphones charged their batteries using a dusty old power strip. Within the hour, union workers began using them to remind Edwards supporters to go to the caucus. Meanwhile, Mr. Crowder dispatches teams of workers with door-hangers touting Mr. Edwards.

Mr. Crowder then turned to strategy for winning Iowa 31. He calculated that about 100 Democrats would come to the caucus, an equal number to 2004. It would be the first of several small miscalculations that cost Mr. Crowder and, ultimately, Mr. Edwards.

From his work over the last several months, Mr. Crowder thought he had 50 supporters confirmed. That would give Mr. Edwards three of the six delegates up for grabs.

He thought he could win another delegate by scooping up supporters of candidates who didn't meet the caucus's minimum threshold. Under caucus rules, a candidate must win 15% of the total number of people in the caucus. If they fail to do so, the supporters can remain with the candidate, with no chance of winning, or they can switch a new candidate.

Mr. Crowder lobbied the supporters of lesser candidates to switch to Mr. Edwards if they failed. By noon, Mr. Crowder predicted he would take four of the six delegates. "I'm leaving two for the other guys," he joked.

The first signs of trouble emerged soon after. His wife and one of his sons decided to skip the caucus. When he arrived at Brubaker elementary 90 minutes before the caucus started, parking spots were scarce.

Mr. Crowder entered the library and placed Edwards placards on several large folding tables where his supporters would gather. On the tables, he placed a tin of his wife's leftover Christmas cookies.

As the 7 p.m. start neared, Mr. Crowder grew more nervous, sighing a few times. Attendance was overwhelming. It took four attempts to get an accurate count: 137. More than Mr. Crowder predicted.

Mr. Crowder huddled with other Edwards backers. They counted and recounted their numbers. "We're looking real good," he whispered.

At first count, Mr. Edwards led with 45 supporters. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama followed with 43 and 37, respectively. Mr. Richardson had 11 -- 10 below the minimum of 21. As it stood, Mr. Edwards, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama would win two delegates apiece.

Each camp then began wooing Mr. Richardson's 11 renegade backers. Chaos ensued as envoys from the major candidates tried to win over the Richardson supporters. "Edwards will not win in November! He will win in Iowa, and he will lose, and he has no money," yelled one person. "Obama wants to bring change and he can make it happen," said another. "Hillary has the experience and know-how," said a third.

Mr. Crowder calculated he needed to win five to eight more supporters to win another delegate.

Minutes passed as both sides huddled with each other. Side negotiations broke out. Underscoring the frustration of the standoff, a woman in the Richardson camp said that the campaign was having a party at a local hotel and suggested that everyone skip the vote and head there.

The Richardson supporters seemed intransigent, but then Mr. Crowder got up and addressed them.

He said that the people of Iowa 31 were hard working people, down on their luck. Mr. Edwards was best positioned to stick up for the middle class, he said, because he had done so all his life. None of the other major candidates could do so, he added. Nodding to the Richardson table, he said: "That's where the power is now. You have the power."

Suddenly, cracks in the Richardson group emerged. "Staying here, we don't get anything," said 19-year-old Nicole Flactiff, attending her first caucus in a gray Boston Red Sox sweatshirt. "But by moving, we can block Hillary." Someone else asked if Mr. Richardson would know if the 11 loyal backers departed for a rival candidate.

"I'll move," said Mrs. Flactiff, throwing her hands up. Her motion was quickly supported by the remaining Richardson supporters.

Mr. Edwards's total soared to 59, compared with 42 for Mrs. Clinton and 38 for Mr. Obama. The Edwards backers cheered wildly as supporters of Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton sulked out of the room.

But as voters made their way out, there was another stunning surprise. According to a new tally by the clerk, the addition of the 11 Richardson backers failed to give Mr. Edwards another delegate.

Mr. Crowder was dejected. "Darnit, so close," he said before calling in the results to Mr. Edwards's campaign headquarters. "The way the math rounded up and rounded down…It just didn't work out."

Nonetheless, just minutes later Mr. Crowder's spirits were higher. "To me, we won," he said. "Even if it was 2-2-2. Overall, we won."

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

But I don't see the battle as lost, not yet anyway. Obama and Clinton both are backed by the same powers that put America in its current predicament. I hope they are not as corrupt as Bush, but that is merely a hope, not a bet. On the other hand, John Edwards has a track record of actually doing good things, and his campaign is based on doing more of the same.

I just wish I didn't have the feeling that we are all passengers on the Titanic arguing what music the band should play while the lookout is yelling something about icebergs ahead. None of the candidates dares to talk about the really big problems that lie ahead for America and all of human civilization. You can spin peak oil, fresh water shortages, mass extinctions and global warming as challenges, but I'm not sure America is ready to hear that we better grow up and learn to live in a sustainable way before we completely fuck up our own planet.

Anybody want to vote for that platform?
.
"Adapt or perish." Murphy's Law? Nope, Darwin's Guarantee.

N.H. Is Already Flooded With Attack Ads

Atmosphere More Charged Than in Iowa

WAPO - Computerized phone calls noting that Sen. John McCain hasn't signed a pledge not to raise taxes. Hundreds of thousands of glossy union mailers using an image of two Band-Aids to illustrate the flaws in Sen. Barack Obama's health-care plan. And personal calls to homes assailing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for disguising her abortion-rights record.

As the 2008 presidential candidates make their quick pivot into New Hampshire today, residents there are already being inundated with negative messages from campaigns and outside groups hoping to sway the primary's outcome. The atmosphere promises to be more intense than in Iowa, with highly charged rhetoric from labor unions and other outside political groups jamming mailboxes and phone lines.

Unions and outside groups have reported spending more than $4 million over the past two months, emboldened by a recent Supreme Court decision overturning a section of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance act meant to curtail union and corporate sponsorship of issue ads during the tense final weeks of a campaign.

Candidates are also becoming more combative. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who lost his lead in the Republican race in recent days to McCain (Ariz.) and is using his personal fortune to help finance his campaign, has organized telephone calls declaring that McCain "is against repealing the death tax," twice voted against President Bush's tax cuts and "repeatedly refused to sign a no-new-tax pledge."

more at link

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

I enjoy the Agonist, but all this pro-Edward/anti-everyone else stuff is getting a little out there.

they're already recycling the old Clinton stuff.

One foreign policy crisis during NH and Obama's balloon may pop, who knows?

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

but talking louder in your own language to people who don't understand makes no difference. On the other hand, Kos's indifference
was disturbing to me.

On to New Hampshire.!

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

:)

we get punditry like this( from CTV: )

'"Tom Clark, CTV News' Washington bureau chief, said Edwards' campaign is in a lot of trouble.

"He's been campaigning here virtually for four years. His whole strategy said he had to win Iowa," Clark told CTV News. "He didn't win Iowa tonight. Edwards is in a lot of trouble." '

I don't understand this. Is it because of Edwards 527 funding?

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

The problem for Edwards is that losing to Obama means that the anti-Hilary voters in other states (as well as most of the free media attention) will go to Obama, not him.

God, I hope it's more than that.

It's clear there are two nations called America: Hope they intersect in debates before the general election or the dems may well be toast.

AP - "WHAT THEY WANTED"

About half of Democrats said they most wanted their candidate to bring about needed change, and Barack Obama won the support of 51 percent of this group. Hillary Rodham Clinton dominated among those citing experience, but they represented only one-fifth of voters. Another fifth said they most wanted a candidate who cared about people like them, and they liked John Edwards. Only about one in 10 said they most wanted a contender with the best chance of capturing the White House, and they opted for Edwards — who finished second.

Among Republicans, more than four in 10 said finding a candidate who shared their values mattered most, and the lion's share of them — 44 percent — found Mike Huckabee. Another third wanted a candidate who says what he believes, and they also favored Huckabee. A smaller group was looking for experience, and they leaned toward Mitt Romney and John McCain. About one in 10 said they wanted a winner in November, and half picked Romney, the second-place finisher.

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

I agree. I do think that Edwards has been relatively ignored by the media.

I just want a Democratic candidate for president that will blast out the Bushies and then scrape the Lieberman out of our government.
.
"Adapt or perish." Murphy's Law? Nope, Darwin's Guarantee.

During the unclogging process! :)

Here.

...

The winner among Democratic candidates was Sen. Barack Obama, who is among the leaders heading into today's caucus.

But more surprising is the victory by Rep. Ron Paul—a Republican candidate who is considered a major long shot in 2008. Overall, MySpace said that 153,226 members voted in the online primary.

Obama took in 46 percent of the Democratic vote, trailed by Sen. Hillary Clinton's 31 percent. Meanwhile, Paul's surprising win came with 37 percent of the MySpace Republican vote, with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee taking the second and third place slots at 18 and 16 percent, respectively.

The MySpace Presidential Primary started just after 3:00 a.m. EST on New Year's Day, and concluded just before midnight on Jan. 2.

The News Corp.-owned site reported that the average age of the participants was 29 years old, ...

I did inhale.

A sitting prez has four years to alter the landscape. As you said, it appears the youth vote put Obama over the top. But is that his base? I don't think so. Even so, with fours to do it a Prez can garner new support and solidify other constituencies.

But, how does it really work? A prez doesn't act alone. Policy success or failure can be laid at another's feet.

And who are politicians really beholden to? Superficially, the voters. In reality, the donors. The only candidate that could possibly be looked at as not beholden to establishment money is Edwards.

"[T]he liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism. -FDR

"You dance with the one that brung you."

But who really brought Obama to a victory in Iowa, the money or the message? John Edwards and Mike Huckabee have shown that money isn't everything to electability, so who exactly is bringing whom to the dance this election?

I'm not sure, but I have a feeling that Obama watching 200,000 pissed off people (especially black voters) marching against the war (or whatever) will have a much different reaction than the psudeo-cowboy we have now. Simply put: he's been there, if even just in passing. GWB never f*(*ed up a situation his family couldn't correct until Iraq 2. Obama has no such safety nets (or built in moral hazard insurance in the past.)

In short, he's not Edwards but he's OK. I could pull the lever for him in Nov if that was the situation.

Iowa's caucus (not primary!) is a bizarre system. To win there requires a lot of rules manipulation rather than getting out the vote.

There's no absentee voting. You have to show up at 7pm, so only those who can leave work can show. And on and on.

NY Times OpEd

Iowa was a straw poll that nobody cared about until Jimmy Carter used it to start his steamroller. Until then the New Hampshire primary was what mattered.

Forget it, Jake - it's AmnesiaTown

individuals do not leave politicians beholden to them in the way orgs do. And politicians have shown great ability to ignore voters who want things. Remember 2006 and see "Democratic Congress".

I'm not saying Obama is all bad.

But don't be blinded by rhetoric of "hope" either.

Hope ain't a plan.

The following left me mute on social welfare

1st guy- I really loved studying in Canada, I'd live there except for the taxes.
2nd guy- what do you mean, don't they have health care?
1st guy- I have to pay a lot for dental coverage and I haven't had a cavity in 10 years. I'd like to opt out of things I don't need.
2nd guy- But you have great teeth. Suppose you got married to someone who didn't, and your kid needed lots of dental work.
1st guy. I wouldn't marry anyone with bad teeth.

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

We don't actually have a Canadian dental program; as far as I know, our medical system is medical only.

Medical Benefits

The Medical Services Plan (MSP) provides the following benefits:

- medically required services provided by a physician enrolled with MSP;
(...)
- dental and oral surgery, when medically required to be performed in hospital*;
- orthodontic services related to severe congenital facial abnormalities.

* Surgical removal of an impacted third molar (wisdom tooth) is an MSP insured service only when hospitalization is medically required, due to the extreme complexity of the extraction and where there is associated pathology. The removal of healthy wisdom teeth, even if impacted, is not a benefit.

Services Not Covered by MSP

MSP does not provide coverage for the following:

services that are deemed to be not medically required, such as cosmetic surgery;
(...)
dental services, except as outlined under benefits;
(...)

Medical Services Plan - "Benefits"

With the exception of dental care rising to the level of medical intervention in a hospital (leaving the realm of the purely dental and entering the realm of the medical), dental is private in Canada just like in the US.

The guy was an a*hole, full of half-baked theories.

In Canada are hearing aids and eyeglasses part of medical coverage?
Hearing aids are not coveeed in the US at all, even under private insurance, because apparently you don't have to hear. Vision coverage is special coverage, except when it requires an operation, such as for cataracts.

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

(even as a person covered, I get fuzzy on exact benefits where it comes to things that haven't directly affected me) -

Medical Benefits

The Medical Services Plan (MSP) provides the following benefits:

- medically required services provided by a physician enrolled with MSP;
- maternity care provided by a physician or a midwife (see the BC Midwifery Program);
- medically required eye examinations provided by an ophthalmologist or optometrist;
- diagnostic services, including x-rays and laboratory services, provided at approved diagnostic facilities, when ordered by a registered physician, midwife, podiatrist, dental surgeon or oral surgeon;
- dental and oral surgery, when medically required to be performed in hospital*;
- orthodontic services related to severe congenital facial abnormalities.

* Surgical removal of an impacted third molar (wisdom tooth) is an MSP insured service only when hospitalization is medically required, due to the extreme complexity of the extraction and where there is associated pathology. The removal of healthy wisdom teeth, even if impacted, is not a benefit.

---

Supplementary Health Care Benefits

Eye Exams - Medically required eye examinations are a benefit for all MSP beneficiaries when there is a medical necessity (for example, eye disease, trauma or injury, or health conditions associated with significant risk to the eyes, such as diabetes). Routine eye examinations are a benefit only for those 18 years of age and under and 65 years of age and over.

Surgical Podiatry - Surgical podiatry services are a benefit for all beneficiaries.

For MSP beneficiaries receiving premium assistance, MSP pays $23 per visit for a combined annual limit of 10 visits each calendar year for the following services: chiropractic, massage therapy, naturopathy, physical therapy and non-surgical podiatry.

Those who may be eligible for these supplementary benefit services include:

- Income Assistance recipients
- Convention refugees
- Inmates of B.C. Correctional Facilities
- Individuals enrolled with MSP through the At Home Program
- Residents of long term care facilities receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS)
- Individuals enrolled with MSP as Mental Health Clients
- First Nations individuals with valid B.C. Medical Plan coverage through the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch of Health Canada.
- Children in low and moderate income families may be eligible for basic dental and vision care coverage through the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance - see the Healthy Kids Program for more information.

---

Services Not Covered by MSP

MSP does not provide coverage for the following:

- services that are deemed to be not medically required, such as cosmetic surgery;
- dental services, except as outlined under benefits;
- routine eye examinations for persons 19 to 64 years of age;
- eyeglasses, hearing aids, and other equipment or appliances;
- prescription drugs (see PharmaCare);
- chiropractic, massage therapy, naturopathy, physical therapy and non-surgical podiatry - services (except for MSP beneficiaries with premium assistance status);
- preventive services and screening tests not supported by evidence of medical effectiveness (for example, routine annual "complete" physical examinations, whole body CT scans, prostate specific antigen (PSA) tests);
- services of counsellors or psychologists;
- medical examinations, certificates or tests required for:
---driving a motor vehicle
---employment
---life insurance
---school or university
---recreational and sporting activities
---immigration purposes

(...)

Edwards at this site. It is truly a mystery to me. How does one possibly make the judgement that he is the best 'person' ? That his 'character' is actually superior? I'd have supported him, but in my wildest imagination don't see how he could be anything but a once wishful presidential candidate who continues to run on fumes of a past hopefulness circa 2004.

I can't identify a policy reason, because all of the candidates positions are so close with one another. I have never recalled a losing vice presidential candidate to win the presidency. Equally, I cannot in memory ever recall an individual with NO political office at all going on to win the presidency.

He could not secure funding for his race, his wife has cancer for gods sake, he was basically forced to accept public funding which guarantees he will not be sufficiently funded for the race.

He does not even get the overwhelming full endorsement of unions.

So what what what is it??? And not this pie in the sky crap where music should be playing in the background. I'm not a BELIEVER so it actually has to make some LOGICAL sense.

One of the mysteries of modern democracy is that so often the majority vote against their own interests. One explanation is that they are being misled by a corporate controlled media. Progressive blogs collectively see themselves as a way around this. Of the three viable Democratic candidates, only Edwards used anti-corporate rhetoric and actually turned down money from lobbyists.

"We're going to have an election, not an auction!"
- Edwards.

Turns out that isn't true. Doesn't that make you a little bit sad?

Summary - it's over because the media says it's over. Oh, and he doesn't have any money. (Gee, how did Huck's ad budget compare to the Mittsters?)

because anyone with a brain can SEE. I don't need anyone in the media. I could see it three months ago. Ye Gods. What is with this site???????

Enlighten me.

As far as the Huck strategy. Well, gee, I guess Edwards COULD find god, and become BORN AGAIN on an Oprah Winfrey show, and then deny women the right to an abortion, stop evolution from being taught in schools and do a few commercials with the cross of Christ, and get them E-vangelicals to come runnin.

Well

it worked for Huck.