It's amazing ... had Joe waited for the response to say that, it would have been brilliant. Rather, he managed to make himself and the GOP look even more juvenile.

No. I'm angry. I feel like I can't sincerely and confidently engage in the system any more b/c my own values have been hijacked by hysterics, and now I find it telling and frustrating that the same folks who were yelling about socialism before Tuesday aren't saying a thing now. No "I told you so" and no "I was wrong."

I won't give it a rest until the church gives up its fixation or gets healthier about its engagement.

Atlas shrugged...that's all I'm saying!!!

I won't give it a rest until the church gives up its fixation or gets healthier ...

You're going to be angry for a long time, then, dude.

I find it telling and frustrating that the same folks who were yelling about socialism before Tuesday aren't saying a thing now. No "I told you so" and no "I was wrong."

Now I'm confused. It seems that you want some of us to keep talking about what you didn't want us to talk about at all in the first place. Maybe the confusion is my fault. As I've said before, confutsion is often my modus operandi.

But if you want to know, I'll explain why I myself am done with this, at least at Thinklings. I told how I felt. I gave my reasons for why I felt that way. I tried to explain that I was miffed, but that I did agree that there had been alot of over-reaction. (On my Upset-O-Meter, which goes to 11, this story registered about a 2.5.) I didn't get any real engagement with anything I said, so I am done. That's why I'm not talking about it anymore.

If you still want to pursue this, three words: Flies. Vinegar. Honey.

I don't see Jared slinging any vinegar. Let's face it, the speech to the schools was a non-story and a lot of conservatives/Christians just flat picked the wrong battle on this one.

At my wife's public middle-school where she teaches - the teachers had an option to show it IF they could demonstrate it fit with their curriculum. Needlessly to say, not a single teacher even showed it at her school.

He did apologize, almost immediately after, and I've heard from two separate outlets that Republicans have called him out for the stupidity. Specifically, Sens. McCain and Graham (SC) have both said that it was uncalled for. So, I think that he realized that his yelling was not very helpful for anyone. (Although, seeing Nancy Pelosi's face when he shouted was priceless.)

While I don't know if Obama's a one-termer (I think he has a strong chance at getting re-elected, it's just too soon to tell), I agree that he's no darling any more to independents. His problem is that he likely won't earn their favor back by continuing to give vague speeches, which are, unfortunately for him, his strong suit.

While Joe blew it by yelling out "You lie!," I don't think it was wrong or juvenile for Republicans to openly laugh when he talked about the specifics of his proposal not having been fleshed out yet. It's easy to stand on a moral high ground when the solution presented offers no true detail. And that's Obama's m.o. He talks a big game (very well) and follows it up with little to nothing substantive. Certainly, nothing even hinting at bipartisanship has taken place, as far as I can tell.

He's all vision and no execution. I'm okay with presenting a vision of something that doesn't necessarily seem possible if we can all agree to work together to chip away at the problem. (Caring for the poor was mentioned above, albeit in a different context) But presenting a vision and then saying let's get to work while offering no details of what getting to work should look like is all bark and no bite. Obama can't be a saint simply by avoiding the devil that exists in the details. Leadership is more than talk, it's mostly walk. We need to have the talk, but talk is worthless without the walk. Less talking, more walking - please.

So his numbers have dropped deeply over the last six months. If they continue on the pace they've taken over the last ninety days, he'll be lower than Bush II by the time election season hits, but we know that the numbers won't get that low. He's still the savior to too many for him to be in Bushland. But sinking to 40% is not out of the question, and I expect him to dip that low by early 2010. He'll likely rebound after the Republicans take control over the Congress next year.

Yeah, I'm about done too. I'm concerned that this may be throwing the baby with the bathwater, but for the time being, I have to echo Jared here. I'm so frustrated with the overt idolatry of the Christian right, I can't handle being even loosely a part of it anymore.

Does the evangel even matter to evangelicals anymore? I know it does to many individuals, but for whatever reason, put us together in a group and all we seem to care about is smearing our President.

Religious right regathering around religion??? Yikes! Count me out.

That guy doesn't have much restraint, apparently.

About Obama, it's way too early to tell anything. Clinton had his struggles the first two years in office. Personally I think the wall-to-wall Obama coverage will help endear him again to thousands, perhaps millions, of ignorant voters in 2012 who don't even have a grasp of the essential issues.

I think he'll win in 2012, but, again, it's too early to tell.

I wonder how that sort of outburst compares to the way the British Parliament seems to conduct itself?

Wilson's outburst compared to Parliament's weekly "Questions to the Prime Minister" was a like a pleasant spring rain compared to hurricane Katrina.

Now, to all other commenters who are starting to type fast and furiously: The U.S. is the U.S. and the U.K. is the U.K. and what goes there doesn't always go here. I'm not saying we should do the U.K. thing; I'm not trying to justify Joe Wilson. But since the question was raised, that's the factual answer.

Just a few random comments . . .

1) It doesn't excuse Joe Wilson, but when Democrats are talking about never having seen anything like that before, they lie; they did far worse than that to Bush 43.

2) I didn't get too bent out of shape about the Obama school speech, but while it doesn't excuse those who did, it's worth remembering that the last president to do this was Bush 41--and that the reason he was the last to do it was that some of the Democrats in the House actually launched an investigation because of that, trying to accuse him of spending government money for political purposes.

3) Again re: that speech, the issue for most people I read wasn't the speech but the original lesson plans designed to go with it, which even an old lefty like Camille Paglia called "imbecilic" and "coercive." I'm probably a bit more inclined to be charitable toward the folks who were overreacting because I read my colleague Adrienne Ross' post on the speech, a post which arose out of her perspective as a teacher in upstate NY.

4) The more I think about all this, the more I think that what's really driving it, viscerally, is a growing fear of the personality-cult approach to leadership--something that, w/r/t Obama, we already saw manifesting during the campaign (in response to the distinct messianic tones and overtones of much of his campaign). The church in this country has had way too many of those kinds of guys in the last decade or two, and in the last few years it's seen a few of them crack up really badly; I think distrust of those kinds of leaders is growing--but right now, it isn't all finding its target within the church, because many conservatives within the church are displacing it onto someone they already distrust for the same reason (i.e., the President). I can't prove it, of course, but I suspect that sometime in the next several years, we'll see that begin to shift; what it will look like, I don't know, but I'm betting it will be ugly in places.

@ Mariner

1) Let's be careful not to lump all democrats into one big hairy ball. And just to be clear are you saying that Democrats or a Democrat called Bush something worse than a liar out loud during a joint session? Or just that we gave him a hard time in general? The former I, as a Democrat have a problem with but don't remember. The latter I have no problem with either party doing to any sitting President.

2) Are you saying that Bush 41 didn't use his speech as a platform for his politics? Because I think the consensus is that he did. I don't recall one way or another. I'd like to think an investigation wouldn't have been called for if there was nothing to investigate, but it's certainly possible.

3) The lesson plans were a bit OTT but I'm certain that Obama didn't come up with them. I'm also certain that the gov't wasn't requiring that they be followed and that it would be left up to the local school boards/principals. You know, like whether or not to air the speech was.

4) Yeah I don't like the notion that there are Democrat that put Obama on a pedestal. I hope I don't. Its hardly a new phenomenon though.

And just to be clear are you saying that Democrats or a Democrat called Bush something worse than a liar out loud during a joint session? Or just that we gave him a hard time in general?

If anybody's still reading this, Bush was given loud, raucous cat calls by a number of Democrats, mouthing off all at once, during one of his joint-session speaches. I infer that is what A.M. is referring to. Don't remember if it was a State of the Union or what. Still doesn't excuse Joe Wilson, but it's informative context, I think.