Gary Hart in today's New York Times: "The Republican coalition -- composed of the religious right on social issues, the radical tax cutters or 'supply-siders' on economic issues, and the neoconservatives on foreign policy -- has produced only superficial religiosity, a failed war and record deficits." This entire statement is arguable, to say the least. First, as Thomas L. Friedman acknowledges on the same page, the war in Iraq is not lost. In fact, right now we are winning it. As for deficits, the federal budget has been in surplus four times since 1969, from 1998 to 2001. The surplus occurred while there was a Democratic president and a Republican Congress (and a huge economic bubble). Congress passes a budget; the president signs it. The Republican Congress was just as responsible as Clinton for the surplus. Conservatism does not result in "only" deficits. Plenty of deficit spending has occurred, and will occur, under Democratic presidents and congresses. Barack Obama downplays a balanced budget and suggests his top priorities are making the American economy more equitable and providing health insurance to everyone. Both goals will require deficit spending. What caught my eye, though, was Hart's assertion that the conservative coalition has produced "superficial religiosity." This makes no sense. What does it mean? How does Gary Hart know which expressions of faith are superficial and which are not? Does he somehow have access to peoples' souls? Has he taken confession? Does partisan affiliation determine whether one's religion is "real" or "superficial"? Hart should go back to minding his own monkey business.