IMHO, the current round of extremism in political dialog is a necessary stage in a process of political awakening. The political stalemate that has reigned since the 1970's has driven almost everyone out of politics. The overwrought shouts from both sides of the aisle can be interpreted as a wake-up call to the masses. Basically, you have to be loud to get people people's attention. I've seen this with regard to Fahrenheit 9/11: several of the people I saw it with responded by saying "man, I think it's time I started doing some research." In my opinion, that's an extremely desirable outcome.

Dan, there's no reason to believe that this is an either/or situation. Maybe you're onto something AND you're a shrill hack. Or maybe you're not a shrill hack, but you're second point is completely off-base.

Seriously, though, is it not possible that we are seeing a simultaneous but unrelated pair of phenomena? The Elite seem to have been in decline since the 1960s, well befire blogging or digital cameras existed.

Also, while digital technology is making greater direct participation possible, such participation also seemed to be high in the 1960s, with both the civil rights movement and later the anti-war movement. What digital technologies have done is make it easy to sit on one's butt in the comfort of one's own home and participate. Loudly, and world-wide.

People who have higher levels of political interest (and information and awareness and participation and all sorts of other related factors) do tend to be more partisan--they tend to have more constrained and coherent belief systems, and usually those belief systems lead to greater attachment to a major party.

That said, it seems to me that other media increase the size of the "elite" (opinion leaders), rather than fundamentally reversing the two-step flow of information. I suspect most bloggers (particularly "warbloggers") were opinion leaders to begin with, even if they didn't see themselves that way. It does mean that bloggers can be an opinion leader for more people though (I didn't communicate my political views to several hundred people per day, for example--before weblogs, very few people could).

The survey evidence also suggests that the "center" (independents) has expanded in the mass public through dealignment; when you draw moderates out of both parties, what's left is a more extreme party system.

Tie that all together and I don't know what you get, really.

Regarding the second point, Ron Chernow's Op-Ed piece(ALexander Hamilton's Last Stand) in todays NY times is instructive:

"But the truth is that the 1790's and early 1800's were a period of glittering political malice and fierce personal attacks. If political debate had an incomparable philosophic richness, it was no less rabidly partisan than today — and even more bruising. Our modern tabloid press seems almost tame by comparison.

Such invective was perhaps inevitable after a prolonged revolution."

Perhaps todays invective is no less inevitable after 9/11 Afghanistan and Iraq.

“IMHO, the current round of extremism in political dialog is a necessary stage in a process of political awakening.”

This is Hegelian rubbish. The exact opposite is true. Society is always ill served by rhetorical hyperbole. We must instead discipline ourselves to be as dispassionately accurate as possible. It is, however, far easier for a conservative who believes in objective truth to achieve this laudable goal. An adherent to liberalism inherently rejects the very concept of truth. Everything is relative and merely a matter of powerful institutions mandating the acceptance of their particular interpretation.

> Society is always ill served by rhetorical hyperbole.

Prove it.

I should add that I made a point of seeing Michael Moore’s “"Fahrenheit 9/11.” It immediately reminded me of the far right wing idiocy of the mid 1990s claiming that Bill and Hillary Clinton murdered their political rivals. Those people, though, usually comprised the marginalized aspect of conservative politics. They were generally ill educated and held lower status jobs. This is usually not the case regarding the fans of Michael Moore. These folks are often affluent and possess advanced degrees behind their names. I am also going to take a guess and estimate that half of John Kerry’s supporters are on the same page with Moore. If I’m right, what should that tell you about today’s Democrat Party?

“> Society is always ill served by rhetorical hyperbole.

Prove it.”

What an amazing request. I shall now pretend to be a prosecutor and rest my case. You have provided all the evidence required to justify my condemnation of the radical Left. Thank you for your assistance. I need to say nothing more.

One man's hyperbole is anothers truth and society is capable of distinguishing between the two.

As a minor point, Jackass, one of those top ten documentaries, hardly fits the theory. But there's always exceptions.

David T.,

I think you are wrong that 50% of Kerry supporters agree with Michael Moore. The movie is on track to gross about $100 Million which even if average ticket prices are $5.00, that equates to 20 million people which is about 10% of the adult population. Not all people who saw this movie actually agree with its insanity although I can bet those who basically share his beliefs will all pay the ticket price to see it.

Although the partisan divide is very clear these days I do not think that the majority of the population have even started paying attention to this election and currently think things are just as partisan as they have always been. Its the less than 10% on each side that is all worked up at this point and the question is what will the masses believe when it is time to vote.

Cheers

Gerrymandering across the country removed most moderates from elective positions. Partisanship by tv talking/yelling heads and talk radio left little room for moderates to voice opinions, let alone influence national debate. Yet, surveys show most people classify themselves as moderates.
The inexperienced and non-taxpaying younger voters would be exceptions.

The internet has opened an opportunity for more participation and commenting,hopefully,providing adult American citizens a voice.

It is unfortunate that it appears that media hype will be used for film projects aimed at emotional responses and large scale hype. May be huge unintended consequences to our society.

Personally, I do not think citizens should be able to vote at such a young age unless in military service.

A couple of points responding to this comment:

"I should add that I made a point of seeing Michael Moore’s “"Fahrenheit 9/11.” It immediately reminded me of the far right wing idiocy of the mid 1990s claiming that Bill and Hillary Clinton murdered their political rivals. Those people, though, usually comprised the marginalized aspect of conservative politics. They were generally ill educated and held lower status jobs. This is usually not the case regarding the fans of Michael Moore. These folks are often affluent and possess advanced degrees behind their names. I am also going to take a guess and estimate that half of John Kerry’s supporters are on the same page with Moore. If I’m right, what should that tell you about today’s Democrat Party?"

(1) I think you are wrong to conclude that half of Kerry's supporters are on the same page with Moore. The lowest anti-war support ever got was I think 30% or so. So half of Kerry's supporters probably opposed the war from the beginning. But we have no idea *why* they opposed the war from the beginning. I opposed it because Bush never took multilateralism or diplomacy seriously, my dad opposed it because he's basically part of the Isolationist Right [this is not to say he would vote for Buchanan, since he's a social moderate, but on foreign policy he pretty much agrees with him]. I'm sure some of America's anti-war were those who oppose all or almost all war period. Are we on the same page with Moore, who advocates a view that Bush promoted the war solely to enrich Halliburton and the Carslyle group? I don't think so.

(2) Most of the left-of-center blogs I have read where there have been comments on Fahrenheit point out that it occasionaly reliese on innuendo and deceptive/misleading claims. To say that there has been some full-throated embrace of Moore's movie is an overstatement. Salon and maybe daily kos are the only two outlets I've read that make zero criticism of Moore.

(3) It depends on what the meaning of "same page" is.

Do I buy what Moore is saying, hook, line, and sinker? No.
Do I think the War in Afghanistan was motivated by the desire to build an LNG pipeline? No.
Do I think that the Bush Administration manufactured evidence to justify the war in Iraq? Tough to say at this point -- I would say somewhere between "maybe" and "techincally, no".

Do I think, that the administration made a concerted effort to conceal the human cost of warfare from the American public? Yes. You can make a case that this is justafiable.

Do I think they have made serious dishonest attempts to link Iraq and Al-Qaeda in the public's mind? Absolutely.

Does this make me part of the Radical Left? I sincerely hope not.

(4) How is this any different from center-right folks who may have thought Rush Limbaugh was spewing nonsense about Vince Foster's suicide, but wholly agreed with him when he criticized Clinton for going to Indian reservations and urging them to make sure that all their members are counted in the 2000 [essentially, that Clinton was for reverse discrimination/affirmative action for Native Americans]? Both Moore and Limbaugh will have audiences of the same order of magnitude; Moore's will be larger by a noticeable amount.

IIRC, Limbaugh was explicitly embraced by the Gingrich GOP as part of their effort to win congressional elections in 1994 (I can't find a link because Googling for 'Newt Gingrich Rush Limbaugh' gets you lots of partisan screeds on either side of the aisle). Administration officials routinely appear on Limbaugh's show. How is this character not part of mainstream Right-Wing politics, even if he occasionaly promotes nutball theories?

“David T.,

I think you are wrong that 50% of Kerry supporters agree with Michael Moore. The movie is on track to gross about $100 Million which even if average ticket prices are $5.00, that equates to 20 million people which is about 10% of the adult population. Not all people who saw this movie actually agree with its insanity although I can bet those who basically share his beliefs will all pay the ticket price to see it.”

I do not have any hard data to support my suspicion that half of John Kerry’s supporters substantially agree with Michael Moore. But my theory sounds fairly plausible. It is very doubtful that many people like myself saw Fahrenheit 9/11. The overwhelming likelihood is that the vast majority of the estimated 20 million movie goers mostly agree with Moore---and are politically active. They despise President Bush and therefore are trying to defeat him. Kerry is the obvious beneficiary.

Many Americans will not focus on the election until after Labor Day. It turns out, though, that my prediction of a few days ago has proven to be accurate:

“I will now put myself on a limb. This is my new prediction: John Kerry will not get a major bounce in the polls.”

posted by: David Thomson on 07.07.04 at 09:37 AM [permalink]”

This was the last sentence: “His (John Kerry’s) campaign is about to collapse. Unless the liberal media can manufacture a new scandal to hurt George W. Bush, the President will start to dominate the polls by a comfortable six to eight points.”

John Kerry’s most fanatical allies are the liberal media. Will they be able to manufacture another scandal? We will find out soon enough.

Political participation in a republic must be measured by voter participation and that number has trended downward consistently for over a generation. Attribute that diminishing participation to foregone gerrymandered elections if you like but to me it seems that shrinking voter rolls are nearly the only meaningful indicia of a participatory democracy.

“I think you are wrong to conclude that half of Kerry's supporters are on the same page with Moore. The lowest anti-war support ever got was I think 30% or so. So half of Kerry's supporters probably opposed the war from the beginning.”

The war in Iraq is justified solely by our need to bring the Arab world into the 21st Century. We cannot allow these people to continue wallowing in their self pity and scapegoating. Thus, if half of Kerry’s supporters oppose the war---we can probably take it for granted that the Massachusetts senator will continue to be wishy-washy on this most important issue.

Your father means well, but isolationism is unrealistic on today’s very small planet. We may wish to practice a form of laissez faire toward the Islamic nihilists. However, they have no interest whatsoever in returning the favor! And what is this nonsense about the Bush administration not being multilateral? Why do you believe this myth? Colin Powell was personally suckered by the French. The President, on the contrary, deserves to be congratulated for going out of his way to get the UN’s approval. Why should a few countries like France and Germany be able to veto our military plans? Are you also totally unaware of their involvement in the UN food for oil scandal? I consider your comments as evidence of how the major media have conned so many Americans.

Drezner,

There is, I think, some evidence that people who identify more strongly with a given political party are more likely to pick up other views promoted by that party, and that this has changed over time. That is, people who call themselves Democrats or Republicans now are more likely to swallow the party line on any given issue now than they were even 10 years ago. Which is the chicken and which is the egg is unclear, as is how much of this is due to Southern defections. What is interesting is that the GOP coalition already appears unstable, as many self-described "libertarians" are having a hard time stomaching Bush thanks to Nixonian fiscal policy and Dobsonian (yes, I made that up)social policy. But that may just be my view from the upper-middle class world; there may be plenty of social conservatives who like the antigay/antiabortion agenda but are upset with Bush's tilted-towards-the-wealthy economic policies.

In any event, there are more and more people who call themselves "independents", so it's not clear what any of that means as far as partisanship among the public as a whole. It will be interesting to see how many "Not Bush" voters pick up with the entire "Not Bush" agenda, whatever that is.

It is also true that the parties themselves, at least in Washington, are at near 100% polarization. With the exception of Zell Miller, who's a corner case in many ways, there are zero RINOs or DINOs remaining. McCain/Chafee/Snowe/Collins are all to the right of Ben Nelson/Breaux/Baucus/Landreiu. Some of this is probably due to the completion of the last pieces of post-1964 realignment. But there is also evidence that increases in partisan voting correspond to increases in the inequality of wealth. See for instance Keith Poole's "The Polarization of American Politics":

http://voteview.uh.edu/polartalk/polartalk.htm

Also see Mark Schmitt's "Is the White South About to Overplay it's Hand?"
http://markschmitt.typepad.com/decembrist/2004/03/is_the_white_so.html

Interesting question. Thank you. I'm not sure though how buying digital cameras and computers could possibly increase democratic participation in the absence of any motivation to do so. I think the motivation occurs in this case because the decline of the "Establishment elites" has cut folks off from a sense that someone speaks for them whether from the right or from the left. Consider Reagan's impact on blue-collar workers.

The tools that are cameras and computers allow the folks who can afford them the opportunity to speak out in ways that would not otherwise be possible. That a consequence of this is the continued diminishment of the establishment as opinion leader should not be surprising. From the establishment's point of view, the bell has been rung and there is no way to unring it. I would predict that this will result in increased participation in the political process at least from those people who can afford to interact with it whether via the internet or other media. Whether we will continue to emulate the raucous, duel-provoking broadsides of the 19th century is another question. Probably, yes. Ultimately even that behavior will improve the quality of the information we share with each other and the quality of the decisions that devolve from it. Hooray for democracy.

Interesting you should use the words "raucous,"duel-provoking broadsides of the 19th century", on this the 200th anniv. of Hamilton-Burr duel.

A method that I am beginning to favor after seeing too many paper professionals run and hide behind attorney--thugs and costly King's court system. I have concluded, a duel challenge is one basic way of making someone face genuine personal accountability.

Where to start, David T ...

"The war in Iraq is justified solely by our need to bring the Arab world into the 21st Century. We cannot allow these people to continue wallowing in their self pity and scapegoating. Thus, if half of Kerry’s supporters oppose the war---we can probably take it for granted that the Massachusetts senator will continue to be wishy-washy on this most important issue."

As opposed to the Bush administration, for whom "bring the Arab world into the 21st century" constitutes (a) holding troops back from Afghanistan for a future war in Iraq, (b) firing generals who tell you that the security and nation-building in the post-war will take more troops than you find politically palatable, (c) as a consequence of not having enough troops to provide security, fail in the nation-building task of restoring basic services like electricity to their pre-war levels, (d) as a consequcen of (c) and disbanding the Iraqi army, one of the major sources of employment, domestic violence increases, (e) continue not to increase troop levels even as violence escalates, since you expect it to be politically unpalatable, (f) picking a "handover" deadline in order to match the US election calendar, and (g) having not created and publicized any "Marshall Plan"-like document. Note that GOPers like Gingrich are alarmed by the last one.

In short, I see no evidence that the execution of military intervention would be any worse under Kerry than the Bush administration, which has a record for firing people who disagree with their preconceived goals and subverting policy to politics at every single turn. Now, we can argue that Kerry may be more reticent to use force than Bush, which may or may not be a bad thing. But Bush's use of force, so far, has done little to promote democracy or economic modernization in Iraq, or to shame the rest of the Middle East into making tangible democratic reforms, as far as I can tell.

As for how the Bush Administration is doing on modernizing the rest of the middle east, see http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001441.html ... there is some progress, but very little success in Afghanistan or Pakistan. I'll concede that progress in Egypt is nice, but it was purely diplomatic so it's unlikely that a Democratic administration would have turned a blind eye just because they're "soft on terrorism". Whether the current Israel/Palestine situation is progress or not is debatable.

And what's this about the need to bring the Arab world into the 21st century? Is this some newfound empahsis on humanitarian goals for military intervention which the GOP discovered between now and the war in Bosnia/Kosovo? Or are you claiming that modernizing the Middle East Right This Minute, through military conflict rather than diplomacy and carrot/stick foreign aid, is necessary for the United States' national security? Reasonable people can disagree on this, I think.

"And what is this nonsense about the Bush administration not being multilateral?"

That other than the UK, there is only negligible military commitment from other nations to Iraq. In the 1991 Gulf War, we managed to get several Arab nations [most notably Egypt] to commit troops to the Iraq invasion, not to mention the French. Syria agreed to stay on the sidelines, rather than aide and abet the Iraqis. Does this mean that my foreign policy view would result in fewer full-scale ground wars? Probably, but that's partly the goal. I'm all for unilateral intervention involving and small numbers of special forces units, or the air force, where the US has such a huge technological advantage that there's very little cost in terms of US lives.

If the goal of the Iraqi invasion was middle east democracy promotion, why couldn't our pro-war commander in chief negotiate with the Arab nations to join the coalition under the threat of "you may be next unless you join in and agree to undertake liberalizing reforms"? We have failed to convince the rest of the Arab world that they have a stake in a successful US friendly Iraq. Perhaps that's simply impossible, but it's not like we even tried.

Oil-for-food? Yes, I'm aware of the corruption. Bringing it up is also a red herring. Does the fact that CREEP was corrupt invalidate mean that the Department of State, Defense, or whatever was corrupt? Surely not. In the same way, "The UN" is not some monolithic body where corruption in one area bleeds over into the entire organization.

Seems to me we're not witnessing the decline of the elite establishment so much as its bifurcation. The "Establishment" is still there; it's just that we now have two of them. There's the liberal/Democratic Establishment and the conservative/Republican Establishment. Within each camp, it's still business as usual, with the elites calling the tune and all their good little followers making the appropriate noises. Sorry folks - the Revolution will not be blogged, because there is no Revolution underway.

"Society is always ill served by rhetorical hyperbole. We must instead discipline ourselves to be as dispassionately accurate as possible. It is, however, far easier for a conservative who believes in objective truth to achieve this laudable goal. An adherent to liberalism inherently rejects the very concept of truth. Everything is relative and merely a matter of powerful institutions mandating the acceptance of their particular interpretation." - David Thomson

This is an example of the polarization of American political discourse. Thomson doesn't succeed very well in avoiding "rehtorical hyperbole" and being "dispassionately accurate," given that he claims, falsely, that "liberalism....rejects the very concept of truth." I suppose that it is emotionally satisfying to bash a group of people (liberals in this case), but the trick is to avoid the appearance of bigotry. Thomson illustrates how to do just that by claiming to be standing up for truth.

My impression is that talk radio played a major role in the spread of this type of rehtoric.

Niq:

You're more forebearing that I would have been in the face of this unbelievably condecending comment: "Your father means well, but isolationism is unrealistic on today's very small planet."

And it's preceeded by this gem: "The war in Iraq is justified solely by our need to bring the Arab world into the 21st Century. We cannot allow these people to continue wallowing in their self pity and scapegoating." Wouldn't it have been easier to just link directly to Kipling's "The White Man's Burden"?

Thomson, if you were any kind of a man, you'd spell your name properly, with a "p".

“And it's preceeded by this gem: "The war in Iraq is justified solely by our need to bring the Arab world into the 21st Century. We cannot allow these people to continue wallowing in their self pity and scapegoating." Wouldn't it have been easier to just link directly to Kipling's "The White Man's Burden"?”

It’s always about race with people like you. This is why I’ve repeatedly emphasized that the Muslims would be treated quite differently if the vast majority of them were blond haired and blue eyed. The Left is very hesitant to confront the evil committed by dark skinned humans.

“You're more forebearing that I would have been in the face of this unbelievably condecending comment: "Your father means well, but isolationism is unrealistic on today's very small planet."”

Have I really acted in an insulting manner merely by pointing out the central error of his father’s position? Alas, it might be better if you could point out where I’m wrong.

“This is an example of the polarization of American political discourse. Thomson doesn't succeed very well in avoiding "rehtorical hyperbole" and being "dispassionately accurate," given that he claims, falsely, that "liberalism....rejects the very concept of truth." I suppose that it is emotionally satisfying to bash a group of people (liberals in this case), but the trick is to avoid the appearance of bigotry. Thomson illustrates how to do just that by claiming to be standing up for truth.”

Nope, I’m being very fair. Modern liberalism is built around the premise of relativism. This is why Jacques Derrida and Stanley Fish are so popular. Have you already forgotten Bill Clinton, in front of the camera, asserting that he didn't have sex with that woman? His allies later claimed that our former president was referring to sexual intercourse. Bill Clinton is the secular saint of deceitful liberals. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is,” said he. Today’s liberal gets up in the morning and asks how best they can squeeze, bend, stretch, and distort the truth. Am I declaring that all liberals are liars? Of course not. Some of them are from the old school of thinking. I am, though, most certainly making this claim regarding the hard left of the Democrat Party.

“If the goal of the Iraqi invasion was middle east democracy promotion, why couldn't our pro-war commander in chief negotiate with the Arab nations to join the coalition under the threat of "you may be next unless you join in and agree to undertake liberalizing reforms"? We have failed to convince the rest of the Arab world that they have a stake in a successful US friendly Iraq. Perhaps that's simply impossible, but it's not like we even tried.”

Oh, but we did try. The Arab world, however, is very reluctant to enter the 21st Century. Its rulers prefer the status quo and the required “consciousness raising” will be existentially challenging. Change usually scares people. Human beings often will wait until the last moment to jump on the bandwagon. Why should the Arab world be any different? The previous Gulf War was not about achieving a cultural change. Our goal was limited to merely removing Iraq from Kuwait---a far less daunting task.

“Does the fact that CREEP was corrupt invalidate mean that the Department of State, Defense, or whatever was corrupt?”

The Department of State is especially filled with many advocating the status quo. Many of them are Arabists and anti-Israel. In their mind, the Arabs are mere innocents trampled on by unjust Western powers. The silly Lawrence of Arabia is something of a hero to them. They innately find the very idea of westernizing the Arabs to be repugnant.

“In short, I see no evidence that the execution of military intervention would be any worse under Kerry than the Bush administration, which has a record for firing people who disagree with their preconceived goals and subverting policy to politics at every single turn.”

The major difference is that President Bush, for all his faults, truly believes in the neoconservative contention that the Arab world must be brought into the 21st Century. He also perceives the threat of terrorism as his number one priority. This is almost certainly not the case with John Kerry---who feels far more comfortable talking about allegedly traitorous CEOs. On top of that, a very high percentage of Kerry’s supporters are hostile toward the war. They are dishonest pacifists who do not believe that the West is superior to other cultures. Kerry is compelled not to upset his multiculturalist base. This is why he is doing so much mealy mouthing. The moderate conservative Democrats have already been marginalized. They simply haven’t come to grips with their unofficial excommunication.

Brock also fails to grasp the conflicts that have emerged within right-wing punditry since he served in its ranks. Chris Matthews was not a supporter of the war in Iraq and Bill O'Reilly has serious questions about it. Lou Dobbs now sounds like Dick Gephardt when he discusses outsourcing. Andrew Sullivan's position on gay marriage is anathema to many other conservatives. Conservatives may well have shared a party line when they were out of power, but now that they have an actual president advancing their worldview, their ideas suddenly have consequences -- and turmoil is the inevitable result

Say, rather, that now tha conservatievs are in control, even by the currently rather thin amount, everyone with an agendae is calling themselves 'conservative'. and in this, I include Sullivan.

Think I'm kidding? What did Kerry try positioning himself as just recently?

I think you are wrong that 50% of Kerry supporters agree with Michael Moore.

So do I. I thin the percentage far higher, given the utter lack of anyone on the left trying to publicly disassociate themselves from Rotundo's films.

Daniel, you wrote:

"One does wonder which blogs Wolfe reads -- while I don't deny that some of them fit his description of "today's give-no-quarter attacks," that's hardly a fair characterization of the blogosphere as a whole."

Maybe I'm cynical, but it seems entirely fair to me. I'd except your blog, 3/4 of the Volokh conspirators, Jack O'Toole, and a handful of others. But I can imagine that I was doing research for an article. I decide to read some of the most popular blogs.

I go to Instapundit and I see that he considers it fair to associate Kerry's campaign with a foreign poster for Fahrenheit 9/11 with a burning flag. I go to Kos and see that they're worried that the Administration may cancel the election under the cover of terrorist activities. I go to Andrew Sullivan and see that he thinks that Kerry's use of the phrase "Let America be America again" is a sign of his commie sympathies.

I could do this all day. At the end of it, I'd have to say that the medium of blogs are chock-full of ridiculous, give-no-quarter attacks.

Here's another slapdash thought on political participation: technology has made it easier, but not necessarily more effectual.

A blogger can have a voice -- that is, a means of communicating to an audience -- that he would not have had ten years ago. That doesn't mean he will have an impact. Even the audience he does attract is not likely to give him its attention for very long, given all the other bloggers out there.

On the other hand technology of a very prosaic kind allows political parties to identify with great precision voters who are likely to support particular candidates and target their appeals accordingly. Technology enables -- "assists" would probably be a better word, since what we are talking about is organizational techniques similar to multi-level marketing that have been around for a while -- political organizations in getting the most out of their most dedicated supporters, by giving these supporters the means of organizing their family, friends and business associates.

Bloggers have content; political organizations don't, at least not content that gets much beyond symbolic language aimed at affirming to likely supporters that their values and preferences are shared by the organizations' preferred candidates. But political organizations have influence; bloggers don't, except (mostly) to the extent they influence other bloggers.

In the future, robot pamphleteers will make instant documentaries and beam them directly into our eyeballs using proton torpedoes.

I go to Instapundit and I see that he considers it fair to associate Kerry's campaign with a foreign poster for Fahrenheit 9/11 with a burning flag.

I think so as well.
Of course, Kerry is always welcome, and in fact encouraged to disavow Moore.

He won't, not wanting to tee off his base.

Same with Kerry and Ted Rall.

I've made the argument for weeks that the RNC would be well served by an ad along the lines of the follwoing:

Great Rotundo, and Rall, Splash Kennedy, etc,etc, with anti-American quotes by each...(There's lots to choose from) with a line on the bottom of the screen:

....This is the Democrat Party...

THe gag factor will take over from there.

Since when is Chris Mathews right-wing? He seems pretty smack-dab in the center to me.

> Society is always ill served by rhetorical hyperbole.

Prove it.