Having said all this, the reason I'm willing to hypothesize that the looney left examples I cite are more representative of modern liberalism than not, is that — in addition to my Looney Liberal Chronicles in the IC archives under my name that further document these things, particularly the 2000 election issue — I can point to numerous websites (Huffington Post, Moveon.org, Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, etc.) where these same rantings proliferate.

Unfortunately, I don't see any battle of ideas in the near future, like you and I would both like to shape political debate. Politics are about power, and the people who have controlled government for most of the past 60 years see their hold on power slipping away. Their focus is to regain that power, not put their ideas to test in a public debate.

On a personal note, I always appreciate an opportunity to debate ideas, and enjoyed reading your comments. Glad to see you don't take my political satire personally, or as a blanket condemnation of everyone I disagree with. It's just that I've found humor to be a perfect substitute for getting my points across when legitimate debate isn't possible.

Some of these are a bit long, but they’ll help you better understand how I, at least, approach a debate on substantive issues.

Phil

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/09/11/in-their-own-words-the-undisguised-racism-of-the-far-far-far-right/

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/13/the-true-nature-of-human-morality-a-response-to-the-critique-%e2%80%9cuniversal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe%e2%80%9d/

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/07/31/an-even-more-inconvenient-truth-the-myth-of-man-made-global-warming/

I wonder whether the main lines of thought contradict the way you started out the article. You begin, after the initial sentence, "One of the first things you learn in any course on statistics is that there’s a danger in extrapolating global trends from personal observations."

That is true. While anecdotal examples may be useful as illustrations, there is little that they can prove. They are facts only on a minuscule level, and it is only with thousands or millions of those facts that generalities can be accurately derived. So, when you use commented examples to demonstrate that the mainstream Left is crazy (as opposed to the normal assortment of nuts), you use too few examples. You could have been tapping into a vast (but empty) resevoir of idiocy, and it could've been a pocket smattering just below the surface. I could reproduce similar comments from elsewhere by people on the right.

Now, you provide other evidence of insanity as well, ones I'm more willing to admit. The response to the 2000 election was initially brought on misleading media reporting, and officially worked itself out with appeals to the Supreme Court. Many people I have talked to have treated that instance as more nuanced than you present it; they would prefer a popular vote in general, and use the election as an instance of supporting their thought, but they don't dispute the legitimacy of it. The real nuts came out in 2004, as you indicated they had, but I would still call the Democratic response exaggerated by the media. And while I, too, have nothing more than anecdote to offer, that is because a discussion on how widespread political insanity has spread cannot be proven one way or another without the statistics we both lack.

Now I just hope that the loudmouths in the left and the right don't make asses of themselves in November. May the best ideas win.

"How can the left support the 'Fairness Doctrine' and not have it apply to TV news?"

By selective enforcement, just like college speech codes are. Leftist might claim to be all for free speech, but what they really mean is free liberal speech. Anything else is “oppressive” and/or “offensive”, and therefore not allowed. I don't think you'd "take that in a heartbeat."

In an incident now lost to history, one Leftist professor’s argument against conservative speech took on a grotesque form when he essentially said it should not be allowed because, in that particular case, it was “effective”. But what other goal could there be for political speech?

Thanks, but the point about Talk Radio was made by jb. I think what you are referring to is called "spiking" when a Democrat, for example, calls a conservative show and pretends to be a Republican. I have seen a Democrat occasionally call CSPAN Journal on the Republican line, but when it becomes apparent by his questions that he is really a Democrat, the host hangs up on him. I have never seen a Republican try the same scam.

I know what you're going through. I fled. You are brave.

jfk

The MSM is already discounting Zogby's recent poll as an outlier because he "tweaks" the results. But so far as I know they all tweak the results. That is if any pollster calls say 1000 people & 425 say Obama & 415 say McCain or vice versa, with the rest answering undecided, for third parties, or refusing to answer, pollsters never report exactly 42.5% for one & 41.5% for the other.

Anyway, the real news is that Obama is not 20 percentage points ahead in every poll as we all assume Hill would be at this stage.

Ad finally, no "accepted" poll uses a scientifically representative sample, as well as truly neutral questions. Finally, most ask whether the person called is gonna vote (OK, likely to vote). As if all respondees will give a truthful answer

Sedonaman

Your point about Talk Radio as the best (really only) forum for diversified multicultural callers is an important one. Interestingly. the NYT, for one, has this strange gaggle of interview-ees who call themselves "Republicans" whose family has allegedly been so since John C. Fremont in 1856, but who the internet quickly identifies as Presidents of the Local Planned Parenthood or Teachers Union.

Right you are! Although it's not just BO I've noticed it in. It's the entire Left. A good example is colleges and universities that claim they are all for free speech, but have speech codes that are selectively enforced to squelch speech that they disagree with, usually Christian ideas.

I gather that you have noticed the BO predilection for defining any opposition to his viewpoint as divisive. :) I have long thought that the ONLY divisive aspect of talk radio is that it gives a voice to those who disagree. I guess a world in which the MSM holds total sway with their corrupted gate-keeping and squelching of divergent opinions is less divisive……..according to those who agree with them.