Or I might run amok through the cubicles searching for edible booty.

Do you work for the Chicago branch of Vivid Entertainment?

I would agree, but I'd argue that there's more of the crazy, the hate, on Republican blogs.

Nah. You just don't find it compelling in the same way.

No, I strongly disagree.

Yeah, there are certainly pockets of liberals who are plenty offensive. But it doesn't have nearly the same level of acceptance or influence among the broader community. The Repubs have incubated and encouraged this type of discourse over a long period, and it's reflecting in the tone and nature of the political climate in the respective parties.

Object to some of their more out-there positions or statements as you may (and as I too sometimes do), but can you really class Michael Moore and Al Franken with Coulter, Limbaugh, Michael Savage et al?

And in the blogosphere, where there are certainly some of the more offensive types on both sides, the question remains - who are the influential bloggers? Who are the ones setting the terms of the debate? Daily Kos v. Drudge, to choose only the most mainstream. The fact that there are ugly Dems you can point to doesn't change the fact that in the predominant liberal community these folks are outliers. In right-wing circles they're thought leaders.

Are there any of those left? (Besides Nader, I mean.)

Well, there's me.

In 2000, I saw very little difference between the Dems and Repubs. But I figured the abortion issue was important enough for me to support the Dems. But I think the current administration is one of the most radical, if not the most, in our nation's history, and they've gotten a lot of support from Republican congresspeople. I haven't seen liberals advocate such radical ideas as the elimination of habeas corpus, or arguing that the Supreme Court should not be allowed to rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. I mean, I appreciate the argument that "both sides have bad apples" but I think the current threat represented by the Bush administration transcends that.

It's easy to find vile and crazy on the Internet from any side, but the right has a lot more blowhards and crazy on the radio and TV.

I couldn't agree more. They're the party of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and those other scumsuckers who think nothing of appearing in nationwide media to casually promote hatred of Muslims, mock the less-fortunate, promote the subversion of democratic institutions, and push an agenda of unlimited executive power. At that same level of media exposure, our side has Michael Moore and Al Franken, who may be obnoxious blowhards, but to the best of my knowledge, they are not actively trying to undo two centuries of progress.

Xpost. What Brenda Said will do for me.

Do you work for the Chicago branch of Vivid Entertainment?

No. But I totally would devour some unused edible underwear right now to keep low blood sugar from turning me evil.

Do you work for the Chicago branch of Vivid Entertainment?

Well, there's sort of a sense in which you do. It just involves llamas instead of porn.

Well, there's also the part where, as a party, the republicans chose a tactic of all hanging together, while the democrats did a big-tent crazy-caucus approach.

Plus side of hang-together: the ability to loom like a monolith.
Minus side: failing to disavow the dumb asshole in the back, because he's on your team, makes you complicit in his dumb assholery.

Plus side of crazy-caucus: you're not responsible for the dumb assholes.
Minus side: harder to present a united front.

I tend to prefer crazy-caucus, because I hate dumb assholes and I'm a longview kind of person. But it's been demonstrated that hang-together can be pertty damned effective in the short run.

The fact that there are ugly Dems you can point to doesn't change the fact that in the predominant liberal community these folks are outliers. In right-wing circles they're thought leaders.

I think what's scariest is that they're obviously popular (if that word applies here) because so many people listen to them. They're tapping into something in this country's consciousness. And it's pretty nasty.

It just involves llamas instead of porn.

Actually, there were llamas and gay porn, as I distinctly remember.

I'm trying not to gloat.

I'm just happy to feel relieved. I'm dubious about how much is really going to change, and I fear the rhetorical bile being spewed is going to get worse not better (if craxy right felt oppressed and vindictive when their people were in control of everything, just imagine how they're going act when they're not). But at least I don't feel gloated at this morning.