Andrew Sullivan also has another interesting post in the same thread that I missed the first time:
Like Glenn Reynolds, I’m besieged by people who think I’m wrong about the tone of Bush’s campaign speech last night. Fair enough. It’s a subjective judgment call, and I certainly respect those who took it otherwise. But what amazes me is the vituperative tone, and how many then accuse me of being anti-war, anti-Bush and anti-American. Me? Are politics so polarized that you have to either engage in hagiography or hatred of our leaders? Is there nothing permissible in between?
I’m not sure when this happened. It was certainly in evidence during the Clinton Administration when Democrats couldn’t bring themselves to criticize even the most reprehensible acts of their leader, despite his lack of loyalty toward them, and Republican commentators such as Rush Limbaugh reflexively opposed anything Clinton did just because it was Clinton doing it.
I’ve noticed this trend on the blogosphere as well. I have quit going to some of the more “out there” sites on both the left and the right, because the level of discourse is so low as to outweigh any gain that might come from exposure to less mainstream viewpoints.
Update: Slightly apropos of this point, Terry over at Possumblog offers this response to a mention of his site as G-Rated :
Thanks for continuing to drop by and visit, Rob–in case any of you have never visited Acidman, his blog is G-rated, as well. Usually each one is followed by an “oddamn”, but there you go.
Heh. I’d link to the post itself but. . . .