Careful what you wish for. Someone with less power might attempt to investigate Obama and Acorn and end up like this poor guy for rocking the left wing boat.

Of Course.

You have yet again failed to notice that the person you are talking to in comments is not the person who wrote the article, Jeb.

You are a managing editor, the author is the proprietor, and you were defending the post, so excuse if I lump you together for this argument. I would be happy to ‘unlump’ you if you like. Did I misunderstand your comment? Where you not defending MVGD’s praise of Malkin’s book and his interpretation of the meaning of its popularity?

“”"The differences are only stark on several hot button issues and are certainly no greater than they were 40 years ago.”"”

Interesting that in 1970 Acorn was founded and has become a dynamic PAC moving deep within the government infrastructure now.

Almost 40 years ago and the debates rage on as the two sides are kept stirred up about?

Interesting indeed. No?

The presentation is generally one sided in any partisan environment (political blogs for instance). Pushing a Malkin book and pushing a Michael Moore production are of the same cloth. If you are about fairness and improving the political dialogue then you praise neither…
You presumably were critical of the Bush books written by his political rivals. At the least I am guessing you did not defend them. Why the change of course here?

You have yet again failed to notice that the person you are talking to in comments is not the person who wrote the article, Jeb. Given that you have been called on this error several times before, I have to conclude that either you are willfully lumping together everyone on this site or you at least don’t feel bothered to be careful in differentiating among them.

Accordingly, it seems fair from now on to reciprocate by treating you as undifferentiated from the rest of the liberals in the blogosphere. Since you have so frequently done the same to the writers here, I trust you will have no complaint about that?

Then why is it that we only hear the “all sides” bit when the specific incident of the day is in regards to liberals’ hypocrisy?

Perhaps because that is where you are looking for it.

And when conservatives are criticized as hypocrites, the presentation is always thoroughly one-sided, as if conservatives were uniquely and even exclusively guilty of hypocrisy?

The presentation is generally one sided in any partisan environment (political blogs for instance). Pushing a Malkin book and pushing a Michael Moore production are of the same cloth. If you are about fairness and improving the political dialogue then you praise neither.

You should concede that liberals’ hypocrisy is not acceptable and stop trying to change the subject back to focusing on conservatives, Jeb.

Hypocrisy is a common human failing. It is not limited to one side of the aisle.

That said, Malkin further coarsens the debate as do the other shouting heads on both sides. We should not be praising them for further coarsening the debate. The only conclusion one can reliably draw from the success of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama books written by their political rivals is that bitter partisanship thrives.

You presumably were critical of the Bush books written by his political rivals. At the least I am guessing you did not defend them. Why the change of course here?

and yet again those that decried the Bush books are cheering the Obama books and vice versa. Hypocrisy abounds on all sides.

Then why is it that we only hear the “all sides” bit when the specific incident of the day is in regards to liberals’ hypocrisy? And when conservatives are criticized as hypocrites, the presentation is always thoroughly one-sided, as if conservatives were uniquely and even exclusively guilty of hypocrisy?

Personally, I am getting tired of this stupid game. Liberals played the “fascist” card for 8 years solid (actually far, far longer — I heard it during the Reagan administration) and waving a vague “all sides are guilty” canard now that they have YET AGAIN shamelessly changed their supposedly principled position does not constitute an excuse or even a relevant response.

You should concede that liberals’ hypocrisy is not acceptable and stop trying to change the subject back to focusing on conservatives, Jeb.