What strikes me as bizarre about your last couple of posts is that you, a man of such finely nuanced sensibilities and imposing intellect, should write them. They are so far below your usual standards that I fear your faculties have been taken over by some low calibre mind worm, ala "The Puppet Masters."
Whatever. In any case I take umbrage regarding your next to the last rant. Since vacuity in the MSM is as common as tree bark, I didn't feel required to second your opinion on that, and decided instead to focus on a rather less well substantiated comment (I quote):
"Worse, the media has uncritically swallowed - and doesn't hesitate to crow about it! - that the administration is *correct* in believing... that the way to eliminate the threat posed by insane death-worshiping religious fanatics hell-bent waging nuclear jihad is to appeal to their rationality."
Now if the administration is actually appealing to the rationality of insane, death-worshiping fanatics, I'm sure this will come as a welcome relief to the militants in North Waziristan, who we are currently appealing to by blasting them with virtually hundreds of predator drones. But since that really isn't the case, I felt obliged to point out that "negotiating with Islamic terrorists" is neocon speak for "negotiating with Islamic moderates", since, at least in the myopic world view of the neocon, all Muslims are terrorists.
Your last rant was a genuine puzzler. What Charles Blow was saying in his article was that the Tea Party Movement is attracting racists and that it doesn't want them. But do a little research on this yourself. Storm Front, the notorious white supremacist organization, has 14 pages on its website of comments by members regarding their participation in Tea Party rallies.
Now just because some whacked out white supremacists see an opportunity in The Tea Party movement to spread their disgusting filth, doesn't mean that racism is a structural component of the Tea Party. And that's the conclusion you have drawn from his article which I'm sure is bothering you most. The name for it is "guilt by association", and it doesn't look any better to me when you use it than when (as you assert) Charles Blow does.
To be more specific, you yourself define who liberals are and then proceed to attack that definition. Overall, I gather you believe they are intellectual snobs and pacifists. I suppose some of them are, but this classification is about as helpful as me saying that all conservatives are ignorant buffoons and war mongers.
The answers to the complex and vexing issues of the day are almost less important than that we pursue them together as Americans. This kind of volatile and cartoonish rhetoric is exactly what prevents us from doing that.