"We have much bigger problems than Anne Coulter and “right wing haters.”

She--and they--are the problem because they are in power, and they drive the policy, and they control the debate. The Democrats will need a much healthier majority in Congress, and the conservative majority on the Supreme Court will have to be reversed before anything meaningful can or will be done to about the "real problems" like gobal climate change, rampant poverty, etc.

Ann Coulter and her ilk are not ranting in an echo chamber. She is the heart and soul of the Republican party--the party in power. THAT is the problem.

"By the same token, where are the moderate conservatives--aside from Andrew Sullivan--who will unequivocally condemn hate speech from people like Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and others?"

I would argue that those "moderate conservatives" are a myth. There's not much evidence to prove they exist in any significant numbers these days. And if they do, we'd all have to agree that they don't have the balls to stand up to Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity, Malkin, et al. in any meaning ful way.

The last moderate conservative I saw was riding a unicorn in hot pursuit of Bigfoot on the shores of Atlantis.

I clicked on Glenn's link for the folks "lined up around the corner," and my browser keeps freezing up at that right-wing site. Must be my virus scan software working overtime.

It can't be said enough.

"Folks, Rushdooney is no threat. He commands a tiny sliver of a thread of an outlying theology rejected by mainstream and evangelical Christians because it's heretical! How many times does it have to be said?"

Say it again, and again and again, please.

By the way, what sort of sliver do YOU command, while we're on the subject? Excuse me if I don't trust your judgment on this issue.

Call me paranoid. Fine. This is one subject I PRAY to be wrong about. Just because rank and file evangelicals don't know who Rushdooney, Rove, or any other sort of "behind the scenes" player is, doesn't mean that these guys don't hold sway with the puppet masters at these gawd-awful mega-churches.

What do I know? I'm just sick of hearing this trickle down Rushdooney drivel at Thanksgiving dinner and Christmas every year.

Hmmm... let’s see... Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph came to mind pretty quickly. Give me a minute, I'm sure the righties have more "men of action" than that.

G-U-I-L-T-Y

if I remember correctly.

“Wouldn't it be great if anybody who speaks out against this country, to kick them out of the country? Anybody that threatens this country, kick 'em out.”

You mean, all expenses paid? I think a nice bungalow in the South Pacific would be SWEET. And I’d promise to keep my mouth shut and stay off the "internets," too.... well, except for porn, that is.

They think WE are "sore losers?"

I would submit that, as conservatives go, Timothy McVeigh was a "sore loser."

Too many to count really. But the main one is that, since everyone who still supports Bush/Cheney is a "conservative," that means that anyone who is critical of Bush/Cheney is therefore a "liberal." I don't think I need to get into how ridiculous that assertion is. But that's how they think. They cannot get beyond this "team sports" mentality.

The next is that since their fealty to Bush/Cheney drives their ideology, that means that the "liberals" "hatred" of Bush/Cheney drives our thought process. Which, again, betrays a complete ignorance regarding how a "liberal" mind comes to a conclusion.

The last thing "we liberals" do is derive our conclusions from an initial hatred of anyone or anything. It's quite the opposite, in fact. We look at the situation, digest the facts, and then come to a conclusion about the matter.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the conclusion I keep coming to is that of contempt for those who still support Bush/Cheney. I've made my peace with those two men. I mean, they wake up every morning as the same person. How is Bush NOT going to be a Bush supporter? But his supporters wake up every morning and make the choice to support him no matter how bad things get, no matter how reckless his policies, or how destructive the consequences of those policies are. THAT is why my contempt is focused on them.

I wish people could get it straight that there's a difference between a Bush-hater, and a Bush-supporter-hater.

"This just doesn't seem to happen as much on the right. I’m not sure if it’s because they follow a party that puts fealty above all else, or if their distaste for dissent makes such a thing unpalatable. Whatever it is, it's incredibly hypocritical and the reason why they should be relegated to the periphery..."

I think it's all of that. George Lakoff has shown very thorooughly that how people respond to authority figures pretty much determines whether they will be a conservative of a liberal. Conservatives will always fall into line in a more orderly fashion than liberals. It's always going to be that way.

I was just about to post the same point!

I heartily agree. It's become "politics as team sports" on the right. I hear liberals arguing amongst each other all the time about all sorts of things. But one thing I NEVER hear is conservatives calling out their own. The closest you'll get is the Dobson's, et al., complaining that some conservative isn't "christian" enough. But that's about it.