Well, of course it is; the US military built the Internet so they could badger the Soviets. Everyone knows that. It's why it's built on the Badgering Control Protocol.

Rob, while the cult of Obama was certainly far more palpable than for other candidates, it's not unusual. I think that Green Lanternism is just part and parcel of being a president in the era of mass media, which really boosts the American expectation of the president as a democratically elected monarch.

Rob: while the fascination with Sarah Palin certainly reeks of a schoolyard "point and laugh" situation, there's no doubt that Palin has tried her damnedest to earn that by continually thrusting herself into the spotlight. And to compare her to shrewd and cunning bastards like Atwater and Cheney is superficial and specious. She's a dolt and a liar, and it's evidently more because she doesn't know (and doesn't want to know) better, rather than because she's trying to manipulate her audience (and, really, like that's much of a challenge). Also, your continued "elitist" caricatures are sophomoric. You were more interesting when you pretended to be a libertarian, instead of showing yourself as a true FOXhole.

Well done, Tom. It's really fascinating how much the media needs the "Obama popularity" story to remain true, when "Obama's in trouble!!!" would sell just as many newspapers (and, indeed, already has).

"However, I thought the whole point of this exercise in health care reform was that it's unacceptable for people to have to pay for desired medical services out of their own pockets." Rob, that is the most patently disingenuous thing that i've seen you write here. That doesn't even deserve to be called a strawman.

It's good to know that, no matter who's in charge, they can always find a way to lower the level of public discourse.

Does your cheek hurt from pushing your tongue into it when you chide Brendan about his objectivity, Rob?

Rob and David should be working for some congressperson's PR office. The way they've consistently spun things around over the years of comments on this Web site is tenacious and impressive.

I certainly hope to see this one show up on Language Log.

What about how well-educated the states are, as suggested by Robert David Sullivan and David in your previous post?

In my experience, i can still feel a visceral impact from some new music and that impact is perhaps felt more strongly because my taste is more developed than when i was young. To claim that rock is for children is risible; i can imagine someone in the `40s writing about swing being for children, or someone else in 20 years writing about AutoTune-heavy hip-hop being for children. I don't feel "ruined"; i find it a very strange way to feel about music. Yeah, i listened to a lot of crap as a kid. I don't anymore. The second paragraph you quote talks about using tension in music, but it's hardly unique to the drummer. Greif's head is so far up his ass in this essay, he could become a human Klein bottle with just another push.

Yeah, Rob, Rich Douthat, Judith Miller, Bill Kristol... Republican haters all of them.

"Cheney's "secure location" became, in the words of his critics and their friends in the media, a bunker, a term that undoubtedly was meant to evoke memories of Hitler's bunker." If you stretch that one a little more, it'll snap back in your face. "Cowboy" is used pejoratively to indicate someone who does his own thing and doesn't have any interest in cooperation. This was very plainly apposite when it came to Bush. As for "Bush goons", you're playing silly buggers with semantics, because "Bush goons" doesn't refer to actual goons who worked for Bush, but rather goons inspired by Bush. "Contract on America" isn't merely a rhetorical device when history proves it was more correct than the original phrasing, but "Democrats almost uniformly" strikes me as an amusing rhetorical device on its own. Lastly, criticism of Bush and Cheney has proven to be well-founded (regardless of its stridency) overall, as opposed to the idiotic blathering that comes from Palin. So please stop playing your weak-sauce false equivalence games.

"Those who are so exercised over Palin's comments either have a poor memory for the use of similar rhetorical phrases in advocacy writing and speaking or choose to apply a different standard to Palin than they would, for example, to critics of Bush and Cheney." By all means, give us some examples, Rob.

I am forced to agree with David. What's the purpose of these polls? Even if there truly is a disproportionate amount of "birthers" in the South, so what? What do these polls tell us beyond that, and why do we need so many of them?

While the egregious use of the loaded word "terrorists" is regrettable and ugly, is the rest of the column objectionable? You say that "the GOP's efforts to defeat the plan are in no way disloyal." Disloyal to whom? Their obstructionism goes beyond ideology into brand territory; they aren't defending America or even conservatism, but only the idea of the Republican party as the antithesis of the Democratic party. There is almost no intellectual honesty on display, or rigor of integrity, just the same old tired talking points. It's been said a lot, but i want the old Republican party back. I'm tired of the Atwater-Rove lovechild of emotional manipulation and anti-intellectualism.

Often bring up the subject, do they? Can you link to some transcripts?

I tuned out of the Maddow show after experiencing the inanely sophomoric "teabagging" episode with Wonkette.

David, despite your black-and-white framing, the fact is that journalists can analyze what politicians say and even make educated guesses without resorting to cheap "mind-reading" devices. They don't because they're lazy, and because narratives are provocative and thus sell better.

Well, that's nice, but i was hoping you'd address the specifics of the proposal. It's facile to expect the worst out of the federal government, and yet it could still be better than what we have now.

I'm sure the world of politics will not disappoint, Rob. Maybe Charlie Rangel will endorse Rev. Moon again. Anything's possible.

Dave: i'd have to read the bill to explain the contradiction, but i admit that it doesn't look good at all. Rob: You know, you can raise these objections without implying Brendan's only goal is to censor McCaughey. Try not to be so childish.

Brendan: that's ok, the New York Daily News has never been accused of being a bastion of journalism, either. I mean, it's no New York Post, but still. Rob: Did you miss the "previously outlined" link? And it's cute how you make sure we know about about Pelosi's and Heinz's use of "un-American". Way to cherrypick.

Instead of ruing the flaws in Silver's work, why not try to work with him?

Thanks, Brendan, now i'll never get these coffee stains off my monitor.