dawkins writes:

As AmCop’s dutiful readers Mike and Eric have pointed out in response to previous critiques of the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof, there once was a time, not too long ago, when he wasn’t absolutely full of shit. But what happened? Did he radically change his diet?

Picking up on the brilliant rhetorical strand introduced by his coprophagic Times colleague David Brooks, Nicholas makes the incisive point that it’s BOTH Democrats and Republicans who are to blame for the poisonously partisan atmosphere in American politics today.

Sez Nicky:

Considering the savagery with which the Snarling Right excoriated President Clinton as a "sociopath," blocked judicial appointments, undermined U.S. military operations from Kosovo to Iraq, hounded Vincent Foster and then accused the Clintons of murdering him, it is utterly hypocritical for conservatives to complain about liberal incivility.

But they're right.

Liberals have now become as intemperate as conservatives, and the result— everybody shouting at everybody else— corrodes the body politic and is counterproductive for Democrats themselves. My guess is that if the Democrats stay angry, then they'll offend Southern white guys, with or without pickups and flags, and lose again.

So according to Kristof, the “intemperate” behavior of Democrats today is just as bad as that of Republicans during the Clinton administration.

Some thoughts, presented in the form of Kristofian balanced comparison:

Remember why Republicans called Clinton a "sociopath"? Because he got blow jobs in the Oval Office. (I also vaguely recall that the Republicans tried to impeach him for that too.)

Now even if Democrats are calling Bush a “sociopath” (which they’re not), what might be their reasons for doing so?

Notwithstanding that Bush wasn’t actually elected president, many Democrats are downright angry that Bush has:

-bankrupted the U.S. government and destroyed the American social safety net with massive tax cuts for rich people and corporations

-launched a war that flew in the face of the will of the rest of the global community (not to mention reason and truth), and squandered hundreds of American lives and the support of the world

-incessantly sought to capitalize politically on that war, as well as on the murder of 3000 Americans by terrorists in 2001

-and so on…

[Blicero adds: war on the environment, failure to secure Homeland against terrorist attack, pathologic secrecy and arrogance in all matters of importance, etc. etc.]

Kristof mentions those judicial appointments that the Republicans opposed. Remember? Republicans roadblocked some 60 Clinton appointments, and Kristof’s right when he suggests that Democrats are doing the same thing.

Yes, they’re holding up the nominations of 4 candidates for judgeships, not merely because those candidates are bona-fide fascists, but because they’ve been nominated by a Republican president.

Such partisan rancor… on both sides!

Kristof mentions that the Republicans undermined U.S. military operations from Kosovo to Iraq. I don’t get it: Does he mean to say that Democrats today are undermining U.S. military operations in Iraq? By overwhelmingly supporting the president’s war resolution and then overwhelmingly approving his continued last-gasp funding packages?

Yes, there are Democratic people out there (like Howard Dean and Wesley Clark and John Kerry) who are criticizing Bush’s war. But the war is an utter disaster! Who’s NOT criticizing the war right now? And those guys are running for president. Which presidential candidate is not criticizing the incumbent? Frankly, Republicans throughout Congress are criticizing the war too. This is partisan incivility?

If you accept Kristof’s premise that Democrats today are indeed filled with rage, am I just a rage-drunk partisan when I contend that Democratic rage directed at Bush and his administration differs in quality and substance somewhat from the rage Republicans directed at Clinton?

A new report from the Pew Research Center says that America is more polarized now than at any time since its polling series began in 1987. Partly that's because it used to be just the Republicans who were intense in their beliefs, while now both sides are frothing.

[Blicero adds: Thank god! It's about time, Nick!]

Okay, Republicans were “intense in their beliefs.” And those “beliefs,” evidently, were the kinds of “beliefs” that held that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster. Pretty “intense” “beliefs,” those!

I see the fury in my e-mail messages. In a fairly typical comment, one reader suggested that President Bush and his aides are "lying, cynical greedy pirates who deserve no better than a firing squad."

Um, yeah? And?

At this rate, soon we'll all be so rabid that Ann Coulter will seem normal.

“We’ll” all be so rabid? Ann Coulter “will” seem normal? Ann Coulter does seem normal now, but it’s not because Democrats are just as rabid than she is. It’s because there are now thousands of Ann Coulters, all on the right, and she’s just one of them!

The left should have learned from Newt Gingrich that rage impedes understanding— and turns off voters. That's why President Bush was careful in 2000, unlike many in his party, to project amiability and optimism.

Huh?

[Blicero adds: C'mon, "left," remember the Gingrich lesson: if you fire up your base with righteous anger, all you'll get for your troubles is a massive, nationwide reconfiguration of both houses of Congress in your favor, locking in your majority power for the next ten years at least...oh, and also you'll be able to lead a successful impeachment against your opponent president, with no accountability or consequence for your party's actions. True, after you've successfully overtaken the Congress and impeached your opponent president, you might have to resign as Speaker of the House and go earn a more lucrative living elsewhere while continuing to exert influence over government through less visible channels. Beware, "left," the doom that awaits you if you dare to raise your voice and show your anger!]

-dawkins