Since you asked

Who are you talking about? What people fill that definition?
Honestly? Who?

I trend towards believing in the corporate conspiracy one, but not necesarrily "conspiracy". Our democracy is real - its just that, in the end, decisions are made because of money, and the people with the most get the most say.

I'd like to know who you think fits this description.

And since when does using harsh language make you ideologically extreme? Surely there are lots of people who can use harsh or vulgar language to advance moderate ideas.

This has been another episode of "Joe Klein answers a question that nobody asked to avoid answering the question that everyone has been asking."

The question that everyone has been asking being, "Can you give any specific examples of, for instance, Atrios having a specific policy or ideological position that you find to be extreme?"

Even after having been provided with a detailed list of Duncan Black's positions:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_05_07_atrios_archive.html#114714299763823853

... Joe resorts to a rhetorical game that utterly fails to back up his assertions.

Here's your harsh language, Joe, courtesy of that renowned "left wing extremist" Ann Coulter:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/02/coulter-edwards/

(That's called a "link," Joe. You point the little arrow to it and then push the button next to your finger.)

Thank you for responding. Some may fit that description, but not as many of your commentators as you would think. In fact, I think in some ways you have created a strawman, with respect.

I'd add one (and will be flamed for it): Afganistan, circa 2001. Not now, but before the war began. We got attacked on 9-11, Al Queda was behind it and the Taliban were harboring OBL. We built a multilateral coalition and we invaded. I would say if you opposed that on moral grounds or b/c America should not have acted or b/c of alleged oil interests, I would say you would be out of the mainstream. The arguments against it weren't invalid or nutty or crazy -- just out of the mainstream of American political thought.

That said, we can all (with a great deal of justification!) can talk about Tora Bora, the coddling of Musharraf, the diversion of resources, etc... But at that time, I feel that military action was more than justified and 90% agreed at that time.

Also, another sign is multiple bumper stickers on one's car. But that's mostly just me.

Yes, we would very much like you to tell us about right-wing extremism next week.

Paul's question is extremely valid: Other than a few folks in the Progressive Labor Party, can you name important Democratic leaders or thinkers who fit those items?

I have issue with your point on faith. If people are going to base their stance against gay marriage on faith, then they should be prepared to face criticism of that faith. I've yet to see a supply-side economist become angry when someone disagrees with the Laffer Curve. The difference being, of course, that it's "okay" to criticize Laffer but not okay to criticize Christianity.

In the name of equal time, what constitutes a Right-Wing extremist?

Also Nader voters. That's another one.

Think about it: the Green Party is responsible for denying the Presidency a future Nobel Peace Prize winner re: his work on the enviornment -- because he wasn't pure enough.

What the F*CK are you talking about? Go back to being an irrelevant print journalist and quit trying to muddy up the blogosphere with your lies!

Joe, Joe, Joe. Name some names? Who are you talking about? How to spot a self loathing liberal. First name Joe second name Klein

Joe, you are backing the wrong horse on this one. Given your definitions, centrists and populists with a social conscience who have been objecting to the highjacking of America by the major spokesmen of the Bushies, Donohoes and Coulter and other folks that confuse the Mayflower Compact with the US Constitution and turning the economy over to the long ago banished robber barons while taking education back to the Dark Ages and promoting Witch Burning have become the big red scare, Joe McCarthy. The really sad thing is that the selling of America by these 'traders in charge' aren't getting any more than the Indians did for Manhattan in real time value. Hail, Haliburton

Well, in your last update to your last post, you made it clear that Atrios is the paradigmatic instance of a left-wing extremist. You went so far as to claim that arguing that Atrios is not an extremist is tantamount as arguing that there is no such thing as left-wing extremism.

But I doubt Atrios would sign on to much if any of the above. (Some of your accusations are a bit vague so it's hard to say. When you write "i.e. [sic] the failure of our NATO allies to fulfill their responsibilities in Afghanistan" what are you talking about? Lots of allies who declined to participate in Iraq, e.g. Canada, are in Afghanistan.)

I'm looking forward to your definition of right-wing extremism.

Say it aint so Joe. Say it ain't so.

Your attempt is specious. No single person fits that description. Just like no single person will embody every tendency you identify to the right. And if you identify right wing extremists, next, well you better be prepared....you're going to be as if you have SINNED against an ANGRY and MERCILESS GOD!

I'm just a moderate, but if you asked me, all of the zealots are crazy. Just go to work. Enjoy your life and make some money. Everything and everybody else....forget about it.

Joe,

Go wash your brain out with soap...all the b.s. is mucking up your prattle.

Joe, I notice you meet the last criterion:

"regularly uses harsh, vulgar, intolerant language to attack moderates"

(You did say "or" not "and".)

But you *did* name names, Joe. You named Atrios. Can you back up your accusation, or are you admitting that you can't?

Harsh language? Seriously? That's one of your criteria?

Isn't that kind of a moving target? Would somebody who is an extremist in Georgia lose that distinction in New Jersey?

So, outside of giving you the vapors with his salty sailor talk, how exactly is Atrios an ideological extremist?

I'm looking forward to your list of right-wing extremist positions. Please include a list of people who meet those criteria.

"It would be wildly stupid for me to get into a pissing match by naming names. I won't go there..."

You won't go there? You already did. You named Atrios. I do agree that was wildly stupid, both on the merits and it terms of asking for trouble.

Joe on the characteristics of rightwing extremism:

I go along with or agree with them mostly. Bills to pay you know.

Wow. It's immensely telling that many of those "extremist beliefs" are right-wing caricatures of left-wing positions. This little list really ought to get you creamed, Joe.

And it goes nowhere toward defining what makes an extremist an extremist, a definition I think would be helpful in this debate.

"doesn’t believe that capitalism, carefully regulated and progressively taxed, is the best liberal idea in human history"

I think that education and democracy come first. Otherwise, people can't advocate for their interests and well being. I count those as liberal ideas. If I had a Veblen or Galbraith book handy I'd provide a quote or two here.

I have on rare occasion used the "b" word when Rumsfeld and others that sold the war come on the tube.

My America doesn't have a "fundamentally imperialist nature," but theirs does:

*****Far from constituting a radical break from American foreign policy, the basic impulses of the Bush Doctrine can be traced throughout much of our history. If asked of empire, for instance, the American Founders would not have hesitated to embrace the word.*****

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22756/pub_detail.asp

I think that good ideas can come from conservatives, but trusting them has been more difficult, considering recent history.

I want the US to be a *good* force in the world, which is why I'm so p*ssed off.

"believes that eternal problems like crime and poverty are the primarily the fault of society"

I believe that society cannot be *manipulated* in such a way to get rid of crime and poverty, but that doesn't excuse us from doing nothing. I think saying we can't create a better society that improves these things, because they're metaphysically "eternal," is a cop out. (Although I do believe we have an imperfect nature and need to all respect that fact to get along in this life.)

Does that mean I flunk your test?

"wildly stupid for me to get into a pissing match by naming names"

You DID name names.

Re not naming names: You also specified anyone who thinks Tauscher should be opposed in the primary (I'll take "Robespierre" as a synonym for "extremist" here).

Wow, by those definitions NOT ONE MAJOR PROGRESSIVE BLOGGER COMES NEAR A MAJORITY WITH THOSE DEFINITIONS.

You are certainly living in a world that you've managed to have accepted as defined by some idiodic right-wing stereotype. I'm a big lefty, let's go through those questions:

1. No
2. No, but contributes
3. No
4. No, but contributes
5. No
6. No, at least I think, it's not well phrased
7. No
8. No, but it is certainly degrading. It's been worse, but the cycle the last 30 years isn't hot.
9. No, you jackass, what a strawman statement.
10. No, see above.
11. No
12. No, and I'm bothered by the definition of people of faith equally those opposed to abortion and reproductive rights.
13. What a wholly illogical and subjective standard. Irrelevant.

And guess what I'm a big ol' lefty.

Whilst you are a jejune, smug, spewer of tripe at least with this post.

Joe: I live in one of our countries most liberal or left-wing commutnities. I know of VERY FEW PEOPLE WHO LIVE UP TO YOUR STEREOTYPE.

Now, you may think the United States can do no wrong and anyone who criticizes the country is a dirty filthy hippie. Well, bullocks to that and bullocks to you for perpetuating negative media stereotypes.

I'm a leftie who flies the American flag in front of his home. I think it's our PATRIOTIC DUTY to criticize our government when it does wrong. Your view is more along the lines of an authoritarian state.

Unless Thoimas Jeffferson was also a dirty filthy hippie.

blech!

"the best liberal idea in human history"
Wow.

So if I belive cooking food with fire was a better idea than capitalism, am I a liberal extremist?

Well, I guess you don't have to worry about the "liberal" label anymore, Joe. Becasue that list could only be composed by a dualist extremist.

Oh, Joe, I see what you mean about not working with or having an editor...

Some questions: Are these all absolutes? Can we believe some or all of these apply in (in varying degrees) to some circumstances, but not others? How about believing that they are some factor, but not necessarily determinative?

It's a complex world and you're painting with an awfully broad, yet simplistic, brush.

Finally, as one or a thousand commenters are going to say, who, exactly, are you talking about? Your list doesn't fit any of the detractors you regularly call out (e.g. Atrios, Kos), nor does it fit most of the progressive blog writers I read. I read the comments here pretty closely and I haven't seen much of what you list here mentioned. You've constructed a fullsome strawman that's an easy foil to avoid the real confrontation of your critics, who bear little resemblance to your, frankly, vulgar, false depiction of them.

Hey, Klein. One more thing.

Why don't you spend as much time insulting righties as you do lefties?

Have a blech weekend!

"the best liberal idea in human history"
Wow.

So if I belive cooking food with fire was a better idea than capitalism, am I a liberal extremist?

Well, I guess you don't have to worry about the "liberal" label anymore, Joe. Becasue that list could only be composed by a dualist extremist.

You won't "name names" because you can't.

End. Of. Story.

I say look to the total clusterf--- that the Walter Reed thing has become due to OUTSOURCING services and responsibility to Hail, Haliburton. Are the outpatients being held hostage by paperwork SNAFUs because the VA is not funded enough to take care of these wounded warriors? Heck, maybe we can get more Army resignations over this. That ought to keep the military strong and improve recruitment.

Then when get over this one look to DoJ that smells all the way to Mexico City.

p.s. Atrios's Wanker of the Day = JOe Klein nets 389 comments, which is more than 10x Klein's at the time I checked.

Could this be poor Joe suffering feelings of blog inadequacy?

Nasty vicious blogger!

If anyone ever needs an example of a straw man argument, this is about as good as it gets.

Joe,

Your first 11 are beliefs. Your last 2 are tactics or behaviors. There is, as you well know, an enormous difference between beliefs and tactics. As such, I think you should be careful to distinguish between them.

Furthermore, the first 11 represent something of a coherent worldview, while the last two do not. If I reject one through eleven yet use either twelve or thirteen in my pursuit of other goals, it makes no sense to refer to me as similar to those with whom I may deeply disagree.

Or to put it another way: just because I can swear like a sailor does not mean I hold a certain set of political beliefs.

This post genuinely was crap. What a lousy definition. Most people on the left aren't advocating anything other than social programs as their "radical" agenda.

The whole language and civility thing just kills me. Again, Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot today. She called for the death of John Paul Stevens.

The media fawns over her. So why don't you quit the civility nonsense because it is a damned lie.
The media is corporate, and Ann Coulter doesn't challenge corporate journalism, so she can say these things.

Liberals aren't allowed to do it without being called dirty hippies.

McCain is a maverick. Democrats infight. It's a joke, you all never answer for the double standard, and this "list" of yours is freaking sad.

"believes the United States is a fundamentally negative force in the world." This is a version of Rumsfeld's "America ain't what's wrong with the world."

"believes that American imperialism is the primary cause of Islamic radicalism." Caricature of "Blame America First" rightwing talking point.

"believes that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not an individual case of monumental stupidity, but a consequence of America’s fundamental imperialistic nature." Who said this? Noam Chomsky?

"tends to blame America for the failures of others—i.e. the failure of our NATO allies to fulfill their responsibilities in Afghanistan." We started a war in Afghanistan for NATO to finish? I can't imagine what you're talking about.

"doesn’t believe that capitalism, carefully regulated and progressively taxed, is the best liberal idea in human history." Holy crap, it's true: we're being red-baited in 2007.

"believes American society is fundamentally unfair (as opposed to having unfair aspects that need improvement)." Yeah, I would say the living conditions of 16 million Americans living in abject poverty need improvement. Phew! I'm not an extremist!

"believes that eternal problems like crime and poverty are the primarily the fault of society." This is too stupid to be believed. If I wanted to hear this, I would read The Corner.

"believes that America isn’t really a democracy". You know, George Bush doesn't believe America is a democracy. Does that make him a left wing extremist?

"believes that corporations are fundamentally evil." Why didn't you just add the part about "...and lives in nudist colonies and eats nothing but granola?" If I wanted to read this, I would read The Corner.

"believes in a corporate conspiracy that controls the world." Just stop it.

"is intolerant of good ideas when they come from conservative sources." When they crop up, let us know.

"dismissively mocks people of faith, especially those who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage." Congratulations, Joe, you've just parroted Bill freaking Donohue!

"regularly uses harsh, vulgar, intolerant language to attack moderates or conservatives." Well, you've got me there.

Oh, and another thing. This civility thing is such a lunatic cop-out. Let's kill them all, let's intern them all. Feminazis, traitors, fifth columnists is all ok to keep in the media's good graces.

An F bomb means you are incivil. The media has no concept of context whatsoever. It's why they found Clinton's affair 10x worse than Bush causing 650,000 Iraqis to die. Broder is cheering for Bush's poll numbers to go up. Clinton on the other hand should have been run out of town.

There is something wrong with you people.

I'm confused, because it is generally right-wing extremist that believe that a rich and connected Jewish cabal (i.e. corporation) runs the world. And if someone of faith claims to be anti-abortion, yet continuously fights any and all measures (short of a total ban) that help to reduce the number of abortions (I'm thinking along the lines of contraception or sex-ed), they deserve to be mocked and/or cussed at because they are nothing but hypocritical little cowards who want to control other people and shame them for healthy behavior.

"--tends to blame America for the failures of others—i.e. the failure of our NATO allies to fulfill their responsibilities in Afghanistan."

As opposed to the folks who blame the Iraqis for not doing the democracy thing right?

"--believes that America isn’t really a democracy."

It isn't. It's a republican, representative form of government.

"--dismissively mocks people of faith, especially those who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage."

Golly, it's so wrong to mock people who don't believe in civil rights.

"--regularly uses harsh, vulgar, intolerant language to attack moderates or conservatives."

Boofuckinghoo.

So Joe, you're going to prvide evidence that Duncan Black, PhD in economics, believes in a corporate conspiracy that controls the world?

You're going to provide evidence that after serving in the US Army, Markos Moulitsas believes the United States is a fundamentally negative force in the world?

Wow.. did Joe Kline just have some sort of meltdown.
It's like he's just realized as far as political commentary goes he can "sound good in the studio", but out here infront of the biomass, he can't hack it.

[--tends to blame America for the failures of others—i.e. the failure of our NATO allies to fulfill their responsibilities in Afghanistan.]

I don't blame America, per se, I blame the idiotic and corrupt cretin currently occupying the White House and his cadre of losers who are screwing everything up. I don't blame the other countries from running away from the monstrous clusterfuck that they were creating. It seems to me to be a reasonable course of action.

"--regularly uses harsh, vulgar, intolerant language to attack moderates or conservatives."

I'm sorry, that's just the prissy demagoguery of a thin-skinned man. Totally out of place in the rest of the list (which is also pretty dishonest, classic strawmanism worthy of Bill O'Reilly himself).

The only one that even comes close to describing anything this vituperative pottymouth believes is:

"--tends to blame America for the failures of others—i.e. the failure of our NATO allies to fulfill their responsibilities in Afghanistan."

I don't blame America for this. I blame the arrogant, deliberately insulting anti-diplomacy of the Bush administration. And I blame the sanctimonious Broderists who act as if there should be no consequences to this administration's arrogant blundering, and that the Europeans should somehow the fences broke themselves and the bridges were struck by lightening, instead of calling on the Bush administration to do something to mend those fences and rebuild those bridges.

And, Joe, under what label would you put holier-than-everybody pundits who promote the notion that critics of Bush's incompetent war-planning and execution are rooting for terrorists to win? as you did a few short weeks ago.

What a silly post. As others have noted, without context, this is pointless. It is so general as to be meaningless.

Some of your laundry list might accurately define the tendencies of some "left-wing extremists," but for the most part the things you cite would need far greater discussion to be comprehensible.

Let's take for example:
"
doesn’t believe that capitalism, carefully regulated and progressively taxed, is the best liberal idea in human history."

There are innumerable problems with this as a defining characteristic of "left-wing extremism." For one thing, "the best liberal idea in human history" is an awfully grandiose statement. Does someone who think it's a great thing, but falls short of the best liberal idea in history qualify as a "left-wing extremist?"

More importantly, any sensible person understands that capitalism (as an economic/political system) has its strengths and weaknesses. Productive discussion lies in the discussion of each. I would agree that those that think it has only weaknesses are extreme. But it also follows that those that think it has only strengths are equally extreme. That seems a fairly obvious moderate, sensible understanding to me. Oddly, your "best idea in history" statement suggests that you, rather than being a moderate fighting against "left-wing extremists," in fact fall on the other end of extremism continuum when it comes to the value of capitalism.

PS: You're little "PS" is a neat trick too. Pretending to be too noble and above the fray to "name names", which at the same time neatly excuses you from having to admit that your argument is an attack on shadow monsters and strawmen. Cute. And incredibly dishonest.

"believes that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not an individual case of monumental stupidity"

This is your position about the war. You believe you were stupid ("and did I mention stupid?"). You believe the war was handled stupidly.

This is incorrect. The people who brought us this war knew exactly what they were doing. Millions of people were knew what they were doing. Yes Joe, you were stupid. But those of us who were not stupid are not extremists. We are simply not as stupid as you.

It's NATO's fault that we pulled troops out of Afghanistan and created a quagmire in Iraq. I blame all of the NATO allies for that. Can I be considered unextreme now?

Ann Coulter will be on your magazine cover again in the future and you know it Joe. Don't kid anybody. Find up another excuse as to why Coulter and her ilk get airtime, and progressives don't.

Joke Line said:
"It would be wildly stupid for me to get into a pissing match by naming names. I won't go there..."

Oh for Christ's sake Joe you ALREADY went there, when you named Atrios. WRT your list, NO ONE fits your description, and since you're (now) unwilling to name names, that just means it's a strawman.

Congratulations, Joker- you just called Atrios an ideological extremist, then created a strawman. All in a day's work for a Time Warner man...

(does anyone want to see a great takedown of Joke Line? Go over to Matt Taibbi's blog at Rolling Stone. It was beautiful.)

One step forward, two steps back. One point for actually reading comments, two demerits for acting like just another commenter in a stupid blogwar.

trifecta: If you read carefully, Joe said nothing about using foul language and vulgarity (or McCarthyesque smears or even death threats) against liberals or progressives. Apparently, in Joeland, naughty language is only "extremist" when directed at moderates and conservatives.

If there were any honesty and consistency to Joe's snivelling about I mean mature critiques of foul-mouthedness and vulgarity, Joe would be able to point proudly to the essay he wrote condemning his own magazine for promoting the Erinye Coulter.

Could you toss a link to that essay, Joe?

Joe, buddy, you already called Atrios a left-wing extremist. I honestly don't recognize any of this list in his work. Except the last one, and I'm sorry, but that's not ideological. Scatological, maybe, but not ideological. Not in any sense I understand the word. Did Time cut back on the dictionary budget there?

Hold it there, buddy. If one merely thinks that capitalism (properly regulated, of course) is merely ONE OF THE BEST liberal ideas in human history, rather than committing to it - rather than say gender equality, constitutional democracy, slavery abolition, religious freedom, or universal suffrage - being the BEST, you're an ideological extremist?

Joe, that is an ideologically extreme statement.

Dear Mr. Klein:

The following is a list of major left-of-center bloggers whom I happen to read:

Atrios
Kos
Digby
Angry Bear
J Bradford DeLong
Chris Bowers
Shakespeare's Sister
Ezra Klein
Matt Yglesias

Just so we're clear -- which of these bloggers do you believe fits your definition of left extremism, and why?

Second, if you conclude that none of these bloggers are lefty extremists, then why do you bother to discuss lefty extremism as though it were a relevant force in US politics or opinionmaking?

Bonus question: Which pundits who regularly appear on television or hold columns in the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, or Chicago Tribune qualify as liberal extremists?

Look, we're not just trying to catch you out with this Socratic stuff; we feel extremely strongly that you have this massive, soul-sucking unquestioned assumption poisoning your thought ("There exists a single major Progressive figure who displays more than one or two of these characteristics, and those arguably.") and that you'd be a much more effective journalist if you weren't stuck with it.

Shorter Joe Klein: Everything I know about the Left I learned from Karl Rove.

Why don't you get it? It's not about extremists on the right or left--it's about facts and the truth. It's not about writing off people because you peg them as one extreme or another. It's not about kneejerk definitions. It's about what's true and what's not. It's about not buying into the spin and pr and attacks from either side, but about finding and reporting truth, no matter what anyone says.

What is your job anyway, Joe? Seriously.

Joe,

what traits would you list for a right-wing extremist?...just curious.

I would list as one of the characteristics of a right-wing extremist:

Deliberately conflating criticism of the Bush administration with "America-hating". Which would make this post an example of right-wing extremism. And this post is signed "Joe Klein".

So.....

Mr. Klein,

I highly recommend reading Glenn Greenwald's most recent column on Salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/02/cpac/index.html

Perhaps this can explain to you why there is simply no comparison between left-wing extremists and right-wing extremists. It's not that right-wing extremists are worse. It's that right wing extremists are so accepted and carry so much power as to be fawned over by leading presidential candidates.

Left wing extremists are so unaccepted and carry so little power (properly so) that no Democratic figure gives expresses anything but abhorrence for the inappropriate extremist statements on Huffington Post. In fact, those statements were denounced by Arianna Huffington herself.

In other words, while most of the ire directed at you may be from the extremists on the left, if you want to do your country a service you should worry more about the extremists on the right. They are the ones that frighteningly wield real power to our nation's great detriment.

Take the Straw Man Quiz:

--believes the United States is a fundamentally negative force in the world.

I believe the United States is a positive force.
(I also believe that many people in the United States are negative forces in the world.)

--believes that American imperialism is the primary cause of Islamic radicalism.

I don't believe American imperialism is the primary cause.
(I do believe the Imperial attitudes of the current administration has inflamed Islamic radicalism.)

--believes that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not an individual case of monumental stupidity, but a consequence of America’s fundamental imperialistic nature.

I believe it was monumental stupidity.
(I believe it was also a carefully deliberated act, with the likely outcomes known.)

--tends to blame America for the failures of others—i.e. the failure of our NATO allies to fulfill their responsibilities in Afghanistan.

I blame the lack of contribution to the NATO force for our failure in Afghanistan.
(In 2005, the American troops in the NATO force in Afghanistan numbered 85)

--doesn’t believe that capitalism, carefully regulated and progressively taxed, is the best liberal idea in human history.

EXTREME!!!
I believe language, writing, fire and the wheel are all better ideas than capitalism.

--believes American society is fundamentally unfair (as opposed to having unfair aspects that need improvement).

I believe American society has unfair aspects that need improvement.
(I also believe that the fiduciary duties of corporate officers are in fundamental opposition to many of these improvements)

--believes that eternal problems like crime and poverty are the primarily the fault of society.

I believe that eternal problems are eternal.
(I believe that social problems are social)

--believes that America isn’t really a democracy.

EXTREME!!!
America is a Representative Republic.

--believes that corporations are fundamentally evil.

I believe the term "fundamental evil" is only used by by people who have no idea what they actually talking about.

--believes in a corporate conspiracy that controls the world.

DRAW!!!
I do not believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
I do believe in Multinational Capitalism and a Global Economy.

--is intolerant of good ideas when they come from conservative sources.

I believe good ideas can come from any source.
(I also believe the source will determine how the idea is in fact transmitted and implemented)

--dismissively mocks people of faith, especially those who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage.

EXTREME!!!
I dismissively mock people who argure for their right to keep people enslaved, to keep women from voting, to force women to bear children against their will, and to prevent people from marrying the person of their choice. I dismissively mock these people regardless of the reason for their hate.

--regularly uses harsh, vulgar, intolerant language to attack moderates or conservatives.

EXTREME!!!
Maybe you should try blowing your next post out your decrepit anus. It would probably smell better than this one.

How about that! It looks like I'm a centrist too!

OK, Joe Walter Reed is out in the Open, while the VA will probably get it next. And SPLAT the National Guard scandal that's been kept under the radar is about to hit the fan.
Hey, if Jay really gets more background on the DoJ crap he will get into such things as the intimidation of Immigration Judges, etc. by Gonzales.
It's heating up. Fire in the Hole or Mt Vesuvius?

Mandatory Busing and Consolidation of Schools helped no one. It did contribute to increased energy use and draining of funds from truly productive educational policies. Yikes, then out of this came home schooling and pre-Scopes trial-book burning yap. Not one of these have helped Johnny read or think. Forget math and science. Go for the steriods and anti-depressants.

You're "Reader's Bottom Line" bit sure is a great example of "smug rhetoric." Wouldn't you say?

Why not actually engage with the substantial critiques of your post?

Why is it so hard for you to reply to the thoughtful comments posted on this subject - you know, the ones you earlier called "bracing" - rather than a ridiculous, ridiculous straw man version of them?

Shorter Valentinian: is it Happy Hour in the Beltway already?

I call strawman. Those facets make up the classic 'some dirty f*cking hippie with a sign at a protest' definition which the mushy middle uses to caricature anyone to the left of them, and avoid engaging with them. It's a cop-out, Joe, and you're better than that.

I'll look forward for your definition of right-wing ideological extremism, but it'd be good to know the following:

Are TIME columnists Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer ideological extremists for advocating the US invade countries as a matter of course to advance foreign policy goals?

Is Michael Ledeen an ideological extremist? You know, the guy who, according to Jonah Goldberg, says "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business"?

Is Frank Gaffney an ideological extremist for touting a fake Lincoln quote as support for his belief that critics of the president are traitors?

These people are not dirty f*cking hippies with signs. They are powerful, influential hands on the tiller of US foreign policy. As such, their extremism matters a heckuva lot more than some dirty f*cking hippie with a sign.

Joe,

There was a fantastic b/w cartoon by Abstract Expressionist Ad Reinhardt back in the 50s. It depicted a HUAC hearing.

Depicted is a senator with a knife in his back face down at the lecturn, lawyers with their throats slit slumped over their chairs. Journalists laying in pools of their own blood. In the witness stand there is a bearded heavily armed beatnik looking man grinning.

The caption reads:

"Senator McNaboo Finally Finds a Real Communist to Testify Before the Committee."

I think this cartoon is very appropriate given your absurd unAmerican list. You have never met a real leftwing extremist. You wouldn't have lived to tell the tale.

faithfully

"he sure is a purveyor of extreme and terminally smug rhetoric."

If that's all it takes, you really need to sideline yourself.
Because you are Totally Extreme, dude.

And saying 'I feel uncomfortable naming names' is also a cop-out.

See, I don't even think Hannity is an ideological extremist. He's a well-paid entertainer, who plays his part on his radio and TV shows, in return for lots and lots of money.

I think he's a blowhard, and a propagandist, but compared to -- and I repeat this, with emphasis -- TIME columnists Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, he's basically harmless. The latter have lots and lots of blood on their hands.

Shorter Bottom Line:
I created an idiotic strawman, and it doesn't exists. So you guys all suck!

"--believes that eternal problems like crime and poverty are the primarily the fault of society."

Government policies do, in fact, influence how much crime and poverty exists in a society. LBJ's Great Society programs cut poverty in half, for example. Crime goes up as money becomes tighter on the lower rungs of society. Any first-year sociology student could tell you that.

"--is intolerant of good ideas when they come from conservative sources."

What "good ideas" would those be? Is that code for ideas like school vouchers and "privatized accounts" - both ideas that are intended to sabotage valuable social programs?

"--dismissively mocks people of faith, especially those who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage."

Most Americans support Roe v. Wade and gay civil unions. Although they are uncomfortable with the idea of "gay marriage" when so named, they aren't generally anti-gay and don't support the religious right's anti-gay agenda. The so'called "people of faith" whose agenda is essentially a combination of sexism and homophobia flavored with racism are, in fact, extremists, and do not deserve our respect.

However, your assumption that only these right-wing extremist "people of faith" are actual people of faith is offensive, and sneers at the millions of Americans - the majority of Christians, in fact - who do not think that having faith and hating gays are the same thing. To most of us who were raised as Christians, what the likes of Bill Donohue and Jerry Falwell preach isn't "faith", it's blasphemy.

"--regularly uses harsh, vulgar, intolerant language to attack moderates or conservatives."

Oh, grow up. The "f word" is just a modifier. Grown-ups are capable of ignoring such language for the sake of the larger discussion. It's astonishingly shallow for an allegedly literate person to think this is even worthy of bringing up. And no matter how many times Atrios or any other blogger may use this sort of language on a for-dog's-sake BLOG, it's not as if we were telling people to go Cheney themselves on the floor of the US Senate.

Context, darling. The only people who are using this kind of language on television news talk shows and in the Senate chamber are conservatives who support or are part of the Bush administration. We wild and crazy liberals confine such language to the blogosphere or private conversation. I don't use the same language when I write articles for the Guardian or The Baltimore Sun, when I write submissions to Parliament, or when I debate at Cambridge and Oxford. (Yes, these are things I have actually done.) Blogs are just blogs.

Smart, literate, articulate people don't have a smaller vocabulary than other people - we use ALL the words, we just write better sentences with them.

After reading the expected comments I won't pile on Joe, but even if all those caricatures of liberals were actually true, which they aren't, the extremism of the left will never compare to the right, because liberals don't call for violence against those with conservative views and philosophies.

Agreeing with Nick S about Hannity --

He used to the ACLU to get his college radio show back (after being dismissed for calling gays sub-human).

Sean Hannity will say and do anything for attention, without any ideological grounding. He has no core beliefs. He's a what happens when nihilism and anarcho-capitalism have a clown baby.

Damn! Joe found me out. Curses Joe, Yes burn the moderates! Send them to hades. Poverty is society's fault! Everything wrong in the world stems from America. America is a s***bag f**ked up c**t of a nation. Full of f*t F**ks and and their ugly f*t f**king hags of wives.God it's good to swear! Hitchen's is my hero, Kristol, Krauthammer and Douglas Feith my mentors. I'm good chums with Norquist as well. You supported my candidacy in the 2000 elections and it worked! Moderation lost out everywhere.

valentinian: Because Joe Klein is fundamentally incapable of engaging rationally anyone who dares to question him on substance instead of simply admiring his form, as we are all supposed to do. Joe Klein is an empty shell of a writer who long ago stopped doing anything resembling journalism based on facts.

When Joe says "Atrios may or may not be an ideological extremist--I was wrong to say he was, since I don't know enough about him," it is not an apology for lying factually about Duncan Black, but a recognition that he made a stupid mistake attempting to write something fact-based, hence capable of being challenged.

That's why he resorted instead to the vague and silly strawman list of "left-wing extremist" characteristics instead of answering the factual challenge we made to him, and then refused to name anyone to whom that list could be factually applied. If Joe doesn't state a fact, he can't be challenged on it.

This is his modus operandi. He's much better off staying smugly all form, no substance.

Joe Klein earns the Wanker of the Day epithet. Atrios is vindicated.

Klein overlooks one big fact.

Left Wing Extremists are not employed in MSM organs. To find them you have to troll the comments sections of liberal blogs. Right Wing Extremists are employed by various MSM organs and celebrated, including by Time magazine.

There is nothing a Right Wing Extremist can do or say that will make him/her unacceptable to MSM. Call for the murder of Bill Keller, Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Lincoln Chafee, advocate bombing of NYT building or as Ann Coulter did today call John Edwards a faggot. None of this matters. MSM will roll out the red carpet for you. You will be invited on talk shows as "commentator", "constitutional expert". You will get paid by MSM.

I challenge Joe Klein; name one Left Wing Extremist who is employed by MSM.

I can name you dozens and dozens who are employed by major MSM organs including AOL/Time/Warner.

Shorter Jokeline: I was peddling bullshit and got caught. So I'm going to start acting like a fuckwit.

Wow. I can remember reading some of your columns years ago and finding some reasonableness there. This post is a pristine example of illogic. The straw man that towers over the entire thing is but the beginning: you've assembled a smorgasbord of begging the question, false dilemma, affirming the consequent, hasty generalization, non sequitur . . .

What the hell happened to you? Too many years in the big media machine, I guess. Well, that and it probably wasn't a very good idea for you to start working without a net. Some people really need editors. It's nothing to be ashamed of, but it is something to be noted and respected.

Of course, since I just used the word "hell," you can feel free to disregard my comment as coming from a left-wing ideological extremist.

Alright, Joe.

Now that you have your measure leftist extremism, can you to find ONE PERSON in a high profile media position who meets these any of these criteria?

You know you said one good, honet thing in this post:
"I was wrong to say he was, since I don't know enough"

Too bad you couldn't have just left it at that.

I think Klein is cracking up. His post was simply hysteria. I lol in his general direction.

I lol in his general direction.

So long as you don't fart. That would be fucking vulgar.

I have to say, it is absolutely fascinating to watch this quasi-public breakdown.

"No one has ever said that America was an aggressive, imperialistic power in the world. "

Again, Joe, you're playing a game of "Bush equals America, ergo criticism of Bush equals hating America." I don't accept the first proposition, so either give some concrete examples to back up your whingeing and snivelling, or just be honest. It's faster. Name some names.
If I chose to reveal some personal details, you'd see how comical it is to decribe me as a "socialist", or even 'anti-corporate'.
As for being a lefty, I don't believe healthcare should be a privilege (and yes, I am willing and more than willing to pay more in taxes to insure those who have less than I do), I don't believe bigots and cranks should be allowed to enforce cherry-picked selections of Leviticus as the law of the land (is that bashing the religious? I consider myself to be a Christian.... Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers and all); and I think that the Bush administration is the worst in American history.
I know in most of the industrialized world, I'd be a center-rightist. In George Bush and Joe Klein's America, I'm a wild-eyed leftwing radical.
It's funny and sad at the same time.

"Readers' Bottom Line: There are no lefties left. There are no socialists left. No one has ever assumed that "corporate" equals "evil." No one has ever said that America was an aggressive, imperialistic power in the world. No one has ever accused anyone of "blaming the victim" when it comes to crime or poverty. No one--certainly no one in the blogosphere--has ever mocked Roman Catholics.
Jeez, that's a relief."

Joe, Joe, Joe. No one here claims there are no lefties -- just that your caricature of the left is absurdly wrong. Nor did anyone claim there are no socialists -- and did you actually think your hysterical list represented the characteristics of your average socialist? Several commenters clearly pointed out a distinction between "America" and "the Bush administration" -- a distinction you seem unwilling or unable to grasp. As for accusations of "blaming the victim" -- well, most logical people would recognize that there's a difference between finding fault in a system and blaming everything on that system. Finally, the mocking religious people bit? No specific mention of Catholics so I'm not sure where that came from, but if you would actually read your comments, you'd see that the commenters who addressed that one owned up to mocking religion when it's used as the backing for a hateful position.

As Mark Twain said, the man who doesn't read is no better off than the man who can't read.

'have to say, it is absolutely fascinating to watch this quasi-public breakdown.'

How many shots do you think he's had today? It's that, or he's a certified nutcase.

Also, DonB makes an excellent and important point about how there are no liberals employed by the media.

Phil Donahue, the last known liberal on television, was fired for his anti-war views concerning Iraq, even though at the time he had the highest rated show on MSNBC.

" It would be wildly stupid for me to get into a pissing match by naming names. I won't go there...And bear in mind, the characteristics above should be regarded as tendencies, not cast-in-stone beliefs."

Exhibit 1 in "How a chickenheart avoids the question"...

This post is just a collection of strawmen that exist only in the heads of delicate Beltway moderates and perhaps on a few blog comments. So what? This is like Jim Wallis whinging on about influential progressive "secular fundamentalists" attacking Christianity. He complains about them, but he can't seem to name one...

Can you show us where Duncan Black or Markos exhibit any of these nefarious tendencies?

Joe,

I tried to engage you several times today in some level of thoughtful discourse and have been summarily dismissed by your childish, passive-aggressive "reader bottom line." Evidently, your initial contention today, that exposure to reader feedback doesn't cause you insecurity, is correct, because at your core you believe we're all 'rabble.'

Go have another Vodka and pretend you're one of our betters. You've lost the respect of this reader...

Klein is of course speaking of Atrios. Funny thing is, the reason for Atrios's popularity is simply this: He is right about stuff. To my mind, he is not an "extremist" in any of the senses that Klein projects above. Far from it in fact. He expresses his views forcefully at times, but they are not extreme views at all. They are just correct.
.

Wow, I'm a left-wing extremist. And to think I just thought of myself as a well-read thinking human being.

I'm so disapointed.

By the way,

Killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis just might make the United States a fundamentally negative force in the world.

If American imperialism is not the primary cause of Islamic radicalism, does one have to believe that "they hate us for our freedoms?"

Did NOTO make us invade Iraq?,the failure of our NATO allies to fulfill their responsibilities in Afghanistan.

I'm sorry, I know this marks me as an extremist who is beyond the bounds of acceptable, moderate media discourse....

But what the fcuk is the fcuking point of this fcuking blog??
Weepy midnight soul bearing and Ideological purity quizzes? Is this fucking LiveJournal?

And now Washington Bureau Chief for Time Fcuking Magazine is saying that he can't investigate stories until everybody already knows all the facts?

I guess I've been coming back for the perverse thrill of watching the self-destruction, but continuing to staring at accidents this horrible... it's is just... rude.

Here my rightwing list:

"believes the United States is a fundamentally negative force in the world."

During the nineties clinton caught hell for intervening in Kosovo and inheriting Somalia.

"believes that American imperialism is the primary cause of Islamic radicalism."

Plenty of people, and i'll name names--Said Qutud, Sam Huntington, Shimon Peres rightly think that Islamic radicalism is a reaction to Western Modernity which to be fair is a great description of American Culture. Modernity and America are virtually synonymous.

"believes that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not an individual case of monumental stupidity, but a consequence of America’s fundamental imperialistic nature."

No serious historian would claim that wars are isolated acts of individual folly. A good history book will attempt to find general causes for wars. The Latin root of the word imperialism simply means to conquer. Imperialism simpy refers to military conquest. Hard to factor that reality out of accounting for war.

"tends to blame America for the failures of others—i.e. the failure of our NATO allies to fulfill their responsibilities in Afghanistan."

They've done a great deal better than the US has in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

"doesn’t believe that capitalism, carefully regulated and progressively taxed, is the best liberal idea in human history."

Conservatives think you are wrong. They don't like taxes and they don't like regulation.

"believes American society is fundamentally unfair (as opposed to having unfair aspects that need improvement)."

Slavery. Pretty rotten social institution. It created a very unfair situation for blacks that have not been solved yet.

"believes that eternal problems like crime and poverty are the primarily the fault of society."

There's no such thing as society according to Maggie Thatcher. So it is progress to even conceive of such a thing. I would say that poverty and crime are a result of too little society and too much grasping individualism.

"believes that America isn’t really a democracy."

Really a conservative postion. They always say: America is a republic not a democracy.

"believes that corporations are fundamentally evil."

Ask any small businessman what they think about corporations like Walmart. software developers about Microsoft.

"believes in a corporate conspiracy that controls the world."

The East India Company had a pretty good run controlling international commerce until the Boston Tea Party. Patriots in the US saw EIC as a conspiracy to impoverish them. Are you arguing with Sam Adams? Fear or corporations is more or less universal.

"is intolerant of good ideas when they come from conservative sources."

Realism and Realpolitik is a conservative idea. I know you don't like Realism. You sir are a left wing extremist!

"dismissively mocks people of faith, especially those who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage."

Muslim's faith is regularly dismissed. And frankly anti-abortionists and homophobic people are rotten.

"regularly uses harsh, vulgar, intolerant language to attack moderates or conservatives."

Wel lI don't know how you speak in private, but I hear Bush is a foul mouthed person. George Washington was profane as well. Patton was the biggest swearer ever. Conservatives all.

"This is a partial list, off the top of my head--additions and subtractions will be carefully considered. If readers would like, I'll give you my definition of right-wing extremism next week."

Your description works well to describe conservatives and not left wingers.

Joe, you really do need to grow up. First you post a blog entry containing a list of strawman attitudes that you claim are exhibited by left-wing extremists.
You state that you are not going to "name names", (which totally confirms the list to be a strawman) then you later decide to name Atrios, accusing him of being "a purveyor of extreme and terminally smug rhetoric". However, that charge never appeared in your original "laundry list".
This, not surprisingly, causes a number of readers to write in and point out that the list is a strawman and extreme archetype, bordering on caricature, and they also call you on the fact that you undermined your own position by naming Atrios, after saying that you wouldn't.
Your response? You come back and add a paragraph of petulant, dripping. sarcasm.
Joe, let me tell you what I think. You can absorb it or blow it off; that's the great thing about this medium.
Most of us are amateurs; we're not getting paid to write here. However based on a reading of this thread, I can see better argument and rhetoric in a number of the comments than in the original posting.
You are a journalist who is used to writing articles in publications and not having them challenged. That's not how this medium operates. This is a blog. If you write an article, it had better be well-written, well-argued and well-presented. If it isn't, you are going to have it cut up into tiny little pieces and spat right back at you. Which is exactly what has happened with this most recent posting.
Your reaction to having the weaknesses and inconsistencies in your posting pointed out? An attack of petulant, foot-stomping childishness. Sarcasm in this case really is the lowest form of wit. It completely undermines the credibility of your complaints about Atrios, and reveals you to have no patience for people who challenge your worldview and opinions. It also shows that you are immature enough to believe that you are entitled to have the last word, even if that last word is a pile of steaming brown fertilizer.
What this is showing is that you are not properly equipped at the present time for debate in the blogging world. Rhetorically, you have been engaging in the equivalent of bringing a pocket knife to a gunfight.
Until you dial back on the childish, petulant swiping at your readers, we're going to continue to have trouble taking your writings seriously.
Plus, if you wanted to further convince many of us of your fundamental lack of balance in your worldview, you couldn't have done it better by starting to list perceived left-wing extremist characteristics, on a day when Ann Coulter, that most attractive of reactionary conservative commentators, was apparently cheered for implying that John Edwards is a "faggot". No mention of that polite contribution to public debate from you yet, I see.

I guess 'smug' is in the eye of the beholder. Because this seems pretty smug to me:
"Listening to the leftists, though, it's easy to assume that they are rooting for an American failure.
And so a challenge to those who slagged me in their comments. Can you honestly say the following:
Even though I disagree with this escalation, I am hoping that General Petraeus succeeds in calming down Baghdad.
Does the thought even cross your mind? As for me, it's easy--I've been rooting for U.S. success ever since the invasion because, after the overpowering arrogance and stupidity that led to this disaster, we owe some peace and stability to the Iraqis and the region. For the record, I'm outraged Bush is ignoring the election results and the reality on the ground in Iraq. I think he is sending more young American lives into an impossible situation."

Besides the petulance and the self-agrandizment, note the logical contradiction: Joe Klein "hopes" that Petraeus will succeed in "an impossible situation".

It does nicely underline the utter uselessness of hope as a plan.

But it's still pretty smug and stupid.

"There are no lefties left. There are no socialists left. No one has ever assumed that "corporate" equals "evil." No one has ever said that America was an aggressive, imperialistic power in the world. No one has ever accused anyone of "blaming the victim" when it comes to crime or poverty. No one--certainly no one in the blogosphere--has ever mocked Roman Catholics.
Jeez, that's a relief."

Are you really that goddamned obtuse? You switch from the fallacy of generalization to instantiation faster than Bush switches war rationales. How the hell you get a freaking column is beyond me...

I just talked to Dinesh D'Souza (we shared a Turkish bath together), and he's threatening to sue Klein for plagiarizing his paranoid fantasies about the Left.

Weird thing is, he became strangely aroused.

"Dinesh D'Souza... Turkish bath... strangely aroused."

oh merciful christ jesus help me.

i'm going to go pour boiling oil in my eyes to wash that image out

I think we can all agree that if someone believed everthing Klein posits they would indeed be a lefty extremist. Look at that - agreement between Klein and Atrios' flying monkeys. Sunshine and kisses all around.

Mr. Klein -- The definition of liberal extremist is not bad, but it doesn't describe any major player in the liberal blogosphere. No doubt there are a few commenters [not frontpagers] at dailykos who fit, but you really are describing an extreme. People are taking offense because you seem to be calling us extremists when in fact we are not by your own definition.

[when I say 'not bad,' I mean mostly not bad. You have some bizarre views -- do you really think the failures in Afghanistan are primarily due to NATO? Is that why the Soviets failed there? Is that why most of the U.S. attention has been in Iraq? And do you really think capitalism a better liberal idea than democracy itself? Statements like these make you look insincere.]

But I think most interesting thing is your comment about bussing -- interesting because it is so 1970s. I think the fundamental reason the main stream media commentators are so out of touch is that your beliefs were shaped in the 60s and 70s.
Those battles are dead and gone. God, I want Obama to win if only because I couldn't stand reliving Vietnam and the rest of boomer issues again.

"There are no lefties left. There are no socialists left."

Sixty years ago, there was worldwide debate over whether the world of the future would be fascist, communist, or capitalist. Now, it is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism--at least, that's the case in American politics, political discourse, and pop culture. So, the burden of proof is on you to show us, specifically, where the evil influence of socialism is coming from. The notion/fear that there are socialists with influence is outdated by fifty years in the US.

"No one has ever assumed that "corporate" equals "evil.""

If you weren't straw-manning, this would read: "No one has ever assumed that individuals deserve the right to the pursuit of happiness more than corporations." But of course, it's standard Right ideology to cater to corporations even when it will result in individual suffering.

"No one has ever accused anyone of "blaming the victim" when it comes to crime or poverty."

If you're saying that it's your position that the responsibility for poverty lies with the poor, then that position is all yours. But it's not "moderate."

"No one--certainly no one in the blogosphere--has ever mocked Roman Catholics."

Again, it's good to see that you've got BILL DONOHUE's concerns at heart.

Joe, if you really want to claim these positions, it's time you stop thinking of yourself as moderate.

PS--A stupid pundit also starts to moderate comments when overwhelmed by negative reaction to his stupid punditry.

HAHAHA! My list of Stupid Pundit Traits was moderated, but not my postscript. What, did I say a naughty word?

FETCH MY SMELLING SALTS!

And would it kill you people to serve better snacks than Atrios?

going on this blog alone and the comments it has extracted, i would like to add something.

the difference between right and left is the right would have dismissed such a list as stupid and pointless and said no more on the subject.the right know they are right, everyone else is just confused. the left know equally that they are right and try at every oportunity to convince you of that. conservatives "know" the world will end up like them eventually so why waste time arguing.

you people are doing nothing to disprove the conservative right. being reactionary doesn't mean you have to react to every little thing. if you look at the list again, without the steam coming from your ears, you might just laugh at it.

Jeebus, the best part of being snowed in is hanging out here. Thank FSM the power didn't go out.

dude, joe, you are indeed totally extreme

rock on with the strawmen

"you people are doing nothing to disprove the conservative right."

I forgot that was our entire goal, as opposed to, say...mocking stupid pundits. But I am interested in your philosophy and would very much like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[avoids eye contact, backs away slowly]

So why are you commenting, damien?

That's what's called a "performative self-contradiction."

Your snide "Readers Bottom Line" comment reveals your bias. C'mon Joe, some of us commenters are pretty "left" by comparison to, oh, you for example, but your straw man list doesn't begin to capture our attitudes and ideas. As many above have pointed out, it really is as if you drank some kind of right wing talking point Kool Ade™ before you posted this weird and selective list.

There are VERY few thinking people in the blogosphere that I have come across that have anywhere near this crabbed a view of our country (or human nature, for that matter). Have you actually ever read a significant number of diaries on Daily Kos, or looked at the substantive discussions that Atrios starts? What world are you living in here?

I'm fairly curious how one defines the war of 1898 without talking about imperialism or empire. (Hawaii? Puerto Rico?)

For example is a British citizen an extremist if he refers to the history of the British empire?

Or would a Roman be an extremist if he referenced the Roman empire? (Hey - We're not really in Gaul. Move along...)

Or the 5th c. Athenians???

But to sum up: the above definition of "extremist", which necessitates a denial of imperial impulses or activities, is rather a-historical.

My first reaction was "Huh? What IS he talking about." My second, more well-considered reaction is "Admit it, Joe. You are purposely pushing our buttons just to get a reaction."

I think Joke Line needs to go on vacation.

I think Joke Line needs a vacation. Maybe Jay can fill him in on some relaxing spots, since the blue-eyed, even-tempered fella seems to be flying off the handle.

Joe:

YHBT. HAND.

"on a day when Ann Coulter, that most attractive of reactionary conservative commentators, was apparently cheered for implying that John Edwards is a "faggot"."

Joe Klein's magazine Time did a fawning cover issue about Ann Coulter. I don't remember Joe Klein lecturing his bosses at Time about "civility".

Joe Klein cannot name a single left wing extremist who works for a MSM organ. There are dozens of right wing extremists who work for MSM organs, including AOL/Time/Warner.

CNN which is owned by AOL/Time/Warner regularly invites Ann Coulter as a "constitutional expert". You won't hear any complaints from Joe Klein.

Interesting by way of comparision: from Edward Daley and circulated all over right-wing sites, comes the list, "You Might Be A Left-Wing Extremist Brainwashing Victim If..." Points relevant to Joe's list above, which as I see it has to do with foreign policy, economics, and finally religion include the following:

-you believe that the United States of America is an imperialistic nation.

-you believe that raising taxes on the "rich" will lead to economic prosperity for everyone else. cf. "believes American society is fundamentally unfair (as opposed to having unfair aspects that need improvement)."

-You believe that the U. S. Constitution prohibits the open recognition of God by our federal (or any state) government, and the exhibition of religious symbols on public grounds.
AND
-you believe that Charles Darwin's macro-evolution theory is a proven fact.
(cf. "dismissively mocks people of faith")

check it out:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22You+Might+Be+A+Left-Wing+Extremist+Brainwashing+Victim+If%22

They're obviously not identical lists, but it really looks like Joe's "moderate" views are a softened up version of the Right's.

"Atrios may or may not be an ideological extremist--I was wrong to say he was, since I don't know enough about him--but he sure is a purveyor of extreme and terminally smug rhetoric."

Why shouldn't Atrios be smug, he's been right about damn near everything for the last 4 or 5 years.

Have you actually read Eschaton? Or just the naughty parts?

By giving us his list of the hallmarks of left-wing extremism, Joe has also implicitly given us the creed of serious, sensible, decent liberals like himself. Such good folk believe:

That any war started by the U.S. should enjoy the presumption of benevolence until proven malignant, especially by the people whose countries we are bombing or invading.

That to consider whether U.S. actions in the Middle East had some impact on the rise of Islamic radicalism is thoughtcrime, because it excuses the terrorists.

That to talk of neocons’ pre-9/11 calls for war against Iraq as part of a strategy to preserve and extend American world power, and to note how many of those neocons ended up influencing Bush foreign policy, is to engage in wild conspiracy theories.

That it is always the obligation of all good nations to come to the aid of the poor United States in its wars, since (due to circumstances we need not inquire into too fanatically) we somehow found ourselves lacking the resources to do the job ourselves.

That Pinochet deserves the thanks of all decent liberals, for even if he skimped somewhat on secondary liberal principles like freedom of speech, due process, etc., he still held tenaciously to the best idea in liberal history: capitalism.

That “fair” is an unspeakable word in polite economic discourse.

That American levels of poverty and crime are the result of fundamental laws of physics, and that the apparent suspension of such laws in many Western European countries is a trivial anomaly which doesn’t deserve any serious consideration.

That the power of wealth to bend democratic institutions to its interests is an unspeakable topic in polite political discourse.

That corporations would not pursue their own interests at the expense of the public, would not fix prices, illegally pollute, cheat their workers of pensions and benefits, etc., because... because... everybody knows you just can’t get away with that sort of thing in AMERICA!

That to consider the role of (e.g.) energy companies in supporting Republicans in general and George W. Bush in particular is to engage in wild conspiracy theories.

That every decent liberal should get a tear in his eye and a song in his heart when he hears the phrase “people of faith”, and that all who anoint themselves with that phrase deserve nothing but respectful treatment even when they expose secular plots to turn our children gay with soy milk.

That somewhere under William Kristol’s pile of bullshit there must be a pony.

That I have given my left-wing fanaticism away by using the ugly word “bullshit” in connection with a respected member of the pundit class, whose decades-long record of cynical lying and war-mongering delusions is not nearly as transgressive of the standards of serious, decent liberals.

(I suppose it's too much to hope for to hear Joe or his defenders rise up in indignation to proclaim "Caricature! Simplification! Strawman! Don't put words in my mouth!")