We have an odd little audience here, politics-wise. I'm a liberal, but based mainly on libertarian principles, so my writing tends to drag in a fair bit of moderate righties. I Miss Republicans got heavy, and complimentary, coverage in a bunch of conservative blogs.
I do my best to be play nice with these folk. There's a strict no-flame war rule in the comments. Make your argument with facts (or overwhelming style, that counts too) or move on. Had a lovely chat with some of them over the activist judges post, and school prayer. I don't agree with them, but I get the point. For example, I get if the reason you're anti-choice is because you don't like abortion. However, I have a hard time with the pick-and-choose style pro-life argument. We have an infant mortality rate higher than Cuba's, and abstinence programs just don't work. How many abortions are you willing to endure because you hate the word "condom"? I disagree with you on the "morning after" pill -- which is not an "abortion" pill, by the way, but science has never been anyone's strong suit -- but theoretically understand your objection to it. However, you can't then turn around and support pharmacists denying women access to birth control pills.
Again, I'm annoying, dismissive, overly judgemental and sarcastic -- but at least my positions are internally consistent.
Anyway, there's a fellow over across the aisle I've been digging lately. He's a bit stunned at where his party's gone since the Schiavo mess. He has a truly rare streak of intellectual honesty. And yet I still disagree with him probably %50 of the time, which is the sign to me that it's someone I should keep reading.
Added next week to the sidebar (when my deadline's over) is John Cole.