the left seems confused. take this typical formulation; indeed virtually every columnist, blogger, and hawking ted is uttering the very same words in the very same order. they decry their opponents' attempt to "vilify" their beloved pres. then they mechanically reel off a series of vilifications of their opponents, with all the imagination of xerox machines: wing-nuts, wack-jobs, mobs, teabaggers, racists, extremists. "wingnuts dehumanize their opponents" is an extremely odd formulation, as though you are incapable of applying your own dearest principle consistently even for the length of the single sentence in which you are expressing your devotion to that very principle.

then, there's guilt-by-free-association, and anyone who ever put a question to her congressman is connected to the alleged rerise of right-wing militias, murderers and so on. then they decry the disintegration of civil discourse. one thing that the death panels could help them with: if the brain displays no intellectual activity at all, it's time to pull the plug, though these zombies retain a rudimentary capacity for mimicry: dead three days, but doing the macarena.

anyway, what i don't understand is the editors. paul krugman or maureen dowd or e.j. dionne or frank rich or gene robinson or your pale imitation of them writes today exactly what the others wrote yesterday, down to the sentence structure. and i guess you go, that's clever. let's print that. again and again and again. if there's one thing no one can stand, it's a fresh juxtaposition of words or ideas, which might compromise our undoubted status as automota or somniloquists.