Thanks for the kind words BH.
...and its ok, I don't condem everyone who listens to Olbermann or reads the Daily Kos either.
In some ways I'm wishing your two threads could merge or possibly spawn a 3rd thread - something along the lines of the tendancy to paint with a
broad brush and the encouragment of some of the media to do it.
I am not accusing you of doing such painting. Rather, it is something I see both sides doing at times.
I'll give an example from real life. Just the other day I was talking with a man who was really hoping Obama's health care got passed. I asked his
reasons. He said there were many without insurance that needed coverage. He knew many poor that although they had coverage they still stuggled with
med. care and costs. Lastly, he had a personal reason - his very own job did not provide any type of health plan.
Ok - to play the role of the late Paul Harvey and tell the "rest of the story". This man's job is that of a minister in a Pentacostal Evangelical
chruch. He is about as much of a "bible thumper" as you will find. He and his church believes in (and pratices) speaking in tongues, etc. The
most I've heard him say in a sermon about Obama is actually the same as he said about Bush. Which was "Pray for the leaders of our country."
So, even with the organization of relgion on the right - it cannot be said that all even in the pentacostal / evangelical movment, can be painted with
the political extremism brush. Some certainly - but not all.
One question is - is there enough on either side to pose a danger?
The other question is - Don't they both really do the same thing in the end?
One of the best articles I've seen on this recently happens to be from the Huff. post.
The Dangerous Joining of the Far Right and Far Left
One difference I see between the exterme groups (or even individuals) on the right would the organization offered. In the one (the right) it is the
religious beliefs (and groups) you mentioned. The other (the left) seems more "loose". Certainly there are some causes that far left groups form
around (environment, anti-goverment, etc). However, most of individuals that seem to form the far left.. hmmm.. I'll admit I'm stuck for a unifying
cause other than "anti-right" and would welcome help here. By these smaller groups or individuals I'm talking about the ones in my earlier post
that wrote the song, busted up the Bush HQ, etc.
As for the propaganda of each side. That isn't too hard.
From the right there are the ones you mentioned (Beck, Rush, etc) also O'Reilly various websites (WND, Free Republic, etc).
For the left - just flip the coin over and you'll find much the same (Olbermann, Maddow, Daily Kos, etc.)
The blogsphere on both sides has plenty of exterme views.
My two cents - not everone who doesn't approve of all Obama does is a racist or a relgious nut. Not everyone who thinks trees are pretty good things
in an enviornmental whacko.
My theory is there are way more moderates on the left AND the right than there are extremists. So, why do we let the extremes get so much air-time
and influence on each side? Why do we let the squeakiest wheels keep getting so much grease? I mean, if we look at these wheels we have one on the
left and one on the right that just really cause chaos and throuble. Maybe if we just stopped giving them grease they'd fall off and we could be on
our way without all that noise.