I don't advocate an Angry Right. Two angers don't make a right, so to speak.

That being the case, you should spend more time upbraiding the Angry Right (as they may listen to you) than the Angry Left (who was not angry until the Angry Right's misgovernance affected us all). At least the Angry Left's anger is justified.

It's almost funny seeing the reaction Arnold gets for his observation about PopTech! He is the psoter child in the blogosphere for thinking things out, providing reasoned arguments, not getting caught up in hysteria. He points something out about the groupthink hysteria of a lockstep left these days, and he is villified, personally. All it does is further make his point! That's what's so almost funny about it.P6 asks about the angry right. Here is a hint about the angry right. They don't matter. Look to the recent California election. Yes, we tossed a loser of a governor. And simultaneously, by an overwhelming plurality, we told the angry right (embodied in Tom McClintock, who has smart fiscal policy but carries all the screwy right baggage) to go away. The guy and his supporters are totally marginalized in Republican Party poliitics in this state. They should have gotten behind Governor Arnold. They didn't. It didn't matter. Worst possible outcome for the Angry Right.-Brad

Brad beat me to the punch. The Angry Right don't have much pull. Just like the Angry Left and Lieberman, the Angry Right is pissed off at Bush (mainly over the budget and his pandering to the AWB-renewal types.) They aren't getting anywhere on those points, and no one hears from them. Marginalizing them is probably one of the strongest political moves the Republicans have made in a long time. (I don't know that I agree on principle, but as a political mechanic, it was a strong move.) The converse of that is that if the Angry Left gets the nomination, 2004 is done. The election becomes about 9/11/01, and the question is, "What would you do if a nuke goes off in New York?" (I started to say San Francisco, since it is a more logical tactical choice, but the Angry Right would say "send the PRK a fruit basket?")

If you gentlemen were progressives you're recognize the "shrill" bit as an in-joke. Think Krugman.

I don't listen to hip-hop.

Krugman = hip hop?I don't get it.

From the South Park movie:GENERAL: After the show, we will finally be sending ground troops into Canada. So let's strategise! [to control room] Map! [a holographic map appears] Our sources have told us that the Canadians are preparing for our invasion, so we must use caution. Each battalion has a specific code-name and mission. Battalion Five, raise your hands. [all blacks raise their hands] You will be the all-important first attack wave, which we will call, "Operation: Human Shield".CHEF: Hey, wait a minute!GENERAL: Now, keep in mind, "Operation: Human Shield" will suffer heavy losses. Battalion Fourteen? [all whites raise their hands] Right. You are, "Operation: Get-Behind-The-Darkies". You will follow Battalion Five, here. And try not to get killed, for god's sake! Are there any questions, men? [recognising Chef] Yes, soldier?CHEF: Have you ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation?GENERAL: I don't listen to hip-hop. If you were a South Park fan, you would get it.

Cool.What's that got to do withthe topic at hand?

I've taken the phrase "I don't listen to hip-hop" as my standard response whenever anyone starts using words that have absolutely no meaning (or alternately, no importance) to me.