There are a couple of approaches a partisan political blogger can take to a post. There is "Inform and Advance" (as in "inform the reader; advance the discussion") and there's "Inflame and Annoy" (as in "inflame the choir; annoy the rest"). Most bloggers employ a bit of both—"inform and advance" alone doesn't make for very interesting reading, and "inflame and annoy" on its own tends to come off as psychotic ravings. I wanted to point out a post at one of the extremes. I'll leave it to you to figure out which extreme, but I'll give you a hint: I read it at NC Rumors.
It was difficult to find a part of the post to excerpt—they're all about the same. Here are the first two paragraphs:
The free-love generation that despised social restraint, the forever-reckless crowd that never grew up, is destroying our culture and sacrificing our young on the alter of tolerance.
Within 50 years, American culture has degenerated from a nation promoting sound ethics, manners, restraint and self-respect into a culture overrun with tattooed, pierced, drugged-up, sexualized reprobates of every kind.
The author, Laura Adelmann, has set herself a difficult task: not only does she need examples to back up her claims, but data as well that show that her examples aren't just blips and outliers. How does she deal with this responsibility? She ducks it entirely. Read the article and search in vain for one fact or reference. It's just a rant.
I bring this up not because Adlemann's post deserves attention, but because it exemplifies something to be vigorously avoided in political conversation. I want to be perfectly clear: I'm not talking about the political and social points Adlemann makes, repulsive though they may be. Many people across the political spectra seem to think that it's productive to talk without listening, to argue without any intent to persuade. This kind of writing only makes it harder to move the ball.