I am often accused of being a right-wing conservative "Rethuglican" by those on the Left and a bleeding heart commie liberal by people on the Right. And the synthesis of these criticisms often make me out to be a moderate. While I am certainly not a moderate, I very much believe that we need moderate rhetoric and temperament in our political dialog and debate. A good friend of mine made this case far better than I can so have I included it below:

What bothers me is the absence of moderation--not necessarily in terms of political views but in terms of temperament and judgment--that is highlighted by shrill, self-promoting Manichean partisans like Malkin, Coulter, Olbermann, Maddow, etc. Honestly I don't remember a time in recent memory where I was less interested in politics. I'm not saying this is all good. After all, this is a time when our country is having big debates over important issues like health care. One big reason is that I still believe that the differences between our political parties, while real, are exaggerated. I realize that both sides vote differently (sometimes) and offer different agendas (if at all consistent)--but the reality is that together they have created the political culture in which major decisions are made and legislation is crafted. It's not just that they are bought and paid for by their respective interests and indulge in brazen hypocrisy as we've seen in the case of Christopher Dodd--though that's certainly the case. It's not simply the seduction of greed, perks and influence, though that certainly seems true. I'm thinking about how the Republican Party and Democratic Party have together created the channels and culture in which they operate, debate, compromise, pass legislation, and indulge in institutionalized, legal corruption. All this in an environment in which the electoral process powerfully shapes how decisions are made and votes are cast. The bailout vote in October was a powerful expression of this--Obama, McCain, Pelosi, Reid, Bush, the Republican leadership--all game and all in need of each other to support this. These parties are in a death spiral together and as Will has experienced and pointed out before, they control the electoral levers to prevent serious reform in the form of a major third party.

Listen in as I interview journalist Conor Friedersdorf. In this interview we discuss the state of conservatism and the GOP, the failure of the "Karl Rove strategy", and the importance of narrative in politics. Conor is one of my regular reads and is a refreshing voice of intellectual integrity in an ocean of partisan shills.

Conor Friedersdorf is a writer, editor and consultant. His credits include The Atlantic, Culture11, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, The Orange County Register, The San Bernardino Sun, Draft Magazine, and many others.

Recommended readings from Conor Friedersdorf:

• Electric Kool-Aid Conservatism
• Substance Matters
• Whiplash Watching the Right
• There's Nothing to Fear But All the Awful Things That Might Happen
• No One on The Corner Has Swagger Like Rush

Items mentioned in this video:

• 
  Is the U.S. No Longer a Christian nation?<!--li>
• Facebook comments
• Kevin McCullough
• Os Guinness: The Case For Civility
• Liverpool FC
• St. Bernardus Abt 12

In order for this to be a conversation, I need your help and participation. While most people are comfortable with text comments on blogs, I think we miss out on the spoken word and hearing from real people. As such I would ask that you click the icon below to be connected to my voicemail to leave your thoughts on this week's topic. While I would prefer that you leave your name and where you are calling from, it isn't required. Feel free to leave comments below as well.

The problem with the guilt by association story regarding Wright and Ayers is that is assumes that we can read the mind of Obama and know his "true" motivations. It assumes that more than simply being a rather left wing politician, that he is particularly deceptive and sinister in his ultimate goals. I had an interesting FB comment exchange with some "true believers" last night. I found this rather enlightening and disturbing.

Walt - Gotta agree with Mary Katherine Ham: the Obama campaign is predictably whiny about Ayers: http://is.gd/3xgw.via Twitter - 11:05pm

Will Hinton at 11:09pm October 4 The Ayers story is a non-story.

George Lincoln at 11:12pm October 4 obama's strong ties to terrorist William Ayres is a non-story only to those who want black moslem leader barack hussein osama obama bin ladden to sieze control over America, turning it into the 58th islamofascist state.

Will Hinton at 11:14pm October 4 And now the nut-jobs come out of the closet.... :)

Close Shmose [Jonah Goldberg] I trust Stan entirely that Obama and Ayers were in fact close. But look: even if they weren't that close it would hardly mean Ayers is insignificant. Anyone who understands politics understands that who a president listens to is relevant. Who will the commander-in-chief let in the room? From what direction will he take advice? Who is on his "team" and who isn't? What's a reasonable argument and what isn't? Even if Obama personally disliked Ayers and disagreed with his politics in meaningful ways, Obama still found Ayers to be someone worth listening to and working with. Ditto Jeremiah Wright. They were in his tent, not outside it. Ayers and Wright may be more extreme than Obama. Indeed, they surely are. But there is very little evidence in the record that Obama's ideological compass doesn't point in their direction. I don't think Americans should be single issue voters on the Ayers stuff. But I think it is absurd to argue — as the NY Times implicitly does — that this is all meaningless because Obama and Ayers were allegedly less than soulmates. Again imagine a similar relationship between McCain and an abortion clinic bomber and the Times running a story a month before the election reassuring that it's no big deal because McCain and Mr. Planned Parenthood Bomber weren't "close."

Jonah, like many conservative commentators, seems to have lost his critical thinking abilities during this election because of his intense emotionally charged desire to beat Obama at all costs. He can't separate what he wishes to be from what is. I think what is most disturbing about this trend is that pundits and journalists on both sides have inserted themselves into influencing this election in a more explicit way than ever before. We know that media has always had tremendous influence in this regards but never have they been so obvious about it.

Listen in as I interview Todd Bouldin of Pepperdine University.

I am in the midst of reading Os Guinness's new book, The Case for Civility. I have had high expectations for this book and so far I am not disappointed. In my mind, Guinness is the foremost expert of this topic, which is too often misunderstood. He makes this point in the first chapter.

"This short essay is a proposal for restoring civility in America, as one model for fostering civility around the world and helping to make the world safe for diversity. But civility must truly be restored. Is it not to be confused with niceness and mere etiquette or dismissed and squeamishness about differences. It is a tough, robust, substantive concept that is a republican virtue, critical to both democracy and civil society, and a manner of conduct that will be decisive for the future of the American republic."

Last week I wrote Regretting Bush about my gradual disillusionment with the Bush administration. More than most things I write, I was particularly interested in the response of various readers to this piece. I cross-posted this article at both RedState and DailyKos ( I regularly cross-post at both) as a way of gaging the response of the more partisan and ideological.