I think its a good point, because I'm increasingly aware that the intense polarization of the electorate is largely a result of the dehumanizing rhetoric being used--intensely and mostly by the left:

But they are precisely the sort of dingbat, tendentious reductio ad absurdum questions that I'll expect to hear from febrile talk radio yakkers outlandish political snuff ads.

...but also on the right.

Nancy Pelosi and the rest of her corrupt, earmarking buddies have essentially mandated toxic waste in every household in the U.S. just to glean a little environmental virtue for themselves

Yeah, I wrote that. Its somewhat milder than Josh Marshall's screed, but the effect is the same--red meat for the faithful, but alienation for the unwashed masses with the wrong political persuasion.

This isn't a mea culpa--a title like "Nancy Pelosi Wants to Kill Your Children" is an effective marketing device. Note that entire web sites are devoted to exposing the outrageous statements of the left for conservatives, or of the right for progressives. Rush Limbaugh is of course the master of this--using provocative language to draw his "victims" into more productive conversations on actual policy.

Frankly I don't care what the left does--if they want to alienate people with puerile nonsense, then I say let them. The Talking Points Memo I just quoted is an object lesson in how not to engage in political debate, because frankly there was no point being made except that Marshall etal hate Tim Russert or anyone engaged in thought-crime.

As conservatives though, we actually have a message that bears contemplation and reflection. The challenge is how do we get people who aren't conservatives to look past the hate fest and listen to the arguments?

Rove isn't calling for civility for civility's sake--he's making the point that a fine steak dinner is easily ruined by smells emanating from a nearby cesspool.

The left uses emotional overload to sneak fallacious ideas into the public consciousness. Consider Senator Obama's standard assertion about George Bush's failed policies and particularly tax cuts for the rich.

"Failed policies" is an assertion, not an argument and you know as well as I do that the argument was never made. The idea of failure was simply repeated ad nauseum in the context of "Bush is Hitler"--a fallacy called a complex question. You hitch a proposition that you want the public to accept, to one they already accept, thereby getting the proposition carried through to acceptance without critical examination.

Tax cuts for the rich is similar emotional drivel. No argument is made, just an emotional association with all the myths and urban legends about "the rich". To be honest, I hate the rich as well, or more properly, I hate some of the rich for how they got rich and even more so for how they stay rich.

Tax cuts for the rich masks the Democrat intent to tax the poor and middle class through higher prices and higher unemployment. The taxes are not imposed directly, so they are in effect "invisible" to the victims of a socialist conspiracy. Where is this conspiracy? The tougher things are for the lower and middle classes, the easier it gets for Democrats to sell the proposition that there is a need for more entitlement programs. This of course requires even more taxes and the cycle continues to its logical conclusion.

97% of Cuba's population works for the state. 60% in France.

Do you see the paradox in Democrats hating Walmart because it pushes out the little guys and support for a government paradigm that steam rolls the entire private sector?

The evidence for this is overwhelming, but it does little good if everyone who needs to hear it is locked into a political cult that forbids communication with outsiders. Its clearly time for some missionary work and everything that implies.