1) Don’t you feel a little bit like a follower jumping on all this Paul Hackett furor? (Get it?)

Not at all. I was in the vanguard of realizing just what Paul Hackett represented. Here’s how I wrote up Hackett’s failed congressional bid over a year ago at the Weekly Standard’s site:

While Hackett shared little with the liberal blogosphere in terms of substantive positions, they did have one thing in common--a mutual fondness for bilious and spiteful rhetoric. While some may cherish Hackett's bluntness, the attorney's choice of words at times made him sound as though he was channeling Michael Moore.

During the campaign, Hackett referred to President Bush as a "chicken-hawk son of a bitch." Later, Hackett posited that the president posed a greater danger to the United States than any other threat.

With his surprisingly strong showing under his belt, Hackett now has a glittering political future, yet he continues to speak in a manner that might be appropriate for a blogger, but seems beneath the dignity of someone who wants elective office. A few days ago, for instance, Hackett called Rush Limbaugh a "fat-ass drug addict."

Does Hackett's rhetoric portend the Democratic politics of the future as politicians try to sound angry enough to please the party's e-base? Don't bet against it.

At the risk of tooting my own horn, I think those words are rather prescient.

2) Who are you kidding? You’ve never been shy about tooting your own horn.

This isn’t about me. Can’t you stay on topic for two questions?

3) But it is about you. You get all bothered because Hackett called Dan Senor an Unterfuhrer and yet you call people names yourself. Do you or do you not frequently employ the term “nutroots”?

Guilty as charged. Indeed, I think a long time ago I may have invented the term “nutroots,” or more accurately, stolen it from an email I received and then popularized it. But, if I may be so bold as to identify the obvious, there is a clear difference between me referring to the “nutroots” and Hackett calling the son of a Holocaust survivor “Unterfuhrer.”

The latter is deeply offensive, the former is not.

4) Who are you to say what’s deeply offensive?

It’s a common sense thing. Which explains why it so eludes members of the angry left. Look, I don’t find the term “wingnut” offensive; it’s a childish putdown, in the same class as “nutroots” but without any of “nutroots’” cleverness. But I’ll make you a deal – if anyone except Anonymousmaestro says they find the term “nutroots” deeply offensive, I’ll stop using it.

5) Why exclude Anonymousmaestro? Is that fair?

I’ll compromise – if he puts his complaint in one of those clever poems, he too can play.

6) Don’t you think we’d all be better off if we stopped calling each other names?

Of course. We’d also all be better off if the world were populated by saints. Big deal. Again, name calling seldom reflects well on the name caller. But we have a corresponding problem in our society, and that’s that the grievance industry is always primed to suck the juice out of public discourse by disingenuously declaring their offense over a particular matter. Again, the arbiter must be good judgment and common sense.

7) Has Hackett apologized for his insult?

Quite the contrary. He went on the radio yesterday and doubled down. Host Mark Levin eloquently countered, “So you’re going to be a schmuck.” (Levin was truly awesome – follow the link and listen to the conversation.)

8) What’s this tell us about Hackett?

Nothing that we didn’t already know – he’s a mean spirited guy. Hackett’s appeal to the angry left was based solely on this unseemly characteristic. He’s a bully, and like all bullies he doesn’t know when to shut up. Paul, in case you’re reading – We all know you’re a tough guy. You don’t have to behave like a sociopath to further hammer home that point.

9) But shouldn’t we honor Hackett for his military service?

Of course. Military service is something we honor, but it doesn’t give a person carte blanche to say or do anything they like without reproach. Bob Dole served, and suffered grievously for his service. Somehow I don’t remember that fact insulating him from the media’s accusations that he was mean spirited.

10) You’re a chickenhawk!!!!

Actually, I don’t think I meet the typical progressive’s textbook definition of a chickenhawk, but I will concede that I am a profoundly flawed individual. If I asked a psychologist about my self-loathing issues, I’m sure he would tell me that in my case self-loathing just represents reasonable judgment.

But I digress. I would venture to say that everyone in the punditocracy (like everyone in the world) is a deeply flawed person. But because none of us seek office, our personal flaws really aren’t germane. We run ideas up the flagpole – that’s all we do, right and left. Attacking the character of a writer is a pathetic substitute for actually engaging his ideas. You should be ashamed of yourself.

11) If you think I’m going to apologize, you’re crazy. It’s not like I called you Unterfuhrer or something.

I think we’re done here.

Compliments? Complaints? Email me at Soxblog@aol.com.