DemfromCt pointed out this gem from the absurd Hugh Hewitt:
[T]he intellectual seriousness of the center-right blogs is simply light years ahead of the left. That seriousness means an appreciation for argument, self-correction, and a willingness to absorb and respond to new information, which are habits which if transferred to center-right activists generally and the GOP specifically, will strengthen effectiveness at every level.
Hewitt cites RedState as one of these "serious" blogs. Here's an example of Red State seriousness on Rove-gate:
The latest talking point comes courtesy of today's New York Times article . . . But, [Cooper] wrote: "Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the C.I.A. and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the 'agency' on 'W.M.D.'? Yes.
Gotcha! Scream the shrieking Kossacks. Rove claimed to have learned this information from the media, but here's Cooper contradicting that story!
Uh no. What the Left blogs say, you intellectual giants of the "Center Right," is that Cooper's testimony is evidence that Rove LEAKED Plame's identity TO the Media. Frankly, the question is NOT where Rove got his information from, it is who he passed it on to. But what can we expect from these intellectually "serious" people who argue that since Rove did not say Plame's name he did not leak her identity and believe that Wilson and Plame are actually TARGETS of Fitzgerald's investigation?!? I kid you not.
But, the lack of intellect, much less seriousness, is not the only notable quality of the "Center Right" blogs. Their reaction to Tom Tancredo's execrable comments regarding the nuking of Mecca evidences their moral bankruptcy as well. I'll discuss that in extended.
The Right Wing Blog Queen Michelle Malkin is a prime example:
My friend Rep. Tom Tancredo is in hot water for his remarks about how we should react in response to an Islamist nuclear attack.
Rep. Tancredo's remarks were most certainly unwise, and he should do the right thing and retract them quickly. The controversy does raise a very serious issue: What should we do to deter the jihadist threat, nuclear or otherwise?
Unbelievable. Unwise?!? Advocating a nuclear attack on Mecca in the wake of a terrorist attack in the United States is unwise? That's all?
No, it is not unwise. It is insane.
More than that, it would be mass murder. It is as morally repugnant an idea as has been forwarded by a public figure in America in recent times.
And let me give credit where credit is due, the Right Wing Captain's Quarters gets it right:
I think the "ultimate response" to Tancredo's apolcalyptic [sic] fantasy is that we don't bomb civilians in response to terrorist attacks, no matter how seductive such a response might seem. The idea that the US would retaliate in such a manner should be repulsive to any rational person, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum.
And yet, it is not repulsive to the "intellectually serious" Right Wing blogs. Hewitt himself says:
Let me be blunt: There is no strategic value to bombing Mecca even after a devastating attack on the U.S. In fact, such an action would be a strategic blunder without historical parallel, except perhaps Hitler's attack on Stalin. Anyone defending Tancredo's remarks has got to make a case for why such a bombing would be effective.
Of course only a lunatic could think it had strategic value. But only a morally bankrupt person could even ask the question.