Noting the current crop of books by Al Franken, Molly Ivins, James Carville, David Corn and other liberals who canvass the mendacity of the Bush administration and its apologists, Slate media columnist Jack Shafer cautioned against their obsession with lying in high places.

"In excavating conservative bullshit," Shafer said, "these writers begin to resemble their colleagues on the right. Their primary mission isn't to uncover lies and reveal the truth. If it were, they'd chart the deceptions and propaganda emanating from both political wings. Their only goal is to win one for their side."

Putting aside that scales of manure are heavily tipped to one side, it's curious that the most blood-curdling rantings on the right seldom elicit such stern rebukes. Gentle tut-tutting is the standard mainstream reaction to, say, Redneck Nation author Michael Graham's observation last May on Chris Matthews' Hardball program that "anyone listening to Hillary Rodham (Clinton) in her speech last week about patriotism — that screaming, screeching fingernail — I wanted to bludgeon her with a tire iron."

Earlier this month, Maryland's Republican first lady, Kendel Ehrlich, chose the odd forum of a conference on domestic violence to disparage Britney Spears' makeover from a former member of the Mickey Mouse Club to a Rolling Stone sex-kitten cover subject.

"Really," Ehrlich said, "if I had a chance to shoot Spears, I think I would."

Erhlich's home state Baltimore Sun promptly exonerated her for "an occasional satisfying — and meaningless — remark."

I've lost track of all the people conservative pundit Ann Coulter wants to see dead. The short list runs to leaders of certain Muslim states, Al Qaeda captive John Walker Lindh, Al Gore and feckless Bush Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta.

Coulter also says her "only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."

Last summer, she and her best-selling Treason were showcased in the Style section of a nonplussed New York Times.

The hypocrisy bar is set very high for conservative agitators.

[...]

[W]hat's called for in dealing with mountebanks like Limbaugh is a nuanced media response, says Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post's influential media critic. Like Shafer, Kurtz warns against stooping to the levels of the wing nuts in condemning them.

"It seems to me," Kurtz said last week, "that those who revel in kicking the guy are exhibiting some of the very excesses they criticize in ideological warriors like Limbaugh."

I don't know about kicking them. But if a gentle soul like Tim Robbins is dis-invited from a celebration of Bull Durham's 15th anniversary at the Baseball Hall of Fame for politely disagreeing with Bush's war policy, it seems reasonable to at least ask if violence-inciting nutbars should be granted continued access to the publicly owned and regulated airwaves.

The ideological extremists profit handsomely from this double standard. Which mystifies even them.

Neo-cons have "created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective," Matt Labash, a senior writer at Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard told an obscure journalism Web site last May.

"It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it, too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it, actually."