The big closed-information-loop discussion continues...since I've posted several times on the subject, here are links to recent contributors.
Julian Sanchez returns and offers some worthwhile thoughts on the issue, and the debate. Conor Friedersdorf has not one, not two, but three terrific posts up. One on the notion of conservative entertainers, another on the Manzi/NRO flap, and then one skewering Jonah Goldberg. All terrific if you're interested in the topic. There's also Anonymous Liberal weighing in, and E.D. Kain.
My main point after all this is the same I had at the beginning: the real test of whether conservative (and Republican) decision-makers really believe the nonsense rhetoric that they often use will be Sarah Palin, 2012. For there can be no question but that a lot of Republican pols act as if they are fully captured by what Andrew Spung calls the "screamosphere" -- thus the endless repetition of factually incorrect assertions, such as the "10/6" and "16K" claims about health care reform. But of course pols of all stripes -- not to mention propogandists such as those on talk radio -- have never been known for being especially careful about facts. What one would expect, of Republican politicians and conservatives more generally, is that they would make cool, careful appraisals of their choices for the presidency in 2012. If they are using the same information to do so that the rest of us use, they would never even consider supporting Sarah Palin -- on the grounds that she's unpopular with the American people, on the grounds that she's not apt to be very good at being president, and on the grounds that she's proven no loyalty to Republicans or even conservatives (who do you think she was going rogue from?). Collective support for her candidacy (or, for that matter, support for Newt Gingrich, but I assume that he's even less likely to put it to the test) would be very strong evidence that they were ignoring that evidence.