What I like about the extended and probably quixotic campaign Conor Friedersdorf is carrying on against Republican entertainers is that he grounds it in conservativism. I think that's largely correct. I don't think that Mark Levin and Andy McCarthy and the rest of them are, for the most part, doing much harm to liberals; they undermine any effort to build a sensible conservative political movement. So you have conservative "wins" such as keeping Gitmo open or today's decision about military commissions that basically have nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of consistent intellectual conservative ideas, but have more to do with whatever kinds of junk talk radio or Fox News hosts can come up with to keep their relatively small audience coming back for more.
Well, I do think liberals lose, but only in the sense that the entire nation loses when one party winds up farming its thinking out to the political equivalent of the Morning Zoo. What I mean is that I see little evidence that there is much, if any, electoral effect of all those Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck books that have been sold; after all, if anything the incentive of those people is for their party to be out of office. However, they probably do affect what Republicans actually do when they have a chance to govern, and also which liberal ideas Republicans try to block when they are in opposition. If you're a real conservative (and I'm including, there, those who are "extreme" in their conservativism), that's a bad deal.
Long windup, short pitch: Friedersdorf is absolutely brutal to Rush Limbaugh on Libya.