How about one for Jonathan Chait, for his brief but nonetheless epic takedown of Shelby Steele's latest. Chait is exactly correct: it's a whole column about what a horrible president Barack Obama is that is entirely lacking any actual specific references to any policy whatsoever. As Chait says, it's all attitude. My favorite part is that not once, but twice, Steele indicts the 1960s. It's just a wonderfully all-encompassing rhetorical trick, at least for those with the right cultural resentments. You don't need to explain what specific influence something from the 1960s has on some specific policy you don't like; it's enough to say that you don't like Barack Obama and the liberals and, well, after all, the 1960s.
OK, it's my second-favorite thing. My favorite is the bit about how bin Laden obviously targeted the US on September 11 because of American exceptionalism...which, you know, would be a lot more convincing if al-Qaeda had never targeted any of those unexceptional nations.
Really, I think one of the continuing themes here is that a lot of the current crop of conservatives, candidates and pundits and even wonks, just don't try very hard. Presumably because they don't have to. Mention the 1960s, throw around the word "exceptionalism", toss in an accusation of "relativism", and apparently the customers will line up around the block. I don't think there's anything at all inherent in conservative thought that has anything to do with it, but there you are, and the results are, to me at least, pretty obvious.