InstaPundit Watch ... some of the more stupid comments:

This [after 9/11] is not a time to err on the side of caution; not a time to weigh the risks to an infinite balance; not a time for the cynicism of the worldly wise who favour playing it long. ["This is what Blair gets, and the war critics don't."]

This is what InstaPundit doesn't get: war critics realize that the world changed after 9/11, but not SO much that an ill advised war based on poor intelligence, bad planning, and sneering at the world community is a good thing. It clearly is a matter of a different mindset, one that leads many (like the anti-communists of the old) to support this President, even though they fully know he is doing a poor job in many respects domestically and even internationally. I feel sorry for Andrew Sullivan -- a "deal killer" for him is not respecting this mindset, but so is cynically depriving people (read gays) of constitutional rights for political reasons. The devil or the deep blue sea, hmm Andy?

And Rush Limbaugh would be off the air for much less than this [latest targeted Howard Stern material] -- in fact, he was taken off ESPN for much less than this, with no noticeable hue and cry from Stern's current defenders.

Well, actually, some of his defenders on the free speech side were upset that Rush was fired. I, for one, felt he should not have been. Second, the comment is stupid in that (ahem) Rush was fired by private actors, while Stern is being targeted by the government. Do you see the somewhat different problem here?

Hey, the North Koreans like him [Kerry]!

Two things. Yes, it wouldn't be horrible if a dangerous nation with the BOMB might be able to work better with Kerry. Second, again, what exactly is the implication here? Clearly, voting for Kerry is in some fashion voting for the Kim Jong-il. Way to go snide boy! btw Iran in '80 seemed to be more positive about Reagan (waiting until he came to office to let out the hostages, etc.) ... they eventually saw that he was no great prize, didn't they?

LT Smash looks at who's complaining about the Bush commercials and discovers that they've been doing that themselves for quite a while.

Actually, he only talks about two of the critics. There are more families of survivors, firemen, and people in general who are upset about the ads [criticized for other reasons]. And, sure, part of it is that the ads are just part of a wider problem of his failure to do all he can and the use of 9/11 to explain away a ton of problems (bad management of the war and economic decisionmaking, especially). The snide remarks that the critics are just partisan whiners is equally distasteful -- some might be oversensitive, but hell, if you are going to be oversensitive about something ...

Yep. They [The media] want people to forget [about 9/11], so they'll think that stories like Martha and Kobe are actually important -- and so that they'll be more likely to vote for a Democrat.

Yup, vote for Kerry, vote for the biased liberal media! To take the strawman argument, obviously 9/11 and the way it changed our lives, and how we as a nation must respond is an appropriate issue for the election. DUH! I don't think people will "forget" if the President is careful not to use certain emotionally tinged imagery of Ground Zero, do you?

There is a reason why some on the left side of the aisle don't like Instapundit too much ... and it's not just because they disagree with him on substantive issues. This selection from recent posts might be worse than most, but from experience, it isn't totally out of character. And, it's the sort of biased reporting that closes off debate. It's on both sides, sure enough. I'm sensitive to particular forms of it given my beliefs (e.g. my libertarian side leads me to appreciate certain more conservative blogs, even if they [fairly] criticize certain liberal views of which I agree), but the above should be a warning for both sides.