It's just too easy to point out the hypocrisy and silliness in the story line about conservative rage and racism. If you want to see expressions of simple outrage over public policy (be it the war in Iraq or the President's health care plan), go to a public meeting. They're pep rallies. If you want considered arguments about these things, read the New Republic or National Review. (What you read won't always be well considered, but you'll get the reasons for the outrage.)
What's more interesting is whether this is a good strategy for the left. I understand that bloggers enjoy all the snickering about "tea bagging" (itself reinforcing the popular image of liberals as sexual libertines) and their posture of superiority. But none of this is particularly appealing to the unconverted. The President increasingly seems pedantic and his party comes across as petulant and arrogant. You can pretend that significant expansions in the size and role of government do not raise profound and troubling questions, but you won't convince a majority in that way.
So why do it? The answer is suggested by Democratic Party leader Mike Tate, recently castigated by Charlie Sykes for his intemperate rhetoric. Charlie sarcastically calls Tate a "real man of political genius."
But maybe, in a way, he is. Of course, he sounds like a bit like an automaton filling in the blanks about how awful the other side is.
But doesn't that raise money?