This is an illuminating thread, because it *should* divide along two lines pretty cleanly. Straddling the fence, however, seems to be the best the dems and lefties can do, from what I'm reading.
You forgot to mention "never saying anything of substance" and "responding to substance by nit-picking random tangential points" ;)
Something I've learned in my years debating here: when someone is willing to meet opposing arguments head-on, that's usually a sign of good scholarship -- they're willing to deal with the best criticisms and form the opinion supported by the data. When someone is unwilling to meet opposing arguments head on, that's usually a sign they're not confident in their position, but they're too emotionally attached to it to be willing to change it in the face of facts.
