Marduk's Babylonian Musings claims I have a "a simple-minded political agenda" in response to my remarks about Grover Norquist. I tried to post a response there, but his comments box isn't working properly, so I'll post it here:

I'll ignore part about simple-minded agendas and say that you make a good point about occasional bizarre remarks from the Democratic side suggesting some kind of Jewish conspiracy.

This was most notable, to me, in March. When a Democratic politician shot off his mouth, suggesting that the Iraq war would be fought to protect Jewish interests (which struck me as a piece of startling nonsense), I thought it was just one guy shooting off his mouth. A few days later, when I was staying with friends, there was a call-in TV talk show on in the background on the subject of Iraq. (I never voluntarily watch such things, so this kind of discourse is usually truly off my radar, but in a different way than you mean.) Caller after call brought up the Jewish conspiracy thing. It crossed my mind that the politician's remark was not necessarily accidental; rather, I suspected that he knew (perhaps even via polling) that there was a constituency for such remarks, and he expected approval from some quarters for suggesting the Iraq war was the result of a Jewish conspiracy. I might have blogged these thoughts, had I not been on an extended car trip at the time.

Regarding the matter at hand, Grover Norquist's remarks, I do not believe that political strategists in either party say things to the media by accident. Norquist said what he said because he expected someone to approve and, probably, because he expected this approval to come in the form of campaign donations. Similarly, Bush campaign strategists have already announced, via a reporter in the NYTimes, their intention to exploit the timing of the 9/11 anniversary to the Bush campaign's advantage. I find their remarks quite loathsome, but strategists wouldn't have explained their plans to the NYT if they didn't want them to be public knowledge. I am not their target audience.

As the descendent of old-fashioned Texan Democrats, I am well aware that there are plenty of racists in the Democratic party. They just aren't handed the mike very often. But for better or worse, we have a two-party system.

When random, or even well-known right-wing, loud mouths say outrageous things, I ignore them. When political strategist say outrageous things, I sit up and pay attention. (I also sit up and pay attention when political strategist in the Democratic party say outrageous things.)

While I do have agendas I pursue, they are literary agendas within science fiction and fantasy, pursued through our magazine, The New York Review of Science Fiction, and anthologies. In my political commentaries, I paint what I see.

So, are you saying this guy Norquist is a jerk with no power with whom you disagree and who misrepresents the tactics of today's Republicans? Or is it his tone which you feel is not representative?