Sorry kids, no drunken stories today. Time for another serious column.

I just picked up the book Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite by Bernard Goldberg. I recall enjoying his first book, Bias. As I remember, I liked it better than Ann Coulter�s book Slander. As of this writing, I am through four chapters of Arrogance. And it has reminded me of one of the most frustrating things about the conservatives today: the hypocrisy that only liberals are name-calling elitists.

Conservatives love to point out that liberals think George W. Bush is �dumb�. It is one of the first things that the President�s detractors bring up. Dubya�s dumb, not bright. But it�s not true. It was refreshing the other day to hear Dick Gephardt admit that very fact. It would be very hard, nay, impossible to become the President of the United States if you were dumb. However, it sure is easy call somebody dumb. It�s much easier than taking a position on the difficult issues that face our country, and explaining why that position is different and better than the President�s position. Everything�s easier if we just believe the opposition is dumb. Because everyone thinks of themselves as �not dumb�, and therefore they�ve already won the argument.

Plenty of liberals apply that strategy. They start by belittling the intelligence of their adversary. And it used to be that some conservatives took pride in not sinking to that level. But taking the verbal and intellectual high road is becoming less and less common. It�s making some conservatives, like Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and now sadly, Bernard Goldberg, harder to listen to and take seriously.

Only four chapters in, Mr. Goldberg has taken dozens of cheap shots at his critics and adversaries. Even when he clearly holds the moral high ground, he can�t resist stooping down to grab a handful of mud and flinging it. On page 40 he exposes Tom Shales� sputtering rampage against Bias using Mr. Shales� own words. The case is made against Tom Shales utterly and completely. That should be enough in an intellectual discourse, the kind Mr. Goldberg claims to want. But he doesn�t stop there. He goes on to describe Tom Shales as looking �remarkably like the Pilsbury Doughboy with a bad haircut�. Why was that necessary? Now both of them look like petty schoolkids. Mr. Goldberg threw away all the empathy he had just built for his case.

This is exactly why so many people don�t vote� the name-calling and negative campaigning has convinced most people that neither side of the aisle is worth voting for.

Sean Hannity shows no compunction against getting right into a shouting match with name-calling callers to his radio show. On that same radio show, Laura Ingraham reveled in the same kind of discourse while promoting her book Shut Up and Sing. A book whose subject I feel strongly about, but had no desire to read after hearing how she made her points. Ann Coulter? The same thing. I remember coming away from Slander with the impression, �She sure uses a lot of exclamation points in her writing�.

Rush Limbaugh�s current absence from the radio has highlighted by contrast just why his show is so successful. It�s entertaining without resorting to Jerry Springer-like shouting matches. Does he mock? Yes. Does he call names? Yes. But he does it in a satirical way, not in a �well, so are you� way. And that�s the kind of commentary that makes you think about issues instead of personalities. With a little practice, Al Franken could become that for the left (though he�d need to develop material much faster than he has been doing. The media will replay your comments Al, you don�t need to repeat them at every forum. Keep the jokes fresh.). Give me more Rush, less O�Reilly. More John Stewart, less Michael Moore.

I still believe that the argument goes to the one who best expresses their points in a convincing manner with facts and logic. Not to the loudmouth with the best snaps. So let�s re-elevate the conversation conservatives. And leave the snaps to Patrice O�Neal and Lewis Black.