"Carnival barkers, pied pipers, snake oil salesmen [and] bile and paranoid fantasies"

The one thing Democrats have going for them is the electorate's enduring wariness of the GOP. The midterms, now predicated on the economy's absence of dramatic improvement, should be trending unmistakably Republican. But it isn't.

The results of Gallup's Daily tracking poll from early July -- titled "Democrats, Republicans Still Tied on 2010 Generic Ballot" -- show that "Republicans maintain their competitive position on the generic congressional ballot, with 46% of U.S. registered voters preferring the Republican candidate in their district and 44% the Democratic candidate." Competitive, but hardly a lock.

What's more, while the Democrats' percentage has dropped a disturbing six points since last summer, the percentage increase for Republicans is statistically insignificant (it was 44).

As true as it is troubling, Gallup further reports that "historical trends suggest that a slight Republican lead on the generic ballot among registered voters ... would translate into sizable Republican seat gains in Congress on Election Day, given their typical advantage in voter turnout." But of course it's also true that history has nearly always favored the out-of-power party in midterms, a kind of punishing, internal correction exercised -- wisely or blindly -- by the electorate every four years between presidential elections.

This year, however, doubts about GOP governance persist among the key voting bloc of independents. The hopeful ambivalence to be noted is that while independents may be wandering away from Democrats, they are decidedly not peddling into the GOP camp.

Why? A twofold answer comes echoing back with resounding clarity: One, the GOP is unforgettably incompetent; and two, the GOP has become inexhaustibly crazy.

The first fact requires no elaboration; we all, all of us, independents included, have just survived (maybe) nearly a decade of immense Republican incompetence -- indeed, an incompetence by design, since bumpy is the road of managing a government one hates -- and even Americans' famous short-term memory hangs tight to the GOP's darkest of bumbling deeds.

The second factor -- that of bughouse unlimited -- has, I think, for most voters been less of a sudden epiphany than a bubbling realization now coming to a boil. Systematically have the whackos, the wingnuts, the crazies and crackpots removed moderate -- these days, one is tempted to even say thoughtful -- Republicans from power, and the latter are beginning to strike back, or at least lash out.

Case in point, soon-to-be former congressman Bob Inglis, of South Carolina, who, as Politico reported, recently "lost his primary in part because he was openly critical of Glenn Beck and told his conservative constituents not to believe everything they hear on Fox.... Pointing a finger at Beck, Sarah Palin and such conservative figures, Inglis told AP:

"There were no death panels in the [healthcare] bill … and to encourage that kind of fear is just the lowest form of political leadership. It’s not leadership. It’s demagoguery."

Yet the equally intriguing part of the Politico story were some of the reader comments that followed -- those, that is, from the very Beck-Palin followers whom Inglis had warned. A sampling:

"Inglis knows that the only way for a Republican to get written up by the Beltway media is to attack other Republicans. Which is why Republicans don't take this article, or Inglis, seriously." Classic denial, mixed with the old "this guy is so beneath comment I must comment on it" routine.

And there was this: "Beck did not pull a lever in the booth nor did Palin. The people did" -- my emphasis, that being Exhibit A in the displayed folly of political activists who mistake their fellow crackpots for a mass "movement."

Or, there was this: "This is only newsworthy to a liberal rag like Politico that traffics in all things negative towards conservatives. Typical." Rather, what's typical is the Agnewesque habit of attacking the reporting source, even when the source omits independent comment, which Politico did.

Now I ask you: Are such delusional, seething "activists" likely to convert many independents?

There also, however, was another conservative comment that I just can't let pass, in that it reflected the essential mainstream of yesteryear's Republicanism. It was literate, though, so perhaps a plant; but in the absence of any contrary evidence let's take it at face value:

"Pretty darn ridiculous. Inglis has a perfect '0' score from organizations like NARAL, and perfect 100 scores from every right to life group. He gets a 90 from the Chamber of Commerce. He gets a 95 from FreedomWorks, a 92 from the American Conservative Union.... So why'd he get tossed? Because he wasn't crazy enough. Because he wasn't calling on people to drink the blood of liberals. I wish you nutjobs would get the hell out of my party. You make a mockery of honest conservatives. You follow your stupid carnival barkers, pied pipers, and snake oil salesmen who sell you non-stop outrage. Conservatism isn't about hating the guts of the other guy -- it's about good policy. You've turned it into a joke. You're ruining my party and you'll ruin America. You contribute nothing but bile and paranoid fantasies. You have nothing positive to offer -- only fevered nightmares. Mark my words -- you're not saving the nation or the Republican party -- you're injecting it with a deadly poison.... Grow up or go away."

Doubtless, they won't be going away anytime soon -- and in the coming midterms they and their "nutjob" brethren will almost certainly deprive the nation of many a Congressional district's marginal sanity. But they do perform an invaluable service: They're also driving thoughtful independents away from the increasingly infantile Republican Party.