Whose talk show hosts are crazier? Who knows?

Dave Kopel's column on Randi Rhodes certainly makes her sound like a charter member of the tinfoil hat brigade:

The Air America network, which provides much of the programming on KKZN-AM (760) ended its relationship last week with hostess Randi Rhodes. Rhodes had recently been suspended from Air America for her humor presentation at a San Francisco nightclub, in which she called Hillary Clinton a "big f---ing whore" and Geraldine Ferraro "David Duke in drag" and "a f---ing whore." Such wit!

But no sooner had Air America dumped her than Clear Channel hired her. So Rhodes is now back on 760, in the 1-4 p.m. weekday slot. Clear Channel's decision is not entirely consistent with the theory that Clear Channel is dedicated to a right-wing agenda. Indeed, the fact that Clear Channel has made 760 into a "progressive" talk station, with lots of Air America programming, demonstrates what has always been obvious to the nonparanoid: Clear Channel's objective is to make money, and Clear Channel will do so with whatever mix of programming and hosts will bring in the largest audiences, and hence the largest advertising revenue.

It is unfortunate, though, that Rhodes is back on the local airwaves. She caters to hatred and nutty conspiratorialists. For example, a promotion for her show claimed "The difference between Hitler and Bush is that Hitler was elected." After the 2004 election, she spent lots of time trying to promote her theory that John Kerry had actually won in Ohio.

Last October, Rhodes speculated that the fires in Southern California might have been deliberately set by Blackwater. The year before, she publicized a supermarket tabloid article claiming that Laura Bush had moved out of the White House because George Bush was having an affair with Condoleezza Rice. She also claimed that Israel was committing "genocide" in Lebanon.

My no-doubt-regrettable tendency when reading things like this, however, is to guess that all heavily political talk radio show hosts are crazy conspiracy theorists, and assume that Randi Rhodes probably isn't much different from her counterparts on the right.

The problem is, I have no evidence for this. And I'm not going to acquire any, because doing so would force me to actually listen to Randi Rhodes and Rush Limbaugh for an extended period of time.

I am thus immune from, not to say monumentally disinterested in, that stock staple of political journalism: "Look what a whack job/evil bastard one of my opponents is!" The quotes have to have them advocating genocide and denying the Civil War before I am ready to believe, without further evidence, that they are especially evil. This can make the task of reading political blogs slightly wearying.