Democratic candidates launch a fierce battery of negative ads

They've always done this. Then they follow it up with calling Republican ads negative and label all Republican campaigning "the politics of personal destruction".

Prager: "Reason number 82 to be a Republican."

Actually, Prager, that's your number. I'd say it was reason number seven or so. I have so much anger in me over the unreasonable nature of liberals, and the nasty, nasty tactics they use. Tactics like this one, where the assumption is that if you're "dirty" in some way--like having once gone to a strip club, or opposing a massive tax increase to pay for education against AGW--somehow makes every opinion you hold wrong.

This isn't just lying. It isn't just playing a trump card for the sake of winning the debate. It is a treacherous attempt to silence the opposition so there will never be a debate. It's support for every Sarah and Deedee who chat at the greeting hour after their liberal church's service and don't want to have to hear those diabolical conservative views expressed at their precious church.

It even works against the Republican chatting with Sarah and Deedee, who because no one wants to expose themselves as demonic, no one wants to lose these nice friends they've made at this church, and they don't want to start any arguments where surely these people will throw labels and call names, which would seriously damage their friendship.

The frustration I feel about this "shut up and get out" card is enormous, and I can only express it in getting angry. This isn't new to Barack Obama, though he is low enough to be the first president we've ever had who did his own name-calling, jeering, belittling, and tarring against the opposition. It's been going on since the first election I can remember, and as the target of sneering bullies and hateful girl bullies, I have to say I consider it cheap and mean-spirited.

"I'm tired of the assertion that someone who believes marriage should remain male-female is a hater and a bigot."

So are we all.

I remind you that the name-calling is an attempt to shut the other person up. It paints him as evil so that (first) no one will listen to his position and (second) no one who is forced to hear the position will credit anything he says.

So we have:
Poisoning the well
Demonizing
Discrediting
Attempt to silence the opposition
Ridiculing and or belittling
Nihilification
Cockblocking
Stonewalling

and, most significant of all

Playing a trump card over anything the opposition can say.

Prager keeps claiming that playing the race card is an attempt to avoid an argument. I believe that's only a small part of it. Those who fling the epithet "racist" at their debating opposition are trying to shut them up, shut them out of the debate, and play an Automatic-Win card, better known as a trump card.

One thing about the left is the throwing around of names and labels

Partly they do it because they don't have real arguments to use in opposition to the opposition. Mostly it's because they don't even want to bother with making arguments supporting a thesis, it's so much more effective to tar the other side. That way "no one" will listen to conservative positions--because the arguments are formed in the minds and issue from the mouths of evil, racist, Nazi, fascist, demonic, demonic, diabolic subhuman demons. Cutting off the argument works so much better than actually engaging the reasons supporting the conclusion. Any idiot can do it, and that's why the left invest so heavily in their name-calling and labeling. That way all the idiots in the country will vote democrat, or so they reason, and the idiots who know nothing about issues beyond "hope", "change", "racist", "oppressive", "exploitative" and all the other leftist terms, do tend to fall in line with the democrat party.