Over at NRO, Goldberg laments that conspiracy fans on the left and the right aren't treated the same by the press:

As I wrote last year, I find it amazing that the “Birthers” are considered more dangerous and evil than the “Truthers.”

Apparently, birthers have it tough because the liberal media portray them in such a nasty light, while at the same time 9/11 truthers get a pass. To prove his point, Goldberg points to a single, four-year-old New York Times article about truthers. (Yes, a 2006 article. Way to keep it current, Jonah.)

But gee, let's think about why birthers and truthers might be treated differently; why birthers might be considered more influential.

1.) There are no movement leaders on the left who go on the radio and suggest truthers are asking important questions that deserve serious answers, the way Sarah Palin went on the radio and said the same thing about the birthers.

2.) Progressive don't hold annual conferences and invite a truther nut to give a key not address, the way the Tea Party conference in Nashville welcomed Joseph Farrah who (surprise!) spent a large chunk of speech pushing the birther nonsense. And if Jonah could get me the names of the Tea Party attendees who walked out in protest during Farah's speech, that'd be helpful, although I doubt he can find any. Why? Because Tea Party attendees cheered Farah's birther ramblings.

3.) As far as I know there are no Democratic politicians running for office this Nov. who proudly embrace the truther conspiracy, the way GOP candidate J.D. Hayworth in Arizona plays off the birther hate.

Obvious bottom line: Birthers represent a mainstream (and growing?) portion of the GOP and America's right-wing movement, whereas truthers represent virtually no portion of the Democratic Party or the progressive movement. Maybe that's why they're treated differently.