The rather vague phrase appears in a Journal news article about the rise of Dick Armey's conservative group, Freedom Works, which has tapped into the right-wing Tea Party movement [emphasis added]:

The growing movement has turned off some high-profile conservative voices, such as former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum, who worry that raucous displays and occasionally extreme language risk alienating moderates.

What exactly are those “raucous displays” and bouts of “extreme language” that have powered the anti-Obama movement this year? The Journal is dutifully mum. And that's the way so many players within the Beltway press corps prefer it. Rather than illustrating and/or explaining the type of wild, radical rhetoric that's now front and center in the conservative movement, lots of journalists play down the communist/racist/Nazi rhetoric, and they certainly don't detail or quote it. Not even in a single sentence was set aside in the Journal article to spell out today's rampant hate speech.

All readers need to know is pieces of it have been “extreme” and “raucous.” Nothing more. That way, the whole anti-Obama movement seems much more mainstream, which allows the political press to treat it seriously.

UPDATED: I have to chuckle at the notion in the Journal article that some conservatives are anxious that the anti-Obama brigade is in danger of alienating “moderates.” Like moderate Democrats? Like independent voters might--just -might--be turned off by the incessant communist/racist/Nazi Obama hate? That seems like a stretch. Truth is, Frum and company seem to be afraid that the hate crew is so radical and so unhinged that it's going to alienate conservatives (i.e. Republican voters), let alone moderates or independents.