Dear Globe and Mail: I think you're missing a golden opportunity here.

A few weeks back, the Grope and Flail's Adam Radwanski was in a begging mood, begging for -- I don't know -- some reasonable voices of Canadian conservatism:

Calling all Conservatives

... That Stephen Harper's party is disinclined to make itself accessible is hardly news, and it's considered bad form for journalists to complain about it. But I raise it here for a couple of reasons.

One, this isn't just a case of the Conservatives declining to talk to journalists; it's a case of them refusing to talk to you. If they don't want to do an interview with follow-up questions with someone like me, as Brison did this week, they don't have to. We're offering a forum for them to get their views out, unfiltered, to the public - be it in a direct back-and-forth with readers, or in the submission of articles they've written themselves. All we're asking is that they participate in a public dialogue.

A perfectly reasonable position, except that Adam puts some conditions on it:

We'll continue to invite specific Conservatives, as we do members of the other parties. But here's an open invitation as well. If you're a Conservative of some standing - an MP, a Senator, a party executive, a backroom operator - we want to hear from you.

"Of some standing?" That's kind of disappointing, as Blogging Tory Victor Wong points out:

Well. That “some standing” qualifier pretty much blocks out most of the Blogging Tories, and the “not a press release” thing is going to warrant a few second looks.

Yes, Vic, it would appear to disqualify the vast majority of BTs, which is, I will admit, unfortunate, since I don't think the G&M has any idea what it's missing out on here. Personally, I am all in favour of that paper giving a regular voice to Stephen Taylor's stable of xenophobic, homophobic racists, bigots and scientific illiterates. I don't think you could get that kind of entertainment anywhere else at that price so, herewith, I'm going to invite Adam to open up some space in order that we, the readership, can enjoy any and all of the following:

• Dr. Roy, gushing over white supremacist screech harpy Ann Coulter on a regular basis and seeing how many times he can squeeze in a colonial reference to "Her Majesty's" PM Stephen Harper. Oh, and telling us how funny he thinks Dennis Miller is.


• The hopelessly and painfully dishonest Kate McMillan, whose motto might most properly be summarized as, "No apologies. No excuses. No accuracy."


• The daily crime report of "Neo Conservative," who never met a violent death of a minority that didn't give him the giggles and a little woody.


• Steve Janke, whose obsession with dead Oriental women is exceeded only by his obsession with Cindy Sheehan's vagina. And getting everything painfully, relentlessly wrong.


• The kids over at The Politic, for whom evolution is just a liberal plot to corrupt our morals and values. Or fluoridate our drinking water, whichever makes less sense,


• "Gay and Right" Fred, who addresses gay issues from the right side of the political spectrum by blogging incessantly about the Jews. Even if they're not gay.


• Sandy Crux, whose children at this point must be wondering how long they can afford to keep her in adult diapers and whether, dear God, there is a bottom to Alzheimer's or it just keeps getting depressingly worse.


• Celestial Junk's "Paul," who never met a cogent argument he couldn't misunderstand. And whose refutation of global warming is that it was cold somewhere yesterday so whaddya have to say to that, huh? Huh?


• And, of course, the perpetually racist Raphael Alexander, for whom Canadians fall into two distinct categories: "real" ones, and ones who aren't white.

So, Adam, I'm begging you -- can't you find it in your heart to open up a spot for Stephen Taylor's BTs? I guarantee you no end of excitement, readership and animated feedback. Not in a good way, mind you, but these are the Blogging Tories so it's not as if they wouldn't meet your expectations, as long as those expectations are suitably low.

I'm thinking "non-existent" would be a good place to start.