Lost in all of the outrage over Move-on’s choice of a headline is the headline and content of an article put out by a source on the right- American Conservative— who titled their piece “Sycophant Savior”. It reams Petraeus from the other side- for appeasing the president and Congress and telling them what they would find acceptable, instead of demanding an increase in troops to finish the job.

the concluding paragraph:

Politically, it qualifies as a brilliant maneuver. The general’s relationships with official Washington remain intact. Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. History will not judge him kindly.
__________________________________________

Interestingly enough, there have been no calls for a resolution condemning American Spectator, much less much of any coverage by the liberal, drive-by MSM.

I think “clueless” is a better descriptor there. But if you believe John Edwards it’ll be an all-female restaurant someday. (Where egO’Reilly would be just as clueless…)

Try pretending you’re at a circus and the clowns are in the ring. Popcorn?

I don’t know about moderates and independents, but among political junkies, what is happening is that there is a bcklash to everything, followed by a backlash to the baclash, and ad infinitum.

Before this item is laid to rest, if ever, there is a new storm about the use of a child by Democrats in their fight with Bush over ther SCHIP bill

The non-appearance of Rep candidates at the last debate is being milked to death by black Dems, but I hear a backlash to that brewing in the wings.

After thinking it over, I’ve decided that the only way to preserve my own sanity is to not pay these firestorms the compliment of giving my time to analyzing who has mosr merit in the original incident, in the backlash or in the backlash to the backlash.
I’m going to pretend I’m in an insame asylum and just watch the patients act out. Should an opinion creep into my consciousness, I’ll do my best to keep it to myself.
I’m taking my toys and going home.

I had not thought of that…Joe’s journalistic background revealing itself…but I think this a pretty insightful reading of Limbaugh’s mind-set.

The accuracy point is a probable way-out, but he never really pursued it. Instead, he went on the attack. This suggests Joe’s reading is right…he doesn’t care about convincing people or undecideds…he is preaching to his choir…as MoveOn did to theirs.

These aren’t great times for moderates or independents whether of conservative or liberal bent. Will there be a backlash from them over all of this…or will they just turn down the sound, and not vote?

Limbaugh’s Republicanism and Ashcroft’s Republicanism are of different provenance; Ashcroft is an Ozark boy, from a place that supported the GOP since the Civil War (like East Tennessee). The convergence between Ashcroft-style Ozark Assembly-of-God-Republicanism and Limbaugh-Bootheel-Dixiepublicanism is a recent phenomenon. Southern Missouri is solidly Republican today. But its origins are complicated and, like in Tennessee, date to the Civil War. John Danforth, former Missouri Republican and, ironically, Clarence Thomas mentor, was a relic of the old-school German (Gasconade Co.) -Ozark(SW MO) St. Louis (County and City) Republican Missourian dating to the good folks who fought against white supremacy and slavery during the Civil War and Reconstruction. But today’s Missouri GOP is thoroughly Jesse Helmsified, identified with white supremacy and Christian fundamentalism (but never in such vulgar terms).