Skirmishes. And more skirmishes. Punch. And counter punch.

In Congress. On weblogs. And in the REAL trenches of political activism these days…talk radio.

The nation’s top progressive talker, Ed Schultz, spent much of his program lambasting top conservative talker Rush Limbaugh for Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” comments — and playing extensive parts of the tape over and over for callers who were clearly Limbaugh fans who insisted Rush didn’t say what the tape most certainly suggested he did say. Conservative talker and Limbaugh associate Mark Levin later blasted Limbaugh nemesis Media Matters as a “criminal organization.”

Was it hot enough yet? NOT QUITE…

The Murdoch-owned The Weekly Standard, in a post on its blog by Brian Faughnan, says the Democrats have been clamoring for a resolution against Limbaugh and raising a fuss over the comments to distract from their own failings:

What’s going on here? The Democrats have realized that they’ve run into a brick wall on Iraq. Unless more bad news is forthcoming (and there seems to be little news from Iraq in general), they simply don’t have the votes. So they’re punting. And when the spending debate is forced on them next year, they’ll simply take the cue from their nominee — whoever he or she is.

Are Democrats admitting to the Netroots that they’ve thrown in the towel? No. Instead they’re trying to throw up as much dust as they can, by taking advantage of another ginned-up controversy. And if the Netroots actually side with a phony soldier like Tom Harkin against a critic of phony soldiers, they’ll probably buy anything.

But is it as well-thought-out as that?

If Limbaugh was Rush Schmoe rather than THE Rush Limbaugh, that theory might hold. Instead, what is unfolding is that after years of seething and giving Rush a pass, Democrats — now joined by a modest talk radio infrastructure of their own plus potent progressive Internet presence — are pushing back. They have drawn a line in the sand.

The biggest progressive big-gun pushback: former General Wesley Clark — precisely the kind of “phony soldier” you could assume Limbaugh was referring to….if you accept Limbaugh’s critics’ arguments that he was first referring to “soldiers” as meaning soldiers not in lockstep with the administration rather than a single soldier who was a fake soldier.

Clark, writing on The Huffington Post, called for Limbaugh to be taken off Armed Forces Radio.

And herein is the SUPREME IRONY: some within Armed Forces Radio and some conservatives tried to keep Schultz off Armed Forces Radio. But Schultz, who is on Armed Forces Radio (and gets calls from soldiers who don’t like U.S. policy), has been going nonstop defending the troops’ right to hold different beliefs on his program. And now it’s conservative Limbaugh being accused of badmouthing and disrespecting the guys in the field. Part of Clark’s post:

Last week, Rush Limbaugh labeled any American soldier who supports an end to the war in Iraq as “phony.” We challenged Limbaugh through an email campaign to invite VoteVets.org’s Jon Soltz to his show and repeat these same insults to an Iraq war veteran’s face. Over 10,000 people responded and emailed Rush — but to our disappointment, he has refused to respond to our request.

It’s time to put real pressure on Rush Limbaugh. His show is broadcast on Armed Forces Radio, and this time we are going to go straight to the lifeblood of Rush’s show — Congress. Congress has the power to remove Rush Limbaugh from Armed Forces Radio, and it won’t be as easy for elected officials to ignore our call.

His ending is even more potent:

How have Republicans in Congress chosen to respond so far? Congressional Republicans have actually drafted a resolution supporting Rush Limbaugh, “commending [his] relentless efforts to build and maintain troop morale through worldwide radio broadcasts and personal visits to conflict regions.”

That’s outrageous. Rush Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” comment should not be commended — it should be condemned. And it’s time to tell Congress to act swiftly to hold Rush Limbaugh accountable.

And he gives this link to contact members of Congress.

How likely is it that Limbaugh will be bounced off AFR or chastised by his corporate bosses? As likely as Donald Trump kissing Rosie O’Donnell. On the lips. With a wet kiss.

The reason: Limbaugh is being charged with using the same kind of disrespectful and outrageous language as MoveOn.org used in its rightly-repudiated (by most) ad. Unlike the case of the axed Don Imus, Limbaugh is only accused of demonization — a staple now of 21st century American politics, talk radio and (unfortunately) the blogosphere — not racism.

Moreover, Imus was dumped by his CBS bosses who felt the heat and felt the cost of keeping him was greater than getting rid of him. Limbaugh is a cash cow (no pun intended). And his bosses show no sign of even reining him in:

Clear Channel CEO Mark P. Mays responded to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in a letter hand-delivered to his office this evening.

“While I certainly do not agree with all views that are voiced on our stations, I will not condemn our talent for exercising their right to voice them,” Mays wrote.

He took a respectful tone, saying he regretted that Reid and others might have been offended by Limbaugh. But ultimately, Mays wrote, he didn’t believe Limbaugh’s statements were “intended to personally indict combat soldiers simply because they didn’t share his own beliefs regarding the war in Iraq.”

So Clear Channel solidly backs Limbaugh’s explanation.

To Limbaugh’s critics, Limbaugh’s passionate explanation is a CY-big-A cover story. They have long agreed with THIS. Limbaugh’s supporters and admirers, in turn, accept Limbaugh’s indignant explanation and are unwavering in their support of him and think Limbaugh’s critics are out to get Rush because he is so powerful. in an attempt to damage the Republicans.

And, indeed, the deeper significance is what Limbaugh has come to represent: the embodiment of conservative talk as a kind of rallying point for Republicans that has helped them win elections.

And the embodiment of how once serious political discussion has become for many starting in the late 20th century a enjoyable verbal and political version of professional wrestling where three hours a day of airtime is filled with gleeful partisan demonization of one political party — and the praising, rationalizing or justifying of the talk show host’s own party.

It is potent in political terms: people are more prone to rush to the polls to vote AGAINST someone than to vote FOR someone.

But there are wheels within wheels.

Are the Democrats pressing this as payback for the political beating their side took on the MoveOn.com ad and the way the GOP jumped on it as the ad was being condemned in many quarters — successfully getting a resolution through Congress that put Democrats on the spot? (”Duh”?) Are they trying to clip his wings? Are Limbaugh and his supporters now pulling out all stops to in return demonize Democrats because they fear Limbaugh’s (limited) credibility outside the partisan sphere has been wounded and they’re trying to keep the Limbaugh franchise strong and credible?

Meanwhile, has Limbaugh peaked? Progressive talk may be struggling (and some shows may be doomed in the end) but it’s a new if uncertain product bringing in new listeners. Limbaugh remains the ultimate show for staunch Republican partisans, increasingly offering little reason for those who don’t want to hear three hours of Democrat/Liberal/Hillary bashing. (If you listen to Michael Savage, you hear someone more to the right who is a loose cannon primed to go off at any minute and even rage against the GOP).

Will this incident INCREASE his audience share/influence — or stem it? And, given his importance to the GOP in elections, what are the implications if his and his partisan’s explanations don’t quite jell with what others who are not Rush foes or fans hear on that tape?

Is this about Rush? Or is Michelle Malkin correct, in suggesting it’s all about trying to bring back the fairness doctrine and control and limit conservative talk? (Democrats and progressive talkers have contended this argument raised by conservatives when talk-radio is criticized is a inaccurate and/or a smoke screen).

And where will it end? There is no end in sight yet. In fact, it continues to escalate. VoteVets is running this commercial:

Limbaugh’s website is crammed with related posts (including one that says Hillary Clinton — Limbaugh’s favorite demon among Democratic demons — started Media Matters). If nothing else, the controversy could help boost his already considerable audience.

But he was not pleased with the Vote Vets ad. Which led Media Matters to run THIS post.

And so it goes…

And goes…and goes…

Yet, there is only so much energy. If both sides expend so much energy battling over MoveOn.org and Rush Limbaugh, that energy and discussion time has to cut out time for energy to be spent and discussions to have on other issues such as the I-r-a-q W-a-r-.

Would you say “ditto” to that?