YEAH, LIMBAUGH'S A "VICTIM"

Carl Hulse of the NY Times ("Limbaugh Latest Victim in War of Condemnation") thinks Limbaugh has been victimized by the current environment. As Hulse puts it,

The back and forth on the Petraeus advertisement and, now, over Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks, illustrates how both parties are turning miscues into fodder in the run up to the 2008 elections, particularly in the absence of serious legislative accomplishment when it comes to the war.

The Limbaugh furor is just the latest episode in how each side has sought to paint the other as unpatriotic or unsympathetic to the military by focusing public attention on various comments that lawmakers might wish they had phrased differently or could take back.

What Limbaugh said wasn't a miscue; he has attacked anti-war soldiers before, notably Paul Hackett. Hulse does mention the basic facts of this case but presents them in a "he said, she said," moral equivalency manner:

After the liberal media watchdog organization Media Matters sounded the alarm about his comments, Mr. Limbaugh said on subsequent shows that he was talking about only one discredited man who claimed to be a wounded veteran. “I was not talking about antiwar, active duty troops,” he insisted.

Yet analysts for Media Matters noted that Mr. Limbaugh’s first reference to the discredited man came nearly two minutes after his plural reference to phony soldiers.

I may be too close to the liberal side here but I do spend time listening to wingnut radio and in that arena, Democrats are attacked, lied about and smeared all the time. They are especially attacked for "not supporting the troops." Hulse seems to portray this as an evenly balanced game of partisanship when in fact the GOP has a huge lead, in part because the GOP stays in lockstep with the Noise Machine, of which Limbaugh is a major component. Hulse does note this difference but fails to draw the obvious conclusion:

More than 40 Democratic senators signed a letter sent Tuesday to the company that syndicates the radio show, asking that Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks be repudiated.

But no Republican senators signed the letter, highlighting a significant difference between the responses to the MoveOn advertisement and the Limbaugh comments. The Republican-backed plan to condemn the Petraeus advertisement drew substantial Democratic backing in the House and Senate, while Democrats have been unable to splinter Republicans on Mr. Limbaugh.