LIMBAUGH IS AT IT AGAIN, and once again, I missed it. Rob Sama heard it, though his account is a bit harsher than this one emailed by reader Keith Waldrop:

Sure you’re aware limbaugh is mentioning Instapundit again today. I am a many times daily Instapundit Reader and a 14 year Limbaugh listener. Here’s my take.

Limbaugh is not singling you out. He is merely using the term “pre-mortem” as a lightning rod or example of the things he’s hearing in the blogosphere that bother him.

His points are valid, as are yours

He’s hitting on the issue for a third day which is much his style.

Often topics and themes he uses last days and weeks

I believe he genuinely would like you to respond in kind. I also believe a typically reasoned Instapundit response to some of Limbaugh’s comments would continue what I feel is a healthy, interesting debate.

He does not read you regularly and claims to only have a peripheral knowledge of Instapundit.

Well, that last is fair enough, as I’m obviously missing all the important bits on his show. But Limbaugh could no doubt improve his broadcasts if he read InstaPundit more often. . . .

Anyway, the point of my “premortem” wasn’t to call for the Republicans to lose. Rather, after pointing out that a lot of hardcore GOP supporters expect them to lose, I wanted to note that if they do lose, it will be because of a number of dumb moves and dropped balls — “unforced errors,” as I called them — that indicate that they’ve been taking their supporters for granted, ignoring their professed principles, and relying far too heavily on the old “The Democrats are worse” argument to rally the base, an argument that’s clearly wearing thin. (As this guy says: “I won’t be ‘glad’ if Republicans lose. I just think if they lose, they brought it on themselves.”)

I don’t think that Limbaugh would really dispute that the Republicans have made a lot of unnecessary mistakes and that this has cost them a lot with their supporters; at least I’ve caught his show a time or two in the past when he was making pretty much this exact point. My post was intended to be something of a wake-up call, and it appears, at least, to have gotten Limbaugh’s attention. Whether the GOP will take the lesson is less clear.

It’s true, of course, that the Democrats are worse, and if you had any doubt about that, the creepy sexual McCarthyism that we’ve seen this week would be proof enough. And the argument that losing an election will cause the Republicans to do better isn’t necessarily true — as one of my colleagues said to me yesterday, if losing elections made political parties improve, the Democrats would be in a lot better shape than they are about now . . . .

But I’ve been criticizing this stuff for a while, and I thought that I should raise these issues again while the GOP leadership and message machine is paying attention for a change. And, apparently, it’s paying attention to my criticisms now. After attention, however, comes action. Well?

UPDATE: Reader Jack Lillywhite emails:

Traveling back to Palm Coast for Jacksonville today, I caught Rush discussing the “pre-mortem” . I don’t believe he is arguing against what you have been saying. Rather what he is really fighting mad about is those conservatives who have decided to punish the Republican party by sitting this election out.

His chief rationale for taking exception to this is that punishing the GOP for their (as you call them) unforced errors is not logical and is counterproductive. His point is that whatever mistakes the GOP has made – they are still the only (of the two) party that represents the values and long term objectives (i.e. Supreme court makeover) of conservatives.

That is his main rant. Not your pre-mortem. Although I do think Rush has always had a problem with the “creeping libertarianism” of the conservative perspective.

Yeah, us libertarians are insidious that way. Mostly, I want to know where all this attention from Limbaugh was back last Spring when I had a book to promote! Maybe if I’d called it An Army of David Corns . . .

ANOTHER UPDATE: More thoughts here: “I am not suggesting conservatives should sit out the election. But I do think that congressional Republicans largely squandered their majority these past few years. I’m not the only one either. Right Wing News, hardly a liberal, has made the same conclusions. Given the strength of the economy and the general success of the war on terror, congressional Republicans should be in pretty good shape. But they have made so many missteps (from the border to out of control spending) that it has taken the wind out of the sails of many conservatives. I don’t like some politician thinking that I have to vote for them.”

I think that last is the key. Nobody likes to feel taken for granted. Or to be taken for granted.

MORE: Reader Rosemary Bright emails:

You know, I don’t either you or Rush needs assistance in speaking your own case — you are both excellent communicators.

And yes, it wasn’t a singling out — he’s talking to Republicans who are said to be fed up with their party and are sitting this election out.

My take on the whole thing?? I think it’s balderdash. I don’t think droves of Republicans are going to sit this out at all … I think it’s the MSM who are implying it, and thereby hoping it will happen. When it comes down to it, even if we are disgusted, we’ll go vote. And when push comes to shove … we won’t vote democrat, regardless of our disgust.

That’s probably right, but the GOP leadership is unwise to count on that.

Reader Mary Evans adds: “Rush credited bloggers on his show today, & made a point to say he was not criticizing you. I just went to Rob Sama’s site & read what he said. He either has a grudge against Rush or did not listen to what Rush said in full.”

I’m not a Rush 24/7 subscriber, but I’ll see if I can get hold of a transcript or audio.

STILL MORE: Here’s the transcript of Limbaugh’s monologue on why people shouldn’t sit out the elections. And here’s another where he explains that he’s not at war with bloggers.

It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, and I agree with the many readers who say it’s not an attack on me personally. But I also agree with reader John Tuttle who writes that Limbaugh probably misunderstands my use of the word “deserve.” When you drop balls and blow opportunities, you deserve to lose, because you’ve performed badly. You don’t always do so — any more than you always win when you deserve to win — but as mentioned above, I think the GOP has been failing to exercise the kind of self-discipline that a party with a slim majority that wants to stay in the majority needs to exercise, especially if the stakes are as high as Limbaugh says they are.

Because if the future of Western civilization is at stake, you shouldn’t blow your credibility on pork and pocket-stuffing.

FINALLY: And from Brad Wardell at Joe User, whose earlier post was read on the air: “You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that it’s a matter of life and death for the Republicans to maintain control and yet treat the actual job so casually while in office. If the free world hangs in the balance, then bloody act like that during your term and not just in the 60 days before re-election.”

A PIERRE CARDIN FAKE, MAYBE, but a Ben Cardin fake?

PETER ROBINSON looks at the Dartmouth fracas. “The response of the Dartmouth establishment is unsurprising, I suppose–insiders always resist outsiders–but disappointing all the same.”

IN THE MAIL: John Scalzi’s new book, The Android’s Dream.

I’m sure it’s good, but I’ll offer a full report when I’ve read it. Right now I’m reading the new Stross book that I mentioned earlier.

I don’t think it’s a case of androids dreaming of electric orgasms, though.

THE CURSE OF WORLD OF WARCRAFT: “From my vantage point as a guild decision maker, I’ve seen it destroy more families and friendships and take a huge toll on individuals than any drug on the market today, and that means a lot coming from an ex-club DJ. It took a huge personal toll on me. To illustrate the impact it had, let’s look at me one year later. When I started playing, I was working towards getting into the best shape of my life (and making good progress, too). Now a year later, I’m about 30 pounds heavier that I was back then, and it is not muscle. I had a lot of hobbies including DJing (which I was pretty accomplished at) and music as well as writing and martial arts. I haven’t touched a record or my guitar for over a year and I think if I tried any Kung Fu my gut would throw my back out.”

(Via Slashdot). Luckily, blogging poses no such dangers . . . or does it? I can quit any time.

“A VERY UNUSUAL OFFICE.”

IS CALLING AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN “SLAVISH” a racist taunt? Well, unlike “macaca” at least we all know what the word means:

The Rev. Anthony Evans, who heads a group called the National Black Church Initiative, released a statement last night calling Hoyer’s comment “outrageous and destructive.” “If I did not know Rep. Steny Hoyer, I would say that he is a racist,” Evans said.

I don’t know Steny Hoyer, so I guess I won’t offer an opinion.

ANOTHER GRIM MILESTONE: “The Dow Jones industrial average swept past 12,000 for the first time Wednesday, extending its march into record territory as investors grow increasingly optimistic about corporate earnings and the economy.”

ANN ALTHOUSE:

I think aggressive characters like our “lefty blogger” think that uncovering gay Republicans will disgust social conservatives and change their voting behavior. They might also believe that they are demonstrating hypocrisy and that doing so will motivate Republicans to abandon social conservatism. I would like to see Republicans abandon social conservatism, and I’m not cheering on these slimy outings. But, honestly, I think these creepy, gleeful efforts at outing will only make social conservatives more conservative, and they will continue to look to the Republican party to serve their needs.

Yes, “creepy, gleeful efforts” don’t win you many friends or converts. Of course, they’re really just meant to demoralize Republican voters and keep them home on election day.

I suspect they’ll have the opposite effect. The GOP leadership has managed to alienate much of its base, but this kind of slimy and obviously organized political effort is more likely to encourage GOP voters to ignore the bad stuff and vote Republican as a way of demonstrating their disgust with the creepiness.

UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg: “The sort of scorched earth attack liberals have mounted in the wake of Foley is creating precedents I guarantee will haunt them in unexpected ways in years to come.”

JON STEWART ON THE HARRY REID SCANDALS: “Obsolete power corrupts obsoletely.” Video here.

A REASON TO VOTE REPUBLICAN, courtesy of Paul Krugman.

You know, it seems as if the Democrats are doing a better job of providing those reasons than the Republicans are.

WE’RE ALL SOLDIERS OF FORTUNE NOW: My TCS Daily column, on disaster preparedness, is up.

MORE ON THE IMPORTANCE OF HAND SANITIZER IN POLITICS, from Tom Maguire.

PERILS FOR PEDESTRIANS: Jay Manifold looks at evacuation on foot, and says it gets too little attention in emergency planning.

MORE ON THE HARRY REID SCANDALs:

On Sunday we editorialized on the Senate minority leader’s smarmy Las Vegas land deal in which he pocketed a cool $1.1 million for the sale of property he hadn’t personally owned for years. Mr. Reid will be “amending” his financial disclosure forms, don’t you know.

Now comes word that Mr. Reid illegally has been using campaign money to mete out Christmas bonuses for staffers at his tony Ritz-Carlton condo. He calls it a “clerical error,” don’t you know.

These aren’t the first ethics questions for Harry Reid, always quick out of the starting blocks to offer sound bites about the Republicans’ “culture of corruption.” The Los Angeles Times and New York Post have reported on another questionable Nevada land deal.

Plus, these thoughts from Investor’s Business Daily:

We never cease to be amazed at the double standard applied to the morals and ethics of Democrats and Republicans in Congress. We’ve already commented on how Republican Mark Foley was forced to resign for sending lewd e-mails to congressional pages, while Democrat Gerry Studds received mere censure and standing ovations after actually having sex with one, being allowed to serve until he decided to retire.

But the case of Senate Minority Leader Reid is a double standard on steroids. The latest episode is his request to file an “amended” ethics statement after the Associated Press revealed he made $1.1 million on a $400,000 investment on property he hadn’t owned for three years; it was the subject of an earlier editorial on these pages. . . .

OK, fine. But why the double standard and the hypocrisy? Is anybody investigating Harry Reid?

We remember the feeding frenzy over former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s alleged violation of federal tax law in using tax-exempt funds to fund his allegedly political college course, “Renewing American Civilization.”

After a 3 1/2-year ordeal, and a $300,000 fine paid to the House Ethics Committee, the IRS finally ruled that the sponsoring organization, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, “did not serve the private interests of Mr. Gingrich” and was both apolitical and completely legal.

Which is more than you can say about Reid’s shenanigans. Gingrich wasn’t offered a “do-over” or the opportunity to amend anything. In his case, it was sentence first, trial later. But then, unlike Reid, he was both innocent and a Republican.

There does seem to be a double standard here.

HEH: “The only question is, is Greenwald this dense, purposely mendacious, or some of both? I report, you decide.” Jeez. I guess the “blogpaper” strategy is still working! Anti-gay? Get a life. I’m not the one engaging in McCornthyism.

CHARLTON HESTON, neocon?

LEXINGTON GREEN: “Having mediocre politicians is a consequence of our having a superb private economy. We are, actually, fortunate that we have some relatively competent and public-spirited people in public life at all.”

PAUL HORWITZ on Linda Greenhouse and statements of fact.

AUSTIN BAY on North Korea: “The bitter irony of our times is the ability of dictators to threaten neighbors with their own collapse.”

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL says that Lynne Stewart got off light: “In an age when courts routinely impose five-year prison terms for drug offenders, and life sentences on former CEOs, 28 months may not seem an appropriate sentence for a terrorist accomplice, especially when the government sought 30 years.”

JIM GERAGHTY REMEMBERS THE OUTLOOK three weeks before the 2004 elections. Bush was doomed!

DAVID BERNSTEIN is pondering interspecies wealth distribution.

WHITE MEN CAN’T JUMP — but they can nab you for tax evasion.

OH, THERE’S A SURPRISE: Global gun-control movement is anti-Israel.