When the candidates remain consistent, what's a wingnut apologist to do???

Zero in on "tone" the candidates use, of course! What else?

Patrick Healy, frontrunner for the title of biggest shill in the print media, unable to attack the Democratic candidates for flip-flopping on content and position has decided to attack the way they deliver their (consistent) message.

As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq: acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy.

....Lately, as the killing in Baghdad and other areas has declined, the Democratic candidates have been dwelling less on the results of the troop escalation than on the lack of new government accords in Iraq — a tonal shift from last summer and fall when American military commanders were preparing to testify before Congress asking for more time to allow the surge to show results.

"Tonal shift"??? WTF???

Let me consult my handy dandy decoder ring...

Yep...that's what I thought - the message has been consistent, so he is left floundering for any aspersion to cast, and anything he can get grubby little mitts on will do.

A “tonal shift” is what the M$M has to resort to accusing Democratic candidates of when they can’t be accuse them of flip-flopping.

It’s an attempt to make the consistency they have indignantly demanded from Democrats for all these years sound like it's a bad thing.

And let's just remember who the hell is penning this garbage, while we are at it.

Patrick Healy is the idiot scribe who attempted to figure out the frequency of the Clinton's *ahem* marital relations by looking at their travel schedules.

Not one word he writes should be taken seriously - including and, the, and of. He isn't a reporter. He's a gossip columnist, not even rising to the level of Dowd - and we all know what I think about that petulant, cloying and vapid embarrassment to redheads everywhere.

Gerson’s Tour de Farce

Not even a week has passed since KKKarl announced his resignation that will put him back in Texas and out of reach of the Sergeants of Arms of the congressional chambers should charges of Inherent Contempt be filed (we have already been told to piss off, the Justice Department he gutted won’t be doing it’s job for the American people and the Constitution) and already the rewriting of history is underway.

In today’s Washington Post, quintessential Useful Idiot™ Michael Gerson gets down on his knees and commences to….well, you get the idea….

Rove's main influence on the Republican Party has not been a series of tactical innovations but a series of strategic arguments. In this way, Rove is the opposite of a cynical political operator. He is not only a partisan for George W. Bush but the most serious, tireless advocate of Bushism. (emphasis mine)

Rove? The opposite of a cynical political operative? (Yeah - and slavery is freedom, ignorance is strength, and we have always been at war with EastAsia.)

Which Rove would that be, exactly? The Rove who assumed a fake identity to steal letterhead from the opponent in his very first campaign, and used it to make fake fliers promising “beer, food, girls and a good time for nothing” and passes them out at concerts and homeless shelters in an effort to disrupt the opponents campaign? Or the Rove who had a habit of anonymously tipping off the U.S. Attorneys in Texas that his Democratic opponents were committing illegal acts? To that end, investigations would be started that came to naught once the election was over?

Or would it be the Rove that thinks committing treason is just fine and dandy if it is for political reasons he wants to see advanced? It isn't cynical to sacrifice national security to cover up that a war was sold on false intel and blatant lies?

Or the Karl Rove that is way overrated as a “genius” campaign manager? They guy who wanted so badly to flip a blue state that they pissed around the last week of the 2000 election trying to win New Jersey and California, so the popular vote went to Gore, and the selection was made by the Supreme Court?

Or the Rove that lusts after the support of the African-American community, but will turn to race bating in a heartbeat to win an election?

Or the Rove that gutted the DoJ and turned it into the law enforcement arm of the Republican Party?

There are several KKKarl’s to chose from – and every last one of them is a “cynical political operative” so there are only two choices…Either Gerson is a bootlicking fucking shill, or he is under the influence of the Imperius Curse.