Broadcast vs. print Republicans, Part II
Add Jeff to those on the print side who are consciously or subconsciously distancing themselves from the broadcast blowhards. ... Again, the broadcast-vs.-print-Republicans divide isn't a precise predictor of presidential preferences. Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin all despise McCain. Then again, all three have been, or want to be, broadcast blowhards, right? ... A clear exception to the emerging b-vs.-p rule is National Review, which in early December endorsed the phony conservative, actually arguing that Mitt was the 'most conservative viable candidate.' Well, he was never the 'most conservative' and he's certainly not 'viable' now. So you can just sense NR trying to squirm its way out of its embarrassing Mitt endorsement. The reason? A light bulb that briefly flickered on over Jonah's head suggests why:

George W. Bush moved the party leftward and/or damaged the image of the GOP in many respects precisely because he was given the benefit of the doubt by conservatives who saw him as "one of us."

Forget the 'leftward' and 'benefit of the doubt' stuff. That's just Jonah's way of shifting blame to Bush, similar to how Andrew Sullivan once tried to blame his early backing of Bush on Bush, i.e., Andrew trusted him and Bush betrayed him. No, the real explanation is more simple: many conservatives chose partisanship over principle during the Bush years. They put on the partisan blinders to sword fight the left on behalf of a phony conservative. They couldn't resist a fight with their old adversaries. Now the broadcast blowhards are asking the troops to once again embrace a phony conservative -- and some conservatives are finally having second thoughts about the strategy of fighting for phony purity. ...  ¶ 7:11 AM