We Are All Tarwater

Over the top or right on? What say you? (Language alert. Really.) I can't really claim to think it's over the top because I just said last night our reporters are acting like Eason Jordan at the Baghdad Bureau. Which this fellow sees too. Plus, there's no resisting a Flannery O'Connor analogy.
It is no coincidence that formerly reliable conservative pundits are jumping the McCain ship like bilge rats in a galley fire. Most people attribute this craven capitulation to elitism. Noonan, Frum, Chris Buckley, that dithering Converse finishing school twit Kathleen Parker, they're elitists! No, they're not. Or that's not what is compelling them. They are [--ing] afraid. Afraid to be the last dissenting voice in the face of the Hope and Change juggernaut. The Chinese kid versus the tanks in Tiannamen they are not. They are elitists, but they are cowards first and foremost. We don't need them. And, unfortunately for them, Obama doesn't need them. Therefore I will speak their names no more.
Curtsy: American Digest. (I do read more than his site. Really.)

Meanwhile, the Washington Times really is over the top in its lead editorial today. In which it opines:
Single-party rule is inherently totalitarian whether the people consent to it or not. In most cases, one-party states rise out of authoritarian regimes, including former monarchies, or socialist revolutions. There are currently seven - China, Cuba, Eritrea, Laos, Vietnam, Syria, Korea. The United States would become the eighth.
Well, I'm not especially happy about the Dems having free reign, and I fear the Obama juggernaut, but what the Times seems to be saying here is that elections shouldn't be allowed to have consequences (pretending just for the moment that this election is going to be fair in spite of ACORN stealing not hundreds but hundreds of thousands of votes in swing states and that being of no interest to anyone --not even the McCain campaign).