Here's an interesting follow-up to my previous post about the vilification of Limbaugh.

To be honest, I feel a bit naive. I do my best to keep up with the news (but, admittedly, have much less time to do so than I did at work in the past). But who knew it was such a sophisticated, coordinated assault?

Here are some excerpt's from Jonathan Martin's insightful characterization:

Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.

Americans United for Change launched a new ad featuring Limbaugh’s CPAC appearance. A left-leaning media watchdog group began a new Limbaugh tracking homepage. Democratic National Chairman Tim Kaine tweaked Steele for his apology. Terry McAuliffe tried to inject Limbaugh into the Virginia governor’s race. The DCCC launched a new website, www.imsorryrush.com, mocking the Republicans who have had to apologize to Limbaugh.

It’s something of a back to the future tactic for Democrats: painting the GOP as the party of the angry white male. But unlike Newt Gingrich or other prominent Republicans, Limbaugh doesn’t have to mind his tongue.

“The television cameras just can’t stay away from him,” Carville said Tuesday, a day when cable news played images of Limbaugh seemingly on a loop. “Our strategy depends on him keeping talking, and I think we’re going to succeed.”

Dirty politics? Isn't it always? I wouldn't underestimate Limbaugh, though.

Like Anne Coulter, I think Rush understands the profitability of splenetic displays. Unlike Coulter, however, I'm not sure his opinionating is entirely self-serving. To some degree, he's an ideologue. William F. Buckley he's not--but he does have a stake in the ideological tenets of conservatism.

We'll see how big that stake is.