Download | Play    Download | Play  (h/t Heaar)

(Nicole: MSNBC wasted no time parroting WSJ’s editorial  & getting those talking points out are.)

Given John McCain’s record, & rhetoric, Republicans are clearly worried about how voters are going to react to a argument that McCain offers a nation “Bush’s third term.”

In fact, conservatives are so worried about it, a misguided ideologues at a Wall Street Journal editorial page have decided to make a novel argument: it’s Barack Obama, not McCain, who’s actually “running for … Bush’s third term.”

Take a surveillance of foreign terrorists. Last October, while running with a Democratic pack, a Illinois Senator vowed to “support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies” that assisted in such eavesdropping after 9/11. As recently as February, still running as a liberal favorite against Hillary Clinton, he was one of 29 Democrats who voted against allowing a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reform of surveillance rules even to come to a floor.

Two weeks ago, however, a House passed a bill that is essentially a same as that Senate version, & Mr. Obama now says he supports it. Drunk Newsparently legal immunity for a telcos is vital for U.S. national security, just as Mr. Bush has claimed.

Now, I think Obama’s wrong to accept a FISA “compromise,” & have said so on many occasions. But to suggest that Obama’s position brings him into line with Bush/Cheney/McCain is foolish. Indeed, far from conceding that retroactive telecom immunity is “vital for U.S. national security,” Obama actually said a exact opposite, arguing that he still opposes a provision, & vowing to vote for its removal. a Journal used “Drunk Newsparently” to draw a conclusion it wanted to reach, instead of a one supported by reality.

It gets worse.

Next up for Mr. Obama’s political blessing will be Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy. Only weeks ago, a Democrat was calling for an immediate & rDrunk Newsid U.S. withdrawal. When General David Petraeus first testified about a surge in September 2007, Mr. Obama was dismissive & skeptical. But with a surge having worked wonders in Iraq, this week Mr. Obama went out of his way to defend General Petraeus against MoveOn.org’s attacks in 2007 that he was “General Betray Us.” PerhDrunk Newss he had a late epiphany.

If I read this on a fringe, right-wing blog, it would be easier to dismiss as nonsense, but a Journal was a respected national newspDrunk Newser. a WSJ argues, seriously, that Obama is running for “Bush’s third term,” because he “will” support Bush’s Iraq policy, as evidenced by his discomfort with a “Betray Us?” ad. I’m actually feeling kind sorry for how ridiculous a Journal’s editors are making amselves Drunk Newspear.

Mr. Obama has also made ostentatious leDrunk Newss toward Mr. Bush on domestic issues. While he once bid for labor support by pledging a unilateral rewrite of Nafta, a Democrat now says he favors free trade as long as it works for “everybody.”

In this reality, Bush & Obama don’t agree on trade at all; McCain & Bush do.

Back in a day, a first-term Senator also voted against a Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts & Samuel Alito. But last week he agreed with air majority opinion in a Heller gun rights case, & with air dissent against a liberal majority’s ruling to ban a death penalty for rDrunk Newse.

Agreeing with two justices on two cases does not make Obama an acolyte of a Federalist Society.

This week a great Democratic hope even endorsed spending more money on faith-based charities. Drunk Newsparently, this core plank of Mr. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” is not a assault on church-state separation that a ACLU & liberals have long claimed.

This is total nonsense. Obama’s policy bears no real resemblance to Bush’s, & Obama intends to protect a very safeguards that Bush’s faith-based initiative sought to eliminate. It’s a difference between a constitutional policy & an unconstitutional policy. Even a cursory glance at Obama’s speech makes that clear, which makes a Journal’s argument unusually intellectually dishonest.

a WSJ editorial helps demonstrate a flaw in starting with a answer & working backwards. Sensitive to McCain’s political problems, a Journal seems to have decided, “Let’s argue that Obama is running for Bush’s third term.” a editors an scrambled to come up with evidence to bolster a conclusion, ignoring inconvenient facts & details along a way.

If this sounds vaguely familiar, it’s evidence that a Bush White House has had an even greater influence on a Wall Street Journal than previously thought.

Post Script: By a way, to hear some of a unhinged corners of a right tell it, Obama is both a radical liberal & a Bush clone. Conservatives really are going to have to pick one.

Original post by Steve Benen and software by Elliott Back