I’m glad that people like Andrew Sullivan are making the point I made a few days ago:

So if I have this straight, Limbaugh knowingly supported people he actually believed were indefensible, who were not conservatives. He is saying loud and clear that he deliberately misled his listeners – because he couldn’t bring himself to back "the left," whatever that means to him. Then there’s this from Hugh Hewitt:

"It is a wonderful day for new media, especially talk radio. For two years we have had to defend the Congressional gang that couldn’t shoot straight."

Say what? Says who? Is he on the GOP payroll? "We have had to defend …" Why, exactly? No one was forcing Hewitt to defend anything. He could have been honest with his readers and listeners. He could have called this Congress the "gang that couldn’t shoot straight" last week. Why didn’t he?

The one thing you learn from this: Hewitt and Limbaugh are party animals. They put loyalty to party above intellectual honesty. They have admitted that they knowingly misled their readers and listeners. They can and will do it again.

Emphasis mine. 

Another conservative blogger echoes the sentiment:

When one thinks about, Rush’s attitude mirrors key problems evident in the outgoing Congressional majority: the notion that the most important thing was holding on to power, not an honest assessment of the country’s situation.

Further, this underscores an ongoing problem in American political commentary: allowing partisanship to trump ideology/philosophy.

It is one thing to have a point of view, it is quite another to become a shill for a given political party no matter what it does. I briefly listened to Hannity’s radio show on Tuesday and he was nothing more than very loud booster for Republicans. Now, one would expect Hannity to be pro-GOP but there is a point where one ceases to be an ally of a given party and one becomes nothing more than a propaganda tool for them. Once one has crossed that line, it is impossible for me to take them seriously at all.