I'm not exactly sure what Rush Limbaugh is thinking about when he uses the term "anal poisoning." But he's up to three separate mentions now in recent months, and I'm starting to wonder if there is something more going on with the beefy bloviator and his super-sized cigars than the obvious unconscious motivations. If you missed it, Limbaugh hit on "anal poisoning" again the other day in describing the relationship of two Republicans he dislikes and despises, Senators Lindsay Graham and John McCain. In Rush world, and the world of his wannabes and listeners, McCain, in particular, is worse than persona non grata. He's . . . well, the anal bit gives you a pretty good idea.

Among all the available avenues for media dissection coming out of this past Tuesday night, the ongoing, widening, deepening crackup of the talk radio echo chamber will do just fine for today.

To recap: With the resurgence of John McCain, America's methane-producing print and broadcast elite—first Limbaugh, then, in no particular order, Laura Ingraham, Hugh Hewitt, our own Jason Lewis, and (most recently jumping on the bus) Glenn Beck—have expressed horror so deep at the thought of a McCain candidacy that they've openly vowed not to vote for him, maybe not vote at all (James Dobson). Or in the case of Ann Coulter, who always knows how to grab a headline, vow to "campaign for Hillary Clinton rather than support" McCain. (Coulter's beef, in part, is because McCain emphatically opposes torturing Guantanamo detainees. Is that girl a psych-class study or what?)

Naturally, these difficult choices by well-off/extraordinarily wealthy media personalities are all being made in the name of unimpeachable principles.

Riiight. (Snippets of what the right wingers have been saying about McCain are collected below.)

Other luminaries of conservative conscience, principle, and rectitude—I'm thinking indicted, arguably psychopathic, former Republican majority leader Tom DeLay here—are also avowedly anti-McCain. With enemies like these, is it any wonder the guy is doing so well?

Now, James Dobson of Focus on the Family (see below) might be working a slightly different angle than the others what with his avowed concern about stem cell research, yadda, yadda, but I suspect not. I think they are all tightly focused on the one, same cherished "principle."

The "principled" separation here between a remarkably influential arm of pop culture—right wing talk radio and right wing punditry—and a Republican candidate (whom you'd think even they would see as best able to compete in November) is not over "fighting terrorists." McCain is gung ho on fighting Al Qaeda wherever it lives—or, in the case of Iraq, even where it doesn't—as Limbaugh and the rest are.

The divorce is also not over defense spending, which McCain and his talker critics (none of whom, unlike McCain, ever came close to actually wearing a uniform and "serving" the country) all believe should continue at robust-to-obscene levels. (A thought here: At the rate we're borrowing money from the Chinese to cover the deficits and the $1 trillion in off-the-books military spending in Iraq, wouldn't it be smarter just to rent the Chinese army?)

Nor are the right wing stars all that upset with McCain over so-called "social issues," Dobson's stem cell complaint withstanding. (Do you honestly think Limbaugh gives two [bleeps] about abortion?) What this is really all about—and I've got a one-time $800 tax rebate for anyone who guesses correctly—is "the Bush tax cuts," and the kind of demonstrably unsustainable, counter-effective "small government"/"fiscal conservatism" they represent.

Now, I really am trying to avoid going off on a deep political track here. But to my mind, the administration's fundamental raison d'être, the primary reason they were picked for the job by Republican money men (and women), the reason they were then bankrolled for election, and the reason they have been so epically incompetent at operating every other facet of the government is because of their commitment to the series of tax cuts for the monied elite Bush drove through a once-compliant Congress. (Keeping the tax cuts for the 1 percenters on track is, after all, "hard work"—a guy can't be expected to pay a lot of attention to all that other crap. You know, wars and stuff.)

The nut of my beef with the "small-government crowd" and right wing talk radio, which is "small government's" loudest, most pervasive and influential bullhorn, has always been that both embody a reckless disregard for a society functioning adequately for all social classes; each is also nakedly self-serving and, as far as this "fiscal-conservative stuff" goes, intellectually dishonest. As nutty as the evangelical conservatives often look and sound, I give them credit for being more honest in their belief that what they're pushing is "best for all mankind." As far as the "fiscal conservatives" go, their concern for "mankind" ends at the foot of their gated driveways.

I strongly suspect the Limbaughs (and Dick Cheneys and Karl Roves) of the world have always regarded the evangelical conservatives as useful idiots when it comes election time and are now aware that with all the Bush-era corruption and incompetence, they've lost any hope of carrying/bullsh***ing them again in '08.

Despite wrapping themselves—very ironically—in the mantle of "true" and "pure" and "principled" conservatism, the "fiscal conservatives"—Limbaugh, etc.—are wholly devoted to the narrowest of self-interests. Their principal "principle" is piggishness.

"Fiscal conservatism" is a very good deal for them, for their ownership groups, and their major advertisers. Therefore, anything or anyone who has called this faction's cherished, long-stymied tax cuts reckless or counter-effective—as McCain has—must, therefore, be derided and denounced . . . on "principle," of course.

All that said, the question is: Is this split going to be bad for the right wing talk radio business? Will Limbaugh and the rest continue to make payments on their Palm Beach mansions even while denouncing "their party's" candidate?   

Not having Limbaugh's cell number, I called Jason Lewis over at KTLK. Lewis has been hammering McCain, too. Also on principle, of course. I asked him if it wasn't true that the best thing that could  happen to him and his fellow talkers would be a Democrat—any Democrat but especially Hillary Clinton —back in the White House. I mean, come on. They should all be sending Bill Clinton half of their annual grosses just for feeding off him for fifteen-plus years.

"That will be good for my show, yes" Lewis conceded. "But look, I've been beating this drum about McCain for quite awhile. The most conservative you'll see McCain is in the next month. [As he schmoozes evangelicals.] What you're really seeing is the party going back to its Rockefeller roots, where all they hope to do is play ball with the Democrats between the forty yard lines. [The horror!] The evangelicals are a part of the problem with their talk about Biblical stewardship of the environment and all that."

I told Lewis—whose show holds no value for me at all but who I otherwise enjoy for his l'esprit du combat—I hoped that on principle he was driving something that got well less than ten miles a gallon. "SUV, baby!" he crowed. That's walkin' the walk.

"But the evangelicals aren't as much of a problem as the big-government Republicans, the Neo-Cons, most of whom are former Democrats [Cheney? Paul Wolfowitz, the pro-ABM aide to Scoop Jackson? Douglas Feith? Who?] and, you know, The Weekly Standard crowd. The whole bunch has elevated party over principle. That's my complaint."

For an indication of how serious the intramural fracture has become, Lewis also rips FOX News for "placing party over principle." (Gosh, isn't FOX News boss Roger Ailes still selling that channel as a collection of simple truth-speakers? The ONLY news operation without a partisan agenda? "Party over principle?" Even more, on what planet are the words "principle" and "FOX News" ever used in the same sentence?)

Lewis sounds sanguine about any hit he might take in audience size. Those who reject his argument, he says, probably weren't serious conservatives anyway. And my guess is that he's right, at least as regards his audience. The heyday of right wing talk might be over. Even with a Clinton back in the White House, it isn't likely so many listeners will ever again be so credulous. The radio universe has fragmented, and the right wing talk act is no longer fresh. Far from it. But when all you need is a 5 percent share of any local audience—roughly Limbaugh's take out of the Twin Cities, mostly older men—to hold your time slot/syndication fee, you can boil your pitch down to a pretty hard . . . "principled" . . . core without risking much of anything.

McCain voting against the tax cuts in 2001:

"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief."

Good Lord. What kind of principle is that?

Here's a clip from Limbaugh on McCain:

"He's going to reach out to Democrats in Congress. This is how he's going to get even with Republicans for defeating him in South Carolina in 2000. The Republican Congress will effectively be neutered."

Laura Ingraham:

" ... it's pretty clear and easy to understand. The pieces of legislation that John McCain became most famous for are all pieces of legislation that he co-authored with liberals, whether it's McCain-Kennedy, obviously, the amnesty bill, or it was McCain-Feingold, which was a direct curtailment of political free speech in America. They're just, on the conservative scale of 0 to 10, 0 being the least offensive, 10 being the most offensive, both of them are like 12. ... Carbon taxes. Failure to want the Bush tax cuts to be permanent. The list goes on."

Hugh Hewitt:

"Therein lies the problem that many conservatives have with John McCain. It is the nagging feeling that after all of his years of chummily bonding with liberal reporters and garnering favorable media coverage from them that the Arizona senator is embarrassed to be seen as too much of a conservative."

Ann Coulter:

"[McCain] has led the fight against — well, as you say, interrogations, I say torture — at Guantanamo. [Clinton] hasn't done that."

"She lies less than John McCain. She's smarter than John McCain, so that when she's caught shamelessly lying, at least the Clintons know they've been caught lying. McCain is so stupid he doesn't even know when he's been caught."

"John McCain is not only bad for Republicans, he is very, very bad for the country."

And James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family:

"I'm deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, who voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, who opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, and who has little regard for freedom of speech, who organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.

"I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has at times sounded more like a member of the other party.  McCain actually considered leaving the GOP in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry's running mate in 2004.  McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president.  Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does not make the medicine go down.  I cannot, and I will not vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience."