I always appreciate his posts, and this latest one (Rush is Right), pivoting on an endorsement of Limbaugh's assessment of the Iraqi Study Group report, is a perfect example of what I admire most about them. He deftly transforms a mindless chauvinist attack into a subtle historical analysis of American character, American exceptionalism, American ego.
But here's my question for him. On the weekend after the election, O'Donnell did a turn on the McLaughlin Group in which he opened, hilariously, by violating all the Democratic talking points guidelines; "I'm here to gloat," he announced, giving honest voice in a public venue to the mood of gratitude and relief that so many of us felt when that vote was finally counted--after 2000 in Florida, after 2004 in Ohio.
Later, he called Bush a "lost soul." I couldn't agree with him more on that one. But he also predicted that Bush would be clinging to James Baker's hand after the ISG report came out, that the response of this presidential lost soul would be to submit to the Velvet Hammer.
That doesn't seem to be happening.
I've blogged a lot on HuffPo about Little George, his character, his motives. When O'Donnell made that prediction, I thought "Man, I hope with all my heart that you are right on this, but, but...."
Well, let's just say it didn't fit my sense of Little George.
I would like to hear what Lawrence O'Donnell makes of the way Bush is actually reacting to the ISG report. Not in the spirit of 'you were wrong," but in the spirit of, "ok, what does this say about the ways this lost soul is keeping himself intact in his own mind?"