From the beginning, I’ve thought the Begala boiler-room operation against Limbaugh was lame more than anything else. Been there, done that, got The New York Times tote bag. Moreover, I thought it was stupid. It’s a campaign tactic when the campaign should be over. As Fred Barnes illustrated nicely, Obama can’t get out of campaign mode. It’s still his honeymoon during dark economic times, so most people haven’t noticed that he’s running the presidency like he’s running for an office he already holds. The anti-Limbaugh spiel from the White House made Obama look even less presidential and more like a candidate. It may not show in the polling now, but eventually people will connect the dots and this whole episode will be a significant dot.

I always thought the conservative argument against Rush had more merit. No, I don’t think he deserves to be demonized or vilified or shunned by conservatives. I think Limbaugh’s an important and influential voice and for good reason. But, as I’ve always argued, I think internal debates are healthy and so even though I actually agree with Limbaugh’s positions more often than not (at least from what I can tell), I welcomed the fraternal debate. I think some of the reformist ideas out there are very good. And I think some of theme are awful. But now is the time to argue about them, because Democrats have the ball and the time to debate your playbook is before you have to take the field again. That’s why I liked NR’s editorial on the Limbaugh controversy so much, as well as this post by Rich.

It seems to me Ross Douthat tried to stay on one side of the line, trying to debate Limbaughism — for want of a better word — without going after Limbaugh personally or in a way that damages the right more than it helps. He may have crossed that line in some peoples’ eyes, but at least he recognizes that this has gotten out of hand. And, it seems to me Ross is right that Rush and some of his most ardent defenders (some of whom are friends of mine) have gone too far themselves in their attacks and counter-attacks (I am still trying to figure out what I did to pee in Mark Levin’s corn flakes).

As for my friend David Frum, I think he’s making a terrible mistake. The Newsweek gag-cover is bad enough. But taking Chris Matthews’ race-bait is just too much. It’s a style of any-weapon-near-to-hand fighting that I would expect from Andrew Sullivan. If David wants to be the “anti-Rush” of the conservative movement, but still a respected voice among conservatives (what else could he possibly want?), he should practice what he claims to preach and take the high road at times like that. The proper response to Matthews would have been something like: “Now look, Chris. I have obvious and serious disagreements with Rush Limbaugh. But I’m not going to sit here and play that game. I have no reason to believe the man is a racist and liberals should stop assuming that their disagreements with conservatives stem from the fact that liberals are racially enlightened and conservatives are racists.”

Implicitly insinuating that one of the most popular figures on the mainstream right is a crypto-racist of some kind may do some tactical damage to Limbaugh among liberals — great victory there! — but it wins you no friends among conservatives and does not help the cause you’re dedicated to reviving. (The same holds true, of course, for Michael Steele’s regrettable silence on the issue of whether the GOP resembles the Nazi party.).

And that’s my real gripe with much of the conservative assault on Limbaugh. If the liberal attack was craven and hackneyed, the conservative attack is pointless. Again, I don’t mean the substantive disagreements, even though you can have those arguments without dragooning Rush into them. But, with all due respect to David Frum, nobody who likes Rush Limbaugh is going to dislike him because David says they should, particularly when David’s arguments descend into comments about the man’s cigars and waistline. In fairness, no one who dislikes Limbaugh will start liking him on his defenders’ say-so either. But the defenders weren’t trying to make people like Limbaugh, they were simply trying to defend him against nakedly strategic or vindictive attacks from friend and foe alike.

In short, my advice to everyone (assuming anyone cares one iota): Move on. This is played out. It’s tired. If you squint real hard and look over your shoulder, you can see the shark swirling in the water behind you. Get back to arguing about family tax credits or something. We know where everyone stands already.