Slow day for Howard Kurtz

The Washington Post's media critic decided to fill up a column by recycling Andrew Sullivan and Charles Johnson, and compounded the error by adding his own political analysis:

The split on the right first became apparent during the Bush years, especially in the second term, when some of those devoted to limited government were appalled by the burgeoning spending and some who had backed the Iraq invasion were disgusted by its bungling.
The divide deepened during last year's campaign when some of the right's most prominent writers and talkers revolted over John McCain's choice of Palin. A few intellectuals such as Christopher Buckley even announced they were voting for Barack Obama.
The dawn of the Obama era might have erased some of these fissures, but the arguments, at least in some quarters, seem to be getting louder. What might seem like a writerly squabble is, to some, a battle for the soul of a movement. . . .

Sigh. Where to begin? Let's get one thing out of the way: Opportunism.

There, I've said it. After Obama beat Hillary for the Democratic nomination and especially after it became apparent John McCain was doomed -- his bailout panic sealed his fate -- some Republicans decided to enhance their images as sophisticated and enlightened beings.

Beholding the evident tsunami for Obama, and supposing that his election heralded an FDR-style paradigm shift in American politics, these opportunists jumped onto the Obama bandwagon. In order to justify the shift, they latched onto a convenient pretext: Sarah Palin.

More fisking is possible and arguably necessary. However (a) I feel like taking a nap, and (b) why should I have all the fun?

Y'all fisk Howard's analysis in the comments. Or not. Maybe you feel like taking a nap, too.