Much as the 19th century laborer would stagger home drunk and beat his helpless child more out of a sense of disappointment with regards to his own situation than due to anything the child itself may have done, Mitt Romney fanboy Jason Bonham continues to unfairly punish the hapless English language and its noble sister, Logical Argumentation, instead of facing up to the fact that his candidate of choice has deep and considerable weaknesses and that many feel themselves inclined to point these out.

Come fly with me, Gentle Reader, as Bonham attempts to attribute any and all criticism of or disagreement with Romney to liberal sentiment:

And there you have it. Romney is ok with waterboarding, McCain is not. McCain will bow to the MSM pressure.

It does not occur to Bonham that McCain may very well have formed his opinion of waterboarding and other such practices long before the monolithic "MSM" decided to "pressure" everyone about it, and that this may have occured at some point during the five-year period when McCain himself was being tortured by the Vietnamese communists.

... in the area of interrogations of terrorist [sic], John Hinderacker nails it: McCain is on the left. McCain is willing to sacrifice important intelligence on terrorist [sic], so that we don't waterboard. It's really nuts, and frankly disturbing.

"Disturbing" is relative. Frankly, I find one's refusal to simply add an "s" to the end of an English noun which one intends to be plural kind of disturbing, and not a little "nuts." And it would have taken Bonham all of two minutes to discover that McCain is critical of torture-driven intelligence gathering largely because he himself was tortured into providing phony confessions to the Vietnamese - who, being torturers themselves, were clearly not "on the left" according to Bonham's characterization of how such things work, which really makes you wonder why it is that we spent so much time and energy fighting these phony communists in the first place.

McCain was right on the war, but apparently, he wants it both ways. He wants to look like the hardlined [sic] supporter of the war, who also happened to criticize it the whole time.

Will somone please take away this man's commas until such time as he manages to learn what they are supposed to do? Putting aside Bonham's linguistic nihilism, though, need it be pointed out that it is not a contradiction to support a war while also being critical of the way it has been carried out? If Donald Rumsfeld had insisted on trying to dislodge Sunni militants from Fallujah by offering them frequent flier miles and unsold copies of Atari's notoriously unpopular '80s era video game version of E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial, and Bonham himself had taken issue with such a strategy and proposed that perhaps we ought to simply shoot them instead, would that mean the pro-war Bonham was trying to have it "both ways" and "look like the hardlined [sic]" or whatever it is that he's trying to express here? The answer is, no, because Bonham would have no idea that this was occuring, because he has no idea what goes on in Iraq and is similarly unaware of what's been going on in the U.S. with regard to that conflict, because, if he did, he would know that McCain was hardly alone in his criticisms. Which brings us to this:

He was sloppy in his approach of criticizing Rumsfeld while supporting Bush (the man who controlled Rumsfeld's job)...

You know who else this describes? William Kristol. Is William Kristol also not really "the hardlined [sic]" on the war, either? Are he and McCain - along with the millions of other hawkish Republicans, independents, and Democtats who criticized Rumsfeld while still praising Bush - in fact, "the softlined" on the war? Are they all "the traitored" and even "the liberaled," too? Bonham should tell us, and he should use as many commas as possible in doing so, because that is what good writers do.