I'm sure you are right. Limbaugh gave his passing a brief mention and referred to him as one of the few reasonable libs who were still out there. I can't say that I agree with that. The difference with Broder (and maybe this is what Rush meant) is that he wasn't purposefully outrageous. That seems to be the strategy with today's libs, to get noticed and stay in the headlines they have to be pretty nasty. So they do. Broder was a legacy and didn't need to do that so he didn't. But he was just about as left leaning as any of them. Because if he wasn't I never saw him stand up to the hoards of leftist nutcases that dominate the media. If you don't publicly disagree with a position then you are giving it a de facto or tacit approval.