One of the things that I am finding very frustrating (and perhaps the significance is lost on me), but there seems to be a tendency by Democrats to take any statement made by Republicans that contradicts with current GOP ideology as validation of the Democratic position (in a broad sense). Its as if Democrats are hapless children looking for validation from a stern parent.
Case in point? Today, Salon has a short piece from Alex Seitz-Wald alleging that a GOP intel "expert" has debunked the myth being advanced in GOP quarters that President's Obama's failure to attend in-person daily intelligence briefings is putting the country at risk. Personally, I found a number of problems with this piece. To me, the substance of the article doesn't match up with the title (I don't know that the "expert's" opinion actually debunked the GOP myth). But guess what? Who cares? Last week, Dana Milbank at WaPo dispelled the myth by explaining that President Obama actually reads his intel briefing binder and responds with pointed questions to his intel advisors (as was done in the Clinton Administration). Milbank goes on to point out that the in-person meetings were started because President Bush II wanted to read less (I know, a complete shocker).
My point? Democrats/Progressives/Those on the Left don't need to chase crumbs left by the GOP and the extreme right wing. Yes, lies and untruths should be disputed and debunked, but truth telling is different than trying to turn GOP statements into some form of approval, irrespective of how vauge, opague or just irrelevant. Again, maybe its just me...but, I find that whole process "naseauting" (to borrow a line from Mayor Cory Booker).
Note: In fairness to Seitz-Wald, this is a common practice, so I am not picking on him alone. His piece just happened to be the most recent one that I read.