A turning point?

This morning, on the way to work, I was listening to Paul Harvey reading (maybe a better word is "extruding") the news.

I don't listen to Paul Harvey, mainly because every time I've tried to in the past, he says something jingoistic or Bush-worshipping that I thonk the next station on the dial like an arrow to the apple on somebody's head. And usually that's one or two stories into the newscast.

But today I didn't change the station until the second commercial.

With regard to the bridge collapse in Minneapolis, he read a quote from somebody who had said the government has plenty of money to make sure all the roads and bridges are safe and secure. But we're sending all that money to Iraq.

Wait a minute, I thought. He's not saying it in the tone of voice that makes it clear that this congressman is an America-hating asshole. Where's the Bush love?

And then the next story is about government waste, which is along the lines of what you'd expect, but this time it's about the military having spent billions on weapons for Iraq and not being able to account for 30 percent of them.

Here's the administration's remarkable achievement: they've managed to be incompetent enough to lose Paul Harvey.

I would have sworn that he'd be a permanent part of the 24 percent of Americans who will never abandon Bush, not even if he interrupts the finale of American Idol to show America how to deep fry live puppies.

I mean, it may not be an actual turning point in perceptions of this war, but I'm amazed. Dumbfounded. Not just dumb - dumb and founded.

It would be nice if this blog had a reader or two, so I could ask, "When did this happen?" with a sliver of hope for an answer. Still, when did this happen?