A Question.

Consider that Rod highlighted an article that argues for "why we need a William Jennings Bryan figure in America today." Consider how often Rod has written about populism, including a post in which he entertains the notion that we are "on the verge of a populist revival." Consider that, as early as June of last year, Rod had kind words to say about the clearly over-hyped Barack Obama. (As we noted earlier, Rod missed the secular undertones to Obama's supposedly pro-religion speech, perhaps because he relied on a news account rather than the text of the actual speech.) And consider how Rod writes about John Edwards in a post about the upcoming presidential race:

I think he'll be the nominee, and his running mate will be either Iowa governor Tom Vilsack or Democratic vice-presidential also-ran John Edwards, whose populist message will be much more appealing in 2008. [emphasis mine]

Now that Rod has written that he'll be referring to Edwards as "the Kingfish, I ask you:

Does he mean that to be an insult or a compliment?

He wouldn't be the first to compare Edwards to Huey Long, but Michael Knox Beran at NRO didn't mean it as a compliment, and I struggle to believe that, in the twenty-first century, even a politically confused "working boy" from Louisiana would let his infatuation with populism take him so far as to actually make a positive comparison between Long and a modern-day politician -- to say nothing of a self-described conservative doing exactly that. (Wasn't Long an explicit socialist? Wouldn't Rod's love of the small and local preclude using his name as a compliment?) If for no other reason, the comparison isn't shrewd because I believe Huey Long is too closely associated with demagoguery and corruption.

But that's precisely where the evidence leads. This is by no means anything close to being the most ridiculous thing he's ever broadcast, but it's certainly odd.