Liberal journalist John Aloysius Farrell of the National Journal recently scolded Mitt Romney for missing his “Sister Souljah moment” by not attacking conservative talk radio yacker Rush Limbaugh over his “slut” comments. But instead of giving us serious political analysis, all we really got was the confused “logic” of lib Farrell. Still, Farrell’s moral confusion is telling.

In his March 12 piece, Farrell complains that Romney should have scolded Rush for calling the extremist, gay rights and so-called “reproductive rights” activist Sandra Fluke a slut when she went before a Congressional committee demanding that the federal government give her free contraceptives to support her lifestyle choices and further that the government should impose her left-wing ideals on religious institutions. Farrell claims that Romney missed his moment to show “strength.”

Farrell also claimed that Romney eschewed the controversy because it might weaken his electability in the primaries.

But until Romney clinches the Republican nomination, a Souljah moment — vocally speaking out at the risk of alienating a key party constituency — is too dangerous a way for the candidate to demonstrate strength and conviction. He’ll be better off booking a trip to Tension City, that place where an angry confrontation can forever alter perceptions of a politician.

Saddled with an image as a malleable opportunist, Romney needs a way to convey power and purpose — especially to independent and centrist voters who will play a key role in the fall campaign.

Notice the confused “logic” Farrell employs?

He assumes that bucking his own voters would show strength? That it would somehow not paint him as a “malleable opportunist” if he were to attack Limbaugh along with the rest of the left? His logic fails, of course, because it is based on the assumption that attacking Limbaugh is the correct course of action. It also fails by assuming that Romney would not be acting opportunistically to jump on the anti-Rush bandwagon.

Let me digress a bit for those unaware of what a “Sister Souljah moment” might be as the phrase reaches back into the 1990s during Bill Clinton’s era.

In 1992 an execrable rap “artist” named Sister Souljah said the following: “If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?”

During his campaign for President, Bill Clinton made points for himself among voters by quickly denouncing this singer and doing so at a meeting of Jesse Jackson’s Operation Push, no less, saying, “If you took the words, ‘white’ and ‘black’ and you reversed them, you might think David Duke was giving that speech.”

So, note that Liberal Farrell is saying that Rush Limbaugh calling Fluke a slut is somehow comparable to Sister Souljah calling for blacks to kill white people. This comparison also fails miserably. Souljah’s words were far, far worse than Limbaugh’s. In fact, Limbaugh’s reaches toward triviality compared to someone calling for mass murder!

Additionally, Romney didn’t denounce Rush not because Romney is weak, but because there was no reason for any candidate to go to the extremes of denouncing the radio talker for comments that don’t rise to the occasion of denunciation.

In fact, only a liberal would think that Republican voters would reward Romney for slamming Rush Limbaugh over comments about the left-media/Obama administration manufactured slut-gate.

Yes, Mr. John Aloysius Farrell fails on every level with this nonsense of his. But he does a perfect job of informing us how extremist, left-wingers think.