[al baby]

He will get the last laugh come monday or when ever he gets back

[hugorand]

The last gasp of the MSM. Limbaugh’s audience will continue to grow.

[gussiefinknottle]

Yeah, their covers don’t necessarily match articles. They are taking
shots at Limbaugh because they are a nasty group of lefties.
I think the TOTUS thing is really getting to them. Limbaugh
knocked it out of the park with that acronym.

[Drango]

the 16 people who read the New Yorker will understand the cover.

[unixfox]

The New Yorker?

What a bunch of dog pooh!

[potlatch]

That's ridiculous! The pictures should be Obama doing the crying.

[yazoo]

Magazine subscriptions are way down (even National Geographic is preparing layoffs), while Rush’s audience continues to grow. It’s envy.

[hinckley buzzard]

Doesn't matter. Nobody reads The New Yorker anymore.

[wtc911]

I’ve got an appointment with my proctologist in Manhattan on Tuesday. I’ll see it there, as will the rest of his patients. They’ll think it’s funny but, hey, they’re just a bunch of NYC assholes anyway.

[redhead]

The comments at the magazine’s website were very interesting. It was a look at the ignorance of the left, and they (of course) laid all the blame on Rush. But it was clear from their remarks that none of them had ever taken the time to listen to Rush for even a few minutes.

[50cal Smokepole]

Is this a continuing effort to make Rush an enemy of the state.

Uh, no. This is just a blatant attempt at using a famous person, without compensation, to bolster sagging circ numbers. It's the friggin' New Yorker, fer cryin' out loud.....

[popdonnelly]

IIRC, the New Yorker cover never has any relevance to what’s inside the magazine. It’s “art”. The last good things in the New Yorker were the Chas Addams cartoons.

[popdonnelly]

As I look at the demonization of the business world that is going on right now, I think Rush has a clearer idea of where we are headed than 95% of our “expert commentators”.

[lucias_clay]

When you are catching the most flack it means you are directly over the target.

Give em heck Maha Rushie !!!!

[Nateman]

Thanks to FreeThinkerNY for posting this. I really like the quality of the work here. Kudos!

[Eva]

Peggy Noonan mentions in her latest article that there is a new web site about the teleprompter, giving it life, and reporting on Obama’s activities through the eyes of the teleprompter.

[Steely Tom]

I have a subscription to The New Yorker. I saw the "crying baby" cover. It never occurred to me that the baby was Rush. Guess I'm not sophisticated enough.

The New Yorker cover has been a reflection of the left wing fantasyland since, I don't know, maybe last summer? Recently they've featured Obama as George Washington, and as a major league baseball player. Two or three weeks ago they did a Warhol-esque treatment of Michelle Obama as Jackie O (with a black background instead of white) as their cover.

They are venting. They are having a big group O... I mean, a big group cathexis experience. Somehow they've become the glamour mag of the far left. I have to say it's really, really hurting what was left of their value as a literary/arts magazine, which was not much to speak of anyway.

A few weeks ago they did a long (even for them) story of a hyper-intellectual writer who committed suicide recently. I read into it a few pages before I discovered that he had apparantly been driven literally around the bend by his hatred for George Bush. This, it would seem, was they entire reason The New Yorker deigned to notice him. They somehow missed him as a possible contributor while he was alive.

[FlingWingFlyer]

I can’t believe we are still killing trees so the New Yawker can spew it’s garbage. Apologies if the New Yawker has begun using recycled toilet paper for it’s print edition. I didn’t get the memo.

[worst-case scenario]

The covers of the New Yorker have never been related to the articles in the magazine. They are either separate pieces of art, such as that by Gretchen Dow Simpson or the late C.E.M., or editorial cartoons.

The title of the cover is always given at the bottom of the Table of Contents. This week’s cover is called “OctoRush.” The interpretation of it is up to each reader, but I thought it might be a comment upon the two items which dominated the news cycles for the week following CPAC.

You would probably like some of the pieces in this edition. The one on Roland Burris is not at all flattering, and confirms many of our suspicions and accusations regarding Burris, Blagovich, and Chicago politics. The one on Madoff gives a solid analysis of the man’s crimes and the people in the SEC who permitted them. And the Letter from Moscow is blunt about the horrors of the Russian oligolpy/oligarchy model.

Knowledge is like gold - there are nuggets of wealth in the mud.

[windcliff]

I think it has to do with the Octomom and the media attention.