[TheConservator]

This article suggests that what Rush said and what Clinton (in some perpendicular universe) might have said are the same. The same words perhaps, but they would not be interpreted the same way.

There is a big difference between Rush's announcement, and the hypothetical Clinton one. Both get (or would get) run through and spun by the LIBERAL MEDIA.

Therefore, even though both said (hypothetically) the same thing, by the time they get through the "media filter," the words they used would be accorded quite different meanings.

In other words, if Bill Clinton ever said (I know this is hard to imagine) that he "was not a hero," he would be saying that knowing full well that the LIBERAL MEDIA would turn that around and treat him as a hero.

But when Rush said that, he knew the LIBERAL MEDIA would turn that around into a reason to attack him, as the author of this article has just done.

Rush did not say what he said for the benefit of the LIBERAL MEDIA. He knew he had once chance to communicate directly to his fan base. And he knew that they would take him at his word.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Aren't we taking this article too seriously? I thought it was a clever satire of Rush Limbaugh. Not even that mean-spirited.

[Ronin]

Your points are good. I agree with them.

It doesn't make this satire sting any less.