[LibertyLee]

Both men are principled conservatives. Both are brilliant. Rush is a better entertainer who can make conservatism more palatable to more people through his skits and wit. Tony is a better researcher and reporter (which after all is his background) and probably would do better in formal scored debates. They both are brilliant in their own way and I wouldn't trade either of them for anyone on the DUmmies side of the house.

[Clint N. Suhks]

They both are brilliant in their own way

Excellent points. And I think that's Bah's point too.

[Liberty Valance]

Fox News Alert:
Senate votes to divert funds from Iraq to border security.

[mnehring]

All of this is an unfair comparison. Comparing Rush to Tony is like comparing a Mercenary to Special Forces. Special Forces are the best of the best but they are bound by the rules of warfare. A Merc, often, is as good as a SF but, because of their status, isn't bound by the rules of war.

Rush is in a position to 'tell it like it is' like a rogue warrior. Tony, in this position, is bound by the rules of decorum and representing his bosses.

Both positions are necessary and are needed for different angles of attack.

[ark_girl]

To sum it up, Rush is right where he needs to be. Rush is great because he can be outrageous and he says what he wants, no holds barred.

You can't do that as the White House Press Secretary. You have to say what some other guy thinks and say it in a dignified manner at all times without letting a pool of reporters trick you into saying something you didn't mean. You have to wonder if Rush would even WANT to have to deal with that mess.