[Dead Corpse]

A lot of people have been on Alex's show. Not all of them supporting his moonbat crap. Savage had Schumer on his show. Does this make Schumer less of a socialist? Hannity backs Rudy. Does this make Rudy less of a RINO?

If that is all you've got is a tenuous "guilt by association" in the face of direct evidence directly to the contrary, then you really have drank deep of the cool-aid.

[P-40]

A lot of people have been on Alex's show.

I'd have to give someone extra points for going on a show with Alex. :)

[wideawake]

A lot of people have been on Alex's show. Not all of them supporting his moonbat crap. Savage had Schumer on his show. Does this make Schumer less of a socialist? Hannity backs Rudy. Does this make Rudy less of a RINO?

A couple of underlying assumptions presented here:

(1) That Jones, Hannity and Savage are more or less equivalents in terms of prestige and respectability.

They aren't - going on Alex Jones' show is like going on a Klan radio show.

(2) That the prestige factor between show and host is not really different.

In reality, Giuliani goes on Hannity because he is hoping that Hannity's broad exposure to the conservative base will win him some unearned inroads.

By going on Hannity, Giuliani is not doing Hannity a favor - Hannity is doing him a big favor.

Same thing with Schumer - Savage basically did him the favor of building bipartisan opposition to the Dubai World ports deal by letting him on a show that gets respect in the conservative media.

In Paul's case, the prestige goes the other way - here is a sitting US Congressman going on the tiny radio show of a barking moonbat who is known solely for his conspiracy theories.

Someone of Paul's prominence going on a show like that lends weight and legitimacy to the 9/11 "Truthers" movement.