Posted on 10/05/2007 3:27:03 AM PDT by IrishMike
We certainly are hearing a lot about phony soldiers right now, and I agree -- there are some. They are the phony political soldiers of the left, who seem determined to seize defeat from the jaws of victory, or at the very least, seize insignificance from the jaws of consequence. How else to explain the current lease the Excellence In Broadcasting Network has with the Democratic majority in the Senate, for publicity. Tell syndicator Premiere Radio to slash their advertising budget. The Democrats will do it pro bono, or pro Rushbo. Maybe, in fairness, Rush should give the DNC a few commercial messages during his program.
It all goes back to remarks Rush Limbaugh made terming an army war opponent who couldn't hack basic training and then pretended to be a Ranger, and a marine pretending to be a chaplain, as phony soldiers. And so they are, virtually by definition. But to hear senate democrats, you'd think Rush had raped Lady Liberty.
He did not -- did not -- did not so characterize all military opponents of the Iraq war (a level of restraint from Limbaugh which surprises me Ann Coulter would have stopped short of nothing less than a barbed wire suppository). Limbaugh merely noted that a few people who pretend to be what they are not, are phony. Well, holy dictionary, Batman! Sounds like a working definition to me. And yet the indignation index is hitting 112 and hazardous, with calls from democrats for Rush to get the bum's rush (which Clear Channel, Premiere Radio's parent company, has correctly told them to stick it, sideways, without lubricant).
I can't really figure this out. Don't Democrats own majorities in both houses of Congress, and therefore all the committee chairmanships -- virtually a Jimmy Dean franchise for pork? Don't polls look very promising for them right now to expand those numbers next year, and maybe even elect the serial giggler with cleavage as president, while the first non-gentleman entertains all of those visiting prime ministerial wives? Call those questions rhetorical, and call the answer categorical: Democrats have every reason to be happy as Cindy Sheehan in a Hugo Chavez embrace. Things are going the way of the donkey, so why are we only seeing the donkey's back half?
There may be several reasons for this. For one, many see this as a chance for payback from the attacks on Move On, following that contemptible "General Betray Us" ad. And as long as Democrats are held hostage by George Soros' checkbook, expect more such homage to Bowelmoveon.org, even from Democrats who know better.
Another reason is that Rush's comments hit liberals where their nerve endings are most concentrated: right in their assumed moral superiority. If you look over any number of policy views which seem otherwise inexplicable, just ask this question: Does this viewpoint enable one to apply an extra layer of arrogance? If the answer is yes, ignore any associated illogic. This view will sell in circles where egos should come with labels reading "do not inflate over 30 p.s.i.".
Right now, nothing bolsters those fragile egos quite as much as camoflage-patterned validation of their Neville Chamberlain-esque call for peace in our time. Yes, the same Democratic Party leadership which was doing a banzai charge in reverse from military service during the sixties, and which had such a contemptuous view of those in uniform during that 1993-2001 period at the white house, now can't get enough of a retired General Wesley Clark or a John Kerry "reporting for duty". Make no mistake about it, this Democratic Party loves our men and women currently in uniform -- so much so that they're willing to pursue policies which could kill a whole lot more of those service personnel who'll be wearing that uniform a few years down the road. Limbaugh set off the tripwire on their claymore mine of self-delusion, and they won't soon forgive him, or anyone who agrees with him.
A final reason for this tilting at windmills might just be recognition of the wisdom of Will Rogers when he said, "I am a member of no organized political party. I am a Democrat". Exceptions like the Clinton juggrnaut aside, Democrats have often been easily led off message, and goodness knows Democrats ought to have better messages than this to prattle about.
This tempest in a thimble might also reflect the fact that democrats know the unfairness doctrine is going nowhere as long as George Bush as a veto pen, and probably nowhere after that as long as George Bush's Supreme Court remains in power. The bluff and bluster could show how frustrated Democrats are that, in the Darwinian marketplace of talk radio ideas, theirs have proven to be so low on the food chain.
But if I were consulting them (oh, say for 30 pieces of silver) I'd tell the stars of "When Harry Met Nancy" to ignore Limbaugh. "Who cares what he says? He preaches to the choir. We're in charge and the polls say we might stay in charge long enough for every parent to pick up 5 grand a kid and let the child declare his parents as dependents come April 15th." That would make a lot more sense, but don't expect that tactical shift as long as Democrats equate Rush with the Republican party. (Yes, I know -- Rush sometimes does so why shouldn't Democrats?) And therein lies part of their problem: Rush Limbaugh is not the Republican party. He's a talk show host, and an advocate, and beyond that, an entertainer. His validation isn't in election results, but in ratings, and more importantly, revenues. And whatever Democrats may think they're doing about election results, they're most assuredly having the (for them) undesirable effect of raising Limbaugh's ratings and raising his revenues.
It may not be long before Rush will wonder how he ever managed to get by on a mere 35 million dollars a year plus a lifetime's supply of Snapple. This past day I heard the whole phony soldier debate played out for an hour on a radio station WHICH CONSIDERS RUSH A COMPETITOR! Not that they wanted to. They could have ignored the story for awhile, but not now that the senate majority party is voting official resolutions. Rush Limbaugh should be down on his knees each night before bed, thanking the Lord. With enemies like that, who needs friends?
I'm 6 feel 1 inch and a little change tall. If someone came up to me and called me short, I would be totally unaffected by it. Especially if the person saying so measured in at a whopping 5 feet 1, which is a fairly accurate comparison of the Democratic leadership's support for the troops.
It's all just silly.
This is nothing short of an attack on free speech and truth and an attempt to remove a Conservative Icon ! not to mention a large waste of taxpayer dollars of course they are used to wasting money thats no secret ...
Rush~the man with the golden touch!
I’m stunned that it’s Jim Bohannon saying this, but I haven’t listened in a looonnnngggg time.
I also think it's funny. Beyond that, though, it's weird. I will go to my grave wondering how any functioning adult can listen to Reid or Israel or any of these clowns utter ANYTHING and still call himself or herself a Democrat. I would, quite literally, die of acute embarrassment if my reason for being was based on so obvious of a lie.
Still, I suppose if your entire life sustenance is corruption, what is one more lie, regardless of how transparent.
democRats are idiots bump
I think the waste of my tax dollars angers me more than if Reid was going about business as usual. Isn’t there a war going on right now? Doesn’t Reid have something better to do than attack Limbaugh on the Senate floor? Just because liberals whipped themselves into mass hysteria and got Imus booted off the radio waves doesn’t mean they can do the same to Limbaugh. There are a few differences - the first is that while Imus was thrown off the airwaves for things he actually said, senators Reid and Harkin are trying to put words into Limbaugh’s mouth. Second, Imus’ listeners are liberals. That is what you get when you try to tell a joke on a radio station when the majority of listeners are liberals. Liberals are pros at manufacturing hysteria because they have no sense of humor.
The rat is learning he has knocked over a hornet’s nest by starting with Rush.
Best line of the article!
I agree :)
Yes I call it a “RUSH” to judgement by many who refuse to listen to the tape or read the transcript....What the Dems are doing now is shameless...Isn’t it fraud, waste and abuse if something is brought to the floor of congress based on purposely mis facts of the truth?
Of course it is, but there is a huge point to be made here and that is:
The DBM/dems are nothing but Libelous, Slanderous, Deceptive, Outright Lying Prix!
...And the saddest part is many people accept them and think what they are doing is just fine!
TWO BIG lessons I learned from the Rush episode:
Anyone who dares say the media is not Liberal, this is the event to point them too. The old media would not have put up with Harry Reed straight-faced, PLAYING THEM AS SUCKERS lying to them.
And second, if people EVER ask "why can't we all just get along" ...THIS is why. The Dems condone outright LYING, not "twisting words" or "looking at something with a different perspective" but outright, black and white, LYING!
A very eye-opening event indeed.
“The rat is learning he has knocked over a hornet’s nest by starting with Rush.”
Kind of like shades of Tom Daschle... One can only hope.
Reagan used to draw gales of laughter from increasing crowds in his career as he said the most dangerous words in the English language were “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” In Rush’s hands this point gets illustrated with the tale of New Orleans Mayor “School Bus” Nagin. Combined with television’s visual images of a flooded parking lot filled with government-run school buses rendered completely ineffective in the life-or-death task of rescuing residents, in three words Rush illustrated with unerring and stinging accuracy exactly what a floundering, bureaucratized liberal attempt at help looks like — and its deadly effects. If you, to cite one not-so-stray example, are defending the idea that government can run health care in America better than the private sector, Rush becomes one formidable man with a microphone. But if you hope people will forget you have trashed the troops as ignorant murderers and Nazis, and Rush calls you out with sound-bite chapter and verse, playing back your words to millions, Rush becomes one very dangerous man indeed.
One year and a month away from the 2008 election the stakes are clear. Liberals are not fighting for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John Edwards or anyone else. They are in the fight of their lives to defend a way of life that has become the indefensible. Beginning with contempt for the military, they have become the epitome of pacifism abroad and failure at home. Yet make no mistake. In this fight they will, as they have in the past, say and do anything — anything — that they believe is necessary to win.
Today Rush Limbaugh stands in their way, just as Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan once did. But like Ronald Reagan, Rush is not alone — and unlike Barry Goldwater in 1964, we’re not 38% anymore. Whatever happens in 2008, conservatives are here to stay, Rush will keep talking, liberalism will keep unraveling, and Americans will keep listening. And the men and women in uniform? It doesn’t even have to be said what they think of Rush Limbaugh.
I like to deal with rightists. They say what they really think—not like the leftists, who say one thing and mean another.
— Mao Tse-tung
UH! You are preaching to the crowd!
I'm guessing it's a desperate attempt to remain relevant by hopping on a highly visible issue.
“democRats are idiots bump”
Demonrats
Damdems
Dimocrats
Dimwits
Dimbulbs
Demogogues
They are all of these things and worse. Embedded in their party is Socialism and Communism. Both are busy trying to tear apart the Last, Best Hope of Earth.
Stop them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.