PAUL v CLINTON - Rush Limbaugh, this is among the 1.6% of the time you are not right

Limbaugh website ^ | 5-3-08 | the show transcript/DFU comments

[HighlyOpinionated]

Keep up the GREAT work, DougFromUpland!

[doug from upland]

I respectfully disagree. His has a plate full of stuff to which he has to pay attention. This has not been one of them.

[spinestein]

[I acknowledged that he was being facetious about Hillary not knowing. The point of this post is that he apparently knows very little about the case. He was not being facetious when he tried to explain the case to her. He wasn’t even close to most of the facts.]

Even so, the public doesn't (and won't) care about the details of this. They're a matter of public record so that historians can look back at Senator Clinton and proclaim her to be a liar and a crook, but for right now she's the Democratic candidate for President and her qualifications are that she was co-president for eight years already and she is a member of an important victim class (oppressed woman in a patriarchal society) and the public needs someone as president who's willing and able to give away lots of government goodies to its supporters. Who better to do this than someone with a track record of quid pro quo.

[carton253]

Isn't he being facetious in his answer.

[doug from upland]

He was facetious in one part of the answer -— about Hillary never knowing anything. The rest of the answer, an explanation of the case, was not facetious. He showed that he really knew nothing about it.

[krucader_bravepages_com]

Sarcasm doesnt explain Rush’s intentional dissembling of the facts- after all he has been provided from various sources, it is not believable that he is so dense about what the Peter Paul matter is about- its about Hillary illegally soliciting more than $1 million then covering it up- not about a misuse of some fundraising funds used for an event. The DOJ prosecutor in the Rosen case summed it up when he told the jury its about “Denying the public’s right to know that Peter Paul personally gave more than $1.2 million to Hillary’s campaign” Hillary’s denial of personal involvement was exposed as a boldfaced lie by a federal judge and prosecutor when the government released a video of Hillary calling Paul in his office to designate a white house aide as a liaison for day to day coordination with her.
Considering the massive government and media cover up in this case- facts that are available to Rush if he truly hasnt paid attention so far, shows how his intentional ignorance on the case can not be chalked up as sarcasm.

[The Ghost of Rudy McRomney]

Let alone maybe get the keys to the WH again, handed to them by ‘conservative’ authors, talk show hosts, and crossover republican votes.

[rob777]

"Didn’t you post this yesterday, and didn’t several people point out that Rush was being sarcastic?"


You are right on both counts. Some people just do not seem to get it.

[rob777]

"The point of this post is that he apparently knows very little about the case."


Or, he is parroting the Clinton line as part of the parody. If he really thought that this was all there was to the case, the rest of the parody about her mind being "jello", would not have made any sense. The whole thing was a parody of her testimony over the Whitewater scandal where she claimed to have "forgotten" just about everything. Why draw a parallel to other cover ups in the way of parody if you did not know that there was anything to cover up? It just does not make sense.

[Current Occupant]

This whole ordeal has to be frustrating to you. It comes down to either Rush knows the details or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t know then he just isn’t the all knowing Maja Rushie. Unlikely.

If he does know, he doesn’t want to put it out there.

Either scenario has some very telling aspects to it. I’ve got my own theory.

[doug from upland]

It has been amazingly frustrating. A real crimes was committed. An historic lawsuit is heading for trial. But if the press doesn’t talk about, it is not really happening.