Replies

Basically, Consort, your mission appears to be to hurt people when they're down. There's no question that Rush must face the consequences of his actions, but you're seeking to damage him beyond whatever "sin" he's committed.

Wrong. My statement that you can't seem to deal with was:

"Rush and Bill Bennett are damages goods, at least for the time being. It always looks worse for those who are perceived to be purist ideoloques."

Now, what part of that is not correct?

I'll guarantee you that when he kicks this thing he's going to be stonger and more persuasive than ever.

You can't guarantee anything but, as a long-time Rush listener, I hope that is the case.

And that will shoot your "damaged goods" argument to hell.

No, it won't. At present, he is damaged goods. Get over it.

Instead of acting all embarassed when conservative spokespersons and leaders show feet of clay, why don't you grow a spine?

It appears that you are the embarrassed one.

Now, what part of that is not correct?

It may be correct, if, as you suggest, one perceives Rush or Bennet to be purist ideologues. I don't believe that either is, nor do I believe that most Americans do. Apparently you do, however.

Moreover, if Rush is capable of coming back stronger than ever, then he's not "damaged goods." You know full well, I suspect, the meaning of that phrase. For example, we don't call injured quarterbacks "damaged goods," if they are expected to get back in the game later on. We use the term to describe something that is permanently spoiled, something for which we have some disdain.

No, I'm not playing semantics. And I understand your point better than you do.