Posted on 03/03/2012 2:15:11 PM PST by TSgt
Rush took the Dem’s bait and paid for it.
It was open line Friday. He should have let the listeners talk about Sheriff Joe and possible WH involvement in Breitbart death.
If they were claiming he was just an entertainer then they would have NO basis for demanding that Republican congressional leaders repudiate him. They could only do this by claiming her is a leader which is what they been doing for 2+ years.
Break out of the Rush bubble. He caved just like he lectures others to never do.
I was one of the few that never got upset for those ‘attacks’ on Palin because I believe it is the price one accepts to pay for being a confrontation public figure. As you noticed it brought much hand wringing here. Well guess what? I thought Rush's comments were funny. Not great taste but entertaining. If I was asked to defend Rush I would reply that he is an entertainer.
Now the reaction to such ‘attacks’ is part of the political game of war. Obviously Dems were much more effective with this with Sandra Fluke than any relating to Palin, getting Rush on the networks. I just don't understand why it matters.
No, the problem Rush has is he endlessly harped on all the personal ‘attacks’ on Palin and many times claimed they were proof she was a ‘threat’ as a potential Republican candidate. Well does this mean Rush thinks that Sandra Fluke is a serious threat? No, once again Rush trapped himself.
This was a gift to really go to war with for the good of the country and take down the congressional Rats, Obama, liberal academia and MSM another peg or two the way they were pushing it, Rush ran away.
Tells me something about his character when it's time to toughen up and press the attack.........He ain't really here with the tea party *Little Folk*.
>I’m trying to recall when a vile leftist spewing on TV or radio made an apology. I can’t recall one, ever. Anyone?<
Letterman (the pig) apologized to Sarah Palin and her family for making a sexual joke about her daughter and Alex Rodriguez at a Yankees game. Willow, the youngest daughter, was with Governor Palin at the game and the pig Letterman got her mixed up with Bristol.
....I haven't defended Rush on his apology. Nothing that I posted would even indicate that.
If they were claiming he was just an entertainer then they would have NO basis for demanding that Republican congressional leaders repudiate him. They could only do this by claiming her is a leader which is what they been doing for 2+ years.
Are you claiming that the left is logical and consistant, because they aren't. They will call Rush a leader when it suits their propaganda and they will call Rush an entertainer when it suits their propaganda. As I said, the left has called Rush "just an entertainer" numerous times. They do it when they want to dimmish his political commentary.
Break out of the Rush bubble. He caved just like he lectures others to never do.
My comment wasn't about Rush caving. It was about yours and others description of Rush being an entertainer. This is the second time I'm pointing this out to you. Yet you persist.
What part of the following quote from my previous post are you having trouble understanding?
She's having sex outside of marriage and that is fornication. Such immoral behavior is a trait of a slut. I'll hasten to add that among the Communist Goals is the following item:
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
Right after that cited goal of Communism is this:
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
If Sandra Fluke wishes to engage those long-term sexual relations with that one man you cited, it needs to be within the bonds of marriage. Yes, I'm old fashioned and my views, which I believe are Bible-based, are narrow and intolerant of what passes for morality nowadays. I date back to 1943 and the "New Morality" is the "Old Immorality" in my opinion.
But you asked a question in all sincerity and I gave you my unvarnished honest answer. Even here on Free Republic, where we Christians need not apologize for our convictions, there will be probably some snickers headed my way. So be it. I'll go ahead and take my lumps but will stand by what I just wrote here and cling to my so-called "religious crutch".
In any case, thanks for asking and I hope you'll find my response worthwhile even if you disagree.
What you are claiming is ridiculous. House libs led by Pelosi sent Boehner a letter DEMANDING that he repudiate Rush's comments. For your claims to make sense the letter would have to say:
“ Dear Mr House Speaker. A well know entertainer Rush Limbaugh recently insulted a private citizen who is lobbying for woman's issues. We demand that you as House Speaker repudiate this ‘entertainer's’ comments because it is the job of House speaker to review every popular entertainers comments and comment on them ”
The letter NEVER said that. Dems are saying that Rush is our leader not just an entertainer, Now they got OUR LEADER (as you seem to think he is) to cave, Great logic,
Maybe my sense of humor is biased by the likelihood that this episode will help destroy religious freedom and re-elect Obama.
I certainly don't want to include myself among those who chant the mantra "Anything that demeans women is not art!"
I think this apology is an admission that the "slut" affair was not Rush's best work. Remember when Rush introduced the term "feminazi?" I think he was better in those days. Read the comments of one woman who was kicked out of the "women's movement" over a disagreement about whether a song was "art":
Well the libs at MSNBC certainly seemed to think it would.
My thoughts were that this was a funny distraction from the sad fact that congressional Republicans were being slaughtered by Democrats. Republicans have much bigger problems than Rush. That comment by the Santorum supporter about aspirin struck me as more problematic than this. Why is Rush relevant?
I would say that Rush's "joke" and subsequent surrender is demoralizing for some on the Right, and very encouraging for those on the Left who are paying attention.
Why is Rush relevant?
One answer is that we are debating it on FR. "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." - from Hamlet, Act 2, scene 2.
Well those on ‘the right’ that think that Rush was some superhuman savior-prophet better wake up because he is a very flawed human with some some unique entertainment abilities who does not have all the answers as they seem to think he does.
Dems were encouraged by Obama beating up on Republicans before Rush said anything about this.
“When are we going to go after Bill Maher, Ed Schultz and Keith Olberman? Why do they get off the hook?”
Bill Maher doesn’t have sponsors and is therefore untouchable. As long as he keeps his ratings over 1 million viewers, HBO won’t drop him. The only thing that can sink him is if he lets up on conservatives. His viewers expect his material.
The other two do have sponsors though, so that are fair game.
Indeed. The question is whether he can inadvertently help the Left.
Dems were encouraged by Obama beating up on Republicans before Rush said anything about this.
You may be right that, in the long run, this may not make much of a difference. Or maybe Rush threw gas on the fire. We'll see what happens, although I think an exact cause-and-effect analysis in November will be impossible.
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.