[NittanyLion]

Because you say Rush has been "the" voice for conservatism for 10 years, do you think we should stick with him, right or wrong?

I think there's room for civil disagreement. But that isn't what happened here - the man's been demonized because he disagrees with Pres. Bush. Put another way, I think you're a proponent of looking at the big picture - at least when it concerns Pres. Bush's actions. Are you now unwilling to do the same when the focal point is Rush?

Incidentally, do you think there is anyone who's been a larger voice for conservatism than Rush? I mean it as an honest question.

[clintonh8r]

You may be missing the point. Rush is conveniently ignoring the facts surrounding this report, its release and the administration's position on it. He's taking his cue directly from Drudge and the NYT. That's our (or at least, my) problem with Rush. It looks like he's trying to create a controversy by delibertately distorting or ignoring the facts. In the meantime, he's giving the Bush-bangers the red meet they've been starved for.

[Howlin]

And I think you're busy running around here, claiming you're misunderstood, that everybody thinks you're bashing Bush when you're not -- when you really are.

Rush is NOT being trashed because he disagrees with Bush; he's being trashed because he took a flat out distortion from the New York Times, of all places, and made a show out of it.

[fightinJAG]

You raise a valid point, NL, but I do think there is a difference between "supporting" the President and "supporting" Rush. Rush is an entertainer!