“This election is more about perceptions than substance!”

.The Burning Rush!

more powerful as an audio piece without the histrionics…

….wait,…wait…I am confused….what about the metamucil / Belly fire issue! sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!!!!

For all his best efforts, energy and good intentions, Limbaugh has a clear intellectual advantage. Hannity’s comments seem repetitive, and shallow, whereas Limbaugh always has a new twist, a different perspective than you see anywhere else. Limbaugh seems to be able to link history, philosophy and current events in a way that, even when he has addressed a subject before, it seems new.

I give Hannity a lot of credit, and I respect him as a good person. But if I need clarity of thought and original insight, I think the Rushman comes out on top…and this piece shows why.

I stole the title for this post from a line in this article by David Brooks in the New York Times today. Brooks’ commentary adds to that of Rush Limbaugh yesterday: All the rhetorical devices that have been a staple……

Not kidding. They were the ones behind the whole Michael J. Fox tempest in a teapot, for example.

Drives the left crazy

You’ve got to be kidding me!?

“Spade and Hoe” , absolutely priceless wording every step of the way.

bbz123 on January 14, 2008 at 7:19 PM

Headlines in the morning: “Rush calls Obama a spade and Hillary a Ho!

still calling her a hoe on accident would have been funny.

:D

he had the perfect setup… and excuse..

Err.. umm..

When I say “saw” what I mean is that he imagined it, in his mind, a fairy tale… it didn’t really happen..

It was seared, seared into his memory reminiscent of that boat trip to Cambodia on Christmas Eve.. Where I received a Magic hat from a CIA Operative..

sheesh… the parallels. and I didn’t even add in Billy Jeff’s “is”

Thompson, Romney, Giuliani.

He loves Teh Fred! He just won’t admit it. Yet.

In fact, my suggestion to a victorious Obama would be to replay segments of this at the Dem Convention. It will seem insane to the Clinton supporters and remind them of who their enemy is. Rush also inflames the Dem base. thuja on January 14, 2008 at 8:27 PM

I agree. My prediction for the first Media Matters Rush quote out of context, complete with elipses, “Obama is doing more than his share of the spade work.” [Emphasis in the original, they will note.] I’m glad Rush had a good time with it; I had a good time listening to it, but I don’t think they will blame it on Mitt–NOW they will blame it on Rush, and as thuja pointed out, he will become the common enemy that could unite them. Gotta be careful with that schadenfreud.

Media Matters 3. . . 2. . . 1. . .

Reiteration of the Media Matters talking points on all the morning talk shows 3. . .2. . .1. . . etc., etc., ad nauseam.

The original House version:

* Democratic Party: 164-96 (64%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

* Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 186-35 (80%-20%)

I always thought that, in spite of his quirks, Mr. Gingrich was smart. What happened with him, lately?

Entelechy on January 14, 2008 at 7:13 PM

I’m beginning to think Newt has long harbored liberal manifestations that are now turning his brain to green socialist mush.

The seed that germinated into the neocon disease we suffer from now had to come from somewhere.

I suppose that this works for the Rush fans, but I don’t think it’s going to persuade any unbelievers.
thuja on January 14, 2008 at 8:27 PM

Um…. Gotta ask. Do you really think that was so narrow in its’ substantive analysis it only appeals to the few million Rush fans? Who are these unbelievers and how would they be turned off by this except for their narrow-minded views about Rush? Were it some silly leftist like Juan Williams, Ann Curry, or Katie Couric these people would be passing out Pulitizer and Marconni ballots.

highhopes on January 14, 2008 at 9:39 PM

The short answer to your question is yes. It seems to me that Rush’s fans have developed a taste for a form of rhetoric that most people don’t like. Rush is just a little too nasty and hateful, and I say that as a fan of Ann Coulter, who is often unfairly accused of such rhetoric.

And let’s remember that the basic premise of Obama’s campaign for president is to improve the level of the discourse. Apparently, it is a message that sells since Obama is doing well and Bush got elected in 2000. People buying that message are going to be turned off by Rush. And it’s not just them. Whatever is the truth about the political nastiness of the Clintons, most of their supporters will buy what Obama’s selling if confronted with a tape of Rush.

And just for the record here, I can’t emphasize enough how much I despise the thought of an Obama presidency. I only want to figure out strategies to help Fred, Rudy, or–in the case of desperation–Mitt or McCain win.

Over the weekend a bit of a bruhaha kicked up amongst the Democrats. Apparently Senator Clinton thinks that if it wasn’t for LBJ, the civil rights movement led mostly by Martin Luther King Jr would have come to nothing. Apparently the Senator f…

Clinto, Obama Fuel Gender Race Debate–
Beyond the back-and-forth between a white woman and a black man seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, the situation has created a snapshot of the nation’s sensitivity — or lack thereof — to certain kinds of comments. Is it more acceptable, for instance, to make a sexist remark than a racist remark?
“It’s always been easier,” says Marie Wilson, president of the White House Project, which encourages women’s advancement in politics. “With women, you can get away with it.

“With race, you can hardly say anything.”

Feminist leader Gloria Steinem argued in a New York Times op-ed last week that gender is “probably the most restricting force in American life” — more so than race.

Honestly, this is the Democrat battle? Which minority has it the worst? It’s gender vs race, folks. Pathetic. Identity politics is so ignorant.