Posted by: Jim | November 10, 2006

Rush’s Suffering is Over

Rush Limbaugh informed the world on November 8th that he’d been altering his radio show, and not stating how he really felt these past years. It was apparently a huge burden for him–this non-truth-telling–but it was a non-truth that was in the best interest of America, you see. Because even though he wasn’t telling the truth he was telling the truth, you know? But now all of that is over, and he can breathe easily now.

But, look at his own words:

“… Now I’m liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to buck up a bunch of people who don’t deserve it, to try to carry the water and make excuses for people who don’t deserve it. I did not want to sit here and participate, willingly, in the victory of the libs, in the victory of the Democrat Party by sabotaging my own. But now with what has happened yesterday and today, it is an entirely liberating thing. If those in our party who are going to carry the day in the future — both in Congress and the administration — are going to choose a different path than what most of us believe, then that’s liberating. I don’t say this with any animosity about anybody, and I don’t mean to make this too personal.” … There have been a bunch of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can’t even make the case themselves — and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs. I’m a radio guy! I understand what this program has become in America and I understand the leadership position it has. I was doing what I thought best, but at this point, people who don’t deserve to have their water carried, or have themselves explained as they would like to say things but somehow aren’t able to, I’m not under that kind of pressure.”” … I’ve not lied about anything I’ve said. Let me try this a different way. (sigh) I’m going to have to think about this. I tried to make it as clear as I can. I’m not going to eat my own, and I’m not going to throw my own overboard, particularly in a campaign, and particularly when the country is at war — and I’m not going to do it for selfish reasons, and I’m not going to do it to stand out, and I’m not going to do it to be different. I’m not going to do it to draw attention from our enemies. I’m not going to do anything I do so that the Drive-By Media will like me or think that, “Ooooh, Limbaugh has changed! Ooooh, Limbaugh is coming around!” That’s not my thinking. My thinking is: the left doesn’t deserve to win. My thinking is: the country is imperiled with liberal victory. We may not have the best people on our side, but they’re better than what we have on the left. But it has been difficult sometimes, when these people on our side have not had the guts to stand up for themselves, have not had the guts to explain what they really believe and why they’re doing what they’re doing. When they haven’t had the courage to be who they are, when they haven’t had the courage to be conservatives. ”

If I were a Republican then, Rush, I would partly blame you for our policy failures. You winkingly approved, apparently, but didn’t speak your mind about it … apparently. If you had, perhaps you could have swayed public opinion, and public opinion would have swayed the policy.  But apparently the Democrats are so bad that you lowered yourself to support things you disagreed with–so the terrorists wouldn’t win.

So basically, you’re telling us that you are in no way a journalist. You are simply a mouthpiece. This is no surprise to me; it’s just interesting to hear you admit it.

Gotcha loud and clear, Rush.


  1. I used to respect Rush much more. I began listening to him in 1990, during Desert Shield. I was fresh out of the Air Force and liked the way his mind worked. I didn’t always agree with him, but I did like that his points were well thought out and presented in an intelligent manner. Then Clinton came into office and Rush became a big whiner – for EIGHT long years. I stopped listening.

    The recent Michael J. Fox flap turned me off completely to Rush, but I do feel the need to state that Rush truly has been nothing but a mouthpiece, and there’s nothing wrong with that. He sort of took it upon himself to promote the agenda of his political party. I don’t recall him ever being sponsored or endorsed by anyone but Snapple, Apple and Citri-Cal. It did turn into a self-absorbed circus of complaining and poking fun at liberals, and that gets old no matter on which side of the aisle you reside. Admitting when you’re not necessarily wrong, but have shifted your views is also not a bad thing. It takes some guts to man up, regardless of the forum or topic.

    I don’t like the guy at all – he’s pompous and rude, but I’ll still take him on my debate team if my life depended on it.

  2. Rush is full of crap…. even when he kind of says things that are kind of conciliatory (did I spell that wrong?)… It’s crap. Keith Olbermann refers to him as “Comedian Rush Limbaugh” and that’s precisely how he should be viewed. In my not-so-humble-opinion. By the way, “Hi Todd”… been awhile.

  3. I didn’t mean to ‘Rush’ to judgement on this one 😉

    I don’t think Rush’s true calling is that of a comedian. In a debate, I believe Rush would cut through Olbermann like a hot knife through soft butter – in August – in Death Valley. Olbermann is cut from the same cloth as Rush, Stewart and the likes, they just have vastly different views and varying degrees of talent. I’d throw Greg Kinnear and Craig Kilborn in there too, but they played to the political crowd about as much as Leno or O’Brien. As I’ve stated before, Olbermann’s true talent was in sports commentary…

    I’m not endorsing Rush in the least bit, I just respect his talent.

    Hey Ray – what’s shakin’?

  4. Now that would be interesting, a cage-match debate between Rush and Jon Stewart OR between Rush and Keith Olberman.

    I wouldn’t predict a “winner” because it’s subjective and also based on the topic and how hard everyone’s writers and researchers work. But I know this: I would pay a lot of money to see it.

  5. Between Bri’s political orgasm and Carol Elaine’s tingly nipples, this blog is taking a whole new look 😀 I’ve even heard mention of a bi-partisan love sandwich!

    Jim, I’d be in line with you to see this Death Match.

    “In this corner, Ravishing Ronald (Jon Stewart). And in this corner…the Cah-RUSHAH.”

    Line borrowed from the famous Bugs Bunny catroon with all the wrestling.

  6. The fat idiot needs to overdose on his oxy.

    * * *

  7. This doesn’t surprise me in any way, really. I never considered him any kind of journalist or even a true pundit, rather as he has described himself in the past; an entertainer. I listen to his show mostly to be entertained, and I don’t take him too seriously, the same way I like to listen to Tom Leykis without actually using his dating advice. Jim is spot on though when he says if Rush felt that strongly about things, he could have used his considerable influence to alter public opinion.

  8. What can I say, Todd? We’re passionate people. 😉

    I’d have to disagree with you about Limbaugh and Olbermann or Limbaugh and Stewart. Stewart likes to play the jovial clown, but get him serious and bam! Limbaugh is served up on a platter with a side of toast. And Olbermann? Limbaugh wouldn’t get out of the gate against Olbermann’s incisive wit and commentary.

    In interests of full disclosure, though, Jon Stewart is my imaginary boyfriend and Keith Olbermann is in my imaginary male retinue, so I may be a little biased…

  9. I think Stewart is the most well-prepared and has the best writers. Personally, I find him cloying. It’s way too easy to imagine him emerging from behind a bush and saying softly to a hunter, “Now, why did you have to kill a little bunny rabbit?” He takes compassion to creepy levels.

    Off-the-cuff, Olbermann, for me, is the better of the two.

    His show, along with calzones, is what I miss most about America.

  10. Stewart is often too nice to scoundrels.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: