Really? CAre to try to NAME more things that Rush has done than I named for Bush in post #18?
I didn't think so...
Rush has done far more for conservatives than GW has done.
No, actually Rush has used far more conservatives than GW Bush.
Truthfully, I wish I were 1/10 as talented as Rush: he's got a loyal cadre of 1 million Dittoheads who subscribe to the Limbaugh Letter and his ever-lovin Rushcam. His annual cash flow from his loyal Dittoheads has to be at least $20 million per year, on top of what he makes for his radio show. Am I a tad envious? Who wouldn't be! But I will never begrudge him his success.
I used to be a Dittohead, and I was a subscriber to his monthly screed up until last year. Thanks to FreeRepublic, I like to think that I've graduated from Limbaugh.
I recall all of those times when Rush would take the time to remind everybody that, first and foremost, he was an entertainer. He has long since crossed the line into focusing on serious political commentary. Now that he has crossed that Rubicon, he won't be able to nimbly jump back and proclaim that he is just an entertainer.
Rush was much more fun to listen to in the early days, with his various updates. Yes, I was right there with him in the 92 primaries as Buchanan was tweaking 41. Little did we know that Buchanan gave us the playbook that the Klintoon gang would later use to win the election. But all was well, once Rush was invited to spend a night in the Lincoln Bedroom. Is Rush giving into a small amount of pique because he hasn't been invited back yet?
Now, on the few occasions that I am able to listen to Rush, I get a dose of golf, tips on raising children (from one who's never been a parent), and now bitching and moaning because Dubya isn't doing everything Rush wants him to.
Sorry, Rush...you just aren't as entertaining as you used to be. I never listened to you solely for your commentary. At least Bush gave me a muffler last year...
I'd have to second that. I was down on EIB for years, complaining that Rush was just a Republican Party mouthpiece. His recent statements have got me reconsidering.
What is so admirable in sincerely principled men is commitment to truth. I sit here in absolute amazement at people who have gone so far as to say that, essentially, "winning" the Senate and "keeping" the House justifies doing just about anything.
Without a doubt, President Bush has done some great and good things since his election, but I think Rush's point (and it's well taken) is that that performance doesn't exempt the President from genuine criticism. I'm totally baffled by people that exhibit barely controlled hatred for those that criticize Bush.
When I get into these combat conversations with Bush zealots, I like to remind them that Bush courted my vote with conservative talk. Having obtained it, am I worthless to him now? (until 2004, I guess)
Anyone who criticizes Bush for the EXACT, and I mean EXACT same things we railroaded Clinton over is now a "hater" and in favor of "Hill and Bill". I know that I"M not saying I "hate" Bush or any such stupidity; I'm saying that I'm genuinely and profoundly angered and frustrated over his recent flip-flop on the Middle East and this massive Farm Bill.
If that makes me pro-Clinton, well then...so be it if that's how folks want to construe it. As for me and my house, we are trying to observe the same principles that caused us to vote for Bush in the first place.
George Bush is a B I G disappointment. As usual, Rush is right. GW deserves to be bashed.
GW has to walk a tightrope with these bstrds. McLame=Jeffords=Shays=Rangel. Maybe twenty five cents worth of difference between the whole crew.
Our Country is in deep clinton!