Rush obviously does a lot of good.
But he goes astray IMO in two directions:
1) Backing and sucking up to GOPe players like the Bushes, right or wrong, and
2) With an offputtingly blind spot and style when deriding liberal women, such as calling Sandra Fluke a ‘slut’. He does needlessly alienate moderate women and give ammunition to the opposition with such antics.
So, yes, he would be more effective for the cause if he’d back more tea party, grassroots conservatives, but be less offensive to women while doing so.
1. Yes you are correct on Rush and his supporting Bush I and II. The Bush’s are not conservative....and share most of the same Liberal Globalist ideas as Clinton and Obama. Gosh, the Bush Family should have ran the Borders bookstore chain.....because the Bush Family would never close a Border.
2. Rush was correct to go after Sandra Fluke. Fluke’s comments made it sound like every young woman was just a “U-Haul for sperm” and needed free birth control like a fat kid needed cake. The Liberal Media just wanted to go after Limbaugh for any reason. I doubt even most liberal women felt comfortable w Fluke’s comments. Rush even ended up with more support and higher show ratings after the Liberal Media attacked him.
Again, Rush was right. Sandra is/was a slut. Do the math! Any woman who needs to purchase that much birth control annually must be getting serviced by many men per week. That is the quintessential definition of the word.
re: “But he goes astray IMO in two directions:
1) Backing and sucking up to GOP players like the Bushes, right or wrong,”
This is incorrect. I can’t speak for what Rush said about Bush 41 in the 1988 election because I didn’t start listening to him until 1989, but yes, he did support Bush 41 against Bill Clinton - there was no Republican primary in 1992 because Bush 41 was a sitting president. So, I don’t think it’s quite fair to say Rush “supported only Bushes” in 1992 since Bush 41 was the only Republican candidate against Clinton.
In 2000, I don’t recall him preferring any candidate during the primary process (nor in any election for that matter) - he did support statements from all the candidates when those statements supported conservative values. I do recall Rush questioning Bush 42’s so called “compassionate conservatism” early on in the primary, but other than that - he waited until the primary was decided before he openly supported the Republican candidate.
Bush 42 ran against Algore in 2000. I didn’t want Algore to be president. I preferred Bush 42 over Algore. So did Rush. I much preferred Bush W leading our nation after the 9/11 attacks rather than Algore. Yes, W blew it big time on other issues - would Algore have done better?
Rush has consistently supported conservative values and principles. You support the candidates that are closest to those values over the one who is furthest. I know this always angers the conservative “puritans” who always take their ball and go home if they don’t get the pet candidate they wanted.
All I remember on Free Republic during this time (and in the last election) was many “puritans” bashing every single Republican candidate as not being a “true conservative” or being “unelectable” or “couldn’t stand their own in a debate”, or this one is a “quitter” or that on is too “immoral” and not Christian enough, etc.
Conservatives always shoot themselves in the foot because they argue so much with each other that a strong, solid unity usually never occurs. I honestly believe that if Reagan had run in 2008, there would have been many on this site claiming he wasn’t a true conservative.