Replies

Good for Rush. In 2008, he also slammed McCain, and I said then, good for Rush. But his slamming McCain was impotent, and his ranting against the elite now is just as impotent. He's on the same level as you and me, talking, opining, informing, debating, hoping to inspire people to think about the issues before they vote.

But he's no more consequential than me, you, or Palin. Heck, he's saying mostly the same things we would be saying if we were on teh air. His "effectiveness" is just another media illusion; he is not in a position where we might elevate him to having the muscle of elected power to carry through and make real the ideas he expresses. If he was in office, he could; but he's not, so he's just another American with an opinion -- one I agree with most of the time -- but that's it. Whether I like it or not, I have to acknowledge the truth of it.

When all is said and done, Romney is a statist, Perry very likely is a 70-percent statist. We are worried about them because IF ELECTED, they will wield genuine power to influence, cause, or stop events that will decide the future of our most beloved Republic. Rush is just another talking head of irrelevant effectiveness -- otherwise, how did McCain win the nomination, before Palin got on board, and at a time when Rush had nearly bashed him to a pulp on his radio show?

Rush has zero elected power, and he has never been a kingmaker. He is entertaining, informative, and inspiring, but ultimately, impotent. I've been a listener since 1991, and he says what I love to hear about 98 percent of the time. It's gratifying, but not much more.

Listen, Pelosi, Barney Frank, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Obama, Chuck Schumer -- they make bad things happen because they wield concrete power invested in them by virtue of being elected. They don't make things happen because "they talk and people listen." Rush talks and people listen. The Pelosis and Reids wield elected power and make things happen.