No I'm not (and d'uh ^^)

Post #305,083 by beepster 3/4/09 3:20:06 PM 3/4/09 3:20:45 PM Reply	No I'm not (and d'uh ^^) You're almost arguing that Rush is not a political personality. That's sort of like arguing what the meaning of "is" is, isn't it? I'm arguing no such thing. I'm stating that Rush is not a politician the same as Keith Olbermann is not a politician. He has no aspirations to be a politician, unlike Robertson. He is a for profit media personality. CPAC likely paid him to be be there. CPAC is not the Republican Party. It is not the House or Senate. The American Conservative Union is the nation's oldest and largest grassroots conservative lobbying organization. ACU's purpose is to communicate and advance the goals and principles of conservatism through one multi-issue, umbrella organization. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill. Edited by beepster March 4, 2009, 03:20:45 PM EST Expand All History
Post #305,086 by drook 3/4/09 3:30:44 PM Reply	Yes you are I'm arguing no such thing. I'm stating that Rush is not a politician the same as Keith Olbermann is not a politician. That's not quite what you said. He has no vote. He authors no policy. He establishes no platform. The first is supposed to be true. It's what a congressman said to start this whole thing. Rush exerted enough pressure to get him to apologize for saying it. So he may not have a vote, but he wields enough influence that the people who do have votes are afraid to say so. The second is mostly true, in the sense that he doesn't write everything down in a fixed form that you can refute point-by-point. The third is absolutely not true. No matter how much you pretend it is. -- Drew
Post #305,090 by beepster 3/4/09 3:36:33 PM Reply	BS. Pure and simple Unless you are telling me that McCain and Rush were trading notes during the campaign. He's a conservative talk show host. Same as Olbermann is a liberal talk show host. If a Democratic platform statement happens to mirror an Olbermann opinion...does this mean Keith is author of the platform? Don't think so. I heard McCain apologize to David Letterman. Does that make Letterman a leader in the Republican Party? I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #305,094 by drook 3/4/09 3:45:12 PM Reply	I'm not talking about the campaign I'm talking about a congressman and the head of the RNC apologizing to him. And if Rush is "same as" Olbermann, can you point me to the instances where a Democratic congressman and the head of the DNC apologized to him? I'll wait ... -- Drew
Post #305,100 by beepster 3/4/09 5:24:08 PM Reply	Why is that such a big deal? Was it about a vote? A policy decision? No. No. Was it about a platform issue? No again. Was it about any pending legislation? No again. Carville and the DNC have you exactly where they want you. Rush is the new GWB. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #305,111 by Another Scott 3/4/09 7:38:48 PM Reply	You seem to be missing the point. Hint: http://rossdouthat.t...and_olbermann.php [...] Just imagine, for a moment, how conservatives would react if four months after the worst defeat liberalism had suffered in a generation, an Olbermann (or a Moyers or a Michael Moore or a Bill Maher or whomever) showed up to deliver the keynote address at a liberal equivalent of CPAC, and during the course of his speech he blasted every Democrat who disagrees with him as a miserable sell-out, suggested that conservatives are fascists and conservatism a psychosis, lectured the crowd on the irrelevance of policy ideas to liberalism's political prospects, and insisted that the only blueprint liberals need to win elections is the one that Lyndon Johnson used to rout Barry Goldwater. And then further imagine that both before and after this speech, a series of left-of-center politicians ventured criticisms of Olbermann, only to beat a hasty and apologetic retreat as soon as he turned his fire on them. Conservatives would be chortling - and rightly so! Not because liberalism needs to purge or marginalize its Keith Olbermanns, or because impassioned liberal entertainers don't have a place in left-of-center discourse - but because when your political persuasion faces a leadership vacuum, you don't want to have it filled by someone who appeals to an impassioned but narrow range of voters, and whose central incentive is to maximize his own ratings. Remember when National Review ran a cover story about Howard Dean, entitled "Please, Nominate This Man!"? That's how liberals feel about Rush Limbaugh at the moment: They can't get enough of him. I don't see any reason why conservatives should be playing into their hands. Cheers, Scott.
Post #305,119 by beepster 3/4/09 10:13:30 PM Reply	I'm missing that poiint? I hardly think so. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #305,108 by beepster 3/4/09 5:58:43 PM Reply	And lets look at that apology being spun I respect Rush Limbaugh, he is a national conservative leader, and in no way do I want to diminish his voice," Steele said in a statement late Monday. "I'm sure that he and I will agree most of the time, but will probably disagree some as well, which is fine. The Democrats are doing everything they can to find ways to take people's attention off of their massive 36-billion-dollar-a-day spending spree that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have embarked on. To the extent that my remarks helped the Democrats in Washington to take the focus, even for one minute, off of their irresponsible expansion of government, I truly apologize. Hardly an "I'm sorry Rush". More like, "this guys got listeners that help my cause". The apology was to the party for giving the Democrats something to chew on...which he did in spades. But, true to politicians...none of them seem to know when its the right time to just shut up. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.

Welcome to IWETHEY!