Topic: Rush, meet Shark. Shark, meet Rush

[ToddF]

A Statement from Rush

This apology goes against everything Rush has stood for, 25+ years and running.  If he was wrong about something, that's one thing, but mocking liberals has always been his thing.  Stirring up America has always been the end desired result.

God help us if this leftist dingbat, who can't even choose a church without some sugar daddy from Chitcago holding her hand, is the one who decides the next election, because it's now looking like this dingbat's desires is issue #1 with even "our" side, now.

[Pandora]

I don't know why he did it, I wish he hadn't, but I'm waiting to see what he says tomorrow before I tear my hair out.

[AlanS]

I don't know why he did it, I wish he hadn't, but I'm waiting to see what he says tomorrow before I tear my hair out.

I was litterally shocked when I read he offered an apology. WTF? I guess we'll find out tomorrow.

[LadyVirginia]

Maybe his wife told him to do it. 

[CatholicCrusader]

I don't know why he did it, I wish he hadn't, but I'm waiting to see what he says tomorrow before I tear my hair out.

It must have something to do with his advertisers

[ToddF]

I read he lost some advertisers.  Now, I bet he loses half his listeners.  He's always been about sticking to his principles, no matter what.  I guess what does matter, now.

[LadyVirginia]

Well, I'm willing to give him a break.  He's not perfect (as he's proven in his personal life) though we wish he were.

[CatholicCrusader]

Well, I'm willing to give him a break.  He's not perfect (as he's proven in his personal life) though we wish he were.

I love Rush.
I live near Sacramento, and listeded to him since her was a local hero

[Janny]

I can't imagine Rush is thinking of his advertisers. He must have anther motive for apologizing. I will be listening to him tomorrow.

[Glock32]

I'm still thinking he did it to give cover to the candidates, so they can give the media its two pounds of flesh in the form of a "repudiation" of what he said, without having to be seen as "at odds" with Rush.

This has been a completely manufactured sideshow from the very beginning, from the moment Stephanopolous asked that question from out of the blue sky. Bear witness everyone, this is the Democrat-Media complex on full display. This is how they have controlled the popular narrative for 100 years now. Look at all the economic trouble we're in, but THIS is the issue of the day, in a presidential election year no less.

[AlanS]

I'm still thinking he did it to give cover to the candidates, so they can give the media its two pounds of flesh in the form of a "repudiation" of what he said, without having to be seen as "at odds" with Rush.

Why would he give a rodent's rectum about the current crop of Establishment candidates?

[Pandora]

I'm still thinking he did it to give cover to the candidates, so they can give the media its two pounds of flesh in the form of a "repudiation" of what he said, without having to be seen as "at odds" with Rush.

Why would he give a rodent's rectum about the current crop of Establishment candidates?

If that's why he did it, it isn't because he gives a rat's patoot about them, particularly, but to avoid giving the Left the opportunity to tout and exploit "the new Republican rift".  That's what they do, divide .....

What a time to lose Breitbart ......

[Pandora]

This had slipped my mind ....

The fake outrage being generated by the left over Rush Limbaugh's "slut" remark reached a fever pitch on Friday when President Obama's spokesman Jay Carney expressed The Civil One's disappointment over the radio king's comments:

    "I think he thinks they were reprehensible. They were disappointing. It is disappointing that -- that kind of, those kind of personal and crude attacks could be leveled against someone like this young law school student who was simply expressing her opinion on the matter of public policy..."

Reprehensible...Personal and crude attacks against those simply expressing their opinions on matters of public policy...what does that remind us of?

In Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter's "The Promise: President Obama, Year One," to be released May 18, according to The Washington Post , the President is quoted as saying that Republican opposition to the stimulus "helped create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party."

Oh yeah.

If you're unfamiliar with the term "tea-bagging," Google it.  It's a vulgar and lewd sexual practice that makes a designation like "slut" look downright complimentary.  So pardon my skepticism over Mr. Obama's feigned sensitivity.

When it comes to crude, offensive attacks on innocent citizens simply expressing their opinions, Rush Limbaugh's got nothing on your boss, Mr. Carney.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/after_calling_citizens_tea-baggers_obama_sensitive_to_slut.html#ixzz1oB6jfcug

[Pandora]

I'm still thinking he did it to give cover to the candidates, so they can give the media its two pounds of flesh in the form of a "repudiation" of what he said, without having to be seen as "at odds" with Rush.

Why would he give a rodent's rectum about the current crop of Establishment candidates?

If that's why he did it, it isn't because he gives a rat's patoot about them, particularly, but to avoid giving the Left the opportunity to tout and exploit "the new Republican rift".  That's what they do, divide .....

What a time to lose Breitbart ......

Look >>

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/4/democratic-leader-calls-romney-repudiate-limbaugh/

This is what I'm talking about, and who do you think the "democratic leader" is, hmm? 

I don't know how I'd answer this; likely I'd say the wrong thing, politically speaking, tact not being my strong suit, so if Romney turned to Washerwoman-Shtz and said, "Rush?  Why?  Is he running for something?" and left it at that, is that the wrong way to handle it?  Because it's got to be short and pithy; no paragraphs.

[LadyVirginia]

That's what I'd say, Pan.  But these guys , oh, no, they gotta make a 20 minute answer.

[Libertas]

 

[charlesoakwood]

I'm still thinking he did it to give cover to the candidates, so they can give the media its two pounds of flesh in the form of a "repudiation" of what he said, without having to be seen as "at odds" with Rush.

Why would he give a rodent's rectum about the current crop of Establishment candidates?

If that's why he did it, it isn't because he gives a rat's patoot about them, particularly, but to avoid giving the Left the opportunity to tout and exploit "the new Republican rift".  That's what they do, divide .....

What a time to lose Breitbart ......

G's observation is the most practical and the apology for using the wrong words (there are more tactful ways to describe whore) does take the air out of their attack.  ALSO, he may not "give a rodent's rectum about the current crop of Establishment candidates" but he does want, as he has said, a Republican to win.  And he will vote for whomever the choice is.
 

[Predator Don]

Sadly, we prove again we not only have no control over the narrative and we do not understand how to minimize trumped up damage.

There is a sucker born every minute and the liberals understand it better than we do. Until we understand and our conservative leaders privately acknoledge America is full of stupid people and treat them as such, we will continue to fall into the black hole of negative public opinion.

Sometimes it is better to start your own fires than continually attempt to put out others.

[charlesoakwood]

 

[ToddF]

After pondering it another day I'm going to hope Rush is doing one of his patented "try to play everybody for a day, then come back to make my real point" bits.  I've recognized them every time he's done them...I'm now a liberal, ect.

I'm going to hope he comes back today on fire more than ever, apologizing for slut, and using whore and even "teabagger" to get the spotlight back on SCoaMF.  That's the only possible angle I can see for what Rush did last Friday.

Hoping is a lot.  Advertisers vs. his soul.  We'll find out in a few hours.