Then why listen to them in the first place?
Because they want to be one of the cool kids. YOU’RE not one of those namby-pamby tree-hugging baby-killing LOSERS, are you?
Besides, we’re on YOUR side! This is the No Spin Zone! We’re stickin’ it to The Man! You’re a proud American and a good Christian, and we’re going to help you get out from under those pointy-headed liberals’ crazy socialist laws!
Quoted for truth.
No more of a stretch than, say, attacking Obama for “palling around with terrorists” because he’s an acquaintance of William Ayers. Or because he hugged a former teacher at Harvard. Or linking him with Saul Alinsky, as if the American electorate will react with, “Saul Alinsky? Why, with that kinda name he must be the reincarnation of Karl Marx! And the Antichrist, to boot!”
Republicans have been trying to make hay with the most ridiculous, tenuous, outlandish connections and stretches of common sense ever since Obama took office. Personally, I think how a candidate reacts to the on-air rantings of a domestic radio bully (generally reviled and denounced rantings, mind you) should indeed give you some idea of how they might react to the rantings of a bully on the international scene.
So, are you saying that you subscribe to this level of reasoning?
When the Pubs for a boogeyman bawl
They will point, finger trembling, at Saul!
Whose endowments . . . judgmental
Both moral and . . . mental
Make theirs look exceedingly small! 
[shrug] Putin and Ahmadinejad have no American-voters fanbase to upset.
Or more recently Alvin Greene, the accidental Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate from South Carolina.
The guy talked complete nonsense in interviews, suggested making action figures of himself as a job creation program and was basically considered a joke candidate by all. On top of that he was facing obscenity charges for showing internet porn to a student at the University of South Carolina. He still managed to get 28 percent of the vote in the general election.
I don’t agree. I think the candidates mostly brushed off Rush with superficial responses because the candidates were afraid to making waves with their constituency. On the other hand, I doubt that the candidates would have any qualms about brushing off some bully on the international scene - if that is the popular thing to do.
On an unrelated note, the recent comments of Limbaugh concerning the Georgetown student has raised an uproar that overshadows many of the stirs that Limbaugh’s other comments raised. What is it that makes Limbaugh’s recent comments so media-worthy? Is it because of his target? Is it because of the hot-button issues in this election cycle: the economy (obviously) and birth control (thanks to Santorum?).
The other stuff is arguably, albeit with a stretch, political discourse, and we revere the right to it here. But he went beyond that and into inarguably simple personal meanness this time. He cannot be defended over it, and that makes it unnecessary, for the first time, to defend him.
The “MSM” now has permission, for lack of a better word, to discuss him and his effect on American politics honestly, for the first time. Limbaugh has ruled his party by fear, but a ruler who does so cannot survive if his people stop fearing him.
“And thus it passed Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut”
And why do GOP Candidates need to devote whole speeches to attacking Limbaugh? Rick Santorum has criticized them, Speaker Boehner has criticized them, and so on. Just because you’re on relatively similar politically doesn’t mean you are responsible for their actions.
Because, for better or worse, their positions, like the rest of their party’s, and the attitudes underlying them, are strongly associated with his. Because they all need to show they can be leaders, and not his followers.
They all had a chance for a Sister Souljah moment, but ducked. You might look up what that refers to. Instead, for instance, Romney simply said “It’s not the language I would have used’'. :rolleyes: Well, Mitt, what language *would *you have used? :dubious:
I think this post gives Rush way too much credit.
Lest people forget, this is the man who, on the air, told a black caller to his Pittsburgh radio show to “Take the bone out of your nose and call me back.”
The same man who referred to Chelsea Clinton as “The White House dog”; mocked Michael J. Fox for displaying symptoms of Parkinson’s disease, and accused him of faking those symptoms. The guy who said that the streets were safer during the slavery era.
He’s always been indefensible.
I think the idea is that they may want votes at some point from moderates who find Limbaugh’s offensiveness offensive–without explicit distancing, and with past affiliation and support, these voters might correctly assume that the GOP candidates’ support of Limbaugh continues uninterrupted.
I predict that lots of Conservatives and Republicans will have suddenly located their spines (after having spent the weekend reading the news and carefully studying which way public opinion and the wind blows) and speak out against Rush in this upcoming week.
Are Republicans That Afraid of Limbaugh?
According to David Frum, a conservative, the answer is “Yes.”
Frum also alleges that he’s been blacklisted by Fox because of his criticism of Limbaugh three years ago: David Frum: Fox News Blacklisted Me Following Rush Limbaugh Criticisms.
Because he has such massive influence with right-wing voters. It’s sad to say, but it’s true.
Yeah, Maher’s a dick, but how many people listen to him? Not nearly as many.
Where do the dittoheads get their motivation? How is it possible for a man without intelligence, education, achievements, or money to defend a political party that only cares about rich people?
Answered your own question there “…without intelligence…”
To be fair in the case of Greene, in addition to the “will vote for any Democrat/against any Republican” crowd you have to factor in the “finds it hilarious to vote for a joke candidate” group as well. Some people would vote for Mister Splashypants for president if they could get him onto the ballot.