Okay, I have to do this tactfully, as I've probably been a little hard on Rick Moran in the past. But I find this to be annoying as hell.
LIMBAUGH IS STILL A GOOSE
I see where some on the right disagree with my take on Limbaugh’s comment. Some suggested I watch the video where Rush explains his meaning in the context of bringing up phony soldier Jesse Macbeth.
I watched the video and am more convinced than ever that Limbaugh knew he had goofed when he said “phony soldiers” (plural) and in the context of the moment the comment was made, Limbaugh was clearly referencing and agreeing with the caller’s sentiment that all soldiers who come forward and make known their opposition to the war are not “real soldiers” (caller’s words).
We can parse this thing from here to doomsday and not agree because at bottom, we are arguing about Limbaugh’s intent – an admittedly doomed excursion into the realm of mind reading.
A "goose"? Geesh, Rick, if you want to take a namby pamby position, you could at least spice up the language a bit so you don't come off so bad. A "goose"? Are you writing a blog, teaching Sunday school, or trying to do both? If you think he's a blow hard that jumped the shark on this one, say so. I'd argue you're wrong, but I'd at least respect the sentiment.
You don't need to read Rush's mind to know his intent, not if you've ever listened to him, that is. Yeah, it may have been some loose language in and around the bit, even that's arguable, but Limbaugh has never done anything to malign anyone in uniform, so far as I can tell.
Limbaugh is an entertainer. So, an entertainer does a bit and because you can construct a scenario wherein some potential less than carefully chosen language might suggest he attacked some troops, you feel compelled to denounce him? Where's the conservatism, or libertarianism in that? Because frankly it looks as though you're doing something you do quite often, taking a contrary position to most of us on the Right to somehow set yourself apart.
There's an easier way to do that, Rick. Stop pretending you're "Right wing" as your blog name implies and admit you are angling to be some rather mundane voice of reason that turns all political discourse into more of the same old boring crap one can regularly access in the mainstream media.
Limbaugh isn't an elected official, or running for office - he's independent media on the Right-side of the spectrum and this whole thing was a trumped up hit by the usual suspects on the Left starting with Media Matters. If you're going to feed into that type of garbage, it's extremely difficult to see you as a quality voice on the Right with any serious dedication to fighting the good fight when it comes to media bias. And whatever alleged principles you latched onto to make your argument don't appear to be grounded in anything I can characterize as conservative, or libertarian thought.
We don't need nannies on the Right, we've enough work to do keeping the nanny statists on the Left in check, dude. But if you must continue doing this type of stuff, consider changing your blog's name to Right Wing Nanny's House instead. That would seem to be a little closer to the mark, particuarly as regards the post in question.