We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I am not sure when proclaiming things LOUDLY necessarily made the author more right or brilliant than other folks. Lefty racism? or just plain old partisanship....or modern media frenzy. And in the same article he says the GOP won't stand up for their guy, er, because of fear of MSM? So what is that? AND he seems to criticize Mme Obama for visiting rich white republicans in Florida. Is there a separate door for her to enter?
One can always be half right by declaring everything and its opposite.... so perhaps he should untie the other half of his brain so the rest of us can hope to make sense his meandering commentary.
OK, I'll try to meander less, perhaps I was just mimicking the style. If he thinks the slams on Cain are lefty racism, why is the lack of defense from the GOP any less racist? If the title of his post was "we are all racist" that would seem more consistent.
Or if he thinks the issue is non valid for MSM fodder, fine, say that.
I don't like to see anyone get "tried by the press" but it looks like Cain may be on his own to defend himself.
You make a valid point, maybe, though I'd call the lack of defense from the GOP less racism than lack of testicular fortitude, or even, smarts. They're roll over doggies searching for that 'great middle' pat on the belly. Thus Romney.
I've listened to Rush a few times over the years, but am put off as well by his drama, loudness a part of it. His overall tone really, that avers my paying more attention to him.
It is also possible that racism has less to do with it (on either side) than partisan politics, which is not what Rush is saying. The left has their candidate (in office, who btw, is black last i looked) so will take a swipe at anyone the GOP puts out there and the right has their preferred candidate (the great middle belly pat) although last I saw he was neck in neck with, er, that other black guy.
Nothing to do with nothing really. But it amuses me that the old, and I mean that anciently and literally, idea that as little as one to x percent of the underdog blood makes one a member of said underdogs. From the smidgen I've paid interest Obama is around 7 percent black. Cain 100 percent. Personally I'd prefer we leave race out of it completely, which of course as long as it is valuable to one side or the other will not happen.
You’re wrapping yourself in a nest of negatives. You have made not condemning allegations of a thing the righty people do not know about the equivalent of affirming the allegations and presuming guilt as the lefty people have done.
Condemning allegations without learning facts is as stupid as spreading allegations without learning facts. Who else but Cain can defend his own past (if it requires a defense at all)?
We await the Big Media voice asking Cain, “When did you stop harassing women?”
Nice news expository by Rush. I believe the contrast in Democratic scandles and this seeming faux scandle was worth reviewing.
Two things Bomber Girl. First is I believe conservatives are cautious when a scandle breaks-because sometimes they're true. We tend to want the facts before we defend our "guy." Second, I believe he was saying Mrs. Obama would only attack rich republicans not only go in their homes.
Yes, agree with your two comments in my direction, BIW. And repeat what I said earlier about not liking "trial by press", although sometimes allegations may be proven true but when not, the damage is already done.