Liberals Attack Gay Journalist

  • Thread starter Thread starter mlchance
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mlchance

Guest
The heretofore-unknown Jeff Gannon of the heretofore-unknown “Talon News” service was caught red-handed asking friendly questions at a White House press briefing. Now the media is hot on the trail of a gay escort service that Gannon may have run some years ago. Are we supposed to like gay people now, or hate them? Is there a website where I can go to and find out how the Democrats want me to feel about gay people on a moment-to-moment basis?

Liberals keep rolling out a scrolling series of attacks on Gannon for their Two Minutes Hate, but all their other charges against him fall apart after three seconds of scrutiny. Gannon’s only offense is that he may be gay.

First, liberals claimed Gannon was a White House plant who received a press pass so that he could ask softball questions – a perk reserved for New York Times reporters during the Clinton years. Their proof was that while “real” journalists (like Jayson Blair) were being denied press passes, Gannon had one, even though he writes for a website that no one has ever heard of – but still big enough to be a target of liberal hatred! (By the way, if writing for a news organization with no viewers is grounds for being denied a press pass, why do MSNBC reporters have them?)

On the op-ed page of the New York Times, Maureen Dowd openly lied about the press pass, saying: “I was rejected for a White House press pass at the start of the Bush administration, but someone with an alias, a tax evasion problem and Internet pictures where he posed like the ‘Barberini Faun’ is credentialed?”

But Dowd was talking about two different passes without telling her readers (a process now known in journalism schools as “Dowdification”). Gannon didn’t have a permanent pass; he had only a daily pass. Almost anyone can get a daily pass – even famed Times fantasist Maureen Dowd could have gotten one of those. A daily pass and a permanent pass are altogether different animals. The entire linchpin of Dowd’s column was a lie. (And I’m sure the Times’ public editor will get right on Dowd’s deception.)

Finally, liberals expressed shock and dismay that Gannon’s real name is “James Guckert.” On MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Chris Matthews introduced the Gannon scandal this way: “Coming up, how did a fake news reporter from a right-wing website get inside the White House press briefings and presidential news conferences?”

Reporter David Shuster then gave a report on “the phony alias Guckert used to play journalist” – as opposed to the real name Shuster uses to play journalist. (You can tell Schuster is a crackerjack journalist because he uses phrases like “phony alias.”) With all the subtlety of a gay-bashing skinhead, Matthews spent the rest of the segment seeing how many times he could smear Gannon by mentioning “HotMilitaryStuds.com” and laughing.

Any day now, Matthews will devote entire shows to exposing Larry Zeigler, Gerald Riviera and Michael Weiner – aka Larry King, Geraldo Rivera and Matthews’ former MSNBC colleague Michael Savage. As a newspaper reporter, Wolf Blitzer has written under the names Ze’ev Blitzer and Ze’ev Barak. The greatest essayist of modern times was Eric Blair, aka George Orwell. The worst essayist of modern times is “TRB” of The New Republic.

Air America radio host and “Nanny” impersonator “Randi Rhodes” goes by a fake name, and she won’t even tell people what her real last name is. (She says for “privacy reasons.” That name must be a real doozy.) As Insideradio.com describes Rhodes, she refuses “to withhold anything from her listeners” and says conservatives “are less likely to share such things.” How about sharing your name, Randi? We promise not to laugh.

Democrats in Congress actually demanded that an independent prosecutor investigate how Gannon got into White House press conferences while writing under an invented name. How did Gary Hartpence, Billy Blythe and John Kohn (Gary Hart, Bill Clinton and John Kerry) run for president under invented names? Admittedly, these men were not reporters for the prestigious “Talon News” service; they were merely Democrats running for president.

Liberals keep telling us the media isn’t liberal, but in order to retaliate for the decimation of major news organizations like the New York Times, CBS News and CNN, all they can do is produce the scalp of an obscure writer for an unknown conservative Web page. And unlike Raines, Rather and Jordan, they can’t even get Gannon for incompetence on the job. (Also unlike Raines, Rather and Jordan, Gannon has appeared on television and given a series of creditable interviews in his own defense, proving our gays are more macho than their straights.)
Gannon didn’t write about gays. No “hypocrisy” is being exposed. Liberals’ hateful, frothing-at-the-mouth campaign against Gannon consists solely of their claim that he is gay.
 
This is not to say that I have not made mistakes in the past. Like all of us have at one time or another, I made poor choices and exercised bad judgment. But I believe in a forgiving God who changed my life. It was through that renewal that I went on to have a career as a reporter and further blessed to become a White House correspondent.
 
jeffgannon.com/Column%20archive/fear_and_loathing_in_the_press_r.htm

This is not to say that I have not made mistakes in the past. Like all of us have at one time or another, I made poor choices and exercised bad judgment. But I believe in a forgiving God who changed my life. It was through that renewal that I went on to have a career as a reporter and further blessed to become a White House correspondent.

The Left always celebrates second chances, except when it comes to conservatives. The only exception to that rule is when a conservative goes over to the dark side, like David Brock did. I have received many emails exhorting me to betray my “handlers” and expose their plans, citing him as the example to follow. At the heart of all this is the further erosion of the Old Media. The Left is engaging in “21st Century McCarthyism” in an effort to blacklist conservative journalists in order protect their domination of the media. These people may have exposed some of my human failings but they have also revealed their own hypocrisy. The damage to me is done, and it wasn’t fatal. But we are only beginning to see the effect of Gannongate on the Old Media and the Left.
 
40.png
mlchance:
The heretofore-unknown Jeff Gannon of the heretofore-unknown “Talon News” service was caught red-handed asking friendly questions at a White House press briefing. Now the media is hot on the trail of a gay escort service that Gannon may have run some years ago. Are we supposed to like gay people now, or hate them? Is there a website where I can go to and find out how the Democrats want me to feel about gay people on a moment-to-moment basis?

Liberals keep rolling out a scrolling series of attacks on Gannon for their Two Minutes Hate, but all their other charges against him fall apart after three seconds of scrutiny. Gannon’s only offense is that he may be gay.

First, liberals claimed Gannon was a White House plant who received a press pass so that he could ask softball questions – a perk reserved for New York Times reporters during the Clinton years. Their proof was that while “real” journalists (like Jayson Blair) were being denied press passes, Gannon had one, even though he writes for a website that no one has ever heard of – but still big enough to be a target of liberal hatred! (By the way, if writing for a news organization with no viewers is grounds for being denied a press pass, why do MSNBC reporters have them?)

On the op-ed page of the New York Times, Maureen Dowd openly lied about the press pass, saying: “I was rejected for a White House press pass at the start of the Bush administration, but someone with an alias, a tax evasion problem and Internet pictures where he posed like the ‘Barberini Faun’ is credentialed?”

But Dowd was talking about two different passes without telling her readers (a process now known in journalism schools as “Dowdification”). Gannon didn’t have a permanent pass; he had only a daily pass. Almost anyone can get a daily pass – even famed Times fantasist Maureen Dowd could have gotten one of those. A daily pass and a permanent pass are altogether different animals. The entire linchpin of Dowd’s column was a lie. (And I’m sure the Times’ public editor will get right on Dowd’s deception.)

Finally, liberals expressed shock and dismay that Gannon’s real name is “James Guckert.” On MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Chris Matthews introduced the Gannon scandal this way: “Coming up, how did a fake news reporter from a right-wing website get inside the White House press briefings and presidential news conferences?”

Reporter David Shuster then gave a report on “the phony alias Guckert used to play journalist” – as opposed to the real name Shuster uses to play journalist. (You can tell Schuster is a crackerjack journalist because he uses phrases like “phony alias.”) With all the subtlety of a gay-bashing skinhead, Matthews spent the rest of the segment seeing how many times he could smear Gannon by mentioning “HotMilitaryStuds.com” and laughing.

Any day now, Matthews will devote entire shows to exposing Larry Zeigler, Gerald Riviera and Michael Weiner – aka Larry King, Geraldo Rivera and Matthews’ former MSNBC colleague Michael Savage. As a newspaper reporter, Wolf Blitzer has written under the names Ze’ev Blitzer and Ze’ev Barak. The greatest essayist of modern times was Eric Blair, aka George Orwell. The worst essayist of modern times is “TRB” of The New Republic.

Air America radio host and “Nanny” impersonator “Randi Rhodes” goes by a fake name, and she won’t even tell people what her real last name is. (She says for “privacy reasons.” That name must be a real doozy.) As Insideradio.com describes Rhodes, she refuses “to withhold anything from her listeners” and says conservatives “are less likely to share such things.” How about sharing your name, Randi? We promise not to laugh.

Democrats in Congress actually demanded that an independent prosecutor investigate how Gannon got into White House press conferences while writing under an invented name. How did Gary Hartpence, Billy Blythe and John Kohn (Gary Hart, Bill Clinton and John Kerry) run for president under invented names? Admittedly, these men were not reporters for the prestigious “Talon News” service; they were merely Democrats running for president.

Liberals keep telling us the media isn’t liberal, but in order to retaliate for the decimation of major news organizations like the New York Times, CBS News and CNN, all they can do is produce the scalp of an obscure writer for an unknown conservative Web page. And unlike Raines, Rather and Jordan, they can’t even get Gannon for incompetence on the job. (Also unlike Raines, Rather and Jordan, Gannon has appeared on television and given a series of creditable interviews in his own defense, proving our gays are more macho than their straights.)
Gannon didn’t write about gays. No “hypocrisy” is being exposed. Liberals’ hateful, frothing-at-the-mouth campaign against Gannon consists solely of their claim that he is gay.
Just a friendly request: please credit this wrting with your source. I know it was an Ann Coulter column.
 
40.png
StJeanneDArc:
Just a friendly request: please credit this wrting with your source. I know it was an Ann Coulter column.
So do I. There. Crediting accomplished.
 
40.png
StJeanneDArc:
Just a friendly request: please credit this wrting with your source. I know it was an Ann Coulter column.
Ann IS the best isn’t she? I love her columns and this one is right on point.

Lisa N
 
Ahh… people just don’t seem to get it here.
  1. After the attacks of 9/11, security at almost all levels of the government was increased dramatically. This guy gets one “day pass” after another with phony credentials.
  2. No one is bashing Guckert/Gannon for being gay, despite what frothing lunatics like Ann(thrax) Coulter would have you believe. What is freaking everyone out is how the “Christian family-values” hypocrites in the white house would allow a gay person to be a softball-lobber for their press conferences. After all, wasn’t the threat of subversive gay people a major theme of the last presidential election? Also, the bloggers who were instrumental in reporting this (DailyKos and AmericaBlog) are gay. Seems to me most gay people are not in favor in bringing down one of their own.
  3. Gannon/Guckert was allowed into press briefings/conferences something like 1-2 months before “Talon News” ever existed. Nice credentials there, Jeff.
  4. “…they attacked my personal life” whined Jeff (and backed up by media “liberals” like Howie Kurtz. WRONG!! When you post naked photos of yourself (including your “privates”) on the internet, what you do is really no longer private, especially when you advertise yourself as a $200.00 an hour “escort”. (Hello people, isn’t prostitution illegal, gay or otherwise??)
  5. Plants to lob softball questions during the Clinton administration??? Correct me if I’m wrong here, but if recent memory serves me correctly, all president Clinton heard was one question after another about his penis and what he did with it!
  6. Dowd was denied press credentials, but more importantly people like Helen Thomas were relegated to the “back row”. Some of these reporters are long-standing investigative journalists who question EVERYTHING, which is their job!! Thomas was no Clinton patronizer, and look at some of the garbage “DragonLady” Dowd wrote about Clinton and Gore.
    I could go on and on, but it seems that many are stuck in some sort of bizarro world where the likes of opinionated, mandacious poltroons like Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly, Coulter, etc. pass for “news”. After all, it’s much easier for a person to parrot these spouters than it is to research the truth and form one’s own opinion. Rush has been quoted as saying that “you don’t need to pay attention to the news, I’ll do it for you and tell you what to think”, which is apparently fine for a lot of lemmings these days. I’m truly afraid for this country…
    (Damn, an entire post and I didn’t say anything funny. I guess the loss of an objective media is too frightening to me… and no, geniuses, I’m not talking about the {pretty much nonexistant} “liberal” media)
    Peace…
 
CanonAlbrec you are right your post wasn’t particularly funny. Ann Coulter’s column was as always hilarious. I’d keep my day job if I were you.

You are mistaken if you think talk show hosts like Rush, O’Reilly, Hannity et al consider their shows journalism. Rush says many things tongue in cheek or do you think he really means “Talent on loan from God!”? They are provacateurs. They are entertainers. They do not even pretend to be newsmen. Now Dan Rather does pretend to be a journalist on TV. So far many of us DID our own research and found his lacking.

Please do not assume just because we happen to agree with some political views of the “right wing” talk show hosts that we are are ‘lemmings’ or stupid or any of the rest of your unflattering characterizations.

Lisa N
 
Lisa N:
CanonAlbrec you are right your post wasn’t particularly funny. Ann Coulter’s column was as always hilarious. I’d keep my day job if I were you.

You are mistaken if you think talk show hosts like Rush, O’Reilly, Hannity et al consider their shows journalism. Rush says many things tongue in cheek or do you think he really means “Talent on loan from God!”? They are provacateurs. They are entertainers. They do not even pretend to be newsmen. Now Dan Rather does pretend to be a journalist on TV. So far many of us DID our own research and found his lacking.

Please do not assume just because we happen to agree with some political views of the “right wing” talk show hosts that we are are ‘lemmings’ or stupid or any of the rest of your unflattering characterizations.

Lisa N
 
Lisa N:
CanonAlbrec you are right your post wasn’t particularly funny. Ann Coulter’s column was as always hilarious. I’d keep my day job if I were you.

You are mistaken if you think talk show hosts like Rush, O’Reilly, Hannity et al consider their shows journalism. Rush says many things tongue in cheek or do you think he really means “Talent on loan from God!”? They are provacateurs. They are entertainers. They do not even pretend to be newsmen. Now Dan Rather does pretend to be a journalist on TV. So far many of us DID our own research and found his lacking.

Please do not assume just because we happen to agree with some political views of the “right wing” talk show hosts that we are are ‘lemmings’ or stupid or any of the rest of your unflattering characterizations.

Lisa N
Hi Lisa,

Damn, I’ve tried 3 times to make this work, but the forum format has freaked out every time!! Okay, I’ll try again…
Limbaugh seriously portrays himself as having “talent on loan from God”, and if you listen to his show, you know that he actually believes it. The only time he backs off is when he is caught lying (which he does frequently), then he immediatly claims it was a “humour” thing.
O’Reilly brands himself as an “independent”, but anyone with a brain cell working knows he’s a RW, Fox “news” trained shill.
If I offended you, I apologize. It’s just that I’ve tried to reason/argue with so many RW people over the last few years I’ve become frustrated. Invariably, the response is either being “shouted down” (a la Hannity), changing the subject, screaming about the non-existant “liberal” mainstream meda, or blaming all of the world’s ills over the last 2K years on President Clinton.
This administration has been lying for years. It’s just that the blatant hypocrisy of this one is mind-blowing. Had this happened under Clinton’s watch, the repercussions would have been without parallel.
I’m not a diehard liberal at all. I’m anti-choice, pro-2nd Amendment, and I don’t gve a frog’s fat *** where someone wants to place a 10 commandments monument.
However, I’m also against untruthfullness, and this administrion has lied and mislead us all from day one.
BTW, Ann Coulter is not trying to be funny in her columns, she truly believes her spew. Therefore she is now branded as a major NutCase (Ooohh…and go in and research her “facts”. OUCH!!
LIAR!!!).
Love the forum, Peace…
 
40.png
CanonAlberic:
Limbaugh seriously portrays himself as having “talent on loan from God”, and if you listen to his show, you know that he actually believes it…
It’s a joke, and his listeners know it. You obviously take him much too seriously.

A lot of what he portrays is toung and cheek. You don’t actually think he has 1/2 is brain tied behind his back do you? Do you think his microphone is actually made out of gold too?

He’s an entertainer. Not a newsman. He is paid via the entertainment division of the network, not the news division.

I agree with you about Ann Colter, she believes what she is writing.
 
40.png
gilliam:
It’s a joke, and his listeners know it. You obviously take him much too seriously.

A lot of what he portrays is toung and cheek. You don’t actually think he has 1/2 is brain tied behind his back do you? Do you think his microphone is actually made out of gold too?

He’s an entertainer. Not a newsman. He is paid via the entertainment division of the network, not the news division.

I agree with you about Ann Colter, she believes what she is writing.
Oh I think Ann believes what she is writing and will back it up with facts and figures if pressed. She’s amazingly quick on her feet. I’ve seen her debate many times and she literally destroys the opposition with the speed and strength of Kobe Bryant stuffing a basketball. It’s a sight to behold.

I do agree on Rushbo. He’s a great actor and he’s got a great schtick. I don’t listen to him very often but I listen enough to recognize that it’s a put on. Interestingly his books are very different than his radio personality. He’s serious, thoughtful and documents his theories carefully.

Lisa N
 
40.png
CanonAlberic:
Hi Lisa,

Damn, I’ve tried 3 times to make this work, but the forum format has freaked out every time!! Okay, I’ll try again…
Limbaugh seriously portrays himself as having “talent on loan from God”, and if you listen to his show, you know that he actually believes it. The only time he backs off is when he is caught lying (which he does frequently), then he immediatly claims it was a “humour” thing.
O’Reilly brands himself as an “independent”, but anyone with a brain cell working knows he’s a RW, Fox “news” trained shill.
If I offended you, I apologize. It’s just that I’ve tried to reason/argue with so many RW people over the last few years I’ve become frustrated. …
I’m frankly amazed at your interpretation. I see the MSM as blatently liberal. They couldn’t have tried harder to unseat President Bush. They are self proclaimed liberals. Look at any survey. Watch the news. Tell me there is any kind of balance as to perspective in the MSM. You know the funny story about the NYC journalist who was honestly astonished when Nixon won a second term in a landslide “I don’t know ANYONE who voted for him!” Indeed the liberal ‘bubble’ prevents the concept that there are millions of people who think completely differently.

O’Reilly is frankly too liberal for my taste. He’s iffy on abortion, thinks homosexual marriage is just fine and whines constantly about being picked on. I find him increasingly tiresome. I don’t see him as a Fox shill although he certainly makes a lot of money for them. Rush, as I’ve mentioned before is a provacateur. He’s got a great act but I can take it in small doses. I use Hannity when I need some Kool Aid but he too is too much of a ‘good’ thing. I consider none of them journalists and I sincerely doubt they consider journalism their actual occupation.

As to the “liar liar pants on fire” we hear constantly about the Bush administration, please tell me about LIES. THere is a huge difference about not knowing the truth and saying what you believe is correct and lying which is a deliberate act and done in full knowledge you are not tellling the truth.

I love the forums as well. And no you didn’t offend me because I thought you were absolutely wrong in your assessments.

Lisa N
 
Lisa N:
I’m frankly amazed at your interpretation. I see the MSM as blatently liberal. They couldn’t have tried harder to unseat President Bush. They are self proclaimed liberals. Look at any survey. Watch the news. Tell me there is any kind of balance as to perspective in the MSM. You know the funny story about the NYC journalist who was honestly astonished when Nixon won a second term in a landslide “I don’t know ANYONE who voted for him!” Indeed the liberal ‘bubble’ prevents the concept that there are millions of people who think completely differently.

O’Reilly is frankly too liberal for my taste. He’s iffy on abortion, thinks homosexual marriage is just fine and whines constantly about being picked on. I find him increasingly tiresome. I don’t see him as a Fox shill although he certainly makes a lot of money for them. Rush, as I’ve mentioned before is a provacateur. He’s got a great act but I can take it in small doses. I use Hannity when I need some Kool Aid but he too is too much of a ‘good’ thing. I consider none of them journalists and I sincerely doubt they consider journalism their actual occupation.

As to the “liar liar pants on fire” we hear constantly about the Bush administration, please tell me about LIES. THere is a huge difference about not knowing the truth and saying what you believe is correct and lying which is a deliberate act and done in full knowledge you are not tellling the truth.

I love the forums as well. And no you didn’t offend me because I thought you were absolutely wrong in your assessments.

Lisa N
Point well taken. While I find your opinions amazing (for a different reason!), I respect them, and your right to voice them.
Peace!
 
The whole thing is about hypocrisy and bigotry.

This guy now rides attacks against homosexuals only to please his political sponsors and has worked as a call boy himself until recently.

On the other side i ain’t exactly surprised that some here don’t recognize hypocrisy and bigotry when facing it, they have seen it too often already in the morning when looking into the mirror.

Werner
 
I think I’ve said before this has, among media professionals, always been a non-story — finally today the Washington Corresondents Assn. said so.

"…Well, it’s official. The White House Correspondents’ Association has weighed in on “Gannongate,” saying “individual episodes” should not prompt a crackdown on credentialing. That was a reference to a conservative reporter, Jeff Gannon, heavily criticized for asking anti-Democrat questions. Matt Drudge reported on February 28 that in a resolution adopted at a meeting in Washington that morning, the association said it “stands for inclusiveness in the credentialing process so that the White House remains accessible to all journalists We hope that individual episodes do not obscure the broader principles of a fair and evenhanded credentialing process.”

"…This is not surprising. The WHCA did not launch this crusade against Gannon. (It was launched by the left-leaning Media Matters for America.). In fact, if you look at C-SPAN clips of White House press briefings, it seems that established and well-known reporters often chuckle and grin good-naturedly when Les Kinsolving, Jeff Gannon and others writing for online news services ask loaded questions. It seems this presence has always been part of the White House press room “culture” and that it has livened up the proceedings.

Sarah McLendon, who described herself as a “citizen journalist,” ran her McLendon News Service out of her own cluttered D.C. apartment. The elderly McLendon once lobbed this softball at President Clinton: “Sir, will you tell us why you think people have been so mean to you?”

AIM editor Cliff Kincaid noted that the media had long tolerated not only McLendon but liberals such as Helen Thomas and Naderite Russell Mokhiber, who once asked White House spokesman Scott McLellan if President Bush had violated the sixth commandment when he launched the Iraq war.

"Johanna Neuman of the Los Angeles Times was one of the few reporters who put the story into appropriate context. Her story, dated February 27, said, “…the White House press corps is not the thoroughly screened and scrubbed journalistic elite Americans might presume. Along with stars of the country’s major media organizations, it has long included eccentrics and fringe players.”

Neuman explained, “Marlin Fitzwater, former press secretary to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said in an interview that he created day passes in response to a federal court decision in the late 1970s requiring the White House to admit all journalists unless the Secret Service deemed them threats to the president or his immediate family.” That lawsuit, Neuman wrote, involved Robert Sherrill of The Nation, who was denied a press pass on the advice of the Secret Service, because he had punched out the press secretary to the governor of Florida.

Since then, Neuman explained, the White House press corps has attracted an “array of unusual personalities.” She cites Naomi Nover of “Nover News Service” whose work no one ever saw published. “Lester Kinsolving, conservative radio commentator, wore a clerical collar to White House briefings in the Reagan years,” she notes, “His loud voice and off-beat, argumentative questions often provoked laughter.”

There were plenty of people in the mainstream media willing to hawk the non-story of Gannongate to an audience not versed in White House press room history. It’s a shame more reporters did not make the effort to place the story in historic and factual context, as Neuman did…"

aim.org/media_monitor_print/2761_0_2_0/
…"
 
Lisa N:
I’ve seen her debate many times and she literally destroys the opposition with the speed and strength of Kobe Bryant stuffing a basketball.
Yep, that’s the goal - destroy your opposition. Rip their guts out. Grind their ***** into the ground. Let’s have a totally polarized America - the @%&!!* liberals and the Anointed By God Himself conservatives.

Or maybe, thoughtful persons on both sides, especially Catholics, might see the permanent destruction to our Republic that such sportful polarization can lead to.
 
40.png
gilliam:
It’s a joke, and his listeners know it. You obviously take him much too seriously.

A lot of what he portrays is toung and cheek. You don’t actually think he has 1/2 is brain tied behind his back do you? Do you think his microphone is actually made out of gold too?

He’s an entertainer. Not a newsman. He is paid via the entertainment division of the network, not the news division.
Liberals’ reaction to Rush proves either they don’t have a sense of humor or they never listened to him anyway (or listened while plugging their ears and frowning). Can you imagine some NPR or BBC-head listening and thinking Rush is serious with all that schtick he does?? Geez you got to wonder. Rush is funny, he is pure camp and the only one of all the talk show hosts who can make me laugh out loud…
 
40.png
caroljm36:
Liberals’ reaction to Rush prove either they don’t have a sense of humor or they don’t really listen to him so don’t know what they’re talking about.
Do you think that liberal are so dumb as not to be able to recognize humor? The fact is that many conservatives consider Limbaugh as speaking pure unvarnished truth. Do you remember how Republican politicians credited him with the wins they got in the mid-term elections when Clinton was president? No one said that he was just a chubby Letterman. Many conservatives took him quite literally and did not respond to him as they would to a satirist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top