From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re:  Rush Military Record
Date: 23 Jan 93 19:13:02 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker) writes:
#hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (BOB HOOKER) wrote:
#> Maybe you should try something alittle radical here big guy,  maybe you
#> should judge Rush on the basis of what he says vs. what he does rather then
#> justify his draft dodging by comaparing him to the "liberal media culture'.
#
#Instead of judging Rush by what he says/has said, why not judge him by what
#he does/has done?
#Let's see....
#Got out of serving in the military, using a method stereotypical of many
#draft dodgers.
#Didn't bother to vote in any election until his show was about to start.

That was when he was in his "more youthful days." They don't matter,
remember? I don't recall Rush saying he wanted to stay out of the
military to maintain his "political viability" or to maintain
credibility as a broadcaster. If you come up with a letter like that,
then you might have a decent point. But again, just as it didn't matter
to Clinton, I guess it shouldn't matter with regards to Rush too.

Besides, I couldn't see Rush panicked about the 1984 election. The 1988
election was wide open for the first time, and Ronaldus Magnus could not
serve a third term. Criticize him for complacency, sure.

#Calls people lots of names, thus hindering rational discussion of his (or
#other's) beliefs.

You hear but you don't listen to his show that often. He's okay with rational
discussion as long as the caller wants a rational discussion and is
knowledgable enough to keep the conversation informative rather than
drift into irrelevance or nit-picky details that go over those who don't
understand the subject to that degree. Those callers who talk to Rush
with contempt usually won't have a long, fruitful discussion.

#Acts just like those annoying little twerps we all remember from school who
#claim to have all the answers, and say that people who don't believe them
#either (1) were stupid, or (2) hated them.

The fun thing is that a lot of times, his answers are accurate.

#Rush is big on hidden agendas. If you disagree with Rush, you must have a
#hidden agenda.

More accurately, if you disagree with him, to him, you're a fool. Having
a hidden agenda makes you that much more of a fool.

Then Mel says:
#If we are going to judge Rush by what he says, why can't we judge Pres.
#Clinton by what he says? It works both ways.

Not exactly. Rush's job (how he makes money) is to discuss what he
thinks about issues affecting the nation in an entertaining way. Bill
Clinton's job is not only to "inspire the nation" or "feel their pain"
but also to execute the laws of the United States and maintain its
security. Bill was elected to become the head of government and
represent this nation all over the world. Rush was not.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	BSE in BME in 1993
"You just can't promise something like that just to get elected if you
 know there's a good chance that circumstances may overtake you."
	- Bill Clinton, East Lansing MI debate, Mon Oct 19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex