It is possible that a bigger push for a conservative candidate by the rightroots/Tea Partiers could have gotten someone more conservative the nod.
The trouble was no one really knew that a victory in Illinois, in The Obama Seat, was even possible. All of this has snuck up on us. Well, I think I can say “us.” I don’t think too many people were expecting the Brown win, or… this.
Mark Kirk actually ran. Can’t get too angry at him for being the only major Republican candidate to show up for the party.
Once again, we see pundits simply baffled by the reality that when people are given a real choice and alternative to liberal Democrats — even in supposedly liberal areas of the country — these people will choose the alternative. Conservatives — accused of being “purists” who “live in fantasy land” by “pragmatic moderates” — have been saying this all along. We have faith in the common sense of the people that if you stand for conservatism, explain it and defend it unapologetically, the people will choose it over liberalism most every time.
The key is that you must get out there and try. So-called “pragmatic moderates” and eeyores keep saying “oh there is no possible way that people will vote for conservatism or Republicans in this area, so it’s a waste to even bother to try”. Hogwash. That’s just cowardice and lack of principle.
This is a center-right country. Conservative policies and principles have succeeded throughout the history of this nation. All one has to do is get out there and stand for those policies and principles and you will win people over. It has happened time and time again. People who start out liberal in their mentality and ideology move to conservatism after having it explained to them and seeing the logic and correctness of it. Heck, even Rush Limbaugh has caller after caller each year telling him that they tuned into his show when they were liberals because they wanted to “find out what the enemy/other side was saying”, only to end up agreeing with what he was saying and becoming conservatives themselves.
“The trouble” is not that “no one really knew that a victory in Illinois was possible”, the trouble is that there are eeyores out there who refuse to even bother to try to find out. The negative, “it’ll never happen, so don’t bother trying” attitude of these so-called “pragmatic” Republicans is what is holding back conservatism.
You don’t convince people that your principles and ideals and policies are correct by not bothering to sell and explain them to people. You convince them by first having faith in the people to understand them and then proceeding to explain and express them.
The so-called “pragmatic” Republicans who refuse to stand for conservatism all across the country are simply practicing the “soft bigotry of low expectations”. This is a liberal mentality. Sad to see that Republican pundits have this attitude as well.
Amen to this:
Hey, he was the most conservative likely candidate the citizens of Illinois would elect.
I don’t buy this line of reasoning, at all. Conservatism, if articulated properly and accurately, is a winner anywhere anyplace with people who work and pay taxes.
We need to get out this silly mindset of ‘electability’.
Posted by: This is Randolph Mantooth at February 04, 2010 12:58 PM
Exactly. These same “pragmatic” Republicans focus on “electability” simply to get the GOP in the majority, and then turn around and whine when the GOP majority is a majority of RINOs who govern as liberals. What the hell is the point to winning an election if the people who win are liberals?
We saw that during the Bush 43 years, when the GOP controlled Congress from 2003-2006. Sure the GOP had the majority, but they were not fiscal conservatives. Then, the Left puts out the meme that “GOP=conservatism=fail” and then earn HUGE victories in 2006 and 2008 based on that.
So guess what… the “electability” strategy is a failed strategy.
Ronald Reagan is admired and revered to this day, because he unapologetically stood for conservatism, explained it and defended it and didn’t resort to compromising his principles for political expedience. He won two HUGE landslide victories using this strategy. Yet, “pragmatic” Republicans continue to say that strategy is a loser and “electability” and compromising principles for the sake of winning an election is the way to go. Brilliant.
I do not get this at all:
Now — IF, as is possible, the Democratic Parties in these states contain lots of Reagan Democrats willing to be called into the conservative fold…
…and if such Democrats break the tradition of just voting Democrat even if it’s a liberal they don’t like…
…and if they become more persuadable by more conservative and more Republican candidates, then things change, and we can start pushing true-blue conservatives.
You can go a lot further with the wind at your back than in your face. Yes, the winds just changed, and that’s awesome, but they just changed, like a month or two ago.
You know, for years, we have said of the differences between the poles, “Conservatives look for converts, liberals look for heretics.”
I am dismayed that it seems we are joining liberals’ in their counterproductive heretic-hunting.
We need converts. If we were a LOSER PARTY, frankly, we might as well be as ideologically pure as possible, because we’re going to lose anyway, so we might as well do so with integrity.
We are not going to be losing. We have to get into the winner’s mindset here and stop trying to construct a rump party that only exists to propagate a message and nothing else.
Posted by: ace at February 04, 2010 01:08 PM
Um, the “winner’s mindset” is that you stand strong on your winning principles no matter if the wind is in your face or at your back.
And someone explain to me how you win converts to conservatism by running liberal Republicans. Unless, as I suspect, “ace” doesn’t care about winning converts to conservatism, but simply wants to win converts to the Republican Party. That right there exposes him as a “squishy moderate” who doesn’t stand for conservatism, but simply Republicanism… which is basically anti-Democratism (“anyone but Democrats”). Which is a loser’s mentality.
He doesn’t have faith in conservative principles and ideals at all, he doesn’t have faith in the American people to understand those principles, so he decides to just play the same games as the liberals and Democrats and use strategies like “electability” and sacrificing conservative polices X, Y and Z in order to trick the electorate to vote for a Republican, thinking s/he is a conservative, only to find out that once they get into office, they aren’t conservative at all. But, hey, we won and have a Republican majority!
Big deal. We have a liberal Republican majority who simply will govern and legislate not as conservatives, but simply less liberal than Democrats.
Meanwhile, after they fail in their less liberal than Democrats governing, we are right back to the Democrats pointing out the GOP’s failures and getting back into power again.
The problem is that these “pragmatic” Republicans are more concerned with superficial “victories” instead of long-term success.
Balls: A lot of “better candidates” were not candidates at all because they were too afraid to run, thinking this was Obama’s year.
Well, Kirk ran. (Hughes ran too, but had never run for anything before, nor even voted much, and was pretty much a protest candidate.)
So — you know what all of your preferred candidates were lacking?
Ambition and drive and belief and even a little courage.
Kirk had those. The imaginary “better candidates” didn’t.
No one can win without those.
Woody Allen said 80% of success was just showing up. Kirk showed up. Other “better candidates” didn’t. I’m sort of not understanding why were are talking about gutless candidates who didn’t even bother to stand for election.
So let me get this straight…
First you “pragmatic” Republicans say “there’s no point to even trying to win this seat, it’s not possible, so don’t bother”. So people listen to your “pragmatic” advice and don’t run. But now you turn around and call those people cowards for not having the balls to run in a race you said was un-winnable.
Guess what, genius. If there were less “pragmatic” Republicans like yourself doom-saying and being ‘eeyorish’ and telling people to not even bother trying, because you’re never going to succeed, then we’d have a lot more opportunities to get conservatives we want to campaign and win office. You go around calling conservatives “purists” who “live in fantasy land” when we say we want to campaign conservatives in liberal States, then turn around and say if we don’t campaign conservatives in liberal States, we’re cowards who lack balls. Nice having it both ways there, jackass.
I find it ironic that a pessimistic “pragmatic” who goes around telling people “it’s never going to happen, so don’t bother trying” is lecturing others about not having any balls.
Effing A-men to this:
Politics is the art of the possible.
Politics is the art of marketing. Politics is the art of advertising.
Marketing and advertising are about telling your idiot customers what they should want (i.e., your product). It’s about pushing their emotional buttons so hard and so often that they feel absolutely COMPELLED to forgo paying the rent just to buy what you’re selling.
Marketing is not about passively listening to customers, and letting them tell you what to sell to them. It’s just not. It’s about manufacturing consumer demand for your product.
But no one in politics knows anything worth a shit about marketing or advertising. They think that TV spot with the wolf-with-the-red eyes crap is a state-of-the-art ad. It’s not. It’s a fucking joke.
If you want genuine, conservative, pro-market, anti-socialist change in government, conservatives need to learn how to be better marketers. The Left is better at marketing than the Right. They have been for a long time. They own the media, and the media knows marketing. The fact that the Dems are losing so badly right now is 20% attributable to improved Republican marketing, and 80% attributable to Democrat stupidity. Their recent losses are a testament to their utter corruption and avarice. Only they are dumb enough to fuck up a super-majority/White House combo. It’s like the Star Wars prequels — astronomical success should have been a lay-up, a gimmie, but they somehow found a way to turn it into shit. Republicans shouldn’t praise themselves too much for Democrat self-defeat.
The Republicans could blast out a super-majority of their own, with a fire-breathing, rock-ribbed, free-market, small-government agenda, if they knew how to market it properly. The right kind of clear marketing message, properly delivered (by them, not by sideline pundits) would CREATE the demand among voters for the conservative message.
The Republicans don’t need to be passive followers of voter opinion. When passivity is your marketing strategy, then the Dems end up controlling the message, and the Republicans end up selling a watered-down, milquetoast version of the Democrat message, which no one wants. (See, e.g., McCain, John.)
Posted by: Phinn at February 04, 2010 02:12 PM
And the hits just keep on comin’…
I didn’t mention that, because I knew the rightroots (internet right) was on the side of Hughes and I didn’t want to be seen as thwarting the Tea Party Movement and supporting a dreaded RINO.
I just shut up, so as not to hurt Hughes’ chances. But I kinda knew, based on reader input, that not only would Kirk win, he should win, because even if a miracle happened and Hughes won the primary, he wasn’t a strong enough candidate to even come close in the general.
Really? The same people who were sure there was no possible way that a Republican could win a Senate seat in Illinois (or Massachusetts) are now certain that Hughes could not possibly “even come close in the general”. The same people who said the GOP was dead last year and were going to be in the wilderness for years. The same people who last year would have said not to even bother trying for the Senate seats in Massachusetts or Illinois now are political geniuses based on hindsight. Brilliant.
Oh, and the same guy who goes around telling other people they are cowards with no balls comes out and admits that he shut up and didn’t campaign for Kirk, because he was afraid of criticism from Hughes supporters. What bravery.
That’s as childish as a college football fan who goes around and gets in everyone’s face about how awesome he is for supporting his team and how idiotic the supporters of the other team were/are… after his team wins.
In other words, it’s just like voting “present” and not taking a side, then waiting for the results to either take credit for a victory or curse the other side for a loss. Right-of-center pundits emulating the cowardice and condescension of Obama. Brilliant.
Ah, you knew it was coming:
I feel compelled to point out that there wasn’t really much of a primary because the conservatives got in too late because no one thought it was worth the expense (yes, I see the obvious counter there). Posted by: Methos
As in, “Whose fucking fault is it that the conservatives were late for the primary?” That kind of thing?
Posted by: Iskandar at February 04, 2010 03:11 PM
Well, smartass, it was partly your “fucking fault” — and that of those “pragmatic” Republican pundits like “ace” — who last year were going around saying conservatives will “NEVER EVER” win in liberal areas and you shouldn’t bother even trying and if you think you can, you’re living in “fantasy land”. I’m sure that kind of brilliant, winning attitude had nothing to do with it, right? Idiot.
Great post by Ryan on his MySpace blog. I think he is asking quite a bit from the dumbed down society we have today. However, I think it is good to try to bring people up to a high standard, rather than to pander down to their accepted low standard. It will take a lot of time, effort and patience to get this to happen, but it will be well worth it if we can make this a reality in our society.
Now, on debating: The following consists of a simple list of things to keep in mind while debating politics.
1. Thou Shalt Not Make Slurs, Generalized or Other.
It’s number one for a reason. Not only is it just rude, but it takes away from the debate. Regardless of what side you take on a debate, you should leave with a higher knowledge set.
To the people I generally agree with on issues: I’ve deleted some of your comments lately. We’ve been doing this long enough that you should know better.
To the people I generally disagree with (or noobs): You don’t know my work history. You don’t know my personal history. You don’t know my education history. I shouldn’t really need to post pics of the dozens of diplomas I’ve received in military, law enforcement, and legal courses; my academic diplomas (plural, including graduate school) from the university I attended; the essays I’ve gotten published; the dissertation I’m working on; my class schedule for my PhD program; or my personal library and research files. Instead of coming in and making broad generalized statements like “you can’t read legal stuff”, take the time to debate the actual issue or leave.
You say “But Ryan, what was the point of that paragraph? You’re just on your high horse or something.”
The point is that the majority of that paragraph is pointless. When you make such broad-based generic claims about someone’s ‘abilities’ or ‘knowledge’, all you’re doing is setting up a strawman argument that does absolutely nothing for the debate. You force a person to point out their pedigrees (or it degenerates into a ‘yu-huh’-‘nuh-uh’ argument) and the actual subject of the debate dies.
2. Thou Shalt Not Ignore Points Made by the Opposing Party.
Guy 1 – “X” is wrong because of y and z.
Guy 2 – We should do “x” because of a, b, and c.
No, address “y and z” first before taking the debate in another direction. Why? Because you’re being disingenuous. The person you’re addressing has already made a claim and backed it up. If you feel said claim is wrong, take on their points before moving on.
Let me put it into better context:
Guy 1 – We shouldn’t pass the health care bill because it’ll bankrupt the economy based on the $2 Trillion initial cost, the projected deficits, the running costs of all the other programs, and the $1.4 Trillion deficit we’re already running.
Guy 2 – You’re wrong. We need to pass the health care bill so we can help people.
See what I’m saying? All Guy 2 did here was vomit out his feelings on the matter without addressing the issue at hand, which is the effect of the health care bill on the economy. The debate went nowhere and neither party is better off.
3. Thou Shalt Acknowledge and Heed the Most Credible Source.
This is a biggie, and one that drives me absolutely mad.
Guy 1 – Page 437 of House bill 93498 (linked) flat out says “You are a cunt.”
Guy 2 – You’re wrong. The New York Times and ABC News has a panel of people that says it doesn’t say that.
What we have here are two people. One is citing the actual text of the bill and providing it for all to see (proof beyond any reasonable doubt). The other refuses to read the actual text and is instead relying on a second-hand (and questionable) source for their info on what page 437 says.
The logic here is unassailable.
4. Thou Shalt Educate Thyself.
Following on that last point, when you’re debating, you should have data to back up your own claims.
Go to the bookstore. Go to the library. Go to amazon. Use google. It’s not that hard.
Then you say “But c’mon now Ryan, I don’t have time to research or read stuff.”
Really? Ever wait in line? Cook? Take a shit? Eat alone? Does it take you a while to get to sleep? Do you watch TV?
You have time.
Let me give you some examples:
-At the time of this writing, I am making homemade rolls from scratch. I’m just waiting for the dough to rise.
-A little over a year ago, I researched and wrote the majority of a 13 page paper for class during a 12-hour layover at Heathrow Int’l airport.
-I always have a book or two in my truck for when I’m…well, waiting in line somewhere or for when I’m out to eat and by myself.
The point is that you don’t have to be a research fellow at some university or think tank to do research, nor do you have to set aside hours and hours of your schedule. 99% of the time it’s just picking up a book or document and taking some time to do what you learned how to do when you were four.
5. Thou Shalt Use Credible Sources.
It doesn’t do much good to read if you’re reading the wrong thing. Let’s look at three different kinds of sources:
NOT CREDIBLE: [Jonathan Steele’s Defeat – Why America and Britain Lost Iraq]
Written by a journalist. He did some research, but he clearly had a bias going into the book. (Praise by Noam Chomsky should also make anything suspect). This was also published in February of 2008…a year and a half after the Awakening movements started and the Iraqis were well on their way to kicking the terrorists out.
It’s opinion, and the events that have played out since its publication have killed any credibility of the book’s premise.
CREDIBLE: [Daniel Walker Howe’s What Hath Go Wrought – The Transformation of America 1815-1848]
Written by a historian and thoroughly researched (as noted by the hundreds of footnotes and 21-page bibliographical essay in the back). Part of the “Oxford History of the United States” series. Also, an excellent and captivating read.
ORIGINAL: [The Federalist Papers]
Much like pulling up actual bills, if you want to know what someone actually said on a subject, you pull up what they actually wrote. For example, if you want to know what the Founders meant when they wrote the Constitution, you need to read what they actually said about it in the Federalist Papers.
Politicians do not count as credible sources either. Why? Because Congress would write a bill legalizing rape, title it “Empowering Women of America Act”, then defend it on all the talk shows. It’s called “double speak”, and politicians thrive on it. If you don’t believe me, pull up the legislative calendar and start reading bills. It’ll make you want to pull your hair out.
6. Thou Shalt Practice What Thou Preaches.
This is more for personal credibility than anything else.
For example, I am a huge proponent of free market economics in the health care debate. So what do I do? I go to the doctor and exercise free market principles. If you’re new, here is my most recent experience.
If you are a huge proponent of increased taxes, instead of whining about “fairness”, you should work yourself up to that tax bracket and see how it feels to be forced to give up more and more of your income the harder and harder you work; to become a target of people wanting to take what you earned on your own accord. If you are a proponent of government run social programs, you should go out and force people to give you money so you can give it to others.
What? Too much work? Illegal? It’s your call, but if you don’t practice what you preach you’re intellectually dishonest and a coward.
7. Thou Shalt Check Thy Sources.
I mentioned sources above and it’s being mentioned again because of its importance.
Let’s say you hear a story from a source that you trust, whether it be Rush, Beck, Jason Lewis, Olbermann, Huffington, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, et. al.
Before jumping on any bandwagon, verify what they are saying. If Glenn Beck says that so-and-so in the administration is a commie, look to see where he’s getting that from and run it up against Marxist doctrine. If Keith Olbermann gives the top 10 reasons why you should be worshiping Obama, check to see if those reasons are accurate.
I listen to a lot of talk radio and I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve heard Rush say something and be like “C’mon now! The old man has done gone crazy.” Then I research said point. It doesn’t matter that I’ve found him to be accurate 80%-90% of the time, I still check.
8. Thou Shalt Be Consistent With Thy Stances.
Simply put, don’t be a hypocrite. US Agent brought this up in his latest blog and I’ll build off of his example for my point:
If you are against Obama’s spending, but defend Bush’s spending, then you’re wrong.
9. Thou Shalt Be Consistent With Thy Consistency.
Same ball, different spin. Basically, if you are an out-and-out Bush hater because of his policies, but in the same breath love Obama for his policies, you’re wrong.
Because a lot of those policies are the same. Obama has been dithering on Afghanistan, but largely accepted Bush’s plan for both there and Iraq when he took office. Bush did corporate bailouts. Bush did the first stimulus plan. Bush expanded Medicare. Bush would have expanded SCHIP if the bill Congress gave him wasn’t overflowing with a bunch of crap.
Therefore, if you love Obama for doing those policies, logic dictates you must also praise Bush for doing them first. Otherwise you’re just showing that you’re intellectually vapid and just follow the cult of personality instead of looking at the issues and thinking for yourself.
10. Thou Shalt Admit When Thou is Wrong.
Guy 1 – “The sun is shining.”
Guy 2 – “No it’s not. You’re wrong.”
Guy 1 – (Opens up the blinds. Sunlight comes through the window).
Guy 2 – “Huh. Well isn’t that something. The sun really is shining.”
It’s not that hard. I’ve done it. Probably the most recent example I can give is of changing my own stance on marijuana legalization (I support it somewhat now, after first debating with some on here who are for it).
Why did I do such a thing?
I don’t follow the stream. I was simply presented with a different set of empirical data that showed my stance (keep it illegal) to be short-sighted and faulty.
11. Thou Shalt Test Thyself By Arguing Both Sides.
The final point I’d like to make is that if you want to be a good debater, you need to be able to argue both sides of just about any argument.
-War is bad and we should avoid it.
-Some fuckers just need killing.
-Abortion kills babies.
-Abortion can save a life.
-Global warming might kill us all.
-The earth’s temperature has been flat or cooling since 1998.
-Everyone needs health care to live healthy lives.
-Life without liberty isn’t worth it.
-Gov’t stimulus plans can boost short-term economic growth.
-Stimulus plans kill short-term gains in other sectors and are devastating overall in the long-term.
So there ya go. Follow those 11 steps and you will not only be a better, more educated debater, but a better, more educated person.
I’ve touched on this subject a couple times the last few days (HERE and HERE) and have yet to be able to sit down and get my full thoughts on this matter down into a well thought-out and articulated post. In the meantime, I have been reading other’s posts on the subject and came across this one by Dan Riehl: Whelan Apology Critics Are Off The Mark
I have to say that this comment left by “Jimmie” expresses my viewpoint on the subject quite well:
It seems to me that you’ve entirely missed the point of what the critics of the apology are saying. They are not saying that anonymity or pseudonymity on the internet is wrong or bad.
What they’re saying, and I’m pretty sure that Jules said so explicitly, is that the person hiding behind the anonymity has an obligation to behave well and not to use anonymity as cover from which to launch scurrilous attacks without having to face the consequence of those attacks. “Publius” acted much differently from Ace or Allah and I’m reasonably sure that you can discern that. Anonymity on the web, though a convention, is a privilege, not a right. When someone abuses that privilege, I consider myself under no obligation to help enable them.
In other words, if you use anonymity to act like a jerk without having to face the consequences of your jerkish behavior, don’t be surprised when someone names you and shames you.
Posted by: Jimmie | Tuesday, June 09, 2009 at 04:59 PM
Unfortunately, I don’t have the time now to expand on this (softball game beckons…). But, for now, I agree very strongly with the parts I emboldened in Jimmie’s comment. More later.
One last thing. Maybe I won’t need to write my thoughts on this and can just say, with regards to Jules Crittenden’s post, “what he said”: Nation of 7th Graders
It used to be just Ace from Ace of Spades HQ and AllahPundit from HotAir who were guilty of irresponsibly ripping on Rush Limbaugh without having listened to his show or read a transcript of his show. In addition, when they decided to rip on Limbaugh on their popular websites, instead of linking to the source of their story — Rush Limbaugh’s own website and transcript of his statements — they would more times than not link to some other website (ie Politico, etc) reporting bits and pieces of what Rush Limbaugh reportedly stated.
That is irresponsible and lazy. It is exactly what the mass media does with issues and people they do not like. And here we have Ace and AllahPundit, on two popular “conservative” blogs, behaving in the same irresponsible manner as those they criticize and claim to be above.
Well, were that not enough, I see today that one of the most popular right-of-center bloggers on the web participates in the exact same irresponsible tactics. Instead of listening to his show to know what was said, or at least reading the transcript to get the commentary, Glenn Reynolds of the immensely popular Instapundit links to some other website which completely misrepresents Rush’s commentary on the subject.
RUSH LIMBAUGH calling for a boycott of GM products. This is actually serious, as I believe his listeners were formerly big GM fans. …
UPDATE: Reader Tim Ameigh writes that this isn’t quite what Limbaugh said: “He said he would not be surprised if people did boycott, which your link to Rasmussen bears out.” Here’s the transcript, and I think that Ameigh is right. Reader Donald Dohrn agrees: “As a avid listener to Rush from way back, who now works during his broadcast time, I get my Rush fix through the podcast. … Rush is not calling for a boycott at all. The caller who was quoted in the blog post was who brought up the topic. Rush acknowledged that he had heard a lot about the sentiment and then went on to say the part about it being a vote against Obama and his policies not a reaction to anything GM has done. At no point does he say everyone should boycott GM.”
Luckily, Mr. Reynolds’ readers took him to task and corrected him. However, I am getting pretty damn sick and tired of these influential bloggers behaving so irresponsibly.
[To his credit, Ace specified on his site that Rush did not call for a boycott, linking to Glenn’s post. However, one would think that professional bloggers like Ace and Mr. Reynolds could actually handle the menial task that we peon readers of blogs manage to do and, ya know, reference the actual source of a quote.]
I am certain that all of them would not take too kindly to have other bloggers taking them out of context and then someone linking to another blog instead of theirs to represent their views and opinions. Would they want me blogging about what they said, based on I read on DailyKos about their statements? What about if I went to LGF and linked them to represent their words? I have a feeling they would prefer I linked their own words on their own sites, instead of linking to others quoting them. So, one has to ask why people like Ace, AllahPundit and now Glenn Reynolds practice this lazy blogging/reporting (at least with regards to Rush Limbaugh)?
Rush Limbaugh has the transcripts of his shows on his website RushLimbaugh.com by 6pm EDT each day, for anyone to access for free. There is absolutely no excuse for anyone to need to link to someone else to get the commentary of Rush Limbaugh.
Also, a subscription to Rush 24/7 is only $60/year. These bloggers can’t afford $5/month to have 24/7 access to the commentaries of the most influential conservative voice in the nation? I find that hard to believe.
Thus, the question remains, why the lazy, irresponsible reporting by these bloggers when it comes to Rush Limbaugh? Their behavior is no better than the irresponsible behavior of the mass media, which they are always (rightly) criticizing.
All that said, my irritation with these three — and any other influential bloggers who behave in such a manner — comes not from disagreeing with their politics nor from disliking their overall work and political analysis as bloggers. I enjoy each of them to varying degrees and make Ace and HotAir daily reads, while Instapundit is a weekly read. I take issue with their behavior regarding Rush Limbaugh, because it plays into the Left’s smearing of conservatives, especially Rush Limbaugh. I am sure they know this. So the only thing that I can surmise is that they just do not like Rush Limbaugh. That’s fine, but that does not give them the excuse to participate in shoddy, irresponsible “reporting”/blogging. Especially if they want to continue blasting the mass media on their shoddy, irresponsible “reporting”, and maintain any credibility in doing so.