English, the foreign language of politics
October 9, 2007
The pettiness of some politicians is a disgrace to America. General Wesley Clark and Nevada’s picayunish Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, have lost all credibility with me.
Their ability to apply common sense understanding to normal dialogue in the English language has been crippled by partisan paranoia and ideological immaturity.
Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio talk show host, had an informal, on-the-air conversation in which he and a guest were talking about the war in Iraq and soldiers who lie about their terms of service. The guest spoke in general terms using third person plural pronouns. Rush, as is often the case in such informal conversations, framed a comment within the same grammatical context his guest was using, like we all do, and said, “Phony soldiers,” just to clarify the intended meaning of his guest’s thoughts.
In terms of his specific intent, and in the overall context of days of continuous discussion on the topic, which his show entails, Rush may have been grammatically incorrect. So what? Most of us common folk, unfamiliar with the supreme sophistication of our holier-than-thou leaders, were following the conversation quite well. We felt no need, or reason, to split hairs about Rush’s grammar. Even if Rush had been talking about all soldiers who disagree with the war, he still has a right to his opinion, if we still live in America that is.
But, low and behold, a bunch of our stalwart elected leaders, presumably educated, qualified, intelligent, dignified caretakers of freedom, gazed into their home-made crystal ball and still were not able to follow the conversation.
They put words in Rush’s mouth that weren’t there. Based on the conversation that, in every day life, was as innocuous as a discussion about the weather, and with no consideration for decades of documented proof as to where Rush stands with respect to America’s soldiers, they began to demonize him. These phony demagogues think they can portray Rush Limbaugh as an unpatriotic slanderer of soldiers and all things American, a devil hell bent on tearing down his country.
Recommended Stories For You
Say what you want about Rush Limbaugh. He is pro-military and pro-soldier. Any idiot knows that, except Harry Reid and General Clark.
As usual, too many politicians have become obsessed with the habit of manipulating the impressionable minds of as many Americans as they can for political gain with pompous hocus pocus, zany logic and connecting imaginary dots like infants who haven’t learned their numbers and colors. It is unbelievable that such bizarre reasoning can exist in the minds of those who are entrusted with justice and the administration of the Constitution of the United States of America, but it does.
The atmosphere within the Democratic Party towards Republicans is so bad, a Republican could get up in front of the entire Senate and Congress on a calm sunny day and sincerely proclaim, “What a beautiful day this is,” and most of the Democrats will jump up and scream, in the most accusatory tone possible, “What’s the matter? don’t you like rain?”
Then they would run off to Media Matters, MoveOn.org, national TV and newspapers and run ads, blogs and nefariously edited video clips of Republicans, saying that so and so is opposed to water. So and so wants a drought to damage the crops and wants his fellow citizens to die of thirst, when all so and so ever said was that it was a beautiful day.
After this most recent and ridiculous display of institutionalized nonsense regarding Rush Limbaugh, I wouldn’t vote for a Democrat if they were the last party on earth. Republicans better get on the ball and muster up some more skullduggery of their own if they want to win. The race is getting down and dirty.
If being a creep is the new cool, Hillary could become the new Bush.