In defense of Rush Limbaugh, who needs no defense

Who's calling who ugly? Paul Begala, who shares one plus among Democrat pundits as being the second-ugliest amongst them. James Carville gets top billing. Just seeing that guy's cadaverous pug gives me the heeby jeebies. But even though Begala isn't quite as ugly as Carville, if he and Rush Limbaugh had a beauty contest, who would win? Would both lose?

Anyway, Emmett Tyrrell comes to Rush Limbaugh's defense by pointing out just what pot is calling the kettle black. When you can't argue effectively against a man's message, what doth the nasty pundits of the left do? They attack the man, of course.

WASHINGTON -- "Rush is the bloated face and drug-addled voice of the Republican Party," Paul Begala is quoted as saying by The Washington Post. Begala is asseverating on Rush Limbaugh, the most popular radio commentator in the country, but alas, one who disagrees with Begala. I think it speaks volumes about Begala's obliviousness that he would bring up physical traits in attempting to make some political point. Has he beheld himself in a mirror lately? Even friends know him as "The Skull," owing to his cadaverous countenance.

You may only have seen him on television. I have had the gruesome experience of seeing him in the flesh. We were in the makeup room being cosmeticized for appearances on a cable television show. The artiste attending to the crevices, the gullies and the bumps of Begala's unfortunate face had to apply so much makeup to it that when he left the makeup room, it looked as though he was wearing plaster of Paris. During the ensuing debate, he may have laughed at one or two of my jokes, or he may have frowned. It was impossible to tell. His ghoulish features were covered up completely.

Rush: Pollsters lying about Obama's 'inevitable victory'

Rush Limbaugh spoke to the Fox & Friends hosts (Friday) to discuss polling and the state of the race. Rush argues that pollsters want to shape opinion rather than measuring it, especially media-sponsored polls. Why? To produce a steady drumbeat of pessimism for Republicans:

Rush fires back at Obama campaign smear

You're in the midst of a tight-as-a-tick race for the White House, so what would you do to gain an edge? Pick a fight with the biggest dog on the other side? Believe it or else, that's what Obama did, picking on El Rushbo, the Big Kahuna, Attack Dog of the Right, with a nasty ad.

And what do you suppose El Rushbo is doing? Being Mr. Nice Guy and turning the other cheek? Well maybe, but his cheek's a bit lower down.

In The Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh responds to the Obama campaign's sound bites pulled from two parodies he wrote about Mexico.

I understand the rough and tumble of politics. But Barack Obama -- the supposedly postpartisan, postracial candidate of hope and change -- has gone where few modern candidates have gone before.

Mr. Obama's campaign is now trafficking in prejudice of its own making. And in doing so, it is playing with political dynamite. What kind of potential president would let his campaign knowingly extract two incomplete, out-of-context lines from two radio parodies and build a framework of hate around them in order to exploit racial tensions? The segregationists of the 1950s and 1960s were famous for such vile fear-mongering.

...The malignant aspect of this is that Mr. Obama and his advisers know exactly what they are doing. They had to listen to both monologues or read the transcripts. They then had to pick the particular excerpts they used in order to create a commercial of distortions. Their hoped-for result is to inflame racial tensions. In doing this, Mr. Obama and his advisers have demonstrated a pernicious contempt for American society.

We've made much racial progress in this country. Any candidate who employs the tactics of the old segregationists is unworthy of the presidency.

I'm beginning to wonder if anybody in the Obama campaign has enough sense to come indoors from a hard show of rain. Picking on Rush?!! Even if the smear ad works as planned and gets Obama a few Hispanic votes, is that worth firing up El Rushbo and his millions of radio listeners?

Batman & Rush vs. ‘the Flake’

I’ve seen a couple of unusual but yet plausible theories recently on why Obama will lose and McCain will win. Few are daring to make that call.

J.R. Dunn at American Thinker advances the theory that Obama is doomed to defeat because he’s a “flake.” You need to read it all to get it.

It's time to throw my hat in the ring as regards predicting the election results. So here it is: Barack Obama will be defeated. Seriously and convincingly defeated. Not due to racism, not due to the forces of reaction, not even due to Karl Rove sending out mind rays over the national cable system. He will lose for one reason above all, one that has been overlooked in any analysis that I've yet seen. Barack Obama will lose because he is a flake.

I'm using the term in its generally accepted sense. A flake is not only a screwup, but someone who truly excels in making bizarre errors and creating incredibly convoluted disasters. A flake is a "fool with energy", as the Russian proverb puts it. ("A fool is a terrible thing to have around, but a fool with energy is a nightmare".)

Barack Obama is a flake, and the American people have begun to see it.

And Jeffrey Lord at American Spectator has another defeat theory that’s a bit offbeat, but also may prove true. Call it the Batman-Rush Theory.

OK. I'll walk out on a limb.

This election has already been decided. It's over. The winner is John McCain.

How, you are asking, could anybody be so utterly stupid to say such a thing in August? What about the polls showing Obama ahead? Haven't I heard about Obama-mania? The conventions haven't even been held!

Well, since you asked, I'll tell you.

Read Batman and Rush: Why McCain Will Win