If By "Attack" You Mean "Punched Him In The Face" - Then No, You Didn't Attack Limbaugh

Yesterday afternoon, while making deliveries for my company, I decided to check out some talk radio and found myself in that surreal position of listening to Sean Hannity ( with guest Pat Buchanan ) talking about the Obama administration actively attacking Limbaugh.

The theme ( which seems to be Sean's only theme these days ) spilled over into his Fox"News" that Obama and his staff ( as well as that blasted liberal media ) are not just making a "boogie-man" out of Rush, a "villam" - but they are making a blatant effort to NOT discuss the problems America is facing.

As laughable as I found that premise, it was this segment with Steele defending his tail-tucked-apology to Limbaugh and saying that he never "attacked" him.



No, Micheal, you didn't "attack" him. You simply questioned his relevancy - something NO ONE in your position ( or within your party ) is allowed to do.

So let’s put it into context here. Let’s put it into context here. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it’s incendiary. Yes, it’s ugly.

Steele was spot on when he said this. Limbaugh is "entertainment". He's the monkey that dances when the grinder plays his tune. He's the guy that does the funny dance to boost his party's spirits - maybe give them some distractions to mull over. He's shock value, nothing more.

However, Steele - though he decries the Demorcats when they point out that Republicans are bowing to every whim of Limbaugh - proceeds to bow to Limbaugh's whim and apologize.

So much for a "leader".

But, let's not forget Steele's own words in relation to his and his party's "trustworthiness"

....I'm not going to soft-pedal this with you, I'm not going to try to blow smoke either. The reality of it is you are absolutely right. You have absolutely no reason -- none -- to trust our word or our actions at this point.