singrdave,

You ask why certain pundits seem to be having a waning effect on the masses as of late- letsa take a closer look-

Ann Coulter- advocated invading muslim countries, killing their leaders and forcibly converting everyone to christianity. Yup, real christian of her. She has used every opportunity to spurn hatred towards anyone and everyone who does not toe the neocon line, regardless of their reasoning, even going so far as saying that liberals are the real terrorists and should be thrown in places like Gitmo. And she has been given such expansive media access because she is a renowned expert on the subject of..........? Please tell me, I'd like to know!

Rush Limbaugh- one of the biggest advocates of the Iraq war, yet he himself has never worn the uniform. Did get a deferment from vietnam due to a pimple on his ass (technically it was a boil if ya wanna get specific). So, although he has never worn the uniform or fought for his country he has the gall to tell other people they need to go and fight and die while he sits in his cushy chair. And to top it off he attacks and smears veterans who actually did fight in the war, and spoke out against it once they were no longer in uniform (fulfilling their legal obligations as ya can't speak against uncle sam while working for him) And he is an expert on the subject of.......? Same as above, please let me know why this "expert" has a microphone!

Sean Hannity..... ah seany boy. He's the least worst of the three so-called 'pundits' here but I'd like to know the reason why he has a licence to pontificate to the masses. Same as Glenn Beck- why have these men been given a voice in the national media?

The answer is, because they say the things their paymasters want them to say, and do it with a glib, smug, sensational style that for some passes as a form of charm. They are not experts in any way shape or form. They do not deserve to have their voice broadcast to every corner of the union across different media. The upside of this is that the news has been filled with so many talking heads, so many gasbags that love to share their opinions with us (instead of real investigative journalism like the old days) that people are finally catching on. People are catching on that many of these talking head experts are anything but, and so they are tuning out and maybe, hopefully forming their own opinions rather than depend of some vacuous media personalities to tell them what they should believe! At least one can hope....

What he said (and better than I).

Life- you're absolutely right, there is no such thing as a licence to be free from scrutiny. In the particular instance I was talking about though, context matters. The event I am talking about was more one of hypocrisy..... Rush called these dissenting vets cowards, and a lot of other really nasty and completely unnecessary things. All coming from a man who did his damned best to avoid ever wearing a uniform or doing the job that he was screaming needed to be done by others. Now, just because they are vets doesn't mean they are above reproach, but these are individuals who have actually gone to Iraq and fought the very war that Rush was so fond of. And this is a man who at every turn has spoken about supporting the troops. But if some of those troops (who did the very job he said needed doing) happen to have a differing viewpoint, suddenly they become scum. No consideration, no listening to their viewpoint.

For me it's not an issue of political affiliation- There are some folks here on JU... for whom I have a great deal of respect... that have served in the gulf and other wars and have political viewpoints completely the opposite of mine. But because they've been there and I haven't, and because they've fought in wars and I haven't, they deserve to be listened to and their viewpoint on these issues seriously considered, because they've actually experienced it, and I haven't.

It's the same thing as the fact that I live pretty damned close to the arctic and can personally attest to the very real problem of possible extinction for the polar bears. Because I've personally witnessed it and live and talk to the people who live in the arctic and have seen the effects of climate change, in theory someone who has never been north of the 60th parallel should at least heed my words (HA! I just made me laugh)

No he did not.  He never used those words about any vets. What he did say was "Phony Soldiers". When he made the comment, in talking to a caller, he did not qualify it - at that time - with who the phony soldiers were.  However that morning, earlier he had been talking about Jesse MacBeth - a man convicted of - claiming to be a soldier in Iraq (he washed out of boot camp in 3 weeks).  After that call, he then again discussed Jesse MacBeth calling him again a phony soldier.

However since he did not say "the phony soldiers like Jesse MacBeth..." he was immediately condemned for calling all soldiers who are against the war "phony".  The last is a stretch since he also did not say "the phony soldiers who served and are now against the war....".  And since he has always supported - through words and deeds - all real soldiers.

It really does not make your case (as that is as far as I got in your response) to repeat lies, half truths, and statements taken out of context.  If you REALLY dont like Rush, find a REAL reason, not a lie.

If I've erred then you have my apologies! I will however try to find a source to back up my assertions. If I can't then I am indeed genuinely mistaken. That said, and not meaning to get off topic, the man is truly a wind-bag in my opinion. His comments about Michael J. Fox faking his epilepsy for example. I did hear that first-hand and there is no excuse for saying such a thing. None whatsoever. Anywho. All the Rush-isms in the world won't change this discussion for the better so I will just drop it I suppose