I didn't see in his post where he defended Rush at all...he was explaining Rush's stance on an issue.
Time to back that train up a bit.
The allegiance lies with the country, not the Democratic/Socialist party.
Simple Poll time...How many here joined and served in the U.S. military, not for the college money, but out of the feeling of duty to the country?
I'm willing to bet that most those in the Democratic Party didn't join out of feelings of duty...they saw a chance to go to college on someone else's dime.
And with the Republican Party overrun with religious anti-gay, "family values advocating" crazies that are always being outed as closet, drug using homosexuals that diddle kids the likelihood that your claim of "duty to the country" is hardly supported with any body of evidence that would stand the light of day. In fact, it smells like a line of utter bullshit. I suggest if you want to sound like something other than a jerk with a paper asshole you make an attempt to provide data to back up your claim with data. That would be validated, verified data, not a collective group bullshitting on a BWOT poll.
Oh yeah. Read the Bottomline1 posts again. Discrediting a critic, and suggesting that Democrats not getting Rush's message "helps us" as well as offering an unsolicited and completely "unsupported with any kind of logical analysis, even if steeped in Rush bullshit" explanation of how Rush's view that it is better for the country to experience a failed Presidency for the next 4 or 8 years than to have Obama succeed and pull the economy out of the shitter, and reestablish the rule of law as defined by the United States Constitution, and end the tragic national failure of Iraq while restoring America's international standing, is valid all sounds like a wholehearted endorsement. Because that is what it was.
Imagine you read a post where Hitler's atrocities during WWII were being explained with the intent to make them sound reasonable and rational, while Hitler's critics were being denigrated and discredited. Then imagine trying to suggest the poster was not "defending" Hitler. Reasonable adults would ascribe the motive to offer the explanation as a defense of Hitler's atrocities because the explanation attempts to put Hitler's activities in a favorable light. Had the explanation offered other than only a suggestion that Hitler's atrocities were in fact reasonable actions, one might conclude the explanation was only a weak defense, possibly not worth commenting on at all.
Rush, like FTL said, is a gift to the Democratic Party that will just keep giving.