Why Liberal Pundits Will Never Succeed on Radio and Television:
Jesus Fucking Christ, we have been given a gift, we on the left: when Rush Limbaugh admitted this month that he was downing illegally gotten pharmaceuticals like they were blue M&Ms, liberal pundits should have been on the attack with all the viciousness of a pack of wolverines downing a yak and feeding on the sweet, sweet yak meat. I mean, come on: part of the story is almost too good to be true: apparently, Limbaugh played like he was some character out of a Mickey Spillane novel, calling cash "cabbage" as he paid of his maid to get the Hillbilly Heroin. After years of abuse, after changing the way in which people think about feminists and liberals, even after his open racism on ESPN, here was payback time for liberals in the media. Time to kick the fat bully when he's down, yee-ha! The man says on the air that he has "talent on loan from God." Couldn't someone on the left have managed to say something like, "Rush, God is calling in his loan and the vig is gonna be a bitch."

But no. Nope. Uh-uh. Demonstrating that nothing throbs so much as a pussy, most pundits on the left went out of their way to offer sympathy to the porcine patriarch of pulchritudinous punditry. Joe Conason, who once said that the world would be a better place if Rush had actually gone deaf, offers the utopian hope that rehab would change Rush and his draconian attitude toward drug policies. William Greider, after admitting initial glee, writes about "mercy" towards Rush. At least Ellen Goodman admits that she is suffering from liberal wimpathy in hoping the best for Rush. Even Robert Scheer, for fuck's sake, goes all soft and wimpy about Rush's possible imprisonment.

See, many of your liberal pundits do believe that to kick Rush when he's down would be lowering themselves into his piss and sweat-filled gutter. Others take an even higher ground and say that bad drug policy is bad drug policy, no matter how evil a person may be who is caught in the net. Some even trot out their own drug use as a way of showing that they are so superior to right wing pundits who would eviscerate someone like Al Franken if he admitted to drug addiction.

Here's why they're wrong: You reap what you sow, motherfuckers. You wanna work for years to get Republican extremists into office that you're willing to degrade, mock, and destroy other people? You wanna sit in your little glass enclosed studio and pretend that you have any kind of credibility when all you really have is a soft cushion for your gigantic ass and preach hatred and punishment? You wanna be a bully to women, gays, and minorities for the sake of the basest instincts of your low-brow, fucking their sisters fans, you fucking whore? You wanna be one of the people responsible for changing the debate in America? For lowering the discourse? For mocking people who are on drugs for years? Then reap what you have sown, Rush, you bitch. Welcome to the world you helped to create. Like the anti-choice Senator who rushes his knocked-up mistress to the first abortion doctor he can find, your hypocritical kind will alway find that the real world is a nasty, nasty place.

And to all the whiny left wing pundits who think we should go soft on Rush, wish him well, hope he changes, the Rude Pundit says: Get real. When this stinking bag of talking shit gets back in the studio, he will be the same because that's what his listeners demand.