That "quirky" comment reminded me of a thread I commented in a couple of days ago. Someone was defending the Folsom Street Fair, and said he/she was thrilled to live in SF, a city where "outre behavior" is celebrated. I replied similarly to you: Oh, is that what public, gay, group sex is now called? "Outre" behavior?

Oh, and get up to speed. ;-)

There is no pedophilia any more.  It's now referred to as "inter-generational sex."

Wish  I was kidding, but I'm not. 

timothe, with all due respect, I didn't miss that point....It's the very reason my comment closed with the observation that, by attacking the "phony soldiers" story, the Democrats "chose to fight the wrong battle" and why I stated on a related thread the other day that the charge by MediaMatters was "rather flimsy".

By the way, I don't necessarily agree the remarks were taken out of context--although Rush did try after the fact to shove a lot of self-serving context into the issue.  But it just provokes the demurral:  So what?  In my view, it's like ignoring felonius assaults while throwing the book at someone for jaywalking. There was no way his opponents could shape the context to produce anything other than a weak accusation--one that Rush could swat away like a gnat. 

Jer 

KC's thumb...meet Mr. Hammer.  Actually, KC, I was mostly in lockstep with you until you veered down a sidestreet during your closer "examination of context".  Then you began stumbling over potholes.  The conversation with the second caller [Mike #2, philosophically sympatico with Rush] was nevertheless more disjointed and ambiguous than Limbaugh's somewhat contentious discussion with Mike #1--a give-and-take Rush rather disingenuously claimed he was "unable to intellectually follow".  Apparently, what Rush couldn't follow was how his producer allowed him to become entangled with an articulate, anti-war Republican with nine years in the military.  Thus with Mike #2 he attempted to steer the subject back 'on message'.  But this caller's sometimes curious--even controversial--remarks, coupled with Limbaugh's careless responses, created the current firestorm.  Consider the following assertions by the second caller...

--that most didn't join the military to "serve their country" like he and a "few" others did.  [Mike had enlisted fourteen years ago]

--it was the real soldiers who want to be in Iraq and understand the sacrifice...not the phony soldiers [Limbaugh's phrase] who talk to the media

Well, who are the phony soldiers?  Those in Iraq, but don't want to be there?  The ones who talk to the media and voice objections to administration policy, or fail to paint an appropriately rosy picture of the war?   The question is really never answered.  While Rush does (later) make a specific reference to the exposed fraud, Jesse Macbeth, it is by no means evident that this one example was intended to limit the number (of phonies) to one pathetic charlatan.  What about the seven soldiers serving in Iraq who wrote a critical op ed in the NYT[four of whom have since been killed].  They seem to fit well within the definition of "phony soldiers" as characterized by Mike and Rush. 

Let's follow your prescription and not limit the context analysis to a "couple of minutes of programming content" and consider the "long term relationship" with Rush and his audience.  But, in doing so, one encounters a long history of attacks on Democrats and Bush critics who served in the military, and thus your position is undercut instead of aided.  For example, Rush...

a. called decorated Viet Nam vet Chuck Hagel "Senator Betrayus" (sound familiar?)

b. claimed Democratic candidate and Marine Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett enlisted merely to pad his resume

c. accused John Murtha and John Kerry of being phony soldiers...hiding behind their uniforms...along with Max Cleland whose "uniform didn't do him any good"

d. suggested General Wesley Clark was awarded a fourth star solely only because "he begged Clinton" for it

e. labeled Air Force veteran Tom Daschle a disgrace to patriotism...who aligned himself with America's enemies

So, as long as Macbeth is used for context--and I agree he should be--isn't it likewise proper to include the foregoing examples to add further depth to the portrait? 

Finally, I would never assert that Rush "was calling all dissent unpatriotic".  After all, Limbaugh himself "dissented" with respect to Clinton's military action in the Balkans--while our airmen were flying combat missions.  I can only surmise that Rush selectively plays the patriotism card for political reasons.  And I think an "honest, fair-minded listener" should agree.

Jer

BTW, Scott Thomas?  I suspect The New Republic will be wiping egg off its masthead for a very long time.   Interestingly, there were no greater advocates for invading Iraq and supporting Bush's policies with respect thereto than the senior editors of TNR