Tough day. Tuesday is production day, so I never get much sleep, and I came down with something that kept me awake nearly all of Wednesday night. With two days of no sleep and still feeling lousy, I wasn’t ready for a dozen hours of newspaper deliveries.
I usually take a couple of breaks during the day — just pull over somewhere, close my eyes and snore for 10 or 15 minutes. This Thursday was the first time I ever took a break before I even picked up my papers. By 1 p.m., I think I had spent more time taking breaks than actually working.
That’s when I just about gave up and went to bed. But I took a couple of ibuprofen, gave it another try and by 2 p.m. or so I felt a lot better. Still, the last couple of hours was a pure endurance contest. I’m better now, thanks, but still not feeling all that great.
Limbaugh may have felt even worse. He spent nearly two solid hours (except for a brief bout of class warfare against the Hollywood elite) trying to explain away this article, which shows that government spending under Obama has grown at a slower rate than under any president in recent history, including Hoover.
Limbaugh needed two hours to make his case because he really didn’t have one. He tried to argue that Nutting didn’t count the stimulus, but he did. He tried to argue that charging much of the spending in 2009 to Bush rather than to Obama was unfair, but it wasn’t. And his argument was complicated by his refusal to admit something that I have never heard a talk radio pundit admit: that much of the 2009 stimulus was in the form of tax cuts, not spending.
Limbaugh’s argument boiled down to this: How can something I want so much to believe possibly be wrong? Because you don’t do your homework, Rush.
At least Limbaugh tried to explain it. Hannity’s substitute clone didn’t even try. He just asked Ann Coulter about it, and together they agreed to casually dismiss the whole thing as a typical product of lamestream media. No need to bring up any facts.
I heard Glenn Beck complain in passing on Wednesday about something that the left had done to pundit S.E. Cupp. I had no idea what he was talking about, and he guaranteed that the usual liberal crowd, including Planned Parenthood would ignore it.
I eventually found out what the story was and learned that many liberals had denounced it, including Planned Parenthood.
Did that satisfy Beck? Oh, no. Planned Parenthood’s criticism of Hustler didn’t count, he argued on Thursday, because it equated what Hustler did to Cupp with what Limbaugh did to Sandra Fluke.
Does he have a point? On the face of it, I would agree that it’s worse to depict a woman engaging in an explicit sexual act than to call her a slut. Not that I would expect a woman I called a slut on a first date to be more forgiving if I explained that at least I hadn’t photoshopped a picture of her with a penis in her mouth.
But when you consider the source (a vile, obscene little toad vs., well, Limbaugh) and the intended audience (sex-addicted perverts vs. a national and heavily Republican audience) the offenses seem reasonably similar. Just different enough for Beck to continue pretending that liberals ignore attacks on conservatives.