RedState.com doesn't hear too good

Or maybe RedState's Erick Erickson just doesn't want to hear certain things. But does he have to advertise that fact with a comically inaccurate blog post?  Apparently, yes he does.

Erickson was taking a whack at Pennsylvania Republican Tom Ridge who over the weekend committed a RedState mortal sin by tweaking Rush Limbaugh. Ridge had the audacity to suggest Limbaugh turn down the temperature on some of his hate speech rhetoric.

Erickson did not approve and dubbed Ridge a liar:

Tom Ridge, on CNN, said this of Rush Limbaugh:

“Rush articulates his point of view in ways that offend very many… let’s be less shrill… let’s not attack other individuals. Let’s attack their ideas.”

Since when has Rush attacked individuals? I listen to the show regularly. He certainly pokes fun at some of them, but he highlights absurdities of character, etc. in pointing out the fallacies of positions on the left.

For example — the President of the United States wants us all to stop breathing to save the environment, but his administration sends Air Force One on a joy ride to take pictures.

Is that an attack on Obama? No. It is pointing out the inconsistencies in Barack Obama’s policies.

According to RedState, Ridge had it all wrong. Limbaugh doesn't attack individuals, he merely questions policies. Rush is practically a policy wonk. Like when Rush recently claimed Obama supporters have "anti-American" feelings and don't like the U.S.A. Oh wait, that was an attack on tens of millions of individuals.

More like when Rush said Obama's inner circle of "sycophants" would likely die of "anal poisoning." Oh wait, that's a hateful attack on specific individuals also.

What about when Rush attacked Britain's prime minister Gordan Brown, suggesting that if he kept "slobbering" over Obama he'd also be stricken with "anal poisoning"? Oops, obvious attack on an individual (Read: head of state) there.

And remember the time Rush likened Al Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to "Howard Dean, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry ... Carl Levin, Nancy Pelosi"? That seemed sort of individual-ish.

What the heck, lets dial up the way-back machine and travel to April 8, 2004 and listen in to Limbaugh's show: 

"Senator Kennedy, a simple question. Does it please you to learn who your friends are? Does it excite you, Senator Kennedy, to learn that the militant, firebrand, murderer of American civilians and military personnel is on your side, Senator Kennedy? Does it encourage you? Does it invigorate you? Does it inspire you, Senator Kennedy, to know that a murdering Al Qaeda-related terrorist has taken up your argument for use against his enemy? How does that make you feel, Senator Kennedy? Does it embarrass you? Because it should. Or does it probably excite you and think you're making headway now. You've got the enemy aligned with you."

Or how about November 2002? From Spinsanity:

On Nov. 15, [Limbaugh] asserted that [Tom] Daschle's criticism of the conduct of the war on terrorism amounted to "an attempt to sabotage the war on terrorism," called him "Hanoi Tom" and suggested that he is " a disgrace to patriotism." On other occasions, Limbaugh has suggested that "In essence, Daschle has chosen to align himself with the axis of evil" and has drawn an extended analogy between Daschle and Satan.

I could probably go on for 34 more paragraphs, but I think you get the idea. Limbaugh apologists like Erickson pretend Rush would never say anything nasty about individuals. But grown-ups like Ridge know the truth.