I know of no one who tried to sugarcoat - or dismiss - or defend - Rush Limbaugh's choice of descriptive nouns when he attacked Sandra Fluke's testimony before members of the House of Representatives a few weeks ago. A lot of us did, however, come to his defense by showing how hypocritical those who screamed for Rush's head were for looking the other way when their buddies on the Left did the same and worse. Think Bill Maher. Think Obama's refusal to denounce Bill Maher. Think Obama's willing and enthusiastic acceptance of a million bucks from hate-consumed misogynist Bill Maher.
Unlike us - we aren't stupid enough to try to defend the indefensible (nor was Rush; he quickly apologized to Ms. Fluke) - by God, a leftie steps up and tries to make a distinction between Rush calling Fluke a slut and Maher calling Sarah Palin "the c-word." Stanley Fish, writing in the New York Times (see "Two cheers for Double Standards") sees a huge difference between the two. That difference?
Bill Maher is a good guy and Rush is a bad guy.
So anything Maher says - anything - no matter how hate-filled and incendiary - is acceptable.
And anything Limbaugh says is to be denounced because he's a bad, bad person.
Stanley Fish, so you know, is a frequent contributor to the New York Times editorial page. And is an American literary theorist and legal scholar.
And he's about as bright as the rest of those who claim to be smarter than the rest of us.