The New York Times decided to give Rush Limbaugh’s biographer, Zev Chafets a free advertisement on their Op-Ed page, where Chafets declare Limbaugh is the ‘most obvious explanation …for Republican success in 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/opinion/20chafets.html?src=me&ref=general
Leaving aside the fact that it’s a little early to start crowing about Republican success in May, I noticed something Chafets wrote near the end of his commercial, I mean, Op-ed:
“Rush Limbaugh came along after the age of Ronald Reagan. He has never really had a Republican presidential candidate to his ideological satisfaction.”
Really!
If he wasn’t satisfied with him, then why did Rush say the following about George W. Bush?
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/03/rush-limbaugh-on-bushs-legacy/
“Long after we’re all dead and gone, when historians who are not yet born begin to write about this era, they’re going to place George Bush in the upper echelon of presidents who had a great vision for America, who looked beyond our shores, who didn’t just restrict himself to domestic policy niceties.”