The Who and Rush

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

>BTW, while I haven't verified the Bush figure, I believe he's coming into
>the Presidency with something like 49% of the popular vote, whereas Clinton
>became President with only 43% due to a strong third-party candidate in
'92.

Alan:

Clinton got the majority of votes, like Gore NOT Bush. Gore got over a
million more votes than Bush, not counting Florida (where at the moment it
looks like he won by no less than 20,000 and more likely 40,000). More
people voted this time than ever before, too.

>Wait, that's right, Limbaugh is the chief right rhetoric manufacturer whose
>words and arguments are repeated by his followers without question or
>further thought.

Jeff:

I have to compliment you on what I must say is the most accurate definition
of a Rush listener I've ever read in my life. "The media is liberal, except
for Rush and Fox News who are 100% accurate and unbiased." That sound you
hear is that of GOP credibility sliding into the sea and drowning (in cold
water).

I've been thinking about it, and to me it seems that Bush is like (the band)
Rush and Gore is like The Who. Some people think there's little difference,
but only if they give a surface listen and no more...some think Rush
provides depth and intelligence in their music, but the more intellectual
music fans see The Who as the clear winner here. Rush is generally more well
known and you hear their music on the radio more...but it's accepted The Who
are easily the superior band. The Who inspires and Rush was inspired. The
Who have contributed greatly to Rock music, and Rush has made a lot of money
with Rock music.
I guess it has to do with one's standards.



"The new President of The United Sates is
    what I would call a cunt "
              Pete Townshend

               Cheers                 ML