It's neither honest nor an analysis.
Let's have a look at the piece, it's as good an example as any to show the dishonest spin of his demagoguery.
I am surprised you call this "commentary and analysis", an analysis requires material to be analysed - there isn't any. It's a brief exchange with a caller who wonders about the liberal hypocrisy of wanting to pull out of Iraq but go into Darfur (this is August 2007), the answer is merely partisan speculation about the dems hypocritical motives, then he moves on from Darfur to going into South-Africa to topple the white government and support Mandela who was supported by communists.
In more detail:
The first assertion he makes about the Dems: "They want to get us out of Iraq, but they can’t wait to get us into Darfur." Then he goes on to suggest that there are two reasons for proposing to go into Dafur. One of them, according to Rush, is that "they" are black and the Dems need the black voting block in the US.
Hmm. Makes it look as if the Iraq war and "to go to Darfur" are comparable policies and actions, and that it's illogical to object to one but campaign for the other. The explanation offered is Dems depend on the black voting block at home, and they not only aim to do so by proposing "to go into Darfur", but already did so by the US going into SA, getting rid of the white gov and supporting a black communist sponsored leader (lol, yes we all know most dems and blacks are commies).
This entire rant is absurd.
1) "go into Darfur" meant deployment of the
African Union-United Nations Hybrid Peacekeeping force, not a US led invasion - hardly comparable to Iraq.
2) in your own words, after reading the Rush thing, "the Dems have made such a play on Darfur". Well, it was hardly a Dem partisan issue: Colin Powell declared the conflict a "genocide" in 2004, Bush called for international troops to be doubled in 2006, and resolution
07-SR276 calling for the deployment of a peacekeeping mission on Jul 19, 2007, was agreed by the US Senate
unanimously.
None of these pertinent facts were referenced by Rush in any way, they do resolve the seeming contradiction and make the motive Rush is speculating about not a plausible one.
3) now the rest is so far-fetched, I won't go into factual details but look at the rhetoric: Rush established that one reason the Dems oppose interference in the ME, but campaign for the same in Africa, is to secure the black vote in the US, it is a racial issue ("skin colour"). Now it's only a small step to point at "go into South Africa", to "get rid of the white government", then into Ethiopia to "do the same thing".
Bizarre, what exactly is he suggesting? Here's another clue: not only do you get rid of the white gov, you also "stand behind" the black incoming leader, who is supported by communist leaders and was "bankrolled by communists".
Now consider his audience: predominantly white conservatives who are/were afraid of communism, despise the 'far-left' in the Dem party and disapprove of leftist policies like AA, because it's "racist" - liberals promote this "racism" against whites, because this way they control black voters. Supporting a black communist backed leader in Africa to get rid of a white government seems like a logical thing to do for the Dems by now, doesn't it?
Rush's 'commentary' is devisive and reinforces stereotypes by appealing to irrational fear - the bi-partisan initiative against the Darfur genocide becomes a mere accessory to establishing a race issue and devision, in order to denigrate political opponents and reinforce stereotypes by appealing to fear and prejudice. Sterotypes used are "the hypocritical liberal" who prioritises his own interest and political gain, who does not support the war against radical terrorists who attack the US, but prefers to topple white governments in Africa; and we find the matching cliche of the black leader of the uprising who is backed by communists, and by 'leftists' such as the Dems.