Reading, and Learning About, Rush Limbaugh

I'VE LISTENED TO Rush Limbaugh since 1993. I listen to people I disagree with, because it helps me learn. Just the other day, I decided to read Rush's first book, "The Way Things Ought To Be", published in 1992. As I recall, it was a big seller at the time. But my trouble with it began early. In the first paragraph of the first page, Rush writes: "I was determined to actually write the book, rather than farm it out to a ghost writer."...OK, fair enough...then, in the second paragraph, Rush writes that nonetheless, he thought it prudent to bring in some technical help. Again, fine. So he brings in John Fund, a professional writer. "John's primary role was to interview me on tape, then write the first draft from the transcript," says Rush. What? Huh? Then, in the third paragraph, Rush writes: "editing and the first rewrite occurred after John submitted the first few chapters."....Three statements of alleged fact, by El Rushbo, in three consecutive paragraphs, talking about how "his" book was written. Anybody see the problem here? The first quote is clear - Rush's intention to write his own book. Then, in the second quote, he explains the process by which the book was actually written, that it was actually written by somebody else, the technical adviser, John Fund. Then, in the third quote, Rush says that "his" book was submitted for editing and rewriting, but he doesn't say to whom it was submitted, or who did the editing and rewriting. Rush never says he wrote the book, or edited it, or rewrote it, but what he does is very cleverly mislead the reader into thinking that he indeed wrote it, by merely declaring his original intention of so doing, and by acting as if the writing of the first draft by somebody else is mere technical assistance, and not the actual authorship, which it of course is, without ever stooping to telling a lie! Rush never actually tells a lie! He intends to do the writing himself. Then, he brings in some technical help, dude named John fund, to help with some details. Then, Rush casually mentions that John wrote the "first draft", a statement designed to lead the reader to believe that the first draft was a mere technicality, not the actual book writing itself, without bothering to indicate that Rush himself, as it turned out, did not write it. Well, anyway, here's the fact, dear reader. He who writes the "first draft" of any book, has written the book, dear reader. Anyone who "rewrites it" is merely an editor. Rush is either very twisted, very cleverly deceitful, or both. And yes, after twenty three years of listening, you can hear this weird trait on his beloved radio show. So, how much more, after the first page, of Rush's book should I read, and how much should I believe, or take seriously? And what's the point of all this? This: you can bet your bottom dollar that Rush Limbaugh, to this day, believes he wrote the book. And if you prove to him he didn't, he can always claim that he never claimed to have written it. Wow. What a weirdo. Too bad for Rush that Rush did not write it; the book is very entertaining, and well written.