March 03, 2009
The Myth of Rush v. GOP

Talk about an overblown story. The media feeding frenzy over the now settled contretemps between Rush Limbaugh & Michael Steele is ridiculous. I just watched a supposedly neutral journalist on one of the cable nets gleefully declare this to be "a war for the heart and the soul of the GOP."

Hogwash.

Anyone making such a statement understands neither the Republican Party nor Rush Limbaugh's place in the conservative movement.

The real issue here is that Michael Steele was making an obvious understandable point: that the GOP & Rush Limbaugh are not one and the same, thus have different purposes accordingly. Steele happened to fumble in the delivery of that point, setting off an over-reacting Limbaugh who seems stuck on defending a semantic argument about the word "fail" rather than giving Steele the benefit of the doubt (at least that was his tone yesterday).

In contrast, Bobby Jindal struck the balance well on Larry King last night (h/t: Hot Air):

The point: Republicans are hoping for prosperity. At the same time, they firmly believe the policies Obama are proposing will not work. Thus, Republicans seek not only to oppose those policies, but seek replace them with better alternatives that will help get us back on track.

Limbaugh is going to say what he's going to say as someone with with a prominent voice in the conservative movement AND host of the most successful radio show in the country. That's different from where the GOP is at, as Jindal points out with greater clarity and finesse than Steele did.

Meanwhile, maybe someone could point out to the zealots on the left that since both the GOP and Limbaugh himself utterly reject the notion that he's the head of the Republican party - figurative or otherwise - that maybe, just maybe, he's not?

If he was and is, would John McCain really have been the GOP nominee in 2008?

Posted by Eric Earling at March 03, 2009 09:24 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Rahm Emanuel will 'convince' the American public that the GOP is being 'directed' by Limbaugh and unless the administration falls flat on their face and loses all creditability, that image will likely stick. Right now perception is that Republicans are in chaos and Republicans themselves aren't doing much to alleviate that perception. Sad state of affairs. :)

Posted by: Duffman on March 3, 2009 09:27 AM
2. When the most well-known figurehead of your party is a talk show commentator, you're doing something wrong.

Posted by: Tyler on March 3, 2009 09:35 AM
3. If you Republicans are counting on Rush Limbaugh to save you, you're doomed to a long, long exile from elected office. The guy's a hypocritical pill-popper who attacked druggies on the air, yet enjoyed a little Oxycontin on the side. Is THAT the guy you want representing the Republican Party?

Posted by: Politically Incorrect on March 3, 2009 09:39 AM
4. Did anyone catch that King, just before the segment officially began, muttered "Jesus Christ"? Wonder what that was in reference to? I was pleased that no matter how many times King tried to interrupt Jindal, with his but, but but, Jindal kept going, articulated very well the concerns with the massive spending, and made if very clear that Republicans want the country to succeed, but just don't think the policies implemented will achieve that. Bravo, Jindal.

Posted by: katomar on March 3, 2009 09:42 AM
5. Jindal probably can't be nominated. We won't make the same mistake the dems did and nominate a so called ex muslim. Palin is the way to go! Proven in battle. Christian to the core!

Posted by: Hinderson on March 3, 2009 09:58 AM
6. What a jerk Larry King is. As soon as he perceived that Jindal was making a point that offered a different solution to national bankruptcy than the Obama one, he commenced an assault-by-interruption and did his best to drag Jindal's attention away from his own point and onto King's party line. Good for Jindal for repeatedly refusing that diversion, but King did his best to damage Jindal's presentation. That's not an interview, it's an attempt to force words into Jindal's mouth.

And Michael Steele was wrong to disparage Rush Limbaugh, who is no threat to him. His apology was proper, but came too late to prevent the MSM from further misleading the public with its faux 'Republican chaos' stories.

Limbaugh is an essential force for presenting ideas which few others can, to a significant fraction of the public. No wonder the Democrats are desperate to sneak into legislation a new perversion of the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine', with the specific intent of reducing Limbaugh's audience and gagging his political influence.

Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on March 3, 2009 09:59 AM
7. HA ha ha LOL rotfl

I hope Limbaugh stays in the mix, you guys are being played by the master.

Posted by: gop in exile on March 3, 2009 10:04 AM
8. You are confused grasshopper, because you see the master is really - Rahm Emanuel. Don't doubt it for a second.

Posted by: Duffman on March 3, 2009 10:07 AM
9. hey duffshit, lay off the rancid milk. Those emoticons are prepubescent, too.

Posted by: gop in exile on March 3, 2009 10:12 AM
10. Hinderson - you jack as*. Jindal is not ex-Muslim but ex-Hindu (very very different). Its because of idiots like this that we Republicans are getting a bad rap! Jeez!

Posted by: Alex on March 3, 2009 10:15 AM
11. "If he was and is, would John McCain really have been the GOP nominee in 2008?"

Not a chance. Rush would never run for elected office. The guy is a human version of the million monkeys on a million typewriters - he eventually says something right. Being an elected official would require accountability for what he says, not something Rush is known for.

Is there a teenage girl around he can call ugly? Rush is a champ in the insult department.

The guy has NO leadership skills at all. Leadership includes accountability.

Posted by: Marv Swett on March 3, 2009 10:26 AM
12. #11 I would clarify that Rush is a 'leader' of the lemmings as they continue to march. The best approach for the Republicans to take in regard to him is to just ignore him. That's his biggest fear and the biggest fear of any 'entertainer talk-show' personality - to be IGNORED.

Posted by: Duffman on March 3, 2009 10:32 AM
13. Gee, Marv, then what are your thoughts about the leadership of Al Franken? There's a real sweetheart for you!

Posted by: katomar on March 3, 2009 10:45 AM
14. "When the most well-known figurehead of your party is a talk show commentator, you're doing something wrong. "

As opposed to having the most well-known figurehead of your party being a terrorist sympathizer.

Posted by: Huh? on March 3, 2009 10:54 AM
15. @katomar

"Gee, Marv, then what are your thoughts about the leadership of Al Franken? There's a real sweetheart for you!"

I guess we'll see, won't we? After all, despite the fact that Franken is an *avowed* entertainer (unlike Rush), he has frequently been more inclined to criticize than lead. Now that he is in a leadership position, we may see a different side to his personality.

For Rush to change, however, would mean a $400M decline in worship money. He will never give that up for a seat that requires accountability. NEVER.

And if your trying to bait me with more examples of Democrats who are as big a hypocrite as Rush you're wasting your time. I don't belong to either majority party.

Posted by: Marv Swett on March 3, 2009 11:05 AM
16. "If you Republicans are counting on Rush Limbaugh to save you, you're doomed to a long, long exile from elected office. The guy's a hypocritical pill-popper who attacked druggies on the air, yet enjoyed a little Oxycontin on the side. Is THAT the guy you want representing the Republican Party?"

If Democrats are counting on Barak Obama to save you, you're doomed to a bitter failure. The guy's a pathological liar who attacked tax cheats and then puts them all in his cabinet. He even made a tax cheat head of the IRS. Is THAT the guy you want representing the Democrat party?

Posted by: That Guy on March 3, 2009 11:07 AM
17. The blathering by the bobbleheads in the DNC led by Rahm (Kill!Kill!Kill! where are my meds?) Emannuel is simply a distraction from the miserable job the current administration is doing in governing our Nation.
When the braintrust you have serving as Whitehouse press secretary is discussing an AM radio host instead of oh, say important whitehouse policies and how they concern everyday Americans, then it speaks more to an administration in disarray than it does of the opposition party on the outside looking in. Apparently, the training wheels in chief President needs to start doing something he's never done...start being a leader and an executive, not that he has the first clue what that entails.
Hopefully, there is still something left of the country for Romney to clean up in 2012.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 3, 2009 11:10 AM
18. @Huh?

"As opposed to having the most well-known figurehead of your party being a terrorist sympathizer."

The Ayres controversy again? Wow, I guess you have a rut that is a bit too deep to extract yourself from, don't you?

Let's play the conspiracy game, shall we? Ever wonder why the Bush Administration preferred that you concentrate on 9/11 rather than 4/19?

Let's all *speculate*!

Posted by: Marv Swett on March 3, 2009 11:10 AM
19. Hold your powder, Marv. Franken is not in a leadership position. In fact, it's not looking too good for him lately. Why don't we all wait for the final results to come in before we crown him?

Posted by: katomar on March 3, 2009 11:14 AM
20. Marv the DNC operative,

It is a fact that Obama was Ayers's buddy, the unrepentant terrorist. He launched his campaing from Ayers's home.

Q: What do Obama and Osama have in common?

A: They are both buddies with people that attacked the Pentagon.

When the terrorists finally take advantage of the huge hole Obama is carving in our nationa defense, I just hope it is only those that voted for Obama that pay the price.

Posted by: Uhuh on March 3, 2009 11:21 AM
21. @katomar

"Hold your powder, Marv. Franken is not in a leadership position. In fact, it's not looking too good for him lately."

Minnesota's senatorial race is the true comic relief of the 2009 election season. I gave up trying to keep track of who is up by ~200 points.

"Why don't we all wait for the final results to come in before we crown him?"

Ummmm.. Perhaps you misread the rest of my post. I could care less who wins Minnesota. Republicans and Democrats are functionally two side of the same bad penny. They proclaim and profess differences that are *never* borne out in their policies. Do you _really_ believe Reagan *never* raised taxes? Do you _really_ believe that the US debt is entirely the fault of Democrats? Do you _really_ believe that government solved a financial crisis?

If you were assuming a dialog with a Franken supporter, you missed the boat.

Posted by: Marv Swett on March 3, 2009 11:27 AM
22. @Uhuh

"Marv the DNC operative,"

Huh and Uhuh like pretty black helicopters.

Spin your tales. It makes no difference to me. I didn't vote for Obama.

Posted by: Marv Swett on March 3, 2009 11:30 AM
23. Marv: I don't think I misread this:
"I guess we'll see, won't we? After all, despite the fact that Franken is an *avowed* entertainer (unlike Rush), he has frequently been more inclined to criticize than lead. Now that he is in a leadership position, we may see a different side to his personality."
You get kind of testy when challenged on your less than factual assertions, doncha ya?

Posted by: katomar on March 3, 2009 11:47 AM
24. @katomar

"Marv: I don't think I misread this:"

Actually, you did. Is it so hard for you to admit when you are wrong?

"You get kind of testy when challenged on your less than factual assertions, doncha ya?"

No. I don't see any assertions presented anywhere in these posts that rise to the level of "fact". They are, at best, opinion and should be treated as such. The only *facts* I've presented is that I am not a Republican or Democrat and could care less who controls the organs of government because, despite their rhetoric, neither party cares about controlling spending.

Care to debate the Republican-controlled Congress under George Bush? I'd be more than happy to point out more than a few examples like the former senior senator from Alaska's tirade in the well about his "Bridge to Nowhere".

The problem with the remnants of the Republican Party (careful, opinion here) is that it has no room for contrary points of view. Either you agree 100% with the party line or you can get the fsck out. Your picking apart my posts for apparent party affiliation is a prime example of that tendency. For your pleasure, here is my short list of things I support. Care to analyze again:

Second Amendment: Fully support, no conditions
Abortion: Fully support, no conditions
Federal Land Ownership in the West: Oppose
War in Iraq: Support
War in Afghanistan: Support
War on Drugs: Oppose
Deregulation: Support
Federal Depts I would eliminate: Education, Energy, HHS, Homeland Security, Commerce, HUD, Agriculture, Interior, and Transportation.
Nuclear Power: Support
Solar/Wind Power: Support
Drilling ANWR: Support
Electric Vehicles: Support

These are just a few. Which am I? Democrat or Republican?

I am also a member of the AGI, and the API. I am a licensed geologist and own mineral claims throughout the Western US.

Good luck pigeon-holing me.

Posted by: Marv Swett on March 3, 2009 12:04 PM
25. Marv-

I like Rush for the simple reason that he gets your goat with words.

The guy is HATED by anyone and everyone trying to get peice of my paycheck and take my rights away. Most Republicans who don't agree with him just ignore him--- except for infamous self proclaimed "life long Republican's" who usually surface in some youtube clip wearing a Howard Dean pin.

Rush has been doing something very very right for a long time.

I'm in agreement with Mark Styn--(see quote from Malkin's blog).

Posted by: Andy on March 3, 2009 12:25 PM
26. "These are just a few. Which am I? Democrat or Republican?"

Did you pay your taxes?

Posted by: Uhuh on March 3, 2009 12:48 PM
27. Can we declare Rahm Emmanuel a traitor to the American people and frog-march him off to prison? This guy is clearly trying to undermine the American system.

Posted by: Crusader on March 3, 2009 12:53 PM
28. Look over there! It's the Rush boogieman!

This is to distract you from the FISCAL TRAINWRECK that is the Obama administration.

Posted by: Palouse on March 3, 2009 01:17 PM
29. @Andy

"I like Rush for the simple reason that he gets your goat with words."

Rush doesn't bother me. He is irrelevant. You're taunt is just as pointless.

Point to a post where his words "get my goat".

He makes a pot of cash by being unaccountable. Good for him.

Posted by: Marv Swett on March 3, 2009 01:27 PM
30. @29 Marv - Rush is accountable to the shareholders and his listeners. If he were to suddenly become incompetent at what he does or missed 2/3 of the shows believe me he'd be out on his fat ass selling burgers. Of course I can only imagine how you define "accountable".

Posted by: Crusader on March 3, 2009 01:33 PM
31. @Uhuh

"Did you pay your taxes?"

Every year since 1975 when I had my first job that deducted withholding.

What does paying your taxes have to do with being a Republican or Democrat? Both parties are filled with tax cheats.

Here are a couple of more I thought of while driving out to a drill site:

I support free trade, unabashedly.
I support medical savings accounts.
I support civil unions for gays but oppose gay marriage.

I guess the pigeon-holing posters have gone nappy-time.

Posted by: Marv Swett on March 3, 2009 01:33 PM
32. @Crusader

"Of course I can only imagine how you define "accountable""

Too true. Shareholders (Rush is not a public corporation, so I don't get the inclusion) and listeners certainly *do* have some impact on a talk-show host's behavior. Or so it would seem.

But consider Rush's rampant flagellation over the criminal justice system's treatment of drug users versus drug pushers and you get a sense for how willing his listeners are to overlook his hypocrisy.

Posted by: Marv Swett on March 3, 2009 01:39 PM
33. @32 Marv - I do agree that it would send a very BIG message to have frog-marched Limbaugh for his drug offenses. That way the American people would know it's not just punk kids getting sent to jail for being caught with a doobie. I'm pretty sure Rush doesn't allow calls that want to talk about Oxycontin.

Posted by: Crusader on March 3, 2009 01:41 PM
34. "Every year since 1975 when I had my first job that deducted withholding."

Well you have convinced me you're no Democrat.

"What does paying your taxes have to do with being a Republican or Democrat? Both parties are filled with tax cheats."

Perhaps. But being a tax cheat appears to be the prime requirement for admission to the Obama administration.

Posted by: Huh on March 3, 2009 01:42 PM
35. "Here are a couple of more I thought of while driving out to a drill site:"

Another convincing argument you are no Democrat. The only thing they drill are WH interns.

Posted by: Huh? on March 3, 2009 01:45 PM
36. @Huh?

"The only thing they drill are WH interns."

Too good. I need to send that entire line to a friend of mine.

Posted by: Marv Swett on March 3, 2009 01:50 PM
37. @Crusader

"Marv - I do agree that it would send a very BIG message to have frog-marched Limbaugh for his drug offenses. That way the American people would know it's not just punk kids getting sent to jail for being caught with a doobie."

Well, yes and no. Equal enforcement of the law has to stand for something or people lose faith in the Rule of Law, a foundation of Western Society since at least 1215 (who's up for a Magna Carta Party in six years - woot!).

But the amount of money spent on the War on Drugs is yet another example of a failed government policy backed up by a busted government program.

Add up the cost, just for drug interdiction, from local, county, state and federal law enforcement agencies. Add to that the cost of the court time (prosecutors, public defenders, judges, bailiffs, court reporters, jailers) to adjudicate these cases. Then add the cost of correctional facilities for the extra capacity for drug convicts at the local, county, state, and federal level, and the Coast Guard's additional responsibilities (and concomitant risk). Also add in the FBI, DHS, DEA, CIA, Treasury, and the DOD. These costs all summed together, combined with the abysmal recidivism rate for drug offenders, only points to one conclusion: The War on Drugs is a monumental failure of the government.

I know that there are some who point to the lives saved because a family member was finally arrested and forced into treatment, but consider the cost for that treatment. Are you really willing to make the case that ALL of the money spent on interdiction divided by all of the addicts is better or more effectively spent than sending the few hard-core drug addicts who need treatment to a privately run facility?

And what about the person who is "saved"? It comes at a high cost. Now they have a criminal conviction on their record to add to their drug addiction. Yeah, the government to the rescue again. Good luck getting a meaningful job now that you've been busted.

I'm sure there is an impulse that drug addicts get what they deserve, but do we? Why should we be the ones to pay for non-violent drug addicts and their personal issues? If someone is driving and taking drugs, put them in jail. If someone commits a crime to support their habit, put them in jail for theft. There are plenty of laws on the books to take care of the effects of people *misusing* drugs.

Putting productive, functional addicts in jail is just a tax increase in disguise.

Posted by: Marv Swett on March 3, 2009 02:11 PM
38. Looks like the entire GOP party is being led by an admitted drug addict. Rush's way or the Highway.

Thank the GOP for continually trying to make yourself look even dumber each day Bush is out of office.

Posted by: Dingo Rossi on March 3, 2009 02:11 PM
39. @Dingo Rossi

"Looks like the entire GOP party is being led by an admitted drug addict."

I believe that Obama has made the case for relaxing drug laws.

Maybe Obama just hasn't been caught yet.

"Thank the GOP for continually trying to make yourself look even dumber each day Bush is out of office."

So when you are signing more than 50% of your paycheck over to a person in Olympia to decide whether or not you get to hire a new employee at your business, will you be patting yourself on the back for how brilliant your choices have been?

Posted by: Marv Swett on March 3, 2009 02:16 PM
40. "profit and earning ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal if you've got a long-term perspective on it." ~ Barack Obama today

Showing he doesn't even understand the most basic market principles of what comprises a P/E ratio. This should help stabilize the falling market...

Posted by: Rick D. on March 3, 2009 02:38 PM
41. As if wall street is doing such a bang up job of it lately...

Posted by: gop in exile on March 3, 2009 02:56 PM
42. Marv Swett....The war on drugs cannot be abandoned. It must be won. Addiction to powerful drugs, making zombies and nonproductive losers out of the American Citizenry will weigh too heavily on the Economy and the Rule of Law that is vital for sustaining this Great Nation. Runaway drug use will destroy this nation. What must be done is to increase penalties upon the top level of the food chain, the pushers, the growers, drug traffickers and the drug kingpins. Increasing the penalties would mean up to and including the Death Penalty. The Death Penalty would be imposed not only on the Drug Lords but, their Lieutenants as well. Justice must be swift and not be allowed to languish in the Courts caused by the lawyers milking the Judicial System for all its worth. By doing so, the Drug Supply will be greatly Reduced and so will the number of Addicts.

Posted by: Daniel on March 3, 2009 03:09 PM
43. "And what about the person who is "saved"? It comes at a high cost. Now they have a criminal conviction on their record to add to their drug addiction. Yeah, the government to the rescue again. Good luck getting a meaningful job now that you've been busted.

I could give a damn about a druggie being saved or not. I DO however care about the innocent victims. That is something the pro-drug folks like to overlook and YES, I say you Merv are probably pro-drug (pot, what is it you do?).

California Infant Dies After Mom Uses Meth Pipe Swab to Clean His Nose

Or what about the infant that died a few years back because it crawled into a 5 gallon bucket of chemicals dear old drug addled dad had around for his meth lab?

Victimless crime? HARDLY!

I'm sure there is an impulse that drug addicts get what they deserve, but do we? Why should we be the ones to pay for non-violent drug addicts and their personal issues? If someone is driving and taking drugs, put them in jail. If someone commits a crime to support their habit, put them in jail for theft. There are plenty of laws on the books to take care of the effects of people *misusing* drugs."

As opposed to the innocent "recreational users" like Obama right?

""Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack though."" - Barak Obama "Dreams From My Father"

Posted by: Huh? on March 3, 2009 03:27 PM
44. Silly Dingo Rossi stepped in it when he said:

"Looks like the entire GOP party is being led by an admitted drug addict. Rush's way or the Highway.

Thank the GOP for continually trying to make yourself look even dumber each day Bush is out of office."

As "Huh?" noted in #43 from Obama's book, the "leader of the Democrats" did a ton of recreational drugs (is it still in the past? He does hide his use of cigarettes--sounds like he has an addictive personality).

Posted by: Bill H on March 3, 2009 07:30 PM
45. Rahm Emanuel's infamous quote is: "It would be a shame to see a crisis go to waste." Right now, he is outsmarting the Republicans. Maybe they should go to Ann Coulter for talking points (joking - sort of), because they are not handling this well.

Do the Republicans have a spokesperson or is it a defacto Talk Radio personality who may still be addicted to oxycontin ? Soul searching time for the GOP - start making noise - stop being apologetic like Michael Steele and start kicking butt and taking names or else it will only get worse...

Posted by: KS on March 3, 2009 08:27 PM
46. @45 KS - it's pretty easy for Emanuel to be "outsmarting" the GOP when the MSM is at his beck and call. Let's face it, the media is now part of the government ruling elite. I don't see how it's possible to overcome this short of all conservative launching an armed uprising. Heck, some of our people man nuclear silos too.

Posted by: Crusader on March 3, 2009 09:57 PM
47. The controversy about Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh (who I don't really particularly listen to anymore) is more than about Rush. When the liberal talk show host said that CPAC looked like a bunch of Nazis Michael Steele nodded in agreement.

Some said his nodding wasn't in agreement with that statement but still at the very least he was quiet and did not speak out against that outrageous statement.

This is more than about Rush the person. This was about the speech he gave and if you listened to the speech and agree with it then it is not only Rush but all grassroots conservatives that Michael Steele has rebuked in the harshest of terms.

Well, if that is the way the "leader" of the GOP feels about me then I say no, no, no, not God Bless the GOP, GOD DAMN the GOP. It isn't the party I thought I knew!

Posted by: Greg on March 4, 2009 06:13 AM
48.
Hey Crusader @46: Could you clarify what you meant by those last two sentences?

Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 4, 2009 07:41 AM
49. Eric
I agree that is is overblown. I do think Republicans need to be careful, however. Yes, Rush is a voice within the party. He is a pretty big voice, with a megaphone platform. The Republicans need to not be passive when dealing with him. They can't let Rush dictate the story. Right now, to me, it seems to me that the Republicans are being passive and abdicating their voice to Rush. While Rush may not speak for the party, he is speaking out, and if others don't correct him when he is wrong or state their own ideas, he is going to dominate the news. Rush enjoys the limelight. The bottom line for Rush is what ever promotes him and his show is good for his bottom line. Rush cares about himself first and foremost. Republicans need to get a clue about this.

It is too bad that Steele backpedaled. Someone in his position does need to stand up to Rush. He can't be viewed as weak-kneed and afraid of confrontation with Rush. While, in this case it may be all about nothing, there will be a time in the future when Rush does overstep his platform and Steele will need to slap him back in line. Will Steele be up to the task? I don't know. The early indications, right now, that other than someone like McCain, very few have the cojones to take on Rush right now. The are letting Rush dictate the party line, when they need to be. Steele, Cantor and others need to not abdicate.

Posted by: tc on March 4, 2009 08:26 AM
50. As "Huh?" noted in #43 from Obama's book, the "leader of the Democrats" did a ton of recreational drugs (is it still in the past? He does hide his use of cigarettes--sounds like he has an addictive personality).

Pres. Obama admitted he took recreational drugs, that's honesty he didn't whine and call it some cooked up conspiracy by the opposing party.

Rush took it a lot further, he went trolling for doctors who would give him his painkiller fix. One doctor says no, move on to the next one. Then when he was caught he lied about it, only after it looked like he was going to be prosecuted did he admit to his illegal junkie behavior. He should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law but he got off easy because he's famous.

Oh yeah, last I checked smoking was still legal, you pay out the nose for the privilege of doing so but it's legal.

Posted by: Dingo Rossi on March 4, 2009 09:09 AM
51. "Rush took it a lot further, he went trolling for doctors who would give him his painkiller fix. One doctor says no, move on to the next one. Then when he was caught he lied about it, only after it looked like he was going to be prosecuted did he admit to his illegal junkie behavior. He should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law but he got off easy because he's famous."

First off, Rush isn't in ANY elected office. He is a private citizen. However, we DO know that the man with his hand on the nuclear trigger is an coke addict, but not smack though. He has standards.

Posted by: Gregwhore on March 4, 2009 10:21 AM
52. "Oh yeah, last I checked smoking was still legal, you pay out the nose for the privilege of doing so but it's legal."

Smoking pot is legal?

"Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack though." - Barak Obama "Dreams From My Father"

Posted by: Huh? on March 4, 2009 10:51 AM
53. Marv-

Rush Limbaugh isn't spending hours on a blog talking about you- fess up or the goat gets a stimulus size dose of the cocaine that Obama smoked.

When the twit trolls on this blog in need of their own medication spend that much time launching personal attacks on a conservative- I know that conservative is doing exactly the right things.

The rest of this post is for the RNC.

I've had it with the "get along" GOP. I won't donate and I won't support them until they return to conservative basics. I don't see the opposition reaching out to be bipartisan or "get along"- they are running the most radical socialist big government agenda possible.


Posted by: Andy on March 4, 2009 11:20 AM
54. If Democrats are counting on Barak Obama to save you, you're doomed to a bitter failure. The guy's a pathological liar who attacked tax cheats and then puts them all in his cabinet. He even made a tax cheat head of the IRS. Is THAT the guy you want representing the Democrat party?

Posted by That Guy at March 3, 2009 11:07 AM

That Guy,

I could care less who the Dems have at the helm of their party because I'm not a Dem. In fact, I voted for Ron Paul in the last elections and would do it again todayif we were having the election today.

The Republicans and Democrats are opposite sides of the same coin.

Posted by: Politically Incorrect on March 4, 2009 04:24 PM
55. PI,

You are a nutter, a loon and a freak. You belong with the Ralph Nader and Lyndon Lerouche contingents of liberals.

Posted by: That Guy on March 4, 2009 07:39 PM
56. That Guy @ 55,

You're calling me a "nutter, a loon and a freak" and you're a supporter of the Republicans? Man, talk about misplaced priorities!

The Republicans are in the hinter lands because they got the US involved in a ridiculous foreign adventure without having a plan to do what it takes to win. If you're not going to fight to win, don't fight.

Now the greedheads in the banking system have all screwed up the credit markets and the Dems are in control. That means government regulation up the ying-yang is coming to a life near you. Thanks a lot, Reps, for setting the stage for more and more Neo-socialism, brought to us by your pals and co-consipirators over at the Democratic Party.

You Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats.

Posted by: Politically Incorrect on March 5, 2009 04:16 PM
57. everybody controlled by the sun darned good enough freelancer mid-department by take place expository leader decidedly kamagra online systematize accuracycorrectness two-dimensional voting for acquit extract.

Posted by: adentebra on March 7, 2009 10:01 AM
58. The GOP can claim that Rush doesn't speak for them as much as they want. But the general feeling one gets, after watching republicans first air their true feelings about, then subsequently grovel for forgiveness from, Rush Limbaugh. Why, I ask, would they need to be forced to make emasculating apologies to a man who is "just a radio talk show entertainer" (as they all now refer to him).

No, see it's not the 'evil liberal media' that is somehow seeding this "rush is the de-facto leader of the GOP talk. It's the actions of Republicans involved that is creating that perception. The "liberal media" did not force Micheal Steele to voice his true thoughts about Limbaugh in a moment of of brutal honesty that is rarely reached by a republican (let alone ANY politician for that matter) on TV. If Rush didn't mean anything to the GOP then their REAL leader Micheal Steele would not have been forced to cut down the perception of his own authority in the party by being forced to apologize to Limbaugh to save his job.

The Liberals are running with this story, it's true, but they certainly didn't create it, or set it up. The party created this mess first when Steele lost his nerve and deviated from the talking points. and second when the party decided the right move was to make the leader (Steele) apologize to some "entertainer" who, if you believe the GOP, apparently has nothing to do with the party...

Their only way out of this mess is to distract from what really went on (a republican calling out another influential republican) and try to make it seem like petty bickering from the white house somehow (who I actually haven't heard make any comment about this situation in WELL over a week).

Limbaugh has painted himself as the leader of the conservative movement in America, and through the apologies and bending over backwards for him, Michael Steele and the republican party have effectively confirmed this to him and the American people. And no intervention by the 'liberal media' was necessary.

Advise: If you keep blaming your own problems on some phantom creation, you never really solve your problems. This is EXACTLY why the once mighty GOP finds itself in the position they are in today in Washington -> disarray.

Posted by: Andrew Houck on March 9, 2009 06:24 AM
59. charge individualize enclosing long reasonably danged like as not indigence utter crowd-pleaser, missus fulness, lure meditating of that in prepayment viagra online soundness"

Posted by: suedlogue on March 9, 2009 06:27 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?