Shot: Rush Job: Inside Dems' Limbaugh plan
Chaser: Just 11% of Republicans Say Limbaugh Is Their Party's Leader
It would seem the White House is grasping at straws, trying to distract from the fact the Obama budget and related agenda items are facing increasingly tough sledding in a Democratic Congress that is just now coming to terms with the phrase "sticker shock."
UPDATE: Ted van Dyk says "Opposition to Obama is forming up fast" over at the pixels of Crosscut:
As a lifelong Democrat, I am concerned that President Obama could come out of his first 100 days decidedly weaker than when they began. His November victory was not as strong as anticipated, given the unpopularity of the outgoing Bush administration, a weakening economy, and an often inept McCain-Palin Republican ticket. Yet Obama has proceeded as if he were a landslide winner, like Lyndon Johnson in 1965 and Reagan in 1980, and has pushed forward a costly and ambitious domestic agenda even though we remain in a severe economic downturn.Obama's audacity -- I consider it politically dangerous overreach -- has energized Republicans and, in particular, conservatives as they would not have been had Obama followed the bipartisan, consensus path he promised on taking office. The politically polarizing economic-stimulus package and his proposed federal budget have done it.
Odds of Obama's ambitious and pricey budget passing remotely intact? Shrinking fast.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 04, 2009 08:51 AM | Email ThisThe dem's are getting desperate.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 4, 2009 08:50 AMIt's clear that people listen to the overweight drug addict and what he has to say. Clearly if he wanted to call out the GOP leaders he can, and the sheep will follow en masse. As we can see on this board it's a lot easier to criticize from the sidelines than do the actual work required to get your agenda passed. That's the big difference between a leader like Newt and a yippy ankle biter like Rush.
11% is still a pretty high percentage for a 'party leader' who has never held a public office.
Back to the corner and put your dunce cap back on.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 4, 2009 09:03 AMI'm there with him, too: I have zilch use for any of the above-referenced. If they're representative of "republicans," then I'm not one either, any more than Rush is.
Posted by: jj on March 4, 2009 09:15 AMAnyone who's ever lead anything knows that when you first come in to a new leadership job, you don't come in guns ablazin' and pass a wildly radical new agenda on. There's always a certain amount of diplomacy and assessment needed to gather those around you, and what you are up against. Even if the right move is a wild agenda, there's a human lag time that must be factored in to any new poisition to acclimate everyone with whom you expect to influence an lead.
This is a universal human epistemological and psychological truth that applies to every President. Obama is not immune regardless of how gifted he is as an orator.
In his overreach, he will have definitely alienated and frustrated a certain percentage of those he must work with, and the electorate in general. And this will leave him weaker than he would have been if he had just taken the whole thing more slowly, and within the bounds of human interaction.
But when Saul Allinsky's "Rules For Radicals" is your guide, you can expect to make some big mistakes.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 4, 2009 09:18 AMIs it really the President's job to actively go after private citizens that publically disagree with his agenda?
As for Obama's statement that the stock market is like a tracking poll and of no consequence. No, Mr. President. A tracking poll only tracks opinion, in and of themselve, they don't do any harm. The value of the stock market represents wealth. With the precipitous drop in the stock market value, millions of Americans are hurting in their investments and in their retirement plans. This devaluation is not inconsequential.
Nice to see you understand and care so much.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 4, 2009 09:25 AMBecause they cannot, they attack his weight.
Posted by: Gary on March 4, 2009 09:32 AMAs for you, Jeff, you told us all so very authoritatively a few months back that McCain would win handily, and so would Rossi. So why would anybody except a brain-dead dittohead take anything you say seriously?
Now the calls are coming in from Democrats and they are completely freaking out. The first one was a classic, accusing Limbaugh of having "supported the Bush agenda",(proof that the left has no clue about Limbaugh whatsoever), I expect there will be more of them. Enjoy!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 4, 2009 09:48 AMWe talk about him all the time. He also quit doing drugs at a much younger age than Mr. Limbaugh did. Mr. Limbaugh is also an admitted drug addict, Pres. Obama was recreational drug user and not an addict. Pres. Bush was an alcoholic, but that's genetics.
Because they cannot, they attack his weight.
LOL, you clearly haven't been here very long. Go look at the discussions involving Barney Frank and Jim McDermott.
It's alright. I understand.
Of course Begala & Co. are using Limbaugh as a diversion, to direct public attention away from Obama's financial thuggery and its disastrous effects on our 401k plans. They're just using the Alinsky playbook, and there's no reason why any reasoning human should give such 'news' more than two seconds of notice.
Limbaugh is a useful purveyor of information, quirky and erratic as he is. Sometimes he's a nuisance, sometimes he shines lights on things that need our attention. So with the rest of the media, except that the MSM has a vastly greater reach and volume, and is as religiously biased left as Limbaugh is right. We need more Limbaughs with a varied set of tones and attentions (viz. the youngsters avoiding him, where they would accept a member of their own tribe with similar orientation).
And hasten the day that the MSM ceases to be a wholly-owned Democratic loudspeaker. A coordinated legion of Pravdas is no good for a democracy.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on March 4, 2009 10:05 AMCan you prove to all that Obama does not do drugs? Have you seen his medical reports?
We know he can't stop smoking because it's a powerful drug. So care to take a shot at the other drugs and people who get hooked to it.
This should be fun.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 4, 2009 10:09 AMI did not attach the mans weight, I mentioned it. It's his constitutional right to be a fat ass. Clearly you just want a distraction from the truth that if you want to succeed in the GOP your going to have to listen to the Rush sheepies and do what they say.
Clearly the Ditto Heads are mad as hell because Rush told them to be and they're willing to execute their constitutional right to free speech and harass the GOP representatives to get that point across.
The elected GOP officials appear to be listening because they've changed their tune real quick...message was clearly understood:
If you attack Rush his sheepies will come after you and you won't be in elected office much longer.
Not exactly open minded and tolerant, are they?
Of course we know that. But a lot of people don't. Now the entire country is going to find out.
Nice strategy, Dems!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 4, 2009 10:19 AMNice debate.
Wow, talk about seriously disrespecting a sitting President. If I had said something like that during the Bush years you would have been all over me for disrespecting the office and the man in it. I'm certainly not going to accuse any President of current drug use/abuse. M/V, you've gone too far.
PS. What happened to the Army in Army M/V? Are you no longer proud of your branch of service?
Glad you agree that Emanuel and the other Obamaphiles attacking the opposition party that is completely on the outside looking in, is distracted from actually getting any work done with that "agenda" (even though they have a clear mandate to do so) because they're still in campaign mode 2 months into a 4 year term. Pathetic.
The USS Obama appears to be rudderless and floating about aimlessly in the vast ocean of incompetence.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 4, 2009 10:22 AM
Well, I admit I was wrong on McCain, I underestimated just how blinded people could be by a good orator. Oh well. Will you admit you were wrong on Obama when all this spending fails to turn around the economy? Time will tell.
You seem to get pretty worked up about my comments for someone who doesn't take them seriously.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 4, 2009 10:26 AMSo as an "anonymous troll" who "never tells anything about their life" I'm now suddenly the poster-child for the entire Democratic Party. Classic overreaching on your part.
See today's guest opinion piece in the WSJ by IN (D) Senator Evan Bayh, where WRT the atrocious Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 he sez:
''The Senate should reject this bill. If we do not, President Barack Obama should veto it.''
.... and points out:
''As Indiana's governor, I balanced eight budgets, never raised taxes, and left the largest surplus in state history. It wasn't always easy. Cuts had to be made and some initiatives deferred. Occasionally I had to say no.''
This is at least a somewhat comforting reminder that not all members of Congress who call themselves (D)s have divorced themselves from all vestiges of reality and common sense. Too bad rational (D)s along the lines of Evan Bayh have become such a scarce commodity in D.C.....
This guest editorial by Bayh is excellent, both overall and in the individual points that he makes; and is one the best things I have seen from a prominent (D) Senator in a LONG time (if we had to have a (D) as Pres, too bad it wasn't Bayh).
Read the whole thing highly recommended. See:
Deficits & Fiscal Credibility - Bayh
SIDEBAR: I'm back to agreeing with Jeff B. again; i.e.:
It's looking more and more like the history of the 1st 100 days of the Obama Administration is going to have ''agenda overreach'' as one of its most prominent components. That, and the wildly optomistic rosy scenario White House projections for GDP and employment recovery (which is already significantly diverging from more realistic CBO estimates). Facts and reality are stubborn things, and the best oratory in the world will not make them become disappeared.
THEN WHAT ??
Mean spirited, mean spirited, mean spirited.
What they should be worrying about is the current drug addict in chief. He has his hands on the nuclear trigger.
"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: NPR on March 4, 2009 10:33 AMDon't you see? It's exactly the same thing.
/sarc
Posted by: jimg on March 4, 2009 10:35 AMI certainly didn't accuse the sitting (or previous one) President of drug abuse while they were in office. I commented on an admitted drug addict who is a private citizen and leader of the Ditto Head mob. Quite a clear difference.
because they're still in campaign mode 2 months into a 4 year term. Pathetic.
LOL, last I checked the President is a politician who ran a political campaign to hold said office. Once in said office there is no law that bars them from commenting on the opposing political party who have openly said they want the President "to fail and fail badly".
Because we ALL know that "recreational" users never become addicted users.
/sarc
Posted by: GJim on March 4, 2009 10:45 AMNeither are admitted to using drugs now, and yet you made it the issue.
How come?
Posted by: Gary on March 4, 2009 10:45 AMOne does the hard work of setting the tone and policies for the nation. The other is a mouthpiece for the masses. Both are admitted drug users.
I guess your right it is the same, except that the President never lied about his drug abuse while Mr. Limbaugh did. If fact Mr. Limbaugh was later charged with a crime and prosecuted for his transgressions.
It's sort of like having someone preaching abstinence only education and then having your teenage daughter get knocked up. It makes you looks like a hypocrite.
Neither are admitted to using drugs now, and yet you made it the issue.
I'll ask the same question as M/V then. How do you know Rush is not on drugs? Have you seen his medical records?
Maybe you should read a post more thouroughly before you respond to it. You were not being singled out. I was making a general comment. But if the shoe fits...
Trouble with all you leftist trolls is you waste an awful lot of time barking up the wrong tree. Some pretend they are conservatives. Others post under multiple made up names. Still others repeat the same talking points all of us have heard over and over and over.
You might try thinking for yourselves once in a while and try to be original.
You are not going to be a very happy lot. You buddies in the Obama Administration have made two mammoth mistakes: overreaching, and going after Rush Limbaugh.
Americans are about to find out about you. Doesn't matter if you call yourselves "progressives" or not. Time's up!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 4, 2009 10:59 AMThen how about doing the business of the office rather than attacking a private citizen who isn't a politician through your surrogates? Doesn't he have more important things on the agenda than to throw up straw men to detract from his incompetent leadership thus far? Like say, promote investor confidence and study up on P/E ratio which he clearly doesn't understand.
"Once in said office there is no law that bars them from commenting on the opposing political party who have openly said they want the President "to fail and fail badly".
False. No one from the official Republican party has said any such thing, but nice straw man argument. The better strategy for our OJT President would be to prove that opposition party wrong rather than whine about what they're saying through your political lap dogs. "Mommy! Rush is saying I'm going to fail! make him stop!" Please!, grow the hell up already.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 4, 2009 11:05 AMBy the way, did you know that Rush is overweight? It was pointed out earlier by another poster.
Posted by: Gary on March 4, 2009 11:17 AMThe left knows that once Americans find out what they actually believe they will be toast.
I grew up around these same people 40 years ago. Back then they were all for "anything goes man, why is the establishment so uptight, man?"
Now these same people are the ones that are uptight, conrolling, deceitful, fear-mongering meanies. Lots of folks haven't figured this out...yet.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 4, 2009 11:18 AMLOL, sure you were.
Trouble with all you leftist trolls is you waste an awful lot of time barking up the wrong tree.
Are you insinuating that I should not be entitled to my own opinion? So much for respecting the 1st Amendment. Clearly you want to paint me as a "leftist troll", so you can justify your intolerance for opposing viewpoints.
ou buddies in the Obama Administration have made two mammoth mistakes: overreaching, and going after Rush Limbaugh.
A President is supposed to take bold steps, it's up to Congress, the Courts, and the voters to keep the balance of power. If you guys had not screwed the last 8 years up so badly you would have had a bigger voice at the table. The voters spoke and they will speak again in Nov. of 2010.
You should stop blaming the voters for punishing your party for it's gross missteps that got us into the mess we are in today.
As for Rush Limbaugh, he's free to say what he wants. If the Dem's paint a big bullseye on him that's their choice. Looks like he's using his new found attention to his advantage. I see nothing wrong with painting Mr. Libaugh as a villain, after all he did say "I hope he fails".
Cato, in what way did Bill say you were not entitled to your opinion? Where do you get this stuff?
Posted by: Gary on March 4, 2009 11:26 AMInvestor confidence is driven by the free market forces. Are you implying that Obama should further interfere with the free market to somehow imply that the maybe GDP didn't drop 6.2% last quarter or that banks don't have enough money to cover their losses? That sounds an opinion of a Socialist not a Republican.
Besides the average P/E ratio is still well above '82 recession levels. I personally expect the market to fall much farther.
Meanwhile they want their policies to be implemented without discussion (or even having been read).
It's simply who they are and as you can see from the comments, they're mighty unhappy right now.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 4, 2009 11:39 AMLet me try this... Cato, are you saying that I don't have a right to my opinion???
(feels weird being a liberal)
You mean like the PATRIOT ACT? How long was the review period for that bill?
they're mighty unhappy right now.
I'm quite happy, thank you.
What I don't see is the GOP pushing any alternatives. McCain tried to strip all the earmarks out of the budget, that's doing something constructive and I applaud him for not wavering from his stated hatred of earmarks.
Yes I asked have you seen Obama medical records?
Nope you have not. To be truthful, no-one has.
He's playing a Clinton on us.
Cato, if you really want to know. I stopped using (ARMY) because it's less to type.
Everyone here knows who I am. Besides, anyone who has been in service know that medic/vet would mean Army. For the Navy it's Corpman.
You just keep on digging buddy, but I would get a bigger shovel if I was you. (-:
Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 4, 2009 12:03 PMRight, the ones waiting to hear some kind of plan from the administration before going headlong into the investment abyss and so far, nothing but crickets from the USS Obama, adrift at sea. Who would have thunk throwing around daily adjectives like "Crisis" and "catastrophe" to describe the current situtation by the OJT president would send investors into a wait and see mode?
It's basic common sense. No plan= no action.
"Besides the average P/E ratio is still well above '82 recession levels."
I meant his referring to it as the "Profit and earnings ratio" yesterday while trying to ensure investors to invest...which is not the same thing as the Price to earning ratio. Showing yet again, he's clueless.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 4, 2009 12:11 PMHis family physician has, I'm sure if President Obama goes to George Washington University Hospital his physician there will see them as well.
I stopped using (ARMY) because it's less to type.
Maybe you should quit using IE. Firefox just remembers my handle for me. I just have to push the down arrow once in the name and email field.
Well he could say he's going to nationalize the banks for a day and get it over with. Of course the GOP would howl about socialism despite the Govt. just stripping toxic assets from within likely being the best thing for the economy right now.
Since that's only going to happen as the absolute last-case scenario they're going to have to figure out a different plan and get it right the first time as they really don't have a second chance. Even then there's no chance it would work because it's a global economy and market forces around the world all play into our economy and thereby influencing the stock market.
It's basic common sense. No plan= no action.
It's basic common sense, bad plan = stock market falls even more and takes a decade or more to recover.
Clearly the Bush TARP plan didn't work. Maybe investors should show a little patience while Obama Admin. crafts another one to get it right.
meant his referring to it as the "Profit and earnings ratio" yesterday while trying to ensure investors to invest
I missed that one but I'll take your word for it.
Obama's medical records are covered under..
(HIPAA or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on August 21, 1996.)
NO-ONE can see them or talk about what he does or doesn't do. Yep even drugs.
Stop digging bud.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 4, 2009 12:35 PMNot quite. The guy running the show is a DEM, plus the dem's all voted for and pushed for it.
Now Obama has TARP II coming.
Oh I get it. It is like the head of the IRS talking about getting tax dodgers and then we find out he dodged HIS taxes.
Gotcha.
Posted by: pbj on March 4, 2009 12:40 PMBINGO!
Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 4, 2009 12:44 PMExactly. No political party is immune from hypocrisy, just the GOP does such a better job at flaunting it. =)
Then why did Obama vote for it???
Posted by: Hmm on March 4, 2009 12:45 PMHAHAHAHAHA. nice one. Obama has how many tax cheats now? (3 of them)
Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 4, 2009 12:46 PMReally? Have you been keeping count of the tax dodger nominees?
Posted by: pbj on March 4, 2009 12:47 PMSo let me get this straight, you now you want the then Senator to foresee the future and vote No? LOL!
For those new, Cato has revealed a lot about himself over the years. He is a Magnolia/Queen Anne liberal who prides himself living surrounded by Asians and other minority groups. You can fill in the rest.
Cato, the market is reacting horribly because the Obama administration cannot put forth a coherent economic policy. Whether it is promoted a "no earmark" policy that he ignores, a "no lobbyist" policy he ignores, a bank bailout plan that has no details or whatever, the guy is a total flop.
Posted by: swatter on March 4, 2009 12:52 PMNope, can't say that I have. M/V says it's three, I'd believe him.
Isn't that the same standard you applied to former President Bush? Now what was that you were saying about hypocrisy?
Posted by: pbj on March 4, 2009 12:56 PMThe answer is yes. Many did vote "no" because they could see what would happen.
It is up to four the last time I counted.
Posted by: pbj on March 4, 2009 01:03 PMNope, that's not what I said. I said Bush's policy failed, so it's time to try something else.
He is a Magnolia/Queen Anne liberal who prides himself living surrounded by Asians and other minority groups. You can fill in the rest.
Wrong again, nice try.
Cato, the market is reacting horribly because the Obama administration cannot put forth a coherent economic policy.
Well what's the GOP plan? I haven't seen one published. Maybe we can take the best parts of the GOP's imaginary plan and President Obama's forthcoming plan (he has to release one at some point) and use them to help the market. =)
Whether it is promoted a "no earmark" policy that he ignores, a "no lobbyist" policy he ignores, a bank bailout plan that has no details or whatever, the guy is a total flop.
Wow, he's a total flop less than 100 days in, it's going to be a painful 4 years for you isn't it? You'll have lots to whine about.
Remember that?
Posted by: Gary on March 4, 2009 01:07 PMMaybe we should start with you, you're a Govt. employee. Got to make those hard cuts.
Eric was laid off from his Govt. job. =)
Hey, bite your lip. LOL
Just because I have gray hair, there is no reason to pick on me.
Naaa I just figured when people respond back medic/vet or MV would be easier. that Army Medic/Vet.
PS... San Diego was nice... warm days, beaches, the ladies... Ok you get it.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 4, 2009 01:20 PMHAHAHA, ahhh cato. I'm retired. Remember last Decemeber when I talked about it. Little slow are we? Maybe you should go see your doc for a check up.
I'm now doing consultant work. Which is why I was in San Diego last week.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 4, 2009 01:28 PMI wonder if he knows the definition... however seeing his picture AS the definition probably won't clear it up for him.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 4, 2009 01:48 PMYou mean the Bush/Obama/Democrat Congress policy failed.
Posted by: pbj on March 4, 2009 01:52 PMPretty much ALL of the highly vocal Hollywood types who contribute millions to the Obama and Dem campaigns are past or current drug users.
People like Al Gore spent the 60's and early 70's in a cloud of marijuana smoke.
We have people like Al Franken that did his best to glamorize drug use throughout the 70s and 80s who are now running for senator under the democratic banner.
Their President openly admits to having used illegal drugs.
And none of these people are going to prison. (A number of the hollywood dem crowd have been busted with drugs and they don't go to prison.)
But Rush gets hooked on a highly addictive painkiller after an accident and suddenly everything he has to say can be discounted.
Posted by: johnny on March 4, 2009 02:09 PMThat's all they have.
His posts are pretty cryptic. I’m sure they must mean something to him, but it is always difficult to discern what that might be. I suspect he is usually pretty well smashed on booze before he gets up the nerve to post something.
I believe they bit off way more than they can chew.
Combine that with the mounting evidence that some Democrats are getting cold feet about the huge Obama spending and there could well be trouble in paradise.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 4, 2009 02:38 PMWe are in big trouble folks unless this rube we call our president gets a clue somehow. But I don't see that happening as Big Socialist Government™ is what he's after here not the restoration of the economy. That is the focus. He doesn't care about you, me or our future and he's proving that every time he opens his mouth.
Meanwhile they party hardy at the White House with echoes of "Let them eat cake!"
Posted by: G Jiggy on March 4, 2009 02:38 PMNope, I don't recall you talking about it. Glad to hear your enjoying yourself in your retirement.
You mean the Bush/Obama/Democrat Congress policy failed.
I seem to recall the failed Bush/Republican Congress got the whole recession thing rolling and brought us the Bush/Obama/Democrat Congress. =)
But Rush gets hooked on a highly addictive painkiller after an accident and suddenly everything he has to say can be discounted.
Limbaugh was quite aware of his actions which is why he was actively doctor shopping. It's the same type of behavior that a junkie exhibits when looking for a fix. They lie about it too.
suddenly everything he has to say can be discounted.
No one's discounting his opinion at all. He can express himself anyway he likes in accordance with the 1st Amendment. I'm just surprised he hates America so much that he wants the President to fail so his political party of choi
And since we're speaking of opinions polls, this one is a doozy for the GOP.
Nope you recall wrong. It wasn't until the Democrat congress of 2006 that things went to hell. ;)
Posted by: pbj on March 4, 2009 03:40 PMWell certainly going to a doctor for a prescription must be more serious than going to the corner looking for crack. Drug dealer shopping is so much more dignified than doctor shopping after all. And hey, everbody loves an "honest" junkie, right?
/sarc
"Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack though." - Barak Obama "Dreams From My Father"
"Look, I'm a conservative and I'm willing to admit that Rush is a pathological liar. His many lies are well documented on FAIR(Fairness & Accuracy in Media). Just go over to their site to see what I mean. Also he's just plain mean-spirited. Remember his insult to Chelsea Clinton about how she's ugly? Limbaugh is a pure clown and that even 11% of Republicans think he's the leader is frightening!"
Ok, I've finally had it. I'm calling out this "Crusader" character right here and now.
"Crusader" repeatedly posts here claiming he's a conservative and then launches into leftist talking points. Then when someone questions him he insults them using profanity including the f-word.
This is the living end. He quotes FAIR of all things, a major left-wing propaganda site.
"Crusader" is not only a phony. He's clearly not very bright.
Unbelievable.
You'll remember that it was Obama that helped sue the banks (Citibank in his case back in Chicago) to force them to take those 'toxic' loans in the first place (CRA remember?). I guess metaphorically, he's sleeping in the bed he helped make.
"...it's a global economy and market forces around the world all play into our economy and thereby influencing the stock market."
Surely you've heard the phrase 'if the U.S. gets a cold, the rest of the world catches pneumonia', right?
"Clearly the Bush TARP plan didn't work."
You mean the Bush/Obama TARP plan right?You can't blame that on Bush since it was Obama that requested the funds be released for the 2nd go around.
"Maybe investors should show a little patience while Obama Admin. crafts another one to get it right."
The only thing the administration has been able to craft while in office is an all out assault on a private citizen with an AM radio band carrying his show. Sounds like their priorities may just be a bit skewed.
No, I'm not making that up.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 4, 2009 04:12 PMYou are exactly right, Roots. I predict that Obama's poll numbers will begin to decline in April when people start getting their 1st quarter 401(k) statements. The market drop in this quarter is over 20% (S&P 500) so far. Not exactly the "Hope and Change" everyone was expecting...
Posted by: Bill H on March 4, 2009 04:16 PMI would suspect that a majority of those under 40 dont approve of Rush because they dont listen to AM radio so they probably only know what gets said about him by the pundits on PMSNBC etc.
Regardless, a closed mind is hard to change... Limbaugh haters will still be haters at the end of the day. It keeps them comfy in their small mind big government delusions. They dont have to actually confront him on an intellectual basis this way.
Posted by: dave on March 4, 2009 04:20 PMI knew Obama would fail... I just didn't think it would happen this soon. Sad.
Posted by: threeoddnumbers on March 4, 2009 04:20 PMhttp://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/rush_and_olbermann.php
Worried, aren't you?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 4, 2009 05:04 PMAt least the drug dealer knows he's committing a crime.
Rush should know better than to drag innocent doctors into his prescription fueled drug binge. What a dope.
You might note that a lot of your liberal heroes by today's standards were drunks: FDR, certainly LBJ, who drank himself to death, Truman, Ted Kennedy, Warren Magnuson.
Need I go on?
Liberals do the same thing over and over. When they are losing the argument they resort to personal attacks. Limbaugh is "fat" he wore "black clothes" when he gave his speech last weekend. You people are such jerks.
Aren't you a tolerant, "progressive" bunch of total phonys?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 4, 2009 06:33 PMSubject At Hand
GOP = Rush Limbaugh & Rush Limbaugh = GOP
Thanks for bringing us all back into focus.
Isn't the left something. And that something is nasty.
What you don't get yet Unkl Witz is that this little bit of lefty cleverness is backfiring. And you haven't seen nothin' yet.
I do wonder why the Obama people felt it was necessary to concoct this distraction.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 4, 2009 07:06 PMFirst off, my understanding is that it was concocted by Stanley Greenberg and James Carville, neither of whom are in the White House. Politico hints that it is now being directed from within, but offers no evidence.
Next, yeah, it is a nasty attack, but directed at someone who usually on the giving end of nasty attacks, and that same someone has directed many, many nasty attacks at the current President, and many, many others.
You like to now characterize him as a private citizen. I personally think of him as a public figure. One who has thrust himself into this fray and is loving every minute of it. Seems the only folks who aren't enjoying it are the Republicans.
Such a pity.
Back to the White House directing attack politics. The prior administration had an internal operative named Karl Rove. He virtually invented the form of personally destroying people from within the White House.
So save you breath on lecturing us about the evils of this kind of approach.
I do get it, this "little bit of lefty cleverness" seems to be working wonderfully well.
What I don't get is why Eric, or anyone else on the right, keeps bringing it up, especially after getting hammered on it the first time.
Joe Wilson & his wife Valerie Plame
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 4, 2009 07:42 PMLet's hear some facts, Unkl.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 4, 2009 07:44 PMAnd the drug dealer's junkie, does he "at least know he is committing a crime"? ANd how is that even relevant? So say if Hitler knew it was wrong to kill Jews, that would make it alright? Boy the lopp the loop logic you libs go through to defend your messiah is mind boggling.
"Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack though." - Barak Obama "Dreams From My Father"
No drilling! Except White House interns.
Posted by: HA! on March 4, 2009 07:50 PMBaloney.
Is that the best you can do? And how exactly did Rove "destroy" Wilson and Plame?
Surely you also have more examples.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 4, 2009 08:00 PMMy how leftists head for cover when asked for those inconvenient things.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 4, 2009 08:32 PMUnkl Witz here.
Not at all surprised to hear you gape in disbelief at my response to your request to "name one person"...
If you don't know the background of that little controversy, I'm afraid I just don't have the time to "fill you in."
Here's the deal Bill. You are a Republican. So anything a Republican leader says or does is good and vital to the survival of our nation, culture, way of life, constitution, etc. Anything a Democrat does is not. So you oppose anything democratic and support anything Republican. Conservatism has nothing to do with it.
Rush is a Republican, but wants to disassociate himself with the obvious failures of the last eight years. So he says what he says.
He's your boss Bill. You need to do what he says. Cuz otherwise, he'll say mean things about you and embarass you in front of your other Republican friends.
It's just like we're all back in the sixth grade again isn't it Bill. Don't think, just pick someone and follow them.
Poor boy, I know this is all SO confusing to you.
But cheer up, soon Jesus will come and take you away from all this and make you happy.
And the rest of us can't wait.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 4, 2009 10:22 PMIt's even money that the Obama Administration will try to silence opposition on the airwaves through the back door, which is more effective than the (UN)Fairness Doctrine. They may decide to send their thugs out to pressure the sponsors and drive out Rush, Hannity, Savage and Glenn Beck. Once again they will shred the Constitution, using the soon to be worn out excuse that "Bush did it" - the age of integrity and accountability in Government has now completely disappeared.
You neo-Marxists are nucking futs !
Posted by: KS on March 4, 2009 10:45 PMWhat gives?
It's been 20 minutes and you haven't responded.
That must mean you are:
A brainless coward, fleeing in despair from the overwhelming logic of my rebuttal, or
Like me, you have a life (I really hope this is so) and had something better to do than instantly respond to my reply.
Either way, let's keep talking about Rush and how he is the voice of and leader in fact of your political ideology these days. And what an inspiration he is to all of us, especially through the example he sets in lifestyle and persona.
And if you really do need more background on the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame affair, just let me know and I'll fill you in. Fair warning though, it will require some focus on your part.
I honestly do feel sorry for Sarah Palin. Here is this bible thumping, dim-wit who happens to be physically attractive , energetic, and in the right place at the wrong time, who gets thrust onto the national stage to somehow fight a hopeless battle. And in the midst of it all, her daughter unmarried, high school aged daughter turns up pregnant. Jeeze, talk about a losing hand...
So she bites the bullet and exposes herself and her family to all this by going on the political circuit and reveals that:
She doesn't read newspapers,
She hasn't clue about current affairs,
She thinks Africa is a country,
And, she thinks rural Pennsylvania is somehow more AMARKIN thank all the rest of the country.
Poor lady....
And now she thinks she might have another shot at national politics ..
Hopefully, one of her trusted associates will take her aside and clue her in ....
OR: (and this is a truly thrilling thought to those of us on the other side), she'll be the next Republican nominee for President....
There's zero proof that Rove tried to destroy Plame and Wilson. None. Nada. Other than your delusions. As far as I can tell, Bill doesn't need to respond until you answer the charge.
So put up or shut up, Witless. You claimed that Rove tried to destroy people. Proof please?
We see what you and your Slaver idiot brethren did with Bush, Rove (yes, the attacks on him personally), McCain, Palin, and now trying with Limbaugh.
Hypocrisy, thy name is DEMOCRAT!
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 5, 2009 03:39 AMThis all comes from Rule 12 of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: "RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)"
Posted by: Bill H on March 5, 2009 05:56 AM"Most important, I believe his agenda is crushing nest eggs around the nation in loud ways, like the decline in the averages, and in soft but dangerous ways, like in the annuities that can't be paid and the insurance benefits that will be challenging to deliver on.
So I will fight the fight against that agenda. I will stand up for what I believe and for what I have always believed: Every person has a right to be rich in this country and I want to help them get there. And when they get there, if times are good, we can have them give back or pay higher taxes. Until they get there, I don't want them shackled or scared or paralyzed. That's what I see now.
If that makes me an enemy of the White House, then call me a general of an army that Obama may not even know exists -- tens of millions of people who live in fear of having no money saved when they need it and who get poorer by the day."
http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/cramer-my-response-white-house?page=6
Who else will be on the Obama enemies list?
Posted by: pbj on March 5, 2009 07:00 AMI asked for some facts to back up your charge that Karl Rove, "virtually invented the form of personally destroying people from within the White House."
Naturally you bring up Wilson and Plame, the left's favorite cause celebre at one point during the Bush years, but you don't back it up with any specific facts or note other examples of Rove's maniacal personal destruction factory.
Instead you launch into some nonsense about Rush Limbaugh and Jesus. With a few hiding behind the keyboard classic personal insults thrown in. If you had the courage to post under your own name I'd have more respect for you.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 5, 2009 07:24 AMGeez, Penn doesn't exactly look like Wilson. I'm thinking maybe Alec Baldwin.
I wonder if they will protray Plame as a real secret CIA agent, or just someone with a desk job. Not too difficult to guess how the whole thing will be treated by the Hollywood left.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 5, 2009 07:43 AMThe truth is that Obama hates our country and that's why Rush wants him to fail.
Look at Obama trying to turn a capitalist country into a socialist country. Rush (and I) want that to fail.
Look at Obama trying to use the power of the Presidency to crush dissent and destroy private citizens. Rush (and I) want that to fail.
Look at Obama actively talking down the economy as he believes that if people lose faith in capitalism, they will turn to government. Rush (and I) want that to fail.
Look at Obama working to turn back the reforms on Welfare enacted by Clinton. Rush (and I) want that to fail.
Obama didn't come into power with the idea of restoring our country, he came into power with the hope of changing it into something else. I don't want this country changed as the country works.
It's only the federal government (and their siblings Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae) that didn't work and created this crisis. You seem smart enough that you have to admit that.
Posted by: johnny on March 5, 2009 07:57 AMWow I must be getting under someones skin I have a fan.
(#85 Army M/V fan)
ross douthat is a leftist?
this site is such an echo chamber. your republican party presided over the largest expansion of govt, the largest increase federal debt, an unnecessary war, threatening the constitution, presided over the demise of the financial system.
you guys just shout down everyone whose ideas you disagree with, call people leftist, liberals, traitors, etc.
what you fail to realize is that YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY! your party is bankrupt of ideas as of now.
i come here to see what may have changed. my quick analysis, nothing.
Posted by: dinesh on March 5, 2009 10:15 AMBut aside from diminishing the presidency and exposing a president who promised to elevate the dialogue in Washington to charges of hypocrisy, the strategy has a more serious flaw. It's incredibly cynical. It assumes that voters are too stupid to know the difference between a talk radio host and a party's elected leaders.
"It assumes that voters are too stupid to know the difference between a talk radio host and a party's elected leaders."
And our pet liberals have aptly proven they are.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 5, 2009 02:20 PM