March 4, 2009

The Democrats and Rush Limbaugh: An intriguing symbiosis.

Jonathan Martin describes the dynamic:
The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned [that he had an 11% approval rating with voters under 40]. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise.
Rush's "I hope he fails" line was big.
... Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.

Limbaugh is embracing the line of attack, suggesting a certain symbiosis between him and his political adversaries.

"The Administration is enabling me,” he wrote in an email to POLITICO. “They are expanding my profile, expanding my audience and expanding my influence. An ever larger number of people are now being exposed to the antidote to Obamaism: conservatism, as articulated by me. An ever larger number of people are now exposed to substantive warnings, analysis and criticism of Obama's policies and intentions, a ‘story’ I own because the [mainstream media] is largely the Obama Press Office.”

The bigger, the better, agreed Carville. “It’s great for us, great for him, great for the press,” he said of Limbaugh. “The only people he’s not good for are the actual Republicans in Congress.”
Now, of course, Carville, as usual, is crowing about the fabulous Democrats and mocking those dismal losers on the other side. But he must also secretly be scared of the Democrats' powerful, fearless, articulate critic. Those Republicans in Congress were conveniently cowed, and the last thing that needed to be done was to ruin Rush. But Rush gets energy from the attention. If only those under 40 folks would actually listen to his radio show and find out what he's really saying. It's easy to hate him from afar, to regard him as poison, not to be touched at all. I felt that way myself. But if they were to overcome that barrier and actually listen — as I did — they might get hooked in — as I did.
By February, Carville and Begala were pounding on Limbaugh frequently in their appearances on CNN.

Neither Democrat would say so, but a third source said the two also began pushing the idea of targeting Limbaugh in their daily phone conversations with Emanuel.

Conversations and email exchanges began taking place in and out of the White House not only between the old pals from the Clinton era but also including White House senior adviser David Axelrod, Deputy Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Woodhouse.

The White House needed no more convincing after Limbaugh’s hour-plus performance Saturday, celebrated on the right and mocked on the left, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, where he re-stated his hope Obama fails....
By Sunday morning, Emanuel elevated the strategy by bringing up the conservative talker, unprompted, on CBS’s “Face the Nation” and calling him the “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party.”

Even Republican National Chairman Michael Steele joined in with a surprising critique of Limbaugh as a mere “entertainer,” who is “ugly” and “incendiary.”

“He took a little match we had tossed on the leaves and poured gasoline on it,” said one Democrat of Steele.

Steele was forced into calling Limbaugh to apologize Monday, an embarrassing climb-down following the RNC chairman’s criticism of the conservative talk-show host.

But Democrats kept at it in rapid-fire succession, thrilled that Steele had validated their claim that Republicans were scared to cross Limbaugh...

“I want to send Rush a bottle of vitamins,” said Begala. “We need him to stay healthy and loud and proud.”
Oh, really?
It’s something of a back to the future tactic for Democrats: painting the GOP as the party of the angry white male. But unlike Newt Gingrich or other prominent Republicans, Limbaugh doesn’t have to mind his tongue.
So let's have a free-wheeling outsider voice reviving conservatism. In fact, with all this newfound power, Rush is likely to concentrate on explaining conservatism. He's not out of control, and it would be naive to think he's going to say outrageous things that can be used to hurt Republicans. He's more likely to throw stink bombs when he's not getting enough attention. What he will do now, I think, is highlight things Democrats say and show you why those things are outrageous — and he is at his best and most entertaining when he does exactly that.
“The television cameras just can’t stay away from him,” Carville said Tuesday.... “Our strategy depends on him keeping talking, and I think we’re going to succeed.”
It's a risky game, and Limbaugh can't lose it. We'll see what happens to the Republicans he means to help.

192 comments:

Thomas said...

I find this strategy remarkable. I mean, Obama is the most powerful and popular man in the history of the world, and all he can think to do is pick a fight with a fat old radio talk show host?

I can't help but think that elevating Limbaugh like this implicitly lowers Obama. They're the comparison set, so they must have something in common.

And I can't help but think: faced with the worst economic situation in generations, this is all they've got. It's as if the Obama folks have realized already--already!--that they can't win reelection on the merits, and they'll have to play ugly politics to survive. I fear for what that suggests for the rest of us.

Jack is Back said...

If you really believe in conspiracies then you would accept the theory of "inside job". By which I mean that Rush set this in motion by casting his line long and wide to see if he could reel in the big fish. But I have to believe from watching this administration's keystone cops performance to date that they think they can drive a wedge by going after Rush, when all they are doing is making it easier for him to pay his bills and give away super bowl tickets and auction off stupid Harry Reid memorabilia.

Henry said...

Thomas Jefferson thought he had a symbiotic thing going with Aaron Burr.

Limbaugh and Carville have been around forever. They will likely still be around after Obama's term or terms. This kind of "stragegy" doesn't serve Democrats so much as it serves Democratic strategists, people who like to score points, rather than drive serious policy.

It's instructive that Carville is involved. The great triumph of Bill Clinton's presidency, from a Carville point of view, was his high approval ratings.

Yet, at the end of seven and a half years, the popular president was pathetically scrambling for a "legacy".

Bogeyman are good for politicians who want to be popular. But if Obama wants to be effective, his worst enemy is not Rush Limbaugh, it is the deadweight in his own party.

Lem said...

Rush says jokingly that he will not leave until “everyone agrees with me”.

Unless Obama plans to Chavetise the Presidency, I suggest he use one of his tree miracles.

Because Rush aint going anywhere.

Peter V. Bella said...

The problem is not Rush Limabugh. The problem is the liberals and their establishment.

They have no one, zero, zip, nada, no one who can compete with Rush. Every attempt on their part has failed. Oh there are the professional stand up comedians- Mahr, Colbert, and Stewart- but they are comedians. Then there are the haters. The spew hatred of anything that is not the Democrat Party Line.

No one wants to listen to either for any exptended period of time. Not even liberals. In effect, the liberals have no talent. Instead of finding talent they do what liberals do best; attaqck and spew the hate.

Remember hatred is not a family value unless you disagree with liberals.

HelenParr said...

I recall Rush talking about his wedding to Marta where Justice Clarence Thomas presided. Marta's witness was Mary Matalin and --please correct me if I'm wrong-- Carville, for lack of another man, stood as Rush's witness. Does anyone else have that recollection or am I misremembering?

John said...

Carvel is a fascist in the old time sense of the world. So is Obama for that matter. They have to have villians. They have to have someone to hate. They have to have a way to divide the country against itself. the Republicans are not in power and they already destroyed Palin, so they have to have someone. They are really awful people. I hope there is room in hell for them because judging by Obama's approval ratings, it is going to be awfully crowded down there.

The irony of course is that those under 40 that hate Rush are the very ones Obama plans to rob in order to transfer wealth to the baby boomers. But people don't vote by economics anymore, they vote by culture. The under 40 set is more committed hipsters than they are anything else. If being a hipster means living in a Peronist state, so be it I guess.

Peter V. Bella said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Invisible Man said...

It's a risky game, and Limbaugh can't lose it. We'll see what happens to the Republicans he means to help.

It's sad that your analysis of this is so bad. Nobody is attacking Rush and hoping for his downfall. Obama as every other level-headed Democrat realizes that he can't win over the party hacks who are invested in his failure. We saw from the campaign (and this blog's comments) that there is a fringe on the Right who have a visceral hatred of Obama and would stop at nothing to defeat him either in or out of office.

So, if you can't beat them, you provide a contrast that lessens their destructive tendencies. Hey you don't have to be for or against Obama, but with Rush and the Right they aren't providing anything other than those options. So join the merry-band of Dittoheads with their anger and hatred, or be civil and find yourself kicked out of the group. This is easy politics, and as old as the Republic. Republicans did this with Jesse Jackson, Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan and others because it works. It's just that the Dittoheads can't see that Rush is just as radical, if not more, than those groups. The difference was that Democrats could seperate themselves from those groups, while Republicans have painted themselves in the corner.

traditionalguy said...

The image of a German type male, such as a Limbaugh or a Gingrich, must reprsent male authority left over from a lost world to the under 40 demographic. These were the children raised on the new standards set for us by predominant Feminism, MTV, and a racial preference system called affirmative action. The under 40 demographic sees the Limbaugh/Gingrich leadership assertions as phony and without the power to deliver on their assertions that the American ideals of hard work and good behavior will get them ahead in life. For them, Obama's persona of the young insider, operating to crash the old system for good is, more reality based. It seems to offer them a more realistic hope than the "work hard and behave yourself and be rewarded" teachings represented by Limbaugh's world view. The stock market/investments of the over 60's crashing encourages them as it does their new Leader in Washington. The tragedy is that they are getting what they want.

John said...

"So join the merry-band of Dittoheads with their anger and hatred, or be civil and find yourself kicked out of the group."

Nothing facist or creepy about that at all. The same people who spent the last 8 years cheering everytime a soldier got blown up in Iraq and praying for a repeat of Saigon 1975 and claiming that the very policies they are now continueing were the dark night of fascism falling on America are now claiming anyone who objects to their policies is just angry and bitter and needs to be silenced.

MadisonMan said...

I think this silly strategy was born in the incestuous cesspool that is DC politics. Here's an idea for Democratic leaders: Choose a policy that is popular and good for the country in the long run. When the American people see good things happening, it won't matter what some tin horn radioman says.

Attacking a radio personality shows a lack of confidence on the part of Democrats.

Peter V. Bella said...

The real man to watch is Rham Emanuel. He is Obama's brain. Rham will make Karl Rove look like an ethical moralist before long. He is corrupt, ruthless, and has no morals or ethics. Rham is the hired gun of the real power in DC. Obama is just a puppet on a string. He is a tyro and an order taker. The puppet master is in charge and holds and wields the real power. Obama does what he is told to do and says what he is told to say. The puppet master- the power behind the throne- in charge of the government knows how to acquire real power, how to use real power, and how to crush enemies.

Obama may be the president but he is nothing but a figure head; a title. The real person in charge is Nancy Pelosi. If Bill Clinton was the so called first Black President, then Ms. Pelosi is the first female "POTUS".

BTW, though I do not agree with her or her ilk, and do not particularly care for her, I have an abiding grudging respect for her, and her use of power.

MadisonMan said...

In other words, I agree with Henry's 8:17 comment

Thomas said...

Invisible Man, can you point to a single instance where a Republican president has launched an attack on Jesse Jackson, Cindy Sheehan, or any other such figure? And, in their moment, any Democrat who separated himself from them? I'm guessing the answer is no and no, because you're making shit up.

DSK said...

"If only those under 40 folks would actually listen to his radio show and find out what he's really saying."

I'm under 40, and I've listened to Limbaugh. I am conservative who voted the 1994 Republican Revolution into office.

I wish Rush would disappear forever. I'm glad the Obama administration is holding his feet to the fire. He is a coward who is afraid of real debate, preferring to make money from snark. He runs an intellectually dishonest juvenile show which represents the worst of Baby Boomer politics. I'm ready for his ilk on both sides of the isle to just take their comfy little prescription drug benefit and their bank bailout (both GOP inventions), shut up, and get out of the way so we can rebuild this country.

John said...

"I think this silly strategy was born in the incestuous cesspool that is DC politics. Here's an idea for Democratic leaders: Choose a policy that is popular and good for the country in the long run. When the American people see good things happening, it won't matter what some tin horn radioman says."

It makes you wonder about what they are thinking. I am of two minds of Obama. The first mind is that he is a completely shallow and vaucaus person who has never been around anyone who disagrees with him and has absolutely no idea how the world and markets actually work. For this reason he honestly thinks that things like tax increases, unionization, carbon caps, and heavy federal regulation lead to prosperity and is completely befuddled by the markets' reaction to his policies.

The second mind I have of Obama is that he is a an evil socialist fuck who knows full well what his whackjob policies will do to the economy but doesn't care because he figures he can blame it on Bush and would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.

Which one you believe depends on your state of paranoia I guess. Of course, the result is the same regardless of which one is true.

Henry said...

MadisonMan wrote: Choose a policy that is popular and good for the country in the long run.

Sadly, those almost look mutually exclusive these days. But God, I wish. I think a lot of people who voted for Obama thought he would bring that focus -- that even if he was wrong on some things, he would at least be prudent and deliberative.

Harsh Pencil said...

This will help both Rush and the Democrats. The Democrats are being very smart here. Attack Rush, and he can't help but respond because him being the center of attention helps his show and his celebrity. But Rush is indeed unpopular, so the Democrats win by making him the face of the Republican party. Rush wins by becoming more the center of attention and the Democrats go up in the polls. Carville is very smart, as was Alinsky.

And Steele's response was just a awful for the Republicans, both in the original attack and the groveling afterward. The best response for Republicans is to say that while we like and respect Rush for all he has done, he is, in the end, a radio host with his own opinions, who speaks for himself, and not the Republican party, or conservatives in general. And you leave it at that.

But overall, this so far has been just a huge win for Carville and Obama.

John said...

"I wish Rush would disappear forever. I'm glad the Obama administration is holding his feet to the fire. He is a coward who is afraid of real debate, preferring to make money from snark. He runs an intellectually dishonest juvenile show which represents the worst of Baby Boomer politics."

So you are just fine for the president to use the power of his office to silence him? Why don't you just cut to the chase and start putting people in ovens?

TosaGuy said...

Ms. Althouse is correct about one thing with Rush. He is at his best when he explains conservatism and compares it to liberalism. He is not at his best when he engages in policy wonkery. He has no administration or congress that he needs to defend so he is free to engage in what he does best.

The typical way to minimalize a critic is to ignore him because engaging a critic typically elevates him. The only way a critic can be reduced through engagement is by absolutely destroying him. Obama probably believes that he can do that and is trying to do so. Problem for Obama is that everyone who has tried that tactic has failed.

Henry Buck said...

CNN's role in this is appalling. Once again, we see the attacks on Fox News as the mouthpiece of the Bush Administration over the past eight years as a massive case of Democratic projection.

garage mahal said...

Who is attacking Limbaugh again? I've yet to see an example.

John said...

"Problem for Obama is that everyone who has tried that tactic has failed."

obama has two things going for him in that regard. First, he has a state run media aparatus that controls about 90% of the MSM. Second, because older and less urban people tend to listen to Rush, he can play on cultural hatreds and stereotypes in attacking him. It is perfectly acceptable among under 40 urbanites to be bigoted and hatful towards the white middle and lower class. In fact it is encourage. Obama is playing into that hatred. It marginalizes Rush and gives urbanites a way of feeling superior.

Henry Buck said...

I don't believe DSK's self description. Seems like a Moby to me.

AllenS said...

I feel the same way, Henry.

X said...

garage, i think VideoProfessor has a DVD that teaches Googling. Try their product. Or you could go to whitehouse.gov

Fritz said...

DSK, ROFL You are a phony conservative.

John said...

Garage Mahal circa 1937. "Who is attacking these Jews? That is just a myth started by Jews."

Trevor Jackson said...

"So you are just fine for the president to use the power of his office to silence him? Why don't you just cut to the chase and start putting people in ovens?"

Ha ha ha ha. Obama advising Republicans that listening only to Limbaugh puts them at odds with the majority of the country = one step closer to genocide.

Let's say this again slowly. Democrats want Limbaugh to keep talking.

Freeman Hunt said...

DSK is obviously phony. He even named policy that Rush opposed and faulted Rush for it. But sure, sure, DSK, you listen to him, and you're a real conservative...

Jim said...

Garage, Paul Begala (he of the daily phone call with Rahm and Carville) called Rush a "corpulent drug addict."

He failed to add "I don't mean that in a bad way," so I think it can be considered an attack.

onparkstreet said...

I don't hate Obama (to Invisible Man, above), I don't think his policies are very good.

I mean, he was never a reformer in Illinois and has, in my opinion, a weak record there as a legislator. I think he is learning on the job and I think he's having a very hard time of it. Rush pointing this out, in ways that make me wince sometimes, is just all a part of the rough and tumble of democracy. That's just the way it goes :)

downtownlad said...

Ann - You're not younger than 40.

And those who are don't listen to radio.

And someone I doubt today's youth are going to be persuaded by Limbaugh's racist and anti-gay comments.

X said...

I doubt today's youth are going to be persuaded by Limbaugh's racist and anti-gay comments.

I doubt they would either if he made such comments. Perhaps you could link to them since they are supposedly so common.

John said...

"Let's say this again slowly. Democrats want Limbaugh to keep talking."

Yeah that is why they are obsessed with him. Let me say this slowly and without irony so that it doesn't go over your head like my above piece of snark did. It is unseemly and immoral for the President to use the powers of the office and the bully pullpit to attack and marginalize a private citizen exercising his 1st Amendment rights. Imagine if Scott McClellen had gone after Michael Moore by name? Liberals would have been rightly outraged.

The fact that liberals think that it is okay for BO to use the powers of the Presidency and the state run media to do this, shows them to be two bit thugs and of the same ilk as brownshirts.

John said...

"And someone I doubt today's youth are going to be persuaded by Limbaugh's racist and anti-gay comments."


I doubt the youth will be pursuaded one way or another. The youth and urban elite are always the first to join fascist movements. Hitler was incredibly popular in German Universities in the 20s and 30s.

Robert said...

Can you quote a racist or homophobic statement by Rush Limbaugh, DTL?

Fritz said...

John, good point. As Hitler understood, forget the old, give me the young.

TosaGuy said...

The Obama bloom is off Maureen Dowd's rose.

Not that I take MoDo all that seriously, but eventually more and more commentators of all political stripes will take their shot at Obama. Limbaugh is just leading the way.

DTL. Most people hate overly strident, one-trick pony gay people as much as they hate gay bashers. Making fun of Barney Frank is not gay bashing. Every reasonable person SHOULD make fun of Barney Frank.

X said...

Is there a word for shitheels who falsely throw around the charge of racist? Becuse they are just as despicable as an actual racist.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

My husband got "yet" another call from the RNC asking for money. This time instead of yelling at the poor girl or guy on the phone and telling them to go to fucking hell and that they won't see a damned dime until they kick some of the RINOs out of the party, he engaged in conversation.

He said that he had a high opinion of Michael Steel until he criticized Rush Limbaugh in a speech.

She said.."Who is Rush Limbaugh?".

He said..incredulously....?? "Are you telling me that you are calling me from the RNC and you don't KNOW who Rush Limbaugh is?? And you are telling me that you are a conservative???"

She confirmed that.

He..."How old are you?"

She.... 22

He... "Are you doing this calling after school or part time?"

She..."No, this is my full time job" and tried to go into get the money speech again.

He....."Look honey, why don't you google Rush Limbaugh's speech to CPAC and listen to it. Don't you dare call anyone else and tell them you don't know who Rush Limbaugh is!!"

Is it any wonder that the RNC is not connecting with their base? No moola from us until they act on some conservative principles.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

As Hitler understood, forget the old, give me the young

Just because I don't think that people can see this clip enough and not get the similarities. Here it is again

Trevor Jackson said...

John, other than the one instance to which I referred in my above comment, when has Obama singled out Obama or "attacked" him? Gibbs's and Emanuel's references to Limbaugh have been in response to direct questions about him. But you keep talking about Obama using his bully pulpit. He's mentioned Limbaugh once. Maybe that was one too many times, but to cast it as the President of the United States engaging in some systematic attack on a "private citizen" (that 22 million people supposedly listen to and someone to whom party leadership swears fealty) is really overstating the case.

And, "state run media"? Hitler comparisons? Sorry, I didn't know I was talking to a hysteric. Yeah, yeah, yeah. "BusHitler," etc. Doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

garage mahal said...

Jim
I should have been more specific in asking who in the White House is attacking Limbaugh. To people like me it's a brilliant strategy of making Republicans side with a freak show like Limbaugh, or not. It makes them look weak and unable to lead if they always crawl to him and apologize.

J Lee said...

While this could be a successful short-term strategy, it assumes that 8-10 months from now the dynamic will still be Obama's plans versus Rush's "I hope he fails" line. It won't -- it will be the first-year results of Obama's plans versus whatever the swing voters think about them, as the 2010 campaign season begins.

Obama can attack Limbaugh now because, while conservatives may be in total opposition to his spending plans and policy changes, the swing voters are still willing to give him a chance. But if the Dow's at 5,500, unemployment's at 10 percent and we've got some new crisis with Iran, North Korea, China and/or Russia to deal with, running around yelling Rush Limbaugh's name as a way to scare swing voters isn't going to work. And it's certainly not going to work at the state or congressional district level, where by the end of the year Democrats in the House and Senate facing re-election are not going to be satisfied at thinking they can simply run against Rush and get re-elected if the economy's in the toilet and the U.S. is facing hostile challenges from abroad.

downtownlad said...

Here are a few homophobic statements by Rush:

...our buddy Dan Abrams...he's been replaced by Rachel Maddow, or will be, in early September. He's losing his show to somebody with more testosterone than he has."

http://soupcans.blogspot.com/2008/08/quote-of-day-rush-limbaughs-ignorant.html

And then he wrote a song called "Banking Queen" about Barney Frank.

As for Racist, well "Barrack the Magic Negro" speaks for itself

Richard Dolan said...

The Team O vs. Rush thing is turning into an amusing little sideshow, with buffoonery all around. Carville and Begala (and perhaps some of the Team O folks in the White House, too) think it may lead to electoral success.

Not likely. Electoral success or failure will turn on how well Team O performs, whether the policies they are putting in place can solve today's problems at home and abroad. Rush and many on the Rep side think that those policies will generate disastrous results. Today Sen Bayh (and 13 other Dem senators) began publicly backing away from the Pelosi/Team O agenda of endless spending and deficits, paid for by new taxes on the entrepreneurial sector of the economy. So Rush and the Reps aren't the only ones worried about whether Team O is on the right path domestically. Reality is also intruding on the international scene.

Ann suggests that the Rush-as-bogeyman shtick will fail because Rush has the ability and the audience to offer a sustained critique of Team O's policies. People other than dittoheads will listen to that critique if and when the promised benefits of Team O's policies either fail to materialize or (I think more likely) those policies generate the kinds of results, at home and abroad, that Rush and others fear. What will matter is whether, based on results that haven't happened yet, voters agree. Nothing turns on who the Dems nominate as the face of the opposition.

MM and others suggest that all of the current noise just serves the interests of DC spinmeisters (and Rush too). That sounds right to me.

downtownlad said...

How can people think this is racist? Hmm????

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/50979/

Alan said...

"Rush is likely to concentrate on explaining conservatism."

This makes me laugh. Yeah, you'll hear inspirational and uplifting talk about the individual. But bottom line, all Rush cares about is a big government to enforce his social conservative ideals. He said as much in this phone call.

But I'm not the only one who understands this. Your own commenter, Donna B., said as much on the recent Steel thread:

"Rush knows how he feels for sure, and he's able to tether those ideas to what he calls conservative values, but they are really right-wing Christian ideas and values."

It's great to see people on the right finally getting it. I'm slow on the uptake, it took me over a decade to figure Rush out. And see how bad he was/is for conservatism.

John said...

"And, "state run media"? Hitler comparisons? Sorry, I didn't know I was talking to a hysteric. Yeah, yeah, yeah. "BusHitler," etc. Doesn't make it any less ridiculous."

If MSNBC, NPR or CNN were state run how would their coverage be any different than what it is? Is it techniqully state run? No. But the results are the same. People like Chris Matthews have been honest in their view that it is their job to help the Obama Administration succeed. That makes them functionally state run. Maybe at some point they will quit the Obama plantation and think for themselves. But until they do, they deserve to be called what they are.

As far as the attacks on Limbaugh, the attack is more than at just him. The idea is to associate anyone who disagrees with Obama as some kind of other. Some one above said it best, you can be civil and go along or you can go with the dittoheads and be uncivil and kicked out of the group. If Obama were saying "Rush is wrong and here is how my policies are great" I wouldn't be concerned. But that is not what he is doing. Instead, he is personally trying to destroy and marginalize Limbaugh and by extension his listeners by painting them as somehow different and backward and racist and all of that and everyone who agrees with Obama as the smart set. It is just nasty thugish stuff and not good for the country.

Robert said...

I would (seriously) be interested in a critique of Mr. Limbaugh's recent speech by someone who thinks he is a bad guy. I agree with almost all, if not all, of the speech. I have sometimes turned off Mr. Limbaugh because I don't like his references to the personal characteristics of his opponents (Fwank, nose-hair, forehead) any more than I like their personal attacks (fat, drug-addled) on him. However, when it comes to political philosophy, I am with RL about 90% of the time and I am rarely with the President.

John said...

:"As for Racist, well "Barrack the Magic Negro" speaks for itself"


that is not racist it is true. BO is nothing but a magic negro to his upper middle class white supporters. People like David Brooks and his ilk supported BO because they view politics as some kind of emotional show to work out personal Demons. There is a great tradition in American drama of the magic, noble negro who shows up to absolve white people of their guilt. The entire BO phenononea was nothing but that played out in real life.

Beth said...

But he must also secretly be scared of the Democrats' powerful, fearless, articulate critic.

I suppose if you start out on your knees to Limbaugh you're never in danger of having to say "I'm sorry, Rush! Sorry, sorry, sorry!"

Yeah, the kids will be gathered 'round the radio listening, any day now. The clueless Democrats are practically herding them there, with their relentless (but invisible, stealth) attacks on El Rushbo.

Ditto! will replace "Whatever" in the under-40 vernacular.

downtownlad said...

Early in Rush's career, he also used to have a regular "AIDS Update" where he would celebrate the deaths of those who had AIDS. For example, he used "I know I'll never love this way again" as the theme.

Early in his career he "was making a name for himself by reading off the names of gay men who had died from AIDS each week while pushing the applause button and laughing"

http://rackjite.com/archives/602-Political-Correctness-for-Dummies.html

Nice.

Jim said...

Garage,

Interesting that you would say Begala is not part of the administration. I agree with you, but he is to this President what Rush is to the Republicans.

An opionated commentator with a forum, and close, albeit unofficial ties to key people in the organization.

Rush just has a much larger forum.

Robert said...

Well, no, I don't see "Barack the magic negro" as racist. I think race is a silly construct creating divisions for no purpose but I don't see how I would be offended if someone wrote a song called "Rob the magic caucasian" or even "Rob the magic white boy" You do know, DTL, that the song came from a line from a liberal columnist's piece?
I don't think RL is a gay basher, but I don't like the references to Barney Franks' sexual identity as I think his preferences are of no import. However, I do think Barney Frank is an idiot no matter what his sexual preferences may be.

John said...

"Early in Rush's career, he also used to have a regular "AIDS Update" where he would celebrate the deaths of those who had AIDS. For example, he used "I know I'll never love this way again" as the theme.

Early in his career he "was making a name for himself by reading off the names of gay men who had died from AIDS each week while pushing the applause button and laughing"

http://rackjite.com/archives/602-Political-Correctness-for-Dummies.html"

That is bad. About as bad as attending an ant-semetic racist black supremacist church every Sunday for 20 years and never saying anything in response to the hate mongering that went on there every Sunday. I will make you a deal, I will agree that Rush has no place in public life, if you will say the same thing about anyone who went to Reverend Wright's church.

John said...

Also, the good Reverend has nothing good to say about gay people either. Maybe Rush should join Obama's church.

Robert said...

DTL, if Mr. Limbaugh ever read off the names of people who died of AIDS and then cued a laugh track, I find that disgusting. The web site you cite does not reference any evidence that such a thing happened, it is just an assertion that it did.

AlphaLiberal said...

This is pretty unconvincing and not well defended:
It's a risky game, and Limbaugh can't lose it.

Limbaugh can absolutely lose it by being the lout that drives away from the Republicant Party everyone but the hard core base. A Limbaugh-led party drives independents to the Dems. If, after two years of his ranting, the Republicants make no progress or lose in mid-terms, his strategy will have failed.

Pretty simple concept.

Limbaugh can lose it by harming our nation's recovery efforts while millions are tossed out of work. Democrats, Republicants and Independents are losing their jobs.

Limbaugh can lose it by demanding Republicant elected leadership grovel before him.

Limbaugh can lose it simply by being the extremist he is, hawking old tried and failed policies.

I've also listened to Limbaugh on the radio and find him to be an offensive oaf. How odd Ann would be inspired by this guy.

Kevin said...

onparkstreet said...

I think he is learning on the job and I think he's having a very hard time of it.


Y'know, for all of Barak's supposed intelligence he sure is shy about anything that would prove past competence. He's never released any college grades, SAT or LSAT scores, and his published works outside his allegedly ghost-written books are pretty sparse.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and posit that Barry has average intelligence, with a heaping dose of charisma that's gotten him pretty far in life. He's finding out pretty quickly that a clever turn of phrase doesn't accomplish as much as hard work and a solid understanding of the job.

Michael Hasenstab said...

For a guy who seems to be the master of the world, Obama sure is insecure.

Why pick on the one voice of dissent? Because Obama and his handlers can tolerate no dissent.

This spat between Obama and Limbaugh will play out with some Obama congressional sycophant again demanding hearings into re-enacting the so-called Fairness Doctrine, using Limbaugh as example number on as to why the Fairness Doctrine is needed.

DTL- as far as your foolish ideal that Limbaugh is somehow racist, whose mother was it that got thrown under the bus because of her skin color, Obama's or Limbaugh's?

John said...

"Limbaugh can lose it by harming our nation's recovery efforts while millions are tossed out of work. Democrats, Republicants and Independents are losing their jobs. "


You mean like talking down the economy and panicing investors for the short term political gain of getting your pork package through Congress? You mean like that. Considering the incredible damage Obama's bumbling and short sightedness have done to the economy over that last month, that is a pretty rich assertion.

Further, how is Rush Limbaugh going to stop the economy from recovering? What kind of crap is that? If a talk show host can destroy the economy, we are in a lot of trouble. More importantly, if a talk show host has more effect than the President, Obama is a pretty sorry ass President. Is thinking conservative thoughts putting out negative waves and causing bad things to happen?

AlphaLiberal said...

Also, isn't it a problem for the Republicant Party to be led by an individual of such low "character," as described by Joan Walsh:
A thrice-divorced, drug-abusing, Parkinson's-mocking, cigar-sucking egomaniac, a poster boy for meanness, overindulgence and excess?

Or, later Joan points out:
So for now the future of the party is an admitted Oxycontin addict who plea-bargained his way out of a drug conviction, who mocks children and Parkinson's sufferers, who exhibits strange sexual fears about our first black president (why is he worried about "grabbing his ankles?"), who was famously detained on a Dominican Republic vacation for carrying Viagra without a prescription?

And...
Clearly a party that is afraid to stand up to a bully like Limbaugh needs some kind of political Viagra, immediately.

Thanks for explaining your love for Rush though, Ann. Clearly, character does not matter for you.

Jason (the commenter) said...

If anyone wants tons of free publicity from Obama and a guaranteed fan base, just criticize the president.

Host with the Most said...

The President of the United States taking on a talk show host by name.

How pathetic.

How small is Obama, really?

The Democrat Party - crowing to the world "We Won" is using it's winning to promote fascism and seeks to tear apart those Americans who disagree with them.

And it comes from the White House! Have they no moral shame or patriotism?

I have never been so ashamed to be an American.

John said...

"Clearly a party that is afraid to stand up to a bully like Limbaugh needs some kind of political Viagra, immediately."

Maybe they agree with him and see no need to stand up. Obama didn't stand up to a racist windbag preacher for 20 years. Is it because Obama is a coward or just dind't think there was anything wrong with what Wright said?

Palladian said...

"I'm gonna go out on a limb and posit that Barry has average intelligence, with a heaping dose of charisma that's gotten him pretty far in life. He's finding out pretty quickly that a clever turn of phrase doesn't accomplish as much as hard work and a solid understanding of the job."

He misoverestimated himself.

John said...

I think BO figured out long ago that if he sits back and says nothing, white people will take that for being smart and cool and that if he can say something clever or good sounding his white sychopants will interpret that as wisdom. That is pretty much how he got to be President. As some point though, the bullshit only goes so far.

AlphaLiberal said...

Further, how is Rush Limbaugh going to stop the economy from recovering?

I said harming the recovery efforts. And, as the leader of the Republicant Party, he can do that, no? He can force the Republicants in Congress to obstruct and, as long as Dems don't have 60 votes, he can succeed.

He can make these guys grovel in public, he can stop them from cooperating with Obama. Actually, he already has.

Host with the Most said...

Must be nice being a liberal who sleeps well at night knowing we have a President so weak he installs fascism from the White House as a weapon against other Americans.

That's right, I forgot - there are no moral liberals.

AlphaLiberal said...

Host, so you think that the leader of the Republicant Party should be immune from criticism?

Limbaugh can call Congressional Republicants to heel but the White House shouldn't suggest to the same Republicants they're making a mistake? He said that in a meeting with them.

I routinely heard the Bush White House openly attack liberal Americans, MoveOn, and many others.

That was no problem, though?

man, you're full of it.

Michael Hasenstab said...

Listen Alpha, you sound like a total jackass putting up a rehash of Limbaugh's personal life when the Dems include a twice-divorced murderer, a former KKK member, a president who admits using cocaine, a guy whose boyfriend was running a prostitution ring out of their shared townhouse in DC, and a whole bunch of folks who just can't get around to paying the taxes they owe, as a start.

AlphaLiberal said...

...installs fascism from the White House as a weapon against other Americans.

Ha-ha! Oh, man. You are beyond the fringe.

John said...

"I said harming the recovery efforts. And, as the leader of the Republicant Party, he can do that, no? He can force the Republicants in Congress to obstruct and, as long as Dems don't have 60 votes, he can succeed."


So Obama has all of the answers and anyone who disagrees with him is stopping the recovery? Good thing you don't have a messiah complex or something. In olden days we used to have reasoned political debates where even the majority understood that no one side or person had all of the answers. We also didn't do things like appeal to authority or demand our political opponents cooperate or else.

What quant notions liberal democracies used to have. Alpha Liberal, you really are a fascist and a member of a personality cult. You don't know it and won't admit it, but you are. But that is the nature of really being in one; you don't know it. If you knew it, you would stop doing it. The genius of such movements is that they convince the people who support them that they are they not really fascist. Instead it is those who dissent and stand in the way that are the fascists.

Host with the Most said...

Liberal mind:

Priority One: Secure unlimited sexual freedom for anyone with anything, anytime, anywhere. Talk restraint, but work for absolutely no limits. This is founding moral principle of liberalism.

Priority Two: Lying is always okay in advancing any cause,whatever it is at the time. Use it well.

Priority Three: Talk Bipartisanship. Do opposite and accuse all politically opposing Americans of evil motives. See Priority Two above.

Sleep well knowing President of the United States believes in Priorities one through Three.

Host with the Most said...

I routinely heard the Bush White House openly attack liberal Americans, MoveOn, and many others.

Talking out of our ass again, are we?

Looking forward to evidence, fascist.

AlphaLiberal said...

"Listen," Michael, nice try at deflection.

The Democrats didn't try to impeach a President over a blow job. That's you guys. It's the Republicants who made "character" a federal issue.

And the guy you're led by is a pill-popping, drug addict, sex tourist. A mean bully who insults Parkinson victims and little girls. A guy who hurls names like an 8-year old on a playground.

Oh, right. Character doesn't matter for Republicans! Just for their opponents!

Ha-ha! Some principles you have there!

Robert said...

In the near future the market for US debt is going to dry up and then we will have to pay a bigger return on government bonds, leading to much bigger deficits in the long run. The "stimulus" package is, in my opinion, a total disaster. In the long run, if our economy is allowed to expand, more and more of the lefty wish list could come true. However, by trying to buy it now with dollars they don't have they have created a nightmare scenario which cannot be fixed by taxing the "rich".
This is where RL is right and BO is wrong.

AlphaLiberal said...

So Obama has all of the answers and anyone who disagrees with him is stopping the recovery?

WTF? What a dishonest argument!

I didn't say that. I didn't say anything close to that.

Jeez, it's crazy in here. Buh bye.

Host with the Most said...

Forgot part of Priority One:

Insure that no negative consequences are incurred from any sexual activity. Insure government funding to offset any such negative consequences.

Joe said...

Wow, Alpha, I thought Obama was all about change--that he WASN'T yet another George Bush. Now you're saying he is and that's fine. Make up your fucking mind.

The unfortunate fact is that Obama did have the mandate to be different, to try a different approach and instead has become the very worse sort of insider Washington politician. Some of us saw this a long time ago, but Obama had a chance to prove me wrong. He didn't and attacking someone for practicing their free speech makes him petty (and not standing up to Congress about earmarks makes him a liar and hypocrite.)

Invisible Man said...

The President of the United States taking on a talk show host by name

This fake outrage fools no one Host. First, I think that voluminous amount of posts on this blog alone let's you know that Rush isn't exactly Mike and Mike in the Morning. The fact is that Rush has placed himself in the political arena, and Republicans recognize this with their "follow the leader" and "kiss the ring" antics. Limbaugh's, apparently, is the mouthpiece for the opposition and talking about the opposition isn't exactly throwing him in the Gulag.

Secondly, were was the outrage when Bush's White House ran Bill Maher off of ABC after 9/11. There wasn't a peep heard by the Right when Arie Fleischer was telling people "that they need to watch what they say".

Third, Bush, for god's sake, signed a bill to take the rights away from ONE ordinary man who tried to end the suffering of his wife. I doubt you had problems with that, and that's a hell of lot more putrid and egregious than anything that this White House has .

Bob From Ohio said...

I certainly agree with J Lee and Richard Dolan.

Making Limbaugh the face of the GOP is excellent short term tactics. If the 2010 election was next week, the Dems would be in clover.

But it is not. O's policies are going to have to work. If they don't, the GOP will make a comeback, Limbaugh or not. If they do work, the Dems will maintain their majorities and O will easily get re-elected.

The Clinton tactics of attacking Gingrich and the House GOP worked because it was a time of "peace and prosperity". If the economy had gone down under Clinton, things might have been different.

It's all tactics with Carville and company. Yet I don't see a DotCom boom coming for O.

Michael Hasenstab said...

The Democrats didn't try to impeach a President over a blow job.

Neither did the Republicans. The actual issue was Clinton lying about it under oath to a federal grand jury. You know, the same kind of thing that drove you apeshit crazy when Scooter Libby did it?

Anyhow, this day is far too nice to waste communicating with you; I'm going for a walk. Hope the balance of the sane commenters her take a similar approach so yo and Michael can yak alone in an echo chamber.

Henry said...

Also, isn't it a problem for the Republicant Party to be led by an individual of such low "character...

Ah, the Eve Fairbanks fallback.

Limbaugh has been around a long time. When Republicans were in the White House (Bush 41, Bush 43) he was a sideshow. When Republicans had strong Congressional leaders (Gingrich, Dole), he was a sideshow. It is only the weakness of the current Republicans that makes him seem important.

A parallel case is Michael Moore. Today he is an entertainer. Four years ago he was the individual of "low character" who "led" the Democrats. Why? Because the Democrats four years ago had feeble leaders.

Pundits and playactors have some influence, but not much real power and their influence is ephemeral. They're like the water table in a swamp. First, you have to have a swamp.

* * *

Also, the Hitler references in this thread are just as idiotic as the Limbaugh fearmongering. The White House has always gone after its political enemies. This is normal.

The Bush White House went after Joe Wilson. Even if you think they had a legimitate case (as I do), the fact is they did it. Nixon went after everyone.

If it comes out that Obama has a wiretap on Limbaugh, then, maybe, you begin to have the faintest smidgeon of the fascist brief. Until then, get a grip.

Host with the Most said...

Not so Invisible (Black) Man:

Secondly, were was the outrage when Bush's White House ran Bill Maher off of ABC after 9/11. There wasn't a peep heard by the Right when Arie Fleischer was telling people "that they need to watch what they say".

I don't recall hearing President Bush say anything about Maher. Do you?

Where's your White House involement proof.

You're not another Alpha style ass-talker, are you?

Host with the Most said...

Dtl,

Call me homophobic,
I'm so anthromorphic,
Yet it's undeniably true

Rachel Maddow creeps me out.

Host with the Most said...

Bob,

But it is not. O's policies are going to have to work. If they don't, the GOP will make a comeback, Limbaugh or not.

Wish you were right, but the tactic of this White House and it's media allies is 2-fold:

1)Always present Obama programs in best light possible. vven if something is failing, the New York Times will spin it as a win.

2)Offensively attack everyone and everything that moves in any form of opposition to the Obama.

MadisonMan said...

Hmm... posts about "standing up" to people, and taking viagra.

Resist! Resist!

Host with the Most said...

Well Shit My Pants!

If this here Howdy Doody Obama and his Friends the Deem-o-crats are in such great shape, why do any of them give a rat's ass about what them partisan Republicans and their fine leader Rush Limbaugh think?

What the Fuck-in-Rachel-Maddow do they have to be worried about?

Why are they worried?

Seems like they are really In-SEE-Kur!

Host with the Most said...

The Democrats and Obama remind me of the Southern Preacher who talked about the devil:

"Satan hates God so much, he'll do anything the opposite where he can. Where he has to join up to some church to get what he wants, he'll do so as long as he needs to Don't be fooled, Satan can be friendly and talk of getting along, but he doesn't mean it a bit. He really wants to destroy the ones he hates.

Satan just can't help hating anything God loves. It's in his nature, and he'll hate it and seek to harm it until it brings his own destruction. He just can't help it."

Dust Bunny Queen said...

In the near future the market for US debt is going to dry up and then we will have to pay a bigger return on government bonds, leading to much bigger deficits in the long run.

Bingo!!

garage mahal said...

Why are they worried?

That's it. Off to the Saul Alinksy training camp you go!

Xanthippas said...

Making Limbaugh the face of the GOP is excellent short term tactics. If the 2010 election was next week, the Dems would be in clover.

But it is not. O's policies are going to have to work. If they don't, the GOP will make a comeback, Limbaugh or not. If they do work, the Dems will maintain their majorities and O will easily get re-elected.


I think you're missing the fact that this also makes short-term sense if the short-term goal is to get big budget packages passed. Let opponents to these packages be lumped with Limbaugh, and provoked into sending moderate Republicans to the rhetorical equivalent of re-education camps, and the Democrats may have a slightly easier time getting these bills passed. I sincerely doubt any Democrat thinks that taking on Limbaugh in March of 2009 is a good way to get re-elected in November of 2010.

William said...

1) The American Communist Party was a group of visionary idealists who fought for social justice. 2) The American Communist Party was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Soviet Union that was used to gather military intelligence for the Soviet Union......Joseph McCarthy believed that # 2 was the correct answer. McCarthy has passed into the history books as a drunken buffoon who unfairly persecuted innocent people. Don't underestimate the ability of the left to define their opponent by his worst characteristics and themselves by their best qualities....Rush is an overweight pill popper and a savvy political commenter. My guess is that he will be known to history for his weight problems and not for his talent.

Jana said...

Dang it, everyone got to call DSK out already.

"I'm under 40, and I've listened to Limbaugh. I am conservative who voted the 1994 Republican Revolution into office."

::giggle::

former law student said...

But if they were to overcome that barrier and actually listen — as I did — they might get hooked in — as I did.

I have tried and tried to listen to Rush Limbaugh -- five minutes is as long as I can take it. I don't see how any non-Dittoheads can get any enjoyment from his show. And the callers: there's no entertainment value for me in ignorant people spouting off.

The only right-wing talkshow host I can stand is Bill O'Reilly.

Shanna said...

He said that he had a high opinion of Michael Steel until he criticized Rush Limbaugh in a speech.

She said.."Who is Rush Limbaugh?".


DBQ, the people who make those phone calls live in the basement of the RNC. They are really not different from telemarketers. There are not RNC staff meetings where they talk about the future of the movement. And iirc, the telemarketing staff might not even have been invited to the regular staff meetings.

I mean, I feel you on not giving over money until they can figure some stuff out, but the poor little 22 year old working in the basement does not deserve your scorn.

As for the whole Rush nonsense, Steele made a mistake, because lots of people enjoy Rush and listen to him, but Rush is not the head of the party. He is not the future of the party. What the republicans need are some young, principled conservatives to be the face of the party. Jindal and Palin are ok options, but they have been viciously attacked already. I feel like we need one more up and comer and then a good strategy.

k*thy said...

Henry, agreed. Also, the strategy here is to split the Republican Party, raising Limbaugh (because of low polling numbers) and trashing Steele. It makes it all sound like the GOP opposition to the president's policies are coming directly from Limbaugh, not a plus for Republicans. The fact that that other Republicans are playing along, is helping the WH cause.

Joe said...

I'm a conservative and I can't listen to Limbaugh. His ad hominim attacks aside, he just gets really tedious. It takes him ten minutes to say what could be said in one. No surprise since he's trying to fill three hours a day (it's the same reason most columnists of all strips become blow hards--you get paid by the word.)

Can't watch O'Reilly either. He's just a blithering idiot. Gave up on George Will years ago when I realized he was a fair weather conservative--when the choice came to stand for principle or retain his Washington friends and connections he chose the latter.

madawaskan said...

Only 11% of Americans under 40 like Rush Limbaugh.

that is statistically, significantly-off the charts.

I've known for a long time that the internet demographically is completely skewed...but this illustrates it all the more.

There was a politician who was overwhelmingly popular on the Conservative internet sites and barely out polled the write-ins during the actual election.

madawaskan said...

btw-

The guy getting skewered as a moby he stated that he use to listen to Limbaugh.

That kind of negates the evidence you have against him.

See here is what he said-

I'm under 40, and I've listened to Limbaugh. I am conservative who voted the 1994 Republican Revolution into office.

You can take that to mean past tense.

Palladian said...

"Can't watch O'Reilly either."

O'Reilly is a conservative? Who knew? Limbaugh is a lot funnier and smarter than O'Reilly.

Palladian said...

"I'm under 40, and I've listened to Limbaugh. I am conservative who voted the 1994 Republican Revolution into office.

You can take that to mean past tense."

Yes, David Brock used to call himself a conservative. So did Ariana Huffington. So did Andrew Sullivan. Stupid, unprincipled people can call themselves whatever they want. That doesn't make it so.

former law student said...

Limbaugh is a lot funnier and smarter than O'Reilly.

I'm going to start thinking of Palladian as Palladittohead.

Rich B said...

I just heard on ABC news that Our President is going to crack down on wasteful spending - spending that we don't need. He really has a sly sense of humor.

Palladian said...

"I'm going to start thinking of Palladian as Palladittohead."

Nah. I've never listened to his show, just clips and things here and there. I didn't say he was among the smartest or funniest of commentators. Just that he is smarter and funnier than O'Reilly. Which isn't really saying that much, now that I think about it.

Invisible Man said...

You're not another Alpha style ass-talker, are you?

Your petty little insults don't really work on me. And regardless the only ass I've stalked is your mother's, and afterwards I made her buy me a nice steak dinner. Hiyooo!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I mean, I feel you on not giving over money until they can figure some stuff out, but the poor little 22 year old working in the basement does not deserve your scorn.

I agree. It is mean to be harsh to telemarketers. They are just trying to make a living. I usually try to politely disengage from them.

BUT......if you are going to try to sell something, whether it be stocks, soap or the Republican Party...you'd better know what the heck you are selling and know what you are talking about.

Rush is not the head of the party. He is not the future of the party. What the republicans need are some young, principled conservatives to be the face of the party.

You are right. It is comical that the Democrats and the liberals who post here want to make out like Limbaugh is somehow our "leader".

Michael said...

Thomas said..."I find this strategy remarkable. I mean, Obama is the most powerful and popular man in the history of the world, and all he can think to do is pick a fight with a fat old radio talk show host?"

When did he do that?

And when was the last time you heard Obama mention Rush Limbaugh?

madawaskan said...

The past tense is that he use to listen to Rush Limbaugh he is not saying that he use to be a Conservative.

btw -the Republican brand should not be about being a Church.

In a pluralistic society you have to govern, it is about the art of compromise and I think Limbaugh espouses the inverse of that.

Republicans have to win votes and win elections.

Rush Limbaugh doesn't have to do that-he can dictate mandates.

David Brooks has admitted he made a mistake by voting for Obama or has started to travel down that path., plus sorry but I get off on the bravery of that.

I think he should be welcomed back not ex-communicated or shunned.

Michael said...

John - "The same people who spent the last 8 years cheering everytime a soldier got blown up in Iraq..."

Can you proved any proof of this statement?

AJ Lynch said...

Obama & Company attacking Rush, Cramer, The CNBC guy, when he has been in office less than 60 days?!

That would be like Lebron James taking the bait from Mark Cuban (who owns the Dallas Mavericks) in a pre-game warmup and getting himself thrown out of a big playoff game.

It is just plain stupid.

madawaskan said...

Obviously Republicans if they ever want to win the Executive again are going to have to do a lot of that-

welcoming ex-Obama supporters.

madawaskan said...

Gawd Mark Cuban is irritating-

I'm off!

Michael said...

madawaskan - "David Brooks has admitted he made a mistake by voting for Obama..."

No he didn't. In fact he never even says he voted for him. He published an Op-Ed titled:

"A Moderate Manifesto" that basically says that the Republicans have to provide a viable alternative to the liberal agenda of the Obama administration...which makes perfect sense, but in no way infers he voted for the man or wished he hadn't.

Here's the close to his piece:

"Moderates are going to have to try to tamp down the polarizing warfare that is sure to flow from Obama’s ├╝ber-partisan budget. They will have to face fiscal realities honestly and not base revenue projections on rosy scenarios of a shallow recession and robust growth next year.

They will have to take the economic crisis seriously and not use it as a cue to focus on every other problem under the sun. They’re going to have to offer an agenda that inspires confidence by its steadiness rather than shaking confidence with its hyperactivity.

If they can do that, maybe they can lure this White House back to its best self — and someday offer respite from the endless war of the extremes."

rhhardin said...

Limbaugh and Carville are friends actually, via Mary Matalin. Carville was at Rush's wedding.

Synova said...

Also, isn't it a problem for the Republicant Party to be led by an individual of such low "character," as described by Joan Walsh:
A thrice-divorced, drug-abusing, Parkinson's-mocking, cigar-sucking egomaniac, a poster boy for meanness, overindulgence and excess?


Rush isn't the head of the Republican Party any more than Rush is God, or God thinks He's Rush Limbaugh. It's a joke and people like Alpha Lib seem to not catch on to that. Rush clearly got a huge hoot out of his "first national address" and clearly not because of the sober import of it.

No one *cares* what the new puritans get their panties in a twist over and it amazes me when I'm supposed to *care* that Rush Limbaugh has had three wives. I don't *care* that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian... the new puritans thought I ought to be really upset by that. I don't care that Palin's daughter's baby's daddy's mother got arrested for drugs.

But it does seem to say something about those who demand I *care* about those things. It's unseemly and rather mean spirited to prefer to attack people for their humanity rather than engage on issues.

The Democrats want Rush to keep talking?

I think that the Democrats should keep up these moral witch-hunts, outings, and personal attacks.

fred said...

Does this mean that former president Bush is not the head of the party? how come?

Michael said...

AJ Lynch said..."Obama & Company attacking Rush, Cramer, The CNBC guy, when he has been in office less than 60 days?!"

I listened to Gibbs' press conference yesterday and he never attacked anybody, much less Cramer. And I've never heard anybody "attack" Rush Limbaugh. Obama said people should ignore him, Rham Emauel says Rush is the leader of the Republican Party.

Where do you see an "attack?"

Republican said...

Carville and Emmanuel are only two participants in the daily calls (and strategy).

What's Stephanopoulos's involvement?

What's he doing to help things along?

rhhardin said...

In the near future the market for US debt is going to dry up and then we will have to pay a bigger return on government bonds, leading to much bigger deficits in the long run.

Bingo!!


That's not from bailing out the financial system (which can be unwound when the financial system recovers) but from mission creep to stimulating the economy.

The bailout of the financial system is with virtual dollars that can be extinguished easily.

Buying real goods and services, on the other hand, cannot be undone.

Synova said...

O'Reilly is a conservative? Who knew? Limbaugh is a lot funnier and smarter than O'Reilly.

I don't care for O'Reilly. I find him hard to watch because I generally disagree with anything that comes out of his mouth. Plus, he's rude.

I don't listen to Rush because I find him too annoying and not funny. I like him in *transcript* though. And he's usually right.

His "first national address" the other night was very good.

Shanna said...

But you keep talking about Obama using his bully pulpit. He's mentioned Limbaugh once. Maybe that was one too many times

Yes, for the POTUS, once is too many times. And the context was telling people not to listen to him, which is not what the President should be talking about. And you’re forgetting, Obama hasn’t mentioned Rush once in 8 years. He’s mentioned him once in like 5 weeks. WTF? Really. Not only that, but his top guys are talking about him and strategizing about him. I’m not a crazy conspiracy theorist by any means, but I find that a little creepy.

Also, did Obama not mention Rush during the campaign? I may not be remembering correctly, but I could have sworn he did. Which makes it more than once (but don’t quote me b/c I‘m not sure).

For the record, I find O'Reilly, Rush, etc.. pretty obnoxious. I do occasionally listen to Rush when I'm out getting lunch, just to see what he's talking about but his analysis is generally not all that interesting. But I think people who flip out about "dittoheads" and Rush's arrogance just sound like they're too dumb to get the joke. I mean, it's not all that funny of a joke, but still.

And just to reiterate for AL, Rush is not the leader of the party.

Shanna said...

As for the under 40 crowd, my brother is fond of Glenn Beck (I'm under 40 too, but I don't have time to listen to talk radio usually. Plus, I can't listen to people talk on the radio for longer than 30 minutes. It's irritating).

Peter V. Bella said...

Limbaugh and Carville are friends actually, via Mary Matalin. Carville was at Rush's wedding.

Actually most of these people are friends or know each other and treat each other well on a personal level. They are in business and are in business to make money. It is called Capitalism.

Carville makes his fortune on behalf of the libs and Rush makes his on bealf of cons. It is all about the money.

Revenant said...

I'm not sure why people like Carville and Rove have a reputation as being brilliant political strategists. Both men got their candidates elected, yes, but both men saw their parties lose control of Congress. In both cases, their party was worse off when their candidate left the Presidency than it had been before.

I don't see how making Rush the face of the Republican Party is going to amount to much. I'd be one of the 89% of under-40s who don't approve of him, but I don't dislike him enough to vote against the people he supports. I don't know anybody who does.

Synova said...

And just to reiterate for AL, Rush is not the leader of the party.

I'm tempted to make some joke about how Rush transcends such limited concepts of "party" but I'm pretty sure that the humorless sorts won't get it.

Dudley Do-right said...

All the good conservatives here can hold their nose, call Rush a buffoon, a sideshow or whatever, and declare him NOT their leader all they want. But there are some things that doesn't change:

1)Rush is the only person of import on the right that can take a licking and keep on ticking.

2)Rush is the only one on the right who can and will dish it out and always give better than he got.

3)Rush is one of the few on the right who can consistently articulate conservative principles and who will stand behind them.

4)Rush is one of the few on the right that has a strong and loyal grass-roots following together with national visibility.

So deny him all you want. Keep looking for that magic conservative that will impress the liberals and hush those media mouths. Let the left set the rules for the game. You know how that works.

Meanwhile the conservative train idles in the station waiting to leave. Opportunities are lost because the Right, on principle, refuses to take a principled stand behind an imperfect leader.

Rush's show leaves alot to be desired. It takes Rush 3 hours to say what Paul Harvey could've said in 10 minutes...with a commercial break. That said, there are few that can match his ability to articulate the issues.
Dud

Host with the Most said...

Is it just me, or is Michael actually making his points today without personal insults?

Thank you Michael. Welcome aboard from one who almost always disagrees with you, but appreciates you taking the time to be thoughtful and add to the discussion.

AJ Lynch said...

Host:

I agree.

Alan said...

"3)Rush is one of the few on the right who can consistently articulate conservative principles and who will stand behind them."

His reciting conservative principles doesn't seem to impress Daniel Larison at The American Conservative:

"Conservatives seem to have spent the last year rapidly regressing from cheering on lame politicians who could at least intelligently recite their platitudes (Romney) to worshipping pseudo-populists who could not even do that (Palin) to elevating random guys who didn’t like taxes (the Plumber) to rallying around a radio host who makes Romney’s own brand of Reagan nostalgia and three-legs-of-the-stoolism seem deep and meaningful by comparison. Of course, there isn’t that much substantively different between Romney’s opportunistic recitations and Limbaugh’s boilerplate, but at least with Romney you knew that he was capable of saying something else and would have said it if he had thought it was to his advantage. The boilerplate is not only all Limbaugh knows how to say, but if you pressed him to elaborate on any of it he would just repeat himself."

Heh.

Synova said...

So deny him all you want. Keep looking for that magic conservative that will impress the liberals and hush those media mouths. Let the left set the rules for the game. You know how that works.

I don't deny Rush. He is what he is. I just think it's ridiculous to set him forward as the party leader. That's not his role and never has been.

As for the rest, I just left a comment on my group blog, asecondhandconjecture.com, yesterday about how Republicans are acting like abused lovers as they scramble for approval and refuse to understand that they aren't responsible for the abusiveness directed toward them. It's not possible to find the perfect candidate that won't be vilified because it's not possible to behave in such a way that an abuser won't find fault.

Rush doesn't fall for that, and I'm glad. And that might make him, in some respects, *a* leader. But that doesn't make the claim that he's *the* leader any less absurd.

Bob From Ohio said...

"I think you're missing the fact that this also makes short-term sense if the short-term goal is to get big budget packages passed."

Ok, I'll buy that as a goal.

But what GOPer is actually going to vote or not vote on spending based on being tied to Limbaugh?

After 2006 and 2008, if you are still in the House, you are from a safe district. Only a handful of GOP senators at most are in play.

Is Arlen Specter afraid of being tied to Limbaugh? Or Snowe? Or the other Maine Twin?

Guys like Voinovich and Bond are not running agian.

Its got to be mainly 2010/2012 groundwork.

Shanna said...

Rush doesn't fall for that, and I'm glad. And that might make him, in some respects, *a* leader. But that doesn't make the claim that he's *the* leader any less absurd.

Yes, well put.

The thing is, Rush is out for himself. He is a capitalist. When people like Obama mention him in public, it's like handing him buckets of money. He has the luxury of blathering on about whatever in whatever style he wants, because he doesn't have any real responsibility. He's not trying to get elected. And that's fine, for him, but it's ridiculous to say he is THE leader of the party. He's not. Maybe we're leaderless right now. I'll happy when we have somebody with some sense step in and fill that void.

AlphaLiberal said...

First, the "symbiosis" doesn't exist. Each party can live without the other. Though Rush needs the fight fare more.

Second, someone tell David Frum to please shut his yap! (hat tip, TPM)

Here's the duel that Obama and Limbaugh are jointly arranging:

On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of "responsibility," and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.

And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as "losers." With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence - exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we're cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush's every rancorous word - we'll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.

Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined.

AlphaLiberal said...

...they aren't responsible for the abusiveness directed toward them.

Oh my God. This is one of my talking points! They don't take responsibility for ANYTHING.

Their record is erased from their supporters' (and much of the media's) minds every morning and replaced with the day's new realities.

"Gee, who ran the country into the ditch? What a mystery!"

Synova said...

The thing is, Rush is out for himself. He is a capitalist.

And some people think that's an insult.

And then there is the rest of us.

Joe said...

Rush has called Obama's bluff: debate me.

In his challenge, he hits the nail on the head:

My point here is that these are really odious, empty, nasty people who are feasting on their own arrogance. They are power hungry. But, you know what? They’ve never had a serious debate over ideas. Their goal is to destroy opponents, which is what they’re trying to do now. They don’t want to engage opponents. Their idea of victory is the destruction of the opponent. They’re not for a level playing field. They want to clear the playing field so that their ideas do not have to undergo any scrutiny....

But I have an idea. If these guys are so impressed with themselves, and if they are so sure of their correctness, why doesn’t President Obama come on my show? We will do a one-on-one debate of ideas and policies.


* * *

This president invokes the language of "responsibility,"

Bullshit. I've never once heard Obama invoke such language. His language is one of pessimism and victimhood--of blaming everyone but those who gambled and lost. We have mechanisms in the country such as foreclosure and bankruptcy which allow people and companies to have some of their responsibilities forgiven, but Obama is resisting even that, favoring instead handouts.

Synova said...

Sure, AL. I knew you didn't go anywhere.

It's probably not worth my time to put my comments about abuse in context for you since you aren't interested in context. Also, I don't particularly care.

AlphaLiberal said...

And some people think that's an insult.

Perhaps. I don't know any.

Most people I know think it's an outrage for a professional clown to turn our political debate into a circus.

Rush Limbaugh profits mightily by poisoning our public discourse. He's the type who gives capitalists a bad name.

But, this is great. He's deeply unpopular outside the Republicant base. So you keep marching behind his banner, keep demanding your leaders grovel before Lush.

Go nuts.

AlphaLiberal said...

Synova, given the abuse dished up by so many Republicants, your comment is little more than whining.

You can dish it out but you can't take it.

Synova said...

Alpha, my comment was a criticism of *conservatives*.

And thank you for pointing out that no one thinks that being a capitalist is bad... just the wrong sorts of capitalists who make their money providing the wrong sort of product that the wrong sort of people voluntarily pay for.

AlphaLiberal said...

Synova, on a closer and slower reread I take your point and stand corrected. My bad.

Host with the Most said...

Invisible (Black) Man said:

Your petty little insults don't really work on me. And regardless the only ass I've stalked is your mother's, and afterwards I made her buy me a nice steak dinner. Hiyooo!

LOL! Touche!

Host with the Most said...

But, this is great. He's deeply unpopular outside the Republicant base. So you keep marching behind his banner, keep demanding your leaders grovel before Lush.

Go nuts.


Thanks, AL

It's touching how much you care about us conservatives who disagree with you.

Thanks for caring.

Shanna said...

The thing is, Rush is out for himself. He is a capitalist.

And some people think that's an insult.


To be clear, I'm not one who thinks it's an insult. It just is. That's why it's ridiculous to try to make Rush out to be the leader of the party. He's not a politician, he's a salesman!

Just Lurking said...

If Obama and his little wanna-be Machiavellians don't actually improve this economy, Obama will be a one-termer; even if it is proven that Rush actually is Satan, and he runs as the Republican presidential candidate in 2012.

Shanna said...

Or rather I didn't mean it as an insult. Nothing wrong with being successful, imo.

And yet, we see massive demonization of those who have been successful and elevation of those who can't manage to handle their own lives. Oh, poor baby, you can't pay your mortgage because it's 10 times your salary. Here let me fix it for you.

PatCA said...

Yes, I heard Rush challenged Obama to a debate today.

I'd say the WH ought to step up or apologize.

Host with the Most said...

This conservative could care less about the fracas that the White House has created about the "leader of the Republican Party". The breathless defenses of Rush are simply playing into the hands of the highly entertained Democrats.

Time will tell soon enough who is right. Of course, the New York Times and it's employess like Rahm et al in the White House will still spin it when the American people begin waking up - I give it 20 more months (Bookmark this Michael and AL).

When Roosevelt instituted his first 100 days reforms in 1933 the Stock Markets responded positively.

If you're a conservative - don't worry. The markets are voting their confidence in Obama everyday. And they are not - despite today's small uptick - showing they don't believe there is a solution behind all the words of Obama and his economic team.

Obama is going to fail in restoring the economy, partly because the President has limited control over the actual economy.
A President can mke things much worse however, and Obama's attempt to use this opportunity to reward liberal programs is sure to prevent a full return to even the Clinton robust years of 96 - 98.
Hopefully this President is smart enough to adjust his wrong-headed plans as the market continues to stay down.

The proof will be evident in your daily paper, weekdays, for the next 20 months.

Obama supporters shouldn't worry.

But judging by the attacks on anyone who doesn't Obama worship alongside them, they are very very worried indeed.

madawaskan said...

I think Rush should just shut his fat-ass mouth and let the President do his job.

Host with the Most said...

Obama speak:

"We won"

is ebonics for

"So Fuck You!"

madawaskan said...

Joe's full of shit.

madawaskan said...

Host is an asshole.

Host with the Most said...

Stock Market in 1933, in the midst of the worst depression in American history: Up at the New President Roosevelt's programs.

Stock Market in 2009, in what could become the third or fourth worse economic crisis in Amrican history:
Down everyday.

Guess the Rossevelt Obama comparisons aren't kicking in yet . . .

Host with the Most said...

madawaskan said...

Host is an asshole.

Sometimes I agree with you.

madawaskan said...

Host - "Guess the Rossevelt Obama comparisons aren't kicking in yet . . ."

Obama = 40 days

FDR = 12 years

He's got time.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

FDR = 12 years

He's got time


Um.. Yep...there's hope for you. Hope our depression doesn't last as long as FDR's depression. Without the "help" provided by FDR the Great Depression wouldn't have been quite so great.

Let's hope that Obama doesn't get the chance to be so helpful this time.

read em and weep

former law student said...

My point here is that these are really odious, empty, nasty people who are feasting on their own arrogance. They are power hungry. But, you know what? They’ve never had a serious debate over ideas. Their goal is to destroy opponents, which is what they’re trying to do now. They don’t want to engage opponents. Their idea of victory is the destruction of the opponent. They’re not for a level playing field. They want to clear the playing field so that their ideas do not have to undergo any scrutiny....

Wow, projection.

former law student said...

Without the "help" provided by FDR the Great Depression wouldn't have been quite so great.

as a result, the Depression lasted half a decade longer than it had to, from 1929 to 1940 rather than, say, 1929 to 1936.

I was curious about these unsupported assertions, so I looked into the Great Depression in the industrialized country most similar to the US, Canada.

The Canadian government was not allowed to take any Keynesian stimulus projects, yet the Great Depression lasted just as long as in the US. Just as in America, the absorption of the unemployed into the military, plus the boom in supplying defense goods, created prosperity.

So, odds are that FDR's actions did not prolong the Depression, even if they weren't terribly helpful. But the massive government spending, combined with full employment, caused by entering the war did end the Depression in each country.

AlphaLiberal said...

Give up the historical revisionism already! FDR slashed unemployment which only went up after he caved to austerity hawks.

Michael said...

Dust Bunny - Yeah, that FDR was a real asshole.

Duh.

Joe said...

I think "slash" means something different than you think it means. Here are the unemployment figures; where does "slash" fit?

1930 8.9
1931 15.9
1932 23.6
1933 24.9
1934 21.7
1935 20.1
1936 17.0
1937 14.3
1938 19.0
1939 17.2
1940 14.6
1941 9.9

Revenant said...

His reciting conservative principles doesn't seem to impress Daniel Larison at The American Conservative:

Not impressing the folks at Pat Buchanan's magazine should count as a badge of honor. :)

Revenant said...

The thing is, Rush is out for himself. He is a capitalist.

The term "capitalist" refers to people who support private property and free markets.

The term for a person who is out for himself is "self-centered", not "capitalist". You can be out for yourself and simultaneously be an enthusiastic Marxist.

William said...

FLS: The Communists in this country used to claim that they joined the Party because in Russia there was no unemployment. It is useful to know that there were a certain number of idealists in this country who believed that a totalitarian dictatorship was a good way to lessen unemployment.....Unemployment did not end because of government spending. Unemployment ended because the government rounded up all the young men, put them in uniform, and sent them overseas.... I have heard several influential economists with Obama's ear assert that the answer to the current crisis is to spend as much on it as we did on WWII. That is the lesson they learned from the Great Depression....My lesson is that there were any number of crackpot schemes for ending the Great Depression, and the ones that looked the most effective, i.e. Nazi Germany and the USSR, were, in fact, the most pernicious.

Michael said...

Joe - FDR was President between 33-45.

As to your "slash" comment...

1933 24.9 Start HERE
1934 21.7
1935 20.1
1936 17.0 Slashed it by 31%
1937 14.3
1938 19.0
1939 17.2
1940 14.6
1941 9.9 Slashed another 60%

Joe said...

Michael, you are very, very bad at math.

Second, by 1941 the depression was essentially over. That doesn't change the fact that FDR extended a 2-3 year depression by another 7 years.

I included the 1930 figures to show what was happening already so that there was context. Also to reinforce that FDR really did extent the depression and did not slash anything. (Again, you need to take some remedial math.)

You are also ignoring the context of my reply; that FDR was a fantastic president who slashed unemployment before he embraced nasty economic theory. The numbers belie the lame attempts to justify FDRs shitty presidency.

Joe said...

A bigger point: a massive financial speculative proceeded the great depression, though it was ultimately caused the by the response of Congress, at the urging of Hoover--namely protectionism and economic policies frighteningly akin to today. FDR took over and made it worse, using many of the same things Obama is now advocating. Unfortunately, the Japanese did many of the same things. This isn't change, it's a broken record.

garage mahal said...

Shorter Wingnut Revisionist History in 30 seconds:

FDR caused the Great Depression. Did okay with the war I guess. Skip ahead to Truman. He sucked. Smart enough to drop 2 huge bombs though. Not the worst ever. Eisenhower so-so. Kind of a RINO. JFK okay Democrat he cut taxes! LBJ a Democrat spent way too much money. Poverty. LOL. Nixon, well not a true conservative anyway. Jimmy Carter. A Democrat. Worst EVER! Now we get to Reagan. Best Ever! Saved the world from Communists with his bare hands. Clinton. Got a blow job. Would be worst ever if not for Carter. Peace and prosperity was from the genius of Newt Gingrich. Bush. Saved the world from Saddam Hussein before he could build the bomb. He had the bomb, he just hid it. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are responsible for the economic mess we're in. Obama. Epic failure before even taking office. Probably will eclipse Carter for worst ever. Actually he already is the worst.

Host with the Most said...

garage, you're closer to the truth than you will ever know.

Host with the Most said...

I have taken a total of 8 graduate and post-graduate level economics courses at 4 different universities over the last 22 years.

5 were taught by political liberals, 3 by conservatives, and 1 by someone somewhat in the middle. The conservatives, one of the liberals and the middle-of-the-roader all agreed on basic figures and facts - they differed only on cause and effects.

The other four liberals couldn't ever seem to get their facts straight. They always skewed the "real important" facts their way. They could always explain everything according to their politics, which was amazing, because none of the liberals would have agreed on the same "real important facts".

Liberal economists and historians - as we just saw with Michael's lame attempt to rewrite Joe's actual true facts of history to skew the "results" Michael already wanted - will always skew the truth. It's in their very nature.

Paul Erlich and the Population Bomb is just one of my favorite liberal lying professors with egg on his face.

Why don't people like him give pause to all liberals about just accepting whatever any liberal "authority" says?


Looks like I'm going to have to start training everyone on the dangers of political liberals. I can't defend the poor job conservatives did, especially when they had the full Congress and the Presidency. They blew it, big time.

But the conservatives being wrong to act correctly does not validate liberal idiocy or turn it into truth.

Beth said...

But, you know what? They’ve never had a serious debate over ideas.

That's what the losing side says after an election.

Pogo said...

"That's what the losing side says after an election."

So might makes right after all, don't it, Beth?

Frodo Potter said...

I agree with Henry and Madison Man. I voted for Obama, wish him well, and think he is normally very shrewd, but I reckon he may have badly miscalculated in attacking Limbaugh. As others have pointed out, Limbaugh is very good when he is able to point out the weaknesses in Democratic arguments. He is rather weak when he has to formulate or defend Republican policy.

He may be at his best when he is able to lampoon Democrats and make them look ridiculous. His referring to John Edwards as “The Breck Girl” was a brutal lampoon and may have helped destroy Edwards among working class voters. No matter whether this helps Republicans or not, it is made to order for Limbaugh. I am sure that, even as I write this, he is readying his sarcasm for the upcoming weeks; I am also sure that his ratings will show a sharp spike.

MadisonMan said...

I have taken a total of 8 graduate and post-graduate level economics courses at 4 different universities over the last 22 years.

So what you're saying is that you like to waste time. :)

Peter V. Bella said...

Shorter Wingnut Revisionist History in 30 seconds:

Even shorther moonbat history:
FDR established concentration camps for Japanese, German, and Italian AMERICANS.

Truman ordered the FBI to illegally wiretap organizations of the far right and far left.

JFK shredded the first amendment and allowed his brother RFK to illegally wire tap and illegally spy on people.

LBJ continued this pogrom on the Constitution.

Jimmy Carter eviscerated the military and the intelligence entities doing great harm and setting the stage for 911.

Bill Clinton was to busy getting head in the oval office and being an Arabist, like his wife, the supporter of the PLO, ignored all the signs and intelligence that we would be attacked. He also proposed and got legislation passed allowing toxic loans and threatened banks that did not provide them.

Look where we are today.

The Democrats shredded the constitution, caused 9/11 and the hatred of America, and destroyed the greatest economy in history.

Now we have Pelosi's puppet wanting to shred the imperfect constitution and further wreck the economy. The only poll that matters is in. The stock market keeps dropping every time the ONE opens his mouth.

All because it was so important to have a Black president and make history; no matter how inexperienced and juvenile he was.

Beth said...

So might makes right after all, don't it, Beth?

What are you talking about, Pogo? All I said is that it's always the losing side calling for debate AFTER the election. As if the election isn't part of the debate. Your response is nonsensical; there's nothing about "might" - it's about winning the debate.

Seven Machos said...

It really seems to me to be a tremendous mistake for Obama to go after Limbaugh.

There's an article out there, from some decent source, Politico perhaps, that suggests that the thinking behind all this is that young people view Limbaugh negatively. Thus, attacking Limbaugh helps with a core group of Obama supporters.

I think this strategy is poor, on a number of levels. I wonder what the percentage of young people that voted was in 2008, given that McCain wasn't horrifically trounced percentage-wise.

Regardless, I also wonder whether these young people will sustain their optimism as the economy continues to tank. Young people have fewer skills and less capital. They are most likely to be hurt in an economic downturn.

Still further, middle-aged people and old people -- who do and will vote -- are seeing their wealth disappear. They are not going to be happy as the recession deepens.

Ultimately, Obama is all about symbols -- the symbol of electing a black president (truly a great and important symbol), the symbols of optimism and hope and change. As the intractable economic facts, and the facts of foreign policy and domestic politics accumulate, these symbols are likely to lose their luster.

If I could go short on Obama today, I certainly would.

Michael said...

Peter V. Bella - Isn't it just a tad too late to be bad mouthing FDR?

Skip those history classes?

Never read a fucking book?

DUH.

Michael said...

Since we all know that 90% of the people here make less than $250,000...this might be interesting:

Over the last three decades, a period that spans Republican and Democratic administrations alike, average family income has scarcely budged an inch, while the wealthy have grown measurably wealthier.

In 1979, the top 1% of U.S. households earned 8 times as much as the middle 20% and 23 times as much as the bottom fifth;

By 2005, the Congressional Budget Office found, the upper crust touched 21 times as much as the middle class

And 70 times as much as the bottom.

Adjusting for inflation, the average American worker made 16% less in 2004 than in the 1970s, according to economist Benjamin M. Friedman.

*That's right: Right now the AVERAGE AMERICAN makes 16% LESS than they did in the 70's...isn't that great??

Will the Obama budget redress this imbalance? Let's take a measured look at what he proposes.

The budget plan would restore the top income tax brackets to their levels before the 2001 Bush tax cuts, with the topmost rate rising to 39.6% from 35% now, hardly an excessive increase. The higher taxes kick in at $250,000 for a married couple and $200,000 for individuals.

Beth said...

that suggests that the thinking behind all this is that young people view Limbaugh negatively.

I wonder what percentage of young people of or right at voting age even pay attention to Limbaugh, positively or negatively. DBQ's anecdote about the young GOP phonebanker rang true for me; I don't hear anything from the college freshmen and sophomores I teach one way or the other. I think they're immersed in other media.

Michael said...

The only people who view Rush in a positive light are his dittohead followers and any Republican politician who thinks he might help out.

And why would anyone want to be referred to as a fucking dittohead...unless they have a screw loose?

Seven Machos said...

This is the real Seven Machos, Althouse. I didn't make up the fake Michael. I feel like I contribute quality comments to this little part of the universe. Unlike this pest Michael. I think you should erase these fake comments. At the same time, I am genuinely flattered that someone would take the time to make up a fake me.

Interesting, Michael, that you should be here at the same time as the fake me.

Also, my household income is well in excess of $250,000 each year.

Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MC said...

What a bunch of pathetic PR wankers.

That makes the Dems look like a fucking marketing department rather than a serious political party. A serious political party would concern itself with maintaining its popularity by articulating good policy.

Is that too hard for the Dems? Because what we get instead is this is a cynical, frivilous, empty, and manipulative attempt to gain popularity by pitting themselves against Limbaugh. I guess this must be the best they have; what else are they going to talk about, their wasteful turkey of a stimulus bill?

Pathetic.

Peter V. Bella said...

Michael said...
Peter V. Bella - Isn't it just a tad too late to be bad mouthing FDR?

Skip those history classes?

Never read a fucking book?

DUH.



Ah, I guess you never pay afuckingttention; the One has been bringing up the greatness of FDR and his policies.

Have you ever read a history book? The Democrast during the last century have done more harm than good. Please, why are the Kennedys lauded for shredding the Constitution? Why is FDR lionized for the concentration camps? Oh, and of course we now lionizing Teddy boy before he croaks. How about this for history? Maybe you should look up Mary Jo Kopechne.

JD Rhoades said...

all they are doing is making it easier for him to pay his bills and give away super bowl tickets and auction off stupid Harry Reid memorabilia.

Obama doesn't care if Limbaugh succeeds. He does care if the Republican Party fails, because they've set themselves the goal of making HIM fail.

And if Obama can tie the GOP in the public's mind to a racist, self-aggrandizing drug addict who got caught coming back from a solo trip to the Dominican Republic with a suitcase fill of Viagra, then the public perception of the Republicans as the party of corruption, phoniness, hypocrisy and racism will be set in stone for years to come.*

Bless their little hearts, the GOP seems determined to help Obama do just that by bowing the knee every time Rush bellows.

Remember, Rush may have, on a good week, 25 million listeners--but 65 million voted for Obama. I know which side I'm betting on.

*Please, before you start the tiresome and utterly predictable sputtering about how "It's the DUMBocrats who are corrupt! It's the LIEberals who're racists!" etc. etc....keep in mind who decisively WON the last election and consider whether public perception--which is what we're talking about here--conforms to your deranged fantasies.