January 20, 2010

Rush Limbaugh celebrates.

The man is jubilant.
Folks, this is bigger than 1994. The level of outrage and disgust with the statism, the expansion of government, the accrual of wealth or debt that is being piled up, it's worse. The public outrage, the fright, the fear, the demand for something different is worse than 1994 when the Republicans took the House....

54 comments:

Fred4Pres said...

The Night Obama Care Died

From Rush with Love

edutcher said...

This is going to come off badly, but, if anything was for Mary Jo, it was Teddy's demise. According to The Blonde, it was a terrible way to go and, though I never wished it on him, I have to say that, if there is retribution in this life, Miss Kopechne got the full measure.

As for Judge Bork, this country lost a fine jurist to the bloviation of a corrupt demagogue and nothing can replace it.

Julius Ray Hoffman said...

You've gotta join up and pay to listen to the audio. Oh, they have video too. A variety of membership choices: one month, one year, etc...

Rush is sold just like Internet porn is.

David said...

Click Fred's link. Chip Ahoy on steroids (but without the minimalist subtlety.)

Nichevo said...

The Left doesn't understand yet. You should see these lunatics on Facebook. They just do not get it. Obama is a centrist who betrayed the Left. Coakley threw the election. This changes nothing. On and on and on.

Wait till they get to 49...then 40...then...?

pinkmonkeybird said...

God bless Rush. He is the only person who told it like it really was; "I hope Obama fails."
Rush wizened up a lot of people who could not deny that he was right all along.

Rush said something else that we should be mindful of; Obama could not handle even one week of the kind of treatment the media gave George W. Bush.

OldGrouchy Doug Wright said...

What do you call a politician who's formal coat doesn't have coattails? Obama!

What do you call a politician who's prestige has gone to bat three times and struck out each time? Obama!

What do you say to that politician in 2013? "Goodbye, former President Obama, enjoy your retirement!"

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

And nothing makes Republicrayons more jubilant than "outrage", "disgust", "fright" and "fear"!

Just curious... Does a splenectomy disqualify one for membership in the Republican party?

Pogo said...

No, but refractory stupidity is strongly discouraged.

For example, socialist precepts betray an unforgivably moronic hubris.

Gordon Freece said...

Jeez. It's nice, sure, but it's no 1994. It's fun to watch the Dems exceed even their own high standards in irrational hate and paranoid psychotic rage.

Still, it's no 1994. Rush is hyping it just a bit here.

And Brown hasn't got a prayer of reelection if he doesn't move very far left before 2012. I expect he will.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

"Stupidity"... "moronic"...

With this, I imagine Pogo opening the trenchcoat he's wearing and flashing his pulsating spleen at me through a vivisected torso.

It's kind of like a girl who can't stop her tear ducts from working overtime... A guy who can't stop his gallbladder from pumping out endless amounts of bile... Pogo, Limpblaugh... the Roman senate, they're all the same.

Revenant said...

I'm with Gordon. This isn't even remotely as big as 1994. It is a nice upset, and certainly (given the specific circumstances) a welcome one. But it doesn't compare to the enormous political realignment of 1994.

Methadras said...

Julius Ray Hoffman said...

Rush is sold just like Internet porn is.


I won't judge your particular peccadilloes. However, if you are paying for internet porn, then you are doing it wrong.

Methadras said...

Rush is excited to be sure, but this isn't 1994 at all. That was a different animal altogether. The revulsion at Clinton was, in my opinion even worse than Obama. Obama is an incompetent street hustler come incompetent effete politisnob who is a clueless dolt. Clinton was and I think still is a master politician. He was a piece of work that one and when 1994 occurred, it was a stab directly at his inner workings. The rest unraveled on its own. But Rush is wrong on this one.

Pogo said...

"I imagine ...flashing his pulsating spleen at me through a vivisected torso."

As Trooper would say: Ritmo, you're freaking me out, man.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Hopefully you understand I meant it figuratively, Pogo, and not literally. Venting spleen and spewing bile refers to someone who's metaphorically puking his guts out on you. Now, I know the right love the idea of gutsiness (as do I), but at some point, you'll want to keep some of those guts inside your body cavity, you know? Especially if you're only displaying negative emotions and nothing remotely honorable whatsoever.

Gutsiness removed from honor is a really disgusting thing, man. Find something honorable to attach your gutsiness to and maybe the story will be different. But there is nothing honorable about selling out one's country.

Pogo said...

"But there is nothing honorable about selling out one's country."

Agreed. It sounds like you might be on the verge of a conversion, Ritmo. So give up socialism and all its attendant anti-American ways.

You can become honorable.

former law student said...

The public outrage, the fright, the fear, the demand for something different

Fearmonger provokes fear; rubs hands in delight.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Give up the lie that Keynesian economics is socialism and then you might be both decent and mainstream enough for that conversation to go somewhere.

You keep failing to notice the difference between science and ideology. And you are making that mistake in the service of your own ideological blind spots.

G Joubert said...

I think Rush has a little anticipatory glee about how this trends and portends for next November, and that will be bigger than 1994.

bagoh20 said...

I, like Rush, do believe this is bigger than 1994. I think he is saying that this particular election is the start of something bigger in the coming 3 years. There was no movement like the tea parties with thousands of home grown protests across the country in 1994. The election results may not change 54 seats like in 94 (although it's possible), but I think the energy within the electorate for change is more substantial and will push the congress further off it's current course than 94 did.

That's my wingnut hilbilly dream anyway. Hee Haw!

Revenant said...

Fearmonger provokes fear; rubs hands in delight.

Yeah, I'm sure that's why all those folks in Massachusetts voted Republican: because Rush Limbaugh scared them. That's the only possible explanation, really.

Pogo said...

"Give up the lie that Keynesian economics is socialism "

OK.
Keynesian economics is stupid and wrong, except in very limited situations.

Wow, that is better!

Revenant said...

Give up the lie that Keynesian economics is socialism and then you might be both decent and mainstream enough for that conversation to go somewhere.

I'd settle for people giving up the lie that Keynesianism is economics.

bagoh20 said...

The desire for change in 2006 was more of an exhaustion with Republicans and a desire to give the other guys a shot. This current energy is more about policy and dissatisfaction rather than fatigue. I think that's much more powerful.

Pogo said...

Nuts.
Revenant always pwns the econ stuff.

Donna B. said...

I've considered myself a conservative for most of my adult life, yet I cannot stomach Rush Limbaugh.

If he speaks for the Republican party, then they deserve failure... as do the Democrats, if Olbermann speaks for them.

Revenant said...

In 2006 and 2008, many people thought "the Republicans suck. They are venal, corrupt, and entirely self-involved. How much worse could Democratic governance be?".

So now they know.

David said...

Rush.
Palin.
Newt.
George W. Bush.
Boogity-Boogity-Boogity!
It's fright night at Althouse Blog.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

So Republican mismanagement of government precede both the crash of 1929 and 2008, and their anti-Keynesian ideas are the more legitimate economic theories - according to Pogo and Revenant.

Ok.

Thanks for clarifying where you stand when it comes to shitting on the livelihoods of the American people.

I see now that all you want is their vote and that any honesty to them should only be employed as a means to that vote.

This is not honorable behavior. It is wholly indecent.

Power corrupts. And it's obviously all you care about. Such is the mindset of a truly warped and perverted soul.

OldGrouchy Doug Wright said...

Where's Jeremy tonight, or is there a reason he doesn't show up some nights? Regardless, we've got Ritmo so we've suffered enough!

Peter V. Bella said...

The people right now only care about one thing- themselves. They care about their money. Their health insurance. How much of their money they are going to have to pay Uncle Sam for the New Welfare- Health Insurance Reform- health care reform is a lie.

This is as it should be. Individual responsibility is a virtue. Government welfare or slavery is a human rights violation.

If you do not have health insurance too bad. You bought a computer, big screen TV, cars, hosues you could not afford and all manner of toys and you update your cell phone faster than the new ones come out. Whose fault is it you do not have insurance?

I would really like to see the real figures on how many people do not have insurance- not the government's lie of 10, 30, 40, million and growing.

No pity. The American people have finally realized they and they alone are responsible for themselves. Not the tyranny of the government.

Pogo said...

"So Republican mismanagement of government precede both the crash of 1929 and 2008"

You sure have amassed an amazing wheelbarrowful of bullshit in your life, Ritmo. I remember believing that too, ...in 7th grade.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

So Republican mismanagement of government precede both the crash of 1929 and 2008, and their anti-Keynesian ideas are the more legitimate economic theories - according to Pogo and Revenant.

Ok.

Thanks for clarifying where you stand when it comes to shitting on the livelihoods of the American people.

I see now that all you want is their vote and that any honesty to them should only be employed when and if it can be used as a means to that vote. But make no mistake - you believe honesty comes second to gaining that vote.

This is not honorable behavior. It is wholly indecent.

Power corrupts. And it's obviously all you care about. Such is the mindset of a truly warped and perverted soul.

Most people would not want to live with themselves while harboring such dishonesty. For those who would, we have descriptions: scoundrel, tyrant, kingmaker, Pogo, Rush.

They will lead democracy off the edge of a cliff and end up lynched in the lawless aftermath that succeeds it by the mob that resents them for it.

There will be no legal rights for the transparently venal to hide behind in that coming anarchy. Hope you're masochistic enough to enjoy the fate you seem interested in tempting.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

You sure have amassed an amazing wheelbarrowful of bullshit in your life, Ritmo. I remember believing that too, ...in 7th grade.

I suggest you go back to your 8th grade teachers or homeschoolers or whatever and demand a full refund for convincing you that Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush were Democrats.

So gullible, Pogo. So gullible.

You probably think Walt Kelly was a Republican, too.

Stephen Snell said...

Okay, if the GOP gets the blame for 1929, then the Dems get the blame for, say, 1933-1939.

If the GOP gets the blame for 2008 (ignoring Dem control of Congress starting in Jan. 07 and their complicity in the bubble), then the Dems get the blame for making things worse over the past year with their reckless, pointless spending-cum-hack giveaways.

What's your point? Given the choice between Washington fixing this with more Washington and the people fixing this with their own talent, I vote for the people (aka the holders of that seat in Mass.).

Jeremy has no honor, and I apologize for stating the obvious. But it smells better in here without him.

Titus said...

I want a nice pair of bouncing tits here.

People in this country are "average".

Neither Repub or Demo, just give us a nice pair of bouncing jugs and we will be happy.

Now bring them on.

Fred4Pres said...

This is better than 1994.

Because it is in ascendency.

Things went fine for a while after 1994, until sadly George Bush won. He did a lot of good, but he was not the best conservative choice. I voted for him twice, am sure he was the better choice than Gore or Kerry, but I have to say we could have and should have done better.

I do not agree with this total list--but he has a point.

I believe in conservative limited government, but the lesson is you better stay true to your own principals as a conservative if you want to stay in power.

Revenant said...

their anti-Keynesian ideas are the more legitimate economic theories - according to Pogo and Revenant

In 1980 -- the last pre-Obama year in which Keynesian economic policies were followed -- the Dow Jones peaked at 891.41. That's $2300 in 2008 dollars. Those twenty-eight terrible years of awful non-Keynesianism "caused" the stock market to "crash"... back to $7114.94.

Horrors!

Of course, I suppose one could say that non-Keynesian economics harmed the economy in some other way... except that those three decades of non-Keynesianism showed better growth and lower unemployment than the preceeding three decades of Keynesian economics.

Then Obama switched us back to Keynesianism. The economy's getting worse. Apparently he thinks he's smarter than Bill Clinton. He's not even smarter than Roger Clinton. :)

Revenant said...

I suggest you go back to your 8th grade teachers or homeschoolers or whatever and demand a full refund for convincing you that Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush were Democrats.

While the history lesson is underway, you might want to ask the teacher how Hoover can be "anti-Keynesian" when Keynes didn't publish his theory until three years after Hoover left office. :)

Also, are you sure you want to bring up Coolidge? The economy boomed under him. If Hoover is the equivalent of Bush, Coolidge is the equivalent of Clinton -- the economy boomed under him, then crashed under a successor who followed the same macroeconomic policies.

Shanna said...

In 2006 and 2008, many people thought "the Republicans suck. They are venal, corrupt, and entirely self-involved. How much worse could Democratic governance be?".

So now they know.


Yep. Time will tell if this is really bigger than 1994 (although, Republicans hadn't controlled both houses in a VERY long time before that happened, so it really was a bigger shift I think than would happen if they shifted back republican now. Of course, Clinton stayed in office, so if Obama were kicked out in addition to the Dem's being kicked out, that might be a bigger shift. Like I said, time will tell).

The only way I think this could really be bigger than 94, is if there were some sort of true anti-establishment, anti-party/third party takeover that punished the Dem's and the Rep's for the fecklessness and bad judgement.

Pogo said...

Criminey, Revenant, all you gots is facts where Ritmo is chock full o' faith in the inerrant State.

Pogo said...

Plus, Rev, many of the Federal programs in the Depression were started by Hoover and continued under FDR. He had been a businessman, but learned to love the way the State could Do Good under Big Projects.


Right and Left learn to love Leviathan in their own ways.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Ritmo might want to study Rev's style. Short, to the point and fact driven.

TosaGuy said...

Hoover was progressive in the respect of thinking that government could engineer a solution to the 1929 stock market crash. He signed tax hikes, doled out massive construction projects and signed a tariff that crippled the US export economy after other countries retaliated. He took what would have been a mild to moderate recession and turned it into the Great Depression through government meddling where it didn't belong.

rhhardin said...

Rush almost single-handedly killed Hillary care.

People discovered through him that other people actually felt the way they did and not the way media had things.

More or less the same thing is going on, except people already know they're not alone and that the media are the enemy.

Actually the media's audience is the enemy, and the media just run the business model that draws it.

Hoosier Daddy said...

It would also be a good lesson for people to understand that Republicans and Democrats in 1929 are not the same philisophically as their contemporaries.

Sofa King said...

Ritmo has points to make.

His failure is his over-the-top, totally unnecessary rudeness, which takes two fundamental, related forms:

1. A strong tendency to tell people what they are arguing, and even what they are thinking, even as he asks them for same. This betrays an ultimate unwillingness to actually engage in substantive argument.

2. An unwillingness to take other peoples' statments of their own opinions and beliefs at face value; an unwillingness to grant the sincerity of his opponents. He doesn't argue that they are mistaken, he argues - without evidence - that they are lying about their own motivations. "Never ascribe to evil what can be explained by stupidity" is not just a logical insight but a social one as well.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Ritmo has points to make.

His failure is his over-the-top, totally unnecessary rudeness, which takes two fundamental, related forms:

1. A strong tendency to tell people what they are arguing, and even what they are thinking, even as he asks them for same. This betrays an ultimate unwillingness to actually engage in substantive argument.

2. An unwillingness to take other peoples' statments of their own opinions and beliefs at face value; an unwillingness to grant the sincerity of his opponents. He doesn't argue that they are mistaken, he argues - without evidence - that they are lying about their own motivations. "Never ascribe to evil what can be explained by stupidity" is not just a logical insight but a social one as well.


The concerned tone of this aside, what it misses is the fact that it is posted on a comment thread devoted to the thoughts of one Rush Limbaugh - considered by a significant portion (if not a majority) of this country (and one would presume, other countries) to be one of the rudest, most bombastic, and, as if that weren't enough, "offensive" commentators on American society and politics over the last 20 years. If my interlocutors are such strong admirers of him and so willing to post and respond to his comments as if they are the next installment of Absolute Truth, I hardly see how they can chide me for being tone-deaf and unwilling to mitigate the wrongness of their comments by constantly acknowledging a presumption of their own sincerity.

Of course, hypocrisy could be a result of stupidity - even though the former has social and moral consequences that the latter lacks.

So, thanks for the insight. But I must unfortunately make my slight objection known, once again.

Ritmo might want to study Rev's style. Short, to the point and fact driven.

As much as people are taught to value being concise, I note that the brevity of Revenant's comments make them so selective with the truth as to invalidate themselves. Context is everything, and the context he misses includes the obvious truism that one doesn't have to be aware of something in order to be opposed to it. So sorry to have to point this out to him; I realize that he'd like to comment like a bandit on the run from a bank heist, and, having completed his deed, quickly escape into his getaway car. But that just wouldn't be right.

You see, the prevailing wisdom before Galileo was that the sun revolved around the earth. They were, therefore, anti-heliocentrists, even before heliocentrism became an astronomical theory through which the predominant ideology could be attacked and challenged.

So Revenant's reminder of the timeline of Keynes' contribution to economic thought is irrelevant to the obvious truth that the Republicans were as ill-disposed to his theories then as they are now.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

(2nd part of comment)

Having said all that, I'm not sure it's worth addressing his reminder of the "roaring twenties". Yes, I'm aware of the fact that the economy "boomed" at the time. That was half the point of my comment. It also boomed in the nineties and grew at a decent pace over the last ten years. Some busts are inevitable, but I happen to believe that not all booms are. I happen to not be much of a fan of bubbles. I don't think the government should encourage the kind of speculation and de-regulation that fuels bubbles. I think that real growth is an asset to this country while bogus growth predicated on nothing more than Ponzi schemes and unregulated financial institutions end up hurting the country and most honest investors.

One might think all this to be obvious to any astute political commentator, and a widely shared opinion, but perhaps it isn't.

So I hope all that context didn't get in the way of a good soundbite, and I hope I didn't bore you all by droning on about the things that would prevent the country from experiencing economic collapse. But as someone who happens to not only possess a brain, but also cares about my country, I have no choice but to do so. Hope you'll forgive me someday although my preference is that you'll do it before we're all in hock to Beijing and working in a Chinese gulag.

tingting said...

Your article is very good.I like it very much.
spot season
Running in Autumn
It is time for sporting
puma ferrari shoes
cheap nike shoes
puma shoes
ferrari shoes
nike shox nz
Ugg Boots
nike 360 air max
nike shox shoes
cheap puma shoes
puma drift cat
cheap nike shox
nike air max 360
nike air max
pumas shoes

Revenant said...

So Revenant's reminder of the timeline of Keynes' contribution to economic thought is irrelevant to the obvious truth that the Republicans were as ill-disposed to his theories then as they are now.

In other words, while it may *technically* be true that Hoover had never even heard of Keynesian economics, it is ok to claim that he was "anti-Keynesian" because he's a Republican. And "Republican" means "anti-Keynes", even though two of the first three Republican Presidents after Keynes published his theory were Keynesians.

Anyway, the important thing to realize is that FDR was a Keynesian, and he was good, so Keynes = good. And Republicans are not Democrats, so Republicans = evil. Ergo -- via the transitive property -- Republicans must be anti-Keynes. :)

Tom DeGisi said...

Rush Limbaugh - considered by a significant portion (if not a majority) of this country (and one would presume, other countries) to be one of the rudest, most bombastic, and, as if that weren't enough, "offensive" commentators on American society and politics over the last 20 years.

Mostly by people who don't listen to him.

I've listened to Rush and I've read Pogo and Ritmo in this thread. Rush does not come off as rude, bombastic or offensive, for the most part, mainly because I can hear Rush's voice (and sometimes, via Dittocam, see his face) and I know that much of his schtick is self mocking and his tone amused (unlike say, Olberman, who is always angry in the video bites I see).

In this thread, Pogo sounds somewhat rude, bombastic and offensive - I can't see his face, though, hear his tone of voice, and don't know what sort of self mocking running jokes he is into, so maybe my impression is wrong.

Also in this thread, Ritmo sounds five times as rude, bombastic and offensive as Pogo. Again, I can't see his face, hear his tone of voice, and don't know what sort of self mocking running jokes he is into, so maybe my impression is wrong.

If you are going to tag Rush (or Olberman or Savage, etc.) as rude, bombastic and offensive you ought to police your own expression to, well, take some of the edge off.

Yours,
Tom

Opus One Media said...

only outweighed ( a tribut to that fat blubby asshole) by my realization that there are assholes in this country that don't think you are just a fat lying bastard who would screw his mother for a dime.