Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Rush Limbaugh Party

Once upon a time there was a party called the Republican Party. It favored self reliance and limited government. Along came a guy named Ronald Reagan who claimed that too often government gets in the way of solving problems. Some time afterwards, a George W. Bush tried to kill government altogether by reducing taxes. In the process, he destroyed our economy also. Now that we have an Obama who wants to rebuild the country, the number one Republican, Rush Limbaugh, is screaming:

I want Obama to fail!

Other Republicans heap compliments onto Obama and then proceed to attack every thing he advocates. So Rush Limbaugh says:

The dirty little secret ... is that every Republican in this country wants Obama to fail, but none of them have the guts to say so; I am willing to say it.

At least Limbaugh is honest, which is more than can be said for most other Republicans, especially those in power.

Republicans are not the loyal opposition, ready to help our president and our country. Republicans want the duly elected president of the United States to fail. If the president fails, the rest of the country remains in depression, with many of us without a source of income, without decent food, without shelter. A third world country.

Republicans, led by Rush Limbaugh, place greater importance on the Republican Party than on America!

This is outrageous. Republicans called Democrats treasonous when Democrats were against the Iraq War. But, no matter how much we complained, we never said that we wanted the president to fail in the Iraq War. That truly would have been treasonous. What Limbaugh Republicans are doing is a lot worse. They want our country to fail - merely because they can't have their own way.

Rush Limbaugh has converted the Republican Party into a new Rush Limbaugh Party - a party not concerned with working for America, but to gain power.

Posted by Paul Siegel at February 28, 2009 7:37 PM
Comment #276450

I always like it when a fairy tale starts with “Once upon a time.”

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 28, 2009 11:54 PM
Comment #276452

Paul, history demonstrates rather handily, that the first and foremost duty of ANY political party is to acquire power, relegating ALL other considerations as secondary. The rationale being that without power, one cannot influence for the good of the nation and future.

So, while I have no objection to your making this claim against the Republican Party, it is less than full disclosure to fail to assert the same claim against the Democratic Party, which observes the exact same rationale of American politics.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 1, 2009 12:01 AM
Comment #276453

David R. Remer-
All political parties are competitive, if only nominally. For some, political competition is seen as the highest priority. They exist in both parties. So do people who believe that they’re competing for something that shouldn’t be compromised in the process of competing for power.

What makes the Republicans different is their tendency towards self-isolation. They’ve cloistered themselves away, and as a result have become out of touch with the needs and attitudes of most Americans.

Republicans like Rush have an anything goes attitude. They think just about anything is justified in the name of winning. Trouble is, while you can justify anything in the name of a goal, your actions can put that goal at risk. Rush helped create the bubble that shielded the Republicans from criticism both on the left and the right. It raised GOP fortunes, then helped put them in the worse spot they’ve been since the Great Depression.

The fairy tale is that the Republicans can recover from their current slump by means of partisan morale boosting alone.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 1, 2009 12:12 AM
Comment #276454

Rush Limbaugh is also NOT the head of the Republican Party. The Republican Party has no head. No rational and logical one, anyway.

Limbaugh is the GOP’s public whip. He whips up the core base in support of the GOP regardless of how dimwitted or illogical their candidate, their agenda, or their policy may be. GW Bush was a perfect example. As Governor of Texas, GW Bush was no different than he was as President.

Which is why I opposed his run for President, after witnessing his governorship. But, the GOP doesn’t much care about the intellectual or educational capacity of its candidates or agendas, so long as they can sell the candidate to their base. See Sarah Palin as prime example.

The more time passes, the more I believe Ronald Reagan was one of those flukes of the throw of the dice, he was sellable to the base, and as luck would have it, just turned out to be a pretty intelligent candidate as well, but, that was not why he was chosen.

When the nation needs dumb brute force, it wants a Republican. When the nation wants education and intelligence to solve complicated domestic issues, it chooses a Democrat. Why is that pattern there in history. Both parties put winning power ahead of capacity to govern as a priority.

Perhaps it is linked to the fact that education is a liberating experience with a strong tendency toward liberal perspectives, as an effect upon the educated. A Bachelor’s Degree is built upon a Liberal Arts generalized education, which requires an understanding of the relationships between a host of specialized disciplines.

While a liberal arts education is no guarantee that a person with a limited capacity for complex cross disciplinary understanding of relationships but focused capacity for math or engineering or business will not graduate, it would account for why more college graduates becoming liberal than conservative over time. It would also account for why the GOP ends up having to appeal to the lowest educational common denominator as its core constituency, you know, those folks whose world views rest upon belief and faith, instead of fact, evidence, and critical assessment by rational processes. Those capable of both, a faith based perspective and empirical critical assessment (no small feat), tend to become liberals politically as well statistically.

These explanations account for the traditional and historical role of the GOP as the minority party in government, as well.

But, what is it about math that liberals can’t seem to grasp when it comes raising spending, then raising taxes, which leads to raising spending some more, which leads to raising taxes some more, which is an historical penchant of liberals? There is just something about the concept of finite capacity that liberals just don’t seem to want to embrace or understand.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 1, 2009 12:23 AM
Comment #276455

Stephen D., I understand your tendency to turn a reply into another opportunity to criticize the opposing party. Perhaps that is why Party supporters are so reticent or even incapable of self-criticism as a party, and thus subject to being blind to their own weaknesses.

I refer here to the 10’s of thousands of Earmarks in the current budget proposal. Do you all really believe this year’s budget should be no different from any previous year’s? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Someone once said something like: Those living in glass shelters shouldn’t shoot at neighbor’s windows. At least not until they have Kevlar shuttered their own windows. Something for the Democratic Party to ponder deeply as they attempt to put together their first budget as the majority party in government in a very long time. Falling back on historical patterns of behavior in this process may result in losing power as it did many, many years ago for Democrats.

The Democratic Party would do well to elevate their Blue Dog brethren to a position of great respect in their budgetary process, not ceding control to them but, incorporating the wisdom they have to offer in the budgetary process.

Which would mean forgoing at this time Earmarks which fail to meet the objective test of rescuing this economy and our children’s future from suffocating taxation just to keep up the interest on the national debt. I, and most Americans accept the need for deficit spending at this time, but, I also demand that every deficit dollar spent have no other purpose or intent than to rescue this nation and its future and to hell with rescuing special interests back in the home district.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 1, 2009 12:36 AM
Comment #276460

I wish Rush would actually run for office. That’d be a heck of a ticket. Him and Sarah. I wouldn’t stop laughing.

They’d both be exposed as the frauds they are.

Posted by: gergle at March 1, 2009 2:50 AM
Comment #276463

Palin has a tiny shred of significance…let it be Limbaugh/Coulter for the true picture of modern Republicanism. Not one of them has an idea, or policy, or ideal, because virtually everything they’ve ever believed in has proven to be false…they merely spew negativism and rant hate.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 1, 2009 5:15 AM
Comment #276470

Define “earmark”. If you means projects that have been sought by individual congresspersons then you are correct. I always thought of that as “pork barrel”. Not the same thing.The “earmarks” often used in the Republican era were projects placed into bills without the author’s identitiy known,often to reward contributers and often done just before final passage to avoid debate. None of that type of earmark are in the stimulus bill.
The system of congresspeople seeking funding for projects is how the federal government spends money on infrastructure. That is how the Constitution sets it up.Congress is to make spending decisions.Congresspeople know the needs of their district better than any occupant of the Whitehouse ever can. The alternative is for the executive branch to make all the decisions. The projects put forward by what you claim to be earmarks are for the most part good projects that will help provide needed jobs and build for the future and they have been studied and prepared for for a long time in preperation for funding when the time came. The congresspeople that put them in are identified and anyone that wants to can monitor the progress online.
No one wants to deficit spend at this time but until the economy starts moving again there is no rational choice. BHO’s budget projects reducing the deficit to one third the size it is in ten years. Its a hopeful budget in that it supposes that the Afganistan War will not turn into another Iraq money hole , the economy recovers somewhat and healthcare cost can be contained, but it is a lot more honest a budget than anything Bush submitted and has a 10 year projection instead of 5.It also includes revenues of over 6bn from the sale of carbon emmission credits,showing the feds are about to get real in combatting climate change.
If you support BHO then you might really try and get around Keynesian depression economics and stop railing against the needed economic stimulus plan. Its drawback is it is not big enough and we may need another one. A valid critique of BHO is that he is too quick to compromise. The stimulus has too many less stimulatory tax breaks in it for example in a futile effort to gain some Rep support. Until the Reps start acting responsibly that will not happen. He should also go ahead and start nationalizing zombie banks temporarily at least but he seems hesitant to do that even if Greenspan has given him the political cover.

Posted by: bills at March 1, 2009 5:45 AM
Comment #276471

Why Rush can say he wants President Obama to fail and Hannity can openly seek the overthrow of the Establishment as the Conservatives make jokes of how dumb the Citizenry of America is; however, I wonder if the Die-Hard Right or the Die-Hard Left would care to debate this Unlearned Unbridled Anti-Authoritarian Child of the 70’s by Freewill and Self-Nature on what a Real American Political Party could do given these same opportunities as their democratic and republican counterparts.

For like it of not, America stands at a Crossroad that will have a lasting affect on the future of the children of the 21st century. Because do “We the People” hide our heads in the sand and allow a Regional Political Party with 20th Century Ideas represent the Loyal Opposition to those in Society who wish to see the Federal Government ran by “We the Corporation” build a commercial/industry society that is Energy Independent. Or can My Peers and Their Children put aside their Flaws and work together to build a society that in time can make every American Self-Sufficient?

So why I will agree that the No-Nothing Party leading the current Republican Party and headed up by the likes of Hannity and Rush does need to be replaced sooner than later. Having not attended or explored the other Conservative Convention in 2008, I hope that the Conservative Youth armed with the lessons of the Know-Nothing can establish a Political Party that can prove they hold a National View before 2010.

For America needs a Real Debate of the Issues and Her Future. So lets see if Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders has the Courage and Conviction to debate the Issues of Man required to secure the Future. Since failure is no longer an option or a Safety Net for the Societal Elite.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 1, 2009 5:51 AM
Comment #276475

David R. Remer-
Look, you can tell people they’re blind. That’s no challenge. Getting them to see is another matter. Rather than batter at the walls, you should tunnel under them, sneak past them, or even negotiate a truce so that you can come and go freely.

If you look at the campaign that Democrats waged the last few years, you’ll find that in many places, the party was willing to accept non-doctrinaire opinions. That doesn’t mean we don’t have tensions, but we’ve demonstrated a willingness to embrace moderation, to embrace the average American who might not fully support us.

Yet that can come to an end if our party gets too partisan, or becomes too reliant on a media apparatus built to suit just our tastes. It can become a vicious cycle of feedback, as happened in the GOP. It lent them strong convictions for a while, at the price of making the party as a whole stubborn and overly insistent on its own ideology

The problem will come here as Republicans insist on having things the way they already have them, and the blue dogs follow that. It would be nice to bring these people in, but there’s a policy side to this discussion which is real and shouldn’t be ignored simply for the purpose of making peace with a faction.

But yes, we should use their wisdom, but not to let them express some ideological position, but to craft a proposal that is leaner, packs more punch. Anything less betrays what most of America elected the Democrats for.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 1, 2009 6:58 AM
Comment #276476

Rush Limbaugh-
You know something Rush? I became a Democrat because of people like you. All my life, I believed in law and order, traditions, love of country. I wasn’t as hardcore or hardline as you, but this is America and no law says we can’t straddle the line and pick and choose our positions as we see fit.

Respect was important to me as a cultural value. I grew up on Reagan and Bush, men who had a grandfatherly sense about them, wisdom that didn’t need to be flaunted or mashed in somebody’s face. Above all, they respected the institutions, no matter who was in them. At least that was my impression as a youngster.

No sooner do you and your people take power than we see the sciences, the arts, the legitimacy of government under attack. People supported militias for the insufficient reason of their hardline position on guns, ignoring their extreme politics, racism, and flouting of the law. People supported corporations in the face of the consensus scientific positions of the day, and time and again deregulated, though even in my youth I knew that it hadn’t worked out well for the economy.

And taxes. Even as a kid I could understand the arithmetic: pay less in, get less out. I loved that Bush said no new taxes, but I understood when he later said that yes, we would need them. There, responsibility outweighed ideology, and that was part of the conservatism I believed in: where what we believed in yielded to what we had to do. Maybe it meant political embarrassments from time to time, but that was the price of good government, which, large or small, was the point of conservatism in the first place.

The disrespect for Clinton, who I did not support in the 1992 elections, seemed an alien thing to me. After years in which civility ruled for the most part, all of a sudden there was this insane effort, almost from the start, to diminish and destroy this presidency. To me, such an effort, absent crimes like that in Watergate, seemed both unnecessary and malicious. You didn’t simply look for a reason to kick him out until you found it. For years, this country suffered and was distracted, simply so that Republicans could get back the White House.

You talk about principles. If the Republicans in Washington truly had more than just your hatred of things liberal at heart, you wouldn’t have let Iraq get out of control, nor Afghanistan, nor their own house in terms of corruption. If free market principles were truly your ideology, in the real sense of that word, you wouldn’t constantly be spouting the industry lines of polluters and financial deceivers, You would let government deal with environmental and financial issues without partiality, rather than insist that they come to favorable conclusions.

As for your patriotism, you have that confused with the stubborn unwillingness to admit your nation’s mistakes. There is a love of our land that calls us to remedy these errors, a love of our land that calls on us to do our best, a love of our land that calls on us to sacrifice our own agenda in favor of doing what’s best for our country. America cannot simply have the pride of place, they must have pride in what they will do, and what they will not do. That’s part of the pride that led us to be much more humane to our prisoners than the Nazi were to ours, the pride that said that we didn’t need to compromise who we were as a nation in order to fight evil.

Instead of that, we got from folks like you the pride that goes before a fall, the pride that says America does nothing wrong, and we make excuses and rationalize the decisions of those who lead our country. Not even Teddy Roosevelt agreed with that. America benefits from the fact that people can acknowledge its errors. Just look at Zimbabwe, and the horror that comes of a man who cannot admit the plague upon his country that his policies are, and who won’t let anybody else admit it either. That is what comes of govenrment where those in charge can say what is right and wrong, rather than right and wrong being things that people can judge for themselves.

The age of Rush has been one where the threat of al-Qaeda was a joke before the attacks, and a jingoistic bludgeon afterwards, where deficits born of tax cuts by Republicans were praised even as the Democrats were tarred as the fiscally irresponsible ones. The age of Rush has been one where you can question and invade the lives of twelve year old boys and veterans of the recent war, where you angrily denounce the bereaved mother of a dead soldier, the grieving widows an widowers of 9/11 dead, but where you list public figures who knew what they were getting into on the political scene as martyrs wrongly put under scrutiny. Yes, we can’t question public officials, but we can try and smear and discredit those who tradition would have us handle with more decorum, simply because they’re too strong of advocates for a political positions we don’t like at the moment.

Under people like you, how many Republicans have fallen prey to the temptation to praise ignorance, and raise the red flag of anti-intellectualism. How many of the Republicans you helped get elected proudly claimed that they had never needed a passport, never travelled abroad. When did it becomes such a great thing to be ill-informed, scientifically illiterate, virulently opposed to people thinking things out?

And now your party suffers for your attentions. It’s become as rigidly hardline as you wanted it, but at the price of becoming a brittle joke, it’s Washington delegation quickly making itself irrelevant through hardline opposition to a popular president with a popular agenda. And why are both so popular? Because they offer a change of pace, a change in paradigm from an administration and a Congress that pushed your hardline on Iraq and the Economy until things broke in those places too.

Did you ever consider that the half-life of your party would depend not on the purity of their politics, but the practicality of their policy, that the downfall of your party would be a simple failure to get things right?

Once, to be a conservative was to be sensible, cautious, gracious. You could work across the aisle, you could dump the ideology at times and just think for yourself. Under your cultural leadership, the GOP’s main core has become one of utter rigidity, obnoxiousness, and criminal corruption. It gave businesses everything they wanted until the businesses threw it all away with their stupidity It bloated the defense budget with unnecessary BS until we had difficulty bringing just one relatively small country under control with a defense budget larger than the appropriations of some small countries. It left America a shambles of what it once was.

The irony is, as you continue to lead the cultural front of your war on liberalism, is that for all you ask others to take responsibility, you’re still blaming the failures of your party on the Liberal Media, and the Democratic Party Politicians. You’re still saying to yourself and others, “if only we could have been left alone to do what we wanted!”

In the end, you got to do much of what you wanted to do, and you destroyed your party for a generation in the process. Now it seems you’re intent on leading it to destroy itself for all time, by betting on the failure of America under Obama. Then, you reason, Americans will turn to you for conservative policy, having been disabused of the Liberal.

But what will likely happen is that you will take the venerable principles of conservatism, and once again smother the birth of some kind of practicality in its crib, letting the politics get in the way of an acknowledgment of a greater duty. Put another way, only if the Obama agenda is given a real chance to fail or succeed will people really believe that it was its own inherent failings, and not your party’s sabotage that caused it. The Republicans do not start out with the presumption of correctness here; people’s memories of what was done and not done are too fresh.

But hey, if Obama succeeded, then what you call socialism would reign for the next decade, and liberal ideas would be what ran the country. Well, that worked out so poorly last time. It only let America become the greatest power in the world, defeat communism, that kind of stuff.

The Republicans must learn to value America’s success over their party’s success, and that is a lesson you have a conflict of interest in teaching. If America succeeds in these next few years, you might not have as big of an audience as you would like to pay for things like Golden microphones. And that would be a real shame, now wouldn’t it?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 1, 2009 8:18 AM
Comment #276481

I believe the biggest Fear facing by the American Conservative is how do you square being a National Party when your Talking Heads tell you that the Federal Government is the Problem and building a Federal System for your Grandchildren goes against what America was founded upon.

No, I may not agree with President Obama or even Mr. T. Boone Pickens that as Adults the Children of the 70’s; 80’s; and 90’s need to convince Their Children into investing into a Federal Infrastructure that can and will serve the Commerce and Industry of the 21st Century. Nevertheless, I can see the Knowledge and Wisdom of making Americas’ Government and Society bullet proof (Economically, Energy, and Environmentally Independent) over the next 20-40 years.

So why we wait to hear from the Youth Conservatives who attended the other Convention of 2008 to get to have their voice heard. I hope that My Peers will not mind as I challenge the Members of the No-Nothing Party to a debate.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 1, 2009 11:27 AM
Comment #276491

But, what is it about math that liberals can’t seem to grasp when it comes raising spending, then raising taxes, which leads to raising spending some more, which leads to raising taxes some more, which is an historical penchant of liberals?

No it’s not. Historically, Democrat administrations spend less than Republicans. Think about the deficit under Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. The economy is general does better in almost every way under Democrat administrations historically, and that’s a fact.


You said so much in your post that I’ve wanted to say for so long. Thank you. For a long time Republicans have been doing a Laurel and Hardy routine and Americans have been acting like it’s Shakespeare tragedy.

Posted by: Max at March 1, 2009 3:36 PM
Comment #276503

I am missing Reagan.

Posted by: SkyKing at March 1, 2009 7:35 PM
Comment #276511

Stephen D. said: “That doesn’t mean we don’t have tensions, but we’ve demonstrated a willingness to embrace moderation, to embrace the average American who might not fully support us.”

As Republicans proved amply, what people will say and do to get elected can be diametrically opposed to what they do and say when elected.

I will give you that Democrats ran a great campaign telling the people what they wanted to hear. But, there is no proof or evidence YET that Democrats will be anymore faithful to their campaign words than Republicans were.

I lived in Missouri a couple years. Your party is going to have to SHOW ME.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 1, 2009 8:47 PM
Comment #276513

Max very partisanly said with blinders on:
“Historically, Democrat administrations spend less than Republicans.”

You obviously have not researched that statement before inserting foot. What is factually true is that Republican presidents oversee larger deficits and debt additions during their terms, in general, and since Eisenhower. But, since most of those presidents had Democratic Congress’, its not a very persuasive argument in defense of Congressional Democrats.

You said: “Think about the deficit under Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr.”

Yes, lowering taxes without cutting spending by even more, results in deficits. Pleased to hear a Democratic supporter acknowledge that lesson of history.

You said: “The economy is general does better in almost every way under Democrat administrations historically, and that’s a fact.”

Well, interpreters of fact abound on many sides of a given issue. I accept that you have chosen a side to be on regarding that issue. Not that it is a fact. The economy is a rather amorphous animal which can’t be fully known without its precedent period inputs and its post period consequences and costs. That leaves much room for debate over whether an economy in a particular 4 year period was significantly better than another.

Then there is all that messy political stuff. You know, Republican president with Democratic Congress, and vice versa. Makes comparing recent periods of the economy rather difficult in terms of afixing blame to one party or another.

I will give you a fact. Congressional politicians gerrymander districts to insure their reelection, and issue forth, at tax payer expense, a stream of propaganda to their constituents about how great they are in office and what wonderful things they are accomplishing, all the while, over decades of Republican and Democratic rule, the middle class continues to get poorer and poorer and the wealth gap increases. That is a fact.

My father as a single wage earner raised 7 kids in a house he bought and with a pretty orange and green Buick, and we all had clothes, shoes, and health care. Thanks to Republican and Democratic governance over my decades, that cannot be said of the comparable middle class person today who knows it takes two breadwinners to remain at my father’s level in the Middle Class today.

Cute game though that Dems and Reps play, blaming each other to hide the fact that both are responsible.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 1, 2009 9:13 PM
Comment #276514

Show me? The Recovery act has a middle class tax cut,a promise. The proposed BHO budget cuts the deficit to one third in ten years, a promise. More has been done to cover more Americans with healthcare insurance in one month than happened in the last ten years, a promise. A realistic timetable for withdrawel from Iraq is in place,a promise. The family planning gag order has been lifted,a promise. I’d say off hand thats a lot of “Show me” for the first couple of months.

Posted by: bills at March 1, 2009 9:13 PM
Comment #276517

bills said: “The Recovery act has a middle class tax cut,a promise.”

Yes, with an enormous tax increase on our kids as the price tag. Your point is? When Democrats give the middle class of today and tomorrow a tax cut, I will be impressed. Don’t get me wrong, I know deficit spending today is essential to arresting this recession, and I am impressed with Pres. Obama’s intentions to cut spending in other areas to somewhat mitigate the deficit spending. But, still, Democratic history of spending and raising taxes is well established and documented.

And I can assure you, our Congressional Democrats are not cookie cutter Barack Obamas. I continue to assert that Obama’s biggest obstacle to fiscal responsibility is going to be Congressional Democrats, not Republicans. We shall see.

You said: “The proposed BHO budget cuts the deficit to one third in ten years, a promise.”

That is such horsehockey. NO ONE can predict what our deficits will be in 10 years, anymore than anyone can predict whether Iran will have a nuclear attack on our bases in Germany in 10 years, or whether an asteroid will have struck Missouri laying waste to 2/3 of the nation in all directions.

I can project a budget in an hour that makes me appear to be a billionaire in 10 years. But, those assumptions getting me there are about as likely as winning the national lottery. So, please, don’t try to sell me those partisan tricks of persuasion utilized by Dems and Reps alike.

Show me it is so in 10 years. Till then, I ain’t buying what is obviously not in Obama’s power to grant. He can’t even guarantee he will be president in 2013 to carry out his 10 year budget plan. Rather presumptuous of him to make such a budgetary claim, don’t you think?

Sophistry. It has no so many adherents, unaware of their support and participation in it, as followers of its source.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 1, 2009 9:43 PM
Comment #276530

David R. Remer-
The purpose of budgeting out ten years is to plan in advance, not to predict in advance. While it’s true that you can’t sometimes see what you’ll need that far out, That’s not the point. The point is to set the plans in motion besides the urgent stimulus package in a more deliberative, measured fashion.

I think its a mistake to just critique things short of an underestanding of what one is looking at. Political criticism has become rife with that error.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 2, 2009 1:01 AM
Comment #276533

Yea..what he said.

The BHO budget is not full of smoke and mirrors. Unlike the Bushco budgets it does count war spending. It does make some reasonable prediction that may be difficult to bring fourth but indicates a good try any at them. It assumes less Iraq war cost for example.
I brought up the middle class tax cut of an example of Democrats making good on a promise in response to you stating that we don’t. I do not think the tax cut is particularly good policy at this point either, but it is a kept promise and only one example. And yes, David, this years budget is very different than the past several and yes it does point us in a new and better direction.
You still seem to have a big problem that the candidate and now president you support IS a Democrat. He is. He will tell you he is. He is not lieing. Its like the same problem you seem to have about the stimulus package. You can’t have it both ways. The stimulus package is supposed to spend money and what better way to spend it than on projects people want and need enough to pressure their representitives about. Just because some of the projects were included to help districts other than yours does not mean they will not be effective at creating jobs for Americans and improve the economy.

There is a little known item in the package that finally pays off Philippine WW2 vets that fought with us to throw the Japanese out of the RP. At the time they were promised full GI benefits but congress reversed itself and refused to pay them. After all these years we are giving them $9000 if they live in the RP and $15000 if they live in the US. There are not many left and they are all in their eighties. The money going to those living in the US is a direct,rapid stimulus. For those living in the RP it will help a de facto colony weather the storm created by American foolishness. Its a big deal here and will furthur help relations with an important Asian Allie.

Posted by: bills at March 2, 2009 6:50 AM
Comment #276537

Myself I’m glad they got it, It’s been long overdue, Truman at that time felt Different, Filipino veterans, however, were denied equal status to American veterans and stripped of equal recognition, compensation, and benefits, when President Truman signed the Rescission Acts 63 years ago.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at March 2, 2009 9:16 AM
Comment #276539


“My father as a single wage earner raised 7 kids in a house he bought and with a pretty orange and green Buick, and we all had clothes, shoes, and health care. Thanks to Republican and Democratic governance over my decades, that cannot be said of the comparable middle class person today who knows it takes two breadwinners to remain at my father’s level in the Middle Class today.”

I am 56 and I also remember those times.
However, what it took to be considered “middle class” in the ’50s and ’60s was entirely different than what it takes to be considered middle class now, including income.
You could feed a family of 6 for a couple of hundred dollars a month. Milk was under a dollar a gallon, eggs were 18 for a dollar.
My parents had 1 B/W TV, and didn’t buy a color TV with a “remote” until the ’70s. If the TV broke, the TV repairman actually came to the house and fixed it. You didn’t throw out something until it was too worn out to fix, because it was cheaper than buying a new one.
You could do basic car repair (brakes, tune-ups, etc) yourself, and you could “fill it up” at the gas station for about 6 bucks. Oh, and the attendent pumped the gas, washed the windows, and checked the oil as part of the service.
“Planned obsolescence” was still something of the future.
My parents bought a nearly 3,000 sq-ft house in 1963 when I was 11 years old for $34,000., and although I don’t know what the payments were, surely they weren’t more than a few hundred dollars a month.
That same house today, even after the massive devaluation of the market, is worth more than 10 times that amount, and according to “zillow” the payments would be around $2,000 a month.

Society also had vastly different ideas about what was a necessity to be a part of the middle class, and owning stocks wasn’t one of them. When my dad died in 1989 the market hadn’t broken 3,000 yet.

Politics were probably just as contentious, but the enemy was the Soviet Union, not the Republicans and Democrats. That change began to come about with Joe Pyne, and truly didn’t come to fruition until Rush, and his ilk began their “my way or the highway” broadcasts.

Look, I may be just an aging hippie, but I still remember a time in this country when we actually cared about, and helped each other, regardless of political persuasion, and we didn’t look down on folks that had less than we had, even if they made a few mistakes.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 2, 2009 9:28 AM
Comment #276545

What’s the fuss about Rush? He’s been doing the same gig now for 20 years or so. He sounds today no different then he did back in 1993 when Butler Derrick danced in the halls of Congress after passing that budget.

It’s not Rush that has changed, it’s the Democrat’s desire to paint him as the “leader of the GOP” that is new. Here’s the relevant softball thrown to Rahm on Sunday (inspiring memories of Bull Durham):

SCHIEFFER: Rush Limbaugh. We’ve talked about Newt Gingrich a lot this morning and now you bring up Rush Limbaugh. Who do you think now speaks for the Republican Party?

EMANUEL: You just named them. It was Rush Limbaugh. I mean, he has laid out his vision, in my view, and he said it clearly, and I compliment him for that. He’s been very upfront and I compliment him for that. He’s not hiding.

He’s asked for President Obama and called for President Obama to fail. That’s his view. And that’s what he has enunciated. And whenever a Republican criticize him, they have to run back and apologize to him, and say they were misunderstood.

He is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party. And he has been upfront about what he views, and hasn’t stepped back from that, which is he hopes for failure. He said it. And I compliment him for his honesty, but that’s their philosophy that is enunciated by Rush Limbaugh. And I think that’s the wrong philosophy for America, because what Americans want us to do and what President Obama has been very clear about is work together, setting our goals. We may take different roads to get to that goal, but be clear on what we have to do to build this country, by investing in our people, changing the health care system, having an energy independence policy that clearly weans America off its dependence on foreign oil…

SCHIEFFER: Do you really think he is that important, that other Republicans are paying that much attention to him?

EMANUEL: Well, he was given the keynote, basically, at the Conservative Caucus to speak. When a Republican did attack him, he was — clearly had to turn around and come back and basically said that he’s apologizing and was wrong. And I do think he’s an intellectual force, which is why the Republicans pay such attention to him.

If I were the White House I’d want to run against Rush too. He makes his money with inflammatory rhetoric and gives 15 hours of taped ammo each week (Imagine if Joe Biden had that much coverage!) Maybe the GOP can make Lynn Samuels the “real” head of the Democratic Party. But as far as I know Rush has never held an elected office. He’s an entertainer not a politician, and as Mike Huckabee said last night that’s a much easier gig. Politically speaking Rush is and always has been irrelevant.

Posted by: George at March 2, 2009 10:14 AM
Comment #276550

“Politically speaking Rush is and always has been irrelevant.”

Not true George.
If the left can make Rush out to be representitive of ALL Republicans, moderate Republicans may shy further left and the lefts base goes wild with anger.
It is the lefts hope that this would mean more votes.

Rush IS politically relevent, to the left. Thats why they talk about him non-stop.

Posted by: kctim at March 2, 2009 10:53 AM
Comment #276551

O.k. Tim I’ll back off and say that Rush is “potentially” relevant. If he can be made to be relevant.

And CPAC, going on since 1970 something yet never talked about, is now on par with the Republican convention.

I wonder if there are any transcripts of YearlyKos from a few years back when the Democrats were in the minority?

Posted by: George at March 2, 2009 11:04 AM
Comment #276553


When my dad died in 1989 the market hadn’t broken 3,000 yet.

Given this years performance, you may see it break 3000 again:)

I’m still holding with my midyear 5000 prediction.

Posted by: gergle at March 2, 2009 11:13 AM
Comment #276554

>If the left can make Rush out to be representitive of ALL Republicans, moderate Republicans may shy further left and the lefts base goes wild with anger.
Posted by: kctim at March 2, 2009 10:53 AM

You are right, to a degree. We would like Rush to be the face of the GOP, but I’m not sure how intentional it is on our part…it is the Republicans who keep apologizing to Rushie and kowtowing to his every whim. Does that make him the leader of the party? Only time will tell, but I’m pretty sure HE thinks so.

He says Obama will be the end of our Constitution as we know it, and then to prove his point he quotes the Declaration of Independence…I’m sure he means well by his party…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 2, 2009 11:38 AM
Comment #276555


err, uh…MIS-quotes the Declaration…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 2, 2009 11:40 AM
Comment #276557

Dude, its as intentional, and as effective, as making every Democrat out to be a michael moore liberal.

George made a great point in saying he is relevant if he can be made relevant and right now it benefits the left more if he is made relevant.

I don’t listen to Rush and I don’t read partisan hacks like huffington, so forgive me if this is a dumb question, but is that the best the left has against Rush?

Posted by: kctim at March 2, 2009 11:58 AM
Comment #276562

seems i remember someone named biden making a comment to the effect that fdr went on tv and spoke to the american people when the stock market crashed.

gee… lets see whats more troubling rushs mistake, or a vice president with such a firm grasp on history ?

Posted by: dbs at March 2, 2009 1:11 PM
Comment #276563

I can understand the staunch republicans hoping Obama fails. He is a threat (albeit a small one) to the continuing growing disparity between the wealthy and the working class.

Surely there is at least a few unconfessed democrats that wanted the US out of Iraq from the beginning who were no different. Did anyone think that if Iraq was a breeze that Bush would suddenly become isolationist? It’s fairly certain that his success and his tunnel vision would have led to continuing ventures; and history tells us that this force of self declared good on a rampage would have morphed a little toward the dark side.

Posted by: Schwamp at March 2, 2009 1:11 PM
Comment #276564

Rocky, I enjoyed your trip down memory lane. At age 68, I experienced much the same as you. What was noticeably absent from your recollections was any mention of your family or anyone else you knew receiving government money or handouts. And yet, you apparently didn’t witness mass starvation or homelessness. Why was that?

The very poorest kids I knew had food, clothing and shelter and it didn’t come to them in the form of a government check. And as those friends of mine grew up they became successful citizens in varied professions and other types of work and businesses. I meet these same kids at class reunions and they are all proud of what they have accomplished despite their family circumstances as children.

No one told these kids that government owed them something or that it was the greedy rich or corporations who were at blame for their circumstances. And, no one told them that they couldn’t rise above their childhood poverty level so they did just that…they worked hard, played by the rules, and did rise to enjoy the fruits of their labor and freedom to make of themselves what they desired.

How different today. We are constantly being told by some group or politician that it is governments responsibility for our success and happiness. That only thru government can we be fed, clothed and sheltered. That we must take from some who are perceived as having too much and to give to others who don’t have as much. No longer must we be charitable to each other because of moral character or out of love for our fellow humans, government now mandates it.

Government has replaced individualism with group rights. Government now mandates who succeeds and by how much. Government sets the limits of our success and determines who are worthy.

Trickle-up poverty ensures that all men will experience equal results despite equal opportunity to succeed or fail on their own. That’s sad.

Posted by: Jim M at March 2, 2009 1:14 PM
Comment #276567

>Surely there is at least a few unconfessed democrats that wanted the US out of Iraq from the beginning who were no different. Did anyone think that if Iraq was a breeze that Bush would suddenly become isolationist? It’s fairly certain that his success and his tunnel vision would have led to continuing ventures; and history tells us that this force of self declared good on a rampage would have morphed a little toward the dark side.
Posted by: Schwamp at March 2, 2009 01:11 PM


Quit calling me ‘Shirley’…:)

I’m not UNconfessed, but never wanted the little tinker to fail. I actually considered him a failure as soon as I found out he’d dishonored our nation with his ill-conceived invasion.

His good side went into Afghanistan…it was already his dark side showing by the time Iraq came around…there might have been no end to his rampage if he’d succeeded in Iraq…I guess I’m saying you are right, but a half note behind the band.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 2, 2009 2:06 PM
Comment #276570

dbs, The real sad part is a whole lot of folks Would believe Joe and Rush.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at March 2, 2009 2:19 PM
Comment #276572


Rush was the keynote speaker at CPAC. Do Democrats invite Michael Moore to be keynote speaker at their official events? Anne Coulter came out and said he is and should be the leader. These are the people that speak for your party on the faux news. I’m not sure how you can represent a party more than by being on all its media outlets 24/7 being shown as “leaders”…

I don’t blame you if you are disgusted. That’s why many conservatives are leaving the party.

Posted by: Max at March 2, 2009 2:28 PM
Comment #276574

Rocky, there is nothing wrong with being an aging hippie, and you still need to go a little farther to catch some of us… ;)
“Times, they are a changin’”, still. We have seen and lived through the good and the bad, but the key words are ‘lived through’. I would imagine we shall live through these facing us now, as well. It’s just pretty chicken-s—t that some of us are the cause of it being left for our kids and grandkids to take care of.
Adversity does make us stronger……if it doesn’t kill us first.

Posted by: jane doe at March 2, 2009 2:47 PM
Comment #276576

Rocky Marks said: “Look, I may be just an aging hippie, but I still remember a time in this country when we actually cared about, and helped each other, regardless of political persuasion, and we didn’t look down on folks that had less than we had, even if they made a few mistakes.”

Wow! My experience growing up in Detroit in the 50’s and 60’s was sure different from yours on this point. I remember Whites and Cops looking down on and suspiciously at Blacks, Asians, Hispanics and even some Cubans. I remember the Greasers beating up and even killing an occasional Soshe, and Soshe’s (short for sociologically attentive and educated, I think) detesting Neanderthal Greasers (the great uneducated). I remember parents pulling their children away from anyone with a deformity as if it were contagious.

Because I remember these in Detroit, this aging hippie looks at the present with considerable awe at the progress made in my short lifetime of 59 years, along side other more intractable issues. I of course no longer live in Detroit and haven’t in decades, but all but one of my siblings do, and they tell me under superficial appearances, the social tensions I describe in the 50’s and 60’s are still prevalent. I read that America is no more integrated today in terms of social functions like Church, bars and neighborhoods than it was in the 1960’s in many places.

Progress however, I have learned, does not mean issues resolved. America remains culturally divided in many ways, though in the many a public building and square, there are very visible signs of improvement. Recessions tend to bring about reversion. I fear racial and hateful attitudes will experience a resurgence as this recession and time of growing financial insecurity press hard on folks need for scapegoats they can see and attack.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 2, 2009 3:13 PM
Comment #276577

That Steel guy was elected to speak for their party. Rush and others are talking heads with their own opinions. Hell, his listeners would be the only ones hearing from Rush if you guys weren’t so fixated on him.

When Rush speaks on FOX, he is speaking for Rush and probably even his listeners, not as the leader of the Republican party. Do you forget how moore and other liberals dominated the lefts media outlets (every other channel) during the Bush years? Weren’t we told they did not represent the Democrat party, but themselves? Didn’t the Republicans lump you all together for what was probably political gain?

Saying Rush is the leader of all Republicans is akin to saying Art Bell is the leader of aliens.

Posted by: kctim at March 2, 2009 3:17 PM
Comment #276582


CPAC is an official Republican event? Since when?

Posted by: George at March 2, 2009 3:44 PM
Comment #276595


George W. Bush tried to kill government altogether by reducing taxes.

Do tax cuts really ‘destroy’ government? Was JFK trying to destroy government in 1962 when he proposed tax cuts? Hmm… Possibly. He was a democrat after all.

George W. Bush tried to kill government altogether by reducing taxes. In the process, he destroyed our economy also.

Let’s look at this rationally. Your premise is that tax cuts destroys not only government but the economy as well. But this latest economic downturn is in fact a government induced downturn in large part. It has nothing to do with tax cuts.

The government, through fannie mae and freddie mac, created the conditions for the creation of a housing bubble and then the subsequent collapse of that bubble and now propose to do the exact same things that caused the problem in the first place.

You can’t allow people to buy homes they can’t afford and then be surprised when they can’t pay the mortgages.

Finally, Rush Limbaugh is exactly right. It’s the duty of any freedom loving American to oppose Obama’s progressive far left agenda and hope that he fails. If Stalin were President I’d hope that he would fail too.

Are you going to tell me that you wanted Bush to succeed these past 8 years? No, of course not, your posts here confirm that you wanted Bush to fail.

Posted by: eric simonson at March 2, 2009 5:36 PM
Comment #276607

Strange…when a President fails, the nation fails. If he fails in diplomacy, the nation is looked down upon by others. If he fails in economic policy, the nation’s finances falter or crash. If he fails in domestic policy, the country grows more polluted, or vehicles use more oil products, or water becomes less drinkable. If he fails at war, the country becomes weak in the eyes of its enemies…hmmm…thanks for the education about Republicans, Eric.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 2, 2009 7:37 PM
Comment #276612
If Stalin were President I’d hope that he would fail too.

Does this mean you would have hoped that the USSR lost the battle of Stalingrad?

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 2, 2009 8:49 PM
Comment #276616

You are right to say “It’s the duty of any freedom loving American to oppose Obama’s progressive far left agenda”

However, as every Parent and Child of the 21st Century knows there is a Proper Way to oppose one’s Point of View. So, does the Conservative Movement follow Rush and Company No-Nothing agenda or should the Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders use what they have learned from the Know-Nothing Party of the Mid-1800’s to oppose President Obama and the Children of the 21st Century Guaranteed Civil and Constitutional Rights to build a Better World than the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s.

BTW, haven’t heard from you in a while. Welcome Back!

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 2, 2009 9:02 PM
Comment #276618

Eric Simonson-
Long time, no see. Unfortunately, you missed some of my debunking of some of these myths in your absence.

First, the cause of our current problem is that our biggest banks are essentially the walking dead. They no longer lend.

Was it because they were forced into bad lending practices? Well, I doubt you’ll find much footage of the banks complaining about the lash at their back, whether they were real banks or just lenders. Nor will you find many on Wall Street who weren’t feverishly trading the derivatives, and preaching the gospel of ever ascending home prices. Hell, their mathematical models didn’t even account for what would happen if home prices ever seriously dropped.

No, the housing crisis did not come about because the banks were forced to lend to n*****s and s***s. The CRA barely covered 24 of the top 25 lenders, and Fannie and Freddie were declining elements in the secondary markets, vigourously outcompeted by the more reckless non-bank lenders, who were poorly regulated.

No doubt, the initiatives towards greater home ownership on both the Clinton administration and the Bush White House’s part contributed to the expansion of the market, especially into lower creditworthy ranks. However, if the Banks had done their accounting the old fashion way, and considered the risk in telling people yes or no, then this wouldn’t have happened.

Instead, bad loans became gold. The higher the money people owed, the better. The corporations deliberately decided to do this. And why? Accounting standards, a poorly regulated secondary market, and all the wonderfully unregulated derivatives allowed companies to massively inflate their balance sheets by essentially hiding the real value (or lack of same) of their loans, and then selling off those loans at tremendously high prices.

Without those derivatives and the undiscriminating secondary market it created, the value of the loan would have depended more upon being paid back on it. Mortgage lenders would have said no to people, would have been encouraged to set moderate rates and avoid intentionally putting their customers underwater to inflate their loans with fees, extra interest and penalties. That would have kept the markets more stable, prevented bunches of homes from foreclosing at once, domino effecting the market with prices dropping even further.

The Government did create the conditions, by doing away with or failing to create the rules that would have prevented the kind of perverse incentives that came of the regulatory scheme.

Rush Limbaugh, though, would likely go for more of the same, blaming the failure on liberals, which is effectively what the Republicans have been doing all along. The truth is, I would have preferred that Bush not fail, and what I reacted to WAS his failure. If he had succeeded in getting Bin Laden I would have been partying with all the Republicans in the country. If he had found the WMD and rooted out the terrorist camps, I would have thought the Iraq war justified. If he had finished the war quickly, despite it being a mistake, instead of dragging the country into a long, drawn out fiasco, it would have been for the best.

I wish Bush had succeeded at finding the right regulatory balance, and had only made tax cuts out of money we had.

I wish Bush had not taken the better part of a week to get to Katrina survivors, and that his economic aid had not been so appallingly weak and stingy.

And I didn’t want Bush to fail to uphold the constitution, like he promised, and the treaties this country was a signatory to. No, I didn’t want him to fail.

I mourn for my country and myself that Bush did not succeed, did not do his job, and my resentment and my resistance to him and his policies increased as the failures mounted.

But you and Rush, Eric? You guys want him to fail, not because his economic measures might not bring this country out of its economic crisis, but because of what might happen if it does.

Perhaps its legitimate to ask at what price we end a crisis, but the real problem is with who’s asking, and with what timing. The Republicans just got done doing everything to test America’s economy to destruction, creating greater inequalities of wealth, greater setbacks for labor, greater catastrophes of misregulation and failed enforcement, greater deficits, and piling a war on top of that.

Tell me: if your accountant just bankrupted you, would you be a fool for rehiring him or not firing him, just because he said he was sorry and that he saw the light on his earlier failure?

Let me tell you what the worst part about this is: the Republicans have no alternative except more of the same. They want people to simply assume the superiority of the Republican approach, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. For the Republicans, there is no choice besides them and the failure of this country. And despite their assumptions otherwise, many people don’t see much of a difference at this point.

Republicans blew it, and are only making it worse by telling themselves they haven’t.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 2, 2009 9:16 PM
Comment #276624

Hi Eric
Far left agenda? Put this in your pipe. BHO is being pressured politically by Greenspan and
James Baker,hardly left wing radicals, to start nationalizing banks! So far BHO is resisting such takeovers by the government, apparently for idealogical reasons. The world is on its ear. Its high time for us all to start judging policies on their effectiveness. Limbaugh is is being the Jane Fonda of the right. He is hurting the cause and the country.

Posted by: bills at March 2, 2009 10:12 PM
Comment #276627

Rush Limbaugh IS the leader of the republican party. I never thought so until Obama name-checked him a few weeks ago. I was actually beginning to buy into that “Rush is only an entertainer…” shtick when Rham Emmanuel pointed out the fact that whenever any republican congressman said anything bad about Rush, they run back next day to kiss the anointed one’s ring to apologize or say they were misunderstood. Latest one to fall on his sword? Michael Steele, the new head of the RNC.

One thing you gotta love about republicans is they know how to get everyone to fall in line. I don’t recall democratic leaders so openly bending over for Michael Moore. These are strange times indeed.

Posted by: Nikita at March 2, 2009 10:34 PM
Comment #276635

What’s surprising and (I believe) completely unprecedented here is that the President of the United States and members of his administration are repeatedly and personally attacking members of the media.

And because these media members happen to be conservatives, nobody raises a peep. If the shoe were on the other foot here, we’d hear endless hand-wringing about “the chilling” of free speech and how the President’s intimidation tactics represented a “shredding of the Constitution.”

Can anyone remember Bush attacking members of the liberal press by name? Did he even even SAY Michael Moore’s name? I don’t believe that he even mentioned Dan Rather when Rather was caught red-handed peddling forged documents.

This is just one more sign that Obama is America’s Robert Mugabe. He’s out there lying about the problems his side created (the economic crisis) and posing socialism as the solution.

The guy sends his minions out to personally attack and intimidate members of the dissident press. Like Mugabe, he uses race and class resentment as a means of political attack. Furthermore, he’s about to start printing money like crazy in order to pay for all of his absurd and guaranteed-to-fail socialist experiments—just like Mugabe.

America needs to wake up. This guy, Barack Mugabe-Obama, is promising you the sun and the moon, but what he’s going to give you is a third world hell hole.

You don’t think it could happen here? Think again. Try, for a change, to think beyond the honeyed-words and sunny smile of a politician who has absolutely no real-world economic experience but a talent for manipulation.

Don’t listen to his seductive words and make the mistake that countless others have made in history when they were confronted with a demagogue.

Look at the markets instead. If you’re still not gonna stand up against this guy’s policies, better cash out while you can and start stocking up on rice and beans. Buy yourself a fly-swatter. Mugabe-Obama’s third world hell, the change you can believe in, is on its way.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 2, 2009 11:25 PM
Comment #276636

Not strange, but foreseen times indeed.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 2, 2009 11:26 PM
Comment #276640

What’s surprising and (I believe) completely unprecedented here is that the President of the United States and members of his administration are repeatedly and personally attacking members of the media.

You have an awfully short memory about Bush and Co. attacking the New York Times.

Btw, Rush Limbaugh has now said that Michael Steele is not the Republican leader, just the leader of the party, which counts for nothing at the moment. Guess all of you disagree with him.

Posted by: Max at March 3, 2009 3:16 AM
Comment #276641

Posting this from Crooks and Liars because it’s relevant. What was that about Steele leading the party?

STEELE: So let’s put it into context here. Let’s put it into context here. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it’s incendiary. Yes, it’s ugly.

Rush replies:

Michael Steele has been around long enough to know that the liberal media will use him by twisting what I say or what others say. He took the bait, he bit down hard on the bait, he launched an attack on me even though the premise of what was said to him was false. He took the bait and he went for it.

They chicken out when I happen to articulate exactly what their agenda really is. They don’t have the guts to admit it, and I do. I’m going further and telling you today it’s not that I want Obama to fail; that’s not it anymore.

Michael Steele apologizes to Rush:

My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said in a telephone interview. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”

I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele said. “It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not.”

“I’m not going to engage these guys and sit back and provide them the popcorn for a fight between me and Rush Limbaugh,” Steele added. “No such thing is going to happen. … I wasn’t trying to slam him or anything.”

I love this part: “I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking.” OMG, does he have a spine?

Posted by: Max at March 3, 2009 4:14 AM
Comment #276644

Now I get it. Because Obama is Black and Mugabe is Black they must be the same. LOL it took me awhile.

Posted by: bills at March 3, 2009 6:50 AM
Comment #276645

I see you have a talent for understatement. Moving on, If by members of the media, you mean self-proclaimed entertainer Rush Limbaugh and his like, then the worst that is happening is that the President is challenging him outright in a verbal sparring match.

Now this sort of thing can backfire if you don’t have the right target. It can make you look like you have something to hide, or like you’re being petty. Fortunately for Barack Obama, he’s found the perfect target in Rush.

Rush is not a sympathetic figure. He actually goes the extra mile to be extra obnoxious because that’s good for his ratings He’s apparently got more influence over the Republican Party’s constituents than the head of the party, and he’s quite happy to use that power to get in the way of Obama’s success. And many people know exactly who you’re talking about and what you’re talking about when it comes to Rush and his politics.

Far from having a chilling effect, it’s making Rush Limbaugh an even higher profile presence in terms of the Republican Party, forcing them to acknowledge at least this part of their connection to the conservative media, and their dependence on it, to boot. Rush is powerful enough to demand and get apologies from elected officials and heads of the party. If this was somehow diminishing him, he wouldn’t get either. More to the point, I’m thinking he’s probably enjoying himself.

You keep hearkening back to Mugabe. Well, Rush has not been beaten, jailed, exiled, or even murdered under Obama’s good graces, much less shut up. In fact, it’s very likely Obama wants him to keep talking! It’s Scylla and Charybdis here: On one side, a barking, many-headed monster who snaps up anybody who dares go against him or party orthodoxy, and on the other side, a Maelstrom of public of public opinion hostile to those who would wish failure on the President and his new policy direction.

Here’s the score: Either they give in to public opinion and repudiate Rush, which loses them the dittoheads, or they give in to Rush and Repudiate public opinion, which loses them voters as well. But of course, they can run around in circles trying to do both, which is what the RNC chairmen just tried to do. The result is even worse. He alienates both sides, and makes himself look weak!

If Rush remains powerful, he also remains an anchor tugging at the Republican party, keeping it from reforming and moving in the direction that the American people are moving as a whole. If enough Republicans get pissed off at Rush for his behavior, for his royal arrogance, then Obama’s plan works there too, because that helps splinter the Republican’s political unity. And if the Republicans fight to remain united, even as they fight to remain autonomous and with the times? That suits Obama fine, too.

Don’t you get it? The only way that this gets resolved positively for the republicans is for them to let go of their Rush attachment, or for Rush to let go of his hold on the party, let them repudiate him on the way to furthering the greater GOP agenda. But because Rush’s ego-driven thirst for power and the GOP’s fear of losing this charismatic conservative cultural icon are so great, so unyielding, they are going to bash each other silly trying to alternatively embrace and repudiate one another.

As for Obama being like Mugabe? Sorry, Obama’s not even a run of the mill European socialist at the rate he’s going.

Republicans love to talk about how the other side’s policies result in ruin. But with the broken columns and burnt out shells of Wall Street behind them, what credibility does the GOP have or deserve at this point? We should yield ourselves to folks who have ruined economy because this time, they’re going to do everything the same and hope for a different outcome?

The Republicans are doing most of the work in creating a chilly atmosphere for their message. They’re turning many Americans against them themselves. They’re losing the good regard of many who once had sympathies towards them.

As for Third World Hells, I think if you asked the Average American, the person who put us within shouting distance of that is Bush and his Republicans. Or is that Rush and his Republicans?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 3, 2009 7:38 AM
Comment #276646

Cheney/Rush/Bush, and his Republicans???

Posted by: Marysdude at March 3, 2009 8:08 AM
Comment #276647

With Steele’s apology comes a legit reason to question, now. Seems he is trying to straddle the fence and not piss off the millions of Rush listeners while just assuming the moderates will stay behind him. He is keeping this “all Republicans are far-right” association lane wide open and it is a wise strategy move for the Dems to pounce on it.

I don’t believe it the Rush party, but so far, Steeles actions aren’t doing much to stop that train.

Thanks for posting the Steele quote.

Posted by: kctim at March 3, 2009 9:18 AM
Comment #276648


Mr. Steele called Mr. Limbaugh after the radio host belittled Mr. Steele on his show, questioning his authority and saying the new Republican leader was off “to a shaky start.”
“It’s time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of trying to be some talking head media star, which you’re having a tough time pulling off,” Mr. Limbaugh said, in a transcript of his remarks he posted on his Web site.
“Mr. Steele: You are head of the R.N.C.,” Mr. Limbaugh said. “You are not head of the Republican Party. Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the R.N.C. and right now they want nothing to do with it.”

Posted by: Max at March 3, 2009 10:13 AM
Comment #276653

Someone above wrote; “George W. Bush tried to kill government altogether by reducing taxes.”

I would simply ask…can anyone name one country in the history of the world that was destroyed because its government didn’t tax its people enough? Examples of the opposite abound.

Posted by: Jim M at March 3, 2009 10:59 AM
Comment #276656

Jim M.,
Great point! For why one could make the debate that no country was destorued because the government did not tax its citizens enough; can you make the same point that a country was not destroyed because they did not have the money in Treasury to provide for their Common Defense and Common Good?

Loyal Opposition,
Nice attempt at putting up a smoke screen in order to protect the Defector Leader of Conservatives and Republicans (Rush words not mine) against those in the RNC who would like to move the Political Debate in America forward. For just as Rush and Company used the Bully Pulpit of the Conservative Media to challenge President Clinton and the Hollywood Elite over the last 20 years. So why it seems that President Obama and Company has taken a page out of the playbook of the RNC, it seems that Rush and Hannity having made their bread and butter out of defending the Policies of President Regan and his Trickledown Economic Theory against Change would rather form the No-Nothing Party of the 21st Century than allow the Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders of the RNC advance the Public Debate. A deadly mistake as pointed out by the Know Nothing Party of the mid-1800.

So why Rush and you may believe, wish, and/or even fantasy that President Obama is leading America to a Third World hellhole (Your Words not mine), By turning away from the political cover of the RNC, Rush has now put the Conservative and Self-Serving Republican in jeopardy of losing their influence in the Public Opinion. For why President Obama and Company does have a plan thanks to Conservative American Baron Mr. T. Boones Pickens to make America Energy Independent using Commerce and Industry over the next 20-40 years, Rush now has to prove that through Trickledown Economics America can solve the Economic and Financial Meltdown caused by throwing money at the problem for the last 25 years. Or be converted over to learning what the Leadership of the RNC already knows.

For in My Words and not theirs, President Obama and the Democratic Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders may believe that Labor through Commerce and Industry can make America Energy Independent by allowing American Barons like Mr. Pickens charge for the Natural Resource of Wind. However, instead of being Loyal Opposition in the debate Rush and Company would rather oppose anything, but Drill Baby Drill even if it meant eating its own political leadership. However, did you know that the RNC could oppose President Obama and Company on the Principle that the Wind is Free and that every measure Known to Man needs to be taken by Commerce and Industry to ensure that Right of the Individual and State.

Yes, the Bankers and Investors as well as the American Consumer and Small Business Owner awaits the Political Battle cause when Rush ask for the Failure of the President of the United States of America and Hannity openly sought ideas for rebelling against the Establishment that gave them Wealth. And why the outcome is already known, I do believe that the millions of listeners of Conservative Talk Radio are going to revolt against the ones making their living out of pushing Raganomics once the RNC can find a Moderate Conservative Independent Voice in the wilderness to challenge the idea that the Commerce and Industry of America cannot be geared toward allowing the Average American Layman Citizen in the Recovery and Reinvestment of America. For simple put to Rush, you, and others on the Left and Right, why should I be forced to pay for the Power of the Wind when Americas’ Commerce and Industry build me a room that contains 4 windmills and a wind tunnel and show me how to use it.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 3, 2009 11:27 AM
Comment #276657

Daugherty writes; “You guys want him to fail, not because his economic measures might not bring this country out of its economic crisis, but because of what might happen if it does.”

The only true part of this statement is the question mark on whether PO’s liberal spending plans will work. I would guess that what Daugherty means by saying conservatives wish PO to fail is that we fear a further entrenchment of socialism. But wait…I guess that is true also.

How entertaining it is to see the President of the United States locked in battle with a private citizen in one Rush Limbaugh. For certain, our liberty and freedom as individuals is still alive when such as this can happen.

Honors to Mr. Limbaugh who as a mere entertaining radio talk show host can bring a President to heel. And…dishonor to a President so weak and fearful that he must spend his time matching wits with a man who merely holds a microphone.

I find our Republic to still be functioning well in the arena of thoughts and ideas when anyone can challenge a President’s policies; from us writing on this blog to Mr. Limbaugh with his huge audience. We need more of this thoughtful jousting as from such is our nation made stronger.

The liberals have many voices beyond those who are elected to office and I wish they had more so Americans can see, even more clearly, the stark difference between them and conservatives. That none have been able to attain huge audiences is, in my opinion, evidence of the first order of the failure of their philosophy to attract a large following.

PO and the liberals won the presidency and congress by making promises few now believe they are capable of, or willing, to keep.

Rush keeps his huge audience by advocating ideas that appeal to common sense. He makes no wild promises, provides no pork, and has no trappings of office and yet, has great power where it really counts…in the logical persuasion of those who love liberty and freedom.

Rush has had many imitators on the left but none have really had much success. Rush is still the king of talk radio and long may his voice, and the voice of opposition be heard.

Posted by: Jim M at March 3, 2009 11:45 AM
Comment #276662

When I said that Obama name-checked Limbaugh, these were his exact words:

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done”

The context of this was that he was saying it to republican congress members he was meeting with during the stimulus talks. Saying basically you can’t get things done if you continue with Limbaugh’s confrontational style.

That was it? Seriously? Watching the firestorm that followed and reading analysts wringing their hands about how this was such a HUGE mistake on Obama’s part had me shaking my head. WTF? Reading LO’s post above about Mugabe, you would think that Obama declared a fatwa on Limbaugh.

BTW, the news article I got that quote from, the headline said.

“Barack Obama picks a fight with Rush Limbaugh as bipartisan spirit crumbles.”

Gotta love that liberal media.

Posted by: Nikita at March 3, 2009 12:39 PM
Comment #276667

Jim M-
What choice have the Republicans left us at this point: it’s either government intervention, or the collapse of our economy for the better part of the next decade. You can whine about such intervention being socialist, but the principle was if you had intervened in a liberal way before, intervening in a socialist way now might have been unnecessary.

Unfortunately, the Republicans remain enthralled by an ideology that lets the perfect be the enemy of the good. It’s either laissez faire capitalism, it seems, or nothing. Whether you’ve decided for yourself that Obama’s plan will never work, or whether you’ve decided that it must NOT work, the same sort of closed-minded ideology applies.

How entertaining it is to see the President of the United States locked in battle with a private citizen in one Rush Limbaugh. For certain, our liberty and freedom as individuals is still alive when such as this can happen.

The Democrats are quite entertained, thank you very much. Republicans tear each other apart, the base threatens to abandon the national party… Rush has been a very useful fool, and he’s the most useful fool of all: one who will never admit it.

Honors to Mr. Limbaugh who as a mere entertaining radio talk show host can bring a President to heel. And…dishonor to a President so weak and fearful that he must spend his time matching wits with a man who merely holds a microphone.

With all due respect, Jim, he’s only succeeded in humiliating the GOP and undermining the base’s support for the national party. Where is his resounding success against Obama?

The truth is, Obama’s not matching wits with Limbaugh, Limbaugh’s no match for Obama. Obama has taken Rush’s recalcitrant wish for Obama’s failure, and Congress’s stonewalling, and in a brilliant bit of political jiu-jitsu forced Republicans into the position of owning their overall strategy of seeking policy failure for political advancement.

Which isn’t the most endearing position that could be taken in these times. People want Obama to succeed, and Obama knows this, so he’s going to match his popularity against the Republicans, and see who has to engage their political survival instincts first. With Obama’s numbers, he can keep this up indefinitely. Limbaugh can keep this up forever, too. The Republican Party, on the other hand, has elections its heading towards, with its popularity absolutely in the tank. Now either they moderate themselves, which is a victory for Obama, who is looking for Republicans to reach out for, or they get replaced by Democrats or moderate Republicans, which is, yet again, a victory for Obama.

The liberals have many voices beyond those who are elected to office and I wish they had more so Americans can see, even more clearly, the stark difference between them and conservatives. That none have been able to attain huge audiences is, in my opinion, evidence of the first order of the failure of their philosophy to attract a large following.

Yes, the Democrats are SOOO unpopular right now. (snark alert. Do not take seriously)

PO and the liberals won the presidency and congress by making promises few now believe they are capable of, or willing, to keep.

Actually, they are keeping them. That’s the biggest problem Republicans have with Obama right now! What was it that you think you were rooting for the failure of?

Rush keeps his huge audience by advocating ideas that appeal to common sense. He makes no wild promises, provides no pork, and has no trappings of office and yet, has great power where it really counts…in the logical persuasion of those who love liberty and freedom. Rush has had many imitators on the left but none have really had much success. Rush is still the king of talk radio and long may his voice, and the voice of opposition be heard.

He doesn’t have to promise anything except his own foolish consistency. He doesn’t have to please a constituency by bringing home the bacon or otherwise serving their interests. He doesn’t bear the responsiblity of actually governing.

Rush isn’t logical, at least not how you’re suggesting. His broadcasts are about emotional thinking, resentment, hatred, arrogance. Watch the video I linked to; he said it himself.

Democrats did try to imitate him, tried to replicate his success on talk radio. Instead, though, the fate of the Democratic party was to take a new direction in a new medium. Being king of Talk Radio is like being King of Afghanistan. The world has moved on, and the new generation is online.

Which, by the way, Democrats dominate.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 3, 2009 2:54 PM
Comment #276675

I know that the strategy being put forth by Rush and other conservatives has escaped you Daugherty so I will reveal some of the game plan.

Republicans at this point are leaderless. There is no political figure, in or out of office, that is the commanding voice for the party. Republican’s acted like liberal demos and their base and many independents fled. PB in many ways acted against conservative interests and helped to ripen the apple for a democrat revival. Democrats in power today owe more to disgruntled conservatives than they do to loyal dems.

Today, the Republican party is faced with a choice and in choosing it will determine their future. Should the party return to its conservative philosophy and embrace the ideas of President Reagan and House Speaker Gingrich and prosper or should the party emulate the big spending, big taxing, smothering big government ways of liberals and democrats and fail.

That’s the question for the Republican Party Daugherty and frankly I don’t begin to know which it will choose.

Mr. Limbaugh right now is actually the leader of conservatives regardless of the R, D, or I label they place upon themselves. He is attempting to rally conservatives to unite, not as republicans, democrats, or independents, but as conservatives reminiscent of the coalition that produced truly landslide victories for president Reagan.

The last time a true conservative faced a true liberal was the contest between Reagan and Carter. We no longer have a Reagan but the Dems have many Carters.

You and others may deny the past success of conservative leadership but it is there for anyone to see. When the Republican Party no longer adhered to conservative principles, but rather began to espouse liberal and democrat philosophies they lost elections and deservedly so.

I need not remind you or anyone else how close the past election was despite the fact that only a blathering idiot running as a democrat could loose. Did you or anyone else really expect Bob Dole to beat Clinton or John McCain to beat Barack?

President Bush, hardly a conservative, but with a huge conservative following that he didn’t deserve beat your two best guys in AlGore and J Kerry. After eight years of PB and a less than conservative republican congress did any democrat really expect to loose. Liberalism didn’t defeat conservatives, it defeated Republicans acting like democrats. And, a number of democrats running as conservatives defeated liberal republicans.

So, what you’re seeing today is a private citizen, Mr. Limbaugh, take the reins of leadership, not of Republicans, but of conservatives, and giving them the confidence to stand up for what they believe. When a real conservative politician shows up you can be certain that Rush will hand the reins to him or her and continue to rally our ranks.

Rush is the cheerleader for conservatives. He is the historian that reminds us of how and why we win elections. He does his work by comparing what we believe with what you believe works best in government. He offers no free lunch, no free money, no success without work. What he offers is what has made America the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever known and what has endowed her people with the opportunity found in self-reliance and small effective government.

Frankly Daugherty, I don’t know when a conservative political leader will emerge, but I am certain one will. Liberalism is the default position when conservatives fail to remain watchful and united. As with evil, the only thing necessary for liberalism to succeed is that good men do nothing.

Like liberty and freedom, the desire for conservatism will never fade or diminish in the hearts of men. It is rekindled every time we witness the excess of liberalism.

Mr. Limbaugh over a period of many years has not changed his conservative philosophy to accommodate anyone or any party. And yet, his popularity has grown every year with more listeners today than any other non-elected voice. Why is that Mr. Daugherty? Why does a conservative voice continue to attract new folks and retain the old ones? It’s really simple…it’s the message, not the messenger.

As a liberal I would be very concerned as it is your messenger that keeps liberals afloat today, not the message.

Posted by: Jim M at March 3, 2009 4:55 PM
Comment #276684

Jim M.-

I know that the strategy being put forth by Rush and other conservatives has escaped you Daugherty so I will reveal some of the game plan.

It has escaped me? Oh Noes!!!

Having Rush as the commanding voice for your party in this time is like having alcohol as your planned solution for your drinking problem. Rush was apologizing for Bush right up to the point that things went south in 2006. Most of the talk radio people went the same way.

The idea that they were voices in the wilderness, prophesizing the doom of the party based on its sins is ridiculous. There were many years for them to attack the rot within the party, but they were less concerned about those in the party, and more concerned about those outside it.

Yes, Rush is a cheerleader. He’s never stopped being one. He’s an ideologue who, never having held elected office or been given any responsibility of governing has the luxury of looking down on the less pure, even as he covers for their degenerate asses

Rush is a cheerleader. Cheerleaders don’t truly critique the party. They just exhort them to charge into battle, purify their school spirit, and beat the other side. They aren’t going to start yelling critiques about corruption, or consider new directions. Rush is just the party’s echo chamber reverberating its own desire to be united and put up a united front.

You folks don’t need a cheerleader. You need statesmen. You need folks who actually have some governing sense, some good ideas. You need people who can stand up for your interest in a time where you folks don’t set the agenda. You need people who aren’t looking to the next election to undo the damage, but instead rebuild their reputations through quality government responsibility.

You can rhapsodize about how attractive conservatism might be to people, how it will never die, or whatever variation of that stuff you care to bring to the table. But if you look at where your party is right now, your comebacks is not nigh, and your credibility won’t allow you to just Replace the Democrats at their first failure. The tide is against you. You can either drown trying to swim the channels against the current, or you can find a sensible handhold and wait out the storm.

Your choice. But if you want to follow Rush out into the dangerous waters of self-deception, be my guest. That’s why Obama’s goading Rush, making sure people are paying attention when he humiliates and subordinates the party members who are supposed to be thinking of themselves. Rush to many people is a relic of the Gingrich Revolution, a figure who reached national notice in the Clinton Era, where the Republicans were on the rise. In short, he represents the failed experiment which was Republican rule over the last decade and a half. Follow him as a symbol, and you doom your movement to share his infamy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 3, 2009 6:18 PM
Comment #276688

It’s quite obvious that Daugherty is writing about someone he knows little about except for the rants by the political left.

I listen and read all I can about PO and the liberal congress and from that draw my conclusions. I wonder when Daugherty last listened to more than a Rush soundbite on MSNBC?

Conservatives have a message that will live beyond the current messenger. All you have is PO the messenger who has trotted out the old tax and spend ways of failed liberals policies. Frankly, with a conservative congress in 2010 I wonder if he will resign and let Biden take the heat for all the craziness?

Posted by: Jim M at March 3, 2009 6:36 PM
Comment #276696

Jim M said: “It’s quite obvious that Daugherty is writing about someone he knows little about except for the rants by the political left. “

If it’s so obvious, why do you feel compelled to make such a big point of it?

Your sophistry tricks may work on some, but, ‘you can’t fool all the people all the time’.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 3, 2009 7:23 PM
Comment #276697

Jim M said: “I would simply ask…can anyone name one country in the history of the world that was destroyed because its government didn’t tax its people enough?”

Sure thing! The Roman Empire. Their failure to maintain tax revenues from the barbarian reaches spelled the end of the empire’s centuries of addiction to greed and largesse, a slow cancerous death of bribing barbarians to not attack, and not taxing enough to make a high paid profession of being a Roman soldier to maintain a large enough army to protect the realm.

Of course, this can be viewed from other perspectives like their wants to spend exceeding their willingness to tax and alienate the wealthiest, the wealthiest of course had their own militias constituting and ever present potential threat of overthrow of the emperor and or Senate.

Those who attempt to cast taxation and spending as a simple addition and subtraction problem, completely fail to appreciate the complexity of taxation’s relationship to spending, and the passivity of the people to accept the consequences of government’s rationale for its taxing and spending behavior. Add to this complexity the relationship of taxing and spending policy to time, as in present to past comparisons which the public will make, and present policy’s ties to future consequences, and it rapidly becomes a topic which overwhelms most folks without a broad education in history, economics, civics and politics, math, and of course, philosophy.

Electing GW Bush and Republicans to manage such a complex system as taxation and spending policy resulted in the national debt growing from 5.65 trillion to over 12 trillion in just 8 years.

Since there is no other electable Party from which to choose candidates for this job, the voters were left only one choice, stand by the Republicans and their debt growth mismanagement, or elect Democrats to attempt to remedy the many economic crises Republican governance created with the only tools at their disposal, spending and taxation policy.

Time will tell if voters ever had a clear choice at all over the potential demise of their economic future. Democrats plan may, or may not work, we will won’t know for at least 4 years. What we do know though, is that Republicans didn’t have a clue, or care what they were doing and causing with their tax cutting and growing spending policies. They were just reveling in the power to make such decisions in order to reward their supporters.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 3, 2009 7:44 PM
Comment #276704

Jim M.,
Do you support Rush because of his willingness to support Reganomics and Trickledown Economics? Or because Rush has made a living exploiting the Natural Gap of Wisdom held by the DNC and RNC and is afriad of losing his Bread and Butter?

Yes, Rush does know how to get under the skin of the Old Democratic Party; however, at the expense of sounding rude I do believe that he would sale his own childs’ future in order to maintain the Status Quo. Because what happens in 2010 and 2012 if the Republicans cannot win and return America back to Trickledown Economics where the Rich rule the Poor. Will Rush still have millions of listeners and loyal ditto heads?

No, the RNC thanks to Rush needs a Leader who understands that the 20th Century is over and that it is the Ideas of the Conservative Youth that will save them from being replaced by a National Party ready to oppose President Obama and the Democratic Party about how to build a sustainable green cilized world. For as you pointed out Rush has no goal of seeking the Office of President himself and everything to gain in keeping his listeners and Conservatives lost in the wilderness for another 30 years.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 3, 2009 8:34 PM
Comment #276718


“You folks don’t need a cheerleader. You need statesmen. You need folks who actually have some governing sense, some good ideas.”

you’re right because those leading right now sure don’t have any.

“You can rhapsodize about how attractive conservatism might be to people, how it will never die, or whatever variation of that stuff you care to bring to the table. But if you look at where your party is right now, your comebacks is not nigh, and your credibility won’t allow you to just Replace the Democrats at their first failure.”

we won’t have to, because in two years there will be plenty more to capitalize on. you seem to forget what cost you the majority back in 94, and you’re already headed down that same road. how quickly you forget. 06, and 08 were not about a belief in liberalism, but about a party that had forgotten why they had been trusted with majority power in the first place. better look in the mirror. those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, again, and again, and again…….you get the picture.

Posted by: dbs at March 3, 2009 11:32 PM
Comment #276734

dbs said: “you seem to forget what cost you the majority back in 94, and you’re already headed down that same road. how quickly you forget.”

And so do you. It was family values. Guns, abortion, and religion. Not economics of family budgets, though everyone generally desires lower taxes along with effective government services continuing, and a viable economy to rely upon for employment and raising children. These and many more preferences compete with each other, and most folks handle such competing preferences responsibly and sensibly, just as most folks today elected Obama while he was saying on the campaign trail that he would raise taxes on those who can afford to have them raised.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 4, 2009 4:31 AM
Comment #276750

Jim M, dbs-
I could probably guess his opinion on most subjects simply by asking myself what the most hardline Republican position on a matter is. I could guess it by asking which side the Democrats are on, no matter what part of the ideological divide they are, and merely guess the opposite. He’s always treating liberals as the bane of civilization.

In information theory, a whole bunch of information and great meaning are not necessarily the same thing. I could listen to him three hours a day, for the next few days, but would that mean that I was getting three hours of meaningful new insight from him? No. The guy is an ideologue, depressingly predictable. All cheerleaders are, by their nature.

Cheerleaders market. You know how marketing works. A product is always new and improved, never old and degraded. You don’t see people hiring ugly people to sell their stuff, except as a joke. Marketing, to paraphrase Garrison Keillor’s immortal joke, is a universe where the children are all above average.

Rush and his friends want to appear as if they are opposing the forces that got your party into trouble. But that’s just another variation of new and improved. New and Improved! Modern Conservatism! Now with less compromise, harder swerves to the right, and fewer carbs!

But really, if you take note of their policy positions, listen to what they say, They haven’t changed one bit.

Don’t fool yourself: The Republican party is precisely where it was before the 2006 election, with no real difference in its ideology or its practices. The main difference is that their audience has diminished.

Don’t kid yourself about this. It’s not merely me trying to intimidate you. This is why the Republicans are where they are. This is not some temporary departure of the committed conservatives. They actually have never left, as the whole tumult about Rush demonstrates. This is a more or less long term departure of centrists and moderates who expected the promises of the Republican party to hold true and were violently let down.

Obama and the Democrats could do the same, but we’re not yet at the point where Obama and the Democrats have built up that resentment. People know where he’s starting from, and that means they’re patient with him. Additionally, he’s not the sort to try people’s patience, like the Republican unapologetically can be.

Two years of failure will undoubtedly take the luster off the Obama White House, but he’ll still be more popular than those who started the mess.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 4, 2009 10:41 AM
Comment #276762


rush isn’t running for office as far as i know. on the other hand we have former left wing talk radio hatemonger al frankin who is currently trying to steal a senate seat. i guess jeneane garafalo will be next.

Posted by: dbs at March 4, 2009 12:12 PM
Comment #276773

Steal it? He came out on top in the automatic recount. Meanwhile, Coleman’s been trying to get forged votes counted, absentee ballots he previously agreed were inadmissable, and even suggested a redo on the election.

Rush isn’t running for office, but he’s sure bossing around a bunch of people who are, isn’t he? When did Rush become the king of the Republican Party?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 4, 2009 1:21 PM
Comment #276777


as far as i know frankin came out ahead only after the hand recount. just like the gov of washington did. funny how when democrats lose by a couple hundred votes they magicly turn into a couple hundred vote win after a hand recount. well…except for that pesky 2000 presidential election, but of course that was stolen LOL!!!!!! after all we know it ‘s only republicans that steal elections, because democrats would never do such a thing LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: dbs at March 4, 2009 2:06 PM
Comment #276819

Help me with this somebody.
Because of my psychosis I’m unable to tell what’s a dream and what’s real.
There’s a thing in my memory. The date is November 8th, 2006. Rush is on the radio and I paraphrase, “I’m relieved. I don’t have to carry the water for these guys anymore.” Then I’m in another place. Rush is called in to the fortress of the dark overlords of the rulers of the Earth. And I must say, he does get quite a working over. Kind of makes me wonder; What’s the definition of ‘principles.’”

Posted by: Stephen Hines at March 4, 2009 8:55 PM
Comment #276892

I wonder if Rush would care to debate this Huckleberry due to the fact that President Obama is to much of a Gentleman abd Scholar. For I would like to hear from the Conservatives how their Trickledown Economic Theory can solve the problems just I would like to hear from the Liberals how their Trickle Up Economic Theory will fix the issues facing Their Children.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 5, 2009 4:55 PM
Comment #276896


So you feel that is OK to ignore the Minnesota law that requires an automatic recount, and you feel that Franken should just roll over and give Coleman the seat?

“Landmark election recount bill becomes law in Minnesota
May 19 2008 | For Immediate Release

May 19, 2008 — Minnesota continues to improve its election transparency and accountability standards with passage of an innovative law allowing losing candidates to call for manual recounts in select precincts. Called the “partial discretionary recount,” one of the first of its kind in the nation, is a cost-effective way for candidates to have the election results in specific precincts verified.

The law expands on provisions of Minnesota’s recount law which provides for recounts in races within a margin of victory of 0.5%. Under the new added provision, candidates in any contest with a 5% margin of victory may call for a hand recount, at their expense, of up to three precincts. If the requested recount shows a difference greater than 0.5% compared to the Election Day results, there will be hand recounting of additional precincts. That could lead to a contest-wide recount if more disparities between the reported results and the hand counts are discovered.”


I was raised in Riverside, a small city in Southern California, a vastly different place than Detroit, and BTW though Riverside is located 60 miles from L.A, the atmosphere was light-years different from there as well.
My parents taught me to treat people as I wished to be treated. Color of one’s skin or one’s ethnic background wasn’t ever mentioned. Two of my best friends in high school were black. They were brothers, and musicians. There was never anything racial brought up or discussed, it wasn’t necessary. We treated each other as human beings, as members of the same race.
The human race.

Jim M.,

I was also taught to help people in need. It didn’t matter that those folks might have made a mistake that placed them in the situation in the first place.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 5, 2009 6:07 PM
Comment #276897


where did say the automatic recount should be ignored?

Posted by: dbs at March 5, 2009 6:15 PM
Comment #276907


Do you read what you write before you post it?


Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 5, 2009 8:02 PM
Comment #276970
funny how when democrats lose by a couple hundred votes they magicly turn into a couple hundred vote win after a hand recount

This is because a hand recount counts votes that would not be interpeted by the machine. In the case of MN, this means people may have put an x or a checkmark in the circle instead of filling it in. The small number of people who fill out their ballot incorrectly are more likely to be DFL voters than GOP ones. So when they did a hand recount, Franken was able to gain about a few hundred votes and overtake Coleman. There are a few disputed ballots left for the court to resolve, but it is highly unlikely that Franken will not be MN’s next Senator.

One example and and another of what I’m talking about. These voters initially put an x or a check mark and then filled in the oval when they realized they made a mistake. Nevertheless, the machine sees the stray mark and throws out the ballot, but when it is hand counted it’s definitely a Franken vote.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 6, 2009 2:07 PM
Comment #276975

Rocky admonishes me by writing; “I was also taught to help people in need. It didn’t matter that those folks might have made a mistake that placed them in the situation in the first place.”

Good for you Rocky. I was taught the same thing and continue to do so willingly today with donations to many charitable and health related entities.

Apparently we only differ on one thing. I do my giving freely and not because my govermment points a gun at my head and tells me how much and to whom I must give. Some of us still know the difference between charity and government mandate.

Here’s a question for Rocky and others. If it’s true that nearly 50% of spending on health care is done by government, and if it’s true that health care cost are spiraling out of control, why then, is government not responsible for at least 50% of the increasing costs?

And, when government provides 100% of health care, how will that lower costs when their control of 50% hasn’t?

And finally, would Rocky or others on this blog be anxious to move to government provided housing? If not, why not. If we all lived in government housing wouldn’t that be more fair??? Wouldn’t that solve our housing crisis? Why are some so anxious to go to the government clinic or hospital for care and yet would shun the same control over their housing?

I recall a scene from the movie Dr. Zhivago (spelling) after the revolution in which his family home had been converted to a multi-family slum. An old woman yells at Zhivago that “we are now all equal”. Yep…you bet, all equally miserable.

Let’s have trickle-up poverty until that glorious day when all comrades are poor and dependent upon the state for our very existence. What a celebration that will be. Class envy will no longer exist; being stamped out by the introduction of universal poverty.

Posted by: Jim M at March 6, 2009 3:17 PM
Comment #276981


“The small number of people who fill out their ballot incorrectly are more likely to be DFL voters than GOP ones.”

why is that? if these people read the directions this would never happen. why did they not ask for a new ballot? it seems all this trouble could be avoided by taking a little personal responsibility.

Posted by: dbs at March 6, 2009 5:27 PM
Comment #276982

dbs, you are absolutely correct, if these people had taken the time to follow directions then this would have been avoided. Nevertheless, when you have a system where millions and millions of people are casting ballots, you are inevitably going to have a few idiots who make mistakes. In this country, the only requirements to vote are citizenship, living for at least eighteen years and in some places, not being convicted of a felony, but not a lack of idiocy.

There are many reasons that Democratic voters are more likely to make mistakes of this sort on their ballots. These people are more likely a part of one (or more) of these groups:

1)First time voter
2)Immigrant who’s first language is not English
4)Late for work, no time to start all over again

As you can see some of the blocks typically vote Democratic, therefore are more likely to commit errors on their ballot. MN law is quite clear that if upon a hand recount a voter’s intention can be determined by an elections official then the vote counts.

BTW you can look at all the disputed ballots from the last election if you like. If you look hard enough, you can see that some of the ballots with errors were GOP voters.

The Star-Tribune also has a database of disputed ballots from the election

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 6, 2009 6:06 PM
Comment #276985


thanks for the lnk. thats incredible. those challenges range from legit, to chicken sh#t, and some of those folks just should not be voting. it would save alot of trouble if they would just insist the ballots be filled out correctly, and make sure there’s someone at the poles to assist anyone that needs help. good grief !

“1)First time voter
2)Immigrant who’s first language is not English
4)Late for work, no time to start all over again

1) should take extra time to make sure ballots filled out correctly, no excuse.

2) get assistance ask questions.

3)should be offered assistance, if they refuse there’s no excuse.

4) no excuse. if it’s important enough to vote, it’s important enough to take the time to get it right. most places have sample ballots read the instructions, and take the sample with you.

5) have someone read the ballot and instructions, or use your sample ballot that someone has helped you with.

IMO there’s pretty much a solution for each of those scenarios once again it comes back to personal responsibility.

Posted by: dbs at March 6, 2009 8:01 PM
Comment #276992

I already said that I completely agreed with your assertion that some of these people are completely incompetent when it comes to voting; what I listed were reasons/explanations of why some ballots contain errors, not excuses. Remember though, that nobody’s perfect there will always inevitably be a small number of ballots that end up like this; keep in mind that these ballots are a few hundred drops in an ocean of millions of votes, so these votes only make a difference when the election is extremely close such as right now in MN, a few years ago in WA and in FL in 2000. We have laws in place to resolve these elections and I think that in all three cases the laws were followed properly. It is true that different states have different laws, MN I know has a pretty lenient standard, so the two votes I linked earlier would definitely be counted in the hand recount, but not in the initial machine count. As for the ones that look like crap, that’s for the lawyers and judges to decide.

As I said, MN has a pretty lenient standard, which I learned while following the recount last year. In FL, the standard in 2000 was a bit more stringent. If FL had MN’s 2008 standard in 2000, Al Gore could very well have been our President, on the flip side if MN and WA had FL’s standard, then Coleman would still be a Senator and Dino Rossi would have been governor. But in any case, there were laws on the books in each state that were proposed and approved by the state legislators in the state in question and these laws reflect the will of the voters in how they wish elections to be run in their government. If someone disagrees, he or she is free to petition the government and/or run for public office in order to change the rules.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 6, 2009 10:08 PM
Comment #277022

Jim M,

“And finally, would Rocky or others on this blog be anxious to move to government provided housing?”

Please feel free to show us ANYONE that is anxious to move into “government housing”.

You folks on the right seem to think everybody that thought they could afford a rental payment felt they could game the system and get bailed out if they bought a home with at, or about the same payment.
Just how many houses in your gated community are empty as a result of the housing crisis?
You don’t seem to understand that these empty houses drive down the value of all the houses in the community.
Can we assume that you have already had your mortgage burning party, and you feel everyone else is now on their own?

Jim, rich folks aren’t the only one’s that give to charity.
Have you checked recently on the state of the Red Cross, and the other well known charities?

Can we all assume that you send your SSI check back every month because there are people in this country that might need it more than you do?

After all, that would be the “Christian” thing to do.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 7, 2009 10:47 AM
Comment #277024

Jim M,


Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 7, 2009 11:20 AM
Comment #277046

Three words: margin of error. Elections won by significant margins are less likely to be the result of the random errors of voting behavior. But if you’re getting into vanishingly small margins, like a few hundredths or thousands of a percent, then the chance that the election victory could be an artifact of improper counting becomes significant.

There never was a true hand recount in Florida. The original results were certified. Regardless of the rhetoric, the problem with that approach is that it left major issues unresolved, such that small errors that did not typically frustrate the legitimacy of election results became major issues. The Bush Administration, though, and not for the first time, did not care whether their moves were seen as legitimate, but instead whether they got to do what they wanted.

Here, we have a close contest. But if you look to see whose efforts have the least air of legitimacy, Coleman’s your guy. It’s a measure of how desperate he is that he’s actually tried to get obviously forged ballots and ballots his own legal team earlier agreed were not legtimate counted. The legal tap-dancing on this would make Gregory Hines jealous.

Let’s be adults here: where there’s been a recount, and nobody’s really made a good case for foul play, we should trust the results. That’s the only way we move forward. When the Bush team refused to let the recount proceed, they implicitly voiced doubts as to whether they could win that recount, which argues to others that they shouldn’t put too much trust in it either.

Here it is, more than four months since the election, and Coleman is still being given every legal opportunity to have his votes fairly counted. If it were all just a liberal conspiracy, the timing is suspiciously off, since Franken would be awfully useful as an additional senator. With all of Coleman’s patience-trying arguments (Moving for people to include forged ballots? Doubling back on Ballots you already said were okay or not okay?) It’s a wonder he’s lasted this long. If we were really pulling strings, we could have plausibly shut this down months ago. Instead, it’s allowed to go on forever, exhausting Coleman’s legal remedies. That’s the way you go when you want to nail something like this shut by legitimate means.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 7, 2009 4:56 PM
Comment #295993

21st feb 2010:it doesn’t require a great deal of courage to change america into something better,
only a little common sense.

Posted by: andrew j.b.hastie at February 20, 2010 7:09 PM
Post a comment