First they came for Rush

Democrats have an addiction: Demonization. They know well the value of a good scapegoat. Demonizing is more important than fixing the economy, more important than the bi-partisanship they say they embody, even more important than saving the planet. Or is it?

Maybe Democrats believe that it's necessary to destroy all their enemies first in order to save the planet. This would make sense when you look at the actions of the left rather than their words.

The 'new' politics of hope and change looks just like a ramped up, more hateful and malicious version of the old politics (of personal destruction). Who would have thought that this was the way to unite America?

So my liberal friends, is this the blueprint on how to be a uniter and not a divider? Attempting to silence your critics? Using the power of the media and the Executive branch to crush any dissent or disagreement as the model of civility?

Obama's plan to target Rush began in October according to the Politico. The demonization of Rush Limbaugh was planned, coordinated, and executed by members of the Democratic machine and the administration. Obama himself pulled the trigger, signaling that the slander and coordinated attacks should begin. It continues day after day as liberal journalists demand a disavowal from every Republican on their respective shows.

"Are you now, or have you ever agreed with Rush Limbaugh?"

Ironically (or not) democrats are a caricature of their own psychological projections.

What we should be asking is how long will this targeting of Rush Limbaugh be the main priority of the Obama administration?

First they came for Rush, next, who knows, everyone who disagrees with the President's plans for radical and "fundamental transformation of the United States of America" may be targeted. Beware.

Posted by Eric Simonson at March 7, 2009 8:00 PM
Comments
Comment #277057

This appears to be the topical Republican tactic of evasion, i.e., do everything to create hate and discontent…then blame the other guy for creating hate and discontent.

Obama said, very quietly and as a gentleman, that if Republicans wanted to play in the game, they might look to someone besides the very abrasive Rush Limbaugh for their political ideas. It had become plain that Rush was leading the Republican leadership, and the President knew that any crossing of the aisle could not be done with Rush as the head cheese.

Mr. Obama did not start any kind of a war of words…that war had been instigated by Rush, himself. But, while the President advises Republicans to think for themselves, my advise would be to Rush and his ditto heads…you can give people headaches by shouting louder then your debater, but you will almost always lose the war of words, as it is hard to think when all you hear is your own voice.

Rush Limbaugh is the perfect leader for the current Republican party…I am grateful to him for taking over the conservative movement.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 7, 2009 8:27 PM
Comment #277060

Yes Eric,

I was all a massive plot. They cast an evil spell on him, forcing him to say stupid things like the president should fail. When you are given a present that falls in your lap, should one ignore it? Maybe next he’ll advocate assassination of the president. Of course, that too, would be someone else’s fault.

Rush’s problem is two fold, a big mouth and microphone, and stupidity, coupled with arrogance. No one has demonized him, they simply agree with most American’s that his politics are passe.

Posted by: gergle at March 7, 2009 8:36 PM
Comment #277061

How can you demonize someone who says they hope America fails? Rush did it to himself!

Posted by: Mike the Cynic at March 7, 2009 9:07 PM
Comment #277062

What Rush says he hopes fails is a shift toward socialism. He never said he hopes America fails. In fact, he believes that America will fail if socialism is imposed. Maybe Rush is wrong and Obama is not trying to take the country too far left. In which case he is just misguided.

It is strange that a President, who is supposed to represent all the people, finds it expedient to fight with a talk show entertainer. I guess maybe he should talk to Rush w/o preconditions and find common ground.

Democrats were not exactly kind to President Bush or others before them. They always said that opposing the president’s policies was a good thing and got very upset when anybody even implied that it was not patriotic to do that. Has that changed? Is dissent no longer patriotic?

Posted by: Christine at March 7, 2009 10:36 PM
Comment #277063

Sorry - what rush says is that he hopes a shift toward socialism fails. I just forgot the last word.

I disagree with Rush, BTW. I don’t believe Obama want us to fall into socialism, but that is merely a disagreement about interpretation.

Posted by: Christine at March 7, 2009 10:41 PM
Comment #277065

Christine was it socialism or liberalism that Rush wanted to see fail? There is a difference that he and most others on the right fail to understand and acknowledge. No matter how many times it is said it still remains an inaccurate reflection of the facts. It is an old line that is no longer effective in swaying most Americans. The election of Obama proves that doesn’t it?

Why is it that Rush can spew his line of crap to the point repubs in Congress as well as Steele of the RNC find it necessary to publicly disagree with him, yet it is Obama that is picking the fight with a mere talk radio host? The excessive antagonizing by Rush only serves to hinder the repub elected representatives as they seek to work with the other side of the aisle in Congress. Yet he continues to rally the talk radio conservatives against the repubs working for viable solutions to the Countries problems. At some point in time these guys will need to wake up and realize the past 8 years of conservatism that Limbaugh was in agreement with has left us in a deep hole and most Americans do not want more of the same because it has failed us.

Myself I am encouraged by Obama because he isn’t afraid to disagree with the mouthpiece of the talk radio conservatives. If he continues to express the position of his administration as he has done so far without feeling the need to apologize, as the repub elected leaders have done, can only serve the best interests of the Country. The Limbaugh in his drive to increase his audience has succeeded in doing so but has failed his side of the issue and has caused the elected repubs to appear to be weak and foolish IMHO.

While in certain respects it is fun to watch the repubs in general and the talk radio conservatives in particular self destruct, due in large part to Limbaugh, I really do want to see a minority conservative repub party that is effective in Congress. Yes I really do not want the talk radio conservatives to disappear.. although if the movement was small enough to drown in the bathtub…;)

Posted by: j2t2 at March 7, 2009 11:12 PM
Comment #277069

How is saying someone is the intellectual leader of a party demonizing them?

Posted by: Max at March 7, 2009 11:47 PM
Comment #277070

What brought Eric Simonson out of the undisclosed location that held him for the last 16 months?

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 8, 2009 12:15 AM
Comment #277073

Mike the cynic,

How can you demonize someone who says they hope America fails? Rush did it to himself!

Case in point, (unless this is meant to be sarcastic irony), Rush said that he hopes Obama fails. Oh, Wait, I just realized that Obama is America… why, in that case, you might be right after all!

LawnBoy,

They finally let me out of gitmo.

Posted by: eric simonson at March 8, 2009 12:45 AM
Comment #277074

Eric,
Is Rush the leader of the GOP?

Or is he NOT the leader of the GOP?

He seems to speak for the GOP. He served as the keynote speaker for CPAC, a role that was hyped pretty hard by FOX. Several prominent Republicans have already apologized to him when they had the temerity to disagree with him. Now the Chairman of the RNC, Steele, has not only apologized for calling his show “ugly” and “incendiary”- his words, not mine- but now it seems likely Steele, the Chairman of the RNC, will resign.

Personal attacks on Rush Limbaugh might be ‘demonizing.’ For example, it would be a personal attack to point out he is fat and a drug addict. It is true, but it is a personal attack rather than a political one. Then again, Limbaugh makes personal attacks on a daily basis. In fact, that is how he makes his living. It is “entertaining.”

Personally, I have no problem with Limbaugh saying he wants Obama to fail. Limbaugh makes it clear where he stands. That’s fine. He would rather see Obama’s policies fail, and the United States plunge into deep depression, than run the risk of Obama’s policies succeeding, and being proven to be better for the country than the conservative policies of the GOP. Utter disaster for the country is good for the GOP. Fair enough.

If that means you and I have to lose our jobs, our houses, and live in impoverished misery, well, so be it! Because for Rush Limbaugh and conservatives, it’s worth the price. The country and everyone in it is expendable on the altar of their political philosophy. It’s better that Obama’s policies fail, and for all of us to lose everything; it’s worth it if it will bring conservatives back into power, and give their ideas yet another chance.

Posted by: phx8 at March 8, 2009 3:13 AM
Comment #277076

Limbaugh is a drug addled,dangerious ,lunatic not to mention a congenital lier. With his bully pulpit he has the elected Rep leadership so fearful that they are proposing irrational and destructive solutions to the economic crises. A spending freeze? Even Hoover was not that crazy. Limbaugh has done more to hurt the country than Jane Fonda ever did.

Posted by: bills at March 8, 2009 5:40 AM
Comment #277077

It’s about time somebody put this fat pill popper in his place. I’m glad President Obama has made a point to put an end to this dissension. He was elected by a majority, and so a majority doesn’t want to hear his jibber-jabber.

Posted by: mike brady at March 8, 2009 6:16 AM
Comment #277081

Phx8

I have listened to Rush only a few times when I was driving. He is not the leader of the Republican party. He is an influential radio entertainer. You may be encouraged that the president of the United States feels sufficiently threatened by Rush to challenge him. I think the president should be more than an entertained. President Bush did not pick a fight with Al Franken, for example.

I think you are misusing the word mouthpiece. In common usage it means someone who is just talking for someone else. The mob used to use the word for lawyers. If he is indeed a (if not they) leader of opinion, he cannot also be just a mouthpiece, which would imply he is only repeating what someone else tell s him to say.

Sometimes conservatives confuse liberalism with socialism, but so do liberals, because the goals are similar. They are moving the U.S. in the direction of social-democratic European countries. They are not necessarily bad, but remember that Germany and France have tolerated unemployment rates as high as our “crisis” levels for decades.

Returning to Rush, I think you need to understand what he says and stop attacking your own stereotype. He doesn’t say that he would prefer that the U.S. fail rather than adopt what he calls socialist policies. He believes that it will fail because of such policies. In other words, the cure will make the economy sicker. You may disagree. I think he is over the top. But wanting to prevent something that he thinks will hurt America is far different from wanting America to fail.

I ask the question again, is dissent now a bad thing? All the liberals and Dems who opposed Bush or Reagan presumably hoped that at least some of what they wanted to accomplish would fail. They fought against Bush’s social security reforms and defeated them, for example. As in Rush’s case, they wanted these reform attempts to fail because they thought they were bad for America. I don’t believe the Democrats and liberals who opposed president Bush wanted America to fail. Is that what you think?

Posted by: Christine at March 8, 2009 7:47 AM
Comment #277082

Eric,
If you feel the need to blame someon for the Democratic Party having the Courage and Conviction to stand up to Rush while the Republican Leadership licks his bbots than you can blame me. For if Rush really wants a debate about the direction of America and the need for the RNC than I will be his Huckleberry. For you see right before Christmas of thast year I wrote than President Elect Obama, Governor Easley, Senator Burr, and Congressman Brad Miller that I had posted an Unbreakable Argument on my website IndependentPundit.com. So please if you have any influence with Rush tell him that I am looking forward to debating him on the issues after listening to his golden mike for the last 20 years.

For who wants to keep the Poor from getting Rich? Who would rather keep all their money at the risk of their advertisers losing money? And yes, who told their own Party Leaders that they served him? So please tell me the Date and Time when I can challenge Rush over the Duties of a President of the United States of America. For unlike President Bush who by his own words said “It’ll have to wait for the next President” I do not see President Obama running to an undisclosed location in facing the Issues that the Conservative and Liberal Movement in the 20th Century would not even address.

Yes, you may be next in line after Rush proves himself to be unfit for command. Because why President Obama and the Democratic Citizens and Leaders may be to Civilized (Politically Correct) to show their Republican Counterparts how much of the Hook they have eating I am not of that Nature or Bound by that Code. So please lets debate why the Conservative Movement lead by Rush and Company is wrong for the RNC.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 8, 2009 7:52 AM
Comment #277084

Obama is the commander and chief. His fate is indisputably linked to America. He could have a string of bad luck…His kids both die, his wife leaves him, he gets a disease that is very painful and causes sores all over his face and if America is doing well then he is successful. On the other hand he could have a string of good luck, but if America is doing badly, then he is a failure. When Rush says he hopes Obama fails, he hoping America fails.

Can you imagine some shock jock saying he hopes Bush fails 6 or7 years ago, at the height of Bush’s power? He’d still be in Gitmo!

Posted by: Mike the Cynic at March 8, 2009 8:56 AM
Comment #277087

I think Eric might have been too embarrassed by his own blather and party to show his face. Apparently, he didn’t commit Hari Kari and has come to embarrass himself some more.

Of course, he really could have been at Gitmo, though he was more likely a torturer than a torturee, given his politics. Or maybe Dick got pissed off and offered to take him hunting. :)

Welcome back, Eric.

Posted by: gergle at March 8, 2009 10:32 AM
Comment #277089
Democrats have an addiction: Demonization. They know well the value of a good scapegoat. Demonizing is more important than fixing the economy, more important than the bi-partisanship they say they embody, even more important than saving the planet. Or is it?

Good question, coming from the people who made Swiftboating a common term in political parlance.

Ask Graeme Frost about the Republican’s saintliness on the top. 12 year old who spent weeks in a coma. He makes one little speech and the kind people in the conservative media start sliming his family.

Ask Cindy Sheehan, a mother protesting her child’s death in Iraq. Of course, the Republicans surely couldn’t go after a person like that. (I know, you’ll have your reasons, you always do, but stop for a moment to think.) I mean, you could let her make her lonely protest. But now, of course, you have to destroy her.

Ask all the “phony” soldiers, who having come home from putting their lives on the line for their country, having earned their right, more than anybody else, get lectured on their patriotism by a guy who sat out Vietnam (okay, maybe laid on his stomach) with a Pilonidal Cyst.

Ask half a country’s worth of liberals, who are daily described as the scum of the earth.

Ask the socialists and the Europeans, Especially the country of France.

Why do we go after Rush, ask Republicans to say whether they are with him or against him?

It’s pretty simple. Look what he did to your leaders. He made harem guards of them in front of the entire country. Rush is a useful blowhard to provoke. He’s not a scapegoat, he’s an easily manipulateable enemy, whose reaction to our attacks are strategic useful to us.

If he moves the party further to its unpopular right, we pick up seats, further consolidating our power.

If he finally provokes somebody into defying him, Rush will split the party against that person, which reduces the Republican’s overall power, and Rush’s too, when that dissident takes former listeners with him.

If he successfully calls that person on the carpet, nobody forgets the slight, among Rush’s supporters, and they’re forever on shaky political ground. This might help us pick up a few seats, but also reduces the Republicans ability to manuever and react well.

In short, Eric, we’re not persecuting Rush, we’re provoking him into enacting a Spanish Inquisition of his own party, persecuting those who disagree with him at your party’s expense.

He’s doing our work for us, in other words. Enjoy the irony.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 8, 2009 11:45 AM
Comment #277090

Eric,

So far all I have heard from Obama about Limbaugh is;
“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done”.

Now Rush, and his cohorts may feel the need to parse that statement as a “personal attack”, but beyond all the spin you guys on the right want to put on it, when all is said and done it seems all the President did was offer an opinion.
The last time I checked, the President wasn’t required to leave his opinion at the door when he took the oath of office.

After decades of hearing the word “liberal” used as a pejorative, I find it highly amusing to see all the squirming from the right when the shoe is on the other foot.

I have been here for a few years, and have read your posts supporting the very policies that put this country on the edge of the precipice.

It’s nice to know that you still approve of the situation we all now face.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 8, 2009 12:07 PM
Comment #277093


The Obamarama Vs. the Vicodin Kid. The new stanza in a long crappy poem.

Posted by: jlw at March 8, 2009 1:36 PM
Comment #277095

“I have listened to Rush only a few times when I was driving. He is not the leader of the Republican party. He is an influential radio entertainer.”

I agree Christine,The Limbaugh is just a radio personality that manipulates the leaders of the repub party. I previously said he was the leader of talk radio conservatives not the repub party. I did say the leaders of the repub party kissed his ring after they criticized him in a brilliant display of weakness and stupidity though. So it seems to me those on the right should get together and work this out in lieu of attempting to blame others for their problems.


“You may be encouraged that the president of the United States feels sufficiently threatened by Rush to challenge him. I think the president should be more than an entertained. President Bush did not pick a fight with Al Franken, for example.”

Encouraged I am Christine, not because I think for 1 second that Obama feels threatened by Limbaugh but because he did not stoop to “ring kisser” status like the repubs felt the need to do. The thought that a “entertainer” deserves the apologies of elected officials for relatively mild comments is kinda weird don’t you think? Perhaps GWB didn’t go after Franken because in a battle of wits he didn’t have the firepower necessary to fire a shot. I don’t really know, but I see your point and am further encouraged that Obama doesn’t follow in GWB’s path as Obama has shown himself to have the ability to defend his position from those that attack him.

“I think you are misusing the word mouthpiece.”

Do you still think that, after this response to the leadership question? I really didn’t say he was the leader of the repubs, did I? But mouthpiece of the talk radio conservatives doesn’t seem to me to be such a misuse of the word when you consider it is an accurate reflection of what Limbaugh the entertainer does.

Is it just me or does Rush Limbaugh hide behind this “entertainer” line that is used to defend him so often? Does it seem cowardly of him to do so? If he is just entertaining are his comments to be taken as jokes and funny one liners with no serious political ramifications? Do his followers treat his comments as anything more than jokes? I personally know people that do not realize the Limbaugh is just an entertainer in fact they think he is a leader of the conservative movement. They take his jokes and commentary as political fact and vote based upon the conservative message this entertainer espouses. In fact when you bring up the theory that Limbaugh is just an entertainer telling jokes and making stuff up to entertain you they get red in the face defending him. Are we to beleive the central theme of his message -Conservatism- is just entertainment, jokes and one liners? Why would he mislead these people to such a degree? What is the difference between the propaganda of Goebbels and the deliberate misrepresentation of the Limbaugh and his defenders?

Michael Steele of the RNC said-
“I respect Rush Limbaugh, he is a national conservative leader, and in no way do I want to diminish his voice,” Steele said. “I’m sure that he and I will agree most of the time, but will probably disagree some as well, which is fine.”

Posted by: j2t2 at March 8, 2009 1:58 PM
Comment #277098

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

Thanks, Rocky. I don’t think it is to over the top to repeat the words that supposedly started a war against the ‘entertainer’, Rush Limbaugh, who had just told his listeners that he hoped the President failed. Just repeat the words and see how inciteful the are…I don’t know how the Republican party will survive such an attack…

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

Say them again, just to be sure we understand this firing of the first shot in this war…

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

Whew! That’s ugly…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 8, 2009 3:28 PM
Comment #277117

Stephen,

Your response puzzles me.

Is this truly the politics of hope?

The audacity of hope in this new era of change is actually a sustained campaign of attacks designed to paint a guy who isn’t even elected to any office as the demon we can all pour our disgust, hatred, and vitriol into?

I find it instructive to note that when there are real problems Obama and his one party government find it useful to scapegoat Rush Limbaugh as the source of all his opposition.

Not only that but the administration can’t even respond to Rush’s words without distorting them. Rush says he wants Obama to fail and Obama’s propaganda minister says that Rush says he wants the country and the economy to fail! A strawman.

If you want to say that Republicans are worse go ahead. It’s a perspective that I think is exaggerated with facts redefined and omitted but you can’t say that Obama is anything different than the worst you can say about Republicans.

Posted by: eric simonson at March 8, 2009 7:51 PM
Comment #277121

Eric Simonson-
We only have one president at a time. We only have one government at a time. If the Republicans want not to be constructive, they’re free to do so and suffer the consequences. But should they expect us not to complain?

The Republicans have done more than sink their own credibility. They’ve shown the futility of reaching out to them. If the only bipartisanship you folks accept is political date-rape, to use conservative Grover Norquist’s phrasing, then there’s little hope that we get the change we hoped for by cooperating with y’all.

The Republicans keep on looking back, expecting America to snap out of it and go back to the way it was. But the GOP has been kicked out of this particular eden of political dominance, and the way back is guarded by the inevitable forward march of time. You can’t undo the long, frustrating, partisan history of the Bush Administration, the divisive and offensive rhetoric, and most importantly, the credibility-shredding policy failures that gutted the idea that second chances for current Republican Orthodoxy was a good idea. How many elections must you lose to be convinced that your party isn’t going to mount a comeback any time soon?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 8, 2009 8:57 PM
Comment #277123

Eric,

“It’s a perspective that I think is exaggerated with facts redefined and omitted but you can’t say that Obama is anything different than the worst you can say about Republicans.”

Let me think………

Gee Eric, the American economy cratered under Republican leadership and they did squat to keep it from happening.

What was that about Obama again?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 8, 2009 9:04 PM
Comment #277124

@Marysdude and Rocky:

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

It never fails to amaze me how innocuous Obama’s words were. As I understand it, it was a throwaway line to a republican congressman at a meeting during the Stimulus talks. Following the pundits right after you’d think Obama had announced during a major speech “Rush Limbaugh is a drug-addicted, America-hating blowhard. And oh yeah, he’s also fat. Why does he hate America?”

Obama’s also joked that he’s well aware that republican congressmen will go on Fox News and trash him while he’s reaching out to them and when they do so, he’ll watch and “feel bad about himself”. How’s the Limbaugh thing any different? If anything, Limbaugh, republicans and the media created this. Democrats just took advantage.

Like I said in an earlier thread, no matter how much the right demonized Michael Moore or Hollywood liberals , I don’t remember prominent democrats falling over themselves to apologize after calling them out when they made incendiary remarks.

Can you imagine Michael Moore saying right after the War Authorization vote that he hoped that President Bush failed? Then democratic congressmen trying to defend Moore and spin it by saying they only wanted the “Bush Doctrine” to fail not America. I see this the same way.

Crying that Obama is demonizing Rush or that Rush is just an entertainer doesn’t hold much sway. I’m someone that thought that Rush was just an entertainer ‘til a couple of weeks ago as I watched slack-jawed, while prominent republicans prostrated themselves before him.

Check out the SNL skit.

Posted by: Nikita at March 8, 2009 9:28 PM
Comment #277125

From Eric’s article “Attempting to silence your critics? Using the power of the media and the Executive branch to crush any dissent or disagreement as the model of civility?”

“Maybe Democrats believe that it’s necessary to destroy all their enemies first in order to save the planet. This would make sense when you look at the actions of the left rather than their words.”


Eric it seems to me the DNC and Rush are co conspirators in this publicity stunt. If this was such a threat to Rush as your grossly exaggerated article claims it is why is he so excited about the increased audience this “controversy” has generated? Why do the dems want to see it continue while the repubs are the ones embarrassed by the Limbaugh and his antics?

From your link to Politico-

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

All of this from an entertainer who by his own words, in lieu of wanting to silence him as Eric states, has sought and received help from the administration to grow his numbers with the listening public.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 8, 2009 9:31 PM
Comment #277126

Rocky,
Just to put this into perspective- and a very horrifying perspective at that…

The “toxic assets” add up to about $52 trillion.

Secretary of the Treasury Geithner wants to sell them at 40 cents on the dollar, but no one is buying.

That means the losses amount to over $30 trillion dollars.

All US real estate is worth less than $14 trillion, and US stock markets are worth less than $7 trillion.

These are thumbnail estimates, but it puts the problem into perspective. Arguments about corrupt mortgage lenders, unqualified buyers, pork barrel spending, and Rush Limbaugh are laughable compared to scope of the real problem.

Speaking of Rush Limbaugh-
Here is conservative David Frum, a former speech writer for Bush (not #41, but the Worst President Ever Bush), in an article entitled “Why Rush is Wrong,” from Newsweek:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279?from=rss

Frum writes the following, which pretty much sums it up:

“If you don’t agree with Rush, quit calling yourself a conservative and get out of the Republican Party.”

Posted by: phx8 at March 8, 2009 9:45 PM
Comment #277127

phx8,

As John Stewart succinctly put it;

“If I had only followed CNBC’s advice,” Stewart says at one point, “I’d have a million dollars today. Provided I started with a 100 million dollars.”

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 8, 2009 10:18 PM
Comment #277129

Eric
You have a point. Its time to bring back the Sedition Acts and lock that anti-American scum up. It was good enough for Eugene Debs. Why not for Rush Limbaugh?If there was one thing we learned from WW2, its that you cannot deal with fascist. They must be killed or imprisoned.

Posted by: bills at March 8, 2009 10:56 PM
Comment #277130

Yes, the Oldguy is back from a winter in FL. Although I had access to the Internet, I chose to stay away from watchblog because I would rather golf and fish than to become depressed.

After reading the above responses to Eric’s post, I have come to the conclusion that those on the left still love to throw personal attacks at anyone who disagrees with liberal thought. The rule of watchblog is “attack the message and not the messenger”, but personal attacks on anyone else are permissible.

Rush has a following of nearly 23 million people. Can anyone name a democratic radio host who has this following? If you attack and denigrate Rush and his political beliefs, then you also do the same to 23 million US citizens.

I have heard democrat politicals make the same “talking points”, when being interviewed by news hosts, that Rush wanted BHO to fail. When they are corrected by the host, that Rush said he wanted BHO’s socialist agenda to fail, the politicals agreed. So it is amazing that such intelligent progressives on this site, still accuse Rush of saying he wanted BHO to fail, when they know it is untrue.

Rush has a platform in which he can allow “common” people to vent their beliefs. If people didn’t agree with him, they wouldn’t listen.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 8, 2009 10:59 PM
Comment #277131

bills,

“If there was one thing we learned from WW2, its that you cannot deal with fascist.”

Eric has already written about that subject.

http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/002086.html

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 8, 2009 11:08 PM
Comment #277134

“After reading the above responses to Eric’s post, I have come to the conclusion that those on the left still love to throw personal attacks at anyone who disagrees with liberal thought.”

One has to wonder Oldguy, when you read Eric’s article did you come to the conclusion that those on the right still love to throw personal attacks at anyone who disagrees with conservative thought?

“Rush has a following of nearly 23 million people. Can anyone name a democratic radio host who has this following? If you attack and denigrate Rush and his political beliefs, then you also do the same to 23 million US citizens.”

Using this logic Oldguy does that mean anyone that attacks and denigrates Obama, since he was elected with over 66 million votes, also attacks 66 million of his fellow citizens? Doesn’t seem to stop Rush from attacking and denigrating Obama. Do you think for some reason The Limbaugh deserves special consideration that Obama doesn’t?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 8, 2009 11:51 PM
Comment #277136

Oldguy-
After reading your response, I think you and Eric could use a reality check.

Rush has his following. But what use is he to you? Gathering power to himself, he chastens his wayward colleagues on the Right, but at the price of making them look weak to everybody else.

Rush did say he wanted Obama to fail. Hell, he reiterated it in a way that left no doubt, and did it on purpose, even congratulating himself on having the balls to say it. Whether or not he wants America to fail is debateable. In his mind, most likely he sees his way as the way to go, if he’s acting from good conscience.

Trouble is, there’s more at stake than Obama’s success or failure. He’s not saying: this is a crisis, we do what we can with the president to help, which is what Republicans said during WWII. He’s saying “This is socialism, and stopping socialism’s more important than stopping a major economic collapse” Which leaves us with two debateable points: whether he knows his ass from a hole in the ground on what real socialism is like, and whether it’s right to let the nation slide into severe economic decline over a matter of political theory.

Eight years of policy Rush undoubtedly supported have left America in a precarious economic perspective. Rush does not care about correcting that imbalance. He’s still trying to win the political battle. Whether he’s got 23 listeners or 23 million is irrelevant. He’s wrong, and he’s doing the partisan thing, rather than the patriotic. And no, he wouldn’t have to hew Obama’s line. He could very easily assemble conservative thinkers and come up with something different. Instead, he’s looking for failure.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 9, 2009 12:16 AM
Comment #277140

Stephen,

There is more at stake here than Obama personally succeeding or failing. The point is that this is not what we are are talking about.

For example— there is a house on fire and instead of dampening the flames and trying to put them out Obama is pouring gasoline on the fire. Now who wouldn’t want that person to fail?

Obama’s agenda is shaping up to look like exactly what he said it would be, “a fundamental transformation of America.” This is the point that Rush is making.

This is only partisan in the sense that it is about politics- but then everything is about politics. Politics is actions and ideas— that’s the whole point about this blog, if we are expected to take the politics out of this then there’s absolutely nothing to talk about.

This is not an economic collapse… yet. Obama is not doing the things that need to be done in order to stabilize the ‘crisis’. He doesn’t care about the ‘crisis’ per se except as an excuse to nationalize healthcare, redistribute wealth, and, “fundamentally transform America.”

With the Obama administration we are seeing that any prominent figure who disagrees with this radical policy will feel the full force of a negative PR campaign orchestrated from the white house openly!

But more importantly is the fact that Obama somehow feels that he needs a whipping boy, a scapegoat to demonize in order to be successful. This speaks to some fundamental flaw in my mind.

Posted by: eric simonson at March 9, 2009 1:53 AM
Comment #277141

Eric,
Why I have no problem with Rush leading his 23 million loyal listeners in public discord. I do have a problem with him saying that he bigger than the RNC. For why Rush and you cry over President Obamas’ Fundamentally Transform America I do believe it was President Bush, Rush, and others that said not to long ago that after 9/11 that things in America has changed.

So am I to believe Rush at his own words or am I to believe that after 20 years of listening to him tell his listeners what to do and think that he has changed? Please, I do believe that most Americans know better than that happening.

For I can see where Oldguy and you may think that President Obama and the Democratic Pundits are trying to make Rush a scapegoat. Seeing that Americas’ Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders are not defending Rushs’ Political Agenda I hope that you look at your Elected Conservative Leaders for answer. Because I would hate to see Rush cost the Individual and States the Right to be Energy Independent due to his Political Ignorance and the Blind Faith of his 23 million followers.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 9, 2009 2:36 AM
Comment #277144

Liberals are like women; they make decisions based on emotion instead of logic. This is why they attack a persons character rather than the message.

SD

BHO is using “economic crisis” to institute “socialism”. There is none of his economic policies that will do anything to help our economy. It is merely an excuse to institute a laundry list of social programs.

Rush was never easy on the policies of Bush. His belief was that Bush was too willing to move to the center. And Rush realizes this is an ongoing problem with the republican party. This is why McCain was destined to loose and why Sarah Palin was so popular. And this is also why the left attacked her character under the guise of vetting. She represented true conservative values.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 9, 2009 8:29 AM
Comment #277145

Rush has never told anyone what to do. In fact, when people have called in and wanted him to encourage listeners to call the white house, he has refused. Rush’s radio program is a gathering point for conservative ideas. Or a forum.

It is a fact: if you contact his listeners, you will find they have a better grasp of government than liberals. He refers his program to a “school of higher learning” and it is true.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 9, 2009 8:38 AM
Comment #277146

Eric,
I have the same problem with your ideas as I do with Rush’s; If Bush were still in power, you would be defending his actions with your last breath. But you are villifying Obama for doing more or less exactly as Bush would. Ergo, hypocrisy alert!!!!

It is breathtaking to listen to rush as he attributes sinister motives to what Obama is attempting to achieve. Breathtaking because one can tell Rush is intelligent and so, his deliberate misreading approaches the height of cynicism. Things like “obama’s actions are like pouring gasoline on the flames”. We both know perfectly well that you would be applauding if these same actions were being employed by your boy, Bush.

Posted by: steve miller at March 9, 2009 9:09 AM
Comment #277147

I still don’t understand how calling someone the intellectual leader of a party is “demonizing” them…

Posted by: Max at March 9, 2009 10:07 AM
Comment #277155
In a recent Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, it found that 68% of Republicans feel that their party has no clear cut leader. An interesting 2% feel conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh is their leader.
Posted by: womanmarine at March 9, 2009 12:08 PM
Comment #277157
Liberals are like women; they make decisions based on emotion instead of logic.

Whoa!!

Posted by: womanmarine at March 9, 2009 12:14 PM
Comment #277163

I just love Oldguy’s comment:

“Liberals are like women; they make decisions based on emotion instead of logic. This is why they attack a persons character rather than the message.”

This is what a lot of conservatives do to male democratic politicians - try to feminize them and make them less than manly. I don’t know why but it just made me smile when I saw that comment.

Maybe because it sounds like the kind of thing that Rush Limbaugh would say. Rush Limbaugh has low approval ratings across the board but do you know who really hates him? Women. Over 70% of his listeners are male. Now on the flip side, guess who loves Obama? Women. Now, who votes more? Men or Women?

After reading David Frum’s Newsweek column yesterday and seeing Oldguy’s comment from this morning, I’m seriously beginning to believe that Obama couldn’t have found a better opponent.

Posted by: Nikita at March 9, 2009 12:48 PM
Comment #277167

Eric Simonson-

There is more at stake here than Obama personally succeeding or failing. The point is that this is not what we are are talking about.
For example— there is a house on fire and instead of dampening the flames and trying to put them out Obama is pouring gasoline on the fire. Now who wouldn’t want that person to fail?

People do not think you Republicans have the judgment at this point to tell the difference between water and gasoline. Why, then, should we support your efforts to restrain him?

Rush opposes Obama’s agenda for obvious reasons. It’s a reversal of much of his own agenda, much of what he believes was right. That said, though, there’s a reason this reversal has come: the absolute failure of that agenda to deliver results. Rush and his party had thirty years to deliver a stable economy, to prove that removing all the stops from the systems protecting the market would result in more solid prosperity. Instead, the nation comes out of the era of Republican rule with the economy in a shambles.

But of course you always have liberals to blame. You always do. That seems to be the go-to explanation for anything that goes wrong, no matter how much you shut us out, no matter what you do. Even though the unregulated use of credit-based derivatives and the poor regulation of bank-like entities that overleveraged themselves are generally acknowledged to be the causative factors in the collapse, your side reaches back to housing policy and the participation of GSE’s that operated for decades in trying to explain the crash.

Never mind the actions that President Bush took in order to keep State Attorneys General off the back of the biggest offenders in the subprime market.

Never mind the explicit forbidding of the regulation of the derivatives that allowed the overleveraging.

Never mind the changes in the law that allowed banks to merge in greater numbers, as well as those which allowed financial companies with conflicting interests to come together into behemoths like Citigroup and AIG, offering stock, financing bonds, selling insurance, and so on and so forth.

For decades now, the Republicans have been undertaking a fundamental restructuring of the economy, allowing more financial collusion and gamesplaying, allowing greater consolidation and cornering of markets, despite the damage that does through reduced competition and increased prices. They’ve made it easier for corporations to lie to their investors, easier for homebuyers to get ensnared by agreements deliberately structure to create the most debt per customer. They’ve allowed America to become dependent on soft credit provided through companies looking to permanently endebt their customers, rather than on hard wages.

Now that this has failed spectacularly, you’re saying we shouldn’t be able to get under the hood and replace all the junk you’ve stuffed in there? I’m sorry, I thought you got the point of the last two elections. Obama and the Democrats have given people every opportunity to react on basis of your politics, to agree with you and let them be defeated. Instead, Obama and the Democrats won, and enjoy impressive poll numbers, despited doing much of what they promised. I don’t think people share your anxieties. I think your party’s policies right now are a major source of the ones they actually have. But if you accepted that, then what of your party?

You and Rush fear this change. You fear having to humble yourselves, having to deal with liberals as either equals or the dominant party, because that runs against the decades of partisan dogma built on antagonism and belligerence towards the left.

This is not an economic collapse… yet. Obama is not doing the things that need to be done in order to stabilize the ‘crisis’. He doesn’t care about the ‘crisis’ per se except as an excuse to nationalize healthcare, redistribute wealth, and, “fundamentally transform America.”

This is not an economic collapse? Does America have to permanently end its period as a great economic power for this to be a true collapse?

A huge drop in GDP in one quarter, a huge drop in the Stock Markets within a year, a huge rise in unemployment to a rate not seen in a lifetime. I think these happening altogether in the space of a year would constitute a collapse. The fundamentals of the economy are not sounds, not even by ’70s standards.

With the Obama administration we are seeing that any prominent figure who disagrees with this radical policy will feel the full force of a negative PR campaign orchestrated from the white house openly!

But more importantly is the fact that Obama somehow feels that he needs a whipping boy, a scapegoat to demonize in order to be successful. This speaks to some fundamental flaw in my mind.

Let me get this straight. After years of supporting an administration which used US Attorneys to start frivolous voter fraud lawsuits to embarrass opponents, which outed a CIA agent in order to discredit a critic of the administration, which sat by and watched as the party the President led went after Triple Amputee senators, 12 year-old accident victims, decorated war heroes, 9/11 widows and the parents of dead soldiers, and you talk about the guy who throws himself joyfully and belligerently into the fray every day as if he’s a freaking martyr?

The White House could easily attack his character, talk about his three marriages, his drug abuse, his avoidance of service in Vietnam on account of a “pilonidal cyst”. He has more than enough controversies that could be dropped on him by an administration which was intent on smearing him. But from the Obama administration?

Nothing but a bit of a media push to make the poorly regarded party either reject or bind themselves to an equally disliked, high-profile radio talk show host.

But for its lack of crudeness, Obama’s criticism of Rush has one good point: it’s been very good at putting Republicans in a position where they feel they either reject him (so far accompanied with a politically necessary but humiliating crawl back to kiss his feet) or become dittoheads themselves, further alienating voters not impressed with the idjits in the GOP’s congressional delegation.

Most of the wounds the Republicans have been dealt, they’ve dealt themselves. You never saw Howard Dean apologize to Al Franken or Rachel Maddow for a disagreement on rhetoric.

Oldguy-

Liberals are like women; they make decisions based on emotion instead of logic. This is why they attack a persons character rather than the message.

Translation: Watch me make a negative broad-brush accusation while I accuse my rivals of making negative broad-brush accusations.

BHO is using “economic crisis” to institute “socialism”. There is none of his economic policies that will do anything to help our economy. It is merely an excuse to institute a laundry list of social programs.

If you don’t think there’s an economic crisis afoot, you haven’t been paying attention.

So, with this thing being real, if you think Obama wants to let this problem swallow up his first term, you’re underestimating his intelligence.

As for Sarah Palin representing true conservative values? You mean the earmark-seeking, federal govenrment mooching bridge to nowhwere faction? She’s Dubya in a mini-skirt. Her conservatism is limited to being rather poor at balancing a budget.

The Republicans are falling for people with big egos, who fearlessly say nasty things about those they dislike, and relentlessly push academic theory over pragmatic thinking. If Rush’s audience understands so damn much about government, how did your party come to this?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 9, 2009 12:57 PM
Comment #277169

eric simonson wrote: “Democrats have an addiction: Demonization.”

All political party’s engage in demonization of other parties and their representatives. Why select out only Democrats? Ah, yes, because you write in defense of Republicans. Never mind.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 9, 2009 1:01 PM
Comment #277171

>It is a fact: if you contact his listeners, you will find they have a better grasp of government than liberals. He refers his program to a “school of higher learning” and it is true.
Posted by: Oldguy at March 9, 2009 08:38 AM

Old,

Nope…they may have a better grasp of Lamebrain rhetoric, but a better grasp of government??? Hardly! Ditto-heads live in a wonderful world of ‘lockstep’, so their understanding of government is more in tune with Brown Shirt politics than anything else…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 9, 2009 1:12 PM
Comment #277206

“How is saying someone is the intellectual leader of a party demonizing them?”

Perhaps because it’s the demon party?

Posted by: bugger at March 9, 2009 4:47 PM
Comment #277212

Oldguy,
If Democrats are like women than does that mean the Republicans are acting like little girls crying when they do not get their way?

Yes, Rush needs to follow the lead of Newt Gringrich calling to have a 3rd Generational Summit now instead of waiting until 2012. However, seeing that Rush and Company fear Women and Men who do not accept his Higher Learning Message I doubt if he will ever accept my personal challenge as a orivate citizen to debate him on the Issues.

So, if his listeners have a better grasp of the government than others you would think that they would embrace what the RNC is trying to do instead of bashing their leaders for pointing out how silly Rush remarks are to the average American. For why Rush and Company may think that their opinion is the only one that matters. Seeing that they are the minority I wonder how they would fair in a Generational Debate of Building a Better World Right Here Right Now without the protection of the Political Partys of America.

Eric,
Are the Democratic Citizens and Leaders demonizing Rush and Company because of their political views or pointing out how Stupid their political points of view have become over the last 20 years?

For why they call for the President to fail and thus by defualt Labor and Management fail. All I hear from the Right Talking Heads except Newt Gringrich is that “We the People” should allow the Children to be in Charge. Since if we would join the No-Nothing Party and let the Market fail to protect their 401ks, businesses, and retirement accounts most of his followers would be living in Tent Cities by the end of the year.

For if one wants to protect their Unalienable Right to be Ignorant than defending it by showing that you have mastered the Argument of Being Stupid is Foolish. So much for a School of Higher Learning.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 9, 2009 5:47 PM
Comment #277242

What a good laugh that was! Thank you.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at March 9, 2009 10:29 PM
Comment #277256
Eric Simonson wrote: First they came for Rush - Democrats have an addiction: Demonization.
Many Democrats and Republicans alike are both guilty of demonization, fuelin’, and wallowin’ in the distracting, divisive, circular partisan warfare.
Eric Simonson wrote: They know well the value of a good scapegoat. Demonizing is more important than fixing the economy, more important than the bi-partisanship they say they embody, even more important than saving the planet.
Unfortunately, too many incumbent politicians and voters in BOTH parties love THEIR party more than their country, as evidenced by the perpetuation of these abuses, and these pressing problems growing in number and severity.
Eric Simonson wrote: So my liberal friends, is this the blueprint on how to be a uniter and not a divider? Attempting to silence your critics? Using the power of the media and the Executive branch to crush any dissent or disagreement as the model of civility?
Unfortunately, the only major differences between the IN-PARTY and OUT-PARTY are the two extremes that each go to:
  • Extreme #1: One extreme wants regressive taxation, unfettered capitalism and freedom to explore and wallow in every manifestation of unchecked greed (which we have seen plenty of lately).
  • Extreme #2: The other extreme wants a nanny-state with citizens increasingly dependent on the government; with massive cradle-to-grave government programs (which are usually severely mismanaged) that nuture a sense of entitlement and dependency on government; wants to grow government ever larger (despite the already current nightmare proportions); rewards failure and laziness; and perpetuates the myth that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else.
Eric Simonson wrote: Obama’s plan to target Rush began in October according to the Politico.
It’s all silly nonsense.
Eric Simonson wrote: “Are you now, or have you ever agreed with Rush Limbaugh?”
That’s pretty good. That’s funny.

What isn’t funny is the incessant, never-ending, circular, distracting partisan warfare.

What politicians had better start thinkin’ about (in all parties) is a potential repeat of years 1927, 1929, 1931, and 1933, when more increasingly unhappy voters get fed-up, and finally start ousting incumbent politicians in BOTH parties by the hundreds:

  • Start _ End _ Congress _ Re-Election _Party Seat-Retention

  • Year __ Year __ # ______ Rate _______ Rate

  • 1927 __ 1929 __ 070st __ 83.6% ______ 96.4% (87 incumbents ousted: 22(D), 64(R), 1(FL) )

  • 1929 __ 1931 __ 071st __ 79.7% ______ 92.5% (108 incumbents ousted)

  • 1931 __ 1933 __ 072nd __ 76.8% ______ 88.5% (123 incumbents ousted)

  • 1933 __ 1935 __ 073rd __ 61.2% ______ 78.7% (206 of 531 incumbents ousted; 59 Dems, 147 Repubs)

  • … … … … … … . .

  • 1989 __ 1991 __ 101st __ 90.1% ______ 99.6%

  • 1991 __ 1993 __ 102nd __ 87.7% ______ 98.3%

  • 1993 __ 1995 __ 103rd __ 73.5% ______ 98.1% (142 of 535 incumbents ousted)

  • … … … … … … . .

  • 1999 __ 2001 __ 106th __ 89.2% ______ 99.3%

  • 2001 __ 2003 __ 107th __ 89.2% ______ 98.7%

  • 2003 __ 2005 __ 108th __ 87.9% ______ 98.1% (65 of 535 voted out)

  • 2005 __ 2007 __ 109th __ 88.6% ______ 98.7% (61 of 535 voted out)

  • 2007 __ 2009 __ 110th __ 84.9% ______ 93.1% (81 of 535 incumbents voted out (68=16(D)+51(R)+1(I) in the House) + (13=3(D)+9(R)+1(I) in the Senate)

  • 2009 __ 2011 __ 111th __ 86.9% ______ 94.0% (70 of 535 voted out (57=13(D)+44(R) in the House) + (13=3(D)+10(R) in the Senate); a few seats left To Be Determined (TBD))

Eric Simonson wrote: What we should be asking is how long will this targeting of Rush Limbaugh be the main priority of the Obama administration?

I find it interesting that any of them (in all parties) have time for such nonsense, when we have much bigger fish to fry, like:
  • (01) an economic crisis caused by a massive debt bubble of federal and non-federal debt (much of it, toxic debt);

  • (02) $15.8 Trillion of Total Domestic Financial Sector Debt;

  • (03) $13.9 Trillion of Total Household Debt;

  • (04) $10.2 Trillion of Total Business Debt;

  • (05) $1.8 Trillion of Other Private Sector Foreign Debt;

  • (06) $2.2 Trillion of Total State and Local Government Debt;

  • (07) $11 Trillion Federal National Debt;

  • (08) $12.8 Trillion borrowed from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 78 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching;

  • (09) $67 Trillion of Total Nation-Wide Debt;

  • (10) $62 Trillion Credit Default Swap/Derivatives bubble that could unravel global financial systems;

  • (11) $60+ Trillion of future debt (unfunded liabilities) for Social Security and Medicare;

Eric Simonson wrote: First they came for Rush, next, who knows, everyone who disagrees with the President’s plans for radical and “fundamental transformation of the United States of America” may be targeted. Beware.
Funny take-off on ?
  • First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
  • Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
  • Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
  • Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Apparently, this article is more for entertainment, and fuelin’ the partisan warfare, right? After all, you don’t seriously believe either side had the nation’s best interests in mind do you? Because if they do, I’d hate to see where we’d be today if they didn’t.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at March 10, 2009 12:11 AM
Comment #277258

Fixating on Rush Limbaugh is simply Obama’s solution to a pesky little problem that regimes like his always encounter.

In order to establish popular cohesion around the governmental figurehead who seeks to establish and then reinforce centralized authority, you must have an “Other” to demonize and scapegoat.

The Other must be popularly perceived as an entity who rejects and seeks to undermine the Leader’s beneficent plans for the people. At different times and in different places, capitalists, Jews, aristocrats and others have fulfilled this role. It matters less WHO fills this role than that it must be filled.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 10, 2009 12:58 AM
Comment #277261

Loyal O,
That’s pretty funny. Is ‘establishing popular cohesion’ anything like winning an election in a landslide? Because that happened in 2006 and 2008.

It happened because the GOP sucked. They saddled the country with Iraq and a bad economy.

Was that just ‘popular perception’ that painted the GOP as an entity who rejected and sought to undermine? If I recall, the GOP set an all time record for filibusters last session, in tandem with Bush vetoes and the threat of vetoes.

This isn’t a matter of perception. This was the GOP plan. It still is. Rush Limbaugh wants Obama to fail, and so does the GOP. No one forced the GOP to take this track. They had a choice of obstructing or accomodating, and conservatives chose to obstruct. That’s just a fact.

Maybe you approve of the obstructionist approach. Maybe not. But please don’t pretend it’s just a perception, or that it was forced upon you.

Posted by: phx8 at March 10, 2009 1:51 AM
Comment #277267
Can you imagine Michael Moore saying right after the War Authorization vote that he hoped that President Bush failed?

I can. In fact, 51% of democrats polled did just that.

http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2009/03/liberals-wanted-bush-to-fail.html

BTW, I see a lot of people saying that they think Rush said that he wanted Obama to fail or he wants America to fail or some such thing. Yet, how many have actually read the actual quote? Or are they just following the talking points?

For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency.

Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.”

And I am sure he is still loving it. His inflated ego is being super inflated by the left, by the mouthpieces of the Obama Administration on a daily basis as I am sure they are loving it as well since they have been looking for an excuse to enact this attack on Rush for months. Everyone is getting what they want.

Except those of us who want real honest debate… Well, we don’t count I suppose.

As for the Democrats not having anything to do with this story, let’s look at David Axelrod for a sec…

He also helps decide which fights to pick and which ones to avoid, making him a leading voice in setting the political tone in Washington. The recent back-and-forth with Rush Limbaugh, for example, was explicitly authorized by Mr. Axelrod, who told aides that it was not a moment to sit quietly after Mr. Limbaugh said he hoped that Mr. Obama would “fail.”

Mr. Axelrod’s background has been rooted almost entirely in politics. Strong similarities exist between his trajectory and that of Karl Rove, a friend and longtime counselor to former President George W. Bush. Both Mr. Rove and Mr. Axelrod forged partnerships with their clients long before they began campaigning for the presidency, guided them through elective office and, ultimately, to the White House.

There are few words that come across the president’s lips that have not been blessed by Mr. Axelrod. He reviews every speech, studies every major policy position and works with Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, to prepare responses to the crisis of the day.

Interesting, cause here I was told by supporters that Obama wrote his own speeches and spoke his own mind. Apparently it gets filtered and might explain why he can’t seem to function, even to introduce a new cabinet member to the media, without a teleprompter…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2009 2:50 AM
Comment #277274

Real, honest debate???

Posted by: Marysdude at March 10, 2009 6:47 AM
Comment #277282

Rhinehold-
Have you considered, in light of Bush’s policies, that they didn’t want him doing anymore damage?

Oh, you might ask, how are Republicans who hope for Obama to fail any different?

The difference is Obama’s not even being given the chance to prove that his decision-making in this crisis is right or wrong. The conclusion has already been made. In fact, they are not even concerned as to whether Obama’s policies can work; often times, even if they can work, they don’t want them to work.

The thing is, when the Republicans screwed up on the economy, they lost the right to tell us what worked and what doesn’t with any kind of credibility.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 10, 2009 11:39 AM
Comment #277335

Stephen,

The difference is Obama’s not even being given the chance to prove that his decision-making in this crisis is right or wrong.

1) Republicans can’t do anything about it anyway, so why complain about what they think?

2) I myself am conflicted. I think (and know) this is going to be a disaster and part of me thinks let him have at it and part of me thinks that the suffering and damage could be enormous so we need to do what we can to stop it. Either way there is probably nothing much conservatives can do anyway. It’s one party government now, and your guys have all the power and will take all the blame.

3) Bush weathered the financial crisis of 9/11 as well as the downturn that began when Clinton left office. The business cycle is not a failure of capitalism it is an adjustment that happens from time to time. Every recession doesn’t lead to a depression. But when your house catches fire and someone wants to put gasoline on it in order to ‘save it,’ improve it, or otherwise transform it then you can safely say that the worst is yet to come.

Posted by: eric simonson at March 10, 2009 7:46 PM
Comment #277349

Eric Simonson-
The trouble is the active opposition you folks have organized to Obama’s policies, even after your part tossed the gasoline on the fire with your own.

Don’t be so sure that your party will see the blame shifted on the Democrats. It didn’t work that way in the thirties.

As for business cycles, I don’t buy it. Too much irregularity in the system. Also, there’s little cyclical about this kind of market behavior. It seems more like a critical mass sort of situation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 10, 2009 11:43 PM
Comment #277351

I think to throw your hands up and say it’s your show now is a bit childish. An example being a child in the sand box taking his toys and saying “I’m going home” because the game didn’t go his way. It’s true that republicans don’t have much power to do much about the course of actions, but play as big of a roll as possible to create a solution. Because as usual the answer will lie somewhere in the middle. Although I am a democrat, I am frustrated at having Pelosi as Speaker.

The idea of this being a market adjustment is a bit oblivious. Clinton made progress of getting people into affordable housing with Freddie & Fannie, but this policy would require strict regulation. Bush came along and cut all the safety strings and regulations letting them run wild like ADHD kids on a sugar rush. Add in the fact the SEC fell asleep at the wheel and let AIG, a risk management firm, insure subprime loans and every bank leverage themselves 30 to 1 in the market. This is much more of an issue of difference in philosphy towards economics, and one party being irresponsible in the transition from one to the other. George W. Bush didn’t have any foresight in economics, Iraq, Katrina, Guantanamo, etc…

At this time we the american people need to concentrate on taking care of our business and let the current administration enough time to fix what took a good part of 8 years to create. Doesn’t mean not to keep an eye on them, but mouthing off every 15 minutes about a small piece of the overall plan will prove to look ignorant in long run.

This blog started with Rush and his blowhard comments and persona on the radio. I could care less about what he said about wanting the president to fail, and then adding some double talk about policies. The truely sad part of the Republican party was that they apologize to this guy. If you think that your constiuents are so dumb that they can’t make up their mind excempt for what Rush tells them, then you’re TRUELY in trouble. A politician apologizing for their rather light comments related to Rush is embarassing, and they need to grow a backbone to truely represent American spirit.

“It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt” - Abraham Lincoln

Posted by: Greg at March 10, 2009 11:56 PM
Comment #277353

Eric,
With Rush being supported by Republican Businesses in order to make his money how long before he tells them that he does not need them?

Yes, the Conservative Movement may like Rush and are willing to put up with his BS from time to time; however, like all good Republicans I do not believe that they are going to stand for anyone screwing with their money. So please encourage Rush to be the Want-a-Be Rebel and tell the Politicains that he does not need them. For I really do want to debate him as one Private Citizen to another over the Argument that I can do what I want and to hell with what the rest of you think. Because unlike Rush, I’ll be your huckleberry and waste his Conservative Points of View. Since you cannot defend the Argument of Doing Nothing and Obstruction against me.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 11, 2009 12:05 AM
Comment #279088

yes, & this country is stupid enough to fall for it every time. demonization + laziness + stupidity = obama…

Posted by: kobiashi maroo at March 29, 2009 12:26 AM
Post a comment