PDA

View Full Version : Opinions on Rush Limbaugh



cubsneedmiracle
03-04-2009, 11:43 AM
What are your opinions on Rush?

With his wanting Obama and his policies to fail.

----------

I can't believe he wants Obama to fail. Obama's economic plans failing means this economy going into a complete nosedive. Probably worse than the great depression.

I just don't understand how someone could be so clueless.

Zep
03-04-2009, 12:04 PM
I'm sure this is pretty well worn territory for most of the posters here. Personally I can't stand Rush, he's an absolute blowhard and the majority of his character traits are ones that I attribute to what is wrong with humanity (or at the very least the most annoying and counter-productive).

That being said, I tend to agree that this particular statement was for the most part taken out of context and that people are jumping all over it because of who he is rather than for what he said. The full quote seems to be saying simply that he doesn't agree that Obama's plan is what is in the nation's best interests, and in that regard he hopes it fails.

I don't personally think that by saying what he did he would want the country to fail (which is the leap a lot of my friends seem to be making), but rather that I guess :shrug: he hopes that if Obama's plan fails, people will be forced to look at alternatives more in line with his own idea of fiscal responsibility.

Personally I don't think now is the time to inject anymore instability (be it real or imaginary) into an already shaky market. But at the same time I'll take his words for what they are, the stance of someone who ardently opposes the Obama economic policy, and relies on oversimplification of that disagreement to garner ratings from those on the moderate to extreme right.

But to say that the guy wants the nation to fail is pretty black and white, and to deal in absolutes is usually a bad idea.

behindmydesk
03-04-2009, 12:08 PM
I'm sure this is pretty well worn territory for most of the posters here. Personally I can't stand Rush, he's an absolute blowhard and the majority of his character traits are ones that I attribute to what is wrong with humanity (or at the very least the most annoying and counter-productive).

That being said, I tend to agree that this particular statement was for the most part taken out of context and that people are jumping all over it because of who he is more than for what he said. The full quote seems to be saying simply that he doesn't agree that Obama's plan is what is in the nation's best interests, and in that regard he hopes it fails.

I don't personally think that by saying what he did he would want the country to fail (which is the leap a lot of my friends seem to be making), but rather that I guess :shrug: he hopes that if Obama's plan fails, people will be forced to look at alternatives more in line with his own idea of fiscal responsibility.

Personally I don't think now is the time to inject anymore instability (be it real or imaginary) into an already shaky market. But at the same time I'll take his words for what they are, the stance of someone who ardently opposes the Obama economic policy, and relies on oversimplification of that disagreement to garner ratings from those the extreme right.

But to say that the guy wants the nation to fail is pretty black and white, and to deal in absolutes is usually a bad idea.

You get an A for the day. That's exactly how it played out, and exactly what he meant.


As for me I love Rush. I already know my first born son will either be named Rush something, or something Rush. Rush will def be in the name. I also am a Rush 24/7 subscriber, and since I can't figure out how Ipods work, I have the fiance load up Rush recaps or the friday show if I miss it, for when I work in the yard on the weekend.

SmthBluCitrus
03-04-2009, 12:13 PM
I personally don't like Rush. But, I don't really have anything to say about him. He's one of those people that I think is just better ignored, so what he says doesn't concern me.

cubsneedmiracle
03-04-2009, 12:14 PM
That being said, I tend to agree that this particular statement was for the most part taken out of context and that people are jumping all over it because of who he is rather than for what he said. The full quote seems to be saying simply that he doesn't agree that Obama's plan is what is in the nation's best interests, and in that regard he hopes it fails.

I don't personally think that by saying what he did he would want the country to fail (which is the leap a lot of my friends seem to be making), but rather that I guess :shrug: he hopes that if Obama's plan fails, people will be forced to look at alternatives more in line with his own idea of fiscal responsibility.

Personally I don't think now is the time to inject anymore instability (be it real or imaginary) into an already shaky market. But at the same time I'll take his words for what they are, the stance of someone who ardently opposes the Obama economic policy, and relies on oversimplification of that disagreement to garner ratings from those on the moderate to extreme right.

Yeah I see where he's coming from in the complete context.

Think about this for a minute. What will this country be if his plan fails? What will there be to do?

I'm not completely happy with Obama's plan right now either. I still think it's one of our better options.

behindmydesk
03-04-2009, 12:17 PM
Yeah I see where he's coming from in the complete context.

Think about this for a minute. What will this country be if his plan fails? What will there be to do?

I'm not completely happy with Obama's plan right now either. I still think it's one of our better options.

Very true, if it fails we will be hurting, and with more debt and more inability to pay it back.

But now look at the opposite from the Republicans side. It's my belief (not eveyrone's) that if Obama plan works even 25% he'll be able to push threw a lot of his liberal agenda. And we as republicans don't want that either.

cubsneedmiracle
03-04-2009, 12:26 PM
Very true, if it fails we will be hurting, and with more debt and more inability to pay it back.

But now look at the opposite from the Republicans side. It's my belief (not eveyrone's) that if Obama plan works even 25% he'll be able to push threw a lot of his liberal agenda. And we as republicans don't want that either.

Yeah, any success and he will have quite a bit of political power.

cabernetluver
03-04-2009, 12:47 PM
From Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114163/Limbaugh-Liked-Not-Republicans.aspx)

(link entered this way because psd not working correctly)


PRINCETON, NJ -- Conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh is viewed favorably by 60% of Republicans nationwide, while 23% have an unfavorable opinion of him. In sharp contrast, only 6% of Democrats view Limbaugh favorably, while 63% view him unfavorably.

Limbaugh has been much in the news recently as media outlets have played up his highly vocal opposition to President Obama in general and to Obama's economic stimulus plan in particular. The president himself was provoked enough by Limbaugh to bring up his name in his public comments about the stimulus plan, saying, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." Since then, Limbaugh's role in influencing Republican positions on public policy issues, including in particular the stimulus package, has been a topic of discussion.
Given the deliberately partisan and ideological nature of Limbaugh's radio program, the sharp divide in views of the talk-show host by partisanship are not surprising. Still, the data from Gallup's Jan. 30-Feb. 1 poll show that Republican support for Limbaugh is not monolithic. Although a clear majority of 60% of Republicans have a favorable opinion of Limbaugh, a not-insignificant 23% have an unfavorable opinion. Seventeen percent of Republicans say they have no opinion of Limbaugh either way (either because they haven't heard of him or don't know enough about him to say).
Almost a third of Democrats say they have no opinion of Limbaugh, but negative views of him among Democrats outweigh positive opinions by more than a 10-to-1 ratio. Among independents, negatives outweigh positives by a 45% to 25% margin.

To me the interesting part of this poll is not the large GOP favorable, nor the even larger Democratic unfavorable, but the independent negatives being so much higher than the positives.

If I were in charge of getting GOP candidates elected, it would seem that I need Rush to win the primary, then need him to back off in the general election.

My personal feeling about Rush is that he is a non person to me. I admire his business acumen, but find his show to be boorish. If I am in my car, listening to my radio, I would rather listen to ESPN.

b1e9a8r5s
03-04-2009, 01:03 PM
I don't listen to him, so I don't really have an opinion. Although, if liberals hate him so much, he must be doing something right. So I guess he's ok in my book.

blenderboy5
03-04-2009, 01:40 PM
Never listened to him. Actually seeing him at CPAC was the first time I've ever heard him speak.

But I too want Obama to fail in the Rush sense. I want his liberal policies to not get enacted. That doesn't mean I want his administration to fail... I just want what liberals would view as a success to not come about while at the same time I want us to succeed with the economy (and promoting capitalism) and in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

blenderboy5
03-04-2009, 01:41 PM
And for those liberals who sit there and say "How could anyone want a sitting president to fail? If he fails, aren't we as a people and country worse off?"

To which I respond: Welcome to my point of view when I listened to numerous liberals seemingly hoping Bush failed in Iraq, never giving the surge a chance, accusing generals of betraying their country, etc because it would mean electoral success.

ari1013
03-04-2009, 02:10 PM
You get an A for the day. That's exactly how it played out, and exactly what he meant.


As for me I love Rush. I already know my first born son will either be named Rush something, or something Rush. Rush will def be in the name. I also am a Rush 24/7 subscriber, and since I can't figure out how Ipods work, I have the fiance load up Rush recaps or the friday show if I miss it, for when I work in the yard on the weekend.
Except that at CPAC he reiterated that he hopes Obama fails in general.

blenderboy5
03-04-2009, 02:13 PM
Except that at CPAC he reiterated that he hopes Obama fails in general.

He didn't really. Most of his speech dealt with how good of a politician Obama was, how smart he was, and he actually said he wants Obama to succeed so the country succeeds. Trust me, I was there. He emphasized that bit.

behindmydesk
03-04-2009, 02:16 PM
He didn't really. Most of his speech dealt with how good of a politician Obama was, how smart he was, and he actually said he wants Obama to succeed so the country succeeds. Trust me, I was there. He emphasized that bit.

You were at Cpac, that's awesome. It was a hell of a speech.

Zep
03-04-2009, 02:16 PM
To which I respond: Welcome to my point of view when I listened to numerous liberals seemingly hoping Bush failed in Iraq, never giving the surge a chance, accusing generals of betraying their country, etc because it would mean electoral success.

Anyone who hoped Bush failed in Iraq (be it "seemingly" or overtly) is pretty stupid. Personally I don't think I've ever met anyone (liberal or conservative) who hoped for our nation to fail in any endeavor. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just saying that if they do, they most likely represent the "fringe" that is inherent on both sides of the aisle (albeit very different fringes. See: those who believe that Obama is the anrichrist vs. 9/11 "truthers" ).

Regardless of that fact, if I may play devil's advocate here, there is a HUGE difference to a group of people disagreeing with the way things were handled in a war (which I guess some people construe as a hope for failure? :shrug:), and a major figure in a political movement explicitly stating that he hopes for failure (as you can see above, I agree that the context was altered for at-best questionable reasons).

When we went to war in 2003, I was decried by LOTS of friends as being unpatriotic (one person went so far as to call me a traitor :rolleyes:) simply for questioning the reasons for the war. But at no point was I like "well I hope all those marines die over there, and we fail miserably". If anything, I was sincerely hoping for total success in spite of what I felt were the failings of the administration in regards to how the war plan was crafted.

I guess the major question I would pose to my fellow Americans on the right is that IF (and yes, I realize that's a big "if") the Obama economic plan turns out to be a resounding success (and of course the definition of "success" can be debated), do you think someone like Rush would ever say "wow, I was totally wrong there, sorry Mr. President"?

Personally, I don't think I could ever see that happening, and I guess that's what irritates me so much about someone like Limbaugh.

Edit: Also, it seems to me that hoping for a failure of an economic plan in order to stop the "liberal agenda" is kind of petty, especially when the "liberal agenda" is pretty much:

Wikipedia:


Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for constitutional liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property,[2] and a transparent system of government.[3][4][5] All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[6]

behindmydesk
03-04-2009, 02:19 PM
This was said at his speech! Hilarious


And that I am arrogant. Neither of these things are remotely true. I can tell you a joke to illustrate this. Larry King passed away, goes to heaven. He's greeted by Saint Peter at the gates. Saint Peter says, "Welcome, Mr. King, it's great to have you here. I want to show you around, give you an idea of what's here, maybe you can pick a place that you'd like to reside." King says, "I just have one question: Is Rush Limbaugh here?"

"No, he's got a lot of time yet, Mr. King." So Saint Peter begins the tour. Larry King sees the various places and it's beyond anything we can imagine in terms of beauty. Finally, he gets to the biggest room of all, with this giant throne. And over the throne is a flashing beautiful angelic neon sign that says "Rush Limbaugh." [Laughter]

And Larry King looks at Saint Peter and says: "I thought you said he wasn't here."

"He said, he's not, he's not. This is God's room. He just thinks he's Rush Limbaugh."[Laughter] [Applause]

So you see I'm not pompous

behindmydesk
03-04-2009, 02:22 PM
Now, let me speak about President Obama for just a second. President Obama is one of the most gifted politicians, one of the most gifted men that I have ever witnessed. He has extraordinary talents. He has communication skills that hardly anyone can surpass. No, seriously. No, no, I'm being very serious about this. It just breaks my heart that he does not use these extraordinary talents and gifts to motivate and inspire the American people to be the best they can be. He's doing just the opposite. And it's a shame. [Applause] President Obama has the ability -- he has the ability to inspire excellence in people's pursuits. He has the ability to do all this, yet he pursues a path, seeks a path that punishes achievement, that punishes earners and punishes -- and he speaks negatively of the country. Ronald Reagan used to speak of a shining city on a hill. Barack Obama portrays America as a soup kitchen in some dark night in a corner of America that's very obscure. He's constantly telling the American people that bad times are ahead, worst times are ahead. And it's troubling, because this is the United States of America. Anybody ever ask -- I'm in awe of our country and I ask this question a lot as I've gotten older. We're less than 300 years old. We are younger than nations that have been on this planet for thousands of years. We, nevertheless, in less than 300 years -- by the way, we're no different than any other human beings around the world. Our DNA is no different. We're not better just because we're born in America. There's nothing that sets us apart. How did this happen? How did the United States of America become the world's lone super power, the world's economic engine, the most prosperous opportunity for an advanced lifestyle that humanity has ever known? How did this happen? And why pray tell does the President of the United States want to destroy it? It saddens me.


From the Cpac Speech

yankeesmindset
03-04-2009, 02:22 PM
Rush is a great American!

LAKERMANIA
03-04-2009, 02:22 PM
Never listened to him. Actually seeing him at CPAC was the first time I've ever heard him speak.

But I too want Obama to fail in the Rush sense. I want his liberal policies to not get enacted. That doesn't mean I want his administration to fail... I just want what liberals would view as a success to not come about while at the same time I want us to succeed with the economy (and promoting capitalism) and in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

I dont understand why anyone would want someone to fail.. Even though i didnt approve of Bush's policies, i was hoping somehow he would pull through helping the country..

No offense to you BB because everyone has their opinion, but i just think thats awful

As for opinions on Rush, I dont like him that much, however, some of the things he says i can agree with, but 80% of the time i dont like what he has to say

behindmydesk
03-04-2009, 02:24 PM
Let me add a caveat here. My friends, I know what's going on. I know what's going on. We're in the aspects here of an historic presidency. I know that. But let me be honest again. I got over the historical aspects of this in November. President Obama is our president. President Obama stands for certain things. I don't care, he could be a Martian. He could be from Michigan, I don't know -- just kidding. Doesn't matter to me what his race is. It doesn't matter. He's liberal is what matters to me. And his articulated -- his articulated plans scare me. Now, I understand we can't say we want the President to fail, Mr. Limbaugh. That's like saying -- this is the voice of the New Castrati, by the way, guys who have lost their guts. You can't say Mr. Limbaugh that you want the President to fail because that's like saying you want the country to fail. It's the opposite. I want the country to survive. I want the country to succeed. [Cheers and Applause] [Crowd Chanting "USA" ]

I want the country to survive as we have known it, as you and I were raised in it, is what I mean. Now, I have been called -- and I can take it. Pioneers take the arrows, I don't mind what anybody says about me, any time ever. I don't have time for it. I don't give other people the power to offend me. And you shouldn't either, by the wasted time being offended.[Applause]


Ari that was the part on Obama failing.

Zep
03-04-2009, 02:25 PM
Here's the link, it might be easier.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030209/content/01125106.guest.html

behindmydesk
03-04-2009, 02:26 PM
Here's the link, it might be easier.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030209/content/01125106.guest.html

Ha, well yea, I guess I could have done that.

Zep
03-04-2009, 02:26 PM
Ha, well yea, I guess I could have done that.

:)

ari1013
03-04-2009, 02:38 PM
He didn't really. Most of his speech dealt with how good of a politician Obama was, how smart he was, and he actually said he wants Obama to succeed so the country succeeds. Trust me, I was there. He emphasized that bit.
Guess the clips don't do him justice.

blenderboy5
03-04-2009, 02:57 PM
You were at Cpac, that's awesome. It was a hell of a speech.

It was amazing. We got there at 8:30 to see former Senator Rick Santorum speak, and didn't give up our seats until Rush was over (nearing 6). Honestly, if you didn't get there by 12 you weren't gonna see Rush.



Regardless of that fact, if I may play devil's advocate here, there is a HUGE difference to a group of people disagreeing with the way things were handled in a war (which I guess some people construe as a hope for failure? :shrug:), and a major figure in a political movement explicitly stating that he hopes for failure (as you can see above, I agree that the context was altered for at-best questionable reasons).


Perhaps. But I'd argue constantly demeaning the president and the surge, wanting to show the coffins of troops knowing it would only undermine support for the war, wanting an immediate pullout, etc, is nearly equivalent of hoping for defeat.



When we went to war in 2003, I was decried by LOTS of friends as being unpatriotic (one person went so far as to call me a traitor :rolleyes:) simply for questioning the reasons for the war. But at no point was I like "well I hope all those marines die over there, and we fail miserably". If anything, I was sincerely hoping for total success in spite of what I felt were the failings of the administration in regards to how the war plan was crafted.


Obviously they were wrong to say that, and I'm glad you felt the way you did regarding support despite the failures.



I guess the major question I would pose to my fellow Americans on the right is that IF (and yes, I realize that's a big "if") the Obama economic plan turns out to be a resounding success (and of course the definition of "success" can be debated), do you think someone like Rush would ever say "wow, I was totally wrong there, sorry Mr. President"?


Of course Rush wouldn't. Because even if the economic plan is successful in ending the recession, helping the economy, etc, there are tons of things to critique (and I'll play Devil's Advocate as well). Namely:


Who's to say it wouldn't have bounced back anyway?
What kind of awful precedent did Bush and Obama set for government intervention?
Was Obama's plan, allbeit a success, good for capitalism?
Will it really work in the long term?
Even if the plan itself was a success, did we waste money on traditionally anti-conservative things like spending on global warming, universal health care, etc?


In addition, Rush wouldn't admit failure anymore than Obama would when he said he wouldn't seek another term if his plan failed. Rather, they'd both adjust their definitions of success and failure.


Edit: Also, it seems to me that hoping for a failure of an economic plan in order to stop the "liberal agenda" is kind of petty, especially when the "liberal agenda" is pretty much:

Wikipedia:

You've quoted the definition of a classical liberal, not a modern day liberal.

blenderboy5
03-04-2009, 03:00 PM
Guess the clips don't do him justice.

Usually not. The MSM thinks "Rush hates Obama, and wants him to fail," so that's the part of the speech they quote.

I picked up the Washington Post today, and there's a whole story about how much Rush wants Obama to fail. Does the Post allow Rush to clarify his statement by quoting his CPAC speech? Of course not.

behindmydesk
03-04-2009, 03:01 PM
It was amazing. We got there at 8:30 to see former Senator Rick Santorum speak, and didn't give up our seats until Rush was over (nearing 6). Honestly, if you didn't get there by 12 you weren't gonna see Rush.



Perhaps. But I'd argue constantly demeaning the president and the surge, wanting to show the coffins of troops knowing it would only undermine support for the war, wanting an immediate pullout, etc, is nearly equivalent of hoping for defeat.



Obviously they were wrong to say that, and I'm glad you felt the way you did regarding support despite the failures.



Of course Rush wouldn't. Because even if the economic plan is successful in ending the recession, helping the economy, etc, there are tons of things to critique (and I'll play Devil's Advocate as well). Namely:


Who's to say it wouldn't have bounced back anyway?
What kind of awful precedent did Bush and Obama set for government intervention?
Was Obama's plan, allbeit a success, good for capitalism?
Will it really work in the long term?
Even if the plan itself was a success, did we waste money on traditionally anti-conservative things like spending on global warming, universal health care, etc?


In addition, Rush wouldn't admit failure anymore than Obama would when he said he wouldn't seek another term if his plan failed. Rather, they'd both adjust their definitions of success and failure.



You've quoted the definition of a classical liberal, not a modern day liberal.

You know for someone who says he doesn't listen to Rush, you sir, are basically right up there with him, on what you say. And I mean this with the strongest compliment as possible. I'm a 15 year member of the Limbaugh Institute, you sir, talk like you have gotten your doctorate from the glorious Limbaugh Institute for advanced conservative studies.. (even though there are no degree's from the institute because we never stop learning.

Zep
03-04-2009, 03:04 PM
You've quoted the definition of a classical liberal, not a modern day liberal.

Oh, you mean this? http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

I kid, I kid. but I see your points. I tend to agree with:


In addition, Rush wouldn't admit failure anymore than Obama would when he said he wouldn't seek another term if his plan failed. Rather, they'd both adjust their definitions of success and failure.

So, point taken I suppose.

With regards to:


Namely:

* Who's to say it wouldn't have bounced back anyway?
* What kind of awful precedent did Bush and Obama set for government intervention?
* Was Obama's plan, allbeit a success, good for capitalism?
* Will it really work in the long term?
* Even if the plan itself was a success, did we waste money on traditionally anti-conservative things like spending on global warming, universal health care, etc?

For my part I make attempts to understand the plans of both parties, but admittedly I am no expert (which is why I am thankful for people like you, ari, and BMD to help break aspects of both sides down for me).

In the end I guess I'm just another guy trying to make rent and hoping that my retirement plan survives this mess. :)

behindmydesk
03-04-2009, 03:13 PM
Oh, you mean this? http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

I kid, I kid. but I see your points. I tend to agree with:



So, point taken I suppose.

With regards to:



For my part I make attempts to understand the plans of both parties, but admittedly I am no expert (which is why I am thankful for people like you, ari, and BMD to help break aspects of both sides down for me).

In the end I guess I'm just another guy trying to make rent and hoping that my retirement plan survives this mess. :)

Well Obama is a socialist! So i'm glad I can help


No matter how much money you have, you basically are always trying to pay the rent. I mean you always got someone to answer too.

blenderboy5
03-04-2009, 03:16 PM
In the end I guess I'm just another guy trying to make rent and hoping that my retirement plan survives this mess. :)

Ugh, I hear that. I'm just a college student hoping the government keeps giving out loans (and maybe expands them?) to the often forgotten middle and upper middle class, too rich to get enough financial aid but too poor to have 25,000 just laying around for college.

Zep
03-04-2009, 03:16 PM
Well Obama is a socialist! So i'm glad I can help

:laugh2::laugh::laugh2:

That damned commie.:mad:

ari1013
03-04-2009, 03:29 PM
Usually not. The MSM thinks "Rush hates Obama, and wants him to fail," so that's the part of the speech they quote.

I picked up the Washington Post today, and there's a whole story about how much Rush wants Obama to fail. Does the Post allow Rush to clarify his statement by quoting his CPAC speech? Of course not.
If I'm Rush, I launch a book in the next couple of weeks while my name is EVERY WHERE. The guy's gotta be loving this.

CubsGirl
03-04-2009, 03:36 PM
I just think he's a crazy guy who says what he says to get media attention, which therefore nets him viewers/listeners, which therefore nets him more money. Like ari said above, his name right now is EVERYWHERE because of the crazy **** he's saying, and there's no such thing as bad publicity.

His radio persona is essentially just a character, I think the "real" Rush knows that most of what he says is ridiculous.

behindmydesk
03-04-2009, 03:37 PM
If I'm Rush, I launch a book in the next couple of weeks while my name is EVERY WHERE. The guy's gotta be loving this.

oh yea but he makes around 30 million a year so he's not hurting.

ari1013
03-04-2009, 03:44 PM
I didn't know that!

Does Hannity make that much? He's always on the radio talking about everyday people like himself. I knew he was full of ****, but $30M is closer to Howard Stern's radio deal than it is to Joe Average's median income.

behindmydesk
03-04-2009, 03:45 PM
I didn't know that!

Does Hannity make that much? He's always on the radio talking about everyday people like himself. I knew he was full of ****, but $30M is closer to Howard Stern's radio deal than it is to Joe Average's median income.

No rush dwarfs everyone. Give me a bit, let me find the link.

behindmydesk
03-04-2009, 03:49 PM
Of course it's not publicized, but it's been reported 30 plus all the way to 50 million. Times is saying 38 million a year.

Most said it's atleast a 400 million dollar deal! for 8 years! Worth every penny to clear channel, he has something like 20 to 22 million daily listeners.


http://www.drudgereport.com/flashrl.htm

behindmydesk
03-04-2009, 03:57 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121504302144124805.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


Conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh Wednesday inked an eight-year contract for around $400 million, underscoring how radio is spending big sums on bankable talent to compete in the crowded entertainment field.

Mr. Limbaugh's compensation of $38 million a year, plus a signing bonus of about $100 million is less in absolute terms than the five-year, $500 million contract Howard Stern cut in 2004 with Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. But Mr. Limbaugh's contract could net him more, as Mr. Stern must pay costs for his cast and production.

It's a big jump from Mr. Limbaugh's last contract, which at $285 million was a record for a radio personality when he signed it in 2001. Since then, the weekly audience for his three-hour midday show has held steady at about 20 million listeners, according to his syndicator, Clear Channel Communications Inc.'s Premiere Radio Networks. But advertisers are increasingly anxious to reach that audience.

Mr. Limbaugh's show is the nation's most-listened-to, followed by fellow conservative Sean Hannity's show, distributed by ABC Radio Networks, a division of Citadel Broadcasting Corp. Premiere is in advanced talks with Mr. Hannity to try to woo him away for a sum in the $200 million range over eight years, a person familiar with the situation said. Representatives for Mr. Hannity didn't respond to requests for comment. A spokeswoman for Premiere declined to comment.

On Wednesday's show, Mr. Limbaugh, 57 years old, said he was "ecstatic" about the deal.

As radio fights for market share in a fragmented entertainment market, its national stars are becoming increasingly valuable. Ryan Seacrest, whose radio shows are also syndicated by Premiere, recently made a deal where he owns and controls a portion of the advertising on one of his shows.

Radio reaches about 93% of the population each week, according to Arbitron Inc., with listeners tuning in an average of about 18.5 hours. That is a decline from just over 22 hours per week 10 years ago. Radio advertising, including on radio Internet sites, totaled $21.3 billion last year, down from $21.7 billion the year before.

Mr. Limbaugh's fans are fiercely loyal to the host and very responsive to his show's advertisers, media buyers say. "He is a proven commodity," says Mark Lefkowitz, executive vice president and media director at Furman Roth Advertising Inc.

Mr. Limbaugh's show also delivers revenue through ancillary businesses such as his "24/7" club that costs about $60 a year. Those businesses have grown substantially, a person familiar with the show said. For example, "24/7" members can watch video of the show live online and tap into a growing number of Internet-based frills.


I give him more then 60 bucks a year, because in addition to 24/7 I get his newsletter

ari1013
03-04-2009, 04:00 PM
Of course it's not publicized, but it's been reported 30 plus all the way to 50 million. Times is saying 38 million a year.

Most said it's atleast a 400 million dollar deal! for 8 years! Worth every penny to clear channel, he has something like 20 to 22 million daily listeners.


http://www.drudgereport.com/flashrl.htm
Howard Stern got a 5 year $500M deal from Sirius as far as I know. So that puts them in the same club.

EDIT: crap just saw you posted that.

ari1013
03-04-2009, 04:02 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121504302144124805.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


Conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh Wednesday inked an eight-year contract for around $400 million, underscoring how radio is spending big sums on bankable talent to compete in the crowded entertainment field.

Mr. Limbaugh's compensation of $38 million a year, plus a signing bonus of about $100 million is less in absolute terms than the five-year, $500 million contract Howard Stern cut in 2004 with Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. But Mr. Limbaugh's contract could net him more, as Mr. Stern must pay costs for his cast and production.

It's a big jump from Mr. Limbaugh's last contract, which at $285 million was a record for a radio personality when he signed it in 2001. Since then, the weekly audience for his three-hour midday show has held steady at about 20 million listeners, according to his syndicator, Clear Channel Communications Inc.'s Premiere Radio Networks. But advertisers are increasingly anxious to reach that audience.

Mr. Limbaugh's show is the nation's most-listened-to, followed by fellow conservative Sean Hannity's show, distributed by ABC Radio Networks, a division of Citadel Broadcasting Corp. Premiere is in advanced talks with Mr. Hannity to try to woo him away for a sum in the $200 million range over eight years, a person familiar with the situation said. Representatives for Mr. Hannity didn't respond to requests for comment. A spokeswoman for Premiere declined to comment.

On Wednesday's show, Mr. Limbaugh, 57 years old, said he was "ecstatic" about the deal.

As radio fights for market share in a fragmented entertainment market, its national stars are becoming increasingly valuable. Ryan Seacrest, whose radio shows are also syndicated by Premiere, recently made a deal where he owns and controls a portion of the advertising on one of his shows.

Radio reaches about 93% of the population each week, according to Arbitron Inc., with listeners tuning in an average of about 18.5 hours. That is a decline from just over 22 hours per week 10 years ago. Radio advertising, including on radio Internet sites, totaled $21.3 billion last year, down from $21.7 billion the year before.

Mr. Limbaugh's fans are fiercely loyal to the host and very responsive to his show's advertisers, media buyers say. "He is a proven commodity," says Mark Lefkowitz, executive vice president and media director at Furman Roth Advertising Inc.

Mr. Limbaugh's show also delivers revenue through ancillary businesses such as his "24/7" club that costs about $60 a year. Those businesses have grown substantially, a person familiar with the show said. For example, "24/7" members can watch video of the show live online and tap into a growing number of Internet-based frills.


I give him more then 60 bucks a year, because in addition to 24/7 I get his newsletter
So Hannity's gotta be making around $25M per if he's looking at 8yr/$200M.

What a joke.

behindmydesk
03-04-2009, 04:12 PM
So Hannity's gotta be making around $25M per if he's looking at 8yr/$200M.

What a joke.

in addition to his money from fox.

Also I can't remember but Coulter got one heck of a bonus to right a book too.

What can I say the country loves conservatives and it shows with the ratings via them getting paid.

behindmydesk
03-04-2009, 04:22 PM
And like Cubsrule actually brought up, the Democratic party has made Rush enemy number 1, they replaced Bush with him.

Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House.

The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans, especially younger voters. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise.

Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.

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

"The administration is enabling me,” he wrote in an 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.”

The bigger, the better, agreed Carville. “It’s great for us, great for him, great for the press,” he said of Limbaugh. “The only people he’s not good for are the actual Republicans in Congress.”
See also

* Steele trap? GOP fears grow
* Moderates uneasy with Obama plan
* Love spat: GOP splits with big business

If Limbaugh himself were to coin a phrase for it, he might call it Operation Rushbo – an idea that started out simply enough but quickly proved to be deeply resonant by a rapid succession of events, say Democrats inside and outside the West Wing.

The seeds were planted in October after Democracy Corps, the Democratic polling company run by Carville and Greenberg, included Limbaugh’s name in a survey and found that many Americans just don’t like him.

“His positives for voters under 40 was 11 percent,” Carville recalled with a degree of amazement, alluding to a question about whether voters had a positive or negative view of the talk show host.

Paul Begala, a close friend of Carville, Greenberg and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, said they found Limbaugh’s overall ratings were even lower than the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s controversial former pastor, and William Ayers, the domestic terrorist and Chicago resident who Republicans sought to tie to Obama during the campaign.

Then came what Begala called “the tripwire.”

“I hope he fails,” Limbaugh said of Obama on his show four days before the president was sworn in. It was a time when Obama’s approval ratings were soaring, but more than that, polls showed even people who didn’t vote for him badly wanted him to succeed, coming to office at a time of economic meltdown.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee was the first to jump on the statement, sending the video to its membership to raise cash and stir a petition drive.
We helped get the ball rolling on this because we’re looking and listening to different Republican voices around the country, and the one that was the loudest and getting the most attention was Rush Limbaugh,” explained DCCC chairman and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).

The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank run by former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta, also pounced on Limbaugh's "fail" line, drawing attention to it on their well-read blog.

Soon after, Americans United for Change, a liberal group, was airing Limbaugh’s statement in an ad aimed at pushing Senate Republicans to support the stimulus bill.

“It just cropped up out of how much play that comment was getting on the air,” said Brad Woodhouse, who runs the group and is about to take over as communications director at the Democratic National Committee. “When we did it and it generated so much press, it just started to snowball from there.”

But liberals quickly realized that trying to drive a wedge between congressional Republicans and Limbaugh was unlikely to work, and their better move was to paint the GOP as beholden to the talk show host.

This was driven home to them, according to one Democrat, when Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) took a shot at Limbaugh in late January only to appear on his program the next day and plead having momentarily had “foot-in-mouth disease.”

By February, Carville and Begala were pounding on Limbaugh frequently in their appearances on CNN.

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

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

The White House needed no more convincing after Limbaugh’s hour-plus performance Saturday, celebrated on the right and mocked on the left, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, where he re-stated his hope Obama fails.

“He kicked this into full-gear at CPAC by reiterating it,” said a senior White House official of Limbaugh.

By Sunday morning, Emanuel elevated the strategy by bringing up the conservative talker, unprompted, on CBS’s “Face the Nation” and calling him the “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party.”

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

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

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

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

Americans United for Change launched a new ad featuring Limbaugh’s CPAC appearance. A left-leaning media watchdog group began a new Limbaugh tracking homepage. Democratic National Chairman Tim Kaine tweaked Steele for his apology. Terry McAuliffe tried to inject Limbaugh into the Virginia governor’s race. The DCCC launched a new website, www.imsorryrush.com, mocking the Republicans who have had to apologize to Limbaugh.

And Gibbs served up a made-for-cable-TV quote to end his daily briefing Tuesday.

“I was a little surprised at the speed in which Mr. Steele, the head of the RNC, apologized to the head of the Republican Party,” Gibbs quipped with a grin, before striding out of the press room.

David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager last year and a member of his inner circle still, will publish an op-ed in Wednesday’s Washington Post chiding Republicans for being “paralyzed with fear of crossing their leader.”

A senior White House aide has been tasked with helping to guide the Limbaugh strategy.

Outside, Americans United for Choice, a liberal group, and the Democratic National Committee are driving the message, in close consultation with the White House.

Democrats can barely suppress their smiles these days, overjoyed at the instant-ad imagery of Limbaugh clad in Johnny Cash-black at CPAC and, more broadly, at what they see as their success in managing to further marginalize a party already on the outs.

“I want to send Rush a bottle of vitamins,” said Begala. “We need him to stay healthy and loud and proud.”

With President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney out of the White House and Tom DeLay gone from Congress, the left had been suddenly absent an unpopular right-wing figure.

Few Americans know who the congressional Republican leaders are. Even Sarah Palin is now four time zones away from Washington.

Enter Limbaugh.

It’s something of a back to the future tactic for Democrats: painting the GOP as the party of the angry white male. But unlike Newt Gingrich or other prominent Republicans, Limbaugh doesn’t have to mind his tongue.

And the liberal political apparatus is at battle stations taking note of his every comment.

Media Matters, the left-leaning media watchdog and advocacy group, began a “Limbaugh Wire” web-site Tuesday to track him. “For a long time Americans haven’t really been aware that he’s so influential,” said Eric Burns, the group’s president.

Democrats are now working hard to ensure that changes.

“He’s driving the Republican reluctance to deal with Obama, which Americans want,” said Greenberg. “He’s the policeman [keeping them in line].”

They’ll all get a fresh hook for the story after Wednesday, when a Democratic polling firm goes into the field to test, among other things, Limbaugh’s standing with the public.

All the attention only offers upside for the buzz-hungry Limbaugh, said Carville.

“The television cameras just can’t stay away from him,” Carville said Tuesday, a day when cable news played images of Limbaugh seemingly on a loop. “Our strategy depends on him keeping talking, and I think we’re going to succeed.”

ari1013
03-04-2009, 04:26 PM
so basically they had this whole thing planned and were just waiting for a buzzword from him

behindmydesk
03-04-2009, 04:26 PM
Yup

blenderboy5
03-04-2009, 04:27 PM
in addition to his money from fox.

Also I can't remember but Coulter got one heck of a bonus to right a book too.

What can I say the country loves conservatives and it shows with the ratings via them getting paid.

Eh, I'd be hesitant to bring up book deals. The most outrageous book deals tend to go to liberals/anti-Republican writings. Even Coulter, perhaps the most successful (in terms of sales) doesn't stack up to her liberal counterparts.

behindmydesk
03-04-2009, 05:21 PM
Rush to Obama: Debate me!

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: It is on the record -- thanks to Politico.com -- since last fall, the White House, led by Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff to Barack Obama, has been targeting me, your host, your harmless, lovable little fuzzball. Their standard operating procedure: they need a demon to distract and divert from what their agenda is. They need a demon about whom they can lie so as to persuade average Americans that they're the good guys, the benevolent good guys, and the mean SOBs are their enemies trying to stop this great young little president from doing miraculous and wonderful things.

Here is a new ad that this union bunch is running in Washington, DC, ladies and gentlemen. And, of course, it's been picked up all over the Web. You guys, if you haven't done so, you gotta go to RushLimbaugh.com. The DNCC, whatever it is, they have a questionnaire up there. It's hilarious. I have to give 'em credit. You can see it right now at RushLimbaugh.com. It is a form letter where any Republican can send a note of apology to me. The note is an apology note to me, and you can fill in your name and the reason you're apologizing. It is funny. I had to laugh when I saw it last night. I instructed Koko, just put it up there, 'cause it's hilarious. It's as good as the old Saturday Night Live stuff back when Saturday Night Live was actually funny. But there's a new ad targeted at your lovable, harmless little fuzzball host from that union bunch. It starts today in Washington, DC, which means it's going to be all over the cable networks pretty soon.

ANNOUNCER: Who is the leader Republicans hailed as a hero last weekend? Was it Sarah Palin?

PALIN: Nope, nope, nope.

ANNOUNCER: Bobby Jindal?

JINDAL: No, no, no.

ANNOUNCER: Michael Steele?

STEELE: No, no, no.

ANNOUNCER: Mitch McConnell?

MCCONNELL: No, no, no.

ANNOUNCER: Then who? Not Rush Limbaugh?

RUSH ARCHIVE: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

ANNOUNCER: Call the Republican leadership. Tell them to just say "no" to the politics of Rush Limbaugh.

RUSH ARCHIVE: I hope he fails.

ANNOUNCER: Paid for by Americans United for Change.
RUSH: That's the union bunch. Can you just see...? (laughing) "Call the Republican leadership and say no to Limbaugh." (laughing) Now, ladies and gentlemen, the Politico story today. I got an e-mail last night from the writer of the story, Jonathan Martin, who did not tell me the full details of what the story they were working on was. He did not tell me that they have discovered that there is a team inside the White House targeting me and that they've been doing this since last fall, when they went out and did some polling data and found out I've got very high negatives among certain groups. So they thought, "Well, this is the guy to demonize! Since Bush is leaving, we need somebody," and so this is being led from the White House. There is an orchestrated attack, daily drumbeat on me from the White House. The participants here are James Carville, Paul Begala and Rahm Emanuel.

But make no mistake about it. Emanuel is the leader of all of this. Carville and Begala are just trying to ride my fame into their fortune and become relevant again. Begala and Carville, don't confuse them with the power brokers that are managing this. It all Emanuel. Begala and Carville are second-rate talking heads on CNN. CNN has no audience. Rahm Emanuel is the power behind the throne -- and don't let his effeminate nature and his ballerina past mislead you on this. He may look effeminate (he was a ballerina at one time) but he has the feral instincts of a female rat defending its young. Well, take a look. When Emanuel and Carville and Begala are together (and I've seen pictures) it looks like a reunion of the Village People. (singing) Y! M! C! A! They are really the official greeters in Roswell, New Mexico, in Area 51 where Carville was born.

My point here is that these are really odious, empty, nasty people who are feasting on their own arrogance. They are power hungry. But, you know what? They've never had a serious debate over ideas. Their goal is to destroy opponents, which is what they're trying to do now. They don't want to engage opponents. Their idea of victory is the destruction of the opponent. They're not for a level playing field. They want to clear the playing field so that their ideas do not have to undergo any scrutiny. So what do they do? They leak stories to The Politico intended to create impressions about their own importance and their brilliance, when in fact they aren't even bit players on the nation's stage. This is Emanuel, and this is Obama.

But I have an idea. If these guys are so impressed with themselves, and if they are so sure of their correctness, why doesn't President Obama come on my show? We will do a one-on-one debate of ideas and policies. Now, his people in this Politico story, it's on the record. They're claiming they wanted me all along. They wanted me to be the focus of attention. So let's have the debate! I am offering President Obama to come on this program -- without staffers, without a teleprompter, without note cards -- to debate me on the issues. Let's talk about free markets versus government control. Let's talk about nationalizing health care and raising taxes on small business.

Let's talk about the New Deal versus Reaganomics. Let's talk about closing Guantanamo Bay, and let's talk about sending $900 million to Hamas. Let's talk about illegal immigration and the lawlessness on the borders. Let's talk about massive deficits and the destroying of opportunities of future generations. Let's talk about ACORN, community agitators, and the unions that represent the government employees which pour millions of dollars into your campaign, President Obama. Let's talk about your elimination of school choice for minority students in the District of Columbia. Let's talk about your efforts to further reduce domestic drilling and refining of oil. Let's talk about your stock market. By the way, Mr. President, I want to help. Yesterday you said you looked at the stock market as no different than a tracking poll that goes up and down.

There's no "up and down" here. We have a plunge. The president yesterday suggested "we're getting to the point where profits and earnings ratios are approaching that point where you want to invest." Uh, Mr. President? There is no "profits and earnings" ratio. It's "price and earnings" ratio. He's the president of the United States. He doesn't know anything about the stock market. He's admitted it before. Let's talk about it anyway. You want to maintain it's a tracking poll? I'd love to talk to you about that. Let's talk about all of these things, Mr. President. Let's go ahead and have a debate on this show. No limits. Now that your handlers are praising themselves for promoting me as the head of a political party -- they think that's a great thing -- then it should be a no-brainer for you to further advance this strategy by debating me on the issues and on the merits, and wipe me out once and for all!

Just come on this program. Let's have a little debate. You tell me how wrong I am and you can convince the rest of the Americans that don't agree with you how wrong we all are. You're a smart guy, Mr. President. You don't need these hacks to front for you. You've debated the best! You've debated Hillary Clinton. You've debated John Edwards. You've debated Joe Biden. You've debated Dennis Kucinich. You've debated the best out there. You are one of the most gifted public speakers of our age. I would think, Mr. President, you would jump at this opportunity. Don't send lightweights like Begala and Carville to do your bidding -- and forget about the ballerina, Emanuel. He's got things to do in his office. These people, compared to you, Mr. President, are rhetorical chum.

I would rather have an intelligent, open discussion with you where you lay out your philosophy and policies and I lay out mine -- and we can question each other, in a real debate. Any time here at the EIB Network studios. If you're too busy partying or flying around giving speeches and so forth, then send Vice President Biden. I'm sure he would be very capable of articulating your vision for America -- and if he won't work, send Geithner, and we can talk about the tax code. And if that won't work, go get Bob Rubin. I don't care. Send whoever you want if you can't make it. You don't need to be leaking stories to Politico like this thing that's published today. You don't need to have your allies writing op-eds and all the rest. If you can win at this, then come here and beat me at my own game, and get rid of me once and for all, and show all the people of America that I am wrong.
In fact, Mr. President, you know what, I know these are tough economic times, and you're trying to convince people that you're "saving" the taxpayers money, that you're cutting spending, that you're cutting the deficit. In that vein, I, Mr. President, will send my jet, EIB One, to pick you up and bring you here and take you back to wherever you want to go. You'd love it. It's not as big and luxurious as your jet, but it's got enough seats for your Secret Service detail. But it is something to behold. I'm very proud of it, Mr. President. I worked for it. I paid for it. Taxpayers pay you for your travel. Nobody pays me for mine. I pay for it. I pay for the airplane. I pay for the travel. I pay for practically everything I do. We can talk about that, too. I could tell you what that's like.

And once you land, by the way, I have a fleet of SUVs because I have guests here all the time. I have four or five SUVs. I can send a caravan to pick you up. I'll even put you up at The Breakers. It's a five-star resort. I'll do it all on my dime. We don't want the taxpayers footing any of the bill for this -- and my jet burns a lot less fuel than your two and your C-130 to bring your limousine and SUV caravan here. In fact, you know what, Mr. President? I'll tell you what I will do, if you will do this. I will promise to order some Wagyu Kobe beef at $100 a pound, just like you serve at your cocktail parties and your Super Bowl parties. I'll get it from Allen Brothers in Chicago, since you like that. I know you like $100-per-pound beef. You serve it at the White House.

But I'll cover the cost. I will cover the cost, Mr. President, so that the taxpayers do not have to pay for it, as they did your Super Bowl party, and as they do your Wednesday afternoon cocktail party. So you have no excuses. Your flunkies are demanding this debate. Your flunkies are targeting a private citizen with an enemies list that so far has three or four names on it: Mine; Rick Santelli; Jim Cramer at CNBC; and let's not forget Joe the Plumber, who your allies in Ohio also tried to destroy. The difference is that Joe the Plumber does not have his own microphone every day. They're shutting Santelli up at CNBC. They're going to shut Cramer up pretty soon, too, but he'll go down with a fight. That isn't going to happen here, to me.

I'm calling. I'm ready. I'll do everything I can to facilitate it. You're a very courageous man, Mr. President. I am, after all, just The Last Man Standing. If you take me out, if you can wipe me out in a debate and prove to the rest of America that what I say is senseless and wrong, do you realize you will own the United States of America? You will have no opposition. You have America's media in your back pocket. It's amazing. In 1972, Richard Nixon had an enemies list, and the media was outraged by this. They were outraged. At the same time, those who weren't on it were a little jealous. But they were outraged that a president would engage in this kind of behavior toward the media. Now they go after a private citizen.

Rahm Emanuel is leading the team going after a private citizen, and the Drive-By Media applaud, get on board and help further the mission. We live in different times. So if you can wipe me out -- and, by the way, Mr. President, and Mr. Emanuel: Don't make the mistake of assuming I'm wiping myself out here in the process. I want to thank you guys for elevating me beyond the stature I already earned and achieved, because now more and more Americans have the opportunity to learn who you really are, what your ideas will really accomplish, and what damage and harm I think your policies will bring for a very, very long time to them and to this country. So I want to thank you for the opportunity. Obviously, it's a threat targeting me. I've extended the invitation. I'm looking forward to hearing back from whoever in your cabal one way or the other on accepting my offer.

ari1013
03-04-2009, 06:35 PM
I think Rush's ego just got the better of him. There's no reason for Obama to ever go on his show. And now that Rush is talking like this, it's only furthering Carville and Begala's goals.

ink
03-04-2009, 07:42 PM
I think Rush's ego just got the better of him. There's no reason for Obama to ever go on his show. And now that Rush is talking like this, it's only furthering Carville and Begala's goals.

I agree. Rush is getting intoxicated on all the attention. His ego prevents him from realizing that all the attention is legitimately negative.

Raider_Vet
03-04-2009, 07:49 PM
Al Franken said it best... Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot!!!

Cubsrule
03-04-2009, 08:41 PM
I think Rush's ego just got the better of him. There's no reason for Obama to ever go on his show. And now that Rush is talking like this, it's only furthering Carville and Begala's goals.

But the fact that he'll likely refuse will only further Limbaugh's agenda and further his popularity.

ari1013
03-04-2009, 09:42 PM
But the fact that he'll likely refuse will only further Limbaugh's agenda and further his popularity.
Which plays right into the Dems hands doesn't it?

The more the Republicans are identified as Rush's followers, the more likely the indies are going to stay committed to the Dems.

What the Dems did was take a page from Bush's playbook when he basically started to link the Dems to moveOn.org

cabernetluver
03-04-2009, 10:52 PM
Which plays right into the Dems hands doesn't it?

The more the Republicans are identified as Rush's followers, the more likely the indies are going to stay committed to the Dems.

What the Dems did was take a page from Bush's playbook when he basically started to link the Dems to moveOn.org

Exactly. I posted this (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114163/Limbaugh-Liked-Not-Republicans.aspx) earlier, but in context of what you wrote, it makes it so much more clear.



PRINCETON, NJ -- Conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh is viewed favorably by 60% of Republicans nationwide, while 23% have an unfavorable opinion of him. In sharp contrast, only 6% of Democrats view Limbaugh favorably, while 63% view him unfavorably.


Almost a third of Democrats say they have no opinion of Limbaugh, but negative views of him among Democrats outweigh positive opinions by more than a 10-to-1 ratio. Among independents, negatives outweigh positives by a 45% to 25% margin.

Ari, you have hit the nail on the head. As I posted earlier a Gallup poll from February of this year shows that in the Republican sector, this seems insane. He is well loved by an almost 3/1 ratio. So if all you do is listen to the Republican echo chamber you are going to think that you are making a great and powerful man greater and more powerful.

On the other hand we in the Democratic side have a 10/1 ration of finding him lower than pond scum. So, by the same measure I used for the Republicans this makes all the sense in the world because we have no use for him.

All of this is the side show. The real show is in the part of the electorate that normally decides elections, that being the independents. Well as the Gallup poll shows, in the non echo chamber or the independents it makes really good sense to use Limbaugh as the face of the Republican Party. By a 45/25 ratio he is disliked by the independents.

The Democratic leadership learned the lessons taught by the GOP. As you pointed out, they tried (and for a while succeeded) in painting the Democratic Party with the brush of MoveOn.Org and it is not well liked by the independents. Just as they would point to the most radical members of the Gay community as representatives of the Gay community, and on and on, well now we control the bully pulpit. It may not be polite, but it is fair by the rules that were used with great skill by the Republicans.

A post script. No one on the left begrudges Rush his pay day. In fact, as long as he wants to spew his red meat to conservatives that turns off the independents by an almost 2/1 ratio, I for one will be really happy to keep his megaphone loud and let it be heard often.

gcoll
03-04-2009, 11:02 PM
I dislike Limbaugh. He's a hypocrite.

That being said. The whole "leader of the Republican party" stuff is nonsense. Moveon.org does more for the Democratic party, than Rush does for the Republican party.....and that doesn't stick to the Dems. And Christ, Moveon took out a whole ad calling General David Petraeus, "General Betray-us" because they didn't like what he had to say about Iraq. That's a bit more out there than "I hope he fails" especially when you view Rush's words in context.

This is just a mindless distraction, at a time when whenever Obama speaks.....the Dow plummets.

ari1013
03-04-2009, 11:06 PM
I dislike Limbaugh. He's a hypocrite.

That being said. The whole "leader of the Republican party" stuff is nonsense. Moveon.org does more for the Democratic party, than Rush does for the Republican party.....and that doesn't stick to the Dems.

This is just a mindless distraction, at a time when whenever Obama speaks.....the Dow plummets.
Of course it's nonsense. But you get the point that Cab and I are making.

gcoll
03-04-2009, 11:10 PM
Of course it's nonsense. But you get the point that Cab and I are making.

Rush is a polarizing figure? Yeah. I get it.

Get used to "the party of Rush Limbaugh" in the midterms being repeated a lot.

But I get annoyed by independents. Some people call independents "undecided" or something like that. I call them lazy, and I believe they simply don't pay attention.

ink
03-04-2009, 11:12 PM
Which plays right into the Dems hands doesn't it?

The more the Republicans are identified as Rush's followers, the more likely the indies are going to stay committed to the Dems.

What the Dems did was take a page from Bush's playbook when he basically started to link the Dems to moveOn.org

That's why I say the happier Rush Limbaugh is about himself, the happier the Democrats are. He'll just alienate the key independent voters the GOP needs to get back in power.

He's the gift that keeps on giving.

gcoll
03-04-2009, 11:15 PM
He'll just alienate the key independent voters the GOP needs to get back in power.
If that strategy works...I don't even care anymore. It's bull ****. Why even have democracy if people are that ****ing stupid?

Let's give feudalism another go.

blenderboy5
03-04-2009, 11:33 PM
But I get annoyed by independents. Some people call independents "undecided" or something like that. I call them lazy, and I believe they simply don't pay attention.

Agreed. You're either a Republican or a Democrat if you have an IQ above a toaster.

There are people who are upset with the polarization of the parties, but they're also stupid. Because the parties now are much less polarized than in the past.

cabernetluver
03-04-2009, 11:45 PM
Agreed. You're either a Republican or a Democrat if you have an IQ above a toaster.

There are people who are upset with the polarization of the parties, but they're also stupid. Because the parties now are much less polarized than in the past.


Now, I start this by saying I am not an independent, but, in the past, I have had a long history of ticket splitting. In fact, I live in a state that is outrageously Democratic in party affiliation, and we have a Republican governor. Now before you put down this governor as a RINO, three out of our last four governors have been Republican and all of them had Democratic Lieutenant Governors (a separate elected office).

blenderboy5
03-04-2009, 11:48 PM
Oh nothing wrong with split ticket voting. Let me rephrase that: you're either conservative or liberal. Though most people who split ticket vote do it because they fear one party controlling everything.

gcoll
03-05-2009, 12:34 AM
Now, I start this by saying I am not an independent, but, in the past, I have had a long history of ticket splitting.
But you know your ****. You pay attention.

I'm talking about the people who 3 weeks before the election claim to be undecided.

Or the people who say "I'm tired of all this arguing, I just want solutions". Mostly because what is being argued over...is the proposed solutions.

Basically, I find it hard to believe that someone could pay attention, learn the issues, and still have no preference. You can still disagree with your party, and vote for the other party in some cases.....but you've gotta at least have a lean.

ink
03-05-2009, 01:49 AM
If that strategy works...I don't even care anymore. It's bull ****. Why even have democracy if people are that ****ing stupid?

Let's give feudalism another go.

cab gave some clear figures on who Rush appeals to and it's not the Dem or Indie voter. So the longer he is the face of the party, the longer the GOP remains in the wilderness.

Or were you saying that Limbaugh would lead us all to feudalism? :p That I can agree with ...

DenButsu
03-05-2009, 03:15 AM
As for me I love Rush. I already know my first born son will either be named Rush something, or something Rush. Rush will def be in the name.

Wow, really? I mean... really?

I mean... not that there's anything wrong with the name Rush (I happen to like it for completely different reasons), but naming your child after... him? Talk about born under a bad sign...

QuietWyatt
03-05-2009, 03:18 AM
I think he's an entertaining guy who turns demagougary into ratings.

Now that Dems are in office he's really being taken seriously as a reaction to a loss of Republican leadership.

Hope you guys get back on your feet. :flag:

ink
03-05-2009, 03:18 AM
Wow, really? I mean... really?

I mean... not that there's anything wrong with the name Rush (I happen to like it for completely different reasons), but naming your child after... him? Talk about born under a bad sign...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lpVjXwAfm0&feature=PlayList&p=DF67CA0F0EE47D6D&playnext=1&index=3

:rock:

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0o1CBzl4sU&feature=PlayList&p=7B17E0CE6EF07377&playnext=1&index=2

?

lol

DenButsu
03-05-2009, 03:34 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lpVjXwAfm0&feature=PlayList&p=DF67CA0F0EE47D6D&playnext=1&index=3

:rock:

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0o1CBzl4sU&feature=PlayList&p=7B17E0CE6EF07377&playnext=1&index=2

?

lol

:nod:

The first one is one of the reasons (although there are more). Actually, that's funny you picked that particular song - that was one of the first LPs I ever owned (probably talking around 79 or so, when I was a little kid. But I grew up playing drums, and I idolized Peart, so if I'd have picked the youtube, it would have been this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa0C5Uxpd3c). :smoking:

But I'm sure you understand that, being from Canada and all. Take off to the Great White North. It's the beauty way to go, eh.

DenButsu
03-05-2009, 03:36 AM
I think he's an entertaining guy who turns demagougary into ratings.

Now that Dems are in office he's really being taken seriously as a reaction to a loss of Republican leadership.

Hope you guys get back on your feet. :flag:

Oh, I think with the presidency and both houses of Congress in our hands now, our footing is just fine, thanks. :cool: :flag:

Cubsrule
03-05-2009, 04:39 AM
Which plays right into the Dems hands doesn't it?

The more the Republicans are identified as Rush's followers, the more likely the indies are going to stay committed to the Dems.

What the Dems did was take a page from Bush's playbook when he basically started to link the Dems to moveOn.org

I don't know, O'reilly brought up an interesting point today about the whole situation in that the more Obama and his staff talks about Limbaugh the more it could outrage the public to the point that they'd criticize Obama and his administration for worrying more about Rush than the economy. Will it happen? Maybe, but whose to say for sure.

Cubsrule
03-05-2009, 04:42 AM
Exactly. I posted this (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114163/Limbaugh-Liked-Not-Republicans.aspx) earlier, but in context of what you wrote, it makes it so much more clear.






Ari, you have hit the nail on the head. As I posted earlier a Gallup poll from February of this year shows that in the Republican sector, this seems insane. He is well loved by an almost 3/1 ratio. So if all you do is listen to the Republican echo chamber you are going to think that you are making a great and powerful man greater and more powerful.

On the other hand we in the Democratic side have a 10/1 ration of finding him lower than pond scum. So, by the same measure I used for the Republicans this makes all the sense in the world because we have no use for him.

All of this is the side show. The real show is in the part of the electorate that normally decides elections, that being the independents. Well as the Gallup poll shows, in the non echo chamber or the independents it makes really good sense to use Limbaugh as the face of the Republican Party. By a 45/25 ratio he is disliked by the independents.

The Democratic leadership learned the lessons taught by the GOP. As you pointed out, they tried (and for a while succeeded) in painting the Democratic Party with the brush of MoveOn.Org and it is not well liked by the independents. Just as they would point to the most radical members of the Gay community as representatives of the Gay community, and on and on, well now we control the bully pulpit. It may not be polite, but it is fair by the rules that were used with great skill by the Republicans.

A post script. No one on the left begrudges Rush his pay day. In fact, as long as he wants to spew his red meat to conservatives that turns off the independents by an almost 2/1 ratio, I for one will be really happy to keep his megaphone loud and let it be heard often.

Would you expect any different numbers at this point? I mean Obama just got inaugerated two months ago, and pulled in quite a few independents. If those start falling in favor of Rush, then the Dems have a huge problem.

Cubsrule
03-05-2009, 05:15 AM
Didn't see this posted, apologies if it has.


Team Obama's Petty Limbaugh Strategy

The McCain campaign would much rather have the story about phony and foolish diversions than about the future. . . . We have real problems in this country right now and the American people are looking to us for answers, not distractions, not diversions, not manipulations. -- Barack Obama, Norfolk, Va., September 10, 2008

President Obama won the presidency by promising to be a different, more substantive, less gimmicky leader. He said he would not waste our time on "phony outrage," like fulminations on the meaning of "lipstick on a pig," or silly characters like "Joe The Plumber," a guy who was actually named Samuel and was not even a licensed plumber. No, Obama said he was going to solve problems instead. Now that he is in the White House, he still makes this case, almost every day. On Wednesday morning, during an address about contracting reforms, he referred dismissively to the "chatter on the cable stations."

But what is the chatter on the cable stations? For most of this week, and for much of the last month, it has been about Rush Limbaugh. Hour after hour, daytime pundits are asked a litany of banal Rush questions: Does Rush really run the Republican Party? Why did RNC chair Michael Steele apologize to Rush? What does it mean that Rush addressed conservatives last weekend? As Jonathan Martin makes clear in the Politico today, this entire controversy has been cooked up and force fed to the American people by Obama's advisers.* In other words, it's not the kind of change you can believe in.

First off, let us settle on the facts. The Republican Party is lost and largely leaderless, much as Democrats were in the wake of the 2000 and 2004 elections. Rush Limbaugh, a self described "entertainer," is probably the most famous and popular spokesman for the conservative cause that has long undergirded the GOP. But he no more runs the Republican Party than Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie run Hollywood. To put it another way, he is a talented pitchman, a powerful communicator, the Clark Gable of his day. But the producers and directors of the Republican cause still reside in Congress, in fundraising networks and in state executive mansions. And while all of these people are terrified of crossing Rush, their biggest brand name, and will apologize profusely to any perceived slight, they are about as beholden to Limbaugh as MGM's Louis Mayer was beholden to Gable.

So why are we talking about Rush? According to Martin, the Rush "controversy" began as an idea last fall that followed a poll taken by Stanley Greenberg, who owns the house where White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel stays when he is in Washington. With his old Clinton Administration colleagues, Paul Begala and James Carville, Greenberg realized that Limbaugh was deeply unpopular among wide swaths of the American electorate. So, the strategists figured, why not turn the turn Republican Party into a Limbaughesque caricature? Limbaugh, a consummate publicity hound, was only too eager to help. Earlier this year, he said he hoped Obama "fails," a reasonable claim in context, given that Limbaugh's entire worldview is constructed around an opposition to the sorts of policies that Obama has proposed.
But echoed over the "chatter on the cable stations" thanks to Obama aides, including Emanuel and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, Limbaugh's comment took on a whiff of treason. Limbaugh's rapid comebacks to the White House assault created what economists might call a "downward spiral" effect. “It's great for us, great for him, great for the press,” Carville told the Politico, describing the White House and Limbaugh. “The only people he's not good for are the actual Republicans in Congress.”

But here's the rub: If you believed what Obama said during the campaign, then Carville is dead wrong. Republicans in Congress are not the only losers. The American people also lose. At a time of unprecedented threats to the United States, a time of financial collapse, bank failures and record layoffs, at a time when the credit crisis has not been solved, and the stock market is in free fall, at a time of stagnating wars, rising terrorism in Pakistan and growing nuclear potential in Iran, the White House has done the easy thing. It has asked the American people to focus their attention not on solving the problems, but on a big-mouthed entertainer in Florida. This may be smart politics. But it is also the same petty strategy that John McCain employed during the presidential campaign, the one that our new president promised to rise above.

UPDATE: Don't miss David Von Drehle's take on the White House/Limbaugh noise.

* By advisers here I am including the outside Democratic strategists and supporters discussed above who have influenced the White House line on Limbaugh.

ALSO: As Sam Stein points out, Gibbs said today, in a light tone, that he will "plead guilty to being counterproductive" by feeding the cable news beast. Of course, in saying that, he only further fed the beast.

QuietWyatt
03-05-2009, 05:52 AM
Please...do not distance yourself from Limbaugh......

Then call up on his show and apologize like the rest of your role-model drones....:D

blenderboy5
03-05-2009, 11:01 AM
Great article in the Washington Post today. Obviously biased, but still sums it up nicely.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/04/AR2009030402895.html



Democrats' Diversionary Tactics

By John Boehner
Thursday, March 5, 2009; Page A19

In the first two months of 2009, the Democratic Congress and the White House have spent more money than the combined cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the response to Hurricane Katrina. After they doled out taxpayer dollars at such a blistering pace, the instinct of many inside the Beltway is to do what's most convenient: desperately try to change the subject by creating straw men -- called "the party of no" -- to rally against.

And in a carefully calculated campaign, operatives and allies of the Obama administration are seeking to divert attention toward radio host Rush Limbaugh, and away from a debate about our alternative solutions on the economy and the irresponsible spending binge they are presiding over. This diversionary tactic will not create a single job or help a single family struggling in today's economic crisis. And that is where our focus should be.

Make no mistake: This strategy did not develop out of thin air. Democratic pollsters began laying the groundwork for this effort last fall. What's particularly regrettable is that all this is unfolding at a time our nation can least afford it.

President Obama has said that we must change the way Washington operates in order to address the unprecedented challenges of today. I hope that those inside and close to the administration begin heeding his advice, because the change-the-subject campaign they are employing is the oldest trick in Washington's book. This isn't about the leadership of political party officials or the influence of radio hosts. It's about the need for both parties to work together toward real solutions to end this recession and put Americans back to work.


It's no secret that middle-class families and small businesses across our nation are hurting. Their job security is diminishing, their budgets are tightening, and their 401(k)s and college savings are evaporating. During this recession, they are being forced to make difficult budget decisions; unfortunately, Congress and the administration do not feel the responsibility to do likewise. Instead, the profligate spending we've seen over the past two months is simply breathtaking -- and it's exactly why some here in Washington are scrambling to change the subject.

Consider what Washington Democrats have "accomplished" since the beginning of the year: The administration requested $350 billion from the Troubled Assets Relief Program even though neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration has adequately answered questions about where the first $350 billion went and what strategy Treasury officials have developed to get the government out of the private sector. President Obama signed "stimulus" legislation that costs twice as much as the House GOP's alternative bill but that will create only half as many jobs.

The president apparently plans to sign the $410 billion "omnibus" spending bill, even though it is loaded with some 9,000 unscrutinized earmarks and the largest increase in discretionary spending -- save for a brief increase after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- since the Carter administration. And the Obama administration has proposed a budget blueprint that increases taxes on every American, to the total tune of $1.4 trillion. Each of these policy proposals is meant to lay the groundwork for a new era of big government -- and neither Main Street nor Wall Street likes what it is seeing.

Markets are plunging, businesses are cutting jobs and families are growing more anxious every day. Moments like this demand the kind of cooperation and new way of doing business that Obama has promised. Instead, those around him are taking to the airwaves and the pages of our nation's newspapers to carry out a campaign intended to change the subject and divert attention from what matters most: finding a way to work together to get our economy moving again.

Something is wrong when the discourse in Washington is more focused on a political sideshow than, say, the fact that Congress is attempting to terminate a school choice program that serves thousands of needy children in the District of Columbia, or the impact of a presidential budget that raises taxes on millions of Americans during a recession. When it comes to jobs, the budget, children's health care and other issues, House Republicans have offered what we believe are better solutions to the problems facing middle-class families and small businesses. We will continue to do so in the coming months and hope that White House political operatives abandon their cynical "change the subject" strategy by joining us.

DenButsu
03-05-2009, 11:14 AM
Well, as long as we're posting conservative commentary...

Here's David Frum (http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=d22fe4c9-6f8c-4c0d-93af-aed79ad3b467):



LIMBAUGH AT CPAC
Monday, March 02, 2009 7:07 AM

President Obama and Rush Limbaugh do not agree on much, but they share at least one thing: Both wish to see Rush anointed as the leader of the Republican party. Here’s Rahm Emanuel on Face the Nation yesterday: “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party.”

What a great endorsement for Rush! (And we know Rush is fond of compliments – listen to his loving account in his CPAC speech of the birthday lunch given him by President Bush just before Inauguration Day.)

But what about the rest of the party? Here’s the duel that Obama and Limbaugh are jointly arranging:

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

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

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

But do the rest of us understand what we are doing to ourselves by accepting this leadership? Rush is to the Republicanism of the 2000s what Jesse Jackson was to the Democratic party in the 1980s. He plays an important role in our coalition, and of course he and his supporters have to be treated with respect. But he cannot be allowed to be the public face of the enterprise – and we have to find ways of assuring the public that he is just one Republican voice among many, and very far from the most important.


And bb, this is just laughable:


And in a carefully calculated campaign, operatives and allies of the Obama administration are seeking to divert attention toward radio host Rush Limbaugh, and away from a debate about our alternative solutions on the economy and the irresponsible spending binge they are presiding over.

The idea that Democrats made Steele (and a bunch of other Republican leaders) first criticize Limbaugh and then issue groveling apologies after Rush engaged them in pissing matches can hardly be attributed to the Democrats. If we were that good at being evil geniuses, we'd never have lost in 2000 or 2004. Face it, we might be having a little fun fanning the flames, but we didn't start the fire. This train wreck belongs 100% to the Grand Old Party.

Cubsrule
03-05-2009, 11:18 AM
Great article in the Washington Post today. Obviously biased, but still sums it up nicely.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/04/AR2009030402895.html

Very good read BB, puts everything into perspective.

gcoll
03-05-2009, 11:25 AM
The idea that Democrats made Steele (and a bunch of other Republican leaders) first criticize Limbaugh and then issue groveling apologies after Rush engaged them in pissing matches can hardly be attributed to the Democrats
This started before the Steele thing.

When Steele slighted Rush, it was in response to a question that referred to Rush as the leader of the Republican party.

You don't need to be an evil genius to get a talking point started. It's just viral marketing.

Rush gave them the ammo with the "I hope he fails" stuff, and they are currently running with it. It's calculated. It's too organized to be coincidence. This is a strategy.

And it's all based on terrible arguments. That's what I find the most annoying. Makes no sense.

blenderboy5
03-05-2009, 11:30 AM
Please, DB, don't insult our intelligence. Of course it's a strategy. Michael Steele didn't just go to the media one day and say "You know guys, **** Rush I'm the important leader of the party here." It was provoked.

And yes, they're fanning the flames/continuing to make mountains out of molehills to distract from the, as Rush puts it, "porkulus" bill.

behindmydesk
03-05-2009, 11:31 AM
Well, as long as we're posting conservative commentary...

Here's David Frum (http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=d22fe4c9-6f8c-4c0d-93af-aed79ad3b467):





And bb, this is just laughable:



The idea that Democrats made Steele (and a bunch of other Republican leaders) first criticize Limbaugh and then issue groveling apologies after Rush engaged them in pissing matches can hardly be attributed to the Democrats. If we were that good at being evil geniuses, we'd never have lost in 2000 or 2004. Face it, we might be having a little fun fanning the flames, but we didn't start the fire. This train wreck belongs 100% to the Grand Old Party.

I disagree this was planned all along. Granted you didn't fire the first words but you knew Rush would say something, and you got the ball rolling. I mean this isnt' the first time Rush has said something bad about liberals, or about his own party at times. You guys played it perfectly.

Uncle Funster
03-05-2009, 11:57 AM
He's a moron. Wait - a felonious moron.

cabernetluver
03-05-2009, 12:01 PM
First to Cubsrule, the point of the thread, not to mention the Gallup results, had nothing to do with President Obama. Rush has always had high negatives among the general public while at the same time having high positives among the Republican Party. He gets his high paydays from his substantial, but in no way majority, following. He created a business model in radio that he has benefitted from. He is a talented radio personality in his genre. He on the other hand causes the middle of the political spectrum to reject him by an almost 2/1 margin as shown in the Gallup survey.
Next to BB, a couple of points I would like to present to you. Earlier you and I had a discussion of independents which turned into a discussion of ticket splitting, and then into a division of people as liberal or conservative. I gave this thought and I think I have some other groups that you might (or might not) agree people can be and still have (to paraphrase you) an IQ higher than a toaster. First there are the libertarians (small “l” on purpose). The classical libertarian truly fits into neither the current version of liberal nor conservative (who from my perspective have interesting subdivisions). Second there are the single issue people whose devotion to their single issue keeps them from falling into either group.
Finally and tied into my largest group, I put those people who I will label as non dogmatic pragmatists. In fact, I have a feeling that this group is the largest part of those who call themselves independents. As I pointed out my state is overwhelmingly registered as Democrats, but three out of four of our present and immediate past governors have been Republican. This was done at a time when we have elected and reelected two Democratic (and female) senators who represent the moderate and liberal wings of the Democratic Party.
Your feeling about ticket splitting was that it had to do with not wanting single party government, and while this might be true, I can tell you from a personal point of view, it had to do with choosing the person I felt would do the job in the way I wanted it done, in the most efficacious manner. It had nothing to do with single party rule. If at a given time I felt the job that was most important was infrastructure, I wanted the person who had what I felt was the best plan, if it was about police, same thing.
Last, what Representative Boehner failed to point out in his interesting opinion piece was that about half of the earmarks are from his own party. Here is my question, do you think someone should be able to put spending of any sort, that is meant to benefit (and for purpose of discussion, let’s assume it is for good thing, not bad things) to benefit their state or district and then be able to vote against the bill? In the past presidential cycle Dr. Ron Paul was proud to state that he had never voted for a budget, but admitted that he had put earmarks in to benefit his constituents. I do not bring him up to castigate him, because he is one of many. It just strikes me as hypocritical.

yankeesmindset
03-05-2009, 12:05 PM
I find it amusing that the Dem's are trying to censure one of the true voices of reason.

cabernetluver
03-05-2009, 12:07 PM
I find it amusing that the Dem's are trying to censure one of the true voices of reason.

Who do you think the Democrats are trying to censure? If it is Rush, you are dead wrong. We in fact want him up front, loud and proud.

behindmydesk
03-05-2009, 12:08 PM
He's a moron. Wait - a felonious moron.

Hmm, slander

yankeesmindset
03-05-2009, 12:11 PM
Who do you think the Democrats are trying to censure? If it is Rush, you are dead wrong. We in fact want him up front, loud and proud.

Who is the proponent of the Fainess Docterine? :violin:

SmthBluCitrus
03-05-2009, 12:15 PM
I knew the Fairness Doctrine was coming up soon ...

Guess what? It's not happening.

:horse: <~~ that's a good one.

:bow: :moon:

cabernetluver
03-05-2009, 12:16 PM
Who is the proponent of the Fainess Docterine? :violin:

This will come as a shock to you, but we have discussed that and the fact is no one here really cares about it. Swing and a miss

behindmydesk
03-05-2009, 12:20 PM
I knew the Fairness Doctrine was coming up soon ...

Guess what? It's not happening.

:horse: <~~ that's a good one.

:bow: :moon:

Did you actually just moon someone? Are we back in highschool? :D

Zep
03-05-2009, 12:21 PM
Did you actually just moon someone? Are we back in highschool? :D

:moon::moon::moon::moon::moon:

SmthBluCitrus
03-05-2009, 12:23 PM
Did you actually just moon someone? Are we back in highschool? :D

I was just trying to find the most inane emoticons. :p

:up::crazy::superman::cricket::dance2::cheer:

Uncle Funster
03-05-2009, 12:29 PM
Hmm, slander

Do you have a clue? He is a convicted felon for prescription fraud. There can be no slander if you are telling the truth based in fact. Duh.

As far as calling him a moron, there is no legal remedy for having an opinion or lampooning a public figure. Duh.

behindmydesk
03-05-2009, 12:36 PM
Do you have a clue? He is a convicted felon for prescription fraud. There can be no slander if you are telling the truth based in fact. Duh.

As far as calling him a moron, there is no legal remedy for having an opinion or lampooning a public figure. Duh.

He was not convicted my good friend

You are free to call him fat, moron, or anything else if you would like.

behindmydesk
03-05-2009, 12:40 PM
Limbaugh agreed to a deal, never said guilty, agreed to be a good boy for 18 months, pay a fine, and then have the charges dropped. The charges were dropped, he was never convicted of a crime.

Uncle Funster
03-05-2009, 12:43 PM
He was not convicted my good friend

You are free to call him fat, moron, or anything else if you would like.

He pleaded guilty.

behindmydesk
03-05-2009, 12:50 PM
He pleaded guilty.

Son do you understand the law. HE IS NOT CONVICTED.

GARY TUCHMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was a case that began with that admission nearly three years ago and ended with a deal today. Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh turned himself in to Florida authorities today, as prosecutors charged him with fraud to conceal information to obtain prescription drugs.

But, under the deal, they agreed to drop that charge in 18 months, if the conservative commentator continues treatment for his drug problems. Limbaugh agreed to the deal, despite pleading not guilty to the charge. Some legal experts say the deal is nothing less than sweet.


Either way he tech didn't plead guilty because there is no crime charge in teh end. His record is clean. So he is not a felon convict.

Uncle Funster
03-05-2009, 12:58 PM
Son do you understand the law. HE IS NOT CONVICTED.

GARY TUCHMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was a case that began with that admission nearly three years ago and ended with a deal today. Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh turned himself in to Florida authorities today, as prosecutors charged him with fraud to conceal information to obtain prescription drugs.

But, under the deal, they agreed to drop that charge in 18 months, if the conservative commentator continues treatment for his drug problems. Limbaugh agreed to the deal, despite pleading not guilty to the charge. Some legal experts say the deal is nothing less than sweet.


Either way he tech didn't plead guilty because there is no crime charge in teh end. His record is clean. So he is not a felon convict.

He committed a felony and admitted it before the bar. Semantics don't interest me and neither does continuing this ******** argument.

blenderboy5
03-05-2009, 01:49 PM
Semantics may not interest you. But apparently neither does the definition of words.

Anyway, does it really matter if he pled guility or made a deal, or abused prescription drugs or not?

DenButsu
03-05-2009, 02:00 PM
Semantics may not interest you. But apparently neither does the definition of words.

Anyway, does it really matter if he pled guility or made a deal, or abused prescription drugs or not?

Yeah, it matters when he preaches as if from some higher moral authority than all of us "libs". I'm not one to get down on anyone if they have a substance abuse problem - unless they're going to turn around and point a finger at me and question my moral integrity, and then yes, they deserved to get their credibility buried, they deserve to get called out for hypocrisy.

Zep
03-05-2009, 02:16 PM
A bit tangential but somewhat relevant to the thread nonetheless.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rnc-member-calls-on-steele-to-quit-2009-03-05.html

Also: Commentary by Ed Rollins.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/04/rollins.republicans/index.html

ari1013
03-05-2009, 02:18 PM
Wow, really? I mean... really?

I mean... not that there's anything wrong with the name Rush (I happen to like it for completely different reasons), but naming your child after... him? Talk about born under a bad sign...
Why not just name your kid Tom Sawyer in that case?

ari1013
03-05-2009, 02:20 PM
I don't know, O'reilly brought up an interesting point today about the whole situation in that the more Obama and his staff talks about Limbaugh the more it could outrage the public to the point that they'd criticize Obama and his administration for worrying more about Rush than the economy. Will it happen? Maybe, but whose to say for sure.
I think he said that about the Dems using Bush in their ads as well. Americans are a fickle bunch of people.

Zep
03-05-2009, 02:22 PM
Why not just name your kid Tom Sawyer in that case?

Maybe he doesn't want to be confused with those goddamn Twain fans. :mad:

ari1013
03-05-2009, 02:22 PM
Great article in the Washington Post today. Obviously biased, but still sums it up nicely.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/04/AR2009030402895.html
Yup that's the new talking point from the GOP. "Stop worrying about Rush and worry about the economy." Though that doesn't seem to be taking any hold -- probably because the GOP is refusing to yield on their ideological stances with regard to the economy.

ari1013
03-05-2009, 02:26 PM
Maybe he doesn't want to be confused with those goddamn Twain fans. :mad:
I should come to the defense of Mark Twain since I do live out in MO now, but... nah. I'm still an East Coast Liberal Elite type anyway, so screw it.

yankeesmindset
03-05-2009, 02:37 PM
I should come to the defense of Mark Twain since I do live out in MO now, but... nah. I'm still an East Coast Liberal Elite type anyway, so screw it.

You ain't just whistling Dixie! :smoking:

ari1013
03-05-2009, 02:38 PM
You ain't just whistling Dixie! :smoking:
Thanks.

Sidious
03-05-2009, 02:40 PM
Good ol' repubs.

CubsGirl
03-05-2009, 04:13 PM
Semantics may not interest you. But apparently neither does the definition of words.

Anyway, does it really matter if he pled guility or made a deal, or abused prescription drugs or not?
As an aside, I don't know how you could or why you would want to abuse prescription drugs. I'm on Percocet right now (basically Oxycontin + asprin and IIRC he was busted for oxy) and it makes me feel like garbage. I got a nice little high off of it for maybe the first couple of days, but now my body's already used to it and I can't wait to be off of it. I also have a morphine prescription but I stopped taking it after two days because it made me feel even worse.

ari1013
03-05-2009, 04:16 PM
So I actually listened to Rush today just to see what all the fuss was about. I caught about 20 minutes of the show while in the car.

Does he always talk about himself? That's all he did for 20 minutes. Is that typical? If so, I just don't get it. I don't see what he does to attract 20 million listeners.

Zep
03-05-2009, 04:17 PM
As an aside, I don't know how you could or why you would want to abuse prescription drugs. I'm on Percocet right now (basically Oxycontin + asprin and IIRC he was busted for oxy) and it makes me feel like garbage. I got a nice little high off of it for maybe the first couple of days, but now my body's already used to it and I can't wait to be off of it. I also have a morphine prescription but I stopped taking it after two days because it made me feel even worse.

+1, when I broke my ankle they had me on morphine in the hospital. When I got home I couldn't stop itching (I'm guessing it was some kind of withdrawal). And while Oxy was OK for the pain, fear of forming an addiction caused me to cut it off pretty early.

CubsGirl
03-05-2009, 04:23 PM
+1, when I broke my ankle they had me on morphine in the hospital. When I got home I couldn't stop itching (I'm guessing it was some kind of withdrawal). And while Oxy was OK for the pain, fear of forming an addiction caused me to cut it off pretty early.

Yeah, I'm taking the bare minimum right now because I don't want to get addicted either (even though I don't see how you can). I think the itching is a side-effect because it make me sweaty and itchy for the first week or so, but now all it does is take the pain from an 8 to a 5. I'm going to discontinue it as soon as I stop waking up with my ankle hurting.


So I actually listened to Rush today just to see what all the fuss was about. I caught about 20 minutes of the show while in the car.

Does he always talk about himself? That's all he did for 20 minutes. Is that typical? If so, I just don't get it. I don't see what he does to attract 20 million listeners.
I do get a kick (a frustrated kick) of listening to the talking heads on the other side sometimes. When Mr. CG worked for an ultra-conservative pot-smoking hippy painter (I have no idea how that combination of traits happened), his boss would listen to Michael Savage while they worked. Mr. CG put it on for me once, and it was... interesting.

Of course, the same goes for our talking heads, which actually does make me sad sometimes because, and I've meant to make this point before, I would love to watch Olbermann and Madoff every day and get their take on the news, but I know that it would be pretty dangerous to listen to a source, and essentially get my news and form my opinion from something that is so heavily biased towards my beliefs. So I don't watch them at all even though I enjoy their programs a hell of a lot, because I wouldn't think that a conservative who listened to Bill O'Reilly's opinion every day would be too well-informed or balanced.

Which kind of circles back around to Rush. I can only hope that people who are listening to him try to get their news from a less biased source as well to hear a differing opinion than one that is so sensationalist.

Zep
03-05-2009, 04:28 PM
I do get a kick (a frustrated kick) of listening to the talking heads on the other side sometimes. When Mr. CG worked for an ultra-conservative pot-smoking hippy painter (I have no idea how that combination of traits happened)

I have a strange desire to meet this person. Although I'd probably just end up staring slack-jawed for a couple of minutes before mustering a "Whaaaaa?":confused:

cabernetluver
03-05-2009, 04:37 PM
I have a strange desire to meet this person. Although I'd probably just end up staring slack-jawed for a couple of minutes before mustering a "Whaaaaa?":confused:

:laugh:

Jerry34
03-05-2009, 04:57 PM
So I actually listened to Rush today just to see what all the fuss was about. I caught about 20 minutes of the show while in the car.

Does he always talk about himself? That's all he did for 20 minutes. Is that typical? If so, I just don't get it. I don't see what he does to attract 20 million listeners.

Yes. And all his callers call in and kiss his *** and tell him what a genius he is.

ink
03-05-2009, 05:04 PM
So I actually listened to Rush today just to see what all the fuss was about. I caught about 20 minutes of the show while in the car.

Does he always talk about himself? That's all he did for 20 minutes. Is that typical? If so, I just don't get it. I don't see what he does to attract 20 million listeners.

Why do people listen to Shaq? It ain't for the insight.

SmthBluCitrus
03-05-2009, 05:07 PM
Why do people listen to Shaq? It ain't for the insight.

To see what new nickname he's going to come up with for himself.

yankeesmindset
03-05-2009, 05:17 PM
As an aside, I don't know how you could or why you would want to abuse prescription drugs. I'm on Percocet right now (basically Oxycontin + asprin and IIRC he was busted for oxy) and it makes me feel like garbage. I got a nice little high off of it for maybe the first couple of days, but now my body's already used to it and I can't wait to be off of it. I also have a morphine prescription but I stopped taking it after two days because it made me feel even worse.

Does it affect you decision making?

Uncle Funster
03-05-2009, 05:49 PM
Semantics may not interest you. But apparently neither does the definition of words.

Anyway, does it really matter if he pled guility or made a deal, or abused prescription drugs or not?

Yes. I am a conservative and hate that this guy purports to represent me. He makes clear judgments on morality and ethics while blatantly breaking the law for DRUGS of all things. It completely undermines any credibility.

And you may try and be cute, Blender, but your are still a "loveable" dork.;)

blenderboy5
03-05-2009, 06:21 PM
Eh I understand that point. But I try not to go down the path of accusing others of hypocrisy. Because everyone's a hypocrite. The only people who aren't hypocrites are those who are perfect, or those who reject all moral values. So I try to stay away from calling others hypocrites.

But yeah... it definitely undermines his credibility for moderates.

Cubsrule
03-05-2009, 10:22 PM
I think he said that about the Dems using Bush in their ads as well. Americans are a fickle bunch of people.

I realize that, but comparing Bush to McCain wasn't all that hard, considering they're from the same party. As for the other quote, you're right, they are fickle, but if the economy isn't better in about a year and a half those same people are gonna be looking for someone to blame.

gcoll
03-05-2009, 10:40 PM
Semantics may not interest you. But apparently neither does the definition of words.

Anyway, does it really matter if he pled guility or made a deal, or abused prescription drugs or not?

To me it does. He's a hypocrite.

It takes away his credibility on any issue he speaks about because he doesn't play what he preaches.

Just like Obama...just like a lot of politicians, and talking heads.

They're full of ****.

behindmydesk
03-05-2009, 10:50 PM
Wow, really? I mean... really?

I mean... not that there's anything wrong with the name Rush (I happen to like it for completely different reasons), but naming your child after... him? Talk about born under a bad sign...

Sorry Didn't see you responded to that. Absolutely I am going to name my son after Rush. Unless something changes, the daughter will be named Palin.

I got a great fiance for me to be able to do this.

gcoll
03-05-2009, 10:54 PM
Sorry Didn't see you responded to that. Absolutely I am going to name my son after Rush. Unless something changes, the daughter will be named Palin.

I got a great fiance for me to be able to do this.

I'm gonna name my son Mr. Gustavo. And if I have a daughter, I'm naming her Dribble.

behindmydesk
03-05-2009, 10:56 PM
I'm gonna name my son Mr. Gustavo. And if I have a daughter, I'm naming her Dribble.

HAHAHHAHAHA nice

DenButsu
03-05-2009, 11:07 PM
Sorry Didn't see you responded to that. Absolutely I am going to name my son after Rush. Unless something changes, the daughter will be named Palin.

I got a great fiance for me to be able to do this.

It really would be much cooler if you named your son By-Tor.

Cubsrule
03-06-2009, 01:40 AM
Sorry Didn't see you responded to that. Absolutely I am going to name my son after Rush. Unless something changes, the daughter will be named Palin.

I got a great fiance for me to be able to do this.

:worthy: thats ****ing awesome

ari1013
03-06-2009, 10:32 AM
I realize that, but comparing Bush to McCain wasn't all that hard, considering they're from the same party. As for the other quote, you're right, they are fickle, but if the economy isn't better in about a year and a half those same people are gonna be looking for someone to blame.
Exactly -- because they're fickle.

Zep
03-06-2009, 10:52 AM
Exactly -- because they're fickle.

I'm starting to think you just really like saying fickle.

I do too!

yankeesmindset
03-06-2009, 11:29 AM
I'm starting to think you just really like saying fickle.

I do too!

Oh, you and those one liners!:up:

DenButsu
03-08-2009, 09:18 PM
This is really, really, really long. But it's worth reading every word of it. I disagree with Frum on any number of issues - most of them, in fact (he's a very conservative Republican, I'm a very liberal Democrat, so go figure). But from a viewpoint of pure political strategy (and although since I'm not a GOPer it's really not my place to say what the Republican Party should do with itself), I think this piece (http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279) is just absolutely spot on.


Why Rush is Wrong
The party of Buckley and Reagan is now bereft and dominated by the politics of Limbaugh. A conservative's lament.

David Frum
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Mar 16, 2009

It wasn't a fight I went looking for. On March 3, the popular radio host Mark Levin opened his show with an outburst (he always opens his show with an outburst): "There are people who have somehow claimed the conservative mantle … You don't even know who they are … They're so irrelevant … It's time to name names …! The Canadian David Frum: where did this a-hole come from? … In the foxhole with other conservatives, you know what this jerk does? He keeps shooting us in the back … Hey, Frum: you're a putz."

Now, of course, Mark Levin knows perfectly well where I come from. We've known each other for years, had dinner together. I'm a conservative Republican, have been all my adult life. I volunteered for the Reagan campaign in 1980. I've attended every Republican convention since 1988. I was president of the Federalist Society chapter at my law school, worked on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal and wrote speeches for President Bush—not the "Read My Lips" Bush, the "Axis of Evil" Bush. I served on the Giuliani campaign in 2008 and voted for John McCain in November. I supported the Iraq War and (although I feel kind of silly about it in retrospect) the impeachment of Bill Clinton. I could go on, but you get the idea.

I mention all this not because I expect you to be fascinated with my life story, but to establish some bona fides. In the conservative world, we have a tendency to dismiss unwelcome realities. When one of us looks up and murmurs, "Hey, guys, there seems to be an avalanche heading our way," the others tend to shrug and say, he's a "squish" or a RINO—Republican in Name Only.

Levin had been provoked by a blog entry I'd posted the day before on my site, NewMajority.com. Here's what I wrote: President Obama and Rush Limbaugh do not agree on much, but they share at least one thing: Both wish to see Rush anointed as the leader of the Republican party.

Here's Rahm Emanuel on Face the Nation yesterday: "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party." What a great endorsement for Rush! … But what about the rest of the party? Here's the duel that Obama and Limbaugh are jointly arranging:

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

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

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

But do the rest of us understand what we are doing to ourselves by accepting this leadership? Rush is to the Republicanism of the 2000s what Jesse Jackson was to the Democratic party in the 1980s. He plays an important role in our coalition, and of course he and his supporters have to be treated with respect. But he cannot be allowed to be the public face of the enterprise—and we have to find ways of assuring the public that he is just one Republican voice among many, and very far from the most important.

All of this began even before Obama took office. In his broadcast on Jan. 16, Limbaugh told listeners he had been asked by a major publication for a 400-word statement about his hopes for the new administration:

I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "OK, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words. I need four: I hope he fails." … 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 … I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.

Notice that Limbaugh did not say: "I hope the administration's liberal plans fail." Or (better): "I know the administration's liberal plans will fail." Or (best): "I fear that this administration's liberal plans will fail, as liberal plans usually do." If it had been phrased that way, nobody could have used Limbaugh's words to misrepresent conservatives as clueless, indifferent or gleeful in the face of the most painful economic crisis in a generation. But then, if it had been phrased that way, nobody would have quoted his words at all—and as Limbaugh himself said, being "headlined" was the point of the exercise. If it had been phrased that way, Limbaugh's face would not now be adorning the covers of magazines. He phrased his hope in a way that drew maximum attention to himself, offered maximum benefit to the administration and did maximum harm to the party he claims to support.

Then, exacerbating the wound, Limbaugh added this in an interview on Sean Hannity's Jan. 21 show on Fox News: "We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father was black, because this is the first black president." Limbaugh would repeat some variant of this remark at least four more times in the next month and a half. Really, President Obama could not have asked for more: Limbaugh gets an audience, Obama gets a target and Republicans get the blame.

Rush Limbaugh is a seriously unpopular figure among the voters that conservatives and Republicans need to reach. Forty-one percent of independents have an unfavorable opinion of him, according to the new NEWSWEEK Poll. Limbaugh is especially off-putting to women: his audience is 72 percent male, according to Pew Research. Limbaugh himself acknowledges his unpopularity among women. On his Feb. 24 broadcast, he said with a chuckle: "Thirty-one-point gender gaps don't come along all that often … Given this massive gender gap in my personal approval numbers … it seems reasonable for me to convene a summit."

Limbaugh was kidding about the summit. But his quip acknowledged something that eludes many of those who would make him the arbiter of Republican authenticity: from a political point of view, Limbaugh is kryptonite, weakening the GOP nationally. No Republican official will say that; Limbaugh demands absolute deference from the conservative world, and he generally gets it. When offended, he can extract apologies from Republican members of Congress, even the chairman of the Republican National Committee. And Rush is very easily offended.

Through 2008 Rush was offended by the tendency among conservative writers to suggest that the ideas and policies developed in the 1970s needed to change and adapt to the very different world of the 21st century. Here's what he had to say about this subject in his speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference on Feb. 28:

Sometimes I get livid and angry … We've got factions now within our own movement seeking power to dominate it, and, worst of all, to redefine it. Well, the Constitution doesn't need to be redefined. Conservative intellectuals, the Declaration of Independence does not need to be redefined, and neither does conservatism. Conservatism is what it is, and it is forever. It's not something you can bend and shape and flake and form … I cringed—it might have been 2007, late 2007 or sometime during 2008, but a couple of prominent, conservative, Beltway, establishment media types began to write on the concept that the era of Reagan is over. And that we needed to adapt our appeal, because, after all, what's important in politics is winning elections. And so we have to understand that the American people, they want big government. We just have to find a way to tell them we're no longer opposed to that. We will come up with our own version of it that is wiser and smarter, but we've got to go get the Wal-Mart voter, and we've got to get the Hispanic voter, and we've got to get the recalcitrant independent women. And I'm listening to this and I am just apoplectic: the era of Reagan is over? … We have got to stamp this out …

Here is an example of the writing Limbaugh was complaining about: The conservatism we know evolved in the 1970s to meet a very specific set of dangers and challenges: inflation, slow growth, energy shortages, unemployment, rising welfare dependency. In every one of those problems, big government was the direct and immediate culprit. Roll back government, and you solved the problem.

Government is implicated in many of today's top domestic concerns as well … But the connection between big government and today's most pressing problems is not as close or as pressing as it was 27 years ago. So, unsurprisingly, the anti-big-government message does not mobilize the public the way it once did.

Of course, we can keep repeating our old lines all the same, just the way Tip O'Neill kept exhorting the American middle class to show more gratitude to the New Deal. But politicians who talk that way soon sound old, tired, and cranky. I wish somebody at the … GOP presidential debate at the Reagan Library had said: "Ronald Reagan was a great leader and a great president because he addressed the problems of his time. But we have very different problems—and we need very different answers. Here are mine."

I wrote that in spring 2007. But you can hear similar words from bright young conservative writers like Reihan Salam and Ross Douthat, and from veteran Republican politicians like Newt Gingrich. Gingrich told George Stephanopoulos on Jan. 13, 2008: "We are at the end of the Reagan era. We're at a point in time when we're about to start redefining … the nature of the Republican Party, in response to what the country needs."

Even before the November 2008 defeat—even before the financial crisis and the congressional elections of November 2006—it was already apparent that the Republican Party and the conservative movement were in deep trouble. And not just because of Iraq, either (although Iraq obviously did not help).

At the peak of the Bush boom in 2007, the typical American worker was earning barely more after inflation than the typical American worker had earned in 2000. Out of those flat earnings, that worker was paying more for food, energy and out-of-pocket costs of health care. Political parties that do not deliver economic improvement for the typical person do not get reelected. We Republicans and conservatives were not delivering. The reasons for our failure are complex and controversial, but the consequences are not.

We lost the presidency in 2008. In 2006 and 2008, together, we lost 51 seats in the House and 14 in the Senate. Even in 2004, President Bush won reelection by the narrowest margin of any reelected president in American history.

The trends below those vote totals were even more alarming. Republicans have never done well among the poor and the nonwhite—and as the country's Hispanic population grows, so, too, do those groups. More ominously, Republicans are losing their appeal to voters with whom they've historically done well.

In 1988 George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis among college graduates by 25 points. Nothing unusual there: Republicans have owned the college-graduate vote. But in 1992 Ross Perot led an exodus of the college-educated out of the GOP, and they never fully returned. In 2008 Obama beat John McCain among college graduates by 8 points, the first Democratic win among B.A. holders since exit polling began.

Political strategists used to talk about a GOP "lock" on the presidency because of the Republican hold on the big Sun Belt states: California, Texas, Florida. Republicans won California in every presidential election from 1952 through 1988 (except the Goldwater disaster of 1964). Democrats have won California in the five consecutive presidential elections since 1988.

In 1984 Reagan won young voters by 20 points; the elder Bush won voters under 30 again in 1988. Since that year, the Democrats have won the under-30 vote in five consecutive presidential elections. Voters who turned 20 between 2000 and 2005 are the most lopsidedly Democratic age cohort in the electorate. If they eat right, exercise and wear seat belts, they will be voting against George W. Bush well into the 2060s.

Between 2004 and 2008, Democrats more than doubled their party-identification advantage in Pennsylvania. A survey of party switchers in the state found that a majority of the reaffiliating voters had belonged to the GOP for 20 years or more. They were educated and affluent. More than half of those who left stated that the GOP had become too extreme.

Look at America's public-policy problems, look at voting trends, and it's inescapably obvious that the Republican Party needs to evolve. We need to put free-market health-care reform, not tax cuts, at the core of our economic message. It's health-care costs that are crushing middle-class incomes. Between 2000 and 2006, the amount that employers paid for labor rose substantially. Employees got none of that money; all of it was absorbed by rising health-care costs. Meanwhile, the income-tax cuts offered by Republicans interest fewer and fewer people: before the recession, two thirds of American workers paid more in payroll taxes than in income taxes.

We need to modulate our social conservatism (not jettison—modulate). The GOP will remain a predominantly conservative party and a predominantly pro-life party. But especially on gay-rights issues, the under-30 generation has arrived at a new consensus. Our party seems to be running to govern a country that no longer exists. The rule that both our presidential and vice presidential candidates must always be pro-life has become counterproductive: McCain's only hope of winning the presidency in 2008 was to carry Pennsylvania, and yet Pennsylvania's most successful Republican vote winner, former governor Tom Ridge, was barred from the ticket because he's pro-choice.

We need an environmental message. You don't have to accept Al Gore's predictions of imminent gloom to accept that it cannot be healthy to pump gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We are rightly mistrustful of liberal environmentalist disrespect for property rights. But property owners also care about property values, about conservation, and as a party of property owners we should be taking those values more seriously.

Above all, we need to take governing seriously again. Voters have long associated Democrats with corrupt urban machines, Republicans with personal integrity and fiscal responsibility. Even ultraliberal states like Massachusetts would elect Republican governors like Frank Sargent, Leverett Saltonstall, William Weld and Mitt Romney precisely to keep an austere eye on the depredations of Democratic legislators. After Iraq, Katrina and Harriet Miers, Democrats surged to a five-to-three advantage on the competence and ethics questions. And that was before we put Sarah Palin on our national ticket.

Every day, Rush Limbaugh reassures millions of core Republican voters that no change is needed: if people don't appreciate what we are saying, then say it louder. Isn't that what happened in 1994? Certainly this is a good approach for Rush himself. He claims 20 million listeners per week, and that suffices to make him a very wealthy man. And if another 100 million people cannot stand him, what does he care? What can they do to him other than … not listen? It's not as if they can vote against him.

But they can vote against Republican candidates for Congress. They can vote against Republican nominees for president. And if we allow ourselves to be overidentified with somebody who earns his fortune by giving offense, they will vote against us. Two months into 2009, President Obama and the Democratic Congress have already enacted into law the most ambitious liberal program since the mid-1960s. More, much more is to come. Through this burst of activism, the Republican Party has been flat on its back.

Decisions that will haunt American taxpayers for generations have been made with hardly a debate. The federal government will pay more of the cost for Medicaid, it will expand the SCHIP program for young children, it will borrow trillions of dollars to expand the national debt to levels unseen since WWII. To stem this onrush of disastrous improvisations, conservatives need every resource of mind and heart, every good argument, every creative alternative and every bit of compassionate sympathy for the distress that is pushing Americans in the wrong direction. Instead we are accepting the leadership of a man with an ego-driven agenda of his own, who looms largest when his causes fare worst.

In the days since I stumbled into this controversy, I've received a great deal of e-mail. (Most of it on days when Levin or Hannity or Hugh Hewitt or Limbaugh himself has had something especially disobliging to say about me.) Most of these e-mails say some version of the same thing: if you don't agree with Rush, quit calling yourself a conservative and get out of the Republican Party. There's the perfect culmination of the outlook Rush Limbaugh has taught his fans and followers: we want to transform the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan into a party of unanimous dittoheads—and we don't care how much the party has to shrink to do it. That's not the language of politics. It's the language of a cult.

I'm a pretty conservative guy. On most issues, I doubt Limbaugh and I even disagree very much. But the issues on which we do disagree are maybe the most important to the future of the conservative movement and the Republican Party: Should conservatives be trying to provoke or persuade? To narrow our coalition or enlarge it? To enflame or govern? And finally (and above all): to profit—or to serve?

Jerry34
03-09-2009, 12:30 PM
Good article.

njgaman
03-09-2009, 02:40 PM
good read, but rush has a right to be pissed. Any real republican is pissed right now with the direction of the country...obviously...Not that i listen to rush, but i do like hannity and listen to levine on occassion.

I am a young person and most of us tend to be liberal (even here in GA), but that's manily b/c none of us understand how business works in this country works (but i do of course) and about 80% of all professors are liberal (couple that with the fact that the entire media is pretty liberal) I reallly dont think the party needs to change that much (although being a libertarian i would like to see a lot of things changed). In fact, if the election were held again today, I wouldnt be at all supprised if mccain were to win. Obama's honeymoon will be shorter than most and his success is going to be based largely on public perception of this stimulus package. IMO, his perception is already on the decline with the huge declines in the market since he took office. I think people were really expecting him to be Jesus, but he is turning out just like any other man who has taking the oath.

ari1013
03-09-2009, 03:22 PM
good read, but rush has a right to be pissed. Any real republican is pissed right now with the direction of the country...obviously...Not that i listen to rush, but i do like hannity and listen to levine on occassion.

I am a young person and most of us tend to be liberal (even here in GA), but that's manily b/c none of us understand how business works in this country works (but i do of course) and about 80% of all professors are liberal (couple that with the fact that the entire media is pretty liberal) I reallly dont think the party needs to change that much (although being a libertarian i would like to see a lot of things changed). In fact, if the election were held again today, I wouldnt be at all supprised if mccain were to win. Obama's honeymoon will be shorter than most and his success is going to be based largely on public perception of this stimulus package. IMO, his perception is already on the decline with the huge declines in the market since he took office. I think people were really expecting him to be Jesus, but he is turning out just like any other man who has taking the oath.
Are you serious? You think McCain would beat Obama in a hypothetical rematch today?

I can tell you've listened to a lot of Hannity and Levin, so I'm really hoping you start sorting the facts from the infotainment.

behindmydesk
03-09-2009, 03:34 PM
Are you serious? You think McCain would beat Obama in a hypothetical rematch today?

I can tell you've listened to a lot of Hannity and Levin, so I'm really hoping you start sorting the facts from the infotainment.

I don't think Hannity even thinks that

ari1013
03-09-2009, 03:46 PM
I don't think Hannity even thinks that
I didn't either, but he must have gotten it from somewhere. And since he wrote about those two in the opening paragraph, that's my best guess.

njgaman
03-09-2009, 03:52 PM
Are you serious? You think McCain would beat Obama in a hypothetical rematch today?

I can tell you've listened to a lot of Hannity and Levin, so I'm really hoping you start sorting the facts from the infotainment.

nope, i said i wouldn't be suprised if mccain were to win. With the economy the way it is and the uncertainty surrounding this stimulus and just the share amount of spending that has taken place, its not at all outside the realm of possibility. I dont know if mccain would win, but I know one thing is for sure... it would definintely be closer.

ink
03-09-2009, 04:50 PM
But do the rest of us understand what we are doing to ourselves by accepting this leadership? Rush is to the Republicanism of the 2000s what Jesse Jackson was to the Democratic party in the 1980s.

Yup. A signpost that should read "this way to the political wilderness".

Jerry34
03-09-2009, 04:57 PM
nope, i said i wouldn't be suprised if mccain were to win. With the economy the way it is and the uncertainty surrounding this stimulus and just the share amount of spending that has taken place, its not at all outside the realm of possibility. I dont know if mccain would win, but I know one thing is for sure... it would definitely be closer.

And if McCain had been President for a month and a half the economy would be exactly the same and in this magical hypothetical election Obama would win by a landslide. What's the point of talking about this??

njgaman
03-09-2009, 05:35 PM
And if McCain had been President for a month and a half the economy would be exactly the same and in this magical hypothetical election Obama would win by a landslide. What's the point of talking about this??

it relates to the article saying how the republican party needs a major makeover when it simply does not. American people are dumb in general. Why do you think the democrats have control now? Is it something they did? Hell no. They just sat back and waited. This is the nature of american politics.

cabernetluver
03-09-2009, 06:13 PM
it relates to the article saying how the republican party needs a major makeover when it simply does not. American people are dumb in general. Why do you think the democrats have control now? Is it something they did? Hell no. They just sat back and waited. This is the nature of american politics.

So to take your point, that the electorate is dumb, that is why they selected Democrats, I would imagine that you would also agree that it was their lack of brains that caused them to vote for Ronald Reagan, George H.W.Bush, George W Bush etc.

njgaman
03-09-2009, 07:09 PM
So to take your point, that the electorate is dumb, that is why they selected Democrats, I would imagine that you would also agree that it was their lack of brains that caused them to vote for Ronald Reagan, George H.W.Bush, George W Bush etc.

I would say about 85% of the electorate fails to understand most major issues related to an election. Not saying they are unitelligent, just that they dont put in the effort to get educated on all the issues. And yes you could put me in that 85%.

The american public can also be persuaded easiliy. Media outlets, movies, comedy shows, etc. influenece how people vote. This time around, obama was the one that was heavily promoted. In 2000 with all the controversy surrounding clinton, bush was probably the more popular candidate. I fail to see how this is hard to understand. Its not a right/left issue. Its just a plain and simple fact. The tide is slowly beginning to turn for obama. Even CNN is questioning some of his moves.

I think most were also captured so heavily by his grace and speech performance that most really did think he would be a misiah. But at the end of the day, people are still loosing jobs and the economy is now worse than it was before. People will perceive him as being over-hyped. Thus my argument still stands. If the election were held today, the race would be closer.

ari1013
03-09-2009, 07:16 PM
Since you're still young, you probably don't remember this, but every single president we've had has been criticized for something or other by the media. That's the media's job. They all fawned over Bush after 9/11. They all fawned over Clinton after the peace deal he brokered between Israel and Jordan. And they fawned over Daddy Bush after the quick victory in Iraq. At the same time, they tore each Bush a new one after failed economic policies caused unemployment to soar. They attacked Clinton for his sexual endeavors. And they're attacking Obama over reckless spending.

That IS their job.

njgaman
03-09-2009, 07:25 PM
Since you're still young, you probably don't remember this, but every single president we've had has been criticized for something or other by the media. That's the media's job. They all fawned over Bush after 9/11. They all fawned over Clinton after the peace deal he brokered between Israel and Jordan. And they fawned over Daddy Bush after the quick victory in Iraq. At the same time, they tore each Bush a new one after failed economic policies caused unemployment to soar. They attacked Clinton for his sexual endeavors. And they're attacking Obama over reckless spending.

That IS their job.

oh i know. im not doubting what the media does. This is what im arguing. When you have CNN questioning obama, i dont see how the media cant be look upon as a highly persuasive force. People are hesitant of all this spending. Those that see this spending as a negative who originally voted for obama will most assuridly switch to mccain if an election were held today. That is all im saying.

ari1013
03-09-2009, 07:43 PM
oh i know. im not doubting what the media does. This is what im arguing. When you have CNN questioning obama, i dont see how the media cant be look upon as a highly persuasive force. People are hesitant of all this spending. Those that see this spending as a negative who originally voted for obama will most assuridly switch to mccain if an election were held today. That is all im saying.
But that's not what the polls are showing. Two-thirds of Americans support Obama's handling of the economy. That number is increasing.

Cubsrule
03-09-2009, 07:46 PM
But that's not what the polls are showing. Two-thirds of Americans support Obama's handling of the economy. That number is increasing.

Not in the way of his budget, there's more criticism than support.

ari1013
03-09-2009, 07:51 PM
Not in the way of his budget, there's more criticism than support.
Here's all the polling info: http://pollingreport.com/budget.htm

Cubsrule
03-09-2009, 08:22 PM
Here's all the polling info: http://pollingreport.com/budget.htm

Didn't see Rasmussen's, but then again I just scanned over it pretty quickly.

Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/march_2009/voters_divided_on_obama_budget)

gcoll
03-09-2009, 11:12 PM
I saw this on O'reilly tonight and found it interesting, to bring it back to the Limbaugh thing.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/09/flashback-poll-showed-democrats-wanted-bush-fail/

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/09/guess-who-also-wanted-a-president-to-fail/

ari1013
03-10-2009, 12:05 AM
Didn't see Rasmussen's, but then again I just scanned over it pretty quickly.

Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/march_2009/voters_divided_on_obama_budget)
thanks

ari1013
03-10-2009, 12:07 AM
I saw this on O'reilly tonight and found it interesting, to bring it back to the Limbaugh thing.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/09/flashback-poll-showed-democrats-wanted-bush-fail/

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/09/guess-who-also-wanted-a-president-to-fail/
That's not exactly the same thing -- that's looking at voters. We're talking about public figures. If Olbermann had said something like that I'd hope everyone would go after them like they're going after Rush.

njgaman
03-10-2009, 12:14 AM
Here's all the polling info: http://pollingreport.com/budget.htm

not really sure what all those stats proove other than the american mind fluncuates a great deal

DodgersFan28
03-10-2009, 05:07 AM
Do people really have memories that bad, that nobody remembers how much the Dems wanted Bush to fail? Wow...

ink
03-10-2009, 01:13 PM
Nice quip from Bill Maher on Rush:


“I think it’s interesting that he is now the undisputed leader of the Republican Party. It shows how clueless they are. They went looking for the future and they found radio.”

Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19830_Page2.html)

Raidaz4Life
03-10-2009, 01:15 PM
despite what anyone says love him or hate him he is first and foremost an entertainer.

cabernetluver
03-10-2009, 01:19 PM
Nice quip from Bill Maher on Rush:



Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19830_Page2.html)

I saw that in as I read it, in my private office, was laughing out loud

njgaman
03-10-2009, 01:22 PM
show me one politician that isnt clueless bill

Cadarn
03-10-2009, 01:53 PM
Nothing but an immature white house trying to deflect attention. Rush is no different than the Mahers and Olbermanns of the last 8 years.

jrice9
03-10-2009, 02:02 PM
Except maher and olberman arent acting like the heads of the democratic party

QuietWyatt
03-10-2009, 02:13 PM
Except Maher and Olbermann are funny.

behindmydesk
03-10-2009, 02:17 PM
Except maher and olberman arent acting like the heads of the democratic party

Neither is rush. He's flat out said he's not the leader, doesn't want to be the leader, doesn't endorse candidates in primaries, doesn't run fundraisers.

lakersrock
03-10-2009, 02:19 PM
Nothing but an immature white house trying to deflect attention. Rush is no different than the Mahers and Olbermanns of the last 8 years.

It's amazing how it's different because they don't agree with it now. Anyways, Rush is entirely correct in saying he hopes Obama fails. First, it's his right to say whatever he wants. Second, Obama wants socialism and as a conservative, he doesn't. If he didn't say how he really felt and just bowed down like Obama wants everyone to do, I wouldn't respect him. It's amazing he is still bad mouthing Bush, but the second someone talks about him they're reminded that he is a black president that people like right now and should be beyond reproach.

Sidious
03-10-2009, 02:24 PM
Rush is wasting his breath. Whats the point of his rambling?

Obama does not want socialism...I'm sick and tired of hearing that.

People bad mouth Bush because he's the worst pres in US history.

njgaman
03-10-2009, 02:37 PM
Rush is wasting his breath. Whats the point of his rambling?

Obama does not want socialism...I'm sick and tired of hearing that.

People bad mouth Bush because he's the worst pres in US history.

so what you're saying is that dems are only allowed to express their negative opinions?

ari1013
03-10-2009, 02:45 PM
Neither is rush. He's flat out said he's not the leader, doesn't want to be the leader, doesn't endorse candidates in primaries, doesn't run fundraisers.
he does love apologies though :)

behindmydesk
03-10-2009, 02:49 PM
so what you're saying is that dems are only allowed to express their negative opinions?

and twisting of facts

Sidious
03-10-2009, 02:53 PM
so what you're saying is that dems are only allowed to express their negative opinions?

Dude, I know repubs and independents that will say the same thing. Its not even up for discussion.

njgaman
03-10-2009, 02:57 PM
Dude, I know repubs and independents that will say the same thing. Its not even up for discussion.

Umm but you do know what an opinion is though? Right? You're giving your opinion. Rush is giving his.

Sidious
03-10-2009, 03:04 PM
Umm but you do know what an opinion is though? Right? You're giving your opinion. Rush is giving his.

Where were you during Bush's presidency?

behindmydesk
03-10-2009, 03:19 PM
Bush while far far from the best, is far from the worst. Even historians rank him higher then the worst.

njgaman
03-10-2009, 03:29 PM
Where were you during Bush's presidency?

same place i am now, but i fail to see how this is relevant to the argument. You don't like Rush and that's fine. But where is the link between the bush presidency and Rushs' opinions and veiw points?

cabernetluver
03-10-2009, 03:31 PM
Bush while far far from the best, is far from the worst. Even historians rank him higher then the worst.

You are so correct. Last historical rating put him at 36 out of 43, so he is rated higher than the worst. We had discussion before.

Sidious
03-10-2009, 03:37 PM
same place i am now, but i fail to see how this is relevant to the argument. You don't like Rush and that's fine. But where is the link between the bush presidency and Rushs' opinions and veiw points?

Because nearly all repubs are delusional about Bush...Rush seems to be no different. Someone show me otherwise. All I ever hear repubs do is criticize criticize criticize when they haven't done anything themselves...nothing but ruin our country and our country's moral standing. Repubs are such a hypocritical party.

ari1013
03-10-2009, 03:41 PM
Bush while far far from the best, is far from the worst. Even historians rank him higher then the worst.
Right. He's only 7th worst according to historians ;)

behindmydesk
03-10-2009, 03:56 PM
You are so correct. Last historical rating put him at 36 out of 43, so he is rated higher than the worst. We had discussion before.

where do you think I got my info from


Right. He's only 7th worst according to historians ;)
I chose my words carefully! But 17% of presidents are worse then him. After Obama (def will be 44 on the list :D) it'll be 18% :D:D:D:D

behindmydesk
03-10-2009, 03:57 PM
Dude, I know repubs and independents that will say the same thing. Its not even up for discussion.


Because nearly all repubs are delusional about Bush...Rush seems to be no different. Someone show me otherwise. All I ever hear repubs do is criticize criticize criticize when they haven't done anything themselves...nothing but ruin our country and our country's moral standing. Repubs are such a hypocritical party.


Well, which one is it. Republicans agree or they are dilusional?



Edit--- oh you are banned nevermind

ari1013
03-10-2009, 04:22 PM
where do you think I got my info from


I chose my words carefully! But 17% of presidents are worse then him. After Obama (def will be 44 on the list :D) it'll be 18% :D:D:D:D
:laugh:

DodgersFan28
03-10-2009, 10:39 PM
You laugh, but Obama's taking a huge gamble. FDR did not live in the 24-hour news cycle society that we do today. If Obama's actions are not viewed to be 'working' in 3 years when it'll be Presidential election season again, he will have a real hard time winning re-election, to say nothing of his legacy.

gcoll
03-10-2009, 11:19 PM
You laugh, but Obama's taking a huge gamble. FDR did not live in the 24-hour news cycle society that we do today. If Obama's actions are not viewed to be 'working' in 3 years when it'll be Presidential election season again, he will have a real hard time winning re-election, to say nothing of his legacy.

FDR also faced a world war. The people are more willing to rally around a president when the threat is greater. The Great Depression + World War 2 is way bigger than what we face today.

I wanna go back to something Ari said though:


That's not exactly the same thing -- that's looking at voters. We're talking about public figures. If Olbermann had said something like that I'd hope everyone would go after them like they're going after Rush.
No. The debate being had today is "How could anyone hope the president fails??" That's the way it's framed. And..in 2006, 51% of Democrats (according to this poll) wanted Bush to fail.

And....30 some odd percent of Democrats didn't want the surge to work.

Now. About Olbermann. He's irrelevant. He's lucky he is irrelevant because he says worse things than "I hope he fails". Olbermann personally attacks anyone who disagrees with him, and does so in grandiose (often moronic) language.

ari1013
03-11-2009, 12:22 AM
You laugh, but Obama's taking a huge gamble. FDR did not live in the 24-hour news cycle society that we do today. If Obama's actions are not viewed to be 'working' in 3 years when it'll be Presidential election season again, he will have a real hard time winning re-election, to say nothing of his legacy.
3 years? they better work in 18 months.

ari1013
03-11-2009, 12:26 AM
FDR also faced a world war. The people are more willing to rally around a president when the threat is greater. The Great Depression + World War 2 is way bigger than what we face today.

I wanna go back to something Ari said though:


No. The debate being had today is "How could anyone hope the president fails??" That's the way it's framed. And..in 2006, 51% of Democrats (according to this poll) wanted Bush to fail.

And....30 some odd percent of Democrats didn't want the surge to work.

Now. About Olbermann. He's irrelevant. He's lucky he is irrelevant because he says worse things than "I hope he fails". Olbermann personally attacks anyone who disagrees with him, and does so in grandiose (often moronic) language.
so you have a football announcer with a really bad fake tan and he says stupid stuff about the last president and that makes Rush ok? No, I don't think so.

And here's the thing about that 51%. They don't really matter in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure there were Dems who wished Reagan had failed. And Republicans that hope Obama fails. And probably both Dems and Repubs that wanted to see LBJ fail in his civil rights campaigns.

Lots of people just don't get the fact that if the country fails, they're just plain screwed. that's why regardless of the president, we need to see domestic success. Now that's tno to say that I was at all happy with Bush's backwards-lokoing social policy, but that didn't mean I wanted to see our nation collapse.

QuietWyatt
03-11-2009, 02:06 AM
I chose my words carefully! But 17% of presidents are worse then him. After Obama (def will be 44 on the list :D) it'll be 18% :D:D:D:D

To say without proper time to reflect that Bush isn't the worst president in history, let alone in the history of the United States, is wishful thinking.

And to also say Obama will be down there w/ him as well is, again, wishful thinking. :)

DodgersFan28
03-11-2009, 04:54 AM
The funniest part about all of this is no one's remembering that Rush prefaced it with a Super Bowl analogy. He wanted Kurt Warner to fail so the Cardinals could win. He wants Obama to fail because he wants to see Republicans win elections. It's all about winning, which is extraordinarily shallow, but the Dems are just as shallow & then some.

Now to those who say, "If Obama (and/or his policies) fail, the country fails, " I say this. There's no wondering. There's no hoping. Obama's policies will fail. But that doesn't mean the country is going to fail. The American people are the strongest, most hard-working, most ingenuitive group of people on the face of this planet. We will drag ourselves out of this mess, despite our "leaders" telling us how hopeless it is, and how only government can save us.

Now I know you're going to hate me for saying that, call me wrong & comical, and whatever name you want to throw out there. But, just answer me this. Can you point to any recession in any country of the world and tell me that country rose up from it because of government spending? Can you name ONE? All I can say is, "Go Sweden!"

Now we will climb out of this recession, but it won't happen until government gets the crap out of the way and lets the people work hard on our own for our collective success as a nation. The government doesn't have to worry. We fear the IRS enough that we'll pay our taxes, at least most of us will, so there isn't any need for the government to step in and say how they can spend more of my money better than me.

gcoll
03-11-2009, 05:00 AM
so you have a football announcer with a really bad fake tan and he says stupid stuff about the last president and that makes Rush ok? No, I don't think so.
I didn't bring up Olbermann, you did. I mentioned in my post that Olbermann was irrelevant.


And here's the thing about that 51%. They don't really matter in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure there were Dems who wished Reagan had failed. And Republicans that hope Obama fails. And probably both Dems and Repubs that wanted to see LBJ fail in his civil rights campaigns.
Rush does not matter in the grand scheme of things either. I'm not sure what your point is. One could say "He has a 3 hour radio show every day...and he's shaping his listeners" not really. People listen to talk radio for a few reasons. One is to have their own opinions reinforced. If you're a conservative...that's one of the few media outlets that actually echoes your sentiments. The other reason is to listen because you absolutely disagree with it. Sort of an exercise in masochism, but sometimes it's interesting to listen to the other side. I don't think Rush shapes all that many opinions. It's a "love him or hate him" type proposition. I don't think he's important. I think he's an entertainer.

The poll showing 51% of democrats hoped Bush failed, invalidates a lot of the moral outrage from that side of the aisle. As you noted, this is something that has historical precedence...and I feel it is not a big deal at all. It's a stupid question to even ask. If you disagree with someone, generally you think that his policies suck. There's no "hope" involved.

DodgersFan28
03-11-2009, 05:07 AM
I don't think Rush shapes all that many opinions

...until he gets on TV and has his "first address to the Nation." Then the sky is falling!!! :cry::clap:

Why can't people see this Rush debate for what it really is - a distraction away from what the majority is doing in Congress?

behindmydesk
03-11-2009, 08:26 AM
To say without proper time to reflect that Bush isn't the worst president in history, let alone in the history of the United States, is wishful thinking.

And to also say Obama will be down there w/ him as well is, again, wishful thinking. :)

First off it was pretty evident on the obama thing that I was joking. Secondly, it's very very very very unlikely that he even moves down at all, yet alone all 7 places. Usually in time historians move them up a bit.


...until he gets on TV and has his "first address to the Nation." Then the sky is falling!!! :cry::clap:

Why can't people see this Rush debate for what it really is - a distraction away from what the majority is doing in Congress?

While Rush doesn't form opinion on a wide scale he helps get people to know all the issues, and to see his side, or reaffirm a person's belief. Yes I suppose to some he forms opinion, but heck i'm sure SNL forms opinion to some, or heck some other lunacy.

And you are dead right, on what this debate is about. The democrats (as we have gone over), have used this as a distraction, and a way to get started on 2010 elections.

ari1013
03-11-2009, 09:46 AM
I didn't bring up Olbermann, you did. I mentioned in my post that Olbermann was irrelevant.


Rush does not matter in the grand scheme of things either. I'm not sure what your point is. One could say "He has a 3 hour radio show every day...and he's shaping his listeners" not really. People listen to talk radio for a few reasons. One is to have their own opinions reinforced. If you're a conservative...that's one of the few media outlets that actually echoes your sentiments. The other reason is to listen because you absolutely disagree with it. Sort of an exercise in masochism, but sometimes it's interesting to listen to the other side. I don't think Rush shapes all that many opinions. It's a "love him or hate him" type proposition. I don't think he's important. I think he's an entertainer.

The poll showing 51% of democrats hoped Bush failed, invalidates a lot of the moral outrage from that side of the aisle. As you noted, this is something that has historical precedence...and I feel it is not a big deal at all. It's a stupid question to even ask. If you disagree with someone, generally you think that his policies suck. There's no "hope" involved.
I'm not sure what my point was either. At least it was coherent. Sorry about last night's postings.

behindmydesk
03-11-2009, 02:23 PM
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/03/11/mercury/


Heads should roll

President Obama's clumsy, smirky staff is sinking him -- and resurrecting a deflated GOP! Plus: Lay off Rush! And a Brazilian diva, up close and electric

By Camille Paglia
Pages 1 2

* S S S
* RSS
* Print Email
*

Read more: Camille Paglia, Rush Limbaugh, Brazil, Opinion

Photos from Daniela Mercury Site Oficial

View a slide show of Daniela Mercury at the 2009 carnival in Salvador da Bahia, Brazil.

March 11, 2009 | Free Barack!

Yes, free the president from his flacks, fixers and goons -- his posse of smirky smart alecks and provincial rubes, who were shrewd enough to beat the slow, pompous Clintons in the mano-a-mano primaries but who seem like dazed lost lambs in the brave new world of federal legislation and global statesmanship.

Heads should be rolling at the White House for the embarrassing series of flubs that have overshadowed President Obama's first seven weeks in office and given the scattered, demoralized Republicans a huge boost toward regrouping and resurrection. (Michelle, please use those fabulous toned arms to butt some heads!)

Share this story on Facebook:
Share
More

* Buzz up!
* Digg
* Facebook
* StumbleUpon
* Reddit

First it was that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery. Then it was the stunt of unnerving Wall Street by sending out a shrill duo of slick geeks (Timothy Geithner and Peter Orszag) as the administration's weirdly adolescent spokesmen on economics. Who could ever have confidence in that sorry pair?

And then there was the fiasco of the ham-handed White House reception for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which was evidently lacking the most basic elements of ceremony and protocol. Don't they read the "Iliad" anymore in the Ivy League? Check that out for the all-important ritual of gift giving, which has cemented alliances around the world for 5,000 years.

President Obama -- in whom I still have great hope and confidence -- has been ill-served by his advisors and staff. Yes, they have all been blindsided and overwhelmed by the crushing demands of the presidency. But I continue to believe in citizen presidents, who must learn by doing, even in a perilous age of terrorism. Though every novice administration makes blunders and bloopers, its modus operandi should not be a conspiratorial reflex cynicism.

Case in point: The orchestrated attack on radio host Rush Limbaugh, which has made the White House look like an oafish bunch of drunken frat boys. I returned from carnival in Brazil (more on that shortly) to find the Limbaugh affair in full flower. Has the administration gone mad? This entire fracas was set off by the president himself, who lowered his office by targeting a private citizen by name. Limbaugh had every right to counterattack, which he did with gusto. Why have so many Democrats abandoned the hallowed principle of free speech? Limbaugh, like our own liberal culture hero Lenny Bruce, is a professional commentator who can be as rude and crude as he wants.

Yes, I cringe when Rush plays his "Barack the Magic Negro" satire or when he gratuitously racializes the debate over Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, who is a constant subject of withering scrutiny for quite different reasons on sports shows here in Philadelphia. On the other hand, I totally agree with Rush about "feminazis," whose amoral tactics and myopic worldview I as a dissident feminist had to battle for decades. As a student of radio and a longtime listener of Rush's show, I have gotten a wealth of pleasure and insight from him over the years. To attack Rush Limbaugh is to attack his audience -- and to intensify the loyalty of his fan base.

If Rush's presence looms too large for the political landscape, it's because of the total vacuity of the Republican leadership, which seems to be in a dithering funk. Rush isn't responsible for the feebleness of Republican voices or the thinness of Republican ideas. Only ignoramuses believe that Rush speaks for the Republican Party. On the contrary, Rush as a proponent of heartland conservatism has waged open warfare with the Washington party establishment for years.

And I'm sick of people impugning Rush's wealth and lifestyle, which is no different from that of another virtuoso broadcaster who hit it big -- Oprah Winfrey. Rush Limbaugh is an embodiment of the American dream: He slowly rose from obscurity to fame on the basis of his own talent and grit. Every penny Rush has earned was the result of his rapport with a vast audience who felt shut out and silenced by the liberal monopoly of major media. As a Democrat and Obama supporter, I certainly do not agree with everything Rush says or does. I was deeply upset, for example, by the sneering tone both Rush and Sean Hannity took on Inauguration Day, when partisan politics should have been set aside for a unifying celebration of American government and history. Nevertheless, I respect Rush for his independence of thought and his always provocative news analysis. He doesn't run with the elite -- he goes his own way.

President Obama should yank the reins and get his staff's noses out of slash-and-burn petty politics. His own dignity and prestige are on the line. If he wants a second term, he needs to project a calmer perspective about the eternal reality of vociferous opposition, which is built into our democratic system. Right now, the White House is starting to look like Raphael's scathing portrait of a pampered, passive Pope Leo X and his materialistic cardinals -- one of the first examples of an artist sending a secret, sardonic message to posterity. Do those shifty, beady-eyed guys needing a shave remind you of anyone? Yes, it's bare-knuckles Chicago pugilism, transplanted to Washington. The charitably well-meaning but hopelessly extravagant Leo X, by the way, managed to mishandle the birth of the Protestant Reformation, which permanently split Christianity

behindmydesk
03-11-2009, 03:35 PM
Why is Rush even talking?

Are you going to actually post something of substance, or just go with blanket statements in every thread?

And he's talking because he gets paid almost 40 million a year to talk.

ink
03-11-2009, 03:51 PM
he gets paid almost 40 million a year to talk.

Really?

DenButsu
03-11-2009, 08:36 PM
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/03/11/mercury/


Heads should roll

President Obama's clumsy, smirky staff is sinking him -- and resurrecting a deflated GOP! Plus: Lay off Rush! And a Brazilian diva, up close and electric


Only trouble with that piece is that the polls and the facts actually show that in reality the exact opposite is happening.

For one thing, the "resurrected" GOP is on the verge of taking a vote of no confidence in its ostensive leader and oust Steele as RNC chair.

For another, nearly all the polling data shows that Obama remains popular as ever (and may even be picking up a few points lately), and even the congressional Democrats have just seen a recent upturn, while the congressional GOP has stagnated at... well, pretty bad levels.

Regarding this...

Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/the-anti-pelosi.html):


The Anti-Pelosi Strategy

I haven't seen her tinted green lately on Drudge, but the campaign, celebrated here, to focus on bringing down the approval ratings of the Democratic Congress doesn't seem to have gotten off to the greatest start:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/photos/uncategorized/2009/03/11/gallupcongup.jpg


And Marshall (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/03/not_working_out_so_well.php):


Not Working Out So Well

Almost the entire Republican political strategy in 2009 has been to stipulate to President Obama's popularity and get to work breaking down the popularity of "Congress" in general and congressional Democrats john-boehner-blog.jpgin particular. President Obama, after all, isn't their problem for a few years. 2010 is against their Democratic opponents in the Hill.

As I've noted on several occasions this year, the very poor approval numbers for 'Congress', which are so often noted by congressional Republicans, stand in stark contrast to the poll numbers for congressional Democrats, which have been pretty strong and vastly better than the numbers for Republicans.

But now, according to Gallup, we have a genuinely stunning surge in approval for Congress. Right? Who knew ... Approval of Congress is up to 39%, a twenty point gain since January.

Most of the increase comes from Democrats. But not all. Since January, approval for Congress among Independents has risen from 17% to 34%.

Obama and the congressional Democrats have their jobs cut out for them -- probably a more difficult set of challenges than any national politicians have faced in a generation, if not a few generations. But thus far every significant bit of polling data shows the Republicans' opposition is failing abysmally.


And Silver (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/hows-he-doing.html):


How's He Doing?

We're now almost 50 days into Barack Obama's first term, and I thought it might be instructive to compare his Gallup approval rating to that of other Presidents roughly 50 days into their respective terms:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SbZ6a3Fk4UI/AAAAAAAAA_w/rjuTo0e95vQ/s1600/approve1.PNG

Obama's standing with the public -- 62 percent approve of his performance and 22 percent disapprove, according to Gallup, is objectively quite good. But presidential approval scores are usually quite good at this early point in their terms. Since World War II, the average of all presidential approval ratings through about 50 days in their terms is 61 percent approve and 23 percent disapprove. Moreover, if we limit the analysis to those presidents in their first elected terms -- we include Truman in '49 and Johnson in '65 in this category -- the average has in fact been slightly stronger than that.

Then again, Obama has a couple of pretty good excuses if his approval ratings aren't quite in Kennedy territory.

For one, the public has tended to become more partisan over the course of the past half-century, and so it has been harder to sustain stratospheric approval ratings. Since Reagan, the average president (not counting Obama) has had a score of 57 percent approve, 30 percent disapprove through this point in his term -- slightly weaker than Obama's. If we exclude the second terms of Reagan, Clinton and Bush, the scores are 58 percent approve, 24 percent disapprove.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SbZ6mFMLJHI/AAAAAAAAA_4/Kxp6Du06Iug/s400/approve2.PNG

And secondly, no president since Truman, and no newly-elected president since Roosevelt (whose first term, alas, came before Gallup had begun taking approval ratings), has had to take over under such difficult circumstances. It's not just your imagination if it seems like Obama has been in office for 500 days rather than 50 -- he hasn't had the advantage of a running start. So while we should be realistic about the fact that Obama isn't quite carrying an LBJ-type mandate at the moment, his approval ratings are almost exactly where Ronald Reagan's were at this point in 1981, which is probably the most comparable circumstance -- a "change" election amidst cloudy economic circumstances (although Reagan was technically in between recessions at this point).


Sorry, not trying to overload, just trying to be thorough and cover as many bases as possible.

gcoll
03-11-2009, 10:07 PM
Really?

Rush just signed a 400 million dollar deal a little while ago.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27326


Sorry, not trying to overload, just trying to be thorough and cover as many bases as possible.
I'm getting bored with the "Obama is popular" point. I get it. He's popular. People who are opposing him at this point are unpopular.

But, with how the election went....how can you expect the Republicans to be popular at all? If they were more popular....they wouldn't have lost.

DenButsu
03-11-2009, 10:25 PM
Rush just signed a 400 million dollar deal a little while ago.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27326


I'm getting bored with the "Obama is popular" point. I get it. He's popular. People who are opposing him at this point are unpopular.

But, with how the election went....how can you expect the Republicans to be popular at all? If they were more popular....they wouldn't have lost.

Well, sorry, but I don't really care whether you're tired of it or not. I was responding to a post that was claiming the opposite, just to set the record straight, not starting a new thread or anything. If someone's going to put something out there that looks wrong to me, seems fair enough to me that I respond with what I think is right. :shrug: