« Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners | Main | Old Gray Lady Informs Kristol That Obama Won »

Looking Forward to Rush's Show Today

As I am sure everyone who follows politics knows by now, Barack Obama in a private meeting with members of the Republican party told them that if they want to work with him to get things done then they need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. In calling out Rush, Barack Obama has told the country and the world that he considers Limbaugh a threat. Ed Morrissey highlights it perfectly:

One doesn't make points at all about bipartisanship by explicitly attacking another partisan voice, no matter how much one disagrees with it. By naming Rush and attempting to sideline him, Obama lifted Rush's profile and practically anointed him his opposition. It demonstrates that Obama still has no sense of his office, nor of "post-partisanship", regardless of his endlessly empty rhetoric on the subject...

Anytime a man in a position of great power attacks someone with significantly less power, it lessens the greater man and raises up his opponent. The American President is, thanks to the office, the most powerful man in the free world. If he's worried about any political pundit so much that he has to attack him personally, it shows weakness, which is exactly what Obama cannot afford.

Indeed. Read all of Ed's post because it's filled with many excellent points. I know I'll be listening to Rush's show today, and I have a feeling his audience will be larger than usual with so many new people turning in to find out about this Rush Limbaugh guy that Barack Obama is so afraid of.

Obama plans on making the same mistake with Iran and its president. Let's hope he learns from this mistake with Limbaugh before he really screws up and elevates Ahmadinejad's position in the world.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/34107.

Comments (80)

The funniest Rush Limbaugh ... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

The funniest Rush Limbaugh episode was the one where he caught buying "cabbage" (code for Oxycodin) from his maid.

His approval ratings are al... (Below threshold)
GianiD:

His approval ratings are already down 15%, and, he has been proven a liar yet again(Abortion is above my pay grade) by helping Americans to kill innocent babies overseas.

Oh, and the B-O body count is averaging about 3 per day in office.

He cant hide anymore behind scripted speeches and Present votes.

"1. Posted by Adrian Browne... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

"1. Posted by Adrian Browne"

Well, that was quick!

And what was the name of ol' Berry's dealer? And what was the purpose of your comment?

"And what was the name of o... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

"And what was the name of ol' Berry's dealer? "

I don't know that he's admitted to buying drugs. He's admitted to trying them.

"And what was the purpose of your comment?"

To derail the thread and to be irritating.

Adrian Browne,If y... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Adrian Browne,

If you want to derail the thread why not at least bring up something relevant, like how Obama just put Sacramento in charge of air quality. Now the question is why do we need the EPA? Maybe it's Obama's plan to outsource Federal departments to the states. Lets put Navada in charge of water usage standards, Iowa in charge of food quality standards, Texas in charge of immigration, and Mississippi in charge of education. That way Obama can downsize the Federal government.

Funny when folks bring up R... (Below threshold)
John:

Funny when folks bring up Rush's drug use...especially now that there is a self-admitted cocaine and marijuana user in the White House...

"self-admitted cocaine" use... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

"self-admitted cocaine" user = W

This is a godsend. The mess... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

This is a godsend. The messiah N chief has now effectively raised Limbaugh to the level of credible opponent. When the Fainess Doctrine or "localization" is inacted it'll be plainly seen for what it is, a US President silencing the opposition.

I think that if more people... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

I think that if more people took media personalities like Rush and Olbermann for what they are (basically entertainers), it certainly would not hurt.

In my opinion, too many people confuse the polemic rhetoric of Coulter, Michael Moore, Olbermann, and Rush with balanced political commentary.

Not that they aren't valid viewpoints or interesting to listen to. But...those kinds of shows often take the complicated aspects of issues and gloss over them with sound bites and harsh rhetoric.

Their shows are entertaining because they are extremely and overtly biased. Fun to watch, but not so good for actually solving problems.

And, just as the left rallies around people like Michael Moore (or Olbermann), the right rallies around people like Limbaugh and Coulter. Remember, they make all make a living by producing humorous, entertaining, and shocking programs. None of them makes a living solving political or social problems. I think that's an important point. They all provide serve their audiences, and do a good job of basically telling them what they want to hear (in entertaining ways).

Just my two cents.

"self-admitted cocaine" ... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

"self-admitted cocaine" user = Barack Obama.

If it was an issue for Dubya, why is not an issue now?

Obama f'ed up. He's definitely not fitting into the role as well as he hoped. Hopefully he'll learn quickly, before foreign policy really catches up to him.

I agree with the notion tha... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

I agree with the notion that Obama succeeded in raising Limbaugh to the role of opposition-in-chief. Limbaugh surely releshes it.

However, I don't think Obama erred badly, because there are some in the GOP that would rather Rush go away (Heh - not bloody likely) and actually agree with Obama.

But just imagine if Dubs had told Pelosi and Reid they needed to stop listening to Chris Matthews, Olberman and ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.

Seriously, though, it reminds me of 1993 (I think that was the year) when President Clinton, on Air Force One, called in to a show on KMOX and whined (seriousy; there's no other word for it) that Limbaugh has three hours every day to say what he wants and Clinton couldn't answer him. (This was before Clinton learned more effective use of the greatest bully pulpit in the world, the presidency.)

Well said, Ryan.Pa... (Below threshold)
Dave Noble:

Well said, Ryan.

Particularly this:

"Their shows are entertaining because they are extremely and overtly biased. Fun to watch, but not so good for actually solving problems. . . None of them makes a living solving political or social problems."

But please don't forget they have all solved their own personal financial problems quite handily. Maybe they can help others solve theirs. But then again, maybe not.

"When the Fainess Doctrine ... (Below threshold)
Dave Noble:

"When the Fainess Doctrine or "localization" is inacted."

That ain't nothin, ODA. You need to talk to LaMedusa about some really heavy sh-t that's coming down the pike.

Big Mo:"But just i... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Big Mo:

"But just imagine if Dubs had told Pelosi and Reid they needed to stop listening to Chris Matthews, Olberman and ABC, NBC, CBS, etc."

I think that would have been a good thing. This kind of polemic crap abounds on all sides.

So far, it's been an intere... (Below threshold)

So far, it's been an interesting show. I'll be curious to see what he has to say at the top of the second hour.

Dave N,"But please... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Dave N,

"But please don't forget they have all solved their own personal financial problems quite handily."

That's a good point Dave. These pundits are doing pretty well by selling their "shocking" books and TV shows to a willing audience. And the more enmity, the higher the viewship/sales. Funny how that works.

Political turmoil keep Moore/Limbaugh and their ilk employed. So, in a sense, their work is little more than PR for their own pocketbook.

Since the Thomas hearings e... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Since the Thomas hearings ended, Limbaugh has been always wrong wrong wrong.
NAFTA, WTO, GOP in '96, Senator Hillary, Chainsaw Al, GOP in '06, "phoney soldiers" plural.

Worst of all: "open line Friday" might have as few as three (3) callers. In three (3) hours.

Plus he's fat and lazy. A chickenhawk. Etc.
The end.



Anyone who thinks governmen... (Below threshold)

Anyone who thinks governments "solve" problems, particularly in regard to the economy, are in for an enormous disappointment.

"If your side would simply ... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

"If your side would simply agree with my side, then we could get passed all of this partisanship."

Big Mo:"However, I... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Big Mo:

"However, I don't think Obama erred badly, because there are some in the GOP that would rather Rush go away (Heh - not bloody likely) and actually agree with Obama."

I don't think Obama erred at all. I think it makes sense for politicians--who we elect to address political and social issues--to avoid placing too much emphasis upon the view of polemic pundits who make money by entertaining people.

Keith Olbermann, while entertaining, certainly didn't work to solve and problems the last several years, now did he? He entertained people by appealing to certain perspectives and airing frustrations in humorous way (humorous to some). Rush does the same kind of thing.

"Anyone who thinks governme... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"Anyone who thinks governments "solve" problems, particularly in regard to the economy, are in for an enormous disappointment."

Ya Tom, I hear you.

That said, I don't think that allegiance to certain political pundits is, well, very productive in the end. They keep selling their books as long as everyone buys into the BS.

Government is a ridiculous mass of inefficiency in many cases--but my argument is that many of these political pundits count on that to make a living. And they certainly aren't trying to alleviate any of it.

ryan a:Understood.... (Below threshold)

ryan a:

Understood. And my point is that there are those who would say pundits can't solve any problems. In addition, nobody is asking them to. They're mainly being looked to for entertainment.

@Mike:"If your sid... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

@Mike:

"If your side would simply listen to my side, then we could get passed all of this partisanship and actually figure some things out."

(this applies both ways)

Sounds kinda wishy washy, but it's basically true, regardless.

Rush does not promote the idea of listening to the other side. Ridicule and criticism, yes. Actually listening, no way. Same goes for Michael Moore, etc.

Sure, the views of Limbaugh/Moore, etc. have their place in our society, and play a valuable role. But when it comes to actually bridging the partisan gap I think we should all look elsewhere.

Just my opinion.

OT -- I wonder if Ashley To... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

OT -- I wonder if Ashley Todd has seen this:

"Prosecutors say Brian Carranza, 21, faces up to 10 years in prison for allegedly conspiring to assault Staten Island residents in what is thought to be retaliation for the election of the nation's first black president."

http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/92823/staten-island-man-pleads-guilty-to-election-night-attacks/Default.aspx


Tom,"Understood. A... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Tom,

"Understood. And my point is that there are those who would say pundits can't solve any problems. In addition, nobody is asking them to. They're mainly being looked to for entertainment."

I think some see it as entertainment, but many do not. I won't pretend to know what the split is. People really buy into the crap that Ann Coulter and Michael Moore put out there, and I think sometimes that's really a problem, since they present incredibly oversimplified arguments.

I think some people use pundits to formulate their political views, and they confuse superficial entertainment with informed political commentary or analysis.

There is a big difference between political analysis and pandering to a certain socio-political market (Stupid White Men, by Moore, is a great example. So are the vast books by Coulter).

"I think some see it as ... (Below threshold)

"I think some see it as entertainment, but many do not. I won't pretend to know what the split is. People really buy into the crap that Ann Coulter and Michael Moore put out there, and I think sometimes that's really a problem, since they present incredibly oversimplified arguments."

Agreed, but I think those people are in the minority. So I simply don't worry about those morons. :-)

I highlighted the wrong ite... (Below threshold)

I highlighted the wrong item in my previous comment. It was supposed to be this:

"I think some people use pundits to formulate their political views, and they confuse superficial entertainment with informed political commentary or analysis."

Sorry. So let me try that again:

Agreed, but I think those people are in the minority. So I simply don't worry about those morons. :-)

"I know I'll be listening t... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"I know I'll be listening to Rush's show today, and I have a feeling his audience will be larger than usual with so many new people turning in to find out about this Rush Limbaugh guy that Barack Obama is so afraid of."

Kim, it does not seem to me that Obama seems afraid of people like Limbaugh. I think he was pointing to the idea that Rush (and others like him) aren't exactly pushing the idea of working across political lines.

Now, it would be a good idea for him to make the same speech to Reid and Pelosi, IMO, regarding pundits from the other side of the aisle.

But I think Obama is addressing the fact that Rush and other polemic pundits are, at times, part of the problem.

Again, just my opinion.

Tom:"Agreed, but I... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Tom:

"Agreed, but I think those people are in the minority. So I simply don't worry about those morons. :-)"

Well, I certainly hope that's the case. Otherwise we're all in deep S--t.

r.

Entertainer or otherwise, t... (Below threshold)
John:

Entertainer or otherwise, they have an established audience. Whether you agree or disagree with what the hosts offer as food for thought, they offer alternative viewpoints. Air America tried to follow the same model, put up a competing slate of programs to offer opposite viewpoints of those like Hannity and Limbaugh. Air America initially failed because it simply could not garner an audience in the numbers that Hannity and Limbaugh generate.

Now, if the premise is to not listen to Limbaugh, move away from the right, field more moderate candidates, well that happened with McCain. Colin Powell initiated this sentiment, and even still with the type of candidate he said he would support, he still voted for Obama.

Bottom line is that Obama is supposed to unify the country, to listen to all ideas, and yet he decides to attack one person because Limbaugh's ideology differs from his. Instead of trying to attack one person, he should be focused on what he promised the country.

Here is a novel idea. If Li... (Below threshold)
Rick W:

Here is a novel idea. If Limbaugh really has such great ideas why doesnt he run for office himself where he can actually do something besides run his mouth. I guess it is alot easier to stand on the sidelines and throw rocks than actually work to be part of the solution.

Rick, the same could be sai... (Below threshold)
John:

Rick, the same could be said of many bloggers and posters...

In calling out Rush, Bar... (Below threshold)
Brian:

In calling out Rush, Barack Obama has told the country and the world that he considers Limbaugh a threat.

So the right considers Michael Moore a "threat"?

How about, in calling out Rush, Obama has told the country that he considers Limbaugh a partisan doofus.

My how the left is cringing... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

My how the left is cringing in fear of Rush again. Obama just the latest wussy.

Now I see a lot of comments about how we should cast aside partisanship and work together. That seems to be the lefts new saying, when we have been asking that for 8 years and we got nothing but ridicule.

How about this: Forget about it. What happens happens.

Oh yeah! Obama was a cocaine user but yet GW got blasted for non existant cocaine use. See what I mean. You guys are pathetic. Stop whining. It is unbecoming. ww

It would help if Morrissey ... (Below threshold)
GOP08_DOA:

It would help if Morrissey had even the remotest clue. Alas, he was/is just another stenographer for a failed republican administration, taking talking points right from the horses mouth and posting them on his old blog "Captains Quarters." The problem for wingnuts nationwide is they've completely lost face, in fact, Rush the right wing "water carrier" is very much like the Pied Piper leading the rats to their ultimate demise thank you very much.

GW got blasted for non e... (Below threshold)
Brian:

GW got blasted for non existant cocaine use.

OK, willie has just met his quota for 1 new fake statement a day.

Rush Limpball hopes that Ob... (Below threshold)
Larry Linn:

Rush Limpball hopes that Obama's proposals fail. Like the other reactionary neo-cons, he more concerned about validation of his irrational ego, than he is with the condition of the United States. He is a traitor.

"Entertainer or otherwise, ... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"Entertainer or otherwise, they have an established audience. Whether you agree or disagree with what the hosts offer as food for thought, they offer alternative viewpoints."

Yes, they do have their audiences. And yes, they do offer certain points of view. Nothing wrong with that per se.

But, when it comes to actually "getting things done," views from people like Limbaugh, Coulter, Moore, and Olbermann aren't exactly very helpful.

Why? Because, as has been pointed out already above, pundits are trying to solve problems--they air the issues. And they aren't asked to solve problems. I would argue that in some cases they uphold problems and even create new ones (see Michael Moore and Ann Coulter).

Now, Obama was talking about working to "get things done," and he said that people can't just listen to Rush and expect to do that. He did not say that people should NOT listen to Rush. Instead, I think he was referring to the sometimes empty rhetoric that pundits disseminate.

It's a valid point, and it's very different from trying to silence the opposition. Some people on here are overreacting to this.

"Now, if the premise is to not listen to Limbaugh, move away from the right, field more moderate candidates, well that happened with McCain."

I think the premise is more along the lines of: "Don't take too many political cues from entertainers."

Makes sense to me.

"Bottom line is that Obama is supposed to unify the country, to listen to all ideas, and yet he decides to attack one person because Limbaugh's ideology differs from his."

Look, considering the territory that Rush treads, I hardly consider what Obama said an "attack". Try not to overreact to what was actually said.

TYPO:This: "Why? B... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

TYPO:

This: "Why? Because, as has been pointed out already above, pundits are trying to solve problems--they air the issue"

Should read:

"Why? Because, as has been pointed out already above, pundits are NOT trying to solve problems--they air the issue".

Gotta love those crucial little words...

Tom,Agreed, but I ... (Below threshold)
Dave Noble:

Tom,

Agreed, but I think those people are in the minority. So I simply don't worry about those morons. :-)

That is pure conjecture, Tom. And self-serving conjecture at that.

bryanD - "Plus he's fat... (Below threshold)
Marc:

bryanD - "Plus he's fat and lazy. A chickenhawk. Etc

Given your criteria for the use of that term, so is this guy. Not that I agree in either case, just saying is all.

GOP08_DOA - "It would help if Morrissey had even the remotest clue. Alas, he was/is just another stenographer for a failed republican administration, taking talking points right from the horses mouth and posting them on his old blog "Captains Quarters."

If you really believe that, then you have unmasked yourself as a partisan fool.

I'd suggest you spend more than a fleeting amount of time reading the archives. Where it's certainly understandable a "right-leaning" blog would be just that, it also very true Morrissey spent as much time or more than any other blog of its type posting critical articles on the Bush admin.

larry linn - "Rush Limp... (Below threshold)
Marc:

larry linn - "Rush Limpball hopes that Obama's proposals fail. Like the other reactionary neo-cons, he more concerned about validation of his irrational ego, than he is with the condition of the United States. He is a traitor."

Well then, if that's the case, the last 8 years has seen plenty of "traitors" within the Dem ranks.

"That is pure conjecture... (Below threshold)

"That is pure conjecture, Tom. And self-serving conjecture at that."

Perhaps. It's also how I'd describe your idea that a majority of Rush's audience is a bunch of mind-numbed, robotic dittoheads.

I guess I have more faith in people than you do.

Ah yes, gotta love the comm... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Ah yes, gotta love the comment scoring system here, where people who disagree only have to click a button.

Makes it all so nice and easy.

"Perhaps. It's also how I'd... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"Perhaps. It's also how I'd describe your idea that a majority of Rush's audience is a bunch of mind-numbed, robotic dittoheads."

I think it's fair to assume that Rush's audience is more than likely composed of a wide cross section of individuals with various points of view. There is no reason to assume they are some mindless mass of people who all think alike.

Basically, unless we do some massive sociological survey on his audience, we're all just playing a guessing game based upon our own predilections.

Assuming that large groups of people all think alike based upon your stereotypical perceptions is a bit on the lazy side.

So, in short, I agree with Tom.

*This line of reasoning, of course, applies to more than one side of the political spectrum.

Larry,"Rush Limpba... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Larry,

"Rush Limpball hopes that Obama's proposals fail. Like the other reactionary neo-cons, he more concerned about validation of his irrational ego, than he is with the condition of the United States. He is a traitor."

He is hardly a traitor, Larry. He makes a living by talking about political and social problems in a certain humorous and entertaining way. And he appeals to a certain market. There are liberal pundits who serve their market in the same kind of way.

Calling them traitors is a serious overreaction to what is going on.

"Calling them traitors ... (Below threshold)
Marc:

"Calling them traitors is a serious overreaction to what is going on.

Do ya think?

Just another liberal troll that's crawled out of a hole and been "enabled" by the Barack Hussein Obama election.

Marc,"Do ya think?... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Marc,

"Do ya think?"

To say the least.

"Just another liberal troll that's crawled out of a hole and been "enabled" by the Barack Hussein Obama election."

In all fairness, the "liberal" side does not have a lock on that kind of behavior. Pretty common from certain folks on either end of the spectrum. Nothing new there though.

How can you equate Moore wi... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

How can you equate Moore with Rush. President Bush never told anyone to ignore Moore. The chickhawk Obama did.

You have to do more then put Rush down. You have to listen to him for awhile. He does not have subjects that lure uneducated listeners in. His views are well thought out. His ability to research is off the charts. You don't have to agree with him, but he is no idiot. Rush himself tells people he is first and foremost an entertainer.

Now, how about all the brain dead people that went for Obama because Oprah was excited? ww

ryan a:"If you... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

ryan a:
"If your side would simply listen to my side, then we could get passed all of this partisanship and actually figure some things out."

Since you missed it my original, I've highlight the embedded hypocrisy that you missed. Funny that the statement was taken a reasonable - I thought it was glaringly obvious..

Willie:"How can yo... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Willie:

"How can you equate Moore with Rush."

Very easily. They are both entertainers with political agendas. No news there.

"You have to do more then put Rush down. You have to listen to him for awhile."

I have heard plenty of Rush in my time.

"He does not have subjects that lure uneducated listeners in."

I think its fair to assume that Rush's listeners cut across a wide social spectrum. And I am not sure what kinds of subject only "lure uneducated listeners". What do you mean by that?

"His ability to research is off the charts. You don't have to agree with him, but he is no idiot."

I never said he was an idiot. I said that he is an entertainer who makes a living on polemic political rhetoric. His views are valid, and they serve a purpose. They are what they are. Now, when it comes to bridging the gap between conservatives and liberals and trying to get at least something done, I do not think that pundits like Rush are the right people to take cues from.

Rush and Olbermann (for example) have made a career out of talking about issues in entertaining ways. And that can be a good thing. At the same time, I think that people should avoid taking anything they say too seriously or literally.

"Now, how about all the brain dead people that went for Obama because Oprah was excited?"

It's the same kind of thing, and clearly you aren't seeing how Oprah is a liberal equivalent of Rush, in a sense. And both are primarily entertainers. Each serves a certain audience. While they may present interesting views, it's also a good idea to listen to opposing views as well. Otherwise, we all just sit around listening to things that we already agree with. That's fun and all, but doesn't do very much when it comes to addressing some of the social and political problems we face.

"Since you missed it my ori... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"Since you missed it my original, I've highlight the embedded hypocrisy that you missed. Funny that the statement was taken a reasonable - I thought it was glaringly obvious.."

Thanks Mike, but I got it the first time. It was glaringly obvious, indeed.

Oh, and Mike I think you me... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Oh, and Mike I think you meant to highlight your own sentence, which was different. But I get what you were pointing out.

Mine had some crucial little revisions (listen instead of agree), and then the little parenthetical caveat:

If your side would simply listen to my side, then we could get passed all of this partisanship and actually figure some things out.

(this applies both ways)

"*This line of reasoning... (Below threshold)

"*This line of reasoning, of course, applies to more than one side of the political spectrum."

Agreed.

ryan a, the "work together"... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

ryan a, the "work together" ship sailed 8 years ago. The democrats, mostly the liberal wing, behavior was dispicable. Relentless. Crude and rude. Every day all day. NOw you are asking, and so is Barry, that we all roll over and be good little boys and girls. There is a word for that: NO. ww

Tom,I'll go slow a... (Below threshold)
Dave Noble:

Tom,

I'll go slow again. I never said "the majority" of Rush's audience did not think for themselves. Please go back and reread what I wrote and if you can find that statement pony up.

Unlike you (the morons are in the minority), I have no idea what percentage of Rush's audience thinks for itself and what doesn't.
I believe a not insubstantial portion of his audience looks to him to inform them on the issues of the day. Don't you turn to Rush for information in addition to entertainment?

Ryan states what is obvious to anyone who is reasonable:

"Basically, unless we do some massive sociological survey on his audience, we're all just playing a guessing game based upon our own predilections."

Tom, can you find me a quote from Rush in which he concedes he is merely an entertainer and not a political commentator?

Obama has demonstrated that... (Below threshold)

Obama has demonstrated that he is petty, insecure and dying to silence his critics.
http://www.rightklik.net/

ryan a, the "work... (Below threshold)
jmc:
ryan a, the "work together" ship sailed 8 years ago. The democrats, mostly the liberal wing, behavior was dispicable. Relentless. Crude and rude. Every day all day. NOw you are asking, and so is Barry, that we all roll over and be good little boys and girls. There is a word for that: NO

I agree wild willie, I think it is ridiculous that Obama is bothering to include Republicans at all in the process, or compromise with them. He certainly doesn't need them; with the majority we have in congress, Obama can get pretty much everything he needs through. There is no reason to invite Republicans to the table and it hurts the agenda he was mandated by the american people to provide.

Rush can be somewhat entert... (Below threshold)
Burt:

Rush can be somewhat entertaining. However, I can't picture the Republican party allowing him to run for the senate from Minnesota.

"I'll go slow again. I ... (Below threshold)

"I'll go slow again. I never said "the majority" of Rush's audience did not think for themselves."

Sigh. Dave, it was clear what you said. Go back and slowly re-read your comments.

"Tom, can you find me a quote from Rush in which he concedes he is merely an entertainer and not a political commentator?"

Everybody knows who he is and what his show is about. It's as plain as day. So, I'm not going to get into a nitpicking contest with you. I've said he's a pundit and an entertainer. It is possible to be both, you know. Spooky, huh?

Goodbye, Dave.

Conservatives, please, for ... (Below threshold)
Herman:

Conservatives, please, for your own sake as well as the sake of humanity, you need to relinquish your unthinking dittohead tendencies. It can't be fun being laughed at by the thinking portion of the population.

Instead of listening to Rush, why don't for once you do something constructive with your time, like read a book on economics, science, or diplomacy?

jmc -"There is ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

jmc -

"There is no reason to invite Republicans to the table and it hurts the agenda he was mandated by the american people to provide."

There's between 208 and 213 million registered voters.

70 million voted for Obama. That's about 33%.

60 mil voted for McCain. That's about 29%.

There were about 2 mil who voted for the other candidates. That's less than 1%.

37% didn't bother to vote at all. Indifferent, unconcerned, or whatever - they didn't vote.

Obama won. But 33% isn't a landslide, neither is it proof of a groundswell of unshakeable support for Obama, neither is it a complete mandate to do whatever he wants regardless of what the people think. I'm willing to give him a chance (like we've got any real alternative, barring him bugging out of the office, in which case we get Pres. Biden and VP Pelosi - and if THAT doesn't give you the shivers I don't know what would...) but the idea that he can totally disregard the 66% who DIDN'T vote for him is ridiculous. Piss off enough, and you'll see the House and Senate swing back. It's happened before, it can happen again.

Obama is not God. He isn't a king or a dictator, above question and responsibility to the people he governs. He's the President - and WE are not his servants, HE is OURS.

So the right considers M... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

So the right considers Michael Moore a "threat"?

No, he is considered a pandering hypocrite.

And, he's faaat!

OK, willie has just met ... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

OK, willie has just met his quota for 1 new fake statement a day.

Then, please provide me proof that is it a valid statement. Perhaps, a direct quote from Bush himself. Bush did admit to having a drinking problem in the past, but that's about it.

Barry admitted his use himself.

There is no reason... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
There is no reason to invite Republicans to the table and it hurts the agenda he was mandated by the american people to provide.

The only thing you got right here was the word "agenda". No one mandated Obama's presidency but the counsel on foreign relations, and the agenda lies with them. The Republicans are most certainly on board for that, just not as much in the spotlight right now.

Obama won. But 33... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Obama won. But 33% isn't a landslide, neither is it proof of a groundswell of unshakeablble support for Obama, neither is it a complete mandate to do whatever he wants regardless of what the people think.

If he fails, no matter how many republicans voted for this, the Republican party will blame it on Obama. The only thing he can and should do is full steam ahead with keynsian economic stimulas. Thcat way he at least gives himself a chance to suceed. This watered down half republican crap he is doing is a waste and since many of the republicans have the additude of ww I say cut them out.

What you really mean is neo... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

What you really mean is neocons. They do not care about the American people. They are running the show in the form of the trilateral commission and the cfr. Just like Jimmy Carter, Obama was hand-picked by Zbigniew Brzezinski, only at a much younger age:

"Zbigniew, a low-level Polish aristocrat whose life has been devoted to hatred for Russia, lauded Obama for his 2002 speech opposing the Iraq war, saying that he himself was the source of Obama's arguments back then - thus confirming Obama's long-term status as his puppet, which probably began in 1981-1983, when Obama was a student at Columbia University, and Zbig was directing the anti-Russian institute."

Obama was already a member of the CFR while during his campaign, and he lied through his teeth about it, feigning ignorance of the organization.

Obama didn't win, the media called it for the CFR, as they have done for decades.

JMC -I'm disturbed... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

JMC -

I'm disturbed by the constant insistance that "we have to do something NOW, before it gets WORSE". There's no time to debate, discuss or even do a serious projection to determine if it's the best course - they've been throwing money at problems in Washington and not doing much good for DECADES, which OUGHT to toss up warning flags, not to mention that the banks AND the auto makers are looking for mo' money already - but they're apparently not seriously looking at anything ELSE, like a payroll tax holiday or dropping tax rates overall.

It's almost reflexive. Besides, have you LOOKED at the stimulus bill? There's very little that's going to provide immediate help, it's all long-term stuff that'll take years to even start and likely decades to finish.

-

$300 million for "Major Research Insrumentation program" (science)

$200 million for "academic research facilities modernization"

$100 million for "Education and Human Resources"

$400 million for "Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction"

$4.5 billion to make military facilities more energy efficient

$2 billion for Army Corps of Engineers "Construction"

$250 million for "Mississippi River and Tributaries"

$2.2 billion for Army Corps "Operation and Maintenance"

$25 million for an Army Corps "Regulatory Program"

$126 million for Interior Department "water reclamation and reuse projects"

$80 million for "rural water projects"

$18.5 billion for "Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy" research in the Department of Energy. That money includes:

$2 billion for development of advanced batteries

$800 million of that is for biomass research and $400 million for geothermal technologies

$1 billion in grants to "institutional entities for energy sustainability and efficiency"

$6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program

$3.5 billion for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants

$3.4 billion for state energy programs

$200 million for expenses to implement energy independence programs

$300 million for expenses to implement Energy efficient appliance rebate programs including the Energy Star program

$400 million for expenses to implement Alternative Fuel Vehicle and Infrastructure Grants to States and Local Governments

$1 billion for expenses necessary for advanced battery manufacturing

$4.5 billion to modernize the nation's electricity grid

$1 billion for the Advanced Battery Loan Guarantee Program

$2.4 billion to demonstrate "carbon capture and sequestration technologies"

$400 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency (Science)

$500 million for "Defense Environmental Cleanup"

$1 billion for construction and repair of border facilities and land ports of entry

$6 billion for energy efficiency projects on government buildings

$600 million to buy and lease government plug-in and alternative fuel vehicles

$426 million in small business loans

$100 million for "non-intrusive detection technology to be deployed at sea ports of entry

$150 million for repair and construction at land border ports of entry

$500 million for explosive detection systems for aviation security

$150 million for alteration or removal of obstructive bridges

$200 million for FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter program

$325 million for Interior Department road, bridge and trail repair projects

$300 million for road and bridge work in Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries

$1.7 billion for "critical deferred maintenance" in the National Park System

$200 million to revitalize the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

$100 million for National Park Service Centennial Challenge programs

$200 million for repair of U.S. Geological Survey facilities

----

That's a very small sample. The whole list looks like a butcher's dream of pork products. You hear that squeal off in the distance? That's your wallet and future earnings screaming in dismay - THEY know what's going to be coming from all this, and it's not going to be an economic stimulus. Sooner or later the trillions of dollars being allocated are goig to have to come from somewhere - and the taxpayer isn't going to be too thrilled to be stuck with a bill for projects that didn't do any long-term good.

Do these things need to be funded? Probably. Is now the time to do them when the economy is shakey? It's hard to say. Is it going to produce the effects they're going for? I really don't think so.

What do you think?

Jlawson,I think th... (Below threshold)
jmc:

Jlawson,

I think those are fair points, and one of my problems with the original banking bailout was it moved too fast.

However, I am of opinion, that we need some major infrastructure work in this country, so I am hopeful at least in regards to that portion of the stimulas package.I'm also someone who is in favor of more spending for education and science.

I do realize your point on those matters was that they are certianly not going to jump start the economy anytime soon, and you're right, but my fear is this economy really could be bad enough, that those long term investments could prove very valuable. In fact, I'm of the opinion that those items are needed even we wern't in a major recession. and this is probably where our views split politically.

Again, I'm disagreeing with you, but I really do think your point as reasoned, is quite fair and reasonable. I just think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the key difference between us on this issue is that you are sceptical that government spending can improve things. I'm of the opinion that it can, if you bring in competent people to manage it.

Anyway i don't expect to convince you and I doubt you will convince me, So we may have to just agree to disagree and see what happens.


Either way these are turbulent times.

Then, please provide me ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Then, please provide me proof that is it a valid statement. Perhaps, a direct quote from Bush himself.

What are you, a fool?

Q: Have you used illegal drugs in the past 7 years?
Bush: No.
Q: In the past 15 years?
Bush: No.
Q: Over 20 years ago?
Bush: "I've told the people of this country that, over 20 years ago, I made some mistakes when I was younger. I've learned from those mistakes."

Classic non-denial non-denial.

This of course was followed by the "clarification" from official staff:

Bush spokeswoman Mindy Tucker later said the Republican presidential front-runner was saying that he has not used illegal drugs at any time since 1974

And let's not forget:

But when Mr. Wead said that Mr. Bush had in the past publicly denied using cocaine, Mr. Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything."

Now are you still blindly denying what even Bush refuses to deny? Or were you just not paying attention?

Willie,"NOw you ar... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Willie,

"NOw you are asking, and so is Barry, that we all roll over and be good little boys and girls. There is a word for that: NO."

Ok Willie, whatever you say. It's been nice not communicating with you...

Oh, and Mike I think you... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Oh, and Mike I think you meant to highlight your own sentence,

Nope. I realized that changes that you had made but they had no affect on my point that you missed the hypocritical nature of using 'divisive' terms like 'your side' and 'my side' in a sentence criticizing people for being divide.

jmc -"I'm of th... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

jmc -

"I'm of the opinion that it can, if you bring in competent people to manage it.

Anyway i don't expect to convince you and I doubt you will convince me, So we may have to just agree to disagree and see what happens."

Oh, I don't disagree with you there, JMC - IF they brought in competent people the idea MIGHT work. Big IF, though - and it would require a significant amount of people who's ONLY concern would be what's best for the country, not what's best for their party or what gives their party revenge over the other party, or what gives them a better position in the future to get kickbacks, a lobbyist position or favors from those coming up in power.

Let's hope they weed those out. We really can't afford 'business as usual' inside the Beltway on this...

Hello to all of the un-inte... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Hello to all of the un-intelligent writers. So many of you do not have a clue to the political system and how it has hurt America. The latest BO comments are from a 'politician' and we know that most politicians do not have the desire of a better country in their agenda. They only want more votes and power. BO is the same.

Are we in the path of Perso... (Below threshold)
Serge Watie:

Are we in the path of Personality Cult in this country?. Are we going to what failed in Mao's China, in Stalin's Russia, in Castro's Cuba?.
Are we destroying in the name of a good talker and that is it, our freedom of speech?. Is it going to take too long for the American People to wake up to the build up of the personality cult that is being schemed with mr. Barack Hussein Obama; you even have to omit the middle name -a historical fact- least your are considered politically incorrect. Truth becomes subrealist and the apparent subtitutes the real world. Are we in the path of becoming another banana republic the likes of Africa or South America? Worst than the economic problems, which at the end we will be able to solve what it is really getting to a very disturbing point as far as one can see in the future is this change which is impliying that the man in the White House has to have carte blanche for all he does or say, otherwise we may be catalouged as "racists". Isn't this another form of dictactor ship throug political extortion?

"Nope. I realized that chan... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"Nope. I realized that changes that you had made but they had no affect on my point that you missed the hypocritical nature of using 'divisive' terms like 'your side' and 'my side' in a sentence criticizing people for being divide."

Ok, Mike. You do realize that you were the first to use those two terms on this post, don't you?

If you are going to take issue with something I write, then try using something that I actually wrote--not some hypothetical version that you made up in your head.

I was wondering, when you posted comment number 19, exactly where that came from. I reworked it a little, just for fun.

Now, do you have a point, or do you want to keep playing little semantic games???

You do realize that you ... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

You do realize that you were the first to use those two terms on this post, don't you?

Yes, ryan a, I do realize that.

In fact, the comment was made tongue-in-cheek making fun of Obama's statement that, in essence, stated that "we'll agree more if you stop disagreeing". I thought that the satire was apparent from the statement's self-contradictory nature, but apparently after 3 tries, you still haven't gotten it.

Mike,"In fact, the... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Mike,

"In fact, the comment was made tongue-in-cheek making fun of Obama's statement that, in essence, stated that "we'll agree more if you stop disagreeing". I thought that the satire was apparent from the statement's self-contradictory nature, but apparently after 3 tries, you still haven't gotten it."

Once again, the internal irony of the quote you posted was abundantly clear. It's not very complicated. What was not clear was who you were addressing with the quote, and where the quote came from (you didn't cite anyone). So, while the made up quote was ironic and all, your overall point became a little convoluted.

Posting an unattributed, made-up quote is not exactly the best way to make a clear point. But you can go ahead and keep telling yourself it's my fault if you need to.

Again, if you have a point to make, feel free.

ryan a:Posting an... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

ryan a:
Posting an unattributed, made-up quote is not exactly the best way to make a clear point.

You assume that my intent was to make a clear point. In fact, my intent was to highlight the absurdity of The One's comment by making an analogous statement of comparable absurdity. Satire does require that you actually think so I see how some might have difficulty...

"You assume that my intent ... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"You assume that my intent was to make a clear point."

Well, you succeeded wonderfully in making a convoluted point. Congratulations.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy