TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Rush Limbaugh - "I hope Obama Fails"
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 »
Even the Republicans hate the guy:
| quote: |
| On the same night he was offering the keynote address to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Rush Limbaugh drew criticism from an unlikely source: Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. In a little-noticed interview Saturday night, Steele dismissed Limbaugh as an �entertainer� whose show is �incendiary� and �ugly.� Steele�s criticism makes him the highest-ranking Republican to pick a fight with the popular and polarizing conservative talk show host. But the new RNC chairman�s extraordinary comments won�t sit well with the millions of conservative listeners Limbaugh draws each week, and Steele aides scrambled to limit the damage Monday morning by trying to change the subject. �Rahm Emanuel and the Democrats know they lose an argument with the Republican Party on substance so they are building straw men to attack and distract,� said RNC spokesman Alex Conant. �The feud between radio host Rush Limbaugh and Rahm Emanuel makes great political theater, but it is a sideshow to the important work going on in Washington. RNC Chairman Michael Steele and elected Republicans are focused on fighting for reform and winning elections. The Democrats� problem is that the American people are growing skeptical of the massive government spending being pushed by Congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi.� Limbaugh, asked to respond, said he�d save his counter-attack for his listeners. �I�ll handle it on the radio,� he wrote in an e-mail. In an interview on CNN with D.L. Hughley, Steele assured that he, not Limbaugh, was in charge of the party before saying that he wanted to put the right-wing talker �into context.� �Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer,� Steele said. �Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes it�s incendiary, yes it�s ugly.� Steele�s comments, first noticed by NBC producer Chris Donovan, are sure to rankle Limbaugh in part because they validate the liberal critique of the conservative force: that he�s merely an �entertainer.� |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Even the Republicans hate the guy: http://www.politico.com/news/storie...98.html?ref=fp3 But don't you worry ladies and gents, Rush has a response that he's going to give! He'll take on everybody in order to raise his profile! |
| quote: |
| Rush Fires Back at Steele: 'I Hope the RNC Chairman Will Realize He is Not a Talking Head Pundit' By Matt Lewis Mar 2nd 2009 2:17PM Responding to RNC Chairman Michael Steele's recent comments, Rush Limbaugh fired back on his radio show today. "The Republican National Committee and Michael Steele need a little leadership ... we're going to have to drag them kicking and screaming back to our core," Limbaugh said. "They are caught up in so much fear because of where they live and work in Washington, DC," he said. Responding to Steele's argument that he is the "de facto" head of the GOP, Limbaugh warned: "Michael Steele -- you are head of the RNC -- you are not head of the Republican Party." Limbaugh went on to say Steele would have to become President for that to happen. He also noted: "... I'm not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don't want to be." "I hope the RNC Chairman will realize he is not a talking head pundit," Limbaugh added. Limbaugh also noted that he had helped Steele out in the past: "Michael Steele was on this program ... he got air time on this program ... I personally took time to defend Michael Steele ... Something has happened. Now, I'm just an 'entertainer', and now I'm 'ugly' and my program is 'incendiary'." http://news.aol.com/political-machi...-chairman-will/ |
perhaps an article the Limbaugh haters might agree with? (from none other than the Huffpo...*winks at Lebez*)
"You're damn right I wanted the Iraq war to fail"
Why Limbaugh Is Right to Oppose Obama's Economic Policies
| quote: |
| Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh wants Barack Obama's econimic policies to fail. He said it, he said it again, and he said it again at CPAC. Limbaugh was quickly accused of treason, more or less, and now he says he doesn't understand what all the outrage is about. All he said was that he hopes the economic recovery plan fails. Why is this suprising? I'm not stunned that conservatives oppose President Obama's economic policies. Actually, I wouldn't have it any other way. El Rushbo didn't stop there, of course. Limbaugh went on at CPAC to suggest that liberals opposed to the war in Iraq wanted the war to fail. Oh, shock and outrage!!! Well, guess what? You're damn right I wanted the Iraq war to fail. Yeah, I said it. I think I'm not supposed to say that out loud because then I'm supposed to be afraid that I'll be accused of hating America and wanting troops to die. So maybe I should rephrase that tenderly and with great care.... "I wanted the Bush policy on Iraq to fail because the war and the ideas it was based were in complete opposition to my basic principles about how The United States should use its wealth and power. However, I was hoping that a magic genie would be found in Baghdad that would create a situation where Bush's policies didn't work but with no loss of life, damage to property, expense or harm to our nation's reputation." The problem is - I'm not Bobby Jindal so I don't believe in magic. So I repeat - damn right I wanted the Iraq war to fail. Not because I hate our country or hate the troops but for the exact opposite reason - because I love my country and I value the lives of the people sworn to protect it. If you opposed the war, I bet you feel the same way. Now, fasten your seatbelt while I go a step further. I believe that Limbaugh wants the President to fail because he loves the country, too. Let me explain with a specific example from the war: torture. I didn't want torture to succeed. That's not because I pray for a world populated by terrorists devoid of fear or the ability to feel pain. No, I wanted torture to fail because I can't bear the idea of a world where America tortures people because 'it works.' That's not America to me. I assume Rush Limbaugh feels the same way, more or less, about the President's economic plan. I bet he simply can't bear the idea of a world where massive government spending is effective and therefore popular because 'it works.' The trick here is not to jump to conclusions. This is where so many fail, both liberal and conservative. They can't just accept a person's statement as it stands. They need to embellish it with accusations of treason. It's wrong to leap from "I oppose policies that I'm opposed to" to "I want people to suffer and die." Of course, this very thing was done to Candidate Obama during the election. It's been done to all Democratic candidates for years and by people like Limbaugh. Well, not just people like Limbaugh but by Limbaugh himself, obviously. The real crime Rush Limbaugh should be called out on isn't for his opposition to liberal policies - because, duh - but for being such total hypocrite. His bread and butter for years has been forming ridiculous conclusions based on purposely distorting his opponent's statements. He could give it but he can't take it. But just because accusing our political opponents of treason is a tactic that Republicans have used with glee for years doesn't mean it's something that Democrats should adopt. It's wrong and it's counterproductive. I have no problem stating the simple truth -conservatives like Limbaugh love America just as much as liberals do. That's not the issue. The real problem gets lost in all the sound and fury - we just have different ideas of what America means. Since I'll be accused by conservatives of being part of the 'blame America' crowd, let me be clear - there's a deep ideological split in this country and I blame America. We're a complex nation; big, sprawling and full of contradictions. Just looking at the personalities of our forefathers from the pious prudish Pilgrams to libertines like self-help guru/orgy attendee Ben Franklin explains a lot about why the country that we love is such a messy mass of mixed messages to this very day. We had founders like Jefferson who simultaneously wrote stirring words of freedom and owned slaves. Small wonder part of our manifest destiny was the two party system and CNN's Crossfire. Don't blame Michael Moore and Ann Coulter. It's America's fault. The whole country and our rich jambalaya of history. We're complicated. Deal with it. The thing we can do to get along better isn't to expect to agree on things. Forget that. But we can agree to disagree without the pointless added bullshit playacting of pretending disagreement is treason. The healthy conflict of views on our homeland is as American as Christian TV preachers involved in gay sex scandals. It's a war of ideas. Bring it on, Rush,. We'll keep the light on for you. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Your article, had you read it, would have informed you that the video was doctored by WBAL-TV (wherever the hell that is)... and just to let you know, HuffPo is a blog... not a newspaper. |
| quote: |
| The Huffington Post posted the doctored video last week without any disclaimer and without calling Gibson or Fox for comment. After the doctoring was revealed, the liberal Web site published an apology. "My ire in this situation is directed at the Huffington Post," Gibson said. "I really think this would have been very easy to check. A kid made a mistake and did something goofy, fine. But these guys [at the Huffington Post] claim to be and are regarded by many as a legitimate news organization. It spoke to their bias against me that they went ahead with it." |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss no shit, Sherlock. So, your beloved blog holds no accountability for allowing unvetted fake content on their site that set off a wave of anger among its readers? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...opinion/columns |
Because the content isn't incorrect. And it's silly to think that a blog that posts hundreds of articles and videos every day would never get something wrong. Gibson is kidding himself if he thinks people care enough about him to consciously launch a campaign to vilify him. In my opinion, it simply speaks volumes about the nature of the guy that nobody thought twice about the video's accuracy - it wouldn't at all have been surprising.
That said, I'd still love to hear what you have to say defending Rush's faux pas - is it possible that the Constitution's most loyal defender doesn't even know what its most famous section reads?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Because the content isn't incorrect. And it's silly to think that a blog that posts hundreds of articles and videos every day would never get something wrong. Gibson is kidding himself if he thinks people care enough about him to consciously launch a campaign to vilify him. In my opinion, it simply speaks volumes about the nature of the guy that nobody thought twice about the video's accuracy - it wouldn't at all have been surprising. That said, I'd still love to hear what you have to say defending Rush's faux pas - is it possible that the Constitution's most loyal defender doesn't even know what its most famous section reads? |
I seem to remember Palin stating that the role of the VP was supreme overlord ruler from hell of the Senate. Maybe I don't know the difference between the declaration of independence and the constitution. 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 Oooo this is going to be good. If neither one backs down they could cause the party to faction OR if one of them apologizes it will be hilarious no matter which one! |
| quote: |
| Okay, so I am an entertainer, and I have 20 million listeners, 22 million listeners because of my great song-and-dance routines here. Yes, said Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, I'm incendiary, and yes, it's ugly. Michael Steele, you are head of the RNC. You are not head of the Republican Party. Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the RNC and right now they want nothing to do with it, and when you call them asking them for money, they hang up on you. I hope that changes. I hope the RNC will get its act together. I hope the RNC chairman will realize he's not a talking head pundit, that he is supposed to be working on the grassroots and rebuilding it, and maybe doing something about our open primary system and fixing it so that Democrats do not nominate our candidates. It's time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of trying to be some talking head media star, which you're having a tough time pulling off. I hope you figure out how to run a primary system. But it seems to me that it's Michael Steele who is off to a shaky start. My parents taught me when I was growing up that you always stood behind people who defended you, you never abandoned people who stood up for you and who defended you against assault. Michael Steele was a candidate for the Senate in Maryland. Michael Steele was on this program, he got airtime on this program to attempt to refute the lies being told about him by Michael J. Fox in those famous ads way back when that were also run against Jim Talent in Missouri. I personally took time to defend Michael Steele and to rip the substance of those ads, had him on the show. I went after Chuck Schumer when Chuck Schumer's former employee stole Michael Steele's private credit record information and released it. When I went to Washington a couple years ago for a personal appearance from my station there, WMAL, WMAL arranged for a number of dignitaries to meet me backstage. One of them was Michael Steele, who thanked me very much for coming to his defense. Something's happened. Now I'm just an entertainer and now I am ugly and my program is incendiary. Michael Steele has been around long enough to know that the liberal media will use him by twisting what I say or what others say. He took the bait, he bit down hard on the bait, he launched an attack on me even though the premise of what was said to him was false. He took the bait and he went for it. Now, Mr. Steele, if it is your position as the chairman of the Republican National Committee that you want a left wing Democrat president and a left wing Democrat Congress to succeed in advancing their agenda, if it's your position that you want President Obama and Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid to succeed with their massive spending and taxing and nationalization plans, I think you have some explaining to do. Why are you running the Republican Party? Why do you claim you lead the Republican Party when you seem obsessed with seeing to it that President Obama succeeds? I frankly am stunned that the chairman of the Republican National Committee endorses such an agenda. I have to conclude that he does because he attacks me for wanting it to fail. This isn't complicated stuff here, folks. It's difficult to organize the defeat of Obama and the Democrat Congress in 2012, if we want to. It's going to be difficult enough, but on one hand it shouldn't be difficult at all. But it's going to be really hard, Mr. Steele, if you, as the chairman of the RNC, want Obama to succeed. Where does the Republican Party go if you, who are supposed to be redesigning our primary system and helping reestablish our grassroots movement, how are we going to retake elective office if you want this agenda of Obama's and Pelosi's and Reid's to succeed. My colleagues in talk radio can attest to this next point. We get press release after press release after press release from the Republican National Committee attacking the Democrat agenda. They send us points of refutation. I never use them 'cause I don't need them. But they send out all these points of refutation about how this part of what Dingy Harry wants or Pelosi wants is wrong, is wrong, is wrong. Why are you sending out these things, Mr. Steele? Why is your office sending out all these talking points to defeat the Democrat agenda in Congress if your position is you want it to succeed? And I don't understand why you're asking Republicans to donate to the Republican National Committee if their money is going to be spent furthering the agenda of Barack Obama. If we don't want Obama and Reid and Pelosi to fail, then why does the RNC exist, Mr. Steele? Why are you even raising money? What do you want from us? If I want Obama and Democrats to succeed, I suppose we should be sending the RNC donations? You know, these people, it's a bizarre discussion to have because there's a news story on this, on this feud now between me and Michael Steele. And listen to this. This is a quote from RNC spokesman, Alex Conant, I'm not sure how he pronounces his last name. "The feud between radio host Rush and Rahm makes great political theater, but it is a sideshow to the important work going on in Washington. RNC Chairman Michael Steele and elected Republicans are focused on fighting for reform and winning elections. The Democrats' problem is that the American people are growing skeptical of the massive government spending being pushed by congressional leaders like [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi." Mr. Steele, your spokesman sounds like the RNC wants 'em to fail, to me. You're opposing 'em. You say the American people are growing weary of it, getting suspicious of it. But it's not just Pelosi's spending. It's Obama's. Where are your guts? Why can't you tie Obama to these policies? They're his! Where are your guts? Snerdley, they don't want me doing the dirty work because when I go out there and, quote, unquote, do the dirty work, they try to cut me off at the knees for doing so. The point is, when you read that statement from Alex Conant, they're opposed to the Obama agenda, too. They're just too gutless to say so, and they get frightened when they hear the words, "I want Obama to fail." "Oh, no, no, no, we can't be associated with that." Yet you're sending out all these talking points designed to help people explain to other people why the Obama agenda is wrong. So I think it's bizarre. They put out statements and press releases damning Obama and Pelosi policies and they object when somebody like me says he doesn't want them to succeed. One other thing. Mr. Steele, if you want to lead the Republican Party, as you say you do, then you need to run for and win the presidency. You are chairman of the Republican National Committee. That is your job. To run the Republican establishment bureaucracy and prove you can defeat Democrats and elect Republicans, to come up with a new primary system that eliminates Democrats participating in ours and choosing our candidates and getting the grassroots revved up again. This is how you're going to be measured, not by how entertaining or cute you are on talk shows. By the same token, I'm not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don't want to be. I would be embarrassed to say that I'm in charge of the Republican Party in the sad-sack state that it's in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party, given the state that it's in, I would quit. We don't care, first and foremost, about the success of the Republican Party. We care about the United States of America and its future, because we cherish it and love it, and we know what it is that made it the greatest nation on earth, and we don't hear you articulating that you understand that, not just you, Mr. Steele, but hardly anybody else in Washington, DC. So send those fundraising requests out, and, by the way, when you send those fundraising requests out, Mr. Steele, make sure you say, "We want Obama to succeed." So people understand your compassion. Republicans, conservatives, are sick and tired of being talked down to, sick and tired of being lectured to, and until you show some understanding and respect for who they are, you're going to have a tough time rebuilding your party. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss Did you condemn Joe Biden for gaffe-tastically blowing the quesiton of the VP's role as defined by the constitution during his debate with Palin? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Alex I seem to remember Palin stating that the role of the VP was supreme overlord ruler from hell of the Senate. Maybe I don't know the difference between the declaration of independence and the constitution. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Yes, but at least it wasn't the same mistake as Cheney. There's still a fundamental difference between a mistake in the moment and in prepared remarks, don't you agree? |
Well, that didn't take long.
Michael Steele to Rush: I'm sorry
| quote: |
| �My intent was not to go after Rush � I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,� Steele said in a telephone interview. �I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. � There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.� �I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren�t what I was thinking,� Steele said. �He brings a very important message to the American people to wake up and pay attention to what the administration is doing,� Steele said. �Number two, there are those out there who want to look at what he�s saying as incendiary and divisive and ugly. That�s what I was trying to say. It didn�t come out that way. He does what he does best, which is provoke: He provokes thought, he provokes the left. And they�re clearly the ones who are most excited about him.� Asked if he planned to apologize, Steele said: �I wasn�t trying to offend anybody. So, yeah, if he�s offended, I�d say: Look, I�m not in the business of hurting people�s feelings here. My job is to try to bring us all together.� |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss Well, that didn't take long. Michael Steele to Rush: I'm sorry http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19517.html If anyone missed Rush's statement to Steele today "pre-apology", I posted it a little earlier. Scroll up to read. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 His statement to Steele was all me, me, me, just like his speech. |
Well, when one is defending oneself from an "attack" (for lack of a better term), one typically speaks in the first person. But, it wasn't all about ME ME ME... it was quite a bit about Steele and the weak GOP leadership. | quote: |
| When it comes to Obama�s constant finger-wagging, Rush Limbaugh had it right. We elected a president, not a founding father. The most important thing Rush Limbaugh said Saturday night has escaped notice by the mainstream media. The clip that�s running in a constant loop on cable television includes Limbaugh�s comment about wanting �any force, any person, any element of an overarching Big Government that would stop your success. . . to fail.� White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel made a clever attempt to distort those comments by suggesting that Republicans are rooting for the country�s failure, but most people outside the beltway will simply be puzzled that the White House is engaged in a debate with Limbaugh at all. I can�t imagine George Bush or Andy Card in a debate with Keith Olberman, and I find the entire White House obsession with conservative media personalities like Limbaugh and Sean Hannity bizarre. The real news that Limbaugh made was that he put his finger on Obama�s �original sin��the error that will ultimately lead to the Democrats� demise if Republicans can get their act together and begin a more basic philosophical debate about the role of government in people�s lives. �All politicians,� Limbaugh said, �including President Obama, are temporary stewards of this nation. It is not their task to remake the founding of this country. It is not their task to tear it apart and rebuild it in their image.� If Americans turn their backs on Obama, and at this point that looks unlikely but possible if the economy continues in its downward spiral, it will be because he tried to remake America in his own image. We didn�t sign up for a new founding father. We did not abandon our belief that despite our imperfections, America is the solution�not the problem�to every challenge facing the people in this country and, in many cases, the world. Most of us did not come to the same conclusion Obama did that America behaved badly and now we are being punished. Most of us love this country for the opportunity she provides. We love her for the decency of her people. And we believe that our president�s job is to cheer her on not talk her down. When we turn on the television and see this gifted young leader scolding us and sending the successful and prosperous people of this country to detention, many of us scratch our heads. Who does he think is going to do the hiring and the growing and the building and the paying of the taxes? If Obama continues to paint all the job creators in this country with the same broad brush that he used last week when he condemned the greedy and the corrupt for their bad behavior, America�s recovery will be a long time coming. He seems to forget that we have a system in place for people who break the law. The people who defrauded investors and scammed unwitting homebuyers will be punished. But the vast majority of business owners and job creators are decent and honest, and their success is vital if we are to re-enter a period of economic expansion in this country. |
As far as I'm concerned, let Rush be the voice of Conservatism and the Republican party.
They will lose the moderates time and time again.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Alex As far as I'm concerned, let Rush be the voice of Conservatism and the Republican party. They will lose the moderates time and time again. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Alex As far as I'm concerned, let Rush be the voice of Conservatism and the Republican party. They will lose the moderates time and time again. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Alex As far as I'm concerned, let Rush be the voice of Conservatism and the Republican party. They will lose the moderates time and time again. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I honestly couldn't be happier with this outcome. There are a number of criticisms I have with Obama in his first month. But the one to which he effectively boxed in the GOP with Rush painted on their shirts was downright amazing. I don't know if he did it with deliberate intent or if it were an accident, but I doubt even Obama could have predicted how well this continues to turn out. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 Gibbs had it right when he pointed out a few years go there would have been a shit storm if any Democrat even implied they were hoping for The Decider or his policies to fail. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss I don't understand this statement... are you saying that during W's tenure, there weren't any Democrats hoping for Bush's policies to fail? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 while i was against the iraq war, I certainly wasn't rooting for the war to fail. that would mean many american lives wasted and dollars spent for nothing. i was hoping that both bush and cheney would meet their demise, but i wasn't rooting for the failure of any policy they set forth if that failure would cause more harm to americans or our country. |
since I haven't seen it posted yet, here is the video..
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss I don't understand this statement... are you saying that during W's tenure, there weren't any Democrats hoping for Bush's policies to fail? |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.