quote:

MARCH 2, 2009 RUSH LIMBAUGH, DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST This clip from the weekend’s Conservative Political Action Conference reminds me exactly of what meetings of the Democratic Socialists of America sounded like in the nineteen-eighties. Just substitute “free-market capitalism” for “big government,” “the New Deal” for “the era of Reagan,” and everything else—the defensive contempt toward popular rule, the retreat into the comfort of a purified “philosophy,” the denunciations of unnamed appeasers within the ranks, the call to “stamp out” middle-way weaklings—is the same. I attended some of those conferences. With each year they became more righteous and more insular, and I remember exactly what it felt like to know that my side was going to be the losing side for years to come. I remember looking around at my fellow democratic socialists and wondering whether I really even belonged there. So if there were any quietly doubting conservatives at the CPAC conference, they have my sympathy, and a bit of unsolicited advice: the biggest obstacle to your eventual return to power is the kind of resistant and intolerant politics embodied so amply in the man at the podium. My prediction is that, in the short term—between now and at least 2012—this spirit will dominate the Republican Party, until the doubters become numerous and brave enough to make trouble. The very seriousness of the stakes in Obama’s gamble will drive most conservatives into an increasingly fanatical and self-isolating opposition. E. J. Dionne describes the stakes perfectly: The central issue in American politics now is whether the country should reverse a three-decade-long trend of rising inequality in incomes and wealth. Politicians will say lots of things in the coming weeks, but they should be pushed relentlessly to address the bottom-line question: Do they believe that a fairer distribution of capitalism’s bounty is essential to repairing a sick economy? Everything else is a subsidiary issue. Dionne goes on to chide Republican critics for labeling a two-per-cent increase in government’s share of the economy a form of “wild-eyed state socialism.” But, in a sense, the Republicans are right about that two per cent: it’s not state socialism, but it is the return of liberalism, which—from their point of view—is just about as awful. POSTED BY GEORGE PACKER IN POLITICS http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...gepacker/?xrail

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

Rush needs to get back on the Oxycontin and shut the fuck up!

___________________
Kill 1 Person thats Murder, kill 100,000 People thats foriegn policy!

David Plouffe may be the most brilliant political operative since Lee Atwater's brutal takedown of Dukakis in 88, and here's what he has to say about the implications of Rush pwning the entire Republican Party:

quote:

Minority Leader Limbaugh By David Plouffe Wednesday, March 4, 2009; A15 The 2008 election sent many messages. At the top: Americans wanted to turn the page on the politics of division and partisan pettiness, and they wanted a government -- and country -- that would put the middle class first. Watching the Republicans operate this past month, it would appear that they missed that unmistakable signal. Instead, Rush Limbaugh has become their leader. Limbaugh, of course, told his radio listeners that he's rooting for President Obama to fail -- and hoping the president's ideas for bolstering our economy fail with him. For many Americans, hungry for leadership and cooperation, this sounded like fingernails on a chalkboard. When Limbaugh reiterated the sentiment this weekend, hundreds of Republican conservatives cheered him on. But instead of rebuking the radio personality or charting their own course, Republican leaders in Washington are paralyzed with fear of crossing their leader. Less than 24 hours after committing the unforgivable sin of criticizing Limbaugh, RNC Chairman Michael Steele felt compelled to publicly apologize. He was not the first and will certainly not be the last. Limbaugh's voice could be heard in the words of new Republican quarterback Eric Cantor, who says the GOP's strategy will be to "Just Say No" -- not for substantive or philosophical reasons but to advance Limbaugh's strategy for failure. Independent voters, those who find the ways of Washington particularly toxic, could be forgiven for wondering whether the Republican minority has any clue what is happening in our country. Last week's Post-ABC News poll shows that voters trust President Obama on the economy by a remarkable 35 percentage points more than they trust Republicans in Congress -- the biggest advantage for a president on this question since George H.W. Bush basked in public approval of his handling of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. The source of Obama's advantage is critical: independent voters, who give the president high marks on his handling of the economy and his job overall. Obama won these voters, who famously recoil from what they see as overly partisan and shortsighted politics, by eight points in 2008 -- a dramatic improvement for the Democrats from 2004, when George Bush and John Kerry tied. There are other groups of voters worth watching. Among those with a history of voting in presidential elections, Obama and Sen. John McCain essentially ran even. Obama won first-time voters by a convincing 39 points -- owing largely to a combination of younger voters, Hispanic voters and disaffected voters. The sentiment seems alive and well today. Seventy-three percent of all voters, The Post found, believe that the president is trying to cooperate with Republicans. Only 36 percent believe the same to be true of the GOP. It would surprise no one to learn where new voters and independents came down on that question. Thus far, Republican leaders have let their strategy be guided by their most conservative base, capturing perhaps a third of the nation's voters. For Republican candidates seeking the support of right-wing activists in Iowa, who will exercise outsize influence in the presidential selection process in four years, that strategy -- while not entirely defensible in the midst of an economic crisis -- is understandable. But any party that hopes to actually govern must appeal to moderates. Today, "moderate" is not an adjective that many would associate with the GOP minority in Congress. And a strategy designed chiefly to satisfy the 33 percent of voters who approved of George Bush's performance last fall -- while turning off first-time and swing voters -- hardly seems like the best way out of the political wilderness. But Republicans aren't simply guilty of knee-jerk reactions in opposing efforts to reach common ground. They also thumb their noses at the middle class, those who are struggling mightily in these rocky economic times. One after the other, congressional Republicans declared before TV cameras that the president's economic recovery plan won't work -- that it would rocket the country toward socialism and would only make things worse. The truth? Obama's recovery package contains the biggest middle-class tax cut in history. It will create or save at least 3 million jobs. In every community, district and state, its impact will soon be felt. Obama has made clear that this measure, while crucial, won't solve all our economic problems overnight. But no matter what the eventual impact, congressional Republicans have staked out their position: steadfastly opposing something most Americans see as reducing middle-class taxes and creating jobs when the country needs those outcomes most. There is still time for Washington Republicans to join some of their colleagues outside the Beltway and become partners in progress. As Americans, we should all hope that happens. But if the GOP sticks with its strategy of failure as the only option, further eroding its brand with the people who decide elections, we may find out what it means for a political party to hit rock bottom. The writer is senior adviser at AKPD Message and Media, a political consulting firm. He served as campaign manager for Obama for America and Obama-Biden 2008.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...9030303210.html

Can't say I disagree.

___________________

I'm not sure if it's been posted in this thread of somewhere else, but I saw this a week or so ago and it seems to fit perfectly.

Republican Game Theory

It's just sad that the only way Republicans feel they can "win" is if the USA as a whole loses. I realize that this is just that guy's opinion, but it does seem to fit the actions of the Republicans at this moment.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I'm not sure if it's been posted in this thread of somewhere else, but I saw this a week or so ago and it seems to fit perfectly. Republican Game Theory It's just sad that the only way Republicans feel they can "win" is if the USA as a whole loses. I realize that this is just that guy's opinion, but it does seem to fit the actions of the Republicans at this moment.

Wait--that's the global warming game theory board too!

DCCC new website, imsorryrush.com

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono It's just sad that the only way Republicans feel they can "win" is if the USA as a whole loses. I realize that this is just that guy's opinion, but it does seem to fit the actions of the Republicans at this moment.

ugh... when is it going to click with you people? Rush is NOT advocating that he's hopeful the economy fails so everyone can then see the error of their ways in voting for Obama.

He doesn't believe in the premise that Obama's economic strategy will work to begin with, so he wants that to fail, which he believes would lead to success for the economy and therefore success for the country. Read the post I put up on the previous page of him taking a call from someone who hoped it would happen the way you are thinking, and then explaining in his own words how the exact opposite is true.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights...

Yeah, I quite enjoyed that. Well, at least he hedged it by saying "we believe." I mean, you wouldn't normally preface a simple factual declaration as a statement of your "belief." It was as if he was subtly admitting: "I don't really have any idea what I'm talking about, but here's what I think anyway."

But I suppose that's what ought to be expected of a party whose rank-and-file think government policy should depend on the imaginary wishes of their imaginary friends...

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov David Plouffe may be the most brilliant political operative since Lee Atwater's brutal takedown of Dukakis in 88, and here's what he has to say about the implications of Rush pwning the entire Republican Party: Can't say I disagree.

One of the most brilliant, huh? lol.

Anyway that whole article is written under the premise, as believed by NeoPhono in his post, and the strategy propogated by the Democrats and repeated ad nausem by the sheep media supportes, that Rush is pushing for failure of this country. This is simply not true, as explained many times by me and with the backup of the direct quotes from Rush rather than cherry picked and twisted quotes/sound bites. But this doesn't fit the template of the Left, so they ignore it. Let me re-iterate one last time: Rush believes that the policies of government growth and excessive spending are counterproductive to a successful economy, and therefore wants those policies to fail so the country can succeed. What is wrong with saying that? Sheesh.

What is truly sad is that, as reported today by Politico, the Obama team has had a deliberate strategy in place MONTHS AGO aimed at the demonization of Rush. They have effectively fooled people into believing that a Chicago Machine politician really wanted to change the partisan nature of politics. It is now on the record, and not just speculation by "fear mongering right wingers":

quote:

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.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19596.html

If you read the rest of the article, you'll see how James Carville, Paul Begala, and even Stephonopolus have daily morning conference calls with Rahm Emanuel to coordinate an anti-Rush media blitz, and have been thinking that way since like October when they realized Rush had high negative polling numbers. It's really disgusting actually. Can you imagine if Bush had a morning war room session each day to strategize against Chris Matthews and Olbermann?

But this is what the Democrats have become. And sadly it's working. While the private sector wealth has dropped like 25% since November, all the Democrats can do is cry about Rush on a daily basis. It's a pathetic sideshow to cover up the greatest spending spree in history, touted as a "stimulus" to the economy.

Carville: “Your opponent can’t hit back when you have your fist in his face.” So much for changing the tone in Washington.

quote:

RUSH: 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.

Last edited by The17sss on Mar-05-2009 at 01:42

quote:

RUSH: 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.

We really are living in fucking bizarro world.

It's absolutely astounding.

If you replace "they" with "I" in that paragraph, it all makes sense.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

EDIT: forgot to respond to this stuff too, from Plouffe's article:

quote:

The truth? Obama's recovery package contains the biggest middle-class tax cut in history. It will create or save at least 3 million jobs. In every community, district and state, its impact will soon be felt. Obama has made clear that this measure, while crucial, won't solve all our economic problems overnight. But no matter what the eventual impact, congressional Republicans have staked out their position: steadfastly opposing something most Americans see as reducing middle-class taxes and creating jobs when the country needs those outcomes most.

This is a cruel joke. First of all, how do you measure a "saved" job. I like that nuanced choice of words- "create or save". We can see the plummeting number of private sector jobs (almost 700,000 in January), but I'm still waiting on those "saved jobs" numbers. Do government jobs fit in there? Is that what he's referring to? Because, none of them are losing work.

That whole line about "the largest middle class tax cut in history" is such bullshit. Who believes this? If he thinks an extra $13 per week this year, reduced to $8 per week in 2010 is a viable tax cut, then wow. If 40% of people don't pay taxes but get a "tax credit", and he wants to call that part of the tax cut, then wow. If he doesn't realize that the Bush tax cuts' expiration in 2010 will counteract whatever measley amount people will be getting in supposed benefits, then... shit.

And, he must not have read about the coming "Cap and Trade" policy that will be implemented, which will affect 100% of Americans right in the wallet.

Page 3: how it will depress growth----> http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/636.pdf

quote:

Estimated GDP losses vary widely, from a 0.3%-0.5% to 3% drop in GDP below the business-as-usual projections in 2015 and a 1% to 10% drop in 2050. The timeframes of new technology development and growth in existing clean sources of energy, availability of offsets (domestic, international), and banking of allowances are likely to account for most of these differences in GDP costs estimates.

Don't even get me started on how this has failed in Europe. But, the bad news gets worse. Not only will the GDP drop over both the short and long terms, but the increased price of energy will result in substantial costs to all Americans, and not just Obamass 5% at the top (page 9):

quote:

We find that a mitigation path consistent with Lieberman-Warner’s provisions is equivalent to a permanent tax increase for the average American household. This increase is projected to amount to an additional $1100 in taxes in 2008. Moreover, this cap-and-trade “tax” increases over time in real terms from about $1400 to $2000 during 2015-2030 and approximately $2000 to $3000 in 2030-2050. The de facto tax increase becomes quite significant when one considers the average American household spends about $2500 on food annually, or approximately $208 monthly. The decrease in consumption per capita of $277 annually is equivalent to more than one month’s food budget for the average American household, keeping other consumption levels constant. Another way to gauge this cap-and-trade tax impact is comparing it to auto-loan payments. For example, a new 2009 C-Class Mercedes can be leased for around $429 per month. A decrease in consumption by $1110 amounts is equivalent to 2.5 monthly payments on this luxury car. This tax amounts to about almost three and a half monthly payments in 2015 and almost seven payments in 2050.

So we make less, get less, and pay more... or do without. Does this sound at ALL like America?

quote:

RUSH: “Long after we’re all dead and gone, when historians who are not yet born begin to write about this era, they’re going to place George Bush in the upper echelon of presidents who had a great vision for America, who looked beyond our shores, who didn’t just restrict himself to domestic policy niceties.”

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.