|
Everything that is wrong about Rush thread
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Clovis |
Because I don't even know why we're discussing what this guy says.
Post it here, I'll start with Lebez' excellent post:
| quote: | Rush Limbaugh Is Hot Under the Collar
by Michael Wolff
Rush Limbaugh is worried. His anxiety might have something to do with his precipitous weight gain. Also, his speech patterns are showing stress. The normal enthusiastic, even jovial, oom-pa-pa of the instrument has become labored, dogged.
It’s a hinge moment for the Limbaugh career. The advent of the Obama administration and the sweeping gains of the Democratic Party, together with the disorganization and enfeeblement of the Republican Party, could be an incredible opportunity for Rush. He could become the remaining voice of the right. On the other hand, he could be marginalized out of existence. If the economy trumps ideology, if Obama makes progress neutralizing the political wars, that’s bad news for Rush.
Right now Rush is being played. The Obama dinner with conservative columnists, shortly before his inauguration, was as much about excluding Rush as coddling the columnists. Not only did the conservatives fawn, but Rush fumed. It got under his skin. Indeed, the rumor that he might in fact be there (likely coming from the Obama camp), and then his evident lack of an invitation, highlighted the slight. He’s tried to make it out to be a political point ever since, but mostly he sounds like a guy who’s hurt he didn’t get invited to the hot party.
Then, there was the president’s throw-away line suggesting that Republican lawmakers, in the midst of the greatest modern financial crisis, were glued to their radios listening to Rush rather than hard at work. It was deft suggestion, not so much about ideology but about seriousness. Rush isn’t.
He’s out on a limb, Rush. His current themes are about Obama’s radicalism, which, with every day of the new administration, seems a less and less sellable image, and—say-again?—the new president’s racism. Obama’s the racist, you see, in one of those message inversions coded so as to speak to actual racists. (“Racism in this country is the exclusive province of the left.”)
It’s an unaccustomed verbal flailing: “Most of these guys came alive in the Civil Rights battles of the Sixties…” (When Barack Obama was under seven). Obama is being forced on us by a left-wing, racist, homosexual conspiracy: “We’re being told we have to bend over and grab the ankles.”
The game the president is playing is to make a testy, easy-to-arouse, fun-to-rankle Rush come to stand for an odd-ball, tone-deaf, blowhard far right that the rest of the desperate-to-be-liked Republican Party will eagerly distance itself from (if Rush is trying to capitalize on the panty-waist demeanor of so many of his fellow Republicans, he’s also got to suspect that they’ll sell him out.)
Rush’s game is to try to stay in the game. To find some plausible way to characterize and ridicule the president, which will justify the $400 million what-were-they-thinking contract he signed with Clear Channel over the summer. The pressure is on.
****
Speaking of conservative careers, William Kristol’s has apparently ended with a whimper at the New York Times op-ed page. “This is William Kristol’s last column,” reads the strange footer, appended today to Kristol’s meandering, and not a little bizarre, paean to Barack Obama and the triumph of liberalism.
I am pleased to point out that Kristol’s demise was explicitly predicted in this column on Nov. 3 in a post titled: "NYT's Neocon Is Fading Fast." It seems germane to add that Kristol’s appointment to the op-ed page was another in a series of spectacularly tone-deaf, lame, and embarrassing moves by Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.
http://blog.newser.com/post/2009/01...the-Collar.aspx |
|
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Rush Limbaugh's a disloyal clown when he says he hopes Obama fails
Radio talking head Rush Limbaugh said he hopes President Obama fails. Limbaugh would have you believe he is a bedrock defender of this country, that he loves it more than the rest of us, more than anything. That's a lie. Limbaugh just told us so, emphatically. It's not the country they love. It's the attention. The ideology, their perversion of conservatism, is but a means toward that end.
By Leonard Pitts Jr
Syndicated columnist
PREV of NEXT
Rush Limbaugh stirs the pot.
"I hope he fails."
— Rush Limbaugh
It is, of course, a calculated outrage.
Meaning, it was spewed by a clown in the media circus to kick a familiar sequence into motion: angry denunciation by bloggers, pundits and supporters of President Obama (the "he" whose failure is hoped), followed by Rush Limbaugh refusing to retract a word, a courageous truth teller who will not be moved. And, trailing behind, like the folks with brooms trail the elephants in the circus parade, Limbaugh's devotees, complaining that their hero has been misquoted, misunderstood, or otherwise mistreated. "What Rush meant was ... yadda yadda yadda."
A calculated outrage.
And knowing this, knowing how frequently and adroitly media are manipulated by self-promoting media clowns who defame conservatism by calling themselves conservative, one is tempted to let the statement pass, to make its way unimpeded to the dustbin like so many other manufactured controversies. But occasionally, it's necessary to intercept one of them and hold it up to the light.
This is one of those times. Not because what Limbaugh said on his radio program a few days before the inauguration was an outrage — outrage is the point, remember? — but rather, because of what the thing he said says about him and his fellow clowns.
"I hope he fails."
Do you ever say that about your president if you are an American who loves your country? Would you say it about George W. Bush, who was disastrous, about Bill Clinton, who was slimy, about Jimmy Carter, who was inept, about Richard Nixon, who was crooked? You may think he's going to fail, yes. You may warn he's going to fail, yes.
But do you ever "hope" he fails? Knowing his failure is the country's failure? Isn't that, well ... disloyal?
The irony is that Limbaugh and the other clowns would have you believe they are bedrock defenders of this country, that they love it more than the rest of us, more than anything.
That's a lie. Limbaugh just told us so, emphatically.
It's not the country they love. It's the attention. The ideology, their perversion of conservatism, is but a means toward that end.
Yes, an observer might point out that it's counterproductive to give them attention while decrying their love of attention. But, as already noted, occasionally the clowns spew something that cannot, and ought not, be ignored.
Ideological division is nothing new to politics. But has ideology ever taken quite the seat of prominence it now enjoys? Have people ever been quite so prone to regard their ideological identity as more important than their national identity? The last 30 years are rare in that regard, if not unique.
"I hope he fails?!"
So that, what? The defamation of conservatism Limbaugh represents will stand vindicated? The Republicans will pick up a few seats in the midterm election? Limbaugh's "side" — his word — will score points?
Is this only a game, then? No lives at stake, no future on the line, no planet in the balance? Just a game?
I hope he bricks this free throw.
I hope he fumbles that pass.
I hope he fails.
And to hell with the country.
The country doesn't matter. The "side" does. And Limbaugh's side seems angry in power and angry out. It's as if anger is all they really have.
Barack Obama was elected in large part on a promise to carry the nation past anger, past the notion that either party has a monopoly on wisdom, past the belief that ideology is identity. He was elected because people want a sense of mission that makes them feel like Americans again.
If he is successful, Limbaugh and the other clowns will face tough sledding in a radically different world. Small wonder he is so eager to strangle this presidency in its infancy. And need it even be said?
I hope he fails.
Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr.'s column appears Sunday on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is: [email protected]
|
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...ina25pitts.html |
|
|
| The17sss |
Interesting point... considering the other day Obama said to Republicans in the stimulus meeting asking for consideration with what they were asking, "I won... I'll trump you on that." The era of bipartisanship begineth!
| quote: | | Barack Obama was elected in large part on a promise to carry the nation past anger, past the notion that either party has a monopoly on wisdom, past the belief that ideology is identity. He was elected because people want a sense of mission that makes them feel like Americans again. |
This is such a cheesy idealistc paragraph. If people actually believe his election will "carry the nation past anger," they're stupid. Obama himself is singling out someone who's not even an elected official and how can't affect policy. January 14th- Rush asked, "how long before Obama takes a shot at me?" Took about 10 days.
He was elected because people want a sense of mission that makes them feel like Americans again? LOL! What does that even mean? I guess blasting the public with another trillion dollars in spending will make them feel like Americans again, eh?
Truth is, Obama hopes Limbaugh fails... that's the irony here:
| quote: | "We can't let Rush Limbaugh stall the stimulus plan." Now, this is the great unifier. This is the man that's going to unify everybody and usher in a new era of bipartisan and love. He's obviously more frightened of me than he is Mitch McConnell. He is more frightened of me than he is of, say, John Boehner, which doesn't say much about our party. I mean, to tell you the truth, folks, if the president is a little more worried about somebody on the radio than he is about somebody on Capitol Hill...
I think Obama wants me to fail, there's no question. Obama didn't use the words, but President Obama, by telling you and elected Republicans in Washington not to listen to me because I am not how things get done in Washington, he has said that he wants me to fail. And we know how outraged the Drive-By Media got when they reported that that's what I said about Obama's policies.
This is a political play and a lot of people I think are misunderstanding this. "He's frightened of Limbaugh." I don't think he's afraid of anybody. He's the president of the United States. This is a political play to marginalize me so that Republicans are afraid to associate with my ideas or any of us. He wants conservatism, mainstream conservatism to be thought of the way you and I think of communism. He wants it thought of as the most foreign, the most offensive, the most extreme manner of belief possible.
There are no elected Republicans who are espousing conservatism today, so he’s gotta find somebody who is. I happen to be the most prominent voice, but there are many others, so he focuses on me. This is a Saul Alinsky radical rule number 13: Pick the target, me, isolate it, polarize it. |
|
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Interesting point... considering the other day Obama said to Republicans in the stimulus meeting asking for consideration with what they were asking, "I won... I'll trump you on that." The era of bipartisanship begineth! |
I'm so ing glad. Payback is a ing bitch isn't it.
| quote: |
This is such a cheesy idealistc paragraph. If people actually believe his election will "carry the nation past anger," they're stupid. Obama himself is singling out someone who's not even an elected official and how can't affect policy. January 14th- Rush asked, "how long before Obama takes a shot at me?" Took about 10 days.
He was elected because people want a sense of mission that makes them feel like Americans again? LOL! What does that even mean? I guess blasting the public with another trillion dollars in spending will make them feel like Americans again, eh?
Truth is, Obama hopes Limbaugh fails... that's the irony here: |
Limbaugh fails all on his own. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
I'm so ing glad. Payback is a ing bitch isn't it.
|
It is brutal, yes... lord is it ing brutal. But it's also showing the words of unity and bipartisanship are empty.
| quote: | | Limbaugh fails all on his own. |
He's a polarizing figure, no doubt. And I can understand how people with a certain set of beliefs would hate him. But, he's a better example of success than failure... he was fired many times in his 20's, and filed for bankruptcy twice in his life before finally making it big. He never once asked for assistance or handouts along the way. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
It is brutal, yes... lord is it ing brutal. But it's also showing the words of unity and bipartisanship are empty.
|
Hardly. Even giving the other side the opportunity to ask questions and give their input is a HUGE step from the previous years. I just don't want the right using the guise of bipartisanship to get their piece in. Compromise means both sides, not "ok we'll do what you want then".
| quote: |
He's a polarizing figure, no doubt. And I can understand how people with a certain set of beliefs would hate him. But, he's a better example of success than failure... he was fired many times in his 20's, and filed for bankruptcy twice in his life before finally making it big. He never once asked for assistance or handouts along the way. |
I'm not talking about wealth. Limbaugh is and always has been a moral failure. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
Compromise means both sides, not "ok we'll do what you want then". |
Alright... I'm going to remember this quote :p
... it also doesn't mean "we're going to do with we want, period." |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
Are you seriously prepared to make the argument that Obama hasn't reached out to conservatives on the stimulus? It takes both sides to compromise whether Obama is willing to work on a bipartisan basis or not. It's not realistic to expect Obama to swing wildly to the right just because they're not willing to cooperate in the middle.
This embodies more than just Rush - it's a dangerous element of the right fringe that thankfully is becoming less mainstream. Josh Marshall identified it pretty well today:
| quote: | I hear a lot of talk about whether Obama's governing approach can be 'bipartisan' if a good number of Republicans don't vote for his Stimulus Bill. But that dubious point seems to be obscuring a more obvious and telling reality: the Republican leadership in both houses has decided that it's in their political interest to oppose the Stimulus Bill no matter what.
In the most cynical of evaluations, it's not clear to me that they're incorrect. If the stimulus is judged a success, their political gain from adding more votes to what will be seen as Obama's bill will not be that great. So they're figuring that only failure will work for them politically; and they judge that they want Obama to own it entirely.
One can pick apart the political ethics of their stand, but the reality of it is clear. They want to criticize as many provisions of the bill as possible, push for as many non-stimulus inducing tax cuts as possible at the expense of spending on infrastructure, and then vote against the final bill en masse. I think it's possible Obama will get a smattering of moderate Republicans in the senate. But that is the Boehner/McConnell approach -- and the one few if any reporters seem to have the wherewithal to say out loud.
The McConnell/Boehner plan is to fix the Bush mess by pushing through more of the former president's policies. Again. Totally clear. I don't think they'd even deny it. Why is this off-limits to say out loud?
--Josh Marshall |
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ar...the_obvious.php
When you've got people like Rush Limbaugh for whom bipartisanship is anathema to what he does, and people like Sen. Ensign saying today that a truly bipartisan bill would be modeled after the 2001 Bush tax cuts, you can see that Obama isn't dealing with people who want bipartisanship at all. They want to win, and they want Obama to lose. The fact that he's sticking to his principles and still making an attempt to work with Republicans instead of acquiescing to liberal demands to shove something down their throats is a true testament to the man in my opinion, and it boggles my mind how Republicans can sit here and criticize him for wanting to work with them without becoming them. It really demonstrates to me why Republicans are quickly fading from the vox populi - they don't operate in the same political reality as the rest of us do. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Are you seriously prepared to make the argument that Obama hasn't reached out to conservatives on the stimulus? It takes both sides to compromise whether Obama is willing to work on a bipartisan basis or not. It's not realistic to expect Obama to swing wildly to the right just because they're not willing to cooperate in the middle. |
Yes, I am prepared to make that argument on the same basis of political strategy that you claim the Republicans are making. Is it not possible that Obama knows he doesn't need Republican votes to pass the legislation he wants, but WANTS them so if this massive boondoggle fails, he won't have to own it himself? In 1993 the GOP did not give a single vote to Clinton's spending plan and in 1994 they took over the house. The truth is, nobody knows if this will be successful, and there is a solid chance it won't be... the Obama team is already lowering expectations by saying repeatedly that things are going to get worse and may be that way for 2 years, no doubt so they can own victory of the stimulus package even shows a miniscule shread of positive progress. It seems like you just expect the GOP to be moderates... the reason they have failed miserably as of late is precisely because they have taken that path and not stood firm to their true conservative principles. By blasting this massive spending bill, they are not being fringe kooks, they are returning to their true conservative principles that gave them so much success in the past, political expediency or not.
| quote: | | Ensign saying today that a truly bipartisan bill would be modeled after the 2001 Bush tax cuts, you can see that Obama isn't dealing with people who want bipartisanship at all. They want to win, and they want Obama to lose. The fact that he's sticking to his principles and still making an attempt to work with Republicans instead of acquiescing to liberal demands to shove something down their throats is a true testament to the man in my opinion, and it boggles my mind how Republicans can sit here and criticize him for wanting to work with them without becoming them. It really demonstrates to me why Republicans are quickly fading from the vox populi - they don't operate in the same political reality as the rest of us do. |
There's a flip side to that coin man... the democrats have not been bi-partisan at all either, and have voted the way they want because they want to win. It's all smoke and mirrors man; the illusion of bi-partisanship is in full bloom because Obama is inviting republicans to these meetings to "hear them out"... but he's obviously not going to take them seriously and still get passed what he wants passed. Nobody is expecting Obama to "become" them, and it's all just rhetoric about showing bi-partisanship until something proves otherwise. McCain was the perfect example of that type of candidate and that type of idea, and it didn't work.
It's a lot more about being in power and a lot less than idealism. Since Pelosi and Reid have taken over in 2006, when have they even slightly considered anything of a bi-partisan nature? Republicans are encouraged to walk across the aisle. I can't think of when democrats walk across to the republican side. I'll say again: the GOP is fading and failing for no other reason than leaving their conservative principles at the door. It's always going to be like this man... one political party will wear out its welcome in 5-10 years, and the other will take over, and the cycle will continue.
From that article you posted:
| quote: | | They want to criticize as many provisions of the bill as possible, push for as many non-stimulus inducing tax cuts as possible at the expense of spending on infrastructure, and then vote against the final bill en masse. |
... the tax cuts IN the stimulus aren't really tax cuts... much of it is giving free money to people who already don't pay taxes, which is really welfare. |
|
|
| The17sss |
Forgot, Lebez... this was Rush's proposal to Obama on a truly bi-partisan stimulus package. What is the problem with an idea like this, in your opinion?
| quote: | Mine is a genuine compromise. So let's look at how the vote came out, shall we? Fifty-three percent of voters in this country -- we'll say, for the sake of this proposal, 53% of Americans -- voted for Obama. Forty-six percent voted for Senator McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Let's give the remaining 1% to President Obama, so let's say that 54% voted for President Obama and 46% voted for Senator McCain. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009, $540 billion of the one trillion will be spent on infrastructure as defined by President Obama and the Democrats. The remaining $460 billion, or 46% that voted for Senator McCain, will be directed towards tax cuts, as determined by me.
These tax cuts will consist primarily of capital gains tax cuts and corporate tax rate cuts. So Obama gets $540 billion to spend his way. The other people of this country who did not vote for his way get $460 billion spent the way they would like it spent. This is bipartisanship. This is how bipartisanship really works. Now we compare. We see which stimulus actually works and works the fastest, and I will guarantee you that if this plan is adopted, just the announcement that $460 billion will go toward paying for tax cuts, capital gains, and corporate tax rates -- we could throw in some personal income tax rate reduction in order to make sure that the voters don't think it's all about helping the big guys. But we need jobs, do we not?
Who hires people? Businesses! Businesses need tax cuts. The US corporate tax rate is obscene. It is the highest of all industrialized nations. It's 35%. Cut it. Cut it in half. Make the capital gains rate go away for three months, and then get out of the way to see what happens on Wall Street. And once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, you watch what happens to the rest of the private sector. It will follow right along. This would ensure a bipartisan compromise bill, as Democrats have said that they're always about. It would satisfy the American people's wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a test, going forward, as to which approach best stimulates the growth of jobs -- and it can be measured side by side. It could be determined where the new jobs are coming from.
And if President Obama would merely say -- if he would merely say -- that he will take this proposal under serious consideration, we would then see the reaction from the financial markets, which tend to be a barometer of the economy going forward. That is, if President Obama said that he thought this compromise proposal was worth his time to look at, the markets could react to that, just the way they did when President Clinton announced that he had reached agreement in principle with Republicans to balance the budget in the nineties. The market reacted positively to that news. Not to a formal bill signing, but to the news. If we have learned anything in recent months, the financial markets more than ever look to Washington for direction.
That's bad. The markets should be looking at the market. But they're not. The markets are looking to Washington. That's where we are. That's what "is" is. So let's float a trial balloon on this compromise. This satisfies every claim and demand of bipartisanship. This satisfies the people who lost the election. Those people are also people for which the president is the president. He's not just the president of the people who elected him. His job, he says, is to get the economy going. This would do it. This would not disenfranchise the people who did not vote for him. And as I say, not only would it work but it would provide a side-by-side test where we could see which part of this stimulus plan does better, so that the next recession we will know what to do. |
|
|
|
| LazFX |
Rush represents the dying old, out dated ruling class here in America. Plain and simple... Due to his past I can honestly say that he is a racist. him!
| quote: |
......I think it more likely that the schism within the Republican party is simply coming to a head. They lost to Obama...ok, actually they got their asses kicked by Obama...and now they're trying to figure out what to do next. The social conservatives are *clearly* to blame but being fanatics they can't admit they made a mistake (they're chosen of God, remember? God doesn't make mistakes). And the fiscal conservatives have been slowly leaking out of the party for years. There aren't enough fiscal conservatives to make a stand against the social conservatives.
And that's just ONE factor at work here. There's also a generational gap too. The party leadership has failed to maintain any sort of connection the 'next generation' voters. And they haven't quite figured out that the younger generation really IS smarter than the old farts currently in charge.
lots of factors, lots of reasons for a schism. And Rush having a major meltdown about Obama every afternoon isn't helping the party leadership keep it all together. Remember - they NEED to regain ground during the midterm elections. If they just barely hold on then it's not enough.
Eventually, after he keeps screaming and screaming, Rush will turn around and see that there is no one behind him, no one supporting him. He will look around, but there will be nothing but empty space, not a sound emulating from anywhere outside of his confused whimpering. He will plead for the nothingness to back away, asking, pleading for someone to listen. He will crouch to the ground, softly crying and slowly getting quieter in his pleads for attention. Then the camera will zoom back, and the circle of light around him gets smaller and smaller. Finally, the screen will fade to black and then, silence. |
 |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Yes, I am prepared to make that argument on the same basis of political strategy that you claim the Republicans are making. Is it not possible that Obama knows he doesn't need Republican votes to pass the legislation he wants, but WANTS them so if this massive boondoggle fails, he won't have to own it himself? In 1993 the GOP did not give a single vote to Clinton's spending plan and in 1994 they took over the house. The truth is, nobody knows if this will be successful, and there is a solid chance it won't be... the Obama team is already lowering expectations by saying repeatedly that things are going to get worse and may be that way for 2 years, no doubt so they can own victory of the stimulus package even shows a miniscule shread of positive progress. It seems like you just expect the GOP to be moderates... the reason they have failed miserably as of late is precisely because they have taken that path and not stood firm to their true conservative principles. By blasting this massive spending bill, they are not being fringe kooks, they are returning to their true conservative principles that gave them so much success in the past, political expediency or not. |
What? So you're just being cynical that Obama has some devious plan here? Josh Marshall pointed out that Boehner and McConnell are being completely open about wanting ownership of the stimulus or nothing at all (see the Ensign quote, for example) - Obama is going against the wishes of both Pelosi and Reid (whom you hate) in order to work with Republicans on this. That's not just talk.
| quote: | | There's a flip side to that coin man... the democrats have not been bi-partisan at all either, and have voted the way they want because they want to win. |
You can't compare Obama to Pelosi. Obama's bringing change to the Democratic Party too, remember?
| quote: | | It's all smoke and mirrors man; the illusion of bi-partisanship is in full bloom because Obama is inviting republicans to these meetings to "hear them out"... but he's obviously not going to take them seriously and still get passed what he wants passed. |
Obviously? You act as if this is just pretense. I don't think you understand the level of concern among progressive democrats. The biggest criticism of Obama is coming from the left right now - that he is sitting around waiting for Republicans to realize they love their country too while he could be passing a more liberal (and infrastructure-heavy) stimulus on his own.
| quote: | | It's a lot more about being in power and a lot less than idealism. Since Pelosi and Reid have taken over in 2006, when have they even slightly considered anything of a bi-partisan nature? |
FISA. |
|
|
|
|
