Patterico's Pontifications

2/8/2009

Misunderstanding Rush Limbaugh

Filed under: General — Jack Dunphy @ 2:06 pm

[Guest post by Jack Dunphy]

Today the Los Angeles Times devoted a portion of its front page and more than a thousand words to Rush Limbaugh, and like most liberal media organs that have examined what we might call the Limbaugh phenomenon, they fail in their effort to help readers understand it. This is a failure that might have been avoided had the writers merely listened to his program.

The article quotes Rich Bond, former chairman of the Republican National Committee. “The question is,” Bond says, “are we going to have an all-white-man litmus test under the Republican Party? Or is there room for diverse opinion on environmental issues, on the issue of right to life, the issue of taxes and spending?”

Thus the article advances the notion that Limbaugh’s views are retrograde, that today’s Republicans should somehow reach accommodation with those who advocate for increased government regulation on environmental issues, increased taxes and government spending, and, worst of all, abortion on demand.

Rubbish. As anyone who listens to Limbaugh’s program with any regularity can attest, he is not the least bit interested in finding accommodation with policies that are corrosive to freedom at best and immoral at worst. He has no interest in expanding the Republican Party by making it more like the Democrat Party. Rather, he seeks to expand it by persuading his listeners of the superiority of conservative principles, which, far from being “all-white” as Bond claims, are unbound by race or ethnicity. Limbaugh may find that this task grows easier as Americans come to realize the Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress will not be delivering the peace and prosperity they so lavishly promised.

–Jack Dunphy

Update: Readers here on Patterico may not be familiar with my writing for National Review Online and Pajamas Media, but as I once explained on NRO (here and here), I was once a squishy-headed liberal, the kind of person who, had the Internet been around in those medieval times, would have written the sort of snarky, conservatives-are-evil comments that surely will soon be appended to this post. Needless to say, I’m not any longer, and I’m grateful to Mr. Limbaugh for his contributions to my education.

452 Comments

  1. I find it continually hilarious to hear the MSM refer to Limbaugh as some type of lone voice of the “conservative movement.” I think one of the few times I ever listened to him was back in the mid – 90′s, when he was doing his amusing “America Held Hostage” routine. I don’t know anyone else who’s ever listened to Rush, but those same folks also have no problem declaring that they understand everything about the man and what he stands for – because, of course, they just know.

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 2/8/2009 @ 2:18 pm

  2. Or is there room for diverse opinion on environmental issues, on the issue of right to life, the issue of taxes and spending?”

    Oh, brother. Rich Bond sounds like he’s one of those people who’s too philosophically willy-nilly to know which way is really up or really down, what is truly good or truly bad. Aluminum-siding salesmen everywhere would consider such people ideal candidates for a smooth-talking pitch.

    Maybe enough Americans are gullible (or foolish) enough to fall for the rhetoric from the left. And maybe some folks on the right will be naturally influenced by — because they want to conform to and be popular in cocktail circles (in Manhattan, DC or West LA—or Barack’s hometown of Chicago) — various election-day trends going back a few years and that reached a crescendo on November 4, 2008. But not me, more now than ever before.

    http://www.smh.com.au, 11-27-08:

    One of Australia’s leading enviro-sceptics, the geologist and University of Adelaide professor Ian Plimer, 62, says he has noticed audiences becoming more receptive to his message that climate change has always occurred and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

    In a speech at the American Club in Sydney on Monday night for Quadrant magazine, titled Human-Induced Climate Change – A Lot Of Hot Air, Plimer debunked climate-change myths.

    “Climates always change,” he said. Our climate has changed in cycles over millions of years, as the orbit of the planet wobbles and our distance from the sun changes, for instance, or as the sun itself produces variable amounts of radiation. “All of this affects climate. It is impossible to stop climate change. Climates have always changed and they always will.”

    His two-hour presentation included more than 50 charts and graphs, as well as almost 40 pages of references. It is the basis of his new book, Heaven And Earth: The Missing Science Of Global Warming, to be published early next year.

    Plimer said one of the charts, which plots atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature over 500 million years, with seemingly little correlation, demonstrates one of the “lessons from history” to which geologists are privy: “There is no relationship between CO2 and temperature.”

    Another slide charts the alternating periods of cooling and warming on Earth, with the Pleistocene Ice Age starting 110,000 years ago and giving way, 14,700 years ago, to the Bolling warm period for 800 years. This in turn gave way to the Older Dryas cooling for 300 years, then the Allerod warming for 700 years, and so on, until the cooling of the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850. Since 1850, we have lived through the “Modern Warming”, one of the most stable climate periods in history.

    Plimer said some astronomers predict we are headed for a new cooling period.

    Plimer said there is a division between those scientists who sit in front of super computers and push piles of data into the mathematical models that drive the theory of climate change, and those who take measurements in the field.

    We are not sceptical enough about the data. For instance, Plimer cited differences between results from temperature measuring stations in urban and rural areas. Those in urbanised Chicago, Berkeley, New York, and so on, show temperature rises over the past 150 years, whereas those in the rural US, in Houlton, Albany and Harrisburg (though not Death Valley, California) show equally consistent cooling. “What we’re measuring is urbanisation,” Plimer said.

    Plimer says creationists and climate alarmists are quite similar in that “we’re dealing with dogma and people who, when challenged, become quite vicious and irrational”.

    Human-caused climate change is being “promoted with religious zeal … there are fundamentalist organisations which will do anything to silence critics. They have their holy books, their prophet [is] Al Gore. And they are promoting a story which is frightening us witless [using] guilt [and urging] penance.”

    By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
    New York Times, December 20, 2008

    Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

    Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

    Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

    According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

    Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 2/8/2009 @ 2:42 pm

  3. Limbaugh’s listening audience is relatively narrow — it is predominantly white, male and politically conservative — but highly motivated. Many of the 20 million or so who tune in each week are willing, even eager, to pummel their opponents with letters, phone calls and e-mails to make their voices heard.

    …that’s from the LAT article.

    At his urging, loyal listeners would fire tens of thousands of telegrams to Congress, where he was feared for his ability to mobilize the otherwise inarticulate. His Sunday “Hour of Power” became an uneasily accurate title, intimidating many of his political, business and religious targets.*

    For real. This Limbaugh sort of thing scares the holy crap out of Progressives. Limbaugh is dead on about that. Baracky is not big on the whole freedom and liberty thing. Rush better watch his ass I think.

    Comment by happyfeet (71f55e) — 2/8/2009 @ 2:49 pm

  4. Mr. Dunphy: the title ought to be “Misunderestimating Rush Limbaugh.”

    Given the way that the MSM behaves.

    Nice post, as usual.

    Comment by Eric Blair (1aa50b) — 2/8/2009 @ 2:51 pm

  5. Oh please. The Lost Angles Times (yet another ‘newspaper’ desperately seeking relevance in an increasingly Internet news world) taking their mighty Nerf-bat against Rush Limbaugh? It is to laugh!

    I can see right through their rationale:

    1. Rush Limbaugh as more listeners in California alone than the Lost Angels Times has in the entire country! All of that lost advertisement revenue. All of those old readers that sought clear thinking and a sense of humor. Gone! All Gone!

    2. The Alinsky-ite formula of ‘Pick the target, Freeze it, Personalize it and Polarize it’ doesn’t work, regardless of what The Presidential Empty Suit says. Limbaugh has been around through both Clinton’s Administration if they couldn’t silence him (short of doing a Vince Foster), The One and the Democrat Majority sure can’t. Even if The Harpy Harridan Herself knows what would happen if she sics her creatures on Rush.

    Just another reason the Lost Angles Times is fit for nothing other than bird cage liner.

    Comment by SeniorD (b1a312) — 2/8/2009 @ 2:58 pm

  6. It also does the LAT’s article little good that the new RNC chairman is not only black, but thinks in a manner akin to Mr. Limbaugh…

    Ah well…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (who wants DRJ to come back) (a1c284) — 2/8/2009 @ 2:59 pm

  7. The “charity” figures for conservatives are skewed by religious giving.

    Even Brooks acknowledges that when you take out tithes to churches, liberals give more to charities.

    As for Limbaugh, he’s by far the most successful radio host ever.

    Why, then, are conservatives always whining that they don’t get a fair shake in the media?

    Why isn’t Limbaugh, et. al. enough for them?

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/8/2009 @ 3:06 pm

  8. So there should be “room for diverse opinion on environmental issues, on the issue of right to life, the issue of taxes and spending” — just not, apparently, room for Rush Limbaugh’s opinions on those issues, on Rush Limbaugh’s own radio program, which no one is forced to listen to, or, unlike NPR, pay taxes for.

    Maybe some Republicans will want to join the Democrats in bring back the “Fairness [Fascist] Doctrine.”

    Comment by DWPittelli (dd9f59) — 2/8/2009 @ 3:53 pm

  9. As a Democrat, I wholeheartedly say: More Rush. More and more Rush.

    The Republicans have at last arrived where they were headed all along!

    Let’s hope Rush does his part to keep them there…

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/8/2009 @ 4:07 pm

  10. Hack Scum – We get it. You are mendoucheous. You no longer need to prove it. There is a consensus.

    Comment by JD (fb1fc9) — 2/8/2009 @ 4:20 pm

  11. The troll, as usual, omits the 1994 phenomenon. The Clinton people were sure that Republicans were gone forever. After all, they hadn’t been in the majority since 1948. Presidents come and go but the Congress stays Democrat. But then a funny thing happened. Bill Clinton got cocky (He might have even said “I won.”) and offered some rather radical proposals. gays in the military, a health plan designed in secret by Ira Magaziner whose previous projects had crashed and burned. It was sort of like proposing to close Gitmo with no place to put the bad guys and spending two trillion dollars on God-knows-what.

    If Obama had tried real bipartisanship, Limbaugh would have less leverage. When the public sees this porkfest and the Son-of-TARP that will be rolled out once the porculus is passed, we may have a different situation. Obama’s approval rating is falling as fast as the unemployment rate is going up.

    He has chosen the partisan route so he will own this economy in a year. No cover. If it works, and almost no economist thinks it will, then the Democrats can take credit. If it doesn’t, 1994 all over again. I just hope Steele is recruiting good candidates for those House seats. He is a sharp guy although I would have been better briefed today on This Week. They have got to get the oppo research folks working overtime.

    Stephanopolis asked Steele about education spending in the bill. Steele should have had the Milwaukee story ready. Milwaukee gets $85 million for schools but has 15 closed schools. It’s just a valentine to the teachers union.

    Comment by Mike K (2cf494) — 2/8/2009 @ 4:23 pm

  12. The Dog Trainer, as usual, lets its politics get in the way of reporting. Russ Limbaugh’s audience may well be largely white, male and politically conservative. And in the Dog Trainer’s view, that makes his audience relatively narrow. The only problem is the fact that there are 20 million of them, and El Rushbo can get them stirred up–and frequently does.

    The other problem is that this “narrow” audience is the largest talk show audience in the country.

    I listen to Limbaugh on occasion–and more often than not turn him off and switch to some other progam or to blessed silence. Limbaugh’s ego is as big as,well, as big as Obama’s!

    So it’s not all beer and skittles, peaches and cream etc. But as correctly pointed out above, Limbaugh is relevant to a heck of a lot more people than is the Los Angeles Times.

    Comment by Mike Myers (674050) — 2/8/2009 @ 4:32 pm

  13. Dr. K… Have you notice that trolls never allow for the possibility that they might be wrong? I noticed that as I read your post above—you gave the other side of that issue: what if Obama’s Porkulus Package (eeewww) actually works?

    Also, I doubt that this guy has listened to Limbaugh much. I find that many people who get all snide and nasty don’t actually listen to their opponents (“I know what he says” they will grate, and I’ll think “How? Telepathy?“). And here is the thing that the Doctrinaire Lefties miss: there are many, many people who listen to Limbaugh who disagree with him on various issues. They do listen and consider what he has to say.

    But the spleen that is vented toward Limbaugh and his listeners is…interesting. I mean, if the PLs are so correct, why the spittle-screened rants or the arrogant bragging?

    Comment by Eric Blair (cc9718) — 2/8/2009 @ 4:36 pm

  14. “There is a consensus.”

    - JD

    Whoah, careful throwing that word around. Keep using it so flippantly and Patterico might have to write a post about “The Emerging Consensus [About Hax Vobiscum] That Actually Isn’t.”

    Comment by Leviticus (fe6d1b) — 2/8/2009 @ 4:47 pm

  15. Leviticus – I am using the Leftist definition of consensus.

    Comment by JD (fb1fc9) — 2/8/2009 @ 4:51 pm

  16. Oh, right. How could I have missed that?

    Comment by Leviticus (fe6d1b) — 2/8/2009 @ 4:58 pm

  17. AFAICR, Limbaugh rarely gives out phone numbers for people to call anyone. I don’t listen but once in a blue moon anymore, but the only times I really heard him push a phone number other than his own was for charity.

    But, damn, what’s with the sudden spike in totally unrelated stories and attacks on Limbaugh? I’m sure it’s not a matter of talking points being circulated, or part of a campaign to prepare for the “fairness doctrine” to come back.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/8/2009 @ 4:59 pm

  18. Great read – The MSM apparently is incapable of doing any real reporting. I have personally met three people who hated Rush Limbaugh who later admitted they had never listened to his program. Liberalism in action.

    Comment by tyree (ad0b00) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:01 pm

  19. Rush Limbaugh misunderstood? Maybe, but never misunderestimated!

    Comment by George W Bush (556f76) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:02 pm

  20. Dear JD:

    “…There is a consensus…”

    Indeed. The debate is over. And if anyone disagrees, why, they are no different from Holocaust Deniers.

    It’s always amazing to me how different a situation can be, based on a “D” or an “R.”

    Comment by Eric Blair (cc9718) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:03 pm

  21. The Republicans have at last arrived where they were headed all along!

    How’s your pet ocelot these days? Isn’t his name Whiskers, or something else that sounds foppish like you?

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:03 pm

  22. The LAT isn’t capable of writing coherently about Rush. Hard to admit but the NYT Magazine a few months ago did a much better job. They understand him and that’s WHY they hate him.

    I’m also a former 25+ year lefty Dem turned conservative thanks to Rush. THIS is what his goal is. A lot of us are his success stories and we’re very grateful.

    Comment by Peg C. (48175e) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:12 pm

  23. Ya know, given the “ash heap of history” rhetoric coming form the left towards Republicans, it could get quite ugly if Republicans retake Congress in 2010.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:12 pm

  24. The key for 2010 is to recruit good candidates. That is Steele’s biggest job, that and raising money. Rahm Emmanuel did a great job of recruiting D candidates in crossover districts. The trouble is that those districts may swing very right in 2010 because of Obama and Pelosi. They call them crossover districts because they can…

    Well, you know. Remember Marjorie Margolies ?

    Comment by Mike K (2cf494) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:25 pm

  25. Rush delivers exactly the canned, reconstituted, narrow “news” a lot of “conservatives” crave.

    Does he “report” news?

    Nah. He reads it in the MSM, the spins it his way.

    With lots of “liberals are evil” chants thrown in.

    And the wingnutters eat it with a spoon…

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:29 pm

  26. Your ignorance would be breath-taking Hax, if it weren’t so predictable.

    How long have you worked in the newspaper business?

    Comment by Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:30 pm

  27. Rush is success as a conservative starts with the fact that he is a conservative. His views are sincere. That is why William F. Buckley and he got along so well, they were kindered spirits on what they believed in (and also shared an appreciation for fine adult beverages).

    Now it also helps Rush is a smart guy, understands what he is taking about, and understands the medium he is in. But none of that would mean anything if Rush did not believe what he was saying.

    Comment by Joe (17aeff) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:34 pm

  28. Hax – How are you coming on looking up those IRS income tax payments by income decile to back up your points on the Bush tax cuts? People are waiting.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:34 pm

  29. Hex, how many minutes have you been listening to Rush Limbaugh?

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:35 pm

  30. Rush also understands liberals and their constant lies, which is why they spend so much time and effort dishonestly attacking him.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:39 pm

  31. canned, reconstituted, narrow “news”? That sounds more like NPR than Rush really. I don’t really listen to him but my dad used to and I’d hear it sometimes in the car. But it’s not canned like NPR where everything is edited and they cull out things they don’t want you to hear and they clean up audio and take out the Caroline Kennedy type speech defects a lot of the people they interview have.

    Comment by happyfeet (71f55e) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:41 pm

  32. You guys misunderstand, I come not to bury Limbaugh, but to praise him.

    He provides EXACTLY what you need.

    His product is tailor made for you.

    You don’t need news and he doesn’t report any.

    You need reassurance that you’re not as dumb as the news makes you feel.

    And Rush delivers that with consummate skill and perseverance…

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:41 pm

  33. He also scares the bejesus out of Baracky Sue.

    Comment by happyfeet (71f55e) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:43 pm

  34. So, hax, are you aware you’re a bigot, or are you completely blind to the fact?

    Comment by Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:46 pm

  35. AsSignificant number of hate filled liberals are going to be surprised when they discover that President Obama’s election had more to do with Bush’s liberal platform rather than Obama’s liberal platform.

    Comment by tyree (ad0b00) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:48 pm

  36. Oh, come on Jack! The Lost Angeles Times knows PERFECTLY WELL what it expects whenever they have a story involving Rush Limbaugh: INCREASED TRAFFIC TO THE LOST ANGELES TIMES! And El Rushbo is more than happy to help facilitate the traffic in all its forms. Sounds to me like you’re another conservative who should wonder about his future whenever he/she stumbles upon the words Limbaugh said to the New York Times last year:

    ‘Do you know what bought me all this?’ he asked, waving his hand in the general direction of his prosperity. ‘Not my political ideas. Conservatism didn’t buy this house. First and foremost I’m a businessman. My first goal is to attract the largest possible audience so I can charge confiscatory ad rates. I happen to have great entertainment skills, but that enables me to sell airtime.’

    Jack, he’s essentially being as cynical about conservatism as the Lost Angeles Times is.

    Comment by Brad S (b5b919) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:50 pm

  37. Has Rush ever debated a liberal?

    I mean, he IS the most popular conservative spokesman.

    You’d think he’d love going toe to toe with liberals — given his gifts and all.

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:52 pm

  38. “you’re not as dumb as the news makes you feel.”

    Mr. Vobiscum – Speaking for myself, the news on network TV and from most major metropolitan news dailies does leave conservative minded people feeling dumb because of the editorial slant of the coverage and choice of stories to cover. The ability to search the internet for news and people like Limbaugh, who in a way functions as a news aggregator, compensate for the bias of more mainstream news sources.

    It’s great fun to talk to a typical haughty NY Times reader who believes they know everything about an issue because they read about it in the Times, only to discover that their paper omitted very significant relevant issues due to the liberal slant of the paper.

    I’m not a big Limbaugh listener myself, but people like him perform a critical function for conservatives due to the dumbing down of the media, which you explicitly acknowledge in your comment, elsewhere.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:52 pm

  39. Uh, Brad, there’s nothing in that quote that isn’t already known by conservatives. Why would it make us wonder about our future?

    Comment by Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:53 pm

  40. Has Rush ever debated a liberal?

    Uhh, you know, uhh hope, you know, and uhh, you know, change, and uhh, like you know, uhh, I have always, uhh, you know, uhh, said, you know, and uhh, I, you know, would not, you know, uhh, want my, you know, uhh dughter, punished, you know, with uhh, you know, uhh facts, you know.

    Comment by nk (a12124) — 2/8/2009 @ 5:57 pm

  41. Hax, you are bona-fide idiot. Talk radio listeners are by far more politically-informed than folks who watch network news or read newspapers.

    Here are some Wilson Research poll which replicated earlier results from the same questions in a Zogby poll. Talk radio listeners by far outperformed their fellow citizens in knowledge of basic political facts, like who runs the House and which vice-presidential candidate had a ‘pregnant daughter’ etc.

    35 % of McCain voters got 10 or more of 13 questions correct.

    18% of Obama voters got 10 or more of 13 questions correct.

    McCain voters knew which party controls congress by a 63-27 margin.

    Obama voters got the “congressional control” question wrong by 43-41.

    Those that got “congressional control” correct voted 56-43 for McCain.

    Those that got “congressional control” wrong voted 65-35 for Obama.

    The poll also asked voters to name all the media sources from which they got information.

    Those “exposed” to Fox News got “congressional control” correct 64-25 (+39)

    Those “exposed” to CNN got “congressional control” correct 48-38 (+10)

    Those “exposed” to Network news got “congressional control” correct 48-39 (+9)

    Those “exposed” to print media got “congressional control” correct 52-37 (+15)

    Those “exposed” to MSNBC got “congressional control” correct 55-35 (+20)

    Those “exposed” to talk radio got “congressional control” correct 61-29 (+32)

    Topping it off, something like 87% of voters thought that Sarah Palin said that she could ‘see Russia from her house’ even though that was Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live. What liberal media?

    Comment by carlitos (bb4a62) — 2/8/2009 @ 6:00 pm

  42. No, actually tyree made the point: the liberal spending policies by Bush helped Obama more than Obama’s own liberal policies. This was the Hate Bush election too.

    And Hax, the way your media DIDN’T vet a candidate but instead drooled all over his sickening slick personality makes YOOSE progressives dumb, dumber and dumbest. That and when your freakin’ LA Times putting Britney Spears on the front page. DUMB.

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/8/2009 @ 6:01 pm

  43. “Jack, he’s essentially being as cynical about conservatism as the Lost Angeles Times is.”

    Another nonlistener heard from.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 6:03 pm

  44. ^ when your

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/8/2009 @ 6:04 pm

  45. Rob,

    The quote should make you wonder about conservatism’s future (Note I didn’t say the GOP’s future) because you can never tell when Rush will throw you under the bus, for the sake of increased ratings.

    Rush is a more national, more successful, more engaging version of known ratings whores John and Ken.

    Comment by Brad S (b5b919) — 2/8/2009 @ 6:08 pm

  46. carlitos: Zogby disowned that poll, as it was bought and paid for by some guy writing a book purporting to show exactly what the poll was asked to demonstrate.

    Rush doesn’t do debate, does he.

    It’s all Rush, all the time.

    And you eat it with a spoon.

    Funny thing. Where are his acolytes?

    None?

    Wonder why that is…

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/8/2009 @ 6:09 pm

  47. Daley #27—I wouldn’t hold your breath. We have seen this kind of oh-so-veddy self assured thing before, haven’t we? And it too often descends into international trading, golfing whenever he chooses, works when he chooses, etc.

    Doesn’t it all sound familiar? Though I don’t think this guy is our old friend from Indiana.

    Comment by Eric Blair (1aa50b) — 2/8/2009 @ 6:09 pm

  48. Turns out the “Advanced Institute of Conservative Studies” has an enrollment of…ZERO…

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/8/2009 @ 6:11 pm

  49. Hacks Scum appears to enjoy beclowning itself.

    Comment by JD (2d2bfc) — 2/8/2009 @ 6:11 pm

  50. I know numerous people who flippantly dismiss Rush as just the “conservative nutcase”. They aren’t willing to admit that on the one hand he is an entertainer; and that, whether you agree with him or not, he reaches a huge audience. But he does entertain and he reaches huge numbers even if he sometimes come off as a bit over the top. But all of that aside, what truly amazes me are the number of my “good liberals acquaintances” who have never really listened to what he has to say. They reject him out of hand because of his “reputation” or what they have heard fellow travelers say. Sure, turn off the radio when he comes on if you like, just like his detractors. I did for many years as well, but then there was a period when I ended up spending long hours on the road, and I listened to Rush for lack of anything else worthwhile. I came to realize that, if you get past the entertainer part of it all, he really has a lot to say that is valid and he sees right through American liberalism to its fascist/socialist roots. And even though I sometimes hesitate to admit it, I too have become a “ditto-head”. Rush is no fool by any stretch of the imagination; intellectually he makes Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman real intellectual dwarfs by comparison. He understands conservatism, American history, what the country was founded upon, and has the courage of his philosophical convictions. He is not stupid in any way and that is the reason the left fears him. And they should. Those that dismiss him so lightly do so at their peril.

    Comment by MikeD (b8e532) — 2/8/2009 @ 6:12 pm

  51. carlitos: Zogby disowned that poll, as it was bought and paid for by some guy writing a book purporting to show exactly what the poll was asked to demonstrate.

    If this is ‘disowning’ the poll, then please explain how.


    Zogby Statement on Ziegler poll

    “We stand by the results our survey work on behalf of John Ziegler, as we stand by all of our work. We reject the notion that this was a push poll because it very simply wasn’t. It was a legitimate effort to test the knowledge of voters who cast ballots for Barack Obama in the Nov. 4 election.”

    By the way, I don’t even listen to Rush Limbaugh, asshole. I just don’t put up with liars spewing talking-points propaganda without challenge.

    PS – feel free to post the tax info by decile that proves your earlier point.

    Comment by carlitos (bb4a62) — 2/8/2009 @ 6:16 pm

  52. Why does Hax lick himself? Because he can.

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/8/2009 @ 6:19 pm

  53. “Rush doesn’t do debate, does he.”

    Hax – He debates with dissenting callers every day.

    Does Keith Olberdouche ever have any dissenting guests on his show?

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 6:21 pm

  54. Hax,

    What will happen when you Echo Boomers grow up, get a job, have a family and become Conservative?

    Comment by Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/8/2009 @ 6:21 pm

  55. carlitos, Hack’s more comfortable with his delusions intact.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 2/8/2009 @ 6:21 pm

  56. Jack, I’m certainly aware of your bonafides and it’s always been a pleasure to have you on this blog.

    Comment by PC14 (82e46c) — 2/8/2009 @ 6:26 pm

  57. I think Hax is getting desperate and just googling Rush. Campbell Brown was calling for Rush to debate Ali Velshi on the Stimulus.

    Hax is just a putz.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 6:28 pm

  58. “Funny thing. Where are his acolytes?”

    Hax – Do you prefer Olberdouche’s Nazi salutes? Are you wearing lederhosen right now? How is your supply of Jergens holding out?

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 6:32 pm

  59. One just has to ask why would the LAT waste print space on Rush if he were irrelevant? And therein lies the problem and it’s the same problem as our new President may have discovered: Rush is far from irrelevant and consistently increasing an audience of 15 million with an ideology contrary to the MSM/new administration is problematic. They just won’t/can’t admit it. How many Peg C.’s have been turned right by him and how many more will be?

    Comment by Dana (137151) — 2/8/2009 @ 6:43 pm

  60. “How is your supply of Jergens holding out?”
    I wonder how he keeps the Jergens on his tweezers.

    Comment by TMAC (f9e092) — 2/8/2009 @ 6:50 pm

  61. Rush makes $400 Million because he moves product. That salary puts him way above Obama’s pay grade.

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/8/2009 @ 6:53 pm

  62. Dana – Haven’t you been listening to our new 52% overlords? Conservatism is a discredited ideology, DEAD!!!11!!, in the wilderness, never coming back, even though how many million people voted for the non-jug-earded dirty little socialist. You have been declared irrelevant. Deal.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:03 pm

  63. Bingo – and that’s part and parcel why the left really hates him. He makes a ton of dough, reaches the type of audience numbers most can only dream about, and enjoys the hell out of himself…and expresses no faux remorse for doing so.

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:03 pm

  64. Limbaugh said: “I don’t need 400 words. I need four: I hope he fails.”

    A new CBS News survey out today, detailed in full here, finds that President Obama’s approval rating now stands at 62 percent.

    Ah, the formula for electoral success!

    The last poll of Americans about Limbaugh was done at the end of ’07 and found he had a 51% disapproval rating.

    The article and Jack said it best: Limbaugh hasn’t changed in the past 20 years, but the American public have rejected him.

    I agree with Hax. Viva la Limbaugh.

    Comment by timb (2fe281) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:03 pm

  65. Limbaugh said: “I don’t need 400 words. I need four: I hope he fails.”

    timb – What exactly did Limbaugh say he hoped that Obama failed at? Not as President. There is a little context surrounding that quote, twerp.

    Fetch it along with my juice box.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:06 pm

  66. “President Obama’s approval rating now stands at 62 percent.”

    timmah – Rasmussen’s at 59%, both dropping rapidly from the inauguration as people see he’s in over his head.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:10 pm

  67. A new CBS News survey out today, detailed in full here, finds that President Obama’s approval rating now stands at 62 percent.

    So, he’s dropped 5 points in two weeks. Wasn’t he running in the 80′s a few weeks ago?

    As for Limbaugh, you’ll notice that he’s not running for anything, Timmah! The only number he’s worried about is this one. Or, that’s my guess anyway. I don’t listen to him like you do, Timmah!

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:10 pm

  68. You know what the American people rejected? Air America.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:11 pm

  69. Air America? Wasn’t that that cheap airline? Or was it a B-List movie?

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:14 pm

  70. BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

    RUSH: I got a request here from a major American print publication. “Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal.” Now, we’re caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your “hope.” My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, “Well, I hope he succeeds. We’ve got to give him a chance.” Why? They didn’t give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I’m not talking about search-and-destroy, but I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.

    If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.

    Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he’s doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he’s my president, he’s a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn’t have to being down with the struggle, all of that’s irrelevant to me. We’re talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, “I hope he fails.” And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.

    I’m happy to be the last man standing. I’m honored to be the last man standing. Yeah, I’m the true maverick. I can do more than four words. I could say I hope he fails and I could do a brief explanation of why. You know, I want to win. If my party doesn’t, I do. If my party has sacrificed the whole concept of victory, sorry, I’m now the Republican in name only, and they are the sellouts. I’m serious about this. Why in the world, it’s what Ann Coulter was talking about, the tyranny of the majority, all these victims here, we gotta make sure the victims are finally assuaged. Well, the dirty little secret is this isn’t going to assuage anybody’s victim status, and the race industry isn’t going to go away, and the fact that America’s original sin of slavery is going to be absolved, it’s not going to happen. Just isn’t, folks. It’s too big a business for the left to keep all those things alive that divide the people of this country into groups that are against each other. Yes, I’m fired up about this.

    Reasons number 249 and 50 why I’m not a Republican. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has been chosen to introduce Vice-President-elect Biden at a bipartisan dinner in Washington on the eve of the immaculation. Biden was one of Hagel’s closest friends in the Senate. “Bipartisan dinners also held that night honoring McCain and Colin Powell. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina will introduce McCain at a dinner.” So all these Republicans are being honored on the night before Obama is immaculately inaugurated, as though they’re part of the Obama administration. Our presidential candidate is being honored. I can understand liberals honoring their losers, but I just — (tearing up story)

    BREAK TRANSCRIPT

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:19 pm

  71. LA Times always manages to be unintentionally funny when talking about conservatives:

    Limbaugh acknowledged an addiction to painkillers in 2003 and was arrested three years later. (Prosecutors agreed to drop a charge of prescription fraud if he underwent treatment.) He has been married and divorced three times. Still, nothing seems to shake his standing with core conservatives.

    Comment by Wesson (3ab0b8) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:19 pm

  72. : Limbaugh hasn’t changed in the past 20 years, but the American public have rejected him.

    Silly you: If Americans had rejected him, he would not have the increasing audience he does.

    Why if Americans had rejected him, he would have an audience say, the size of an Air America radio host. :)

    Comment by Dana (137151) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:21 pm

  73. Rush is great. But the Reps need to know how to place him as they seek to retake lost ground. As a party that seeks to win back a lot of disenfranchised former Republicans and Indies, and also Democrats, Rush Limbaugh is not the way to go. But he is great. I wish him well.

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:24 pm

  74. Timmah!, can you identify one instance of you stating your hope that Bush would be successful? A link would be nice.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:24 pm

  75. But the Reps need to know how to place him as they seek to retake lost ground.

    He’ll be on the radio, lovey. Doing a talk show.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:25 pm

  76. Comment by Pablo — 2/8/2009 @ 7:25 pm
    I am talking strategy, Pablo. Not ideology. Does he speak for all Reps when he says “I hope he (President Obama) fails? Does he speak for you?

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:34 pm

  77. In the terms stated, he agrees with me.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:36 pm

  78. Emperor7, are you proud of the fact that you are taking the quote out of context?

    If you read the context of the comment, of course he is echoing the wishes of all Republicans, because no Republican would want to Obama succeed on the ideological positions that Rush is wishing him failure for.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:38 pm

  79. The quote should make you wonder about conservatism’s future (Note I didn’t say the GOP’s future) because you can never tell when Rush will throw you under the bus, for the sake of increased ratings.

    Rush ain’t all of conservatism.

    Is Obama all of liberalism?

    Comment by Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:39 pm

  80. “Does he speak for you?”

    Lovey – Does Rush speak for you under the context he outlines, the complete government takeover of the auto industry, banking, health care and much of the rest of the private sector? Do you wish the government to do that?

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:43 pm

  81. Liberals prefer a guy like John Stewart, who takes shots at both sides.

    Or Harry Shearer. Now that’s a funny guy. He too takes shots at both sides, because he’s playin’ it for laughs and, more important, playing to an intellectually secure audience.

    Rush’s formula is very specifically developed as a salve for intellectual insecurity.

    And by the looks of this blog, it’s potent as it needs to be…

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:44 pm

  82. Hack, your comments once again reflect only your delusions, not reality.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:47 pm

  83. Hax – You’re still afraid to back up your positions aren’t you. Insecurity is why liberals hate Limbaugh. They can’t stand dissent.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:47 pm

  84. Liberals prefer a guy like John Stewart, who takes shots at both sides.

    That’s the funniest damned thing I’ve read in weeks.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:49 pm

  85. Rush doesn’t do debate, does he.

    It’s all Rush, all the time.

    If you listened to him, troll, you would know that opposing callers go to the front of the queue. But you don’t listen, do you ?

    What do you think you accomplish by coming here and posting nonsense ? Do you think it makes you look smart ? There are people who have real accomplishments in life. Do you think by posting comments that insult people with juvenile crap you will impress anyone ?

    What a sorry little twerp you are. Debate is fine but that requires some thought and a few facts.

    Comment by Mike K (2cf494) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:51 pm

  86. “Liberals prefer a guy like John Stewart, who takes shots at both sides.”

    Hax – They also rave about Olberdouche and Mad Cow who only take shots at one side, but you keep ignoring them.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:52 pm

  87. I think it was Mark Twain who said something to the effect that it’s unwise to pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel. I think it equally unwise to pick a fight with a man who has a couple million watts of aggregate transmitter power. Ask Harry Reid how that works…

    Comment by Choey (0e8020) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:54 pm

  88. Saying you want a President to fail is not the same as saying you want liberalism to fail. That was a tone deaf moment for him. He screwed up and he knows it. Criticise the policies you don’t agree with but wish your President success. The President of America is not a President of a party or ideological group. He is the President of the United States. Whether blue or red. If you wish him failure, what about the issues where Republicans agree with him? It’s a stupid thing to say and especially now that the Republican brand is in dire need of re-branding. Don’t support evil, folks. Condemn it.

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:54 pm

  89. I guess my inferior understanding prevents me from seeing this obvious connection, but if, as Timb said, “the American public have rejected (Rush Limbaugh),” why are our friends on the left trying so hard to catch up to him by reimposing the idiotic “Fairness Doctrine” and why is it that the progressive talk radio station, the delightfully named OBAMA 1260 AM, in Washington DC, has changed formats while the conservative talk stations are still going strong?

    I do hope that Timb will enlighten me! :)

    Comment by The baffled Dana (556f76) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:55 pm

  90. Emperor7, you have not read the context. You are making up stuff out of whole cloth as a result.

    And not for the first time.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:56 pm

  91. I am talking strategy, Pablo. Not ideology.

    Me too. Rush’s strategy is doing a radio show so as to make a lot of money.

    Does he speak for all Reps when he says “I hope he (President Obama) fails? Does he speak for you?

    Nobody speaks for all Republicans. Ferchrissakes, they nominated John McCain. As for me, though I’m not a Republican, I understand what Limbaugh is saying and I don’t see a terribly evident argument with it. I can speak for myself, so I really don’t need a talk show host to do it for me. Does that answer your question?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:59 pm

  92. Emperor7 wrote:

    Saying you want a President to fail is not the same as saying you want liberalism to fail. That was a tone deaf moment for him. He screwed up and he knows it. Criticise the policies you don’t agree with but wish your President success.

    Really? Has Mr Limbaugh been banned from the airwaves for that remark? Has he lost audience?

    Let’s face facts: the people who were oh-so-upset by Mr Limbaugh’s remark didn’t like him anyway.

    Comment by The Dana who can read the Arbitron ratings (556f76) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:59 pm

  93. “It’s a stupid thing to say and especially now that the Republican brand is in dire need of re-branding.”

    Lovey – You still haven’t answered the question about whether you want the government doing all those things that Rush specifically listed. Don’t chicken out.

    Answer the question.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 7:59 pm

  94. Jesus, Emperor7, the last eight years were a drunken stupor for you, weren’t they?

    I’m not saying it’s OK for Republicans and conservatives to wish Obama fails because Democrats and liberals wanted Bush to fail — I have no problem with either side wishing a politician fails.

    Don’t support evil, folks. Condemn it.

    Oh, go to hell. There’s nothing evil in wanting someone you think is wrong on every damned issue to fail. Hell, if you think someone’s policies aren’t just wrong but just about the worst thing you could do, isn’t it “evil” not to wish they fail?

    Comment by Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:01 pm

  95. Liberals prefer a guy like John Stewart, who takes shots at both sides.

    Then you must love Michelle Malkin, eh Hacks?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:01 pm

  96. Comment by Pablo — 2/8/2009 @ 7:59 pm
    Fair enough, Pablo. You understand my point.

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:03 pm

  97. He probably loves Ann Coulter as well Pablo.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:03 pm

  98. He screwed up and he knows it.

    He got the President of The United States and a number of his lackeys to call him out, by name, repeatedly and at length. For a guy in the entertainment business, that is nothing but win. He loves the attention being drawn to him. That equals ratings.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:05 pm

  99. Emperor7, you have a point? Congrats on the camoflage job.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:05 pm

  100. “Fair enough, Pablo. You understand my point.”

    Lovey – I understand you point too and I want you to honestly answer whether you want the government to take over the industries Limbaugh specifically listed plus much of the private sector. That was the premise for his comment.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:07 pm

  101. Fair enough, Pablo. You understand my point.

    You comb your hair well — it’s hardly noticeable.

    (Oh, and the “takes shots at both sides” bit — was Limbaugh a huge fan of McCain? ISTR he was one of the “hold my nose and vote against the other guy” people.)

    Comment by Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:08 pm

  102. Comment by daleyrocks — 2/8/2009 @ 7:59 pm
    No you answer this question first: Do you think it was a smart thing for him to say about a new Presidency? Is he helping to bring people together or is he polarizing the nation further? Would you advise him to say that?

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:08 pm

  103. Emperor7, if you bothered to read the entire commentary reproduced above in #69, you would see that your diatribe has nothing to do with what Rush said.

    Nothing.

    This has become a pattern with you.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:10 pm

  104. Turns out, Rush’s failure wishes extend far beyond the president himself. My sources have obtained the following list from deep within the bowels of the EIB Network.
    Rush, secretly, wishes:

    1. That Nancy Pelosi would develop an oxycontin habit AND a weight problem.
    2. That Bill Moyers would lose his hearing, dump his wife and fight a losing battle against halitosis.
    3. That the Obama administration would spend TRILLIONS losing a war.
    4. That Arianna Huffington would fall on hard times and find herself returning from a Cape Town plastic surgery vacation looking like a cross between Laura Bush and Phylis Schlafly.
    5. That the New York Times would slide into obscurity while descending into tabloid juvenalia in the manner of the conservative New York Post, then go out of business, like the conservative New York Daily News.
    6. That Sean Penn would develop an oxycontin habit, lose his acting chops and end up competing with people like Sylvester Stallone, Chuck Norris and other Hollywood conservative loudmouths for homoerotic tough-guy rolls in B movies.
    7. That Bruce Springsteen would lose his voice.
    8. That Michelle Obama would go gray before the 2010 elections.
    9. That Ted Kennedy would use the “N” word in public before passing on.
    10. That Democrats would start a war on false pretences, spend trillions more than expected on it, then lose.

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:11 pm

  105. Hack’s commentary still hasn’t risen to the level he demands of others, I see.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:12 pm

  106. Hate much, Hax?

    Comment by Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:14 pm

  107. No you answer this question first: Do you think it was a smart thing for him to say about a new Presidency? Is he helping to bring people together or is he polarizing the nation further?

    Lovey, do you think it was smart for Obama to say that the surge wasn’t working and couldn’t work, while it was doing just that? Was he helping to bring the country together or was he polarizing the nation? And while we’re at it, what was Obama’s job when he said that?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:16 pm

  108. I wish Hax Vobiscum would overdose on NyQuil and Skittles tonight. These fantasies of his are a little creepy. Does that make me a bad person?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:18 pm

  109. 10. That Democrats would start a war on false pretences, spend trillions more than expected on it, then lose.

    Oh, they did that years ago. On purpose.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:19 pm

  110. Do lefties really think focusing this much energy on a single person is that useful? More importantly, if they’re so damned convinced Limbaugh’s a failure, bad for conservatism, and so on, why are they attacking him so hard? Again, “never correct your opponent while he’s in the midst of making a mistake”.

    Or are they shifting their Emmanuel Goldstein from Bush to Limbaugh? Or are they just really this spiteful about someone whose sole role in public life has been to persuade?

    Comment by Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:19 pm

  111. Comment by daleyrocks — 2/8/2009 @ 8:07 pm

    The premise is, what is your “hope.” My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, “Well, I hope he succeeds. We’ve got to give him a chance.” Why? They didn’t give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I’m not talking about search-and-destroy, but I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.
    Daley, the premise upon which he made that statement according to his words I cut and pasted from your post was about childish vendetta. The Dems didn’t give Bush a chance in 2000 so he’s paying back in kind. It’s not about Obama’s policies but about revenge. I suggest you read your post again.

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:20 pm

  112. More importantly, if they’re so damned convinced Limbaugh’s a failure, bad for conservatism, and so on, why are they attacking him so hard?

    Because they need a boogeyman in order to play the politics of fear, Rob.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:21 pm

  113. Daley, the premise upon which he made that statement according to his words I cut and pasted from your post was about childish vendetta

    Uh, no. What part of this do you not understand?

    I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:23 pm

  114. Comment by SPQR — 2/8/2009 @ 8:10 pm
    This has become a pattern with you.

    You sound like my nagging grand-aunt.

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:23 pm

  115. You’re trying to sound deep. Here’s the short-hand. Rush and conservatives want socialism to fail. Obama’s Press Secretary knew that calling out a private citizen for criticism was a HUGE mistake: Alan Colmes walked over to Fox News the next day to admit as much. Rush got tremendous PR from it and a huge listener spike that continues. His audience was at 20 million. Now, add to the number. And before posting on Rush Limbaugh again, understand the difference between capitalism and the Constitution versus socialism.

    Saying you want a President to fail is not the same as saying you want liberalism to fail. That was a tone deaf moment for him. He screwed up and he knows it. Criticise the policies you don’t agree with but wish your President success. The President of America is not a President of a party or ideological group. He is the President of the United States. Whether blue or red. If you wish him failure, what about the issues where Republicans agree with him? It’s a stupid thing to say and especially now that the Republican brand is in dire need of re-branding. Don’t support evil, folks. Condemn it.

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:24 pm

  116. Emperor7, that’s all you got? You misrepresent the context of Rush’s statement, and all you can do is whine being nagged?

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:24 pm

  117. You might want to read the last four sentences in the bit you quoted again, lovey.

    In any case, your poor reading comprehension is showing again. Rush said there’s no reason to give Obama a chance because Bush sure as hell wasn’t given an equivalent chance. There’s nothing “revenge” about that, it’s called “you set the rules, so we’re going to abide by them”.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:24 pm

  118. You sound like my nagging grand-aunt.

    She realizes you’re a semi-literate lying pinhead, too?

    Comment by Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:25 pm

  119. Emp#109: so, you agree that the Left and the MSM did their best to attack GWB at every turn. Quite so. But why did they do that?

    Was it childish anger about the election, or was it because they opposed the policies that GWB talked about during his campaign?

    If the latter, it is interesting that you feel that the Right cannot oppose BO for the same reasons.

    It seems to me that many Obama supporters are using a very unusual yardstick to measure behavior. Basically, when Democrats do something, it is good. When Republicans do it, it is bad.

    Unless this is all a “you’re another” style argument.

    Again, did you suggest to your friends on the Left to give GWB a fair chance, as you are on record telling Republicans now to give BO?

    I didn’t think so.

    Comment by Eric Blair (1aa50b) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:28 pm

  120. Because they need a boogeyman in order to play the politics of fear, Rob.

    And ya know, it’s more than a little creepy. The flip side of the Obama cult of personality is the Bush demonization — which seems to now be shifting towards Limbaugh. Neither attitude is healthy for a republic, or any society that wishes to be based on the rule of law.

    Like I said earlier — it could get quite ugly if Congress goes Republican in 2010.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:28 pm

  121. Re #102:

    Folks, perhaps we should have a list of things that “secretly” Hax wants in the coming years. “According to our sources,” that is. I’ll leave out the “bowels” comment.

    Do show the man precisely the same level of tolerance and fair mindedness he has shown others.

    Take it away!

    Comment by Eric Blair (1aa50b) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:32 pm

  122. I’ve been saying just that, Rob. And Team O! has been pushing it as well.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:40 pm

  123. You sound like my nagging grand-aunt.

    Comment by Emperor7 — 2/8/2009 @ 8:23 pm

    Is that the one who showed you the trick with the ping-pong balls?

    Comment by nk (a12124) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:42 pm

  124. oh. Re #102: That’s kind of a big big effort to not really make much of a point I think. Really big. Next time you feel like you might be going there listen to the happy happy J-pop and then see how you feel I think. It can’t hurt.

    Comment by happyfeet (4eacbc) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:46 pm

  125. “They didn’t give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I’m not talking about search-and-destroy”

    Lovey – I fail to understand why you expect to be treated with respect by other commenters when you continually take quotes out of context, lie about their meaning, distort what other commenters have said, and generally conduct yourself in bad faith on a daily basis here. Why would you expect others to answer any of your questions when you refuse to answer those directed your way. I realize your positions are uncomfortable to defend most times, but that usually signals yiu are backing the wrong side and should reevaluate. It’s too bad you haven’t figured that out.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:50 pm

  126. I can see there are a lot of Rush lackeys here. As usual defending what they know is wrong just because they like who said it. This is precisely the problem with the Republican party. Look around you. People have moved away from this party because of this type of politics and rhetoric. If you don’t turn from that attitude, you will keep losing voters till the Republican party becomes a minority party. There is a reason why the Dems swept into power the way they did. Keep listening to Rush Limbaugh. He is good for you. Have fun kids!

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:50 pm

  127. Oh, I forgot, you feckless crapweasel oil slick shit.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:51 pm

  128. Emperor7, you are just lying. I’m not defending Rush’s comments because he’s Rush. I’m defending Rush’s statements because you are dishonestly misrepresenting them.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:51 pm

  129. I can see there are a lot of Rush lackeys here.

    I’ll bet you can see the unicorns too, lovey.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:54 pm

  130. People have moved away from this party because of this type of politics and rhetoric.

    Yeah, the left’s big charm has been its civility, reason and rationality.

    Heh.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:56 pm

  131. Lovey – You need more english lessons or some kind of school. I can’t understand you.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:57 pm

  132. “There is a reason why the Dems swept into power the way they did.”

    Voter and campaign contribution fraud.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 8:59 pm

  133. Timmah and Hack Scum make quite the Duo of Dumbassery.

    Comment by JD (2d2bfc) — 2/8/2009 @ 9:00 pm

  134. Hax,

    Right about now is when you should decide – “do I want any credibility at all?” If the answer is yes, please fill in the following:

    _____________ is why Zogby “disowned” the results from the poll about which later he said “We stand by the results.”

    _____________ is why, despite reading the income tax reciepts by decile, I still maintain that my facile point about government revenue vis a vis tax rates is true, per daleyrocks’ request.

    _____________ is why, despite increasing arrests of fugitives of 80% year-on-year, the LA Times was accurate in describing ICE as “abandoning their mission” of capturing fugitive aliens.

    Comment by carlitos (bb4a62) — 2/8/2009 @ 9:03 pm

  135. JD – When you have Hax, timmah and Lovey all contributing to the same thread, the true meaning of the term “moronic convergence” becomes clear.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 9:07 pm

  136. Carlitos – You are not playing fair. Racist.

    Comment by JD (2d2bfc) — 2/8/2009 @ 9:10 pm

  137. carlitos – On that ICE matter, I noticed earlier that Charles Emerson Winchester, aka Cyrus Sanai, had not been back to the follow up thread after his lecture to the proles here about economic theory.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 9:10 pm

  138. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    And governmental take-overs of the private sector, confiscatory spending habits, free-speech abridgements are akin to despotism. All these things Obama has said he wants, all these things in the “stimulus” plan, all these are contrary to freedom.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/8/2009 @ 9:11 pm

  139. I’m not the first to say this, but it really is like Atlas Shrugged. An automotive czar. Limits on exec pay. God help us.

    Comment by carlitos (bb4a62) — 2/8/2009 @ 9:15 pm

  140. In #31 above, Hax makes a gobsmackingly remarkable statement: You need reassurance that you’re not as dumb as the news makes you feel. as an explanation for Limbaugh’s popularity.

    Hax, I can go through your employer’s newspaper (I assume you are a troll from the Los Angeles Times) with a red pencil, circling factual errors–not matters of opinion or editorial bias, but simply errors or mistatements of historical fact. Joe Biden, with his comment on FDR going on television as President in 1929 to address the American populace about the Great Depression (3 factual misstatements in that comment) has absolutely nothing on your average ill or entirely un educated Times reporter. They do not know history; they do not know economics; they do not know political science; they can’t spell; they can’t punctuate; and I’d be surprised if many of them could find their backside with both hands. Other than that, they are fine reporters, and the editors, or whoever else may be in charge of the zoo down there, accept their miserable output without change.

    No, reading the news does not make me feel dumb Hax, but when I read your comments, I have my doubts about you.

    Comment by Mike Myers (674050) — 2/8/2009 @ 9:16 pm

  141. Zogby said he regretted performing the poll. He didn’t say the results were technically inaccurate, nor did I. No one ever suggested it was a “push” poll. It was held after an election, so it couldn’t have been. As I said, it was tailored to achieve the results Zeigler wanted.

    Income tax reciepts by decile have no bearing on my point about the relationship between rates and total revenue. Read what I wrote again and get back to me, but only after you DO THE MATH.

    “despite increasing arrests of fugitives of 80% year-on-year, the LA Times was accurate in describing ICE as “abandoning their mission” of capturing fugitive aliens.”

    You’ve rewritten what LA Times wrote, and left out the context. The point LAT made was that ICE was given more money because it said it was focusing on aliens who were dangerous.
    The numbers show that didn’t happen. ICE, year after year, arrested a higher and higher percentage of non-criminals.
    That’s what LAT meant by losing focus.

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/8/2009 @ 9:22 pm

  142. If LAT is so bad, why can’t conservatives produce a better paper to displace it?

    Too dumb? Too lazy? Too poor?

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/8/2009 @ 9:25 pm

  143. My goal is to find cajun cats so I go to the grocery store. I go to the seafood section and find cajun cats and swordfish steaks and mahi-mahi and salmon fillets. But I went there to find cajun cats and did find cajun cats.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/8/2009 @ 9:30 pm

  144. Hey daley:

    “…Income tax reciepts by decile have no bearing on my point about the relationship between rates and total revenue. Read what I wrote again and get back to me, but only after you DO THE MATH….”

    You called it!

    As for Zogby, I think what he had to say about the Ziegler (not Zeigler) poll was pretty conclusive:

    http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1642#Anchor-37902

    And the quotes that Hax will no doubt jump to supply seem to be rather incomplete and out of context—more about how the results looked than anything else. There is no evidence that the poll was tailored to provide the results Ziegler wanted…and to prove it, how about reviewing the poll questions? Remember that the goal of the poll was to show how the MSM had influenced what voters knew about the candidates.

    I did notice that when Ziegler tried to get Zogby to carry out the poll with McCain voters, Zogby refused. After all, if he offends half the country, what happens to his business.

    I mean, being greedy about money and all that.

    Still, go look up the poll questions and how they were statistically interpreted. In other words, Hax, go do the math.

    Comment by Eric Blair (1aa50b) — 2/8/2009 @ 9:40 pm

  145. “…Too dumb? Too lazy? Too poor?…”

    Riiiggghhhht.

    How about daley’s question, speaking of all three?

    Comment by Eric Blair (1aa50b) — 2/8/2009 @ 9:42 pm

  146. Oh, and your salary, too, since you seem so very concerned, in between beach picnics, about “excessive greed.”

    Comment by Eric Blair (1aa50b) — 2/8/2009 @ 9:42 pm

  147. Pablo…”I’m not a Republican”

    Too conservative for the Republican party led by Limbaugh! Fricking kook.

    Comment by timb (8f04c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 9:50 pm

  148. Speaking of scorpions in a bottle, lookee what I found:

    http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6736.html

    Just scroll down.

    Interesting…..

    Comment by Eric Blair (1aa50b) — 2/8/2009 @ 9:51 pm

  149. Finally, a post about the moral character of Rush Limbaugh. I had forgotten that he was the beacon of hope and grace in the world.

    http://www.tunc.biz/Rush_Limbaugh_Is_Not_Conservative.htm

    Oops. He isn’t. Jack don’t know… himself.

    Comment by Ed from PA (c313be) — 2/8/2009 @ 9:55 pm

  150. Ed, what is terrifying is the fact we have a citizen radio host who is far more ethical and knowledgeable than our newly installed president. It’s sort of horrific and intriguing.

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/8/2009 @ 9:59 pm

  151. carlito: you sound confused.

    Is your point that Bush actually raised taxes, or lowered them? And, by all means, speak in terms of deciles, if that makes a difference to you…

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/8/2009 @ 10:05 pm

  152. No you answer this question first: Do you think it was a smart thing for him to say about a new Presidency? Is he helping to bring people together or is he polarizing the nation further? Would you advise him to say that?

    He is a member of the Opposition party. “Bringing together” is not his job. His job is to state the case for his views.

    The ruling party is the one tasked with bringing sides together, should it so choose.

    Why is it always the REPUBLICANS who are supposed to “bring people together”? Why wasn’t it the case during the last 8 years to bring america together under Bush?

    Now answer the question you were asked first, Lovey…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (who wants DRJ to come back) (90ff96) — 2/8/2009 @ 10:05 pm

  153. Eric @ 145: Poor Hax got a spanking over at the Boyz’ site……….

    Shannon Love Says:
    February 3rd, 2009 at 5:51 pm Hax Vobiscum,

    HV: Which “leftists” are you talking about? There is no monolithic “left” in the U.S.

    Let’s say the 30% most self-identified leftist. (Most people define themselves as liberal or conservative but I find those terms inaccurate.) Specifically I have in mind academics and activist who create and articulated theoretical structure on which they base their arguments.

    HV: I consider myself a liberal who supports both welfare state capitalism and laissez faire immigration

    So, you believe that poor people in America can’t improve their lot without extensive government assistance but that large numbers immigrants who have even worse preparation and support don’t? If we can’t provide education, housing, medical care and jobs for our native born poor, does it make sense to import more poor people? What do you say to immigration restriction advocates who say that illegal immigration increases social welfare cost, increase crime, depress wages etc?

    HV: but I make none of the irrational arguments you’re attributing to “leftists.”

    I think you probably do you just never see them juxtaposition like they are here. Of course, there are exceptions. Perhaps you could flesh your thinking out some.

    Comment by Rush Limbaugh (ab0837) — 2/8/2009 @ 10:07 pm

  154. Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 2/8/2009 @ 8:11 pm

    Citation, please…

    People have moved away from this party because of this type of politics and rhetoric.

    Yes, because what Rush says is what McCain spoke of during the campaign. *rolls his eyes*

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (who wants DRJ to come back) (90ff96) — 2/8/2009 @ 10:09 pm

  155. Atlas Shrugged was never made into a movie. But if the Obama administation was a movie, it would of course be a comedy. In fact, there’s a particular film which immediately comes to mind, called Brewster’s Millions.

    Comment by Official Internet Data Office (823589) — 2/8/2009 @ 10:12 pm

  156. Hooo, buddy! Tossing off Limbaugh’s name is just like…er, how did that magnamimously sensitive and caring Dem strategist put it? Oh, yeah: ‘like draggin a dollar through a trailer park…’ ’cause we gots all kinds o’ stoopits showin’ up!
    Like these chestnuts:

    Do you think it was a smart thing for him to say about a new Presidency?

    And the answer is, Absolutely! Anybody who doesn’t want the “new Presidency”‘s policies to fail most certainly doesn’t have the country’s best interests at heart, so durn tootin’ its a smart thing to say.

    Is he helping to bring people together

    What is it with the left and their fascination with the idea of “bringing people together?” Sounds pretty creepy in a nation founded on the principles of individualism. Or did I miss an invitation to some huge ass dance hall or something?

    or is he polarizing the nation further?

    Look, when about half the people in a country are wrong on issues, going along to get along isn’t a worthwhile notion. So expounding in a fashion that gets people to pay attention is worthwhile, even if some who have substituted political belief for religious belief get hacked off.

    Would you advise him to say that?

    To say what, exactly? That the new President has turned the train onto a siding and is rushing headlong for a ravine with the bridge out?

    Well, yeah!

    Comment by EW1(SG) (e27928) — 2/8/2009 @ 10:16 pm

  157. Sorry–try this link for Brewster’s Millions.

    Comment by Official Internet Data Office (823589) — 2/8/2009 @ 10:17 pm

  158. Great tie-in. Could make a whole thread. Brewster’s Millions.

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/8/2009 @ 10:21 pm

  159. Hax – Here are your relevant contentions from the other thread:

    “If the economy is growing more slowly, yet tax revenue is rising to a record, well then, let’s do the math, shall we?

    Decide which way you want it, carlitos.

    If tax revenue rose to a record, but economic growth lagged, where did the revenue come from?

    Do the math, carlitos, do the math.

    The Laffer curve implies accelerating economic growth. No accelerating economic growth, no curve, no Magic Fist.

    Tax revenue rose to a record because the “cuts” the Bush administration touted were actually delivered to a slim segment of taxpayers.

    Most others saw increases, mostly due to stricter enforcement of the rules by the IRS.

    And some taxes were RAISED, under Bush.”

    And above – “Income tax reciepts by decile have no bearing on my point about the relationship between rates and total revenue. Read what I wrote again and get back to me, but only after you DO THE MATH.”

    I’m getting back to you. Your contention that rates were cut only for the rich. I contended they weren’t. The data by decile would give you a few clues about where the “magic” was coming from unless you care to explain it to the rubes here, which you so far have declined to do. You have also not provided any evidence of stricter enforcement. DO YOUR MATH AND PROVIDE BACK UP. THEN GET BACK TO ME.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 10:31 pm

  160. Ah, more seriously stupid:

    Oops. He isn’t. Jack don’t know… himself.

    Lemme see if I got this straight: Limbaugh can’t be a conservative because he suffers from human foibles and frailties like many of the rest of us. So therefore, he’s disqualified.

    What he’s disqualified from, we are never told. Perhaps he’s not to be considered qualified to be a radio talk show host! Because, well, because he suffered addiction to prescription pain meds! (Funny how addiction to non-prescription drugs isn’t a disqualification for others in the entertainment industry.)

    But wait! There’s more! Not only did he have a failed marriage…he had more than one fail! Never mind that there is more than one person involved in a marriage, he’s a traitor to conservative principles! And should be disqualified!

    And more along the same line, I’m sure.

    You know, for a group of people that are always spouting a bunch of nonsense about tolerance, lefties are the most intolerant people I’ve ever met. Kind of makes you wonder how much of their motivation “for the children” is based on an altruism, and how much is just “I want to boss others around.”

    Comment by EW1(SG) (e27928) — 2/8/2009 @ 10:36 pm

  161. “If tax revenue rose to a record, but economic growth lagged, where did the revenue come from?”

    That one there doesn’t fit with the others since the time period isn’t specified. It’s a red herring. Ecomomic growth lagged what, the recovery from the great depression when the economy was a fraction of the size? So what? Strike as irrelevant.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 10:38 pm

  162. “If tax revenue rose to a record, but economic growth lagged, where did the revenue come from?”

    Hax – Don’t hold out on us. We’re all stupid here. Tell us where the tax revenue came from.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 10:40 pm

  163. If LAT is so bad, why can’t conservatives produce a better paper to displace it?

    Because conservatives are smart enough to realize the dead tree press is a contracting industry, and thus a bad investment of manpower and capital.

    Comment by Steverino (b12c49) — 2/8/2009 @ 10:53 pm

  164. Don’t run now Hax, the fun is just starting!

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 10:59 pm

  165. Hack says Zogby disowned a poll. carlitos proved Zogby stands by the results. Hack is pwned but pretends he isn’t.

    Ain’t gonna let you forget this one, friend. Cut your losses now and admit you messed up, or prepare to have this thrown in your face from here to eternity.

    Comment by Patterico (65a411) — 2/8/2009 @ 11:15 pm

  166. Patterico, this is just more TdJ stuff: a need to argue and feel tough and superior in a physically safe context.

    Anyone who derides Milton Friedman as “Uncle Milty” and writes that Friedman’s NIT proposal is identical to what President Obama would like to do….

    Well, it ain’t about facts. Bits and pieces gleaned from Left of center blogs, without going to sources, seems to the norm.

    The incongruent elitism and snobbery, the air of superiority, the hit and run with statistics…well, it all sounds familiar.

    But it does sound like he isn’t a sockpuppet of one of The Usual Suspects, though (you would know, based on the internet fingerprints). That much is good news.

    Comment by Eric Blair (1aa50b) — 2/8/2009 @ 11:34 pm

  167. Patterico – He’s also hosed up his attack on the Bush tax cuts based on conventional liberal mythology. I told him exactly where to find the evidence to prove himself wrong. He’s too chickenshit to acknowledge it so he nonsensically claims it’s not relevant.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/8/2009 @ 11:53 pm

  168. No you answer this question first: Do you think it was a smart thing for him to say about a new Presidency? Is he helping to bring people together or is he polarizing the nation further? Would you advise him to say that?

    Just to revisit this pearl of “wisdom”…

    Hey Lovey… I hope he fails too…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (who wants DRJ to come back) (90ff96) — 2/8/2009 @ 11:54 pm

  169. Hack,

    If Rush Limbaugh is so bad, why can’t liberals produce a better talk show host to displace him?

    Too dumb? Too lazy? Too poor?

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/9/2009 @ 12:39 am

  170. Rush is very, very good, Pat, at producing ideotainment. He’s the best in the business, non-pareil. He is an ideological entertainer who practically invented the genre as we know it. His numbers show that. Without a doubt, he’s the king of right wing talkradio.

    But does anyone believe that Rush is the most articulate or knowledgeable or insightful exponent of conservatism in America? Of course not. His skills are a function of his role as an entertainer and self-marketer, not those as an ideologue.

    You are indeed correct that liberal ideotainers haven’t had near Limbaugh’s success. That’s because the liberal audience for ideotainment is much smaller, even though liberals are the majority on most issues of the day.

    Most liberals, as I mentioned, think it’s boring if you only attack one side from the same point of view all the time.

    I’m speaking in generalities, so far, which perhaps isn’t good enough to really understand why Rush is successful, while ideotainers from the liberal majority fail.

    Rush appeals to a simple minded, poorly informed audience, by and large, who do not read a daily newspaper, or at least they don’t read very far beyond the headlines. This audience of simple-minded conservatives is much larger than the audience of simple-minded liberals.

    NOT THAT THERE AREN’T JUST AS MANY SIMPLE-MINDED LIBERALS. Yes, the liberal side too has fully its share of morons. But the difference is, liberal morons, on the whole, take a mcuh more live and let live attitude. (The opposite of educated liberals, who tend to like getting into people’s faces, when necessary.)

    The typical liberal moron is liberal by culture and personal proclivity, not by intellectual bent or, certainly not, by careful study and rational deduction.

    They tend to avoid conflict of all kinds, especially arguing about politics. Their response to a debate like the one we’re having right now is: Mellow out dudes, whatever, ain’t no big deal, cool out, think good thoughts, and peace out, people.

    For these people, the mainstream news media is a bit dull and maybe, sometimes slanted in ways they don’t like, but, day in day out, offers no threat to their sense of liberal identity, since, even when conservative points of view are presented, they are usually accompanied by liberal counterparts. And, the liberal moron’s identity is usually as a kind of compassionate do-gooder who avoids conflict. A barking mad conservative like Bill O’Reilly has little or no effect on them because they seldom, if ever, feel their intellectual credibility is at stake. It’s a kind of humility: cheaply earned, but existing nonetheless.

    Conservative morons are no more or less intelligent than liberal morons, but their sense of identity is very different.
    They tend to feel profoundly threatened by information that goes against their politics. They tend not to take a “whatever dude, live and let live” approach. They must fire back. But, alas, they are ill equipped. Like the liberal moron, they aren’t very knowledgeable and not very articulate. But they sure are angry.

    Rush works this emotional terrain the way Roger Clemens works the batter — masterfully. Rush is the undisputed guru of soothing the overflowing intellectual insecurities of conservatives. That’s why his program focuses so intently on the shortcomings of liberals. Notice he seldom, if ever, speaks analytically about the strengths of conservatism. His program is only about the weaknesses of liberalism.

    Liberals do have “their” entertainers who take on politics: from Tina Fey’s hilarious Sarah Palin imitations to Harry Shearer’s slams on W and Will Ferrel’s Broadway hit lampooning the ex-president’s befuddlement.

    But none of these entertainers are “brand name” liberals in the way Rush is a “brand name” conservative. They are all professional entertainers who do a lot more than the occasional political bit.

    I’m certain some of your posters here will accuse me of saying conservatives are dumber than liberals, but, again, that’s not my point at all.

    I know conservatives who are far more intelligent than myself and, even, than average. (Though I would say ALL the intelligent conservatives I know are at least a little embarrassed by Limbaugh’s act.)

    The media is full of sharp, well-educated conservatives from Tony Blankely to George Will to David Brooks and Amity Shlaes and many others. None of these have any affiliation with Rush, it’s worth noting.

    And what about those smart liberals?

    They really don’t have time for one-sided, ad hominem laced schtick like Rush. They’d rather listen to straight news reporting like NPR…

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/9/2009 @ 2:05 am

  171. Independent studies have shown that Limbaugh listeners are better read, buy more books, are better educated by several years, and know considerably more about issues of the day. I can’t find it to link, but there is a hilarious video with questions to Obama voters on matters like the name of the Vice President, which party controls Congress, etc. They just do not know.

    By contrast, Mr. Limbaugh often cites sources for his comments, which makes him easy to check.

    Finally, as a Limbaugh listener for seven years or so, I often hear the portion of a program that gets the Left’s collective panties in such a wad. I hear on NPR what he is alleged to have said, and I heard what he really did say. The contrast is, at least, amusing.

    Comment by Michael (7e04fb) — 2/9/2009 @ 2:31 am

  172. Timmah! @ 147,

    Damn, son. That’s some devastating repartee there. Did you think up that cutting commentary all by yourself or did you have help? That settles the whole thread, I think.

    You really should be proud of your debate techniques and skills. I tip my hat to you.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:22 am

  173. I don’t particularly care for any of the talking heads on radio or tv. That is more due to circumstance and age than anything else I suppose. I lived outside of the US for 14 of 18 years from 75-93 so most of my knowledge was gained through reading and not the radio/tv media. I grew up in a time where parents encouraged kids to be involved which required actually searching out the information from magazines, newspapers, and even libraries.
    To me the radio/tv folks must do things to make themselves marketable. From Olberman’s mortician like approach to Matthews screaming to some of Rush’s stunts like the “Magic Negro”.
    It is great that there are ideologues such as Rush but the pols such as Reagan who could translate most of their ideals into actions and successfully draw moderates and conservative democrats into the group are who I really look for simply because they are more successful at persuasion. Rush convinces those who are largely sold on the conservative ideology anyway.
    Give me a couple of hours a week with the latest copy of Foreign Affairs, National Review, US News and the op-ed columns on realclearpoltics.com and I think I stay fairly well informed.

    Comment by voiceofreason2 (10af7e) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:28 am

  174. Hacks Scum – Wow. Just wow. That last comment might be the all-time record for unfounded assumptions, faux intellectual superiority, complete lack of introspection, outright lies, and overall mendoucheousness.
    Topping it all off was that steaming pile about NPR being straight news. If you believe that little nugget, it says more about you than you would wish.

    The notion that liberals are live and let live kind of folks was a real snorter too. I guess it depends on whether you are an actual taxpayer or not, and clearly you are not.

    The idea that liberals are more educated because you claim they read more newspapers is generally not borne out by actual facts. I would have been willing to concede a point that more people that read major daily papers are liberal, as it informs and reinforces their worldview. You got it ass backwards.

    You must be painfully arrogant, pedantic, and unjustifiably self-Lefteous in real life.

    Comment by JD (e17dac) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:33 am

  175. Hax,

    The reason Rush is the #1 talk show host (and the equally conservative Hannity is #2), while Air America was a failure, is because all but one of the 12 or so national sources of news is staffed by reporters who are primarily Democrats, of course including National Public Radio, which already had all of Air America’s potential audience.

    If 11/12 of the national sources of news skewed to the right like Fox News, then people would feel a need to listen to a left-wing radio commentator to offset that, just as I offset my 5 hours a week of listening to WAMC (perhaps the nation’s most left-wing NPR station) with an hour or so of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.

    Comment by DWPittelli (dd9f59) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:42 am

  176. Rush has a large microphone. But the MSM still commands the megaphone.

    It’s a big country. Those who listen to Rush are a minority. It is not difficult to put words in his mouth and make them stick.

    The new media may be the future, but it is certainly NOT the present.

    Comment by Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/9/2009 @ 5:26 am

  177. Those who listen to Rush are a minority. It is not difficult to put words in his mouth and make them stick.

    That’s what Harry Reid thought, but as it turned out Rush crammed quite a few words down Harry’s throat and made him puke them back up. There’s certainly some truth to what you’re saying, but it isn’t absolute. As long as the Dems keep trying to make Rush the face of the Republican party, they’re only raising his profile and growing the audience that’s exposed to him. He seems to know what to do with the limelight. I think they should keep it up.

    All other things aside, it’s quite a show of fecklessness to spend your political capital railing against an entertainer. Suppose Bush and the Republican leadership had undertaken a full court press on the Dixie Chicks or Sean Penn. It’s just bad form and it’s only going to resonate with the choir that is already singing.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/9/2009 @ 5:58 am

  178. Lordy, the lefties sure do hate themselves some Limbaugh! Are they insecure, envious of success, or that desperate to quiet opposition voices?

    Again, if they think Limbaugh’s harmful to their political opponents, why are they so desperate to keep people from listening to him? Why work so hard to convince us he’s a bad guy?

    Comment by Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:45 am

  179. I can understand why you folks want Obama to fail. Like Bush did. So that you can have something to say when anyone mentions George Bush’s failures. But you must know, two failures don’t make a right. Obama will not fail. He will succeed and you all will have to go and hide your shameful faces under your pillows. Look at the crisis we are in. We can’t afford another failed presidency. Obama has to succeed so that America will succeed again. It’s not about Obama, it’s about you and I. It’s about the destinies of posterity, yet unborn. It’s about the greatness of The United States of America.

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:59 am

  180. Pablo, that’s a great example of what I am talking about. Rush turned that into a brilliant stunt. But you and I and the rest of the minority are the only ones who will ever know. Go ask the man on the street who does not listen to Rush. He will have no idea what you are talking about.

    They have the megaphone. Soon they may own the megaphone. They need to make Rush into a devil, like Cheney and Palin, and they will do it. Then they can kick him and the others off the air with impunity if they are still a credible threat to the narrative. That’s how it goes, like in Europe.

    Few people will change their source of information over this. Palin started off very popular. Look what they did to her. Now watch Steele.

    Obama’s victory showed the impotence of the alternative media. He won North Carolina and Indiana, he even got an electoral vote from Nebraska for goodness sake. Rush made little difference then, he will make less now.

    Sorry, but that’s the world we all live in.

    Comment by Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:59 am

  181. Emperor7, Bush didn’t fail at anything that matters.

    Obama has to succeed so that America will succeed again.

    America will continue to succeed regardless of the success or failure of Obama. We’re larger than just one man, no matter what office that man holds.

    Really, child, grow up.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:04 am

  182. Comment by Rob Crawford — 2/9/2009 @ 7:04 am
    You are the one that really needs growing up. Partisanship and division is the highest form of childishness. And for you to say that what a President does has no impact on the destiny and greatness of a nation shows just how illiterate you are in the area of leadership and nation-building. Everything rises and falls on the leader. If he fails, everyone pays for it. Just like the driver of a car. If he makes a mistake, he will not only be hurting himself. He will also hurt the lives of those in the car with him. I don’t believe you are that ignorant and foolish.

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:15 am

  183. Emperor7, you can’t talk to Rob like that unless you’re war-gaming with him on Saturday nights or playing with gnomes. Rob Crawford and the rest of the 50 year old angry white men on this thread are what makes America great and the Republican party will ride them to electoral victory in 2012!

    The rump Republican party of 2008 grows smaller by the day. Gallup predicts Texas will be in play in 2012. Rush, as I have said, may be loathsome, but he is my best friend come election time….ask Claire McCaskill

    Comment by timb (a83d56) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:27 am

  184. My favorite Limbaugh story is one of his typical name-dropping stories. He’s at some charity event with one of the hosts apparently being former NFL receiver Michael Irvine. Irvine points to Terrell Owens (shortly after Owens pouted his way out of his Eagles contract) and tells Limbaugh “Don’t believe everything you hear or read. He’s a good guy.” Limbaugh waddles over and discovers T.O. is a good guy. Just what Owens needed at the time: a man caught multiple times with cocaine and once with two 15 year old girls and cocaine witnessing his character to a pill-popping, self-loathing tool. I laughed so hard on that drive. Limbaugh really is funny.

    At any rate, at least T.O. is the best of the three of them.

    Comment by timb (a83d56) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:34 am

  185. Everything rises and falls on the leader.

    Not in a free nation.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:38 am

  186. Hax Vobiscum is in moderation pending an investigation of whether he is a returning troll.

    There are several possibilities:

    1) The linked site is phony, made up by someone who wants to frame Hax.

    2) The author of the linked site is our old troll, but he is lying when he claims to be Hax.

    3) The author of the linked site is our old troll, and he is telling the truth on that site, meaning he is Hax.

    I’ll probably approve the comments out of moderation assuming they continue to be non-profane, but (like most profane comments here nowadays) they will spend a period of time in moderation until this is resolved.

    If Hax wants to come out of moderation, he should e-mail me with some evidence of his bona fides. Frankly, his tone is fairly different from our old troll, and I want to keep Hax around if he’s not really the old stalking troll.

    Until then, however, I have to keep the comments in moderation as a prophylactic measure.

    Hax, if you’re a genuine commenter, then you’re being targeted, either by an old liberal troll, or by a current conservative commenter who doesn’t like you. I’m not sure what’s going on, but whoever is responsible, thanks for wasting my time and taking up what little time I had to spend on blogging this morning. There will be fewer posts today as a direct result of your actions. I’ll see if I can write one quickly before I leave for work.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:39 am

  187. Comment by timb — 2/9/2009 @ 7:27 am
    It’s just frustrating trying to talk to these people. The greatest problem with ignorance is pride. But I think you are right. Rush may prove to be Obama’s greatest asset come 2012. So, you go, Rush! Spill more bitterness and hate!

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:39 am

  188. Partisanship and division is the highest form of childishness.

    What remarkable drivel. I do not recall anyone saying that the last 8 years. I do recall the whole dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

    The moronic convergence continues …

    Comment by JD (c6800b) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:40 am

  189. I had 2-3 posts I was going to write today. Instead, you guys get a glorified open thread. Enjoy.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:42 am

  190. to some of Rush’s stunts like the “Magic Negro”.

    Again, you do know it wasn’t Rush that coined that term, right?

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (89480a) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:46 am

  191. He will succeed and you all will have to go and hide your shameful faces under your pillows.

    Then this will become a glorified communist state, since Obama desires nothing less than socialism…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (89480a) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:49 am

  192. Patterico – I am really not all that fired up that the site linked uses me in its first post, where it boasts that it will be stalking us. I already have timmah following me around, in a creepy kind of way. Hacks may not be a sock puppet, but its mendoucheousness is without question.

    Comment by JD (c6800b) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:52 am

  193. Patterico #186: difficult to say. If it is that particular Suspect, surely he will throw a tantrum in moderation. The Chicago Boyz business is interesting. Sockpuppetry and schizo-argumentation? Stranger things have happened. Time will tell.

    Comment by Eric Blair (4342a2) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:54 am

  194. such cognitive dissonance. The libtards just make up crap off the tops of their heads. I’ve quoted LA Slimes’ Dog Trainer David Ehrenstein’s Magic Negro term here and elsewhere and been deemed a racist for using it. Like I worry about what liberal whose enable Obamalamadingdong think. O is great for dropping back three yards and punting and the trolls here are apoplectic with their desire to fellate him or to buggered by him. Of course the taxpayers and future generations will be the ones taking it up the bum. Love how ImADamnNutJob and Putin see right through hopey and changey socialist potus.
    And old LOvey/Empty emperor is clueless and cretinous as usual. It ain’t character assassination because its the truth. He’s about as funny as that snl alumnus who mocks Bush all the time and, who imho is an awful actor, similar to dipskank Garofolo trying to act on 24.

    Comment by aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:58 am

  195. Comment by EW1(SG) — 2/8/2009 @ 10:36 pm

    I didn’t say he wasn’t a conservative. I said that he shouldn’t be considered a trusted voice of conservative ethics and morals. You have to walk the walk yourself before if you plan to tear others down for breaking the same moral codes that you are. Of course, this logic seems to escape the Rush-Heads.

    Comment by Ed from PA (c313be) — 2/9/2009 @ 8:13 am

  196. Partisanship and division is the highest form of childishness.

    Yeah, Americans haven’t vehemently disagreed AT ALL on the development and role of our government in the past 230 years. It was “all for one and one for all” and only the emergence of the evil, wanting-our-nation-to-collapse Republicans changed this dynamic.

    Get a clue. Partisanship and division are American traditions, and one of the best things about this country is that we get to disagree with each other. If it bothers you that much, a quick inner-tube ride to the island paradise of Cuba or repatriation to North Korea might be more your style. They’ve pretty much eliminated partisanship and division there quite efficiently.

    Your assessment here is not only historically ignorant, it’s intellecutally obtuse–if you hate partisanship so much, what are you doing on a board whose participants disagree with everything you say? Are a rhetorical masochist, or simply a boor?

    Comment by Chris (2d8013) — 2/9/2009 @ 8:15 am

  197. Amphipolis,

    Pablo, that’s a great example of what I am talking about. Rush turned that into a brilliant stunt. But you and I and the rest of the minority are the only ones who will ever know. Go ask the man on the street who does not listen to Rush. He will have no idea what you are talking about.

    That might be true if it were limited to Rush’s broadcasts. Hell, I wouldn’t even know what he was talking about if that were the case. But that stunt blew up in the blogosphere and found the Senate Majority Leader spending a fair amount of time discussing it on the floor of the Senate. And a week or so ago, CNN was all Limbaugh all the time with the Likes of Carville and Begala trying to make him the Face of The Republican Party, as well as a spat with Ali Velshi. He’s also been all over Fox stating his case. If the Dems insist on raising the Evil Rush Limbaugh specter, they raise his profile by making him the news and putting him into places he otherwise wouldn’t be.

    If they just shrugged him off, he’d only be talking to his radio audience. But there’s no such thing as bad publicity for him, and they’re giving him lots of it. It’s dumb, but I hope they keep doing it.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/9/2009 @ 8:32 am

  198. I wonder why the lefties get such a warm feeling in their pants by asserting that conservatives are dumb ? I suspect that it has something to do with relative social and economic status.

    Yes, Limbaugh is an entertainer but he is also an excellent source of news that somehow never makes it into the LA or NY Times. Things like the Gaza casualty figures or the AFP al Durah scandal. These topics just don’t make it into NPR. The current state of newspapers suggests that few are reading them these days, maybe because they seem to contain news of local holdups and car chases plus a front page full of left wing editorial opinion.

    I am the first to admit that the Republican Congress could not stand prosperity. Allegations that conservative principles were discredited by the past six years are either ignorant or just partisan rhetoric. There is a lot of reassessment of policies going on right now. I went on that NRO cruise to listen to a lot of it. Maybe this is what the party needed; a rejection at the polls to focus attention on base principles, but we have to fear that the country will be irreversibly damaged by four years of what is going on now.

    It is as if Pelosi and Obama realize that the public will not stand for this socialist agenda for long and only if frightened out of rational thought. They seem to be determined to ram it down everyone’s throat before they catch on. That is not democratic government. It stimulates fears about authoritarian temptations, always present in left wing circles. Jonah Goldberg’s book should be taught in college poli-sci courses but it won’t be.

    Left wing comments are interesting because they tell us how that group is thinking. That’s why I read left wing blogs. It’s sort of like anthropology; study the primitive culture. Some of them get to be annoying but I ignore trolls. Some, like Emporer7, can be amusing but then they go off on rants about bitterness and hate. What did we have from the left for the past eight years ? Who do you think buys tickets for that idiotic Will Farrell show in New York ? On the left, hate sells. Limbaugh is selling humor and some pretty clever policy ideas, some of which I disagree with. He doesn’t sell hate; that is an exclusive property of the BDS left.

    Comment by MIke K (2cf494) — 2/9/2009 @ 8:32 am

  199. Rush is not a source of news. He is a commentator or pundit at best. Brit Hume is not even a source of news.

    Comment by Ed from PA (c313be) — 2/9/2009 @ 8:35 am

  200. Keith Olbermann is news, though.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/9/2009 @ 8:39 am

  201. Straw-man Alert!!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Comment by Ed from PA (c313be) — 2/9/2009 @ 8:40 am

  202. such cognitive dissonance. The libtards just make up crap off the tops of their heads. I’ve quoted LA Slimes’ Dog Trainer David Ehrenstein’s Magic Negro term here and elsewhere and been deemed a racist for using it.

    I’m gonna go off on a tangent and assume that’s because the people you used it around knew David Ehrenstein was pyssed to high heaven that Rush and “satirist” Paul Shanklin misappropriated it. Here’s an assignment for you, go to Ehrenstein’s blog and see what he thinks of Limbaugh racist use of the phrase and how warm and fuzzy he gets when Shanklin puts on black face to mimic Al Sharpton.

    It’s weird that there are two sides to a story.

    Oh, and Pablo, you and Olberman have more in common than you think. You both make abominations on camera, you’re both crazy, and neither of you belongs to a political party.

    Of course, I suppose the difference is that Olberman is successful makes tons of bank and you are still Jeff Goldstein’s fluffer.

    So it goes….

    Comment by timb (a83d56) — 2/9/2009 @ 8:50 am

  203. . “Notice he seldom, if ever, speaks analytically about the strengths of conservatism. His program is only about the weaknesses of liberalism.”

    Hax – I haven’t noticed this. That you describe his show this way marks you as unfamiliar with it.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/9/2009 @ 8:50 am

  204. Brit Hume has 35+ years of journalism under his belt, Ed. Which is probably about as many years as you have of being an idiot.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/9/2009 @ 8:52 am

  205. I’m gonna go off on a tangent and assume that’s because the people you used it around knew David Ehrenstein was pyssed to high heaven that Rush and “satirist” Paul Shanklin misappropriated it.

    How was it misappropriated, Timmah!? There’s no requirement that he appreciate another riffing on it.

    Oh, and Pablo, you and Olberman have more in common than you think. You both make abominations on camera, you’re both crazy, and neither of you belongs to a political party.

    When have you ever seen me on camera? How do you know how much money I make? And why are you so obsessed with Jeff Goldstein, Timmah!?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/9/2009 @ 8:56 am

  206. For all this talk of how Rush does or does not speak those whose iopinions differ (he does, they are regular Americans and he lets them have a say), I am verrrrrry curious:

    When has Keith Olbermann ever had any Republican on his show? Has he ever debated with those who disagreed with him?
    And like all good Democrats, has he forgotton Volitaire’s rule (I may disagree with your speech, but I will defend to the death, your right to speak)?

    Because modern Democrats, Liberals and progressives do not ever seem to defend Rush’s right to speak. Curious, that.

    Comment by JSF (98a373) — 2/9/2009 @ 8:57 am

  207. Ed, Brit Hume was a more reliable source of news than any of CBS’ anchors.

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 2/9/2009 @ 8:59 am

  208. Criticise the policies you don’t agree with but wish your President success.

    We’ll do that. In exactly the same way you on the left wished Bush success.

    The lefts hypocrisy is simply staggering.

    Comment by Subotai (cc9802) — 2/9/2009 @ 9:00 am

  209. The unwillingness of Hax to admit when he is clearly wrong, proved with evidence on several occaisons, and his inability to support his sweeping statements with links or data is certainly consistent with that of our former troll, as is his ondness for switching the subject when cornered.

    I will be very interested to learn if he actually emails Patterico separately to clear up the matter.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/9/2009 @ 9:04 am

  210. Subotai, its more fundamentally dishonest than that, Rush was discussing policies.

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 2/9/2009 @ 9:05 am

  211. Who knows, it might be fun to create a new internet verb if it turns out to be our former troll psycho stalker.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/9/2009 @ 9:07 am

  212. I will be very interested to learn if he actually emails Patterico separately to clear up the matter.

    He won’t, daleyrocks. I’d bet ten bucks that he won’t. One of his earliest posts was in the thread where Patterico dismantled The L.A. Times on ICE arrests, and Hax stated flat out that any disagreement with Pat would get him banned.

    Hax is wearing his moderation like a badge of honor.

    Comment by Steverino (69d941) — 2/9/2009 @ 9:11 am

  213. Most liberals, as I mentioned, think it’s boring if you only attack one side from the same point of view all the time.

    I don’t know if Hacky is a banned troll or not. But it deserves to be banned now for sheer mind-numbing stupidity.

    Comment by Subotai (cc9802) — 2/9/2009 @ 9:11 am

  214. We’ll do that. In exactly the same way you on the left wished Bush success.

    So, we should start stomping out feet and demanding that Obama be impeached, then? ;)

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/9/2009 @ 9:11 am

  215. We should be demanding Obama and Biden be tried for war crimes. They ordered the murder of innocent Pakistanis with that missile strike.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/9/2009 @ 9:22 am

  216. Cut your losses now and admit you messed up, or prepare to have this thrown in your face from here to eternity.

    I’d rather you ask him about his pet ocelot – really, that answer will tell you more about him than anything else. The cat’s name is allegedly known as “Whiskers.”

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 2/9/2009 @ 9:31 am

  217. Pablo, you nincompoop, did you miss the Patterico thread regarding violations of the Logan act and how Obama broke the law and should be removed, etc? That would strange of you to miss, since you participated in the whole exercise. 1!ELEVENTY!!ROBERT MALLEY111

    I thought of that thread this weekend when I read about how Eisenhower made a secret trip to Korea in 1952 to judge whether Korea was winnable. He even met with Rhee! OMG, LOGAN ACT!

    How was it misappropriated

    Ah, the famous Pablo reading capacity. Why speak for David when he can speak for himself?

    My favorite part is in the comments

    “If you read my original op-ed with a bit more care you’d not that it was not about Obama personally but rather about the then-growing perceptio9n [sic] of him in the popular imagination.

    An op-ed intended to insult white liberals for imagining Obama was Michael Clark Duncan from the The Green Mile becomes an opportunity for race-baiting Paul Shanklin to go all burlesque on Obama and Sharpton for the delight of cons everywhere is “misappropriated.” How dare the guy who wrote that piece try to tell is what he wrote….intentionalism and all.

    But, reality was never your friend, Pablo, so keep living in the world where the CRA caused the financial meltdown and Obama just STOLE the election with all that bad money and fake votes. It’s the road to success.

    Comment by timb (a83d56) — 2/9/2009 @ 9:37 am

  218. Rush is not a source of news. He is a commentator or pundit at best. Brit Hume is not even a source of news.

    Eddy’s continuing descent into a full – on beclowning is quite a thing to watch. He uses his patented strawman defense right off the bat, and then, when a commenter responded to his strawman tactic…

    Straw-man Alert!!!!!

    You’re beautiful, Eddy. As you stated in an earlier thread, you really do speak stupid.

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 2/9/2009 @ 9:38 am

  219. An op-ed intended to insult white liberals for imagining Obama was Michael Clark Duncan from the The Green Mile becomes an opportunity for race-baiting Paul Shanklin to go all burlesque

    One word for Timmah – Lithium. Please get a prescription for it, you’re showing advanced stages of bi – polar disorder.

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 2/9/2009 @ 9:40 am

  220. Timmah!

    Pablo, you nincompoop, did you miss the Patterico thread regarding violations of the Logan act and how Obama broke the law and should be removed, etc?

    Feel free to quote me, nitwit.

    Ah, the famous Pablo reading capacity. Why speak for David when he can speak for himself?

    That doesn’t tell me how it was misappropriated, Timmah! You wanna try and flesh that out?

    Oh, and why are you so obsessed with Jeff Goldstein?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/9/2009 @ 9:48 am

  221. timb discussing reality is like a blind mole rat discussing sunspots.

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 2/9/2009 @ 9:54 am

  222. Oh, and my all means go check out DE’s site. Pay special attention to his fixation on Sarah Palin—much like Andrew Sullivan. And his hatred filled spleenfests about John McCain.

    But remember: Republicans are the haters.

    Comment by Eric Blair (1aa50b) — 2/9/2009 @ 9:55 am

  223. Obama just STOLE the election with all that bad money and fake votes. It’s the road to success.

    Comment by timb — 2/9/2009 @ 9:37 am

    Finally. The first and only time I’ve seen one of the clueless O voters connect the dots. Tim B, what do you think the $5.5 Billion will do for Acorn? Reward them for past work? Reward them for future work? Both?

    As for Love-empty. Dumb, proud, ignorant. Repeated posts saying a vote for skin color was a vote for pride and justice. And now we’re supposed to forget your politics? You are not political. You voted strictly on color lines. Junior’s had a rough start out the gate but thanks to a one-party Congress he should do just fine. In other words… what you label success the rest of us call Socialism.

    As someone suggested, take your opposing viewpoint and demand for harmony elsewhere. Like Cuba or North Korea.

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/9/2009 @ 10:08 am

  224. Eric, just go on there and call him my favorite description – Hambone. Always drove him nuts, and his friend Gary went apesh-it as well.

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 2/9/2009 @ 10:30 am

  225. Good Lord. When Rush Limbaugh is seen as an educator as opposed to a self-aggrandizing baboon Jack, it is time for some serious introspection and soul searching. He appeals to the most basest and low of human instincts and is everything wrong and ugly and flawed about American conservatism, circa this last quarter century. As a matter of fact, I don’t consider him a true “conservative.” He’s too hateful and extreme and prosaic. The irony is rich that you’ve written for the NRO. It is no wonder that conservatives with a love of knowledge and intellectual rigor, like Buckley Sr., Jr. and David Brooks have run from RL and the NRO sick with revulsion and embarrassment.

    It is so sad, how a once proud and worthy American political movement has fallen so fast and so far over reaching into areas that are none of the government’s business and yet hypocritically demanding government keep its dirty paws off the private sector no matter how flawed and self-destructive it has become to the well being of the entire country.

    This is not some grand battle for true American values. The American experiment was meant to continue to progress towards greater and greater freedom and respect for the individual and as long as the right marries that idea to nepotism and wealthy interests and bitterness and small mindedness it will never work correctly.

    I can only hope there is a resurgence of true conservatives who see through this present sham of conservatism, because they’re the only thing that’s going to save the GOP.

    Comment by Peter (e70d1c) — 2/9/2009 @ 10:59 am

  226. Vermont Neighbor: Tim B, what do you think the $5.5 Billion will do for Acorn?

    Care for some fries with that rank fish taco?

    Comment by Peter (e70d1c) — 2/9/2009 @ 11:01 am

  227. One thing “true” conservatives should avoid is allowing liberals like Peter to define what true conservatism means.

    Comment by Steverino (69d941) — 2/9/2009 @ 11:07 am

  228. #195

    I didn’t say he wasn’t a conservative.

    You directly linked to a post titled “Rush Limbaugh is not a conservative,” without any qualification or reservation, so yeah, you did.

    I said that he shouldn’t be considered a trusted voice of conservative ethics and morals.

    That is not at all what you said, but we’ll not belabor the point.

    Again, to my point: A person is disqualified from comment on issues where value judgements are involved because they have unfortunate events in their past? We aren’t exactly talking about skeletons in the closet here~AFAIK, Limbaugh has been forthcoming and open about his own life. And it isn’t like conservatives crowd around to get at the font of received wisdom concerning ethics and morals: in case you had forgotten, ethical and moral behavior is a personal responsibility.

    You have to walk the walk yourself before if you plan to tear others down for breaking the same moral codes that you are.

    Oh. Here we go. Now which exactly “moral codes” is Limbaugh to supposed to have broken? Becoming addicted while under a doctor’s care for pain management? Sorry, that isn’t a moral issue at all, but a physiological one.

    Not being successful at marriage? Well, unless there is proof that his marriages failed due to immoral behavior on his part, that’s a bit of a red herring. Sometimes marriages don’t work out, even with the best intentions practiced by both parties. All it really means is that Limbaugh might not be the best source of marriage advice, but I don’t think that’s the market he aims for.

    Of course, this logic seems to escape the Rush-Heads.

    Of course, it escapes the rest of us because it has nothing to do with “logic.” It has to do with mud slinging because you don’t like what someone else has to say.

    Or, more likely, don’t have the capacity to understand it.

    Comment by EW1(SG) (e27928) — 2/9/2009 @ 11:15 am

  229. That was an amazing screed in a world with Olbermann, Maddow, Mathews, Rather, Soros, and the rest of the temperate and fair MSM. Pure projection—until Peter and their pals apply that logic to their own heroes.

    Oh, I forgot: they are progressives and much smarter and more correct than anyone else. It’s different.

    Comment by Eric Blair (4342a2) — 2/9/2009 @ 11:26 am

  230. Sometimes, Timmah! really is funny.

    An op-ed intended to insult white liberals for imagining Obama was Michael Clark Duncan from the The Green Mile becomes an opportunity for race-baiting Paul Shanklin to go all burlesque on Obama and Sharpton for the delight of cons everywhere is “misappropriated.”

    If you want race baiting, Timmah!, David Eherestein is your go to guy.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/9/2009 @ 11:30 am

  231. “Obama will not fail.”

    - Emperor07

    That’s reassuring.

    Comment by Leviticus (334f0e) — 2/9/2009 @ 11:32 am

  232. Dmac: I try to check DE’s site once in a while because when he isn’t on a rant, he is an interesting and skillful writer.

    But the venom—for example, posting photos of McCain in the hands of VC and making smartalec comments about it—is just too much.

    And I think: here is a fellow who denounces nasty personal attacks…except when he makes them.

    Projection, again. Sadly.

    Comment by Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/9/2009 @ 11:35 am

  233. Dear Patterico: that blog you referenced in post #186 has been taken down.

    So maybe it was not the person in question? I don’t suppose it matters, really. But interesting it was taken down pretty quickly.

    Comment by Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/9/2009 @ 11:37 am

  234. 202- bioya and gfy now and don’t pass go/don’t colelct $200.

    Seems like David Ehrenstein is much like that libtard Noam Chomsky “intellectual elite” self-loathing Jew, except the LA Times cretin has it all in way of victimhood- black, gay, Jewish and libtard. ..plus works for a western version of Pravda/Izvestia rag. How come assclowns like him get so much respect and adulation plus a free rein to say whatever the feck they want. I would have preferred seeing Daniel Pearl spared the jihadists’ head lopping and reveled seeing the likes of Olberdouche, Chomksy, Carter, Cher, Streisand, Donohue, Sean Penn or Chrissie “I squat to pee” Matthews begging for their worthless lives.

    Comment by aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 2/9/2009 @ 11:45 am

  235. Peter: thanks for confirming that the Chicago way was made possible by Acorn fraud. Should you have any coherent answer to the sham billions planned for Acorn, by all means pls contribute. Your fish stories, I suspect, cover the depth of your answer — which, like dear leader, is as empty as a box of rocks.

    Care for some fries with that rank fish taco?

    Yes. Sounds good. That, and the freedom to vote in private. Along with the freedom of knowing that taxpayers aren’t funding the next quasi-election. The rest of us are just a little quicker at identifying socialism. You don’t think it will affect you. Get ready, little comrade.

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/9/2009 @ 11:49 am

  236. Sock puppet?

    Troll?

    What gives, Pat?

    I come to this site and make my views and readers respond.

    I have no idea who or what that link you cite is about. Nor do I understand what your goal is here.

    Do you want a conservative only Web site?

    Do you want a Web site that’s almost all conservative, but with a few “Alan Colmes” style Uncle Tom liberals?

    If you’er going to be banning people, maybe you should make a statement up front about the standards you will apply to liberal commentators and those you’ll apply to conservatives.

    Fairness matters to you, right?

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/9/2009 @ 12:02 pm

  237. Vermont Neighbor: That, and the freedom to vote in private. Along with the freedom of knowing that taxpayers aren’t funding the next quasi-election.

    Please explain this. It sounds to be even more entertaining and mendacious than the absurd Limbaugh logic that ACORN will be receiving $5.5 Billion. Don’t you guys ever get tire of blaming poor inner city blacks for the economic woes of the country. Aren’t you even embarrassed at all? Do you think this is still the mid-90′s when the sleazy right-wing myth of the welfare queen with 12 kids actually got some traction?

    Yes, it was ACORN with all those foul derivatives and withering away of governmental oversight that allowed banks and finance companies that should’ve known better, that they shouldn’t be making bad loans (not CRA loans btw) and that faulty instruments shouldn’t be created with those loans. It was ACORN and the poor that demanded the country destroy its own manufacturing base and go to Iraq to spends close to a trillion dollars on a lie. Yes, a lie. A mismanaged pathetic lie.

    The rest of us are just a little quicker at identifying socialism. You don’t think it will affect you. Get ready, little comrade.

    You sound like Joe McCarthy and seem to be equating Socialism with Cold War Communism.

    Steverino: One thing “true” conservatives should avoid is allowing liberals like Peter to define what true conservatism means.

    Yes, please don’t listen to me. Don’t listen to any moderates or outsiders from the Lincoln-hating holy realm of the Cult of Ronald Reagan. You guys are doing a marvelous job of rendering the GOP and conservatism a tragic irrelevant joke. Carry on.

    Comment by Peter (e70d1c) — 2/9/2009 @ 12:42 pm

  238. Just more of the same demonization and distortion and fear-mongering VH. That narrative will be dead in two years time. Enjoy it while you can.

    The true cowards and liars and unAmerican slimeballs and incompetents have been exposed for the country to see. That train has left the station. You can’t change that.

    2010 is going to be glorious for the Democratic party.

    Comment by Peter (e70d1c) — 2/9/2009 @ 12:48 pm

  239. Just more of the same demonization and distortion and fear-mongering VH.

    IMPEACH BUSH AND TRY HIM FOR WAR CRMIES!!!!

    Heh.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/9/2009 @ 12:57 pm

  240. Peter, it is very amusing how often your comments describe your own words more than your debate opponents.

    Actually, I lied.

    It is not amusing any longer.

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 2/9/2009 @ 12:57 pm

  241. Yes, please don’t listen to me. Don’t listen to any moderates or outsiders from the Lincoln-hating holy realm of the Cult of Ronald Reagan. You guys are doing a marvelous job of rendering the GOP and conservatism a tragic irrelevant joke. Carry on.

    You really are deluded. All I’m saying is that it’s up to conservatives to define themselves, and not let the likes of you define them.

    But I will take your advice: I won’t listen to you. Not that I ever did.

    Comment by Steverino (69d941) — 2/9/2009 @ 12:58 pm

  242. Yes, a lie. A mismanaged pathetic lie.

    Horrible, ain’t it?

    Mr Ban was expected to hold talks with Mr Maliki as well as Iraqi President Jalal Talabani while in Baghdad.

    He will “reiterate the UN’s commitment to the country”, and “above all congratulate the Iraqi people on the success of largely violence-free elections”, UN spokesman Said Arikat told the AFP news agency.

    The election was an extraordinary achievement in a country that has been wracked by violence for the last nearly six years, our correspondent says.

    Healthy and peaceful political competition, and change through the ballot box, have become the name of the game, he adds.

    Do you still miss Saddam, Peter?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/9/2009 @ 1:01 pm

  243. Peter – For the party of tolerance, you sure do have a lot of hate built up. You should work on that. The idea that you are in any way a “moderate” is laughable. I did enjoy how you so predictably played the race card above, which is the surest sign that you have got nothing, though I love how you claim to want debated, and then resort to outright name calling in every comment. Twatwaffles like you, Hack Scum, timmah, etc … could learn from the likes of Leviticus and aphrael. Sadly, you will not. You are kids. Petulent little kids. Unable to even be gracious in victory, which says a lot about a person’s character, or lack thereof. Enjoy these next 2 years. Spend money like you are at a drunken orgy. Get all those little pet projects through for all of your groupls while you can.

    Comment by JD (c6800b) — 2/9/2009 @ 1:02 pm

  244. It sounds to be even more entertaining and mendacious than the absurd Limbaugh logic that ACORN will be receiving $5.5 Billion. Don’t you guys ever get tire of blaming poor inner city blacks for the economic woes of the country.

    Spoken liks someone who’s never lived in Chicago, and has no understanding about the origins of ACORN, or any other relevant facts about it’s operations. Hard to find truer ignorance on this topic, but there you have it.

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 2/9/2009 @ 1:03 pm

  245. “Spoken like.”

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 2/9/2009 @ 1:04 pm

  246. What would happen if Pat banned ad hominem?

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/9/2009 @ 1:19 pm

  247. Peter, you are no moderate. You need to stick with VOTER FRAUD. Quit meandering into the predictable victim talking points. Acorn = bought this election. Acorn = all ready to pull out the stops next time with $5.5 B.

    As for Joe McCarthy ? Right now, Jenny McCarthy would be better in the Oval Office than what we have going. I bet she even likes America. May be proud of it too….

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/9/2009 @ 1:19 pm

  248. Oh, and Peter. Read up on Greg Craig. I just read Byron York’s article, complete with legal resume. I. Had. No. Idea.

    It just gets worse and worse.

    It’s hard to point out a pattern in these cases. It’s fair to say he handled the [Wm. Kennedy] Smith matter because of his Kennedy connections. He worked on the Clinton defense because he is a loyal Democrat who’d known the Clintons since his years with them at Yale Law School. And Hinckley? Well, Hinckley’s father was wealthy and hired Williams & Connolly, although that was probably a case some lawyers wouldn’t have taken.

    In the area of foreign affairs, however, there is perhaps a pattern in Craig’s work. From Pedro Miguel González to Fidel Castro to Daniel Ortega, Craig has offered his assistance to antagonists of the United States. It’s not illegal, but it’s the kind of thing that lawyers occasionally agonize about. “It’s a delicate issue because generally we don’t hold lawyers responsible for the views of their clients,” one conservative attorney in Washington told me recently. “That said, it is a point worth considering when a lawyer has time and again gone to the well and represented somebody on the other side of an issue from America. Lawyers remain free to turn down clients.”

    http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=ZjIyNzhkNjhhNWU0ZmFiZGZhNGJmYTQ0ODM4MGY0ZjA=

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/9/2009 @ 1:29 pm

  249. Comment by Pablo — 2/9/2009 @ 8:52 am

    Yeah, Fox News is a totally credible source for non-biased information. Just ask O’Reilly, Hannity, Brit Hume (have you seen his Sunday show? Pure political puppetry… at least Dan Rather didn’t regularly participate in such buffoonery), Glen Beck, and so on and so on. Fox news is not a legitimate news source. Next topic.

    Comment by Ed from PA (c313be) — 2/9/2009 @ 1:54 pm

  250. Ed, no Dan Rather just presented fraudulent documents to attempt to affect a presidential election.

    Sheesh, you are a clown.

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 2/9/2009 @ 2:00 pm

  251. EfP – Please tell us, in no uncertain terms, who you consider to be a non-biased news source. Thank you, in advance, for your anticipated douchebaggery.

    Comment by JD (c6800b) — 2/9/2009 @ 2:01 pm

  252. Non-sequitor much, Ed from PA? And what’s with the inability to tell the difference between opinion shows and news shows?

    That’s a major lefty syndrome, for some reason. You guys attack opinion shows for having bias (DUH!), but completely ignore the actual news programming. That’s like saying “CNN? Oh, totally biased — have you seen Larry King?” or “CBS? Can’t trust ‘em. I mean, just watch ‘Face the Nation’ — they’re all so opinionated!”

    Comment by Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 2/9/2009 @ 2:05 pm

  253. Oh, and Ed from PA — Glenn Beck is on CNN.

    Ya might wanna get your facts straight before you start spouting off. Just sayin’…

    Comment by Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 2/9/2009 @ 2:07 pm

  254. No, Rob, Ed is correct. Glenn Beck just moved to Fox this last month.

    The fact that he used to be on CNN does however destroy his little silly point.

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 2/9/2009 @ 2:08 pm

  255. Yeah, Fox News is a totally credible source for non-biased information. Just ask O’Reilly, Hannity, Brit Hume (have you seen his Sunday show? Pure political puppetry… at least Dan Rather didn’t regularly participate in such buffoonery), Glen Beck, and so on and so on. Fox news is not a legitimate news source. Next topic.

    This is a fine example, class, of the “Genesis Fallacy”. Rather than offer any argument against the point, Ed has chosen to claim the information isn’t correct because of its source.

    Please don’t fall into the same trap.

    Ed, I’m afraid you’ll have to write “I won’t use the Genesis Fallacy anymore” on the blackboard 500 times.

    Comment by Steverino (69d941) — 2/9/2009 @ 2:08 pm

  256. No, Rob, Ed is correct. Glenn Beck just moved to Fox this last month.

    I stand corrected.

    In any case, what’s with the attacking the news content of a network based on the presence of opinion programs?

    Comment by Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 2/9/2009 @ 2:18 pm

  257. Comment by SPQR — 2/9/2009 @ 2:08 pm

    No, it really doesn’t. Actually it further demonstrates the accuracy of my point. Fox news needed another conservative talking head to balance out Greta van Susteren (you know, because Greta is sooo liberal). If it had been a liberal commentator that had made the switch to Fox then your point would have been proven. You’re a real dope, SPQR. Don’t you know how logic works?

    Comment by Ed from PA (c313be) — 2/9/2009 @ 2:38 pm

  258. Oh, and Ed from PA — Glenn Beck is on CNN.

    Ya might wanna get your facts straight before you start spouting off. Just sayin’…

    Comment by Rob Crawford — 2/9/2009 @ 2:07 pm

    Ha. Oh Robby… you’re hilarious. Just sayin’….

    Comment by Ed from PA (c313be) — 2/9/2009 @ 2:40 pm

  259. When I say Zogby “disowned” the poll, I mean he agreed with some of the criticisms. Maybe that’s a bit of an overstatement, but its essence is true and defining. Here’s what Zog said about the poll and Zeigler’s request to commission a similar poll, i.e. one in which Zeigler gets to write biased questions, for McCain voters:

    “I am happy to do a poll of both Obama voters and McCain voters, with questions that I formulated and sponsored either by an objective third party or by someone on the left, in tandem with a John Ziegler on the right — but poll questions that have my signature,” Zogby said.

    “I believe there was value in the poll we did,” Zogby added. “I also believe it was not our finest hour. This slipped through the cracks. It came out critical only of Obama voters.”

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15829.html

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/9/2009 @ 2:43 pm

  260. EfP – Again, I ask of you, who do you consider to be a non-biased news source. I remain thankful, in advance, for your anticipated douchebaggery.

    Comment by JD (c6800b) — 2/9/2009 @ 2:43 pm

  261. If it had been a liberal commentator that had made the switch to Fox

    Yeah, as if any would ever consider it. They hate those who disagree with them far too much for that to ever happen.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (who wants DRJ to come back) (90ff96) — 2/9/2009 @ 2:46 pm

  262. Mr Vobiscum has revealed himself to be an Onion-style satirist:

    They’d rather listen to straight news reporting like NPR…

    [snort!] And here I had thought he was serious in all of this! Congratulations, Mr Vobiscum, you have pulled our collective leg well indeed!

    Comment by The Dana who said, "Oh, now I get it!" (556f76) — 2/9/2009 @ 2:46 pm

  263. Ed, I acknowledged my error.

    Now, will you acknowledge YOUR error in confusing commentary with news?

    Comment by Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 2/9/2009 @ 2:47 pm

  264. Dana – I found that one to be particularly snort-worthy as well. Good Allah, teh stoopid, it is painful.

    Comment by JD (c6800b) — 2/9/2009 @ 2:47 pm

  265. Emperor7 wrote:

    Everything rises and falls on the leader.

    The Germans once had that concept: it was called the führerprinzip. Do I need to document just how well that worked out for them?

    Frankly, your entire comment there could have been taken from Mein Kampf, where Adolf Hitler argued that the divisiveness and inefficiency of parliamentarians was a drag on the nation, and that only a strong Führer could take the country in hand and lead it to greatness.

    It’s difficult reading in English, because the sentence construction seems so foreign to us, with many, many sentences that run on and on. But anyone who could have written the comment you made above really, really needs to read that book.

    Comment by The Dana who doesn't speak German (556f76) — 2/9/2009 @ 2:57 pm

  266. Ed, did you have something you wanted to say about Brit Hume or are you just here to screech FAUX NEWZ!!!!eleventy!!!

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/9/2009 @ 3:02 pm

  267. have you seen his Sunday show? Pure political puppetry… at least Dan Rather didn’t regularly participate in such buffoonery),

    It’s not Hume’s show, you asshat. Once again, as in every comment you cough up here, you’ve never watched the program. It was Tony Snow’s program from it’s origination, then transferred over to Chris Wallace. That’s Chris Wallace from ABC, you ignorant douchebag.

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 2/9/2009 @ 3:03 pm

  268. I tried reading Mein Kampf once. I got through the first 50 pages and a bottle of advil before I put the thing down.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/9/2009 @ 3:06 pm

  269. Now, will you acknowledge YOUR error in confusing commentary with news?

    When did I do that? Every show on Fox blurs the lines between commentary and news. There are commentary shows (O’Reilly et al) and there are commentary shows disguised as news programs (Brit Hume).

    It was Brit Hume’s show up until about a month ago, you asshat. I don’t understand why each and every one of you needs everything spelled out.

    Comment by Ed from PA (c313be) — 2/9/2009 @ 3:29 pm

  270. Ed, mostly because you don’t know what you are talking about, and your confusion makes adults wonder about you.

    Although your line about Dan Rather still has me laughing.

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 2/9/2009 @ 3:31 pm

  271. If it had been a liberal commentator that had made the switch to Fox

    Yeah, as if any would ever consider it. They hate those who disagree with them far too much for that to ever happen.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (who wants DRJ to come back) — 2/9/2009 @ 2:46 pm

    Haven’t you heard of the terms “Fox news liberal” and “Fox Democrat”. They pretend to be fair and balanced by putting on these puppets who agree to be weak debators in advance.

    Comment by Ed from PA (c313be) — 2/9/2009 @ 3:33 pm

  272. Ed, your conspiracy theories say a lot about you.

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 2/9/2009 @ 3:33 pm

  273. You have not posted one accurate or insightful statement today, SPQR. It doesn’t surprise me that you didn’t break that streak in 267. Reach for perfection, genius!

    Comment by Ed from PA (c313be) — 2/9/2009 @ 3:34 pm

  274. When did I do that? Every show on Fox blurs the lines between commentary and news. There are commentary shows (O’Reilly et al) and there are commentary shows disguised as news programs (Brit Hume).

    And there are news programs, which you continue to ignore.

    Weird. It’s like a form of hysterical blindness.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 2/9/2009 @ 3:37 pm

  275. Ed, so you are denying that Dan Rather presented forged documents before the 2004 Presidential election?

    Your delusions are getting funnier.

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 2/9/2009 @ 3:39 pm

  276. NYT and LAT are all news. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC are pure news and wholly accurate. There is no bias, no agenda, no conservative bashing going on there. Oh, and I’m Manute Bol.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/9/2009 @ 3:40 pm

  277. Please tell me which Fox programs you consider to be news programs, free from conservative commentary. Enlighten us, please.

    Comment by Ed from PA (c313be) — 2/9/2009 @ 3:41 pm

  278. Comment by The Dana who doesn’t speak German — 2/9/2009 @ 2:57 pm
    So what’s your point, you don’t believe in the importance of leadership?

    Comment by Emperor7 (1b037c) — 2/9/2009 @ 3:42 pm

  279. EFP, give us an example of liberal agenda coming from the other outlets, mmkay?

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/9/2009 @ 3:42 pm

  280. Ed, there are as many news programs free from conservative commentary on Fox as their are news programs free from liberal commentary on CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC and CNN combined.

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 2/9/2009 @ 3:43 pm

  281. Emp, while it may be true POTUS may be the most powerful man in the free world, it has always been true Congress has placed huge restraints on POTUS. Three branches of government, two branches of legislature, the purpose being to gum up the works well enough to prevent oligarchies.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/9/2009 @ 3:45 pm

  282. So John and SPQR don’t like this argument and would rather reframe it. Is that how this game works? You decide one argument may not work so you switch venues on me?

    Comment by Ed from PA (c313be) — 2/9/2009 @ 3:45 pm

  283. EFP, you constantly rail against conservative bias while claiming there is no (or little) liberal bias in the overwhelming majority of MSM. Your commentary has little accuracy or balance. You do not desire accuracy or balance or factual data else you lose.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/9/2009 @ 3:49 pm

  284. EfP – I asked you directly, twice, what you consider to be an unbiased news source. So far, you have studiously avoided answering what appears to be quite a simple straight-forward question.

    Comment by JD (c6800b) — 2/9/2009 @ 3:55 pm

  285. Please tell me which Fox programs you consider to be news programs, free from conservative commentary.

    None of them are free from conservative commentary. Nor are they free from liberal commentary.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/9/2009 @ 3:56 pm

  286. It was Brit Hume’s show up until about a month ago, you asshat.

    No, you ignorant slut. Here’s what your original post was:

    Hannity, Brit Hume (have you seen his Sunday show? Pure political puppetry…

    You ignorant douche, I think you meant to say it was the Monday – Friday show that Brit Hume previously hosted, called Special Report. The Sunday show has never been hosted by Hume – proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you’ve never looked at any of the shows on Fox, and that you’re just parroting talking points you’ve heard elsewhere, you sockpuppet douchebag.

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:03 pm

  287. Emperor7 wrote:

    So what’s your point, you don’t believe in the importance of leadership?

    I do, but not to the extent that the nation stands or falls with the Führer Leader, nor that the Leader is all.

    Good Lord, man, just go back and read your comment here. You said:

    Obama has to succeed so that America will succeed again. It’s not about Obama, it’s about you and I. It’s about the destinies of posterity, yet unborn. It’s about the greatness of The United States of America.

    Sycophancy cab go little further. Whether President Obama succeeds or fails does not determine whether we live or die. In all probability, he will succeed in some things and fail in others, just like every President we’ve ever had, save William Henry Harrison. Our destiny does not depend upon one man, Mr E!

    Comment by The non-sycophancic Dana (556f76) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:04 pm

  288. No, Ed, you are the one reframing the argument. Your position appears to be that Fox is bad because ( you claim ) that it is biased but you’ll not confront the bias of any other news source. Conservative bias is real to you, and liberal bias is ignored by you.

    And you even decided to cite to Dan Rather as an objective news reporter further establishing that you are simply a clown.

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:06 pm

  289. Fox news is readily identifiable to the layperson as conservatively biased. That fact is undeniable. The great part about this ‘liberal MSM’ argument is that you can shift it, and you rarely need any actual facts. All you need is opinion. It is logically impossible to discredit an opinion, which is the brilliance behind the assertion.

    While everybody knows Fox news is biased, your charges typically involve gripes about the LA Times using one word or phrase over another with almost identical meanings. Or, you’ll complain about the Times not picking up on stories that they should have (almost 100% of the time these stories are bogus and have absolutely zero journalistic merit). I was engaged in an argument with one poster on here who was complaining about the Times ignoring an angle on the octuplets that were born. He wanted a story about how the mother was on government assistance. The best part of that argument was that the times actually did write that story. No matter, facts are not important. I feel like the Times is biased, is his claim. Feelings, not facts. That newspaper actually did run the story was glossed over, because it doesn’t support your claim. Can you imagine what will happen when your ‘MSM bias’ charade is exposed? Your candidates would get as many votes as Adams got in the first presidential election (actual votes, not percentage). Gasp… good luck with that. Keep on pushing that bias card!

    Comment by Ed from PA (c313be) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:06 pm

  290. free from conservative commentary. Enlighten us, please.

    Shep Smith hosts a round – up every night, and has reporters from the following on his show regularly : NYT, WaPo and NPR, along with Fox and the WSJ.

    Do you even know whom I’m talking about, pre – pubescent douchebag?

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:07 pm

  291. It’s about the greatness of The United States of America.

    Zeig Heil!

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:10 pm

  292. Ed, you are a joke. And not a funny one. CBS was caught pushing forged documents to alter a presidential election and you claim that there are no facts behind their liberal bias?

    The recent election had scores of examples of biased treatment of Republican versus Democratic candidates over the last year. The different levels of skepticism of speeches between them, the different treatment of gaffes between the candidates and even had on-air news anchors expressing their enrapture with Obama.

    You remain a clown.

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:12 pm

  293. One thing I learned from my recent time trying to go back to college: Even the liberal universities will say in their curriculum anyone who claims to not be biased is claiming a falsehood because everyone brings bias with him.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:12 pm

  294. EfP – Will it cause you physical pain to answer a simple question like who you consider to be an unbiased news source?

    Comment by JD (c6800b) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:17 pm

  295. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

    Interesting article about Fox News. So far your only ‘fact’ is a story about Bush’s nonexistent guard service. Congratulations. Bush protected the bread belt with unmatched honor.

    Comment by Ed from PA (c313be) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:22 pm

  296. It might be interesting to you, Ed. But then, you’re gullible.

    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=100

    What’s FAIR?

    FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. As an anti-censorship organization, we expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.

    For fun, go over there and search for “Olbermann.” You won’t be surprised.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:32 pm

  297. Comment by The non-sycophantic Dana — 2/9/2009 @ 4:04 pm
    I guess that means it’s not really important what the President does. He will not be held responsible. He can drive the nation into a ditch and we won’t even feel the effects. The presidency can fail and we won’t be touched. I get it now. You learn new things everyday! (And it’s “non-sycophantic”, not “-sycophancic”. )

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:33 pm

  298. So far your only ‘fact’ is a story about Bush’s nonexistent guard service. Congratulations. Bush protected the bread belt with unmatched honor.

    Comment by Ed from PA — 2/9/2009 @ 4:22 pm

    So you’re standing behind the CBS story, then? Where did a guy go to fly the F-102 if not the military/Nat. Guard? The Peace Corps? Was that the real scandal? GWB secretly avoided military service by signing on with the Peace Corps in the 60′s?

    Comment by Chris (b886a5) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:35 pm

  299. Pablo, I went to that site and did that search. I found a very laughable line.

    In fact, the study found that very little of the “negative” coverage of Palin had anything to do with her personal or family life, which the study found was only 5 percent of the coverage of her.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:40 pm

  300. Edward from my home state defeats his own argument:

    Fox news is readily identifiable to the layperson as conservatively biased. That fact is undeniable. The great part about this ‘liberal MSM’ argument is that you can shift it, and you rarely need any actual facts. All you need is opinion. It is logically impossible to discredit an opinion, which is the brilliance behind the assertion.

    I find this amusing: you state that Fox News is conservatively biased is a fact, while the notion that most of the rest of the professional media are biased toward the left is an opinion. But that happens to be your opinion, which you state is logically impossible to discredit, but which must also apply to others.

    To state that it is a “fact” that Fox is conservatively biased requires a hard definition of conservative, something probably not agreed to here, and the method of determination of political direction from an unbiased statement of fact in the news. To state that this conservative bias is “readily identifiable” tells us nothing about the methods which the observer used, nor does it define this unspecified “layperson,” who could be anyone, and who just possibly could be Joe the Plumber or Jeff Goldstein or me.

    Your statement seems to assume that this generic “layperson” would be possessed of the cultural and political mindset that would see Fox as conservative, yet apparently see MSNBC and NPR and The Los Angeles Times as neutral, an assumption which would, inter alia, define this person as a political liberal.

    Of course, much of the professional media do not deny that they are liberal, at least not when it comes to their editorial stands. Among the major dailies of this great land, how many endorsed George Bush over his Democratic opponent in 2000 and 2004? In 2000 we had a nearly dead heat in the popular vote, and 2004 a solid Bush victory, yet if the actual votes are any indication of the middle in this country, the solid phalanx of editorial opinion in the major dailies has to define them as liberal.

    And while the networks don’t publish out-and-out editorials endorsing one candidate over the other, it is pretty clear, to me, in my opinion, that they heavily favored the Democrats; the “Rathergate” scandal was simply the most egregious example.

    Comment by The non-sycophancic Dana (556f76) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:42 pm

  301. Emp, do you believe democratic (little “d”) ideals are best served by silencing dissenters?

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:42 pm

  302. EfP – Not that there was ever really any doubt, but your continued pushing of the “fake but accurate” idiocy simply proves, beyond a shadown of a doubt, how incredibly mendoucheous you are.

    Still waiting on that unbiased news source.

    Comment by JD (c6800b) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:42 pm

  303. Comment by John Hitchcock — 2/9/2009 @ 4:42 pm
    I don’t think they ought to be merely silenced. I think they ought to be treated as enemies of the state and publicly executed. :)

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:50 pm

  304. I guess that means it’s not really important what the President does.

    Fallacy of the excluded middle.

    Presidents have influence, but they are not the primary determining factor.

    Ed from PA — you really are over your head, aren’t you? FAIR is to liberals as the Media Research Center is to conservatives.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:55 pm

  305. John – We are still waiting on lovie to show us where she spent her time from 2000-2008 calling for bipartisanship, and unity.

    Comment by JD (c6800b) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:55 pm

  306. Emp’s attempt at humor in order to dodge the question was enough. Emp no longer has a leg to stand on while sporting that naked nudidity. I am not amused.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/9/2009 @ 4:58 pm

  307. Ed from PA — I’m sure you’ve been pointed to this study before, and that you’ve ignored it, but I figure another reference can’t hurt.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/9/2009 @ 5:04 pm

  308. Just a little reminder of supposedly unbiased CBS News’ coverage during 2004. Remember the “unsecured weapons in Iraq being stolen” story? CBS and The New York Times developed that story together, and CBS tried to hold it until their 60 Minutes show on the Sunday before the election, a time which would, coincidentally, I’m sure, not give the Bush campaign time to respond. Now, either the editors of The New York Times had an attack of conscience, or the story was about to be leak anyway, but the Times went ahead and published early, which did give the Bush campaign time to research the charges and respond. Is there any universe in which this would not indicate an attempt by CBS to influence the election away from President Bush?

    I remember watching the election night coverage in 2004, and the only man more visibly depressed than Dan Rather was Ed Bradley; it was either comical or pathetic — if not both — to watch Mr Rather keep asking Mr Bradley for just one more scenario under which John Kerry could still pull it out once it was obvious that Ohio was going to be carried by the President.

    Comment by The Dana who remembers the 2004 campaign (556f76) — 2/9/2009 @ 5:05 pm

  309. Still waiting on that unbiased news source.

    Comment by JD — 2/9/2009 @ 4:42 pm
    Jon Stewart? David Letterman? Andrew Sullivan?

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/9/2009 @ 5:08 pm

  310. Answer the question.

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 2/9/2009 @ 5:13 pm

  311. Comment by John Hitchcock — 2/9/2009 @ 4:58 pm
    The joke is on you, John. Seriously, was that a serious question?

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/9/2009 @ 5:14 pm

  312. Olberdouchenozzle? Maddow? Mathews? Gregory? Schuster? Williams? Couric? Roker? Smith? Viera? Any of the Leftists from CNN? Krugman? Dowd? Herbert? Reich? Stephanopolous? Carville? Begala? Ifill? Press? Moyer? Franken?

    Comment by JD (c6800b) — 2/9/2009 @ 5:14 pm

  313. You forgot Jack Cafferty and MTV Base.

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/9/2009 @ 5:19 pm

  314. Emp, it was a serious question. Do you think democratic ideals are best served by silencing dissenters? And I want a reasoned answer based on your previous commentary. (“Reasoned answer” means more than a single word.)

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/9/2009 @ 5:19 pm

  315. Lovey has still not answered the question posed to her last night whether she wants Obama to succeed in nationalizing a large percentage of the economy.

    I believe she is afraid to answer it truthfully.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/9/2009 @ 5:23 pm

  316. “Balanced are the media!” cries Ed,
    “‘Cept for Fox, which should be killed dead!”
    He forgets CBS
    So full of BS
    And full of Bias as Goldberg said!

    Comment by The Limerick Avenger (556f76) — 2/9/2009 @ 5:23 pm

  317. Do you think democratic ideals are best served by silencing dissenters?
    Comment by John Hitchcock — 2/9/2009 @ 5:19 pm

    No.

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/9/2009 @ 5:24 pm

  318. whether she wants Obama to succeed in nationalizing a large percentage of the economy.

    I believe she is afraid to answer it truthfully.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 2/9/2009 @ 5:23 pm
    Show proof that he wants to do that. Prove that Obama wants to nationalize the economy. If not it’s BS.

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/9/2009 @ 5:29 pm

  319. “Show proof that he wants to do that. Prove that Obama wants to nationalize the economy.”

    Lovey – No proof is required to answer the question. It was the basis for Rush Limbaugh’s statement. Stop equivocating and answer.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/9/2009 @ 5:32 pm

  320. It was the basis for Rush Limbaugh’s statement.
    Comment by daleyrocks — 2/9/2009 @ 5:32 pm

    So it is true because Rush said so. Who knew?

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/9/2009 @ 5:36 pm

  321. Lou Dobbs is in the tank for conservatives. If CNN is as biased towards liberals as Fox is towards conservatives then he would have been out of a job long ago.

    Comment by Ed from PA (d99227) — 2/9/2009 @ 5:36 pm

  322. Lovey – Reread Limbaugh’s statement that I pasted last night.

    Your answer should be a simple yes or no.

    It’s not that difficult you braindead twatwaffle.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/9/2009 @ 5:36 pm

  323. I’m going to go dust my lightbulbs. It’s more productive than talking to someone such as Lovey.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/9/2009 @ 5:41 pm

  324. So it is true because Rush said so. Who knew?

    No… Limbaugh set up what he sees as Obama’s goals, then stated he wants to see those goals fail. You can argue whether those actually are Obama’s goals, but that’s not the question.

    The question is: if those are indeed Obama’s goals, would you want him to succeed?

    Comment by Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 2/9/2009 @ 5:41 pm

  325. Nethanial Solomon Andersen (I hope nobody actually has that name) wins the presidential election.

    Nethanial Solomon Andersen has as his main agenda the repeal of Amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 24 (you can find them here.)

    Do you, Emp, want Nethanial Solomon Andersen to fail?

    Yes, this is a hypothetical and yes, I want a serious answer.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/9/2009 @ 5:42 pm

  326. It’s not that difficult you braindead twatwaffle.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 2/9/2009 @ 5:36 pm
    Just breath in and say “devil I rebuke you…I will not cuss again. I am a good person…. I want to stop molesting my cat… I am a recovering drug addict…”
    Just keep saying this. You will be free and that hateful, cussful nature will be exorcised.

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/9/2009 @ 5:50 pm

  327. Ed (Rendell?) from PA wrote:

    Lou Dobbs is in the tank for conservatives. If CNN is as biased towards liberals as Fox is towards conservatives then he would have been out of a job long ago.

    Oh, have we now moved away from Fox is conservatively biased, but it’s only the opinion of whackos that the rest of the MSM are biased toward the left? Have we reached the point at which the argument is, “Yeah, the media are mostly biased toward the left, but not as hard as Fox is toward the right?”

    Comment by The Dana who strives for precision (556f76) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:02 pm

  328. The question is: if those are indeed Obama’s goals, would you want him to succeed?

    Comment by Rob Crawford — 2/9/2009 @ 5:41 pm
    So we are speaking in hypothetical? Riiight! Of course my answer would be since they are not actually his goals, there is no need to say what my answer would be. Let’s try it this way, Rob, what if you realise that your closest friend was a vampire, would you want him to be beheaded and gutted?

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:02 pm

  329. Hey, how about this: answer the question.

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:06 pm

  330. Mr Hitchcock: You omitted the 16th, the worst amendment of all! That one’s history!

    And, please learn to spell my first name correctly.

    Comment by Nathaniel Solomon Andersen (556f76) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:07 pm

  331. Emperor7 wrote:

    Rob, what if you realise that your closest friend was a vampire, would you want him to be beheaded and gutted?

    Where is your sense of tradition? You have to drive a wooden stake through his heart to kill a vampire. Everybody knows that!

    Comment by The Dana who played too much D&D when he was younger (556f76) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:13 pm

  332. Having killed many vampires in my time, I prefer using an adamantite landsnecht.

    Comment by The John Hitchcock who spent 12 years MUDding and creating areas (fb941d) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:19 pm

  333. Yes, this is a hypothetical and yes, I want a serious answer.

    Comment by John Hitchcock — 2/9/2009 @ 5:42 pm
    By your question, you admit that Obama is not trying to nationalize the economy. So the issue of wishing him failure does not arise. But your quetion was about silencing dissent, to which I have answered “No”. Or have you moved unto another question?

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:19 pm

  334. I’m voting for NSA,
    ‘Cause I sure like his platform today
    He sure needs to run
    It will be quite fun
    Vote another and you sure will pay!

    Comment by The Limerick Avenger (556f76) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:20 pm

  335. Contributions to the Nathaniel Solomon Andersen Presidential Campaign can be made in the Donate Box on his Official Campaign Website.

    Comment by Nathaniel Solomon Andersen's Official Campaign Site (556f76) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:24 pm

  336. Comment by The Dana who played too much D&D when he was younger — 2/9/2009 @ 6:13 pm
    I stand corrected Dana. LOL! But cutting of the head finishes it off. I think. :)

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:26 pm

  337. Emp is being intentionally obtuse because Emp has nothing. Go look at the Fallout thread, Emp.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:27 pm

  338. Ed, thinking that Lou Dobbs is a conservative is just another way to establishing yet again that you don’t know what a conservative is.

    Lou Dobbs is not conservative, he’s a populist. And a registered Democrat last time I checked.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:28 pm

  339. Dana Pico—I just saw your website masthead. Brrrrrr….

    Comment by Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:33 pm

  340. Yes, this is a hypothetical and yes, I want a serious answer.

    Comment by John Hitchcock — 2/9/2009 @ 5:42 pm
    Okay hypothetically answering: I would want him to be assassinated. And his body parts cut into tiny pieces. Does that satisfy you?

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:35 pm

  341. I have no idea who or what that link you cite is about.

    Interesting, since you were on the very same web site with him just a few days ago.

    Given the exchange, I’d think you’d remember him.

    Oh, and y’all were on the same web site in comments here as well.

    Weird, that.

    I think you’re a bad liar, Levi.

    Oh — I saved screenshots of your blog. Where you admit to being a stalker. That’s disturbing information. And it will go on your permanent record.

    I’m finalizing my opinion regarding whether Hax and Levi are the same person, although I’m 99% convinced. Hax, if you’re not Levi, you’d best send me an e-mail with evidence, or every comment you ever made on this blog is going to disappear.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:37 pm

  342. you admit that Obama is not trying to nationalize the economy.

    Nice fantasy, hon.

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:44 pm

  343. Our esteemed host bitch-slaps Mr Vobiscum:

    Interesting, since you were on the very same web site with him just a few days ago.

    Ouch, that’s got to hurt. Time to throw yourself on the mercy of the court!

    Oh, wait, our host is the prosecutor, isn’t he? Good luck with that one! :)

    Comment by The sympathetic Dana (556f76) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:51 pm

  344. Bad liar basically sums it up.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:52 pm

  345. Dear Mr Vobiscum, possibly AKA Levi:

    For a nominal fee, I shall represent you in interceding with our esteemed host. I shall do everything in my power to get you out of jail and onto probation. Please deposit $100 and I shall do my utmost to get this accomplished.

    Sincerely,
    Dana R Pico

    Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

    Comment by The Dana who isn't a lawyer but will play one on the blog! (556f76) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:58 pm

  346. I’m really having just too much fun here tonight. It’s time to go to bed! :)

    Comment by The sleepy Dana (556f76) — 2/9/2009 @ 6:58 pm

  347. Jeez, Patterico. That HV versus LJ business is weird.

    I thought originally that the “Levi” blog might have been a spoof set up by people who didn’t like his nonsense. There was some odd stuff there, ranging from going on about JD to homosexual jokes about LJ.

    But that quote above from HV kind of says it all—claiming not to know the link where he himself posted! I am thinking they are the same person, as you now suspect.

    I am presuming that the ISPs are related.

    And the sad part, as carlitos pointed out before, is that potential employers will find all of this with a simple search, because of the unusual name.

    He sounds like an angry and immature person who does not take responsibility for his actions. His vulgar outbursts were bad enough. This is getting creepy.

    And frankly, I am glad that you aren’t ignoring this stuff. Cyberstalking is serious business.

    No, it isn’t the best use of your time. But I am glad you are doing it, nevertheless. That knowledge might get the kid to grow up a nanometer or two.

    Maybe.

    Comment by Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:01 pm

  348. Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 2/9/2009 @ 6:44 pm
    I really don’t like you, you know? You are inherently flawed in your psychology. I think you are angry and bitter. Maybe something relating to a relationship in your life. If you were a mother I guess your kids would hate you for your belligerence and nagging tendencies. If you were a wife I doubt if you would be able to keep a man. You are flawed. I suggest you ignore me from this point. We can’t be friends. I don’t want us to be friends. So move on, okay? Best wishes with your life.

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:02 pm

  349. Comment by Emperor7 — 2/9/2009 @ 7:02 pm

    Emp, VN is much less flawed than you are. Your compass is horribly skewed.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:06 pm

  350. And yet, I suspect that Vermont Neighbor will be happy to hear that Emperor7 won’t offer to share his milk during nap time.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:08 pm

  351. Eric Blair – I was not the least bit pleased to see almost an entire post devoted to me at Levi’s site. Creepy, indeed. Kind of like timmah, and his creepy fascination with me and my family.

    Comment by JD (c6800b) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:11 pm

  352. Emp still hasn’t offered a retort to my quote on the “fallout” thread. No doubt too scared.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:12 pm

  353. JD, Patterico is clearly keeping records. And I have a sneaking suspicion that some truly appalling posts from this person have never made it out of moderation.

    It’s easy to look at this character and think “trustifarian waif boy.” But there are some real psychos out there. And family is family.

    Remember the Deb Frisch situation.

    Comment by Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:17 pm

  354. Eric and JD,

    You’ve really whetted people’s interest in Levi Juhl’s blog about stalking people. Don’t you think we should share it?

    No, I didn’t do a post. This is a page. It doesn’t show up on the main site. But I believe it will show up Google. As his other exploits are beginning to.

    Here is his Google profile, which lists as his “superpower”: “Blog spam, motherfucker, lots and lots of fucking blog spam.”

    Should that be deleted, I have a screenshot of that as well.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:18 pm

  355. My what a stupid little git he is. He’s only a year or two away from Deb Frisch land.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:20 pm

  356. By all means, Patteric Do a post on it, if you wish. You know that I am the type that does not like people to be banned, as I think it does a greater service to broadcast their twatwaffliness far and wide, for all to see. Levi and Hack should be proud of their asshattery, and should be honored to have it disseminated for all to see.

    Comment by JD (c6800b) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:24 pm

  357. Hey, you’re called on your BS by more than just me.

    But people frequently jump to your tune and provide links, stats, sources and now, Bible passages. So missy, YOU get a grip on how you treat people in the blogosphere. You’ve been shuckin & jivin’ for so long and now you play pop psychology. Your purpose on earth, apparently, is to bleat. Bleat on & on and worship the One as he leads you right over a cliff.

    You still owe Pablo an answer as to whether Obama should nationalize industry. You think Obama cares about your future, your family. You think he has your back.

    He doesn’t.

    Maybe something relating to a relationship in your life.

    Yeah, my relationship to your posts. I still can’t figure out if you’re paid to blog or a political lackey or what. You derailed a thread last week by imitating everyone and just wasting time. You need to toughen up. The office and the world are filled with people you simply must be nicer to. Give people a chance and they might swallow your Barack fixation. But, here — at a conservative website, on the brink of potential Socialism — you expect love and support?

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:26 pm

  358. Comment by John Hitchcock — 2/9/2009 @ 7:12 pm
    I think you are the one having problems with understanding your questions, John. I have answered them as best as I should. Refer to comment number 340.

    Comment by Emperor7 (1b037c) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:28 pm

  359. Hax Vobiscum/Levi:

    Care to take your best shot at reconciling these four facts?

    Fact #1: Just days ago, you read a comment by a “Levi Juhl” regarding your comments on the Patterico blog — and you responded, addressing Levi by name:

    Is that really your best shot, Levi? You really think that the fact that I chose to comment here means I must really agree with what I’m responding to? That’s a tautology with no taut, but at least it is a cliche on right wing blogs, so it does have that going for it. [Etc. -- who really cares what you said?]

    And yet:

    Fact #2: When the proprietor of the Patterico blog confronts you with a site ostensibly written by a Levi Juhl in which he boasts of playing you on the Patterico blog, you claim never to have heard of such a person?

    Fact #3: The two of you also show up on another blog in recent days?

    Fact #4: I can find no evidence of your ever having existed on the Internet before late January 2009 — the very time frame when this Levi Juhl person (the person you claim never to have heard of) claimed he was going to start stalking me?

    Levi, I’ve met several criminal defendants who are better liars than you.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:30 pm

  360. Don’t listen to any moderates or outsiders from the Lincoln-hating holy realm of the Cult of Ronald Reagan. You guys are doing a marvelous job of rendering the GOP and conservatism a tragic irrelevant joke.

    It seems like a real stretch to claim that the GOP’s current problems are due to excessive fidelity to the ideas of Ronald Reagan. (And did he hate Lincoln?) But if you’d like expand on that idea, I’m willing to listen.

    Comment by Subotai (69539a) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:30 pm

  361. Lou Dobbs is in the tank for conservatives. If CNN is as biased towards liberals as Fox is towards conservatives then he would have been out of a job long ago.

    That’s about the funniest thing I’ve ever read. Lou Dobbs is about as conservative as Bill Press.

    Comment by Steverino (b12c49) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:32 pm

  362. —-> John H and SPQR. Thanks.

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:32 pm

  363. Don’t mention it, Vermont Neighbor.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:34 pm

  364. Actually Patter-EE-koh, I think Levi has a profile on MyBarack dating back to the summer of 08 where is freaking out over FISA.

    Don’t if it matters by hey, I still can’t laugh hard enuff at some College Kids yapping about life as if he had a clue.

    I just can’t shake the image of a bong, a pizza box and some a PS2 in some dorm railing against the man while it is -20 degrees outside in MT.

    Comment by Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:34 pm

  365. VN, no worries.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:46 pm

  366. VN – Lovey just can’t admit to any flaws in Obama and sh’e been a dishonest commenter since she first appeared last February or March. She demands that others respond to her question but lies, equivocates and changes the subject in dialogue direct toward her.

    One subject she is especially fond of though is Obama’s plans to teach sex education to kindergartners, which she still will not admit is part of his agenda even when presented with video of him saying it.

    She’s just another lying feckless liberal crapweasel.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:46 pm

  367. Hmmm. #364 has a familiar tone to it, complete with the continued snide little name game.

    I love watching tough guys (at least on the internet) think that they are smarter and tougher than prosecutors.

    Comment by Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:47 pm

  368. “You are inherently flawed in your psychology.”

    This was priceless from someone unable to decide on a screen name who appeasrs to be gender confused and has delusions of grandeur.

    Sure VN, it’s you, not her.

    HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:51 pm

  369. This “Levi” of a character has become an issue here. Why is that? Don’t you think talking about him makes him feel empowered and important? If you guys really want him back, simply swallow your lumps and say so. I know you all miss him. But….it’s hard. I know. Patterico could find a use for him here. (Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.)

    Comment by Emperor7 (1b037c) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:51 pm

  370. Oh Eric, please stop. Is everything so serious with you?

    You treat Patterico like Libbies treats Baracky. Lighten up.

    Comment by Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:51 pm

  371. Emperor7, your comments are getting creepier.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:52 pm

  372. Eric – I still haven’t figured that one out.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:53 pm

  373. Sure you have, daley. Look to the so-superior and smug tone. Fold in properly spelled complicated words, mixed with incorrectly spelled common ones. The shifting political allegiances.

    We have seen this person before. It’s clearly one of the Usual Suspects of the TdJ.

    Whatever.

    Comment by Eric Blair (ec334b) — 2/9/2009 @ 7:58 pm

  374. It’s pretty clear that Levi is not even qualified to pick up the dumb end of a broom. Maybe he can get a spot in the Obama cabinet.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/9/2009 @ 8:05 pm

  375. thanks D’rocks! These blogs are for shooting the breeze and having a good say. The important thing is we all get to be heard and maybe get something off our chest.

    The amount of venom from Love means I hit a nerve. I’ll do what she asked and stand back. But that’s a heck of a thing when posters here ask for a response to something – a question or fact, maybe a statistic. I put something up a couple weeks ago at her request, and then she plays avoidance: “answer what!? On THIS thread??” So many people have asked for it to stop; it doesn’t. I figured she must be clicking in and getting points on some Team Obama thing.

    SPQR, that was a good link. I guess these pressers are going to be heavily coordinated. No surprises and no upsets. The closing question was funny — like an $800 billion package is supposed to clear without teamwork. sheesh

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/9/2009 @ 8:23 pm

  376. Comment by daleyrocks — 2/9/2009 @ 7:46 pm
    Apart from the insults, what do you really have? Nothing. You use that to hide what a stupid, moronic idiot you really are. Now go back into your straight-jacket before you hurt yourself. And from this point, you can stop referring any comment or question to me because you will be ignored. Have a nice life, asswipe.

    Comment by Emperor7 (1b037c) — 2/9/2009 @ 8:48 pm

  377. Emp, do go over to that thread that has the word “fallout” in it and do read a bit over there. Just so you know, this is the thread that has the word “Rush” in it and not the thread that has the word “fallout” in it.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/9/2009 @ 9:00 pm

  378. Comment by Emperor7 — 2/9/2009 @ 8:48 pm
    And from this point, you can stop referring any comment or question to me because you will be ignored.

    Lovey – I think what you really mean is that you have nothing. I think that you have psychological issues and should seek help. You need to stop lying. It would improve your life.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/9/2009 @ 9:07 pm

  379. what do you really have? Nothing.

    You have been asked a number of times to answer very simple questions, and you have either failed to take them seriously, or failed to answer at all. Instead you Red Herring into another topic, and hope we don’t notice.

    I have in the past defended you, but I have no desire to do so. In fact, I would prefer you at least be put into moderation until you learn to respond when challenged, instead of only throwing out Straw Man arguments.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (who wants DRJ to come back) (90ff96) — 2/9/2009 @ 9:12 pm

  380. ____________________________________

    Peter – For the party of tolerance, you sure do have a lot of hate built up. You should work on that.

    In a similar vein, I think the comments below from a well-known columnist of the left not only are refreshingly candid, but they say it all.

    Moreover, for a liberal like Peter to be fretting about Rush Limbaugh, a radio personality within the confines — and in the context — of the private sector, is the height of hilarity and gall when, as one example, a big clown like Al Franken is an out-and-out (1) registered Democrat, (2) running as a member of the Democrat Party for a (3) major political office.

    By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
    Published: December 20, 2008

    This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.

    Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.


    ____________________________________

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 2/9/2009 @ 9:16 pm

  381. She demands that others respond to her question but lies, equivocates and changes the subject in dialogue direct toward her.

    I used to think that was the definition of a troll. As time passes, so help me, I’m starting to think it’s the definition of a liberal.

    Comment by Subotai (1ee4b0) — 2/9/2009 @ 9:44 pm

  382. So move on

    Advice you ought to take.

    And you wouldn’t have my best wishes.

    Comment by EW1(SG) (e27928) — 2/9/2009 @ 11:13 pm

  383. Patterico could find a use for him here.

    I’m going to be as kind as possible with this…

    Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

    Levi has no God Damned place here. He is a diseased boil on the sweating, unwashed ass of humanity.

    There are those of opposite views with whom I may reasonably disagree (aphrael and Leviticus being but two examples), but that is because they are capable of debate using cogent arguments.

    Levi is not. He is congenitally incapable of putting forth an argument that is absent less than 2 instances per post of logical fallacies (usually Straw Man and an Attack Against the Person). He often would have more.

    Look at it this way: I’m an rude, cruel asshole, and Levi makes me look calm, kind, and socially well-adjusted.

    Levi has no use, save as a terrible example as to what one might become if one were to drink too deeply of any ideology’s kool-aid.

    (Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.)

    And some you banish from your sight, your lands, and fire upon should they dare darken your doorstep again.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (who wants DRJ to come back) (90ff96) — 2/9/2009 @ 11:20 pm

  384. Sigh… another thread derailed.

    Comment by voiceofreason2 (be6fa0) — 2/10/2009 @ 2:12 am

  385. Tuesday morning links…

    This time, they beheaded a Pole. To make a point.
    Black university in trouble. Why does American even have black universities anymore? I’m not necessarily against it, but it just seems strange.
    A Newsweek metamorphosis
    Scientific trickery re Antarc…

    Trackback by Maggie's Farm (1db130) — 2/10/2009 @ 2:42 am

  386. timb (presumably not Justin TIMBerlake, but he makes about as much sense) wrote:

    I’m gonna go off on a tangent and assume that’s because the people you used it around knew David Ehrenstein was pyssed to high heaven that Rush and “satirist” Paul Shanklin misappropriated it. Here’s an assignment for you, go to Ehrenstein’s blog and see what he thinks of Limbaugh racist use of the phrase and how warm and fuzzy he gets when Shanklin puts on black face to mimic Al Sharpton.

    What, did you think there was a possibility that a gay liberal was going to give Rush attaboys for bringing him to the attention of the general public and not just SoCal lefties? Gimme a break. Ehrenstein wasn’t going to sacrifice his bonafides and thank Rush for picking up his torch.

    It doesn’t matter what Ehrenstein thinks of what Rush or Paul Shanklin did with his original “Magic Negro” piece because Limbaugh, contrary to popular belief, didn’t misrepresent it — Ehrenstein was making the same point as Rush was, albeit in different ways. Here are the last three paragraphs of the original “Magic Negro” piece, published in the Los Angeles Times on March 19, 2007 (bold mine):

    The only mud that momentarily stuck was criticism (white and black alike) concerning Obama’s alleged “inauthenticty,” as compared to such sterling examples of “genuine” blackness as Al Sharpton and Snoop Dogg. Speaking as an African American whose last name has led to his racial “credentials” being challenged — often several times a day — I know how pesky this sort of thing can be.

    Obama’s fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he’s written in his two (count ‘em) books, or even what he’s actually said in those stem-winders. It’s the way he’s said it that counts the most. It’s his manner, which, as presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden ham-fistedly reminded us, is “articulate.” His tone is always genial, his voice warm and unthreatening, and he hasn’t called his opponents names (despite being baited by the media).

    Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn’t project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him.

    Think, timb, about that last line: “If he were real…” In other words, Obama is, to some black people and the white general public, not a “real” black man. He wasn’t real enough for the likes of Sharpton, who was hesitant to throw Hillary overboard for him. He still isn’t “real” enough for black Americans who note that he is the son of an African who emigrated to Hawaii in the 1960′s, not one who was a descendant of slaves brought to America from the “motherland” centuries ago.

    Speaking as a black man myself, I see nothing in Rush’s highlighting of Ehrenstein’s editorial or Shanklin’s spoof of Sharpton (not Obama, who is NOT lampooned in the song) that is racist. It isn’t fair for Ehrenstein or anyone else to imply that he can use the phrase as a device because he’s (half) black, and forbid anyone else to use it if they’re not. That may be politically correct, but it is intellectually dishonest.

    If Ehrenstein disputes any of this (I’m counting on it), I’ll be happy to debate the point with him. Step into the arena, Dave — if you dare.

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (5447be) — 2/10/2009 @ 4:03 am

  387. Comment by Scott Jacobs (who wants DRJ to come back) — 2/9/2009 @ 9:12 pm
    Don’t join the gang, Scotty. You are better than that.

    Comment by Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 2/10/2009 @ 4:12 am

  388. It isn’t fair for Ehrenstein or anyone else to imply that he can use the phrase as a device because he’s (half) black, and forbid anyone else to use it if they’re not. That may be politically correct, but it is intellectually dishonest.

    Spot on, L.N. And following the same point, let’s have a look at the lyrics of that little ditty:

    Barack the Magic Negro lives in D.C.
    The L.A. Times, they called him that
    ‘Cause he’s not authentic like me.
    Yeah, the guy from the L.A. paper
    Said he makes guilty whites feel good
    They’ll vote for him, and not for me
    ‘Cause he’s not from the hood.

    See, real black men, like Snoop Dog,
    Or me, or Farrakhan
    Have talked the talk, and walked the walk.
    Not come in late and won!

    Oh, Barack the Magic Negro, lives in D.C.
    The L.A. Times, they called him that
    ‘Cause he’s black, but not authentically.
    Oh, Barack the Magic Negro, lives in D.C.
    The L.A. Times, they called him that
    ‘Cause he’s black, but not authentically.

    Some say Barack’s “articulate”
    And bright and new and “clean.”
    The media sure loves this guy,
    A white interloper’s dream!
    But, when you vote for president,
    Watch out, and don’t be fooled!
    Don’t vote the Magic Negro in –
    ‘Cause —

    ’Cause I won’t have nothing after all these years of sacrifice
    And I won’t get justice. This is about justice. This isn’t about me, it’s about justice.
    It’s about buffet. I don’t have no buffet and there won’t be any church contributions,
    And there’ll be no cash in the collection plate.
    There ain’t gonna be no cash money, no walkin’ around money, no phoning money.
    Now, Barack going to come in here and ……..

    Shanklin isn’t saying anything David E. didn’t say, other than that Obama threatens Sharpton’s franchise and that’s certainly true. The only racism involved in this whole thing is the “not black enough” sort that David injected and Shanklin directly references and skewers.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/10/2009 @ 5:59 am

  389. Don’t join the gang, Scotty. You are better than that.

    That is me being better. Trust me, you don’t wanna see the version I almost hit the “submit” button for.

    For your own well-being, don’t ever so much as suggest that Levi might find a use here. Don’t even tangentially speak well of him. it would not end well.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (who wants DRJ to come back) (a1c284) — 2/10/2009 @ 6:23 am

  390. The Libs still wallow in lies and Levi roasts in the iggy bin where he belongs.

    Comment by PCD (7fe637) — 2/10/2009 @ 6:29 am

  391. “Levi’s Lontifications?” Ughhh, that’s just seriously messed up. A sycophant, a suck-up and a troll all in one? How do you get that?

    Comment by The amazed and amused Dana (3e4784) — 2/10/2009 @ 7:02 am

  392. Oh, well, at least it wasn’t Levirico’s Lontifications! :)

    Comment by The snarky Dana (3e4784) — 2/10/2009 @ 7:03 am

  393. Pablo, you keep lying to yourself.

    Since you’re a person who does not find red-lining offensive and doesn’t find the song offensive, this puts you, once again, out of step with 75% of the American people. But, you’ll always have Chip Saltsman and the “Southern Strategy”.

    I mean, sure even Chip had to remove himself from the candidacy of the modern Dixiecrat party and you know it’s unfair when a group of white guys can tell a group of black guys what racism is. You and Shanklin and Limbaugh are the perfect arbiters of what’s racially offensive and what ain’t. Can’t wait to see that reality show.

    Comment by timb (a83d56) — 2/10/2009 @ 7:29 am

  394. I think you are angry and bitter. Maybe something relating to a relationship in your life

    I’ve commented before that this individual seems bi – polar and passive – aggressive in her presence here, suggesting confusion about her real identity, and a serious issue with people in general. Whatever that identity may be, I’m not buying it.

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 2/10/2009 @ 7:37 am

  395. “You and Shanklin and Limbaugh are the perfect arbiters of what’s racially offensive and what ain’t.”

    timb – I would say he has a much better understanding of the original article and the song parody than you, so yes Pablo’s opinion is much better informed on the subject. Your patellar reaction of “racist” belies your lack of understanding and immaturity once again.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/10/2009 @ 7:40 am

  396. Timmah!, you idiot, 75% of Americans haven’t heard the song, read the lyrics or read David’s piece.

    Race bait all you like, but unlike you, I’ll still be actually paying attention. Those who are offended, and David E isn’t one of them, at least not at any racism supposedly involved here, are running on “He called Barack a negro!” with no understanding whatsoever of any context at all. I have no problem at all with being “out of step” with that.

    By the way, why are you so obsessed with Jeff Goldstein?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/10/2009 @ 9:01 am

  397. Dmac, it’s just the dishonesty thing. Something she needs to stop doing.

    John Hitchcock is over on another thread, attempting to get a response to a post he put up last night. The same tactics are unfolding. The coy disinterest, the refusal to answer, the avoidance in giving a rational response. The nonposts clog up so much space. And it’s disingenuous. (Am omitting all names to keep this as clinical as possible.)

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/10/2009 @ 9:36 am

  398. “By the way, why are you so obsessed with Jeff Goldstein?”

    Pablo – I think timmah’s got a mancrush.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/10/2009 @ 9:42 am

  399. Timmah’s a man?

    Comment by Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 2/10/2009 @ 11:17 am

  400. Well, Rob, I’m no gnome-fethishist, designer of terrible war games, muscular conservative moron, but I am smarter than you are.

    daley, as Pablo’s little Salacious B. Crumb, I’d watch your accusations. Pablo may be a half-wit and a failure of a man, but I just don’t think he’s that into to you.

    Comment by timb (86b100) — 2/10/2009 @ 3:34 pm

  401. Hey, did you guys see that Fox now just reads Republican memos over the air complete with typos?

    I guess that partially answers JD’s multiple gotcha question from above (“I said who is credible and I will stamp my feet until someone answers me), i.e. not Fox News.

    It also goes to show that the tools above who claim there is a difference between Fox’s News and opinion wings have never heard of Roger Ailes or John Moody. Just putting Republican releases on the air with no attribution and not even correcting a typo.

    Just precious

    Comment by timb (86b100) — 2/10/2009 @ 3:40 pm

  402. Wow, imagine that, timb. Fox must be almost as partisan as “news” sources like CBS.

    Oh, the shame.

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 2/10/2009 @ 3:41 pm

  403. Rob, we sure that there are X and Y chromosomes involved … but not exactly how many and where located …

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 2/10/2009 @ 3:42 pm

  404. No question about it, Timmah’s got a thing for JD. Creepy.

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 2/10/2009 @ 3:50 pm

  405. Comment by SPQR — 2/10/2009 @ 3:41 pm

    That is a joke. Other than the Dan Rather story, which you seem to want to hold onto 5 years later, there is no evidence of bias on any of the major networks except Fox.

    Comment by Ed from PA (d99227) — 2/10/2009 @ 4:00 pm

  406. Weird, dmac, for a chick, I would have thought you’d do better. JD deserves a public mocking and I am here to administer it. So does daley, so does dan, so does this SPQR moron, and so does Pablo, the literalist.

    It’s a public service I provide to the 20% After all, why content myself with just enjoying election nights when I can mock the politically ill.

    Comment by timb (86b100) — 2/10/2009 @ 4:02 pm

  407. I am not sure it is worth it, Timb. These people don’t want to be educated. They would rather blissfully believe that trickle-down economics actually works, and that the poor are only poor because they are fat and lazy. Life works better for them without the complications of facts. When a public servant like yourself tries to enlighten them with a few, instead of being gracious they lash out like cornered rats.

    Comment by Ed from PA (d99227) — 2/10/2009 @ 4:12 pm

  408. Just as Prince Charles fantasized about being Camilla’s tampon, timmah fantasizes about being Jeff Goldstein’s Preparation H Medicated Wipe.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/10/2009 @ 4:13 pm

  409. timb, I deserve a mocking? Bwaahaaahaa.

    That’s funny. When you stumble on someone competent enough to deliver one, you see if you can hire them to teach you how its done.

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 2/10/2009 @ 4:20 pm

  410. Timmah, why are you so obsessed with Jeff Goldstein?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/10/2009 @ 4:30 pm

  411. Anyone who starts out “but I am smarter than you are” may not be blessed with a high IQ or greatly developed wit.

    It’s similar to invoking Hitler’s name as a defense.

    Or starting out a post “well, as a former Vietnam Vet!” and then repeating a series of Keith Olbermann talking points.

    Sorry, Tiny Tim. You just can’t hack it with the big boys here.

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/10/2009 @ 4:31 pm

  412. daley just rocks!

    Just as Prince Charles fantasized about being Camilla’s tampon, timmah fantasizes about being Jeff Goldstein’s Preparation H Medicated Wipe.

    If there’s a scorekeeper here, that one’s just gotta be worth points! :)

    Comment by The amused Dana (556f76) — 2/10/2009 @ 4:51 pm

  413. Vermont: I don’t think being fat makes you correct.

    Comment by Ed from PA (d99227) — 2/10/2009 @ 4:54 pm

  414. “there is no evidence of bias on any of the major networks except Fox”

    I love it! It’s like a fantasy, but in black and white right here on the web page.

    Comment by steve miller (3381bc) — 2/10/2009 @ 5:44 pm

  415. Sometimes, being out-of-town without a computer is a blessing.
    Randomly scanning this thread reveals that this past week was one of those times.
    Most of those who disparage “El Rushbo” have never listened to his show, read one of his books, or subscribed to his website, and no nothing of his core beliefs or advocacy.

    Just two points:
    Rush doesn’t describe himself as a Republican, but as a Conservative; and,
    After the GOP regained control of the House (after wandering in the wilderness since 1954), he was voted by the incoming Freshman Class of Representatives (at least those with an “R” after their names) as “The Majority Maker”.

    Comment by AD (631e91) — 2/10/2009 @ 5:53 pm

  416. Ed from PA, not zingy. But keep trying. You know what they say about monkeys and keyboards. Go for it.

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 2/10/2009 @ 6:02 pm

  417. I was passing through Sacramento in 1988 or 1989 (not really sure which) and ended up picking up a copy of the Sacramento Bee, which had an editorial excoriating this new guy on the local radio, Rush Limbaugh. He wasn’t nationwide yet – I don’t think he was even statewide – but the media was already (a) outraged against him and (b) predicting his imminent demise.

    I think the MSM is just jealous. Rush has an audience of 20 million who listen to him; the MSM can’t keep their own readers loyal (their subscribers are dropping like flies). Instead of trying to understand Rush’s success and learn from it, they’ve spent 20+ years saying it’s just a fad, and a fascist one at that.

    This is why businesses go bankrupt: they fail to adapt to the changing economy. People don’t buy paper newspapers: they want information and entertainment. If you offer this, people will read / listen.

    Newspapers are generally and drearily leftwing, and have lost their readership base. The young ‘uns, who should be reading them because the papers are liberal, aren’t – because the papers are old, boring, and irrelevant.

    So, they pick on successful people like Rush Limbaugh. Yeah, that’ll drive readership back up.

    Comment by steve miller (3381bc) — 2/10/2009 @ 6:03 pm

  418. The media also fails to understand that Rush is a raconteur, and a brilliant one at that. His proposal to split the so-called stimulus package with the 48-52 split of the American vote for The Big O! was brilliant: it knocked the smug triumphalism of the Democrat Party right off their faces. His take-down of Harry Reid was brilliant, leaving that clueless frump even more speechless than usual.

    He has fun doing what he’s doing, and that’s what’s missing in all the MSM and political class: they have no joy, only snark and spite and ad hominem. Rush, like Reagan, enjoys what he does, and that shows through.

    Comment by steve miller (3381bc) — 2/10/2009 @ 6:07 pm

  419. Vermont: I don’t think being fat makes you correct.

    That sounds like it came directly off reruns of the old Hee – Haw show, Eddy. What’s next for your act, slapping your knees and yelling, “I smell SKUNK!”

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 2/10/2009 @ 6:14 pm

  420. “there is no evidence of bias on any of the major networks except Fox”

    I love it! It’s like a fantasy, but in black and white right here on the web page.

    Watch “Outfoxed”.

    Comment by Ed from PA (d99227) — 2/10/2009 @ 7:27 pm

  421. Indeed, it is certainly a fine bit of unbiased journalism…

    Wait, did I say “unbiased journalism”? I mean to say “Partisan Bullshit”.

    You are still unfamiliar with the UCLA study, aren’t you…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 2/10/2009 @ 9:04 pm

  422. The amused Dana @412 – Thanks. Didn’t see your comment until now. I’m a giver, as Jeff would say. I don’t think timmah liked though.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/10/2009 @ 9:13 pm

  423. Oh yeah, a partisan show will help me understand that ONLY Fox is partisan!

    I love the world you live in.

    BTW, I don’t watch Fox, or any of the other media sources. I get my news unadulterated from NPR, which is unbiased and pure.

    Comment by steve miller (3381bc) — 2/10/2009 @ 9:18 pm

  424. Can’t we all just get along?

    Comment by TLove (012115) — 2/10/2009 @ 9:42 pm

  425. Are you trying to kill this thread, TLove? We’re at 425 and counting. Conflict is the only thing that can keep it going.

    You shrew.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/10/2009 @ 9:46 pm

  426. Kidding! Kidding! Conflict joke.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/10/2009 @ 9:46 pm

  427. Hehehe. Nothing and no one could calm down this crew Patterico – not even me.

    Comment by TLove (012115) — 2/10/2009 @ 9:50 pm

  428. Indeed, you’re more likely to rile them up.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/10/2009 @ 10:15 pm

  429. ;)

    Comment by TLove (012115) — 2/10/2009 @ 10:18 pm

  430. Hey, Tlove…..ummm, Hi.

    [[[dang, you did derail the thread]]]]

    Comment by timb (68430f) — 2/11/2009 @ 11:21 am

  431. Sorry. =(

    Comment by TLove (012115) — 2/11/2009 @ 11:29 am

  432. Someone say something in this thread so Patterico doesn’t get mad at me again.

    Comment by TLove (012115) — 2/11/2009 @ 11:30 am

  433. Limbaugh asserted today that Geithner intended to fail in his press conference yesterday in hopes of keeping the recession going.

    Limbaugh, epic fail again.

    There, Tlove. Patterico will love me again

    Comment by timb (68430f) — 2/11/2009 @ 11:52 am

  434. One of the few who will, I imagine.

    Comment by steve miller (3381bc) — 2/11/2009 @ 11:57 am

  435. I’m looking forward to timb’s explanation for exactly why is was that Geithner delivered such an incompetent performance if Geithner did not intend to fail.

    Then again, that’s a lie. I’m sure that timb’s explanation will be even more ludicrous than the one Limbaugh offered.

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 2/11/2009 @ 11:58 am

  436. It makes more sense to think that this is all Machiavellian movement by Bambi’s administration than to think this is their best efforts to control a crisis they don’t understand.

    I mean, if this is really their best efforts, we’re all screwed.

    Comment by steve miller (3381bc) — 2/11/2009 @ 12:01 pm

  437. Plus, I’m sorry to find out that Bambi can’t get a plane to fly into Kentucky. He did manage to make it to Indiana and Florida, but not Kentucky. Those people don’t have a crisis because they voted against him, I imagine.

    Comment by steve miller (3381bc) — 2/11/2009 @ 12:02 pm

  438. “Limbaugh asserted today that Geithner intended to fail in his press conference yesterday in hopes of keeping the recession going.”

    timmah – And Limbaugh’s theory for this was what?

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/11/2009 @ 12:06 pm

  439. Daley, you don’t need to look at any underlying factors for any sentence anyone makes. Every sentence stands all by itself. No sentence needs qualified by any other sentence.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/11/2009 @ 12:10 pm

  440. Hey, T! Long time no see! What’s up? :)

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (5447be) — 2/11/2009 @ 12:28 pm

  441. I have no idea what Rush said today. He said this yesterday:

    “Geithner actually said, (paraphrasing) “We’re not going to get you the details of this.” Let me get his exact words here. “We’re not going to put out details until we can get it right.” Now, I’ll tell you what I think is up with that. I think they’re trying to avoid attaching a dollar amount to this that would be added into the Obama stimulus package. I think that they’re trying to create distance between the Porkulus bill and Geithner’s bill so that nobody can run around and say, $2 trillion? They want it to be looked at as Obama’s stimulus of $800 and some odd billion, and then over here, quite distant and separate, is the bank bailout. Not to be confused with the Porkulus bill. So this is one thing, and it’s separate. I think Geithner’s just in delay mode, just to keep a money figure off of it, ’cause how in the world can they get it right before they know what they’re doing? It’s just nonsensical, this statement, “We’re not going to put out details until we get it right.” The fact is nobody knows what they’re doing here.”

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/11/2009 @ 12:37 pm

  442. Oh, now you want to talk, daley? Last night, you were massaging Pablo and tossing out insults, yet today, you’re all about debate.

    As I related yesterday, Limbaugh and Hannity contended yesterday that the President wants the economy to fail. He even had an oh-so-funny Shanklin song to continue his assertion.

    You enjoy Pablo-esque leading questions, daley, so you tell me what you understand, why anyone would believe something so stupid, and who John Maynard Keynes was.

    Rush clearly doesn’t know he is today, but he knew who he was in 2001.

    Comment by timb (68430f) — 2/11/2009 @ 12:38 pm

  443. Keynes created this “theory” out of thin air, which should rightly be called a hypothesis. And the Keynes Hypothesis does not work. And many economists, including Nobel Laureates, agree Keynesianism is flawed from the word “go.”

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/11/2009 @ 12:42 pm

  444. timmah – Do you have some comment numbers to refer me back to? I must have missed you always insightful presence here.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/11/2009 @ 1:41 pm

  445. timmah – I don’t normally listen to Rush or Hannity. You brought up Rush today and I asked you to explain his theory, which you still have not done. I pulled quotes from his show yesterday about Geithner which were self explanatory. I have no idea what he said about Obama and have no plans to look. Why don’t you regale us since you claim to have listened?

    Your earlier out of context quotation of Rush saying he wanted Obama to fail was an Epic Fail, redundant I know, on your part, so try to keep it honest this time. Are you actually listening or is your information coming from Media Matters.

    I’m not a fan of Keynes, but you can Wiki him if you need to know more, twerp.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/11/2009 @ 1:50 pm

  446. John – Obama has economists on his staff who clearly think you get more bang for your buck with private sector stimulus than a Keynsian approach.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/11/2009 @ 1:53 pm

  447. Comment by daleyrocks — 2/11/2009 @ 1:53 pm

    It is just unfortunate that he, and the “brain-trust” running The Hill won’t listen to them.

    Comment by AD (b41cc2) — 2/11/2009 @ 1:55 pm

  448. “I’m looking forward to timb’s explanation for exactly why is was that Geithner delivered such an incompetent performance if Geithner did not intend to fail.”

    SPQR – I was looking forward to it as well. Silly me for assuming the reason that timmah brought it up was because he intended to talk about it. Now it looks like he’s dodging the discussion as usual.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/11/2009 @ 2:12 pm

  449. I grow weary of your constant hectoring, daley. You become more tedious as the thread goes on with your constant insistence that you asked an inane question and demand an answer. Your laziness with regard to other comments is almost as wearying as debating a group of morons who “don’t listen to Limbaugh” for three days and “defend him” from someone who does.

    Listen yourself if you want the answer. I have neither the time nor inclination to do your monkey dance.

    Comment by timb (8f04c0) — 2/11/2009 @ 5:06 pm

  450. Timb, correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t you the one who brought up Rush’s statement? Weren’t you the one who tried to use it as stand-alone instead of taking it in context? If you listen to Rush at all, and there is plenty of reason to doubt you do, you only do so to pull statements out of context to do your dishonest smear campaign.

    It is you who are “doing a monkey dance.”

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/11/2009 @ 5:15 pm

  451. Comment by timb — 2/11/2009 @ 5:06 pm
    Don’t let them get to you, Timb. Give them hell! They are not interested in reason. All they know to do is to jump on anyone that does not belong to their echo chamber. Answer only questions posed by people who want to see it from another perspective. Not morons like, you-know-whom.

    Comment by Emperor7 (1b037c) — 2/11/2009 @ 6:03 pm

  452. Geez timmah, I’m sorry if you’re weary of bringing up topics which you’re not prepared to discuss. Blaming your failures on others is a typical progressive trait and one we’ve seen from you on many occaisons. If you were just planning to drop a dishonest turd in the thread and run away, why not say so up front rather than give the impression you wanted to talk about it? I’m not responsible for your weariness or happiness, sport.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/11/2009 @ 8:05 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.0136 secs.