I Hope Rush Limbaugh Fails
So Rush Limbaugh has challenged Obama to a debate.
It’s smart for Rush. If Obama is going to anoint him as the leader of the Republican Party, he may as well respond in kind. And hey, he articulates conservative principles very well.
But still. I hope Rush Limbaugh fails in his attempt to set himself up as the de facto head of the Republican Party. [UPDATE: More accurately, as the de facto head of the conservative movement. See UPDATE below.]
It’s good for him personally. I get that. And I love hearing the guy hold forth. I wish him all the success in the world for his radio program.
But some of the things he says are designed principally to stir controversy and draw attention to himself. Like saying he hopes Obama fails. Rush knows his comments will elevate his profile and make him seem more important.
I know: when he says he hopes Obama fails, he doesn’t mean he wants to see Americans suffer. He just doesn’t want liberal policies enacted because he thinks they’re bad for the country. I get it. I agree with that.
But, you know, that’s nuance.
The problem is, Americans have short attention spans and don’t always do nuance well. Just by writing the title of this post the way I did, I’ll get an angry reaction from some — even though, if you read the post, I haven’t said anything particularly negative about Limbaugh. As Allahpundit says:
It’s Republicans who are suffering from having to thread the needle between defending Limbaugh and rejecting the “I want him to fail” rhetoric. What harm has Rush suffered? His stature’s never been greater, as he himself acknowledges right here.
Indeed.
Michael Steele and other Republicans need to say: “Rush Limbaugh is an articulate man who expresses conservative principles well. But when he says he wants Obama to fail, he’s putting things in a deliberately controversial way to draw attention to himself. I wouldn’t say I want Obama to fail. I would say simply that I think conservative principles are better for our country. That’s how I feel — and I’m not apologizing for saying so.”
P.S. I hope David Frum fails too.
UPDATE: Some commenters object that Rush is not the head of the Republican party, and indeed recently said he doesn’t want to be. These commenters say that, if anything, he is the head of the conservative movement.
Fair enough. I understand (painfully well, as a conservative) that the two are not synonymous, and I take Rush at his word. Therefore I have changed my post to say “conservative movement” instead of Republican party, and thanks to those who pointed this out.
I don’t think that this change alters the point of my piece significantly. Namely: it’s great to have someone strongly articulating conservative values . . . but prominent conservatives need not sign on to his “I want Obama to fail” phraseology. That phraseology is counterproductive because it puts conservatives on defense. Conservatives need not sign on to that formulation to prove that they stand for conservative principles.
I was thinking much the same thing.
Isn’t it sad, Patterico, that folks like you and me can do a better job articulating the central issues than the Talking Heads of either party? What is wrong with them?
It’s like they do a lobotomy on politicians.
Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:39 amWhen was the last time that a President debated the leader of the other party during his first year?
Patterico uses some tortured logic on this one.
Cabdidates debate candidates. But in Patterico’s world, Presidents debate leadsers of the opposing party.
Weird.
Andrew (5dfb2f) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:40 amRush Limbaugh is only the head of the Republican Party due to a vacuum of leadership. I don’t mind Limbaugh filling it, Limbaugh is not the problem.
Obama will never debate Rush and if he did it would only diminish Obama. I suspect Rush could do a pretty good job defining conservative principals.
Joe (17aeff) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:45 amAnd in fact, Rush Limbaugh is not the head of the GOP. The problem is the party is headless.
Joe (17aeff) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:46 amSee I disagree, if Rush fails, it’s a failure for all of us.
Here’s why: While I respect the punditry and blogosphere, on the other hand we’re just “critics” who can type things and judge online with no consequences.
Most of us don’t run for office, we don’t really put our ideals into practice in the public sector because we prefer to make money rather than policy, etc.
Rush, for all his faults, has put his entire credibility on the line here. Not only is he putting “conservatism” on the line, he’s also putting talk radio’s legitimacy as the loyal opposition on the line. While I’d rather have a Mark Levin doing the debating, if Rush goes down it means everyone from a-listers like Rush and Hannity to b and c listers like Prager, Beck or local guys all lose some credibility in the court of public opinion.
Like it or not, we may have to hitch our wagon to Rush.
Hawkins (3d318d) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:46 amWhere is Romney? You would think he’d have some economic positions to contrast with Obama’s. Some alternate solutions. To the degree that he’s playing it safe and awaiting events is the degree of my growing misgivings about him.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:50 amIf I remember correctly, Rush pulls a salary of about 40 million a year, which is far and above Obama’s pay grade.
I think Obama already has failed to the tune of 3.5 trillion dollars and not earmarking any money to ensure the FDIC stays solvent.
ML (14488c) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:55 amLimbaugh said something that badly needed to be said and discussed on a national level, not hidden away like something to be ashamed of.
Limbaugh’s whole point is that Obama’s policies will be ruinous for the country. If you honestly believe that, you’d be hypocritical to shy away from saying so.
Yes, it’s easy to demagogue the issue, but the point still remains. Failing to openly confront the dangers of Obama’s beliefs and actions helps legitimize them.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:57 amI’d say that I’d hope that Obama’s socialism will fail, but that would be like hoping the sun comes up tomorrow. History strongly says it will.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:01 amBradley,
We know what Rush’s point was.
I’m not sure all Americans do.
And that’s a consequence of the *way* he said it — a way that succeeds admirably if the goal is stirring controversy, but fails badly if the goal is winning adherents to your philosophy.
Nothing I say means don’t fight hard. Fight hard and fight smart. Articulate conservative principles (which Rush is great at, btw).
Just recognize that Limbaugh’s interests may diverge from your own.
Patterico (adb70e) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:06 amWELL SAID. I agree with you and disagree with Hawkins.
As you said ” Americans have short attention spans and don’t always do nuance well.”
And therein lies the problem.
Too much loud noise is drowning out the truth.
The loud noise comes from and benefits Rush – it keeps the spotlite on him – which is what he – like all celebrities- wants.
While Rush suffers no harm ,as AllahPundit reminds us, it is “Republicans who are suffering from having to thread the needle between defending Limbaugh and rejecting the “I want him to fail” rhetoric.
Having to constantly walk that razor’s edge will not bode well for the GOP in the long run.
DangerGirl (274516) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:07 amThere is no Reagan II at the moment, but someone better come to the fore quickly, or this moment in history will be lost forever to the GOP. For a party that always states it’s fealty to the principles he espoused, they sure look like they’re running away from a fight well worth having.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:09 amI hope Obama fails.
If it is a choice between Limbaugh and Obama.
Joe (17aeff) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:09 amI would rather Rush was quoted saying things like: “Deficits like these are unsustainable and will lead to ruin.”
In 2007-2008, Bush attempted to put off a recession. In doing so, he prevented a relatively small correction and let the pressures continue to build.
Now, Obama is trying to put off the day of reckoning again, insulating the worst performers — whom NEED to go under for the recession to end — and penalizing the entrepreneurs and innovators that would create the next wave of business. And the pressures will continue to build.
After 10 years of Obama deficits totaling another $8 trillion or more, the inevitable correction will hit like that meteor in Deep Impact — possibly unrecoverable.
So, yes, I hope he fails, but more importantly, I hope he fails SOON.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:10 amIt would have been better if Rush — and Steele — had said:
I support President Obama. I don’t support his mission.
Karl (f07e38) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:11 amCabdidates debate candidates. But in Patterico’s world, Presidents debate leadsers of the opposing party.
Someone missed their Ritalin dose this morning.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:12 amRush Limbaugh has been the de facto head of the Republican party when Democrats have held the Presidency and Congress at the same time–like now, and in 1993 and 1994. The September 6, 1993 issue of National Review had a cover depicting Limbaugh in a historical-type painting of what looked like the Senate in the days of Henry Clay, or maybe the Constitutional Convention, and the cover line was: “The Leader of The Opposition.”
Official Internet Data Office (9b8d76) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:12 amI think that the Republicans need to come to 3 conclusions:
1) Nobody, and I mean nobody, gives a tinker’s damn right now about social issues. It’s the economy, stupid.
2) The need a clearly articulated and SIMPLE plan for restoring capitalism and free enterprise.
3) Their plan needs to be carried by one or more political contenders, not by a media star.
Romney, Gingrich, Whitman and other economic heavyweights need to step up. The Republicans need to have a clear and convincing message before the mid-terms in 2010, and to try to take Congress back (and at least come close).
And, yes, for right now, the social conservatives need to STFU. They subtract from the message.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:19 am“he’s putting things in a deliberately controversial way to draw attention to himself.”
We had BETTER start making some controversy or we forget EVER seeing conservatism return to America. The problemw with the GOP for the past dozen or so years is that we’ve been “nice” and we’ve try to play by the rules and we allow the LEFT to set the agenda. It’s time we get a backbone, dammit!
VSawyer (802399) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:20 amDangerGirl: “Too much loud noise is drowning out the truth.”
How do you think we’ll ever get our message across if we don’t use the same tactics? Obama got elected on loud noise, Americans don’t get nuance, let’s use the big gun to get the point across. It’s like going to war and choosing to use swords when you have guns because you think it’s more “admirable”
The left will not like us better or do better op-eds on the right just because we cut out the elements that bother them.
While Rush suffers no harm ,as AllahPundit reminds us, it is “Republicans who are suffering from having to thread the needle between defending Limbaugh and rejecting the “I want him to fail” rhetoric.
That’s garbage, the left wing has embraced its media pundits. It’s those same left wingers who are spinning this “thread the needle” junk. Again, we’re playing their game by their rules.
Remember their former ploy: “Republicans are too mean, but if they put a moderate like McCain up there, we’ll like them.” I’m tired of these bear traps. We need to be fiercely independent of their standards of what we should be.
They’re playing the tune and telling us to dance, and every time we do it we look a little more silly.
Being the loyal opposition doesn’t mean one should start having low self-esteem.
Hawkins (3d318d) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:24 amI don’t see him trying to do that. Obama is clearly trying to do that, and Limbaugh sees the administration going full Alinsky on him as the end they hope to achieve. This is reasonable pushback to bald faced bullying. I don’t think he expects for a minute that Obama will debate him, but once denied he can easily shift to demanding that someone who speaks for the head of the other party go toe to toe with him. And when all they can manage is sniping from the sidelines (and the Press Secretary’s podium) while ceding center stage to a talk show host, who looks silly? Who looks angry and afraid?
This is a childish mistake and it’s got Rahm Emanuel’s fingerprints all over it. They’re going to regret this.
Pablo (99243e) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:35 amThat nuance isn’t hard to pick up on. If you listen to slightly more than the 4 words, it’s pretty obvious what he’s saying.
That’s a false dichotomy. There’s a third and much better way to deal with it.
Pablo (99243e) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:40 amPatterico said:
Just recognize that Limbaugh’s interests may diverge from your own.
“Do not muzzle the ox that treads the grain”? I likely dislike Rush about half the time. But right now he’s fighting the fight I do not have the resources to fight and to whatever extent it benefits him personally is ok with me because it is also benefitting me.
nk (502275) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:41 amSo since Politico revealed that this entire Rush Bash is a plan hatched by James Carville, and then followed through by President Obama, Rahm Emmanuel and Robert Gibbs, does that make James Carville the head of the Democratic Party, if not the entire White House??
It is hilarious that the President and Robert Gibbs have both stated that they will not comment on day-to-day fluctuations in the market (itself a laugh. The word “fluctuation” implies that sometimes the market goes up – rarely under this president) — but if a cable TV or radio talking head, like Limbaugh or Rick Santelli, says something negative, Obama and Gibbs LEAP to speak on that topic immediately and often, repeatedly. So commenting on voices of dissent against Obama is job one for the White House…but commenting on a topic that affects the retirement, jobs, or investments of millions of Americans is beneath them.
Too bad for the American people President-de-facto James Carville did not tell the White House that working to better the lives of Americans would smooth Obama’s reelection. Maybe then the WH would show a little more concern about the financial markets and a little less concern for Rush Limbaugh.
Chris Bennett (ce6cb7) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:48 amGood god, Andrew. Did you read any of the post? Did you even read the headline? It doesn’t look like you did.
Pablo (99243e) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:49 amSo we have the DJIA down another 2-300 pts. And we have Iran rattling the nuclear cage. And we have Russia pushing its way back into world affairs. And we have an utterly catastrophic financial meltdown.
So what does Bambi do?
He goes after a radio host.
Yeah, that’s maturity.
Hope! Change!
steve miller (0fb51f) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:53 amThat’s never been a prerequisite on Andrew’s planet.
Old Coot (7721b8) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:56 amClassic Obama: A haughty distance from issues he’s supposed to handle. The only thing transparent so far is his attempt to protect himself from his own decisions. He must think he can campaign and manipulate through the next 4 years.
Vermont Neighbor (229b93) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:03 amOff-topic: More layoffs at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (our host’s hometown paper) today.
Diffus (cb9f4f) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:04 amDistraction. Don’t fall for it. Keep focused on the problem — A communist dictator as POTUS. Animal Farm and Atlas Shrugged both at the same time.
We’re screwed. We’re so screwed we can’t even begin to comprehend how &*(**ing screwed we really are. Our greatgrandchildren will pay, and pay.
J. Raymond Wright (d83ab3) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:09 amJay Nordlinger has a good post up on this subject today. He makes the point that Rush is a Reagan conservative who say what is on his mind, which I think is a good thing. People like Colin Powell told Americans they should stop listening to Rush and then turned around and supported Obama for President instead of McCain. Kathleen Parker, David Brooks and others were open admirers of Obama, expressed disdain for Palin, and were happy when some like McCain, Mr. Amnesty, Mr. Global Warming, Mr. Reach Across the Aisle, Mr. Campaign Finance Reform was nominated for President. McCain was Limbaugh’s least favorite among the candidates. It’s people like Powell and Parker and Brooks who are the problem, not Limbaugh.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWYyNjBhNWU2NzQ5ZWNhZThmZGYxY2ZiYmEwNjViMmM=
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:11 amThe story is already old and will disappear in the next couple of days. Once the word got out that the White House coordinated this, the end was inevitable. What is far more important is Steele’s poor showing as RNC head.
This is a more important story today.
This is about where I am now:
I started out this administration agitated by its hypocrisies, but now I’m reaching a Zen-like serenity. I’m merely amused because it’s so comical.
This is a president who holds responsibility on fiscal affairs, a fiscal responsibility summit, a week after he signed the largest spending project in American history.
And then two days later, he submits a budget which into the out years has deficits of trillions of dollars.
The worst example of this, I think, is when he made that speech in Congress in which he spoke about how we can’t have our wars hidden in the budget. It’s got to be on the budget now. The Iraq war is going to be on the budget.
So what does he do? He includes it in the years 2011 until 2019, at which time practically all Americans are out of Iraq, simply as a way of then claiming a savings of $1.5 trillion because the war in Iraq is not continuing.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:12 amObama’s problems grasping the job, the issues, the truth, everything, aren’t going to change over the next four years. It will only get worse.
He is a fabulous campaigner, doing the job he was hired for has never been a strong part. I mean, which part of voted-present-most-of-the-time didn’t people get? He neither knew of nor cared about the issues. He was there to become President.
Then this whole economic ball of melting wax dropped in his lap. He has no idea what to do with it, and considering that he is relying on tax-cheats for guidance, I don’t have any hope he’s leading us anywhere good.
Vivian Louise (eeeb3a) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:15 amThing is, that’s pretty much Limbaugh’s argument, the one you can’t listen to and get things done. They want you to focus on the man, but in doing so they inevitably cause focus on his message. You can’t have the administration and the MSM going all Limbaugh all the time without shining a light on what he’s actually saying.
Pablo (99243e) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:15 amJust an addendum, wasn’t it three weeks ago or so that most conservatives thought Bobby Jindal would be great at expressing our core values? Before that Steele and Palin…
Why not get a professional talker to do the talking.
I’m one of those townsfolk who knows what he’s getting into when he hires the shootist to be sheriff, and is willing to live with the consequences.
Hawkins (3d318d) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:19 amWhat makes Patterico believe that Steele believes Rush to be an articulate spokesman for the conservative cause? Quite clearly Steele’s beliefs are closer to Chuck D’s (whoever that is — he’s been on Larry King so I know he is important!) Steele is just another ethncity-driven pol who made the quite rational decision that the racial hucksters were pretty thick on the ground on the Democratic side and he’d have the field largely to himself with the Repubs.
horace (547ced) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:33 amSteele is a racial huckster, horace? How so? Examples, please. Maybe like the time he said something like “What they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other party chairs on the dollar bills.” Surely, you can point us to reason to believe that Steele is a race pimp.
Pablo (99243e) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:37 amI also believe that Steele was the affirmative actin candidate. The problem is that there were no alterantives. Can you say “a plethora of dipshits”?
nk (502275) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:38 amRush never asked to be the “leader” of the GOP, it is a “title” thrust upon him by the WH, because they need somebody to campaign against.
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:45 amThey can’t campaign against Steele since that might alienate part of the Dem base when they start making negative comments about some Black-guy, and it would resurrect the memory of the Schumer-led attack using Steele’s credit info.
The putative heads of the GOP – Steele, Boehner, McConnell – can be, and are, ignored by the media (Mitt can only get air-time if he pays for an infomercial – on late-night cable).
Rush has a megaphone that they cannot silence, and he knows how to use it –
witness his actions yesterday in advancing a challenge to the President to come on his show for a three-hour debate: He made the President an offer he can’t accept!
Rush is the most important (to the industry, and to the country) radio personality since the hey-day of the late Paul Harvey, and has the biggest audience since Harvey’s peak also.
He has fifteen hours each and every week to talk about what he thinks is interesting, and his reach is nation-wide, and world-wide since he is carried in part to our troops via AFRS.
This is a mistake by the WH along the lines of never picking a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
Rush can mount attacks on the WH and Dems that politico’s could, or would, never consider due to concerns for polity.
The problem here is that the WH has brought a knife to a gun-fight!
As the bureaucrats are wont to say:
Presidents come and go, but Rush will always be there (as long as people tune-in).
Oh, positive agreement that the Republican party convention looked like a rally in Nazi Germany? Saying the Republican party needs to go hip-hop?
Perhaps ‘huckster’ is too strong, he certainly is not in the Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton league. But he certainly plays the race card even if it is in a ‘kinder and gentler’ way.
horace (547ced) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:49 amWell, if you read the column “Washington Whispers” you find that it is not just the un-washed in the blogoshpere who are unhappy with Steele’s performance as Chairman of the RNC.
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:58 amHe seems to have drained the cess-pool there, but hasn’t announced any replacements.
# 15 Comment by Karl — 3/5/2009 @ 8:11 am
Well said Karl. The libs made famous by saying that they supported the troops but not the mission. We can do no less. Now, everybody knows that they knew they were talking about the war, that they were lying through their teeth, but they held firm.
On the other hand, we can be supportive of these United States and our Republic and our President without supporting HIS mission or the mission of the Democrats and we don’t need to be shy about saying so.
GM Roper (85dcd7) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:01 amComment by Mike K — 3/5/2009 @ 9:12 am
Steele’s softening attitude is pretty concerning. He sounds RINO if he feels zen over Obama’s budget moves. It’s definitely a bigger problem. Rush can handle the attack from Carvel & Co.
Vermont Neighbor (229b93) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:06 amYou mean his failure to rebut it? And that, as chair of the freaking RNC, makes him a race huckster?
Perhaps it’s just plain old wrong.
Pablo (99243e) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:11 amObama’s agenda is to turn the USA into a Euro-socialist country. Damm right I hope he fails. And, if you’d read or listened to Rush, you’d know that is exactly what he is saying too.
Now, if only the Republican party had leaders who represented us half as well as Rush does…
LarryD (feb78b) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:16 amI hope Rush Limbaugh fails in his attempt to set himself up as the de facto head of the Republican Party.
I don’t see him doing that.
1) The Democrats have decided to wage all out war on him. He’s simply responding to that.
2) There is a leadership vacuum in the GOP.
These two things may make it seem like Rush is trying to crown himself leader of the GOP, but it’s simply an accident of circumstances.
Subotai (fa79f4) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:22 amOne undercurrent over this flap that I haven’t seen examined is why would democrats need to pick an enemy now that they’re solidly in power in the government. There’s the angle that they need an Eastasia or Bokonon to solidify their base in hatred against an external enemy.
There’s also the angle that part of the appeal of the fairness doctrine needs to be that they’re doing the public a favor by reigning in the excesses of the unpopular polarizing figure on talk radio. I smell prelude to something darker here.
Hadlowe (85e13a) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:31 amCalling the CPAC convention the Republican Party convention is like calling the Indy 500 a car show.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:32 amIt’s the Alinsky thing. Pick a target, marginalize the target, silence the target, destroy the target. In that way, you become more powerful and your foes are afraid to speak up.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:34 amJim
Is that what he’s doing? I thought he was already the de facto head of the conservative movement, by default. Which, sadly, is not the same thing as the Republican Party.
Jim Treacher (796deb) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:46 amAnd that’s where this one falls apart. They’re shining a spotlight on a guy who loves it and knows what to do with it.
Pablo (99243e) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:46 amI am a great fan of Rush Limbaugh. He is an effective and shrewd advocate for the causes of conservatism and the Republican Party. I wish him well in his efforts to bring the truth about President Obama and the Democrats to as many people as possible. That being said, i haven’t listened to his program for quite a while. he has an effective style, but it’s just not what I prefer. He is, was and will be no more the head of the Republican Party than Michael Moore is of the Democratic Party. He is a voice. He is a voice we need. But he is not the only voice and not the only voice we need.
I don’t think Rush wants to be the head of the Party. But if he does, then I also hope he fails. But I hope he does not fail as a prime irritant to the Democrats. If he can keep them chasing their tails, then I wish him every success.
Ken Hahn (46b7a5) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:46 amAn important response to the subject…
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:47 am“Shook up about Rush, &c.”
By Jay Nordlinger
@ NRO today.
Comment by Ken Hahn — 3/5/2009 @ 10:46 am
Too bad you stopped listening, or you would know that Rush has no desire to be the “head” of the GOP, or to run for any political office (he can’t afford the pay cut). In fact, he doesn’t describe himself as a Republican (has anyone accessed the Palm Beach Co. voter registration records to see if he is even registered to vote, or in which party?) but as a “Conservative”.
What we have here is a WH mounting an attack against a private citizen to divert attention away from their failures – which are detailed here and elsewhere daily, and endlessly.
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:53 amHe sounds RINO if he feels zen over Obama’s budget moves
That quote was from Charles Krauthammer, no more a RINO than I am. I am quite concerned about Steele’s failure to object when the Nazi comparison and the comment about racists were made. I don’t know if that makes him a race hustler or just slow but neither would be a good thing.
MIke K (8df289) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:53 amIt’s a concern, same as when McCain didn’t slam Obama on Wright or Ayers. (And especially when he unleashed the Couric-Gibson interviews. A real wtf.) It’s like, who are these people trying to help. Hard to replace Steele… so new… and the PC stuff on the flip side.
Vermont Neighbor (229b93) — 3/5/2009 @ 11:07 amI think you’re wrong on this one. Are we hoping that socialization of the nation will work? The only nuance here is the difference between losing the soul of the nation and hoping that the policies don’t do too much damage, a “nuance” as wide as an ocean.
Hal (414066) — 3/5/2009 @ 11:10 amYou can’t make this stuff up….
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 11:11 amPressSec Gibbs complained that he can’t listen to Rush for he has no radio…
Rush asked his DC affiliate to get Gibbs a radio…
which was presented to him today by Ann Compton, of ABC News,
with instructions on how to turn it on and tune to the local ABC station (630AM) that carries Rush.
Oh Happy Days!
McCain won the GOP nomination because Democrats switched parties to vote for him in the early primaries in a successful bid to remove conservatives from the GOP bid. The fact McCain didn’t hit Obama on Obama’s circle of friends is due mainly to McCain’s lukewarmness, in my opinion.
“I would rather you be hot or cold, but since you are lukewarm…”
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/5/2009 @ 11:12 amGo, Rush go.. too funny.
Vermont Neighbor (229b93) — 3/5/2009 @ 11:14 amWhy is it not okay to wish a Democrat fails but okay to wish a Republican fails. For the last 8 years all we’ve seen in the MSM is hope that the Iraq war fails, that No Child Left Behind fails, that revising Social Security fails, that the current health system we have in this country fails so we can try universal health care, that just about every cabinet member of the Bush administration fails, from Cheney to Rice to Chertoff to you name it. I hope Obama fails big-time. If he doesn’t, we and our great-greatgrandchildren are going to be paying for it for a long, long time.
jwarner (0a2a75) — 3/5/2009 @ 11:15 amWhat part of the word “policies” don’t you understand? I want ALL of Obama’s policies to fail, just like Rush.
To answer the Question in #6, Where is Romney:
Pal2Pal (Sara) (84fd4f) — 3/5/2009 @ 11:15 amThat’s right.. and one of the things Steele is supposed to work on. Another reason why getting down to business would be good right about now.
Vermont Neighbor (229b93) — 3/5/2009 @ 11:16 amRemember…
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 11:16 amRush does this with one arm tied behind his back…
Just because it’s fair!
On * l o a n * from God !
Vermont Neighbor (229b93) — 3/5/2009 @ 11:19 amAD, isn’t that half his brain? Just to make it fair?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/5/2009 @ 11:19 amWhy are we getting all caught up on this? I’m new here, and I haven’t read every single post above, but as the loyal opposition, we want to “win the game”! I know you’ve heard the analogy before, but if you’re pulling for your home football team, what do you want to happen to your opposition? I sense that you wouldn’t say “Well…I don’t them to fail necessarily. I just…uh”. Come on!
I know, I know…some of you will say “yes, but win at what expense?”
My point is that Conservatives (and even you Libertarians out there) need to pull together. In essence, we ALL want those polices to fail because we don’t believe in them. It’s simple (isn’t it?). Maybe I’m missing something here, but if we can agree that we don’t like these policies, or even Obama’s entire approach, then let’s not all fall into the semantic trap of “Well..uh…no. We don’t want Obama to fail”. We do…if he keeps going down the road he’s on. If he can be persuaded to pull back towards the center (which as good as it’ll probably get), then we adjust.
What’s wrong with keeping the pressure on? I seem to recall that Democrats had NO problem wishing failure on President Bush…over and over again. Loudly and often.
Seems like we need to keep positive and back each other up by making the case that it’s Obama’s “leftie” approach that we oppose. Then keep pounding home our alternatives…loudly and often.
Cranbone (9a454f) — 3/5/2009 @ 11:19 amSorry, I hit submit too soon. More on Where’s Mitt?
US NEWS: Romney Speaks! My Chat with Mitt
TIME: Q&A with Mitt Romney
HUMAN EVENTS: Romney’s CPAC Speech Wows Conservatives
HUFFPO: Romney Working with House GOP to Oppose Stimulus
CNN OP-ED: Stimulate the Economy, Not Government
VIDEO: HANNITY: Romney on Stimulus Plan and Obama
VIDEO: American Future Fund: Romney Stops by the AFF Booth at CPAC 2009
Stay informed on Romney:
America Free and Strong
Come follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/pal2pal
Pal2Pal (Sara) (84fd4f) — 3/5/2009 @ 11:23 amComment by John Hitchcock — 3/5/2009 @ 11:19 am
You’re quite right JH. My tongue got in the way of my eye-tooth, and I couldn’t see what I was typing.
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 11:38 amAs the wingnutosphere-anointed leader of Communist Trolls for Islam, I hereby challenge dope-fiend Rush Limbaugh to a debate.
Now watch him run scared back to his housekeeper for more pills, a cigar and some bon bons.
He wouldn’t dare take me on…
Hax Vobiscum (4012df) — 3/5/2009 @ 12:07 pmCall his show Hacks. He will be happy to talk to you, even if you are a mendoucheous asshat.
JD (27e245) — 3/5/2009 @ 12:11 pmThe cure for the Republican Party’s dilemma is clear- sound off like they got a pair, or grow some. The only one who did this in the last election was Sarah Palin, and she was very well received by the base, and was treated with fear and loathing by the opposition. She acted like a leader.
Rush embodies a lot of the same qualities- he’s bold, plain-spoken, personable, and often hilarious. This is why he’s perceived as an opion leader. He acts like one. Why don’t Republican officials and candidates act like this, too?
If Republicans stop listening to the media and their own intelligentsia, this so-called problem will disappear. Rush is getting his influence by virtue of the fact that he strikes a chord in his listeners- something Republican politicians haven’t been able to do in a long time.
trentk269 (9f7c24) — 3/5/2009 @ 12:17 pmThanks JD. Glad to know I have another supporter for my challenge to El Rushbo, or whatever he calls himself.
Do you have any pull with his call screeners?
Hax Vobiscum (4012df) — 3/5/2009 @ 12:22 pmHack claiming that Rush would not dare take him on reminds of the joke about an ant molesting an elephant.
SPQR (72771e) — 3/5/2009 @ 12:26 pmThe huckster wouldn’t last 5 minutes with Rush. The huckster depends on lies, mischaracterizations, false assumptions, strawman armies and other fallacies in order to assert anything. Rush would crush the huckster very quickly.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/5/2009 @ 12:32 pmI want Obama to fail.
Pretty much in every sense of the word, if Obama fails America wins. And if Obama succeeds, America will surely fail.
So. I want Obama to fail.
Paul A'Barge (10e731) — 3/5/2009 @ 12:33 pmBut the Hack would be gentle, John.
SPQR (72771e) — 3/5/2009 @ 12:34 pmIf Rush is such a good debater, why doesn’t he every debate anyone?
Have you really not noticed that his show features himself and only himself.
Sure, he allows a very occasional caller — well screened to avoid embarrasment — but even then, it’s not a debate, as Rush can and will cut them off at any second.
Rush is an ideotainer, not a debater.
Hax Vobiscum (4012df) — 3/5/2009 @ 12:42 pmIt’s called The Rush Limbaugh Show, for a reason.
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 12:45 pmIf Rush is such a good debater, why doesn’t he every debate anyone?
I work here is done.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/5/2009 @ 12:46 pm“Have you really not noticed that his show features himself and only himself.
Sure, he allows a very occasional caller — well screened to avoid embarrasment — but even then, it’s not a debate, as Rush can and will cut them off at any second.”
Nope have not noticed that. You must be an infrequent listener.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/5/2009 @ 12:46 pmHey, if Al Gore is so right about Global Warming, why doesn’t he debate everyone?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/5/2009 @ 12:48 pmIf Barack Obama is so convinced his agenda will gelp America and that listening to Limbaugh is so bad he needs to attack him personally and have his minions attack him as well, why doesn’t Obama debate Limbaugh?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/5/2009 @ 12:50 pmMy point is that Conservatives (and even you Libertarians out there) need to pull together. In essence, we ALL want those polices to fail because we don’t believe in them.
Yes!!
Perhaps Limbaugh isn’t the best person to make the argument. But the argument needs to be made: This is not just some typical political squabble. Obama is making a series of gigantic mistakes that, if he succeeds in getting his way, will seriously harm America.
So yes, Patterico, I know Limbaugh’s agenda is not my own. But on this issue, we have exactly the same interest. I hope Obama fails, and I’m not apologizing for saying so.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (615d0f) — 3/5/2009 @ 12:50 pm🙂
Vobiscum, old boy, your village is still missing it’s idiot. Call home.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/5/2009 @ 12:51 pmVobiscum is a griefer not a commenter.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/5/2009 @ 12:54 pmdaleyrocks – nice SL allusion there! Are you saying that Snack boy is nothing more than a passing of pixels?
steve miller (0fb51f) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:07 pmI just love the idea of some troll type person debating Limbaugh. He takes calls every day. I look forward to hearing proof of the brilliance and debating prowess of a troll who maybe has a blog…compared to a fellow with decades of experience in radio and many millions of dollars.
Seriously, I’d love to hear the exchange.
It must sting horribly to be so sure that a person is wrong, and watch that wretched marketplace shower that “wrong” person with money and influence.
Why, I am inclined to remark that a lack of a nation-wide audience for the ideas of a certain troll might indicate the esteem in which that troll’s ideas are held. Seems to me I heard something similar about newspapers from a troll recently.
Ah, but that is so very different!
But we won’t hear this troll on the air. We’ll get lots and lots of excuses. And more charming and mature personal attacks about weight, drugs, and hair placement (all from a person who is not in the public eye, interestingly, yet believes such personal attacks are somehow droll).
Because it is far easier to say “The screener won’t put me on the air” without actually lifting a finger….than to actually work hard to get on the air and speak one’s piece.
Poseur.
Eric Blair (57b266) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:08 pm‘Twould be interesting to hear a recording of the attempt to get on the air.
One thing rules radio: be interesting. I suspect Snack boy would not make it past the first screening because he is not interesting.
steve miller (0fb51f) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:10 pm— Brother Bradley J. Fikes
Yes!
But in addition to that, my main pet peeve is that conservatives are getting bogged down in political minutiae and not keep our “eyes on the prize”. This is not to say that minutiae isn’t important, but in times like these, let’s, all of us, forcefully agree on the big picture first. That we disa-f*cking-gree with the left wing agenda!
We need to band together and cover each other’s backsides here. I’m no political wonk, but they’re dividing us and they want to conquer us (why wouldn’t they? They’re the opposition). I know that’s no news to us, but it seems to me that it’s working (just read above). Where are we headed, to a 12 step program? “I am Cranbone and I’m a Conservative (Hello Cranbone!). And I’m here today to say I want Obama to fail”
Priority one should be that we stand together on this principal first; that we oppose the left-wing approach and our beliefs are…” etc. Please…let’s not eat each other up here.
Keep it simple, back each other up, keep positive (not just saying “no”) and offer our alternatives like adults. Then…keep at it. Every minute of every day.
The Dems have been doing this for 50 years. Why can’t we?
Cranbone (9a454f) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:15 pmRush hasn’t claimed to be the head of anything: those are the talking points of a White House scared the people will finally realize their toddler emperor is not just an empty suit but a stark butt naked poseur with nary a clue.
Rush’s value is that he can articulate CONSERVATIVE values and principles … and he does so effectively with glee. He’s not our leader but the voice of WE THE CONSERVATIVES.
He’s targeted not because there is no liberal equivalent but because any potential liberal equal would never dare articulate LIBERAL principles. (Note I did not include liberal “values”… with the exception of win at all costs, they do not exist).
I want (and expect) bambi Obama to fail. I will not cooperate in his plan to destroy me.
I am John Galt.
Syllabucks (ef6966) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:17 pm“…because any potential liberal equal would never dare articulate LIBERAL principles…”
They have to lie to win because if they told the truth, no one would vote for them.
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:22 pmDear Lord, the idea any functioning liberal could get through Limbaugh’s screener is laughable.
The only libs Limbaugh would ever debate are the pre-screened kooks or the help at his compound.
timb (a83d56) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:25 pmAnother classic example of someone who never listens to Rush, criticizing his show.
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:27 pmRush takes calls from Libs all the time for it gives him someone to argue with; and, since most of them are not as familiar with the issues as he is, he comes off looking better than the caller – which is one of his indisputable truths of life.
Try this experiment: call the show and try to get on. Be the liberal who will correct Rush. Tape the results.
Let’s see if you can’t get on because you’re a nut, or because you’re a liberal.
That way, you can prove whether your assertion is fact or is simply something the voices in your head assure you is true.
steve miller (0fb51f) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:36 pmExcept, as I’ve noted and posted about contemporaneously ont hsi site before, AD, I DO listen to Limbaugh’s show for at least a half hour a day.
And, I have listened to him since 1991.
I have many favorite Limbaugh moments, but the best is when he used Michael Irvine as a character reference for Terrell Owens. Two drug abusers kibitzing about a malcontent. Sublime radio.
In that time, I haven’t one liberal caller I would even let into my house, let alone a “debate.”
timb (a83d56) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:36 pmSteve Miller, why don’t you call and let us know how hard it is to get on as a con.
But, I love the fact that none of you know how talk radio works. See here for how John Zeigler’s show worked.
timb (a83d56) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:42 pmYeah timb? Which 30 minutes a day? Hell, if I listened to only the first 30 mintutes I’d swear Rush never takes callers.
Eh, never mind.
KB (5a6552) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:43 pmAh, my mistake.
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:43 pmI forgot to read the definition of “functioning”.
Did someone fart?
JD (27e245) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:43 pmI hack-off here?
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:45 pmNow we have “Staunch Listener” … with the same credibility.
SPQR (72771e) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:45 pmMullah Rush Limbaugh is daily calling out hate and ideological dogma from his electronic minaret. He is opposed to any social or scientific progress and is locked into rigid, slanted interpretations of sacred writings, verbally stoning those he disagrees with and urging financial amputation of hands that reach out in compassion. He is instilling tribal fears of Republicans and Democrats to keep them pitted against each other to prevent change, knowing that those taught to hate can be led to war without thought to what is lost or gained. As he dictates his rhetoric he has amassed financial palaces, kept serial wives, (a harem), smoked a prescription hookah; he is the leader of the American Taliban.
lmdeines (0d9108) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:47 pmWhen we act like the enemy, who have we become? His bombastic oratory is a form of terrorism. Drive him to the cave house for sale in Festus, MO. That is where minds like his end up, in caves.
LM Deines
Boise, Idaho
Okay, Rush fans, you go to the archives and run the search for all the competent liberal debaters.
I’ll take my almost twenty years of listening and hundreds of hours over your “Rush is My Champion” meme everyday.
So, one of you go prove me wrong.
And, dj, your input was so insightful as always, completely embodying your immature humor, contrarian anger, and general wealth of stupidity.
timb (a83d56) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:49 pmwhy should I call in? I have nothing to prove.
You, however, have stated as fact that libs can’t get on.
I’m saying put up or shut up. You can easily prove me wrong.
I take it as a given that conservatives can get on the air, so I don’t have to call up to prove that point – unless you are also arguing that point, that conservatives can’t get on? Because you are then arguing that no one can get on – and still, there are people who are on the air with Rush.
steve miller (0fb51f) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:50 pmQuick, I need pain-killers!
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:51 pmStupidity like that can only be the result of a post-graduate education.
Dear Lord, the idea any functioning liberal could get through Limbaugh’s screener is laughable.
The only libs Limbaugh would ever debate are the pre-screened kooks or the help at his compound.
Comment by timb
Tim, liberal callers go to the head of the line. I listened yesterday and the first caller was a liberal who was trying to argue that Rush should change his Obama debate offer to go on TV instead of radio. Limbaugh kept him on for almost the whole segment. You don’t know what you are talking about or you are lying.
It is standard lefty verbiage to set up strawmen or claim things that aren’t real. I’ve been hung up on by lefty talk show hosts, like Michael Jackson in LA and had my comments deleted from left wing blogs.
Mike K (f89cb3) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:51 pmYou can prove your assertion easily by pointing out to statistics of past performance or just by calling up and trying to get on as the “average literate liberal.”
Your only hope is to get the Fairness Doctrine re-instated, I think, because apparently you are confusing boring with relevant.
steve miller (0fb51f) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:52 pm102/105
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:52 pmThis stalkerish type creepy person is icky.
Boise, Idaho is missing its idiot.
JD (27e245) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:55 pmby the way, LM, we don’t mind drive-bys, but at least try to keep up. We’re talking about whether libs can get on the RL show, not whether RL is a preacher of hate. That’s another thread entirely.
steve miller (0fb51f) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:55 pmOh! Another Drive-By!
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:55 pmComment by JD — 3/5/2009 @ 1:55 pm
Reading Clayton Cramer, I think that Boise has an almost inexhaustible supply.
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:57 pmI agree with you on how Steele should have articulated his position. The problem that many people have with Rush, and Republican lawmakers in general is that they seem to only be giving lip-service to their conservative principles. They lost a lot of Conservative voters and backers because the one issue behind which most Conservatives and most Americans in general believe in, economic conservatism and fiscal responsibility, have been ignored by the Republican Party. As long as Republican lawmakers continue to partake in those activities which they accuse Democrats of they will stay ‘in the wilderness.’ Republican lawmakers have no new ideas so they appear to be simply obstructionists, while still accepting the ‘pork’ that they accuse Democrats of stuffing in the recovery plan. I would suggest they go economic conservatism and ignore the social issues, but that is what has consolidated their base, and coincidentally turns many people away from the Republican Party. Rush is exactly what many Americans would argue is wrong with the Republican Party. Someone who gives lip service to ‘ideals’ while not helping the country improve.
Matt (96f134) — 3/5/2009 @ 1:58 pmSCORE!!!!! JD follows me around the site and then calls me a stalker. Is there a 12 step program for your brand of ignorance, dj?
As for Mike, wow, a contentious debate must have erupted between this caller who wanted Limbaugh and Obama to debate on TV rather than radio!
I know Limbaugh gets you worked up, Mike, but I said competent liberals could not get through the screener. I did not say he never allows people calling themselves liberals on air.
timb (a83d56) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:00 pmI don’t agree that Rush Limbaugh is trying to set himself up as the de facto head of the Republican Party.
Gerald A (adb85a) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:01 pmLifelong concerned Christian who voted for Bush twice but this time had to vote for Obama …
JD (27e245) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:02 pmSince when did it become necessary, when hoping that some politician “fails”, that you need to clarify that you are referring to that politician’s policies and not the Sunday night canasta game at the Bidens, or whatever?
If the fear is that the idiot masses aren’t smart enough to understand this, then you could argue that conservatives should never oppose Democrats on anything because any opposition is nuance.
I know: when a conservative opposes socialist health care, he doesn’t mean he wants to see Americans get sick and die. He just doesn’t want liberal policies enacted because he thinks they’re bad for the country. I get it. I agree with that.
But, you know, that’s nuance.
j curtis (bd88b1) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:02 pmAnother drive-by who proclaims that which he knows nothing about.
If you had ever taken the time to listen to Rush you would know that he has been excoriating the Congressional Republicans for the profligacy for years.
Rush is not the problem, but he does point to the solution.
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:02 pmYou can prove your assertion that competent liberals can’t get through by simply calling up and recording the result.
Otherwise, you are simply imagining.
steve miller (0fb51f) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:02 pmIn that time, I haven’t one liberal caller I would even let into my house, let alone a “debate.”
I can see why you don’t think you’ll get on his show – the incoherency here is truly breathtaking. Rush’s job is to get ratings, not bore the crap out of his audience with mongoloids. And yes, I worked in national radio sales for almost ten years back in the 80’s, so you don’t have a cluebat what you’re talking about.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:03 pm113/118…
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:04 pmand…”their profligacy”
So you want Rush to fail? Who is going to take his place, you Patterico? What a joke. You people wonder why we are leaderless? It is because we keep allowing the left to define who our leaders are. We had Gingrich, Delay and many others and we allowed them to be run out of town on the basis of trumped up nonsense. Who in the hell would want to lead a party of pussies that folds like a Kleenex when things get tough? Listening to people like Patterico will get us a bunch of mushy morons who will cave to the left and won’t inspire anyone. It is time to stand up for our principals. The libs sure as hell weren’t shy about wanting Bush to fail and now they run everything. This is war folks.
Ken (67885e) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:06 pmCompetent Liberal
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:08 pmOxy Moron
Comment by Ken — 3/5/2009 @ 2:06 pm
To the barricades, Comrades! (seriously)
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:08 pmAD – have you heard Kramer’s rant that led the White House to attack him, and his responses today?
Let’s see … A little ankle-biting Leftist troll follows people from site to site, places that they have “hung out” at for years, continually insulting them and snipping at their heels, as a result of outrageously bad behavior that got him banned from another site, all the while collecting little bits and pieces of personal information gelaned from comment threads ver the curse of years … Nah. No way is that stalkerish. Not at all creepy.
Mind you, I am not talking to it, but about it.
JD (27e245) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:09 pmI didn’t leave yet. I’ve listened to Rush before, I just can’t take it for more than 10 minutes. I agree, he has taken some Republicans to task, but it is completely disproportionate to the number of Democrats. Not to mention that he will go after Republican for specific issues whereas he essentially wants to wipe the slate clean of all Democrats and their ideas. This is without mentioning Rush’s distortion of Democratic issues and ideas.
Matt (96f134) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:09 pmKen, turn that misguided vitriol down a notch or three, mmkay?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:10 pmEven if Rush was willing to accept un-screened calls, that still wouldn’t be a “debate.”
Remember, he controls the microphone and can cut the caller off at any point. A tactic he has deployed before.
If Rush were a competent debater, instead of an indeotainer, he’d go toe-to-toe with someone like Al Franken or Keith Olbermann or Bill Moyers.
Instead, he absurdly challenges the president.
That would be like Franken challenged George W. to a debate. Imagine the scoffing that would be treated to in the wingnutosphere.
No one deserves Rush more than the wingnuts and the party that can’t live with or without them.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:11 pmMoby
JD (27e245) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:13 pmMatt, you cannot seriously believe someone using facts and historical evidence would let an entire organization which chooses to deny facts and historical evidence get a “bye” do you?
Liberals don’t have a factual leg to stand on.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:13 pmNice $5 word AD. Hadn’t heard it used that way. Only profligate. I have learned something here today.
Matt (96f134) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:14 pmGas! Gas! Gas!
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:16 pmI have never been a Limbaugh loyalist. I have had some miss giving about Rush over the years. I may listen to him 3 or 4 times a month for short periods if I happen to be in my car when he is on in my area. Having said that I will say (1) I do not think Rush has any desire to be head of the Republican Party in name or fact. (2.) He articulates positions with greater clarity and zeal than anyone on the air, agree with him or not. (3) He knows what power he has and is not afraid to use it.
Edward Cropper (6a7a91) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:16 pmHas he made a lot of money doing it? Yes, but that doesn’t bother me . He has a good product, and markets it well . That’s just good old fashion capitalism.
Hannity, Savage, O’Reilly and others do the same thing but none of them come close to him in real political influence. That is why the dems and other lib crazies fear and hate him so much.
but I said competent liberals could not get through the screener.
I hear plenty of people spouting what sounds to me like the standard liberal notions.
liberal callers go to the head of the line.
Comment by Mike K — 3/5/2009 @ 1:51 pm
He used to do that. I was listening during the 2004 campaign when he changed it while on air. Some liberal who sounded young was going on about something or other and when Rush challenged him he suddenly injected something about Halliburton, which had no logical connection to the issue. Rush announced he had had enough and was eliminating the rule, saying they were insufferable.
Gerald A (adb85a) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:17 pmKen doesn’t read beyond the headlines apparently! LOL!
Matt (96f134) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:17 pmKen doesn’t read beyond the headlines apparently! LOL!
Matt (96f134) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:17 pmComment by JD — 3/5/2009 @ 2:09 pm
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:19 pmCaught Kramer’s rant on PJM. It looks like he has put his focus back where it belonged all along:
Economic Prosperity!
The Obama Market has got to be really cutting into his hedge-fund earnings.
Too bad he didn’t think about what BHO’s economic philosophy (or lack of same) was going to do to the country before he endorsed him last year.
It seems there is a tremendous amount of buyer’s remorse in the Boston-NYC-DC Corridor.
Next thing, we’ll see some of the Hollyweird types selling oranges as their investments have tanked, and they can’t get financing for their next “meaningful” message-flick.
the wingnuts
Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 3/5/2009 @ 2:11 pm
Weren’t you insisting that employers who hire illegals could be deported and in fact should be deported before illegals?
Gerald A (adb85a) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:19 pmHitchcock – The current Republican Party can’t even be used as an ottoman.
Matt (96f134) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:21 pmComment by Matt — 3/5/2009 @ 2:21 pm
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:24 pmWhich is why Rush always denies he’s a Republican, but proudly proclaims his Conservatism!
Matt, since you’re so desirous of the “fairness doctrine” in Rush’s fact- and history-based attacks on liberals, perhaps you can tell me of a single competent liberal idea. And use historical facts to prove the idea has worked.
And, about that ottoman snark, I wouldn’t let you put your feet on my back regardless of your condition.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:25 pmWe had Gingrich, Delay and many others and we allowed them to be run out of town on the basis of trumped up nonsense.
Gingrich wasn’t “run out of town,” Poindexter – he left on his own accord. And Delay was a scumbag that should’ve been run out of town on a rail when it was clear to all that he only did things to keep himself in power. Absolute power corrupts most people, and Delay exemplifies what’s going to happen to the Dems in short order.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:26 pmLove how some morons here talk as if they have no stake in what is happening. Like, they’re above it all just because they don’t like Obama. News flash! You’re in this with us, girls. The reason the market tanked is because of GM’s and AIG’s continued deterioration, which began long before Obama even decided to run for the presidency.
JohnRJ08 (a2b7a7) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:26 pmOh, another drive-by. Thanks for back-firing on our discussion.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:28 pmPlease supply us with your credentials to make an assertion that Bambi’s demand to nationalize industry is unconnected with the tanking of the economy.
Down down to 6600 – heckofajob, Bambi!
steve miller (0fb51f) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:28 pmThis is without mentioning Rush’s distortion of Democratic issues and ideas.
Are you refraining from mentioning them because you can’t even describe them in the first place? Come on, you’re full of a lot of opinions here, let’s see your work – all of it, replete with objective sourcing and quotes.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:28 pmComment by JohnRJ08 — 3/5/2009 @ 2:26 pm
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:29 pmOh, look over there, something shiney!
Good Post Patterico, well said.
Oiram (983921) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:29 pmYou’re in this with us, girls.
Whatever you say, Tranny Queen.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:30 pmThis is special:
Bambi’s Erudition at play
The guy can’t string two sentences together without someone telling him what to say.
But Hope! Change!
steve miller (0fb51f) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:30 pmPublic Will See Through Obama Game-Playing – Nicole Wallace, Dly Beast
Syllabucks (ef6966) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:33 pmtimmah – Limbaugh has competent liberal callers on all the time.
Prove me wrong!!!!
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:36 pmYou’re wrong, Daley. Liberals, by definition, are not competent.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:38 pmSigh.
AFAICR, Rush has had liberals on quite a few times. I don’t listen to him much, but when I have, I’ve heard the liberals.
Maybe the problem is that liberals who do get on end up crazy because they can’t handle someone refuting them.
steve miller (0fb51f) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:41 pmGot here just now… was working between comment number what ever it was earlier and now… but Max Vomitorium offering to debate rush… Max,do you realize what you’ve done? Now all the working folk on the right will stay tuned to Rush just to hear you get your ass handed to you on a silver platter. But it may be years before you actually get on. Thus, the economy will fail with all of us conservatives quitting our jobs just to listen to rush in hopes of listening and the very thing you don’t want to happen will.
Damn I can see the headlines now: “Vomitorium causes Obama to Fail. Rush puzzled about that, but now earning 120 million per year!”
GM Roper (85dcd7) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:41 pmIf hypocrisy is a prerequisite for the GOP,
then Flush is a shoo-in for the “leader” title.
When George W is in office “we must respect the president” was the mantra.
With Obama, its ok to be disrespect the president and hope that he fails.
the drug using, pill popping tub of lard needs to shoot himself.
Reality Check (6b4ee3) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:43 pmWas that the Unabomber?
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:45 pmComment by steve miller — 3/5/2009 @ 2:41 pm
“Facts to a Liberal, are like Kryptonite to Superman.”
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:45 pmh/t Larry Elder
“Reality Check” is a perfect example of the left who wants people on the right not only silenced but dead. And “Reality Check” needs to shut up on the murderous hate to ever be taken seriously.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:47 pmGingrich stepped down over some book deal and he wasn’t getting any support from the party. The deal was later dwarfed by a deal Hillary got and nobody objected. Delay a scumbag? Really? According to who, the left-wing prosecutor who has yet prove he did anything wrong? Are you dumb enough to believe that the libs are *not* going to persecute whoever steps forward to be a leader of the party? You don’t have a clue what we are up against.
Ken (67885e) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:48 pmWell, yeah.
“Don’t say things that offend me. It hurts my feelings.”
steve miller (0fb51f) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:48 pmAccording to who, the left-wing prosecutor who has yet prove he did anything wrong?
Actually, the source you used for your initial post was only yourself – nice debating technique you got there.
Are you dumb enough to believe that the libs are *not* going to persecute whoever steps forward to be a leader of the party? You don’t have a clue what we are up against.
Do you know what the condition of paranoia entails? You’re channeling Captain Queeg on a good day here – btw, are you juggling metal balls in your hands while you type?
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:55 pmGingrich stepped down over some book deal and he wasn’t getting any support from the party.
Gingrich stepped down out of spite – no one forced his hand. Ask his first wife how Newt handles little ethical problems like that one.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:57 pmD Mac –
Generally – Calling Democrats/Liberals iffeminate, wishy-washy, unpatriotic, etc. Like you don’t know what he does…
Specifically – Connecting rising gas prices with a Democratically controlled Congress.
If you don’t see it you’re just allowing the wool to cover your eyes.
John – I don’t know about you but I’m not a fan of having other guy’s legs on my back. (Not that there is anything wrong with that.)
Also, the reason that liberals lose arguments to Rush is because of how he frames his argument. I give him credit on this part. He is good.
Matt (96f134) — 3/5/2009 @ 2:58 pmI’d love to stay and chat but I have work to get back to. Been a pleasure.
Matt (96f134) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:06 pmComment by Matt — 3/5/2009 @ 3:06 pm
I work here is done?
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:11 pmOK – you tell ME genius. You were the one that said Delay was corrupt, what has he been convicted of? What did he do?
Ken (67885e) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:20 pmRush Limbaugh is a nutcase. It’s a shame that many of his loyal followers don’t even realize that they are simply showing their miniscule levels of intelligence by adhering to his politics.
This country exists because of bipartisanship from people willing to work together and hammer out issues, not norrow-mindedness and outright advocation of “failure” or “impeachment” of a President who has proven thus far to be the best President yet.
Daniel (9b5921) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:23 pmMatt is obviously an economic conservative that voted for Bush twice and clearly wants what is best for conservatives.
Nice that another Leftist dropped by and called for the death of a conservative.
This is a pattern, and there is a meta-pattern here as well. During the primaries, when Baracky went through periods where he was not doing well, there was a direct correlation to the number of trolls, and the ramped up asshattery. This phenomena is playing out with the Baracky administration, as the economy crumbles under Baracky’s spending and socialist tendencies, the Left wants to bark about Rush, rather than the fact that the markets are flipping Baracky the bird. At the same time, they cannot be concerned with the day to day crushing decline in the market, but have plenty of time to spend trying to demonize Rush and Kramer, who was one of their own.
$15 plastic helicopters, anyone?
6600 and the DOW just continues to plummet.
JD (f6e132) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:24 pmHe would have stayed had the support for him to stay been there. As usual the Republicans were cowering in their boots and declined to speak on his behalf. The Republicans in congress are afraid of the media so they stood by and did nothing. As long as that goes on we will never have a leader. Look what happened to Jindal, he is a great guy who had one off night and the pussies on our side couldn’t wait to pile on and agree with the libs that he sucked. It is disgraceful that morons like Patterico and Allahpundit who hid anonymously would pass judgment on a guy who is out there in the arena, fighting for the conservative cause.
Ken (67885e) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:25 pmPatterico is right.
“Rush Limbaugh is an articulate man who expresses conservative principles well. But when he says he wants Obama to fail, he’s putting things in a deliberately controversial way to draw attention to himself. I wouldn’t say I want Obama to fail. I would say simply that I think conservative principles are better for our country. That’s how I feel — and I’m not apologizing for saying so.”
Couldn’t have said it better. Excellent. Good to see someone with some balls around here to speak truth to power! Great job, Host.
Emperor7 who now sees the light. (1b037c) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:26 pmIf the so called conservative americans dont realise that uncontrolled captilism is receipie for disaster, than even god (in whom they trust) will not be able to save the and the american
Harinder Sahota (69f3ec) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:27 pmsun will set faster than the british (it usually takes about three four hunfred years). People like Rush Limbaugh will make it happen soon.
Daniel, frankly your comment shows that you have no business calling others “nutcase” or refering to others’ levels of intelligence. Your comment was just hilariously stupid. Obama’s first month and a half has been a long series of pratfalls and he has shown no interest in bipartisanship whatever.
Your comment is really just a bad parody.
SPQR (72771e) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:28 pmAnd I’m sure you feel the same way about the vote on the Iraq War, right? It was, after all, a bi-partisan vote, wasn’t it?
mossberg500 (392f23) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:28 pm“6600 and the DOW just continues to plummet.”
If equities prices are a credible measure of presidential performance, George W. Bush was the worst president since Hoover. Case closed.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:29 pmComment by Ken — 3/5/2009 @ 3:20 pm
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:30 pmIf I may…
Mr. DeLay had the temerity to challenge the Democrat hegemony among lobbyists on K-Street, and proposed to those firms that their proposals might be received with more than faint interest if only they employed more than a token of Republicans (aka: The K-Street Project).
When the ready supply of positions for staffers and others to shift seamlessly between Capital Hill and the big-money on K-Street started to dry up, he had to be dealt with.
They forced from his position, using the GOP’s own rules against him, by getting a corrupt DA in Austin to jury-shop an indictment that is as phony as the economic philosophy of the Dem Party.
It is disgraceful that morons like Patterico and Allahpundit who hid anonymously
Our host is a public prosecutor, in case you juuuust happened to miss that while driving by and dropping some turds here. You’re not well, are you, Kenny?
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:30 pm“Rush Limbaugh is an articulate man who expresses conservative principles well. But when he says he wants Obama to fail, he’s putting things in a deliberately controversial way to draw attention to himself. I wouldn’t say I want Obama to fail. I would say simply that I think conservative principles are better for our country. That’s how I feel — and I’m not apologizing for saying so.”
Rush says one thing, but he does another. Maybe its calculated. He wants obama to fail, but helps him along. I’m sure his ratings go up when democrats win.
imdw (a81897) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:32 pmDaniel – WTF are you talking about?
JD (f6e132) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:33 pmDuring the primaries, when Baracky went through periods where he was not doing well, there was a direct correlation to the number of trolls, and the ramped up asshattery.
Yep, like the swallows returning to Capistrano, they always come back when their Messiah’s in deep trouble. Reminds me of the cultish freak – out during Milt Rosenberg’s show on WGN here, when he had on the NR writer who was exploring Obama’s ties with the Annenberg project. They flooded the airwaves with their insane callers, so no one other than the nutbags got in a word with the author. Digital Brownshirting was never more appropriately named.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:35 pm“During the primaries, when Baracky went through periods where he was not doing well, there was a direct correlation to the number of trolls, and the ramped up asshattery. ”
What was the R^2?
imdw (a81897) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:37 pmMr. DeLay had the temerity to challenge the Democrat hegemony among lobbyists on K-Street
I suppose that’s one way to look at it – I view it as getting into the mud as badly as the Dems did, so I didn’t care what happened to the guy after the budget largesses during Bush’s term in office.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:37 pmAs someone else noted, we should simply adopt a theme like the Dems did on the war, ie. we support the troops but not the war. I support the Presidency, but not the policies.
Patterico – Which Leftist cesspool linked to this?
JD (f6e132) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:39 pmHack, #175 and by your newly invented standard, Obama is currently the second worse president since Hoover.
SPQR (72771e) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:39 pmBig picture; Rush has been the only consistently effective purveyor of conservative thought during the time he’s been on. I grew up in the ‘60’s stuck watching those “Meet the Press” type shows and one thing seemed to always be there; a roundtable discussion with 4 or so analysts which always included only one conservative. The rest ranged from moderates to lefties. The overall “vibe” of it was that the conservative was the odd man out while the rest of them discussed the issue as if their opinions were mainstream (still goes on today, as you all know!). Even as a kid I wondered about that.
Rush is simply effective and it pisses off people to the point where they’ll write stuff like: “He is opposed to any social or scientific progress…” (LM Deines). Sheesh…these over-the-top assertions have got to be identified for what they are; attempts to turn the opponent into pure evil or a bonehead (lefties; I know we do it too…still stinks). After these comments are discovered, they should simply be ignored. Unfortunately, “progress” usually goes hand-in-hand with the Feds taking control of the thing that needs “progress”.
Over the years, conservatives have just not been very good in the PR dept (as far as the general population is concerned). Rush is the first one and know seems to be the only one with the stones to push back the attempt to make “leftie-ism” look mainstream. So until some political leader(s) step up, he’s going to be the man.
So get over this issue about liberals not getting on the air. As Rush has stated many times, the point of his whole show is balance to the rest of the MSM.
Cranbone (9a454f) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:40 pmHarinda, they don’t realize it because its not true. But you just go ahead and keep believing in left wing fairy tales.
SPQR (72771e) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:40 pmThough we might not like the lobbyist system that goes on at governmental seats of power everywhere, we still have to recognize that they are just excercising our Right to Petition, etc.
It is up to us, the voters, to monitor what our representatives are doing in our name, and to turn them out of office if their actions offend us.
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:42 pmA small sample of Rush’s comedy of errors:
LIMBAUGH: “The videotape of the Rodney King beating played absolutely no role in the conviction of two of the four officers. It was pure emotion that was responsible for the guilty verdict.” (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)
REALITY: “Jury Foreman Says Video Was Crucial in Convictions”, read an accurate Los Angeles Times headline the day after the federal court verdict (4/20/93).
LIMBAUGH: “Anytime the illegitimacy rate in black America is raised, Rev. Jackson and other black ‘leaders’ immediately change the subject.” (Ought to Be, p. 225)
REALITY: Jesse Jackson has been talking about and against “children having children” in speeches and interviews for decades. So have many other black leaders, especially in the clergy.
LIMBAUGH: Praising Strom Thurmond for calling a gay soldier “not normal”: “He’s not encumbered by being politically correct…. If you want to know what America used to be–and a lot of people wish it still were–then you listen to Strom Thurmond.” (TV show, 9/1/93)
REALITY: In the America that “used to be,” Strom Thurmond was one of the country’s strongest voices for racism, running for president in 1948 on the slogan, “Segregation Forever.”
LIMBAUGH: “There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does this sound like a record of genocide?” (Told You So, p. 68)
REALITY: According to Carl Shaw of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, estimates of the pre-Columbus population of what later became the United States range from 5 million to 15 million. Native populations in the late 19th century fell to 250,000, due in part to genocidal policies. Today the U.S.’s Native American population is about 2 million.
LIMBAUGH: “Women were doing quite well in this country before feminism came along.” (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)
REALITY: Before feminism, women couldn’t even vote.
LIMBAUGH: “Anita Hill followed Clarence Thomas everywhere. Wherever he went, she wanted to be right by his side, she wanted to work with him, she wanted to continue to date him…. There were no other accusers who came forth after Anita Hill did and said, ‘Yeah, Clarence Thomas, he harassed me, too.’ There was none of that.” (TV show, 5/4/94)
REALITY: Hill could not have continued to date Thomas, since they never dated. Two other women, Sukari Hardnett and Angela Wright, came forth in the Thomas case with similar charges.
LIMBAUGH: “Now I got something for you that’s true–1972, Tufts University, Boston. This is 24 years ago–or 22 years ago. Three year study of 5000 co-eds, and they used a benchmark of a bra size of 34C. They found that the–now wait. It’s true. The larger the bra-size, the smaller the IQ.” (TV show, 5/13/94)
REALITY: Dr. Burton Hallowell, president of Tufts in the ’60s and ’70s, had “absolutely no recollection” of such a study, according to Tufts’ communications office. “I surely would have remembered that!” he exclaimed. Limbaugh’s staff was unable to produce any such study. A search of the Nexis database–while revealing no evidence of a Tufts study–did produce a number of women theorizing that the presence of large breasts caused a lowering of IQ in some males.
The Clinton Obsession
LIMBAUGH: On Whitewater: “I don’t think the New York Times has run a story on this yet. I mean, we haven’t done a thorough search, but I–there has not been a big one, front-page story, about this one that we can recall. So this has yet to create or get up to its full speed–if it weren’t for us and the Wall Street Journal and the American Spectator, this would be one of the biggest and most well kept secrets going on in American politics today.” (TV show, 2/17/94)
REALITY: The New York Times broke the Whitewater story on March 8, 1992, in a front-page story by Jeff Gerth that included much of the key information known today. The investigative article ran over 1,700 words.
LIMBAUGH: “You know the Clintons send Chelsea to the Sidwell Friends private school…. A recent eighth grade class assignment required students to write a paper on ‘Why I Feel Guilty Being White”. ‘… My source for this story is CBS News. I am not making it up.” (Radio show, quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times, 1/16/94.)
REALITY: When Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times called CBS, the network denied running such a story. Ellis Turner, the director of external affairs for Sidwell Friends, told Roeper: “There is no legitimacy to the story that has been circulating…. We’re anxious to let people know that this story is not true.” The essay topic would be particularly difficult for the 28 percent of the school’s student body that is not white.
LIMBAUGH: “You better pay attention to the 1993 budget deal because there is an increase in beer and alcohol taxes.” (Radio show, 7/9/93)
REALITY: There were no increases in beer and alcohol taxes in the 1993 budget.
LIMBAUGH: The lead item on a page of “Stupid Quotes” in the May ’94 Limbaugh Letter–subtitled, “Folks, I don’t make this stuff up”–was a quote attributed to Eleanor Clift on the McLaughlin Group: “Hillary and Bill Clinton cheating on their taxes was a protest against the Reagan era tax breaks for the wealthy…. They knew… the IRS would catch up to them and tack penalties…. If more people had been as far-sighted and altruistic as the Clintons, we could retroactively erase the deficit.” Limbaugh commented, “It’s only May, folks, and we’ve got our Stupid Quote of the year.”
REALITY: Rush Limbaugh, April Fool. The item came from the April Fools Day issue of a right-wing newsletter, Notable Quotables. Each item in the newsletter was dated April 1 and the issue signed off with the words “April Fools.” (The Limbaugh Letter later printed a correction on this and another April Fools quote used as fact.)
Fractured History
LIMBAUGH: Quotes President James Madison: “We have staked the future…upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” (Told You So, p. 73)
REALITY: “We didn’t find anything in our files remotely like the sentiment expressed in the extract you sent to us,” David B. Mattern, the associate editor of The Madison Papers, told the Kansas City Star (1/16/94). “In addition, the idea is entirely inconsistent with everything we know about Madison’s views on religion and government.”
LIMBAUGH: “And it was only 4,000 votes that–had they gone another way in Chicago–Richard Nixon would have been elected in 1960.” (TV show, 4/28/94)
REALITY: Kennedy won the 1960 election with 303 electoral votes to 219 for Nixon. Without Illinois’ 27 electoral votes, Kennedy would still have won, 276-246.
LIMBAUGH: On how to stop riots: “Richard Daley, in 1968, in the Democratic National Convention, issued an order–where there were rumors of riots–he issued a shoot-to-kill order. And there were no riots and there was no civil disobedience and no shots were fired and nobody was hurt. And that’s what ought to happen.” (TV show, 6/10/93)
REALITY: Mayor Daley’s shoot-to-kill order was issued not at the Democratic Convention, but following the April 4, 1968 Martin Luther King assassination. Daley wasn’t reacting to “rumors of riots” since riots had already broken out. The shoot-to-kill order hardly put an end to unrest–since four months after Daley’s order, protesters flocked to Chicago’s Democratic Convention and engaged in riotous civil disobedience. Protesters chanted, “The whole world is watching.” Except for Rush Limbaugh.
LIMBAUGH: In an attack on Spike Lee, director of Malcolm X, for being fast and loose with the facts, Limbaugh introduced a video clip of Malcolm X’s “daughter named Betty Shabazz.” (TV show, 11/17/92)
REALITY: Betty Shabazz is Malcolm X’s widow.
LIMBAUGH: “Those gas lines were a direct result of the foreign oil powers playing tough with us because they didn’t fear Jimmy Carter.” (Told You So, p. 112)
REALITY: The first–and most serious–gas lines occurred in late 1973/early 1974, during the administration of Limbaugh hero Richard Nixon.
LIMBAUGH: On Iran-Contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh: “This Walsh story basically is, we just spent seven years and $40 million looking for any criminal activity on the part of anybody in the Reagan administration, and guess what? We couldn’t find any. These guys didn’t do anything, but we wish they had so that we could nail them. So instead,we’re just going to say, ‘Gosh, these are rotten guys.’ They have absolutely no evidence. There is not one indictment. There is not one charge.” (TV show, 1/19/94)
REALITY: Walsh won indictments against 14 people in connection with the Iran-Contra scandal including leading Reagan administration officials like former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and former national security advisers Robert McFarlane and John Poindexter. Of the 14, 11 were convicted or pleaded guilty. (Two convictions were later overturned on technicalities–including that of occasional Limbaugh substitute Oliver North.)
LIMBAUGH: Explaining why the Democrats wanted to “sabotage” President Bush with the 1990 budget deal: “Now, here is my point. In 1990, George Bush was president and was enjoying a 90 percent plus approval rating on the strength of our victories in the Persian Gulf War and Cold War.” (Told You So, p. 304)
REALITY: In October 1990, when the budget deal was concluded the Gulf War had not yet been fought.
LIMBAUGH: On the Gulf War: “Everybody in the world was aligned with the United States except who? The United States Congress.” (TV show, 4/18/94)
REALITY: Both houses of Congress voted to authorize the U.S. to use force against Iraq.
LIMBAUGH: On Bosnia:
“For the first time in military history, U.S. military personnel are not under the command of United States generals.” (TV show, 4/18/94)
REALITY: That’s news to the Pentagon. “How far back do you want to go?” asked Commander Joe Gradisher, a Pentagon spokesperson. “Americans served under Lafayette in the Revolutionary war.” Gradisher pointed out several famous foreign commanders of U.S. troops, including France’s Marshall Foch, in overall command of U.S. troops in World War I. In World War II, Britain’s General Montgomery led U.S. troops in Europe and North Africa, while another British General, Lord Mountbatten, commanded the China-Burma-India theater.
Personal Attacks
LIMBAUGH: Limbaugh constantly tells his audience that he doesn’t make personal or ad hominem attacks. To a caller who had a problem with his personalized attacks, Limbaugh responded with a denial: “Give me a specific example: who, what, when, where, and what exactly did I say?” (Radio show, 2/18/94)
REALITY: One hour before that call, Limbaugh was telling his audience that a 5,000-year-old man found buried in ice–pictured on the cover of Time magazine–was really Sally Jesse Raphael: “This is just what Sally Jesse Raphael looks like without makeup!”
MORE REALITY: Columnist Molly Ivins reported (Arizona Republic 10/17/93) this incident from Limbaugh’s TV show–“Here is a Limbaugh joke: Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?” And he puts up a picture of Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Clinton is 13 years old.
LIMBAUGH: Assailing a journalist who had criticized Nixon: “Michael Gartner, portraying himself as a balanced, objective journalist with years and years of experience faking events, and then reporting them as news–and doing so with the express hope of destroying General Motors in one case and destroying businesses that cut down trees, the timber industry, in another.” (TV show, 4/27/94)
REALITY: Gartner, the NBC News president who resigned in the wake of the GM truck explosion episode on NBC’s Dateline, had no hands-on role in it–nor had he expressed a hope of destroying any company.
LIMBAUGH: Equally accurate when denouncing a fellow conservative, he said of right-wing journalist Cliff Kincaid: “He’s written all kinds of pieces about how I don’t go make speeches for free, for the cause…. He’s just one more of these little gnats out there trying to sink a Boeing 747 that’s leaving him in a cloud of dust.” (Radio show, 11/19/93)
REALITY: Kincaid’s only published piece on whether Limbaugh does speeches “for the cause” was in Human Events (7/27/91): “He does his bit for conservatives when the movement calls. He waived his fees, for instance, when he emceed at roasts for Oliver North and Paul Weyrich and addressed the National Right to Life convention.”
Limbaugh vs. Limbaugh
LIMBAUGH: Limbaugh frequently denies that he uses his show for political activism: “I have yet to encourage you people or urge you to call anybody. I don’t do it. They think I’m the one doing it. That’s fine. You don’t need to be told when to call. They think you are a bunch of lemmings out there.” (Radio show, 6/28/93)
REALITY: Just an hour after making the above claim, he was–as usual–sending his troops to the trenches: “The people in the states where these Democratic senators are up for reelection in ’94 have to let their feelings be known…. These senators, you let them know. I think Wisconsin’s one state. Let’s say Herb Kohl is up in ’94. You people in Wisconsin who don’t like this bill, who don’t like the tax increases, you let Herb Kohl know somehow.”
LIMBAUGH: On the poverty line: “$14,400 for a family of four. That’s not so bad.” (Radio show, 11/9/93, quoted in FRQ, Winter/94)
REALITY: Just a few months earlier, Limbaugh was talking about how tough it was to make 10 times that: “I know families that make $180,000 a year and they don’t consider themselves rich. Why, it costs them $20,000 a year to send their kids to school.” (Radio show, 8/3/93, quoted in FRQ, Winter/94)
LIMBAUGH: On Bill Clinton: “Never trust a draft dodger.” (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)
REALITY: Although a supporter of the Vietnam War, Limbaugh used a minor physical impairment to avoid the draft (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/27/93).
LIMBAUGH: In frequent broadcasts, Limbaugh offers impassioned advocacy for Paula Jones, who charged Bill Clinton with sexual harassment. (TV and radio, April-May/94)
REALITY: Limbaugh boasted that a sign on his office door reads, “Sexual harassment at this work station will not be reported. However…it will be graded!!!” (USA Weekend, 1/26/92).
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:43 pmTypical of Hack’s spamming of threads with cut and pastes, that old nonsense of the satirically named “FAIR” confuses differences of opinion with errors of fact.
But that’s why Hack liked it, because he can’t figure out the difference either.
SPQR (72771e) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:46 pmCall the EPA…
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:47 pmMassive toxic-waste dumping on aisle 188…
This could be a SuperFund Site.
SPQR – If you use the date Barcky won the election, it is even less pretty. I am on my Blackberry, so I am having difficulty searching. What was the DOW on the dates Bush started and finished?
Apparently the one that is dummerer than a sack of Hacks likes the DOW @ 6600 and falling.
JD (f6e132) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:48 pmJD, from memory try Jan 21 2001 to Jan 20 2009 for George W.
SPQR (72771e) — 3/5/2009 @ 3:49 pmI see Hacks puked up a furball, or the proverbial wall o’text.
JD (f6e132) — 3/5/2009 @ 4:06 pmI hope you all fail………..to make this thread another opportunity for name-calling and insults. If that’s your intent, I certainly hope you fail. And I am not apologizing for that!
Emperor7 who now sees the light. (1b037c) — 3/5/2009 @ 4:09 pmJD…
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 4:11 pmDJIA on 20 Jan 01, in a declining market from the bursting of the Dot.com bubble…..10589!
Went to 9720 60-days later.
Gas! Gas! Gas!
(again)
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/5/2009 @ 4:11 pmComment by Emperor7 who now sees the light. — 3/5/2009 @ 4:09 pm
Passive/Agressive
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 4:12 pmUmm.. according to SiteMeter, looks like that would be Hot Air. 😉
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/5/2009 @ 4:12 pmIf two Trolls talk past each other on a thread, does anyone notice?
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/5/2009 @ 4:13 pmPassive/Agressive
I choose neither option – psychotic is more appropriate.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/5/2009 @ 4:15 pmDarn. I had a response to Hax and then I saw he was just quoting fair.org.Is Rush sometimes wrong? Yep. Who isn’t?
Just forget it.
You know what, Hax, Daniel, emperor, etal., are always right. I’ve seen the light. Please assign me to my collective. I’m sure after my re-education, I will better understand.
Ag80 (3e2c59) — 3/5/2009 @ 4:18 pmJD…more…
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 4:19 pmDJIA on 20 Jan 09 closed dowwn 330 pts @ 7949!
So, the Dow dropped approx 2500 points in 8 years under President Bush, and 1300+ in 6 weeks under Baracky, even more if you start counting from when he won the election. Thanks.
This is Hot Air traffic?
JD (f6e132) — 3/5/2009 @ 4:24 pmMegaditto SPQR on the FAIR claims about Limbaugh. Some of these claims also don’t give enough context to determine whether they’re made in context or not.
And the issue here is not whether Limbaugh is always correct, but whether he is correct to openly say Obama should fail.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (615d0f) — 3/5/2009 @ 4:28 pmComment by Ag80 — 3/5/2009 @ 4:18 pm
Emperor7 who now sees the light. (1b037c) — 3/5/2009 @ 4:28 pmWerrcome my friend to the fold. 😀
40 days of fasting and re-induction is the way to start.
Megadittoes to SPQR on the FAIR claims about Limbaugh.
Some of these claims also don’t give enough context to determine whether they’re made in context or not.
And the issue here is not whether Limbaugh is always correct, but whether he is correct to openly say Obama should fail.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (615d0f) — 3/5/2009 @ 4:29 pmThe troll invasion is almost hilarious. Their nastiness belies their claim to be happy about Limbaugh going after Obama.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (615d0f) — 3/5/2009 @ 4:31 pmWho was the head of the Democratic Party from 2000 until Obama assumed control of the nomination in 2008? I thought out of power parties have multiple leaders vying to lead the party to power. Who ever leads them to success, as Obama has done, becomes the leader via the process.
EBJ (2fd7f7) — 3/5/2009 @ 4:33 pmExcuses, excuses.
Pat says he’s all about accuracy, but the LA Times is many, many times more accurate than Limbaugh has ever been.
That’s why he claims to be an “entertainer.” He knows his work doesn’t stand up as journalism.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 3/5/2009 @ 4:34 pm#191
Apparently the one that is dummerer than a sack of Hacks likes the DOW @ 6600 and falling.
Comment by JD — 3/5/2009 @ 3:48 pm
Hey JD, How long did you think the roaring 20’s party …. uh sorry, I meant the warring 00’s party was gonna last?
I mean you have one president (Bush) and his possible same party successor (McCain) telling us that the fundamentals of our economy are strong.
Then you have President Obama, who has finally been upfront with Americans. (laugh it up fuzzballs, but he has)(if you don’t see that at least economy wise, your dolts).
Are you really that politically coerced JD, that you didn’t think the bubble would ever burst?
I’m glad it decided to burst now instead of under Bush’s watch.
Intelligence is needed.
Hey Trolls……. Here come the Bush defenders 🙂 and the anti Obamists.
They may call us Trolls, but what they don’t realize is that they are the trolls outside of the realm of Patterico 🙂
Oiram (983921) — 3/5/2009 @ 4:34 pmIt doesn’t matter who the defacto leader of the republican party is. Let Rush play the part. If it isn’t Rush they are going after, it will be Palin, Jindal, Romney. If they concentrate on Rush, maybe the others will be left alone to rise to the top.
Sue (6f0730) — 3/5/2009 @ 4:38 pmThis is Hot Air traffic?
Comment by JD — 3/5/2009 @ 4:24 pm
Isn’t the free market great DJ?
Oiram (983921) — 3/5/2009 @ 4:45 pmemperor said:
Comment by Ag80 — 3/5/2009 @ 4:18 pm
Werrcome my friend to the fold. 😀
40 days of fasting and re-induction is the way to start.
Thanks. Just let me know when the jack-booted jackals are coming to my door. I don’t want to scare the kids.
Will tattoos be involved?
Ag80 (3e2c59) — 3/5/2009 @ 4:58 pmThe Dow plunged 11 percent in Reagan’s first 12 months in office. But, of course, that had to all be Jimmy Carter’s fault…
Conservatives never accept responsibility for anything that goes wrong on their watch…
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 3/5/2009 @ 4:58 pmOdd, I don’t see any Democrats accepting responsibility for what is happening on Obama’s watch.
Oh, right, that Hack hypocrisy in action again.
SPQR (72771e) — 3/5/2009 @ 5:00 pm“Baracky, even more if you start counting from when he won the election.”
So you’re double counting that period? Odd.
imdw (de7003) — 3/5/2009 @ 5:06 pmPat it is funny you are saying this but will not admit that Rush Limbaugh is a good man doing what he thinks is best for this country.
Mr. Pink (0ee368) — 3/5/2009 @ 5:08 pmPatterico, you get this all wrong. By challenging President Obama to a debate Rush Limbaugh is NOT setting himself us as the leader of the republican party. Rush has specifically said he does NOT want it and isn’t a leader of the party. What Rush brilliantly did was two things:
1) Exposed the White House smear machine
2) Turned the attention to the issues of the day
In short, he is shutting them up. Mr. Obama is Nero fiddling while Rome burned. Three trillion dollars lost in the stock market and all the White House can do is hold conference calls on trashing Rush Limbaugh and marginalizing their opposition. Can you say Nixonian? You are a brilliant guy and write a wonderful website, but you missed this one.
Stephen Rogers (8f332e) — 3/5/2009 @ 5:09 pmRush is trying to set himself up as the de facto head of the Republican Party? Really? Someone should really mention this to Rush – I’m sure it’ll be news to him.
But anyway, I think it’s kind of funny that you claim Rush said intentionally inflammatory stuff about Obama to raise his profile … while saying intentionally inflammatory stuff about Rush to do the same. /eyeroll
Does it occur to you to bother to challenge the premise about inflammatory and hateful rhetoric from Rush? Of course not. You’re going along with “The Narrative” now and that’s a recipe for failure because the MSM frames it that way. They only play games they don’t think they can lose.
Still think Obama is a “good man,” by the way?
TheUnrepentantGeek (9691c4) — 3/5/2009 @ 5:18 pmThe trolls don’t realize that all that cut and paste from other left wing sources (most of which are one sided polemic sites) is wasted because we don’t read them. I really don’t understand what is going on with Emperor as she/he/it seems to wildly swing from side to side. Mario bros I made the mistake of taking seriously a couple of times but will not make that mistake again.
Tim tries to move the goal posts but it’s too obvious a ploy to miss. Why not just debate the issues with links to sources and reasonable arguments ? I used to try to do that on Washington Monthly but they are so far gone now that it isn’t worth the trouble.
I have come to the conclusion (based also on a couple of contacts off list) that these people are not concerned about the market or capitalism because they are either government employees or on the dole. Both categories are immune but people who work for a living are very concerned and some even supported Bambi.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/5/2009 @ 5:20 pmPassive/Agressive…..Psychotic!I have been convinced too, Dmac.
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 5:32 pmPatterico, it’s people like you who hurt the conservative movement. I hope you and Obamuhh fail.
Brennon (23772a) — 3/5/2009 @ 5:35 pm“Pat says he’s all about accuracy, but the LA Times is many, many times more accurate than Limbaugh has ever been.”
Hax – Prove that for us and show your work. You haven’t even followed up on the errors you claimed you would find on this website.
Given the errors and dishonesty in your own comments it’s risible for you to even consider using the word accuracy in one of your posts, let alone passing judgement adverselt on that of someone else’s. Of course you and your fellow travellers at FAIR still have a major problem distinguishing fact from opinion.
Here’s Limbaugh’s reply to FAIR, which only looks like a partial:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1906
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/5/2009 @ 5:35 pm“Conservatives never accept responsibility for anything that goes wrong on their watch…”
Hax – Did Reagan do something that caused the stock market to react in that way the way the market has to Barky’s war on capitalism? Otherwise, why was Reagan responsible? Try to think before commenting or barfing out a meaningless talking point.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/5/2009 @ 5:40 pm“Here’s Limbaugh’s reply to FAIR, which only looks like a partial:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1906”
Why are you linking to one sided polemic websites?
imdw (bb2239) — 3/5/2009 @ 5:40 pmHax said:
The Dow plunged 11 percent in Reagan’s first 12 months in office. But, of course, that had to all be Jimmy Carter’s fault…
Conservatives never accept responsibility for anything that goes wrong on their watch.
No, it wasn’t “all” Carter’s fault. There were a lot of factors. But, it did recover during the Reagan administration. And, it grew during the first Bush administration and the Clinton administration and the second Bush administration, with a few hiccups along the way until the catastrophic decline in 2008 that continues today.
Here’s my deal, and I’ll shut up afterwords:
Conservatives and liberals make mistakes. Neither group is always right. From the Teapot Dome Scandal to the Bay of Pigs to Watergate to Contragate to Lewisnkygate. Sometimes things happen.
But, your ilk only sees things in black and white: If it’s right, it’s wrong, if it’s left, it’s right.
I personally believe that a conservative approach to government is correct. Money — wealth — is not created by the government.
It is created by individuals who have the ambition and intelligence to make it happen. But, they can’t do it alone. They need skilled labor. And, as they become successful, they pass along those benefits to those who help them.
When you circumvent that wealth creation, everyone suffers.
And I know what you’ll say next: The haves oppress the have nots. Yes, that has happened. Certainly, there is a role for government regulation to assure that rules are followed and people are safe.
There also is a role for taxes. Everyone should be taxed to pay for the common defense and infrastructure that is necessary for a successful society.
However, the role of government is not to make everyone “equal.” Society should take care of that. (And I don’t mean that in the equal rights movement sense. Government did have an obligation to correct the wrongs of history.) The role of the private sector is to create prosperity for all.
That’s just my opinion, though.
But, what you seem to be saying, over and over, is beliefs and convictions that you disagree with don’t matter anymore: We now have a President who will correct everything. Just leave him alone. He knows what’s best. There should be no criticism. It’s unpatriotic (and I don’t believe Hax has said that, but others have).
And that’s despite what has happened in the previous eight years when every statement and misstep by the administration was tantamount to treason as declared by the left.
Can’t we have some sense of decorum that some ideas are valid, whether they come from the right or the left?
As Olbermann, channeling Murrow and what Keith believes were the great heroes of the past, says: “Have you no decency? Have you no shame?”
Ag80 (3e2c59) — 3/5/2009 @ 5:55 pm[…] Mr Frey, Esquire: I know: when [Limbaugh] says he hopes Obama fails, he doesn’t mean he wants to see Americans […]
Better that Patterico fails, I think (c1a2c4) — 3/5/2009 @ 5:58 pmBut anyway, I think it’s kind of funny that you claim Rush said intentionally inflammatory stuff about Obama to raise his profile … while saying intentionally inflammatory stuff about Rush to do the same. /eyeroll
Me too. That’s why I did it.
Does it occur to you to bother to challenge the premise about inflammatory and hateful rhetoric from Rush? Of course not. You’re going along with “The Narrative” now and that’s a recipe for failure because the MSM frames it that way.
Not only did it occur to me, I did it. Didja read the post?
Patterico (cc3b34) — 3/5/2009 @ 6:04 pm“And, it grew during the first Bush administration and the Clinton administration and the second Bush administration, with a few hiccups along the way until the catastrophic decline in 2008 that continues today.”
In 2007 the peak was 14 thousand. I think it went down by like 6000 during the end of the bush reign. My guess is this is all that fake housing wealth disappearing from everyone’s balance sheets. Not to mention a recession and liquidity crisis.
imdw (c990d8) — 3/5/2009 @ 6:05 pmWhat tripe. I hope Brakabama fails just like I would have hoped that Castro failed had I been a Cuban when he came to power.
Brakabama and his fellow democrat maggots are doing their damnedest to destroy the greatest country in the history of human civilization. If you don’t hope they fail in doing so, f#ck you.
Chuck.
ccoffer (5fb8e4) — 3/5/2009 @ 6:08 pmHey Brennon, read the entire post first. Responding to just the headline is the point of the message. Wanting Obama to fail is the nuance: Conservatives support the free market, not socialism.
Fight the War on Errorism. Union Bosses and Welfare Queens for Obama. Beware the fake gold coins!!! Don’t believe a smooth-talking con man who spouts empty lines.
Vermont Neighbor (229b93) — 3/5/2009 @ 6:19 pmObama lied and the economy died…
Bert Convy (8ed4e0) — 3/5/2009 @ 6:21 pmBrakabama and his fellow democrat maggots are doing their damnedest to destroy the greatest country in the history of human civilization. If you don’t hope they fail in doing so, f#ck you.
I do hope they fail in destroying the country. Didja read the post?
Folks like you prove my point better than anything I can say. If you say “I hope x fails” then some fans of x will hate you no matter what you said and what you meant.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 3/5/2009 @ 6:29 pmI voted liberal for years. Rush convinced me to stop in about 3 weeks. There is noone with the power to do THAT in the GOP. Please take into account the amount of minds he has persuaded in the last 20 years. Has any republican done better since Reagan?
Jeremy (11ad35) — 3/5/2009 @ 6:29 pmOkay, I’ll bite: What’s the definition of succeed?
Seriously, if one wishes for another to fail, doesn’t that require a definition of success that must be nailed down so failure can be properly judged?
I think Rush is trying to make this point. The MSM is trumpeting the “wants him to fail” meme without any measurable meaning to the phrase.
And, I’m sorry to say, you are not objecting to the MSM doing this. For shame!
Cheers,
Brennan (c81f5e) — 3/5/2009 @ 6:32 pmBrennan
I think you forget what we’re dealing with here. We’re dealing with a Marxist president backed by a rubber stamp congress and an ever fawning media. Rush could’ve said this in the nicest way possible and it probably would’ve been misconstrued to something like this. The problem isn’t something like Rush saying ‘I want him to fail’. The problem is that our congressmen and senators don’t have the balls to do what’s necessary to make sure that that same thing comes to pass. For too long we’ve had a GOP that’s been so afraid to step on the right toes that they’ve been making the wrong decisions. So what does Rush do? He cuts through the BS of the day and says it straight, and everyone gets their panties in a bunch. What you’re missing here isn’t so much the fact that they got their panties in a bunch but that they would’ve anyway regardless of how Rush, or Santelli, or Cramer, or Joe Wurzelbacher, or Sarah Palin, or any outspoken man with a megaphone puts it. (You saw how they’re going after them now! They’d react to anyone the same way. Need I lengthen the list?) The liberals didn’t bother to mince words, so why are they getting away with the undue demands that we do the same?
Chaz706 (b9994e) — 3/5/2009 @ 6:32 pmCome on guys. There’s plenty of blame to go around about the economy. The goal of both parties is to keep government as lean, mean and clean as possible. So there’s a little flex to the left when nobody else can do the job and a little flex to the right when times are good. Lets all get together and build towards a better future!
(*crickets*)
Alright. Debate on!
Quasimodo's Dong (fff9f3) — 3/5/2009 @ 6:32 pmComment by Bert Convy — 3/5/2009 @ 6:21 pm
Bush lied and 4000+ good soldiers died.
Emperor7 who now sees the light. (1b037c) — 3/5/2009 @ 6:34 pmBy the way, did you all notice this update:
I don’t think that this change alters the point of my piece significantly. Namely: it’s great to have someone strongly articulating conservative values . . . but prominent conservatives need not sign on to his “I want Obama to fail” phraseology. That phraseology is counterproductive because it puts conservatives on defense. Conservatives need not sign on to that formulation to prove that they stand for conservative principles. Patterico.
Again, great post.
Ah, so if they get smacked around, they’re incompetent liberals! It sounds a bit like communism, which works really well, it’s just that no one has ever done it right.
Pablo (99243e) — 3/5/2009 @ 6:37 pmTo Ag80 / post #227; here here! Well said.
Thank you
Cranbone (9a454f) — 3/5/2009 @ 6:38 pmRE: post #227 and Ag80; here here! Well said.
Thank you.
Cranbone (9a454f) — 3/5/2009 @ 6:40 pmNow that this post has been linked at Protein Wisdom, maybe some of Jeff’s rowdies will come over to engage our trolls.
nk (502275) — 3/5/2009 @ 6:45 pmSince you were at work when this was written, I thought it should be brought to your attention. Of course, if you were to ban this troll’s IP, it would likely take care of at least a couple of other sockpuppets as well.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/5/2009 @ 6:45 pmOBAMA LIED AND THE ECONOMY DIED
Bert Convy (8ed4e0) — 3/5/2009 @ 6:51 pmNow that this post has been linked at Protein Wisdom, maybe some of Jeff’s rowdies will come over to engage our trolls.
Put on your top hats and PREPARE FOR BATTLE!!
Patterico (cc3b34) — 3/5/2009 @ 6:54 pmRush is not the leader. He is merely a voice, albiet a powerful one, of the conservative faction within the Republican Party. The Democrats are attacking him because there aren’t any real leaders in the conservative movement right now. Most the Republican Senators have failed miserably for several years and have lost their fiscal conservative, small government way. Obama & Co. going are going after Rush because he is all there is right now. They can’t go after Jindall, that would elevate him at this point. The problem is it will backfire. It will draw more people than ever to listen and , believe it or not, Rush is right; MOST Americans live their lives as conservatives with conservative values. If they tune in and listen for awhile it could help in the demise of the far left whackos in charge and a rise to the conservative values the Senate lead with in the mid 1990’s. The Republicans need to go after their own in the House next election cycle. They need to clean out those that are not true conservatives. They do that and the House will be theirs within 4 years.
David (c132c1) — 3/5/2009 @ 6:54 pmAmericans attention span has gotten alot longer now that their pockets are being picked, their retirment destroyed and having to pony up for their neighbors house along with the other mooches that want to sponge off people. Bet your ashcan people are listening to Rush becasue they are fed up being ripped off and lied to by out of controls Dems. and Zero.That is the real reason people are listening to him.
Democrats are the ones that made Rush even more popular with their arrogance and let them eat cake crap they have pulled in the last month on taxpayers and voters!
Tanya (946889) — 3/5/2009 @ 6:59 pmAnother mushy, psuedo conservative. What do you not get about barry’s aggressive radical agenda, pal? In less then two months he’s done damage to this country that will last for many years and he’s just getting started. I hope barry fails and Americans know what Rush means when he says he hopes barry fails. Only leftist msm members and cowardly mushy psuedo conservatives twist what Rush says. And by the way, guys like you have a very short memory. Rush said what he did because the msm was running around asking republicans if they hoped barry would be a successful president weeks before Rush made his comment. His comment was in response to that little game. Why don’t you give kathleen parker, peggy noonan, brooks and frum a call and go be mushy, psuedo conservatives somewhere that the democrats can’t use you as a weapon against Americans who don’t want to see this country destroyed.
peacenprosperity (495bb9) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:00 pmI haven’t read much of the comments here yet, but c’mon Patterico – haven’t you bought the Carville-Begala SPIN on what Rush actually said? The phrase, “I want Obama to fail” was taken wholly out of the context Rush had quite effectively established before uttering the phrase. Why is anyone falling for the SPIN when the actual meaning of the phrase, taken fully in context, is quite different?
Ben (12e853) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:06 pmPut on your top hats and PREPARE FOR BATTLE!!
Methinks the battle has begun.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:06 pmAnother mushy, psuedo conservative. What do you not get about barry’s aggressive radical agenda, pal?
Oh, I get it. Didja read the post?
I think the point that the Tough Guys are making is that it’s good to be debating whether Rush Limbaugh wants Americans to continue in a downward economic spiral — far better than doing what I do here daily, which is take the fight to Obama in ways that hopefully aren’t easily twisted.
Of course, this post is easily twisted — and that’s part of the point. The Tough Guys are actually helping me to make my point with their overwrought reaction. Namely, if you say “I want x to fail” it doesn’t matter what the hell else you say.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:06 pmNoooo, conservatives need to fall into another leftist msm trap. That’s the same kind of weak mindset that told us mccain was the only one who could beat the democrats. Weak, pathetic, surrender monkeys. Afraid to call the kettle black. barry needs to fail or this country will be done.
peacenprosperity (495bb9) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:06 pmIn my opinion Obama is a failure, a liar, and a cheat. He is not fit to be Commander in Chief and he may be legally unfit to hold that position.
What Rush Limbaugh does is give voice to my own thoughts and opinions. They are heard by millions; no one hears me say what I think.
What voice does a workingman have other than his vote? The overwhelming majority of all media are suck ups to this pretender president.
I say: Rush you go boy, go! Screw all the eggheads and hoity-toity types. Speak up for me
Tom Enneking (be4138) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:10 pmRush!
Meanwhile… from Drudge:
I wonder if Obama supporters will connect the dots.
Vermont Neighbor (229b93) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:11 pmNo it’s not, it’s very clear what you are saying. “Be careful what you say, the democrats might make us seem like bad guys. Oh no.” The republicans have been trying to play the democrat game since bush 1 and they keep getting their clocks cleaned. When a conservative stands up and tells the truth, the msm and the left scream that they are being hateful and republicans start apologizing. The conservatives I come in contact with on a daily basis are screaming for elected officials to start talking like Rush. As for the 35-40% of the electorate that doesn’t even pay attention until a couple of weeks before an election, they tune in and see republicans acting weak and spineless and democrats being forseful and certain. Why do you think those swing voters keep going for the democrats? I’d probably vote for the ones who seem to have some balls, too.
peacenprosperity (495bb9) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:14 pmAnd by saying that you are casting doubt on Rush’s intentions and princples.
peacenprosperity (495bb9) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:15 pmThe Tough Guys are actually helping me to make my point with their overwrought reaction.
That’s nuance. Tough Guys don’t get nuance. Here is how I see this being played out, and why Limbaugh’s statement is helpful:
— The TGs on the left will attack Limbaugh no matter what.
— The TGs on the right will defend him no matter what.
— The reachable middle, that does do nuance, just might get Limbaugh’s point: The failure of a president to enact bad policies is a good thing.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:18 pmThat’s the wrong question, Pat. You’re ceding the framing of the debate to liars. That’s the problem.
What Limbaugh is saying isn’t complicated. And that isn’t it.
Pablo (99243e) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:20 pmI haven’t read much of the comments here yet, but c’mon Patterico – haven’t you bought the Carville-Begala SPIN on what Rush actually said?
You tell me. Didja read the post?
Patterico (cc3b34) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:21 pmToo bad some conservatives are more worried about bashing Rush than recognizing the very public assault on freedom of speech of a talk show host.
Where’s the outrage on that?
Too easy to fold, and attack a prominent voice of conservatives, as if there is nothing wrong with the force of the presidency used to intimidate silence. This dissapointing point of view is rearranging deck chairs on the sinking American First Amendment Titanic.
Rush has every right to speak his opinion – and he hasn’t presumed to speak for you. I’d think as a conservative, you might recognize the distinction between his comments and those of Obama’s WH, and direct your commentary more productively.
Carmelita (e0be89) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:23 pmRush is not the leader of the Republican party. Never even claimed to be a Republican. Well maybe a Reagan Republican. However he is a conservative, and is a spokesman for those principles. I wonder if people here understand the difference between principles and politics. Not even the learned Patterico seems to understand that. If you listened to Limbaugh at the CPAC (notice that is not the Republican PAC) and you do not agree with his values, then you might not be a conservative. Zell Miller is a conservative and a Democrat. Notice anything there Patterico.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (c7b0c5) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:33 pmCarmelita, I don’t really understand what you’re saying.
The second Obama makes a move towards Fairness Doctrine, I will agree that he’s silencing free speech (sadly, Mccain has already done this).
But letting his idiot press secretary whine about Rush Limbaugh is 100% legit. Rush is not being silenced, and Obama does not want Rush to shut up. Obama wants Rush to be the icon of the GOP.
I think Rush is a smart guy and a great listen. I think Obama’s plan will backfire. But I have to agree that Rush isn’t in this for the GOP… he’s knowingly making life a bit harder for the GOP. That doesn’t mean he’s a villain or anything… the GOP is run by idiots who deserve the pain almost as much as the democrats do.
but Rush is in this for Rush, and that’s painfully clear sometimes. Ann Coulter is 1000X worse, but it’s the same sin.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:33 pmNew readers who are Limbaugh fans should be aware that Patterico has been a doughty opponent of leftist deceptions such media bias, especially at our beloved Los Angeles Times.
So while you disagree with Patterico on this issue, as do I, please be a little more respectful.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:34 pmDang, what the hell is this, no country for drunk old men? Where has this leftist MSM surrender monkey fat oxycontin ass crap ever gotten anybody?
Who’s got links to Rush documenting via historical fact and figure where government intervention in economic emergencies is counterproductive? And vice versa for Obama? Lets get this debate started.
Quasimodo's Dong (fff9f3) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:42 pmI want Barack Obama to fail.
When Barack Obama tries to raise taxes, I want him to fail.
When Barack Obama tries to secure hundreds of billions of dollars in wasteful spending, I want him to fail.
When Barack Obama tries to pass a new assault weapons ban, I want him to fail.
When Barack Obama wants to bail out some home buyers but not others, I want him to fail.
When Barack Obama tries to force unions on workers who don’t want them, I want him to fail.
When Barack Obama tries to raise the cost of energy by imposing new taxes on carbon emissions and preventing nuclear plants from being built, I want him to fail.
When Barack Obama tries to cut out deductions for charitable donations, so that charities will be pushed out of the way in favor of big government, I want him to fail.
When Barack Obama tries to seize control of our nation’s healthcare (which is what, 20% of our economy?) I want him to fail.
I want Barack Obama to fail at about 90% of his agenda. I want him to fail, because I want America to succeed.
I agree with Jeff Goldstein. We should not surrender to liberals because they’ve figured out a way to temporarily frame opposition to Obama’s insane policies as somehow unpatriotic. We need to hit back. They are the ones who hate America and are so ready and willing to undermine her. Liberals are the enemy, not Rush Limbaugh.
Daryl Herbert (b65640) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:47 pm“Filed under: Crime, General”
PresidentToor (1391a7) — 3/5/2009 @ 7:56 pmI hope Obama has a successful presidency but fails to get his policies implemented. Like Clinton.
Jimminy'cricket (637168) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:13 pmThe phraseology isn’t what puts conservatives on defense. Gutlessness that leads some incapable of forcefully denouncing Obama’s radical agenda, not just on the margins but on principle, is what puts conservatives on the defensive.
Brian G. (7c54e7) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:31 pmAh, yes, the douchebag liberal Republicans of Allahpundit, Patterico, and the more relevant and identifiable Brooks and Specter types, criticizing the conservatives once again, and saying “we agree with almost everything they say, but they sound too yucky”.
GFY, db. It’s weenies like Patterico that got America a lying leftist ass-clown like Obama.
Jaibones (468585) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:45 pmOh, I’m so glad to be corrected. I was not sure what I believed, but now I know what I must believe in order to earn your approval.
steve miller (c76b20) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:48 pmThe Obama administration wants to shut Rush up and the other conservative talk show hosts. They’re going to use localism to steal radio stations and give them to minorities who won’t of course won’t carry conservative talk radio. The bill already passed the Senate! You can bet they want to shut up all of us! I guess other Republicans want to shut up Rush too which is pathetic! Rush isn’t your enemy! I’ll tell you what, his speech at CPAC is resonating with the public! I want Obama to fail too because socialism hasn’t worked anywhere and I believe they would seize permanent control of this country if we let them! Besides, for 8 years you people stood by while these morons trashed our President in the most vile disgusting ways on daily basis and now you along with the Democrats expect us to play nice? It’s not going to happen! The people sense that this is likely a tyranical government and that’s why the gun shops can’t keep any guns in stock! Rush speaks for millions of us who don’t have a national voice and I’ll bet you that number is growing daily. We don’t need more wimps in the party! We need fighters! We need leaders who can give a great speech about freedom and capitalism as Rush did from his heart! One more thing, there is a hard wave coming, you can either get on board and join us or be swept under! Oh by the way, check out my store at CrusaderPatriot.com, I hammer Obama and the Democrats in every way possible! They deserve it and I’m proud of it!
CrusaderPatriot (1fa79a) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:52 pmJailbones – Care to back up those (unfounded) assertions?
JD (683ca8) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:52 pmimdw said:
In 2007 the peak was 14 thousand. I think it went down by like 6000 during the end of the bush reign. My guess is this is all that fake housing wealth disappearing from everyone’s balance sheets. Not to mention a recession and liquidity crisis.
You’re right, but why did it happen? Was it Bush’s fault? If you believe it was, fine. I’ll agree that he shares blame, but what are the core causes?
Before I begin my latest tirade, I have to make another: Bush didn’t “reign.” He also didn’t have a “regime.” If he did, we would all be subjects to his third term and calling him the “Supreme Commander” as they do in Cuba and Venezuela. You don’t have to like the guy, but he was never the dictator you imagined in your feverish dreams.
Anyway, I am fortunate to live in a fairly prosperous area. But just a few years ago, I was asking my family: “Who is going to live in these houses? Where are they getting their money? This doesn’t make sense.”
Now the area is not so prosperous. Many houses are for sale, some are in repossession and others are for lease. None are being inhabited.
And I know the answer. When we received our mortgage, we had the option of paying nothing down. We also had the opportunity to buy an ARM. We didn’t, but I’m sure many did.
Why did this happen? It wasn’t because banks decided to make risky loans, it was because the government encouraged them to make risky loans. It was because the “value of property would never go down” and “everyone in America should have the opportunity to own their own home.(Which, I agree with as long as they can afford it).” Everyone should join in the bonanza.
America is a big country. There’s still room to grow. Supply and demand caught up, as anyone anyone with half a mind would have known.
Who’s to blame? Not the people who bought the houses with easy credit. Not the banks that made the loans through government encouragement. It was the government. You can argue until the cows come home about which party is to blame. But, the culprit is the government.
And now, I’m supposed to say: OK, the government is always right because the Democrats are in charge or because President Obama is a great guy?
No, I can’t. The government is taking money out of my paycheck to do things I don’t agree with. And, of course, it did the same thing when Bush was president. I didn’t like it then. Do I have to like it now?
Now, my house is worth less than I bought it for. That’s my fault, because I was what was happening, but I went ahead and bought a new house anyway. Fortunately, I don’t plan to leave it soon, if ever, and eventually the market will stabilize.
I’ve been to California. I have relatives that live there. Two years ago, a house my size would have sold, in California, for well over a million.
In two years time, I predict it will sell for less than $80,000, if that.
Markets tend to correct. Saddling my children with a debt that they’re grandchildren will still be working to repay long after I’m dead is a crime.
Ag80 (3e2c59) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:52 pmCrusaderPatriot – Who here is calling for Rush to be silenced?
JD (683ca8) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:54 pmExcuse me:
Now, my house is worth less than I bought it for. That’s my fault, because I
wassaw what was happening, but I went ahead and bought a new house anyway. Fortunately, I don’t plan to leave it soon, if ever, and eventually the market will stabilize.Just trying to make sense, grammatically, if not politically.
Ag80 (3e2c59) — 3/5/2009 @ 8:56 pm“My guess is this is all that fake housing wealth disappearing from everyone’s balance sheets.”
imdw, the financial guru – How many states comprise the bulk of the housing problems, geenyhus? Go those states have anything in common, except perhaps one?
That link to FAIR, that was to provide context your butt buddy Hax left out of his cut and paste job, but you already knew that.
Your obtuse is on the loose again.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:02 pmyeah, too bad Rush is not as smart as you. I am sure you would be a better leader. blah blah, blah blah;blah blah.
and one more thing, Obama has already failed, what exactly do you want him to succeed at, Dow 3,000?
jake (d6bd03) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:10 pmBOOBIES !
JD (683ca8) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:14 pmHere’s the Libertarian party’s take about Obama’s attacks on Limbaugh:
Libertarian poll: What is Obama trying to distract us from?
WASHINGTON – America’s third largest party is asking Americans to vote on what they think the White House’s ongoing war with conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh is intended to distract attention from, Libertarian National Committee (LNC) Communications Director Donny Ferguson announced Wednesday.
The LNC has posted a poll at http://www.lp.org asking Americans to cast their vote for one of five harmful Obama policies the White House hopes their spat with Limbaugh will distract attention from.
“Every time Obama announces higher taxes on unemployment, the market tanks. Economic research shows his spending plan causes long-term economic damage. He’s keeping 50,000 troops in Iraq and breaking his promise to end earmarks,” said Ferguson. “Now, with polls showing more and more Americans oppose his agenda, Barack Obama needs a distraction. He gets it by having his operatives pick a fight with a colorful radio personality.”
“Instead of solving our economic problems by reducing spending during a recession and granting tax relief to job creators, Obama has instead chosen to kick mud at a radio entertainer,” said Ferguson. “That’s not change or hope. It’s a tired old political trick pulled out when you’re making problems worse.”
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:16 pmThe circus has come to town .. or is it to the arena ?
The whole Limbaugh thing is great political theater, but it has virtually nothing to do with anything.
I suggest that Democrats hate the guy .. he loves it when they do.
I also hope that the White House obsesses over the guy .. it’s like when Congress is in recess and the stock market goes up in relief.
Bring on the Lions and the Christians …
Neo (cba5df) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:19 pmLawyers are paid to feed us back our words, so plain talk always throws them off.
Or that’s how I see the call to leave more weasel room in criticism of Obama.
If the wheels are going to come off, lets have it happen before momentum is built up… better for everyone.
Whoopi Goldberg was all pissed and outraged saying we should be giving Obama at least a year before criticising his policies.
Why?
I want this whole “spend our way out of trouble” economic doctrine to fail as early as possible so we can redirect before too much irreversible damage is done.
I want Obama to fail in ways that challenge him to be a greater man. He’s young, inexperienced and surrounded by people who believe that killing the golden goose is for the greater good.
On foreign policy… oh, I’m sorry, on “smart power”, the kid has the Brits saying that if Blair was Bush’s poodle, then Brown must be Obama’s… well, it isn’t very kind so I won’t repeat it, but as a hint, the color brown has been overused.
We are sending 900M to Gaza which is run by Hamas, so I’d guess Hamas siphons off half… I didn’t go to Harvard with Obama’s resident genius Ms. Power but I do know that sending $900M to Hamas controlled Gaza (during a recession no less) isn’t smart or powerful and I want Obama to fail at this before the check clears.
Now if kicking the Brits in the balls provides colonial Africa with total generational healing and we remain best of allies… well, I’ll scratch my head and be happy for the guy.
If Hamas squeegies off $450M and decides to see it as a peace dividend to share with the poor and sees the light of neighborliness, I’ll campaign tirelessly for Obama in 2012 and write a check for the max donation.
If card check makes American labor more competitive and productive and free from union retribution against dissenting voices, I’ll buy Bill Ayers book and try to dupe Hannity into autographing it.
Obama’s appointees to the bench might contain black nationalist loons, militant lesbians, angry gay activists…. if so, I hope those appointments would fail before they can do harm.
I hope Obama’s kids succeed and I hope for nothing but the best for their entire family on a personal level.
I want Obama to succeed for America and to that end I think some of the dumbass rookie stuff he’s floating out there needs to fail emabarrassingly and immediately leaving a stench behind so foul it isn’t tried again.. but I would love it if the young fellow would brush it off, purge the White House of the idiots that misled him, forge ahead from the experience wiser, braver, more independent and agnostic to ideology…
I hope Harry Reid fails so bad he loses his seat by a landslide and has to slink back to Searchlight, NV in the dead of night with the way lit only by the hags cooking meth in the trailers scattered around the mining pits.
I hope George Soros fails and gets greedy with his shorting of the US markets in this “crisis” and he loses it ALL.
I want the spineless and venal Republicans who are addicted to pork to fail.
I want those who sell no bid contracts of $15M for a few jet rides and $50,000 in bundled contributions to fail in their cover ups, to fail in court and to fail in prison.
I’d like to hear that Keith Olbermann has failed and is relegated to a guest host slot on the new price is right.
The list could go on.
Dumbassed ideas like thinking the way to solve a financial problem is pork filled spending sprees (nuanced as in “it isn’t pork, it’s $100 a pound wild boar”) should go down in ignominious defeat.
Lies like “an American family goes bankrupt from medical costs every 30 seconds” to scare and bully Americans into a dubious healthcare plan should fail and be shamed, mocked, and derided…
Presidental should be a term reserved for behavior that reaches beyond that baseline respect that automatically accrues to “duly elected”.
SteveG (a87dae) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:37 pmIf Obama wants to add depth to his position he is going to have to grow up fast. One of the best ways I know for young men to grow up is to learn from their failures.
Well, this is what I get when I take an evening off and go to the range…Boy, everyone certainly seems to be having fun.
AD - RtR/OS (dc4e89) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:41 pmPatrick, Me Boy, you’ve certainly sparked a small conflagration.
Well Done!
WaPo says Limbaugh succeeding, Obama failing
GOP Fights Back Over Criticism of Limbaugh
White House Is Accused Of Cynicism, Hypocrisy
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 6, 2009; Page A01
By one measure, Rush Limbaugh is a clear winner this week: His ratings have nearly doubled since his feud with the White House burst into the media limelight.
But the Obama administration’s strategy of trying to elevate the conservative radio commentator to leader of the opposition has prompted a vigorous counterattack, with a key Republican senator saying the move is an “outrage” that “reeks of hypocrisy coming from a president who campaigned against these very cynical political tactics last fall.”
That letter from Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee — and a Washington Post opinion piece by House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), also accusing the White House of cynicism — underscores the GOP’s attempt to make President Obama pay a political price for the rhetorical assault on Limbaugh.
Asked at a briefing Wednesday whether it was “hypocritical” for him to go after the talk radio host while also criticizing cable commentators, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said he would “plead guilty” to being “counterproductive.”
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:46 pmProblem solved
steve miller (c76b20) — 3/5/2009 @ 9:56 pmSo guys: I titled this post “I hope Rush Limbaugh fails” and mostly praised Rush Limbaugh.
Do you think anyone here was blinded by the title and ignored the specifics of what I said?
And if so . . . is it possible that people did the same with Rush? That anyone was blinded by the “I hope he fails” phrase and ignored the specifics of what he said?
It is possible that saying “I hope x fails” is not the best way to phrase something?
P.S. Do you think I realized people would do that with my post? Do you think Rush realized his comments would be controversial and easily misinterpreted?
Some questions for discussion as I go on a walk.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:06 pmAnd if so . . . is it possible that people did the same with Rush?
Of course it is. But what kind of people? I’d say the hard-core leftists, the counterparts to the hard-core conservatives who criticized you here. The far leftists are beyond reach no matter what, so don’t worry about what they will think.
It is the middle ground that can be persuaded we need to reach. I think Limbaugh’s approach just might work with them. He explained himself well, and in context, his reasoning is hard to refute. The job of those opposing Obama’s appallingly spendthrift policies is to make sure that hard-left demagogues who twist Limbaugh’s words don’t go unchallenged.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:15 pmBrother Bradley – I like Sen. Cornyn. I think that Rep. Boehner was actually the first politico to catch on that Barcky/Rahmbo/Begala/Carville et al wanted to talk about Rush and Kramers more than they did their miserable pathetic performance to date.
JD (683ca8) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:17 pmWhat’s funny is the vacuous ‘leadership’ of the democratic party…..you have nobama, joe ‘plagiarizer’ and hillary ‘bought & paid by arabs’ clinton…..
you guys are in deep s**t!!!!
Rush rocks!
Kurt (725747) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:34 pmIf we are forced to limit the creativity of our arguments to the ‘low’ intellectual level of American voters, then this country is doomed. Short attention spans and the inability to interpret nuance may render some Americans ignorant, but why should that mean we all must wallow at that level? It’s like Patterico is accepting the devolution as inevitable, and expecting us all to climb into the little bus.
I don’t care about the level of thought of other Americans, the reason I read this site and the dozen or so others is because they stimulate – I want high level writing and clever thought on the issues of the day. Rush Limbaugh is great radio – he’s sharp as a ginsu and funny to boot, and I don’t think there’s a better teacher of conservatism around today. Why are we allowing the Dems to shame us into taking out the only conservative who has the power and the balls to take them on?
If I have to accept a David Frum in my party, I’ll be damned if I’m forced to disavow Limbaugh…
Shane (99fa4b) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:35 pmDo not annoy the man behind the EIB curtain
Look Rush id right, the best way to make enemies on both sides is to always be right, and he is
WE ALL HOPE OBAMA FAILS – Duh! doublee duh!!
Politicians are shamed that they pander to the middle – its actually the middle that listens to rush – its actually the Reagan Democrats who are his audience
Not conservatives
Why?
Conservatives have jobs and work for a living – they don’t have time to take the afternoon off and listen
EricPWJohnson (45192c) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:38 pmPatterico once again playing the useful idiot for Obama and liberals. Limbaugh clearly stated his position on Obama’s policies, repeatedly clarifying the words and sentiments that have been taken out of context and twisted into something malignant by Obama’s media minions. Simply put, there is no way for Limbaugh or any conservative to express displeasure and discontent with Dumbo’s leadership that won’t be twisted by the democrats into something it’s not. Maybe genius lawyer Patterico can explain how we can “speak truth to power” these days without being tarred and feathered by the gangsters in the White House and the MSM. What we don’t need is NYT-type conservatives piling on. Patterico = Fail.
joe (879eed) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:41 pmDid you read the post Joe?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:47 pmTry all you want, but Americans are never going to blame Obama for this crisis.
It was way to obviously in play before he took office.
It was part of what got him elected.
Like it or not, it’s going to take some other kind of failure — maybe terror attack, or a badly botched foreign misadventure, or a corruption scandal — to turn sour on Obama.
The more conservatives try and foist blame for the current crisis on Obama, the further away from the day-to-day reality Americans have been living for the past 18 months.
Republicans would do well to remain circumspect, build their grass roots coalition and bide their time.
If the economy doesn’t turn around, do you really think voters are going to flock to a party who’s only answer is: cut taxes and cut spending?
If things get worse, people are just going to put that much more pressure on the government to do something to bail them out. They aren’t suddenly going to morph into rugged individualists ready for still more “tough love.” No. They are going to want answers and action, not ideological platitudes.
On the other hand, if things get better, the GOP will have no leg to stand on, having stomped up and down in protest at the steps taken to end the crisis.
The conservative critique of government power is powerful and popular. But it’s not magic and it can’t invent credibility for anyone who spouts it. At the moment, Americans just don’t believe the GOP really stands for cutting spending, because it has never done so when it had the chance.
In time, perhaps, that image will fade as people forget what happened under Bush.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:47 pmBradley – Out of curiousity, in your recent travels around the intartubes did you find any sites which welcomed bunkerbuster/Hax as a commenter or was he universally ridiculed and reviled? The golden oldies were great!
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:51 pmI am guessing universally reviled and ridiculed.
JD (683ca8) — 3/5/2009 @ 10:54 pmGuess? No need to guess.
steve miller (c76b20) — 3/5/2009 @ 11:00 pm“Like it or not, it’s going to take some other kind of failure — maybe terror attack, or a badly botched foreign misadventure, or a corruption scandal — to turn sour on Obama.”
I don’t wish any kind of failure on America and it’s dishonest of progressives to imply that conservatives do, but I think the buyer’s remorse over Obama is growing. The stock market reaction over the ill-advised nature of his policies in a down-turn is a great barometer, the reaction of a small but growing number of Democrats to aspects of his tax proposals is another encouraging sign, the unpopularity of his housing rescue plan, foreign policy miscues, and grade school energy policies (Yucca Mountain now will shut) all will eventually sink in with the American public. They elected the least experienced, least qualified and least vetted President in American history. Hopefully the damage will be more limited tha Jimmy Carter’s.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/5/2009 @ 11:00 pmMakes me almost miss Jimmy Carter. At least the worst he did was kiss Brezhnev.
Bambi just gave gift-shop souvenirs to the PM of Great Britain. And DVDs — one wonders if the DVDs are NTSC or PAL format.
steve miller (c76b20) — 3/5/2009 @ 11:03 pmBambi just gave gift-shop souvenirs to the PM of Great Britain. And DVDs — one wonders if the DVDs are NTSC or PAL format.
Comment by steve miller — 3/5/2009 @ 11:03 pm
That would be a good idea by Obama if it would draw criticism away from his ruinous policies for America and onto an irrelevant triviality. I personally wouldn’t have an opinion one way or another if he gave the PM a rubber doggie doo doo gag gift.
j curtis (22d3b7) — 3/5/2009 @ 11:13 pmYes daleyrocks, I read the post, I just don’t agree with it in tone or principle. Rather than mincing words, or nodding our heads when liberals call us Nazis, or praising Obamas supposedly sublime oratories, we need to speak plainly and honestly and with conviction. We need to confront the distortions and fight back, not apologize pre-emptively. We need more Limbaugh, more Savage, more Joe the Plumber, more Sarah Palin, and less David Brooks, Michael Steele, and Patterico. When has the left ever apologized for Moore, Rather, Moyers, Olbermann etc.? We lose the hearts and minds of the people when we villainize and minimize our own because someone might be offended. Do you and Patterico really think that Pelosi, Reid, Emmanuel, Obama etc. have taken the high road to victory? Have they been fair, honest and sensitive in their criticisms of Republicans and conservatives, or have they been relentlessly partisan, dishonest, and defamatory? Instead of shushing Rush, or apologizing because he didn’t express himself in the most politic way, we should be defending his principles and his freedom to speak them, and castigate and villainize those who would distort his words for political cover. Just in the last weeks we’ve had the monkey cartoon, where liberals saw a monkey and thought Obama, then accused conservatives of racism; we had Hughley on CNN say white people = Nazis, and Steele nods his head yes; now we get the Rush kerfuffle. In each case, the conservative has been unjustly demonized, and yet we’re supposed to show contrition and atonement. What do you think all this apologentsia and self-flagellation looks like to the disinterested obesrver? It looks like: Guilty as charged! How about if instead of being sorry and obsequious, we stand strong and unwavering. How about we defend ourselves and our principles first, and if we say something that puts a few bluenoses out of joint, then tough.
joe (879eed) — 3/6/2009 @ 12:59 amThat phraseology is counterproductive because it puts conservatives on defense.
It’s worth noting the seachange that has occurred in the last 35-40 years. Back then, we were sending young boys to foreign lands to die in the fight against communism. Nowadays, you will be castigated for merely hoping that it fails in the United States of America. Even castigated by conservatives and/or those who portray themselves as conservatives.
j curtis (831e55) — 3/6/2009 @ 1:17 amLet me nuance away, please. I HOPE OBAMA FAILS. Thank G-d there’s someone out there in America saying it. I HOPE OBAMA FAILS in his agenda; I hope he fails in his support of Hamas; I hope he fails to destroy the capitalist system; I hope he fails in his horrific plans for nationalizing banks, car manufacturers, health care, the local 7-Eleven; I hope he fails as President; I hope he fails in every way possible that a Saul Alinsky acolyte can. I HOPE OBAMA FAILS AND AMERICA REMAINS FREE.
Lynda (6a4f5d) — 3/6/2009 @ 1:58 amRush Limbaugh is basically promoting his own radio show and speaks to and for the Conservative Party mostly. His words are evil, but to each it’s own.
Ann (678a7a) — 3/6/2009 @ 2:03 amLynda, hoping that anyone fails is evil. More importantly, if Obama fails, America and Americans will fail too…not to mention his failure will have on additional countries. Is this what you want? Have not you learn from the last president or do you want a repeat or perhaps worst?.
Ann (678a7a) — 3/6/2009 @ 2:07 amRephrase: not to mention how his failure will impact on additional countries across the board.
Ann (678a7a) — 3/6/2009 @ 2:08 amOver on Proteinwisdom I wondered if one of the DVD’s might be the Directors cut of Zulu Dawn.
I read Patricks post and I got it.
The disagreement was over tone and the nuance of language.
What ever happened to call it as you see it?
Bolton is an example. He is incapable of being diplomatic when dealing with liars and fools.
But his voice is important and his statement are foundational that keep us off the slippery slope of consensus…. the drift towards becoming Arlen Specter.
Limbaugh does the same.
The difference between between principled unyielding blunt assesment and honesty is a long way from sabotage.
Early on Patrick felt the need to lecture a bit on how Obama was his President and the respect and gravitas of the office deserved a modicum of respect and (in a bit more of a reach) something that read like cooperation.
All good, but when my President decides to bungee jump will carrying the checkbook and the nuclear football… I reserve the right to call him a bleeping irresponsible idiot and I hope the plans get derailed and he grows up and learns from the public scorn his dumbass failed idea brought him.
Winning marginal Obama voters is done by pointing out Obama’s clay feet.
Feel free to nuance that and couch it in softer terms. Be the good cop to Rush’s bad cop.
“great guy, great story on Obama… a little impulsive and pushy with the $3T and rising. Seems a little unpolished with the allies and 900 million… half of which winds up reequiping Hamas is history is any guide… seems inexperienced and maybe even naive”
Public arguments between the “good cop bad cop’ tandem shows Obama can divide and conquer.
Same goes for the agnostic right turning up their noses at people of faith.
One of Goldsteins greatest strengths in my eyes is his defense of godbotherers to believe as they feel they must… truth is that most of the overtly religious right (and left)that make the national stage uphold the laws and defend from persecution those with lifestyles that conflict with their faith.
Islamists on the international stage…. not so much.
As a side note, out here, the church goers I know (and I know thousands because I worked at a Christian College for 12 years and attended churches that grew from 10 people meeting in a bar or a warehouse to 2000 members) these bible quoting believers voted about 55% Mccain (while holding their nose and muttering a prayer)- while voting 45% Obama with a great joy that they were getting an opportunity to change the world (and muttering that prayer that says “oh dear God get us out of this one if we’ve deceived ourselves)
I’ve enjoyed great beer and cocktail party conversation and one one ones what drives faith and how that affects their worldview as scientists or religious studies professors.
Their sense of wonder and gratitude at being in a place to study and learn about the immensity that we inhabit restores humilty and inspires joyful curiousity “a little prayer that says thanks for giving us this window into all this, and the mind power and permission to push ever deeper and deeper”
I really wonder about people on the right who are offended by that, and those people have started to vote Democrat… holding their noses on abortion.
A generation of young Christians under this tutelage are shifting left…. but no one on the right seems to want to appeal to them (although they liked Palin because she was like the good church mom salt of the earth type they are comfortable with)
One thing I’d float about rookie Presidents and let’s say palin had found herself President.. she’d have vetoed both spending bills. She’d not of been all that smooth on the explanation, but the reality of the veto would have been that of a mom who shops for a large family at Sam’s Club she intuitively would have seen too much waste and BS and said “no”. She could get 100 staffers each reading 10 pages and then start connecting all the wasteful dots and then telling the country “we don’t need ______ right now so get it out we’ll revisit it in another spending bill after we have time to hear the merits and we have righted the ship”
Obama went on TV and defended a bill he hadn’t read rather than using the bully pulpit to insist his own party sharpen the pencils for another 3-4 days and get it back to him in the 600’s with a little more for infrastructure they’d get a signature.
So yeah the rube is failing right now and that gives me hope he’ll hit bottom and start climbing
SteveG (a87dae) — 3/6/2009 @ 2:11 amI think it is immaterial whether of not Rush wants Obama to fail. At this point, if Obama doesn’t back off some of his decisions soon, he IS FAILING. MISERABLY. And it has nothing to do with Rush, except that he is RIGHT.
Jane (debb14) — 3/6/2009 @ 3:11 amThis is important point being missed….this administration appears to be a determine to collapse the dollar and Patterico is wasting value time going after radio hosts?
America is not too far from total collapses; wake up and smell the manure because this plan of this administration’s has already failed and their shit about to rain down upon all of us.
syn (c64e65) — 3/6/2009 @ 3:25 am[…] Conservative: “I hope Rush Limbaugh fails” – Patterico […]
Greatest Hits: Mar. 6, 2009 - Whatever Is Right (3e8da1) — 3/6/2009 @ 3:47 amAnn is a wonderful example of a Leftist. Conservatives are not wrong, they are EVIL !!!
JD (abe6ab) — 3/6/2009 @ 5:41 amdaleyrocks,
Wherever bunkertroll/Hax went, he wound up irritating large numbers of the people he supposedly agreed with on the left. Some commenters praised BTH, but inevitably the reaction turned negative at some point.
Glad you liked those golden oldies!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407) — 3/6/2009 @ 5:42 amIt seems to be working just fine.
Pablo (99243e) — 3/6/2009 @ 6:29 amIs it possible that attacking a talk show host is not the best course of action for a sitting president and the upper levels of his administration?
Pablo (99243e) — 3/6/2009 @ 6:32 amI think the realization is dawning that Limbaugh is winning big in this tiff with Obama. His ratings are up 100% and many of those listeners may be the under-40s who say they don’t like him. I suspect his listener base has aged over the Bush administration when I too pretty much stopped listening and many others were turned off by Bush’s spending and amnesty proposals.
A lot of people who listen to him say they changed their minds about politics. I am currently getting a crash course on what is being taught in college these days. I’ve had kids in college most of the time the past 25 years. I’ve watched what has happened to the curriculum, especially history and politics. That’s where a lot of Obama voters came from. An alternate POV is healthy and this might just provide it.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/6/2009 @ 6:37 amOne of those desperate headlines, begging for attention and when read, showed to be nothing.
Please, the writer of the story is like on little fly buzzing around the King Elephant (note the wonderful link to GOP Mascot).
Limbaugh said what needed to be said when no one else was saying it. That or the people commenting was just nobodies like the writer, trying to evoke a great man’s name to get a few people to read his silly story.
Tim E (154d84) — 3/6/2009 @ 6:42 amYou’re just playing into the Democrat’s hands by using their twist on Limbaugh’s words, Patterico. Don’t do that!
JJ (00b1c5) — 3/6/2009 @ 6:51 amI am guessing universally reviled and ridiculed.
Not to mention being frequently pantsed, defrocked and defenestrated to within an inch of complete disembowlment.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/6/2009 @ 7:03 amPablo, have you decided which Daddy figure to side with in this feud? I mean, I know it’s tough for an authoritarian like you to choose, but I would suggest Patterico is the best choice. Sure Patrrick’s opinions are almost as crazy as the other dude’s (and that’s by my subjective measure), but he’s a million times more rational and less narcissistic.
He also seems to “suffer fools” with more grace and wit, so you will only have to be half as obsequious to stick around.
Lastly, his blog will be here on April 1.
So, if you don’t mind advice from someone who loathes you but still feels empathy for your dark, tortured soul, you should break it off with the other guy and just hang with Pat.
I must add that I’m not sure if Patrick loves Burn Notice as much I do, but, since he has a job, maybe he doesn’t seem to have as much time for TV as other people. On the other hand, I did manage to stop working long enough to catch the season finale and it was pretty decent. I’ll miss Tricia Helfner and I guess I don’t remember Frasier’s dad being that mean, but still…love the Sam and Michael dynamic.
Anyway, Pablo, just make a clean break.
/sarcasm
timb (a83d56) — 3/6/2009 @ 7:03 amThis whole Rush drama is completely stupid. That the POTUS chooses to engage in a pissing match with a radio personality demeans the position of POTUS. That we choose to engage in a pissing match over how this hurts the GOP is equally stupid. We can be above the fray.
Let Obama reveal his weakness, that he must have total approval of the masses, in order to see himself as successful. In short, it reveals Obama’s narcissism.
Vivian Louise (eeeb3a) — 3/6/2009 @ 7:45 amAt least we got one thing out in the open. Jeff thinks that Patterico thinks that Jeff doesn’t like him because Jeff thinks that Patterico doesn’t like him because Patterico thinks that Jeff doesn’t like him. I think.
And, oh yeah. Timb, shut the @#$% up! Stay out of grownup conversations.
nk (502275) — 3/6/2009 @ 7:56 am“Early on Patrick felt the need to lecture a bit on how Obama was his President and the respect and gravitas of the office deserved a modicum of respect and (in a bit more of a reach) something that read like cooperation.”
Bullshit. You’re not describing anything I wrote. You’re describing a caricature of what I wrote, pushed by people with an agenda that I don’t understand.
You find me one fucking quote that suggests I thought we should cooperate with Obama’s dangerous agenda. You can’t because I never said any such goddamn thing. Don’t spread falsehoods about what I have said.
Patterico (bcabf7) — 3/6/2009 @ 8:14 amSo, if you don’t mind advice from someone who loathes you
Please take your personal problems somewhere else – you can work out whatever your needs are on someone else’s time.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/6/2009 @ 8:18 amAnother blogger who misses the point and writes a completely misguided column because he doesn’t pay attention to anything other than talking points on his nightly news show
Before writing your next column, perhaps look into the context of what (or who) your attacking.
The entire reason for Rush Limbaugh launching the “I hope he fails” comment was as a response to the barrage of weak-kneed RINO’s all falling over themselves to get in front of microphones and state more emphatically than the RINO before him that they all want to get behind the president’s proposals and try their hardest to make them succeed…all in hopes of courting favor with the mainstream media that will always hate them,of course. In other words, on the heals of yet another massive defeat, Republicans were still following the McCainzian philosophy.
Why would ANY conservative, especially an elected Republican, jump at the idea of getting behind spending obscene amounts of money on socialist programs and goverment takeovers??? So, Rush was the first to articulate that Republicans SHOULD NOT be lining up to support the advancement of socialism, and cheering for its success, that they should be working to make sure his socialist agenda would NOT move forward! Thank God for Rush! Thank God Rush was successful in doing what no elected official had the guts to do – especially Michael Steele, who should have played that role – as RUSH, not any elected representative, was the one to push the public debate on this disgusting socialist revolution.
Son of Bob (640141) — 3/6/2009 @ 8:25 am“Yes daleyrocks, I read the post,”
Comment by joe — 3/6/2009 @ 12:59 am – OK Joe, now go back and try to understand the post. It doesn’t sat we should cede all language to the media and the left as you think. You are a simpleton.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/6/2009 @ 8:49 amComment by timb — 3/6/2009 @ 7:03 am
timmah – How many times did you ejaculate over that PW thread? Your Jergens can help that too, or so I’m told.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/6/2009 @ 8:54 amDaley, I thought you did a fine job. They have been talking around each other for some time, but some people do not allow disagreement. In the end, you got to see how political disagreements become personal with some bloggers, despite your years of defending him and your general agreement with him.
In the end, I remain perplexed by the continuation of this argument and yet gratified. The 26% of the folks remaining in the GOP are just mystifying in their ability to be sort-sighted and tribal.
Meanwhile, the further the base slides to the right, the better it will be people who believe what I believe to correct the mistakes of the last 25 years.
The people on Goldstein’s thread calling Pat a pussy and cursing at him are examples of how crazy the base has gotten.
I’ll tell you one thing: Goldstein has proved successful at making his blog smaller and I applaud him as he attempts to extend his talents to the conservative movement at large. Keep making the tent smaller and maybe Dems can have 70 seats in the Senate!
Oh, and complaining about the media quoting Limbaugh after the gent himself said he didn’t care if the “drive by media’ reported exactly the phrase “I hope Obama fails.” Seems Limbaugh got what he wanted (ratings and attention) and the real question is why Gingery, Steele, and Pence feel the need to be hamstrung by Limbaugh’s stupid rhetoric. That is just amazing.
timb (92efa0) — 3/6/2009 @ 10:33 amThat’s the dumbest thing I have ever read, and I’ve read a lot of dumb.
Ann, did you hope David Duke failed to win the election he ran in.
You evil person you!
lee (9bba48) — 3/6/2009 @ 12:28 pmWow, its not what is actually said but how one feels about it. Patterico sounds like Michelle’s Princeton thesis on race.
Pathetic.
Thomas Jackson (a495b3) — 3/6/2009 @ 3:16 pmWhy are you all playing with the smokescreen libs are blowing up everyones ass?
Seriously, obama agenda:
Destroy America.
Rewrite the constitution.
Destroy capitalism.
Every act and policy he has pushed has shown what he wants.
Increase government spending (We want this to happen?)
Increase government control over private business (We want this to happen?)
Increase taxes to pay for the spending (Aren’t we taxed enough with out any form of representation?)
Destroy the healthcare system, turn every emergency room into a free clinic. (That is why we already have free clinics?)
Remove bill of rights. (Your first amendment rights are under attack as much as second amendment rights too.)
And you want Rush to fail?
How about sticking to your target, obama and the way this country is run and stop worrying if a political comentator who voices the opinion of 20+million people is inflammatory.
Honestly if Rush doesnt stir up a fire, if he is not flammatory, he is not doing his job.
Mr EMT (566dba) — 3/6/2009 @ 7:00 pmMaybe you would be happy if he stuck to MSM news articals and commented on obama’s grey hair and not the fact that obama is DESTROYING YOU.
Timmah!, No, I haven’t engaged in the little action figure drama you have going on in your head. I’ve been participating in a discussion/disagreement with two bloggers I like quite a bit. As you would have noticed, were you sentient, I disagree with Patterico on this one. And the day I seriously consider taking advice from the likes of you will be the day I stick a gun in my mouth and pull the trigger. Just saying, so that next time, you’ll know to just STFU.
That wasn’t inappropriate, was it?
Pablo (99243e) — 3/6/2009 @ 7:20 pmMr. EMT didn’t read the post either.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/6/2009 @ 7:56 pmI’m glad Wilhelm II failed. I’m glad Mussolini failed. I’m glad Tojo failed. I’m glad Hitler failed. I’m glad that Saddam Hussein failed. I wish that Mao had failed. I wish that Stalin had failed. I wish that Ho Chi Minh had failed. I hope Fidel Castro continues to fail. I hope that Kim Jong-il fails. I’m glad when all tyrants fail. If that is evil in the eyes of the Left, so be it.
Lynda (6a4f5d) — 3/6/2009 @ 8:24 pmrush is not the problem with the Republican party!
russ johnson (d65351) — 3/6/2009 @ 11:07 pmWhat he should have said is that he does not want Obmama to fail–that is why we have a few suggestions.
Becky (0a4cad) — 3/7/2009 @ 12:17 am[…] Bithead alerts me to a cross-blog debate that I somehow missed between Patrick Frey and Jeff Goldstein over Rush Limbaugh’s “I hope Obama fails” line at CPAC and the […]
Limbaugh, Failure, and Media Distortion (139676) — 3/7/2009 @ 4:51 amthis is so funny and sooner than i thought,obama cant handle the job,sends out the boys to dish rush,santelli,and others while he looks in his 8-ball crystal ball to come up with another bad plan,it took only 50 days to turn this joke gray,can you say lack of experience
FRANK (1e6d92) — 3/7/2009 @ 6:37 amthis is so funny and sooner than i thought,obama cant handle the job,sends out the boys to dish rush,santelli,and others while he looks in his 8-ball crystal ball to come up with another bad plan,it took only 50 days to turn this joke gray,can you say lack of experience
FRANK (1e6d92) — 3/7/2009 @ 6:37 amWe need a higher class of trolls.
steve miller (c76b20) — 3/7/2009 @ 7:24 amWhen pondering who shall lead the charge against the most liberal/socialist president we have ever had and publicly point out the obvious – our doom at his hands; who better than the most extreme conservative pundit, El Rushbo?
They each represent what is wrong with each party; they no longer represent the majorities. Each party strives to appeal to the extremists within and the hell with the rest of us.
I hope Obama’s failure, preceded by the failure of the Bush administration, will give rise to a viable third party to represent the middle abandoned long ago by the Democrats and the Republicans. The status quo SUCKS!
Ari (2b5662) — 3/7/2009 @ 1:21 pmI’m glad Wilhelm II failed. I’m glad Mussolini failed. I’m glad Tojo failed. I’m glad Hitler failed. I’m glad that Saddam Hussein failed. I wish that Mao had failed. I wish that Stalin had failed. I wish that Ho Chi Minh had failed. I hope Fidel Castro continues to fail. I hope that Kim Jong-il fails. I’m glad when all tyrants fail. If that is evil in the eyes of the Left, so be it.
Implying that Obama could join that list of genocidalists and dictators like #331 did above is a perfect example of the extreme fearmongering that should be avoided by leaders of any movement opposing Obama.
Limbaugh handled it the correct way.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 3/7/2009 @ 1:57 pm[…] Patterico: I hope Rush Limbaugh fails in his attempt to set himself up as the de facto head of the conservative movement. It’s good for him personally. I get that. And I love hearing the guy hold forth. I wish him all the success in the world for his radio program. But some of the things he says are designed principally to stir controversy and draw attention to himself. Like saying he hopes Obama fails. Rush knows his comments will elevate his profile and make him seem more important. I know: when he says he hopes Obama fails, he doesn’t mean he wants to see Americans suffer. He just doesn’t want liberal policies enacted because he thinks they’re bad for the country. I get it. I agree with that. But, you know, that’s nuance. The problem is, Americans have short attention spans and don’t always do nuance well. […]
The Rush Chronicles | Cold Fury (6f4592) — 3/7/2009 @ 3:06 pmBrother Bradley, a man who believes it is acceptable to allow a child born alive after a botched abortion to die untended in a dirty laundry room is what?
Lynda (6a4f5d) — 3/7/2009 @ 3:24 pmIf the result of your policies is the subjugation of the people to the state, what are you by definition? If the difference is by degrees? Oh, and by the way, I hope Hugo fails, too. And Mugabe. Ahmadinejad. al-Asad. al-Bashir. Kadafi. Bring your own tyrant to the table.
Lynda (6a4f5d) — 3/7/2009 @ 4:12 pmHey, everyone, you must go to HotAir and read the hilarious commentary on Ed Morrissey’s “Great news: Obama fumbled Brown visit because he’s in over his head” posted at 4:19 pm on March 7, 2009. Beeeeeautiful stuff!
Oh, G-d, Oh G-d, Oh, G-d, as a disabled person I need Your help getting up from the floor after falling off my chair. “Get well cards for the Big BHO!” Oh, G-d, Oh, G-d, Oh, G-d, I’m hyperventilating now. Someone call 911! Or better yet, get me a “choc. chip cookie” or rather, biscuit (speaking a little Brit here in honor of the PM). “President Teleprompter Jesus.” “LEAVE BARRY ALONE! HE IS A HUMAN BEING!” Oh, G-d, Oh, G-d, Oh, G-d, and the JiangxiDad thread is priceless! Read it all!
Lynda (6a4f5d) — 3/7/2009 @ 7:42 pmLynda,
I hope this message posts. A previous attempt failed as badly as Obama’s policies will.
By including Obama in a list that includes dictators who have killed millions in genocides, you trivialize their slaughter. You also blur the rather substantial difference between a president elected in a free and fair election and dictators who took and maintained power by force. That is what makes your comparison wrong, and I wish you would not pursue it further.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 3/7/2009 @ 8:18 pmBy writing ‘I want Rush to fail’ aren’t you concerned about how your base will perceive such a statement?
Ralph (e0eb85) — 3/7/2009 @ 8:46 pmNo matter how hard you try to sugarcoat it… it there is some hint of truth in your statement …. it will still infuriate Liberals.
Conservatives get mad with lies….. Rush is angry because of these lies.
Liberals and Democrats are furious with the Truth. Anyone who speaks of the truth will have his/her character assassinated by the Liberals.
So Conservatives are so bad before the eyes of the public who adores MSM and the libs? Thanks, God. Truth is still in air.
What’s the use of winning the election by a Republican Candidate whose real color and motives are full of liberal and democrat lies?
Let Rush be Rush.
Let Frum do whatever pleases him.
Just thinking.
Rain (b1ce6e) — 3/8/2009 @ 3:40 am[…] recently risked being labeled one of the “oddballs” at Hot Air when I said that, while I believe Rush Limbaugh is a very talented salesman for conservative values, I think it […]
Hot Air » Blog Archive » David Frum Does Not Speak for Me Any More Than Rush Limbaugh Does (e2f069) — 3/8/2009 @ 4:01 amRush using the current situation to his advantage is not a big deal. He does what he does, but Rush does illustrate (among other things) the huge vacuum of leadership in the Republican party. For this, he is uniquely situated, and I hope he continues to do this even though it can get silly (like challenging a sitting President to a debate).
Mike Doig (568aa9) — 3/8/2009 @ 2:42 pmI don’t believe the Democrats showing their Socialist side is going to help them in the long run. It certainly won’t help the country as everyone here knows. However, if the Republican leadership keeps cowering to every complaint from a Democrat, they are not going to be an alternative. Rush illustrates this well.
If the Republicans allow MSMedia to curtail their message, they are not going to be a viable alternative. Rush illustrates this as well.
We see the “Tea Parties” and wish even more people were involved, the media sees the ‘parties’ and criticizes them. The Republican leadership response is to back away with their collective hands in the air. All the Republican leadership seemingly wants to do is get together and shout, “Romney”! Pathetic!! . . . and yes, I do get my weekly ‘free market rhetorical bone’. Rush is not a problem. Obama’s socialism is the major problem, but without opposition it will be a problem for a long time.
Comment by Mike Doig — 3/8/2009 @ 2:42 pm
The Republican establishment is looking for another Bob Michel to “lead” them, and they have Rush to remind them why that path leads to disaster.
AD - RtR/OS (7d5017) — 3/8/2009 @ 2:46 pmYou wrote, “That phraseology is counterproductive because it puts conservatives on defense. Conservatives need not sign on to that formulation to prove that they stand for conservative principles.”
Counterproductive to whom?
Conservatives?
Republicans?
Joe-six-pack?
You also wrote. “. . . it puts conservatives on defense”.
Are not we on defense already?
I think conservatives need to embrace any anti-socialist/communist ideology and/or action anywhere anytime!!
To do otherwise is acting just like the sorry ‘get-alongs’ we Republicans have in congress.
Im sorry, but your don’t upset them opinion is exactly the problem we now have. We are afraid to say OBAMA SUCKS!!!
Mike Doig (568aa9) — 3/8/2009 @ 5:50 pm“I wish you would not pursue it further.” LOL, Brother spank.
But not so funny: a definition of tyrant: “A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.” Embryonic stem cell research expansion – approval of death for babies born alive after botched abortions, in my opinion, qualifies you as a tyrant. Only different by degrees from your garden variety tyrant. Instincts are the same.
Oh, wait, here comes another spank from Brother.
Crown Prince Abdullah.
Lynda (6a4f5d) — 3/8/2009 @ 7:03 pmafter watching this man in office for nearly two months
the voice of reason (5f06cb) — 3/8/2009 @ 11:38 pmafter seeing whom he chose to fill his cabinet(especially those that were preemtively dismissed or got cold feet)
after watching him him give out dvd’s as a gift to a visiting head of state
he has been embarrassingly and uncomfortably not up to the task and nowhere near where he set his course during the campaign
his failure is just beginning
Rod Dreher Finds the Subtle Nuances in Mass Murder…
If you look past the murders, this story actually has a happy ending because it shows that it is possible to save our kids from homosexuality….
Jon Swift (59ce3a) — 3/9/2009 @ 12:36 pmMakes me really, really, really, really look forward to the day you listen to “the likes of me.”*
On another note: What awkward construction: “the likes of you”???? Do I come in sets? Or is that the cartoon of me in your lizard brain bears no semblance to reality?
Damn, you’re stupid.
*Oh, and for anyone else, as Pablo surely knows this, I do not want Pablo to shoot himself. We may not exactly have warm feelings for each other, but I don’t wish him harm.
Besides, after reading his prose this long, I’m pretty sure living is a more just punishment for him…watching as America refutes his revanchist, reactionary politics one piece at a time. It will be like slow torture.
timb (a83d56) — 3/9/2009 @ 2:35 pm“…revanchist, reactionary politics…”
Marvelous, Marxist-Leninist rhetoric!
AD - RtR/OS (8ef6a3) — 3/9/2009 @ 2:38 pmKarl & V.I. would be so proud.
Yeah, because if a bad person used a word once, no one can evveeerrr use it again, uh AD?
I had hoped the end of the Cold War would lead to growth for conservatives. The reflexive knee-jerk “Communist” got to be old somewhere around 1986.
Good to see, AD, that you still like the classics.
In Pablo’s context, he basically disfavors every piece of progressive legislation since the Great Society (possibly even the New Deal). Since Nixon made his peace with the Great Society (hell, he used it for the Southern Strategy), one would think paby could too.
timb (a83d56) — 3/10/2009 @ 7:37 amShut up, Timmah! And smarten up.
Pablo (99243e) — 3/10/2009 @ 7:52 am[…] and using his own words and mine — he works tirelessly to gradually backtrack and reshape his argument so that it comes more into line with what he gauges the winning argument likely will be. He then […]
In response to a public lynching: Patrick Frey has no honor. In my opinion. Which qualifier, like, saves me from a libel suit I think [updated to include linked "annotations"] (7a2640) — 3/23/2009 @ 12:31 pm[…] also find himself the subject of a myriad of blog posts and news articles explaining why he’s simply not nuanced enough to be a conservative leader. Poor guy. No one really deserves […]
Daniel Hannan: I Hope They Fail (UPDATE: Wolverines?) : The Sundries Shack (cb8a87) — 3/30/2009 @ 10:29 am[…] Barack Obama, whose disagreements with us weren’t at all personal, but were instead merely a matter of policy differences as filtered and distilled through his own moderate pragmatism. Protesting forcefully against such […]
“Radical in the White House” (38c333) — 10/29/2010 @ 9:24 am