The New Bad Guy: Rush Limbaugh

We have all heard the mentions of Rush Limbaugh by Democratic leaders as of late. Including comments by the President himself. I thought Rush Limbaugh would be much too trivial a person for someone such as the President of the US to mention, much less make comment on.

I honestly believed the Presidency was being taken down a level by such comments before I read the following article that just came out.

www.politico.com...

It seems that after much polling and research, the Democrat machine has found a new enemy with George W Bush out of the line of fire. According to some polls listed in the article only 11% of people under 40 have a positive opinion of Rush Limbaugh.

It goes on to say that this rating is lower than Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s controversial pastor and convicted domestic terrorist William Ayers.

The left has found its new Boogeyman.

The Democrats are putting the face of Rush Limbaugh on the head of the Republican Party. Those of us who are educated and learned know that Rush Limbaugh is only an entertainer. He is not a politician.

By continually insinuating he is a leader in the party will make those uninitiated voters decide: Do I follow Barack Obama or Rush Limbaugh?

No, I am not a Liberal BUT I have to admit - this strategy is 100% genius.

This thread was not intended to sway anybody politically or incite political debate, I just wanted to share what I have learned about this one idea.

It is genius I agree. And the Democrats are getting a lot of help from the Republicans to make Rush look like some sort of figurehead of the conservatives and the Republican Party. After Steele called Rush "an entertainer whose views are incendiary", Rush jumped on Steel during his radio show. Within 50 minutes of Rush's response to him, Steele was on the phone offering an apology, saying he wasn't thinking about what he was saying.

With stuff like that, the Democrats don't have to say anything.

Regardless of political views, does it bother anyone that a private citizen is being targeted by a political party?

Another line.

Making Rush the "leader" of the GOP is the Dems only chance to avoid a slaughter in the mid-terms. By then people will be fed up with the failed policies of Obama and the Dems, and will once again be looking for "change"

But if the leader of the opposition is a draft-dodging racist pig with more outright lies on record than anyone else, well, you're chance goes back to average.

Hey they have to apply diversionary tactics while they rape and pillage the treasury. Rush is very high profile, but he is an entertainer (that's debatable), and not a politician.

And while they're at it. The left and right wing's shows, and blogs, make a little money in the process. Good for the media. Not good for America in general.

Originally posted by slicobacon
We have all heard the mentions of Rush Limbaugh by Democratic leaders as of late. Including comments by the President himself. I thought Rush Limbaugh would be much too trivial a person for someone such as the President of the US to mention, much less make comment on.

I honestly believed the Presidency was being taken down a level by such comments before I read the following article that just came out.

www.politico.com...

It seems that after much polling and research, the Democrat machine has found a new enemy with George W Bush out of the line of fire. According to some polls listed in the article only 11% of people under 40 have a positive opinion of Rush Limbaugh.

It goes on to say that this rating is lower than Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s controversial pastor and convicted domestic terrorist William Ayers.

The left has found its new Boogeyman.

The Democrats are putting the face of Rush Limbaugh on the head of the Republican Party. Those of us who are educated and learned know that Rush Limbaugh is only an entertainer. He is not a politician.

By continually insinuating he is a leader in the party will make those uninitiated voters decide: Do I follow Barack Obama or Rush Limbaugh?

No, I am not a Liberal BUT I have to admit - this strategy is 100% genius.

This thread was not intended to sway anybody politically or incite political debate, I just wanted to share what I have learned about this one idea.

It seems that after much polling and research, the Democrat machine has found a new enemy with George W Bush out of the line of fire. According to some polls listed in the article only 11% of people under 40 have a positive opinion of Rush Limbaugh.

His ratings have really come up since they started grooming him for 2012.

With ratings like that he is surely a contender.

Originally posted by wutone
Regardless of political views, does it bother anyone that a private citizen is being targeted by a political party?

Well, when you say, "A private citizen is being targeted by a political party", it sounds pretty bad. When in actuality, they have mentioned his name a few times. Rush has been bad-mouthing the Democrats since the beginning of time and Obama since he announced he was running for president. Rush has said some horrible, miserable things about Democrats and Obama for years now. I'm not too bothered by the Dems returning the volley.

And Rush is lovin' every minute of it.

And I believe it was 2004 when the Republicans ran a less successful campaign of sorts that put Micheal Moore at the head of the Democratic Party.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

I don't particularly like Rush - or his politics.
But I am glad he is out there -
and still on the air -
I hope they never "make" him stop.

Even if most of what he says is drivel...
it is still freedom of speech -

Freedom of drivel -
Freedom of speech -

It's all the same to me.

I can't remember an administration that has so loosely thrown out names of media as enemies of their policies. Obama has named Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Fox News several times in disparaging terms.

Very low class for a president to name private citizens.:shk:

Obama is either very thin-skinned, very insecure, or both, since thin skin and insecurity often go together as personality defects.

Spacedoubt is correct:

Hey they have to apply diversionary tactics while they rape and pillage the treasury.

Originally posted by wutone
Regardless of political views, does it bother anyone that a private citizen is being targeted by a political party?

Another line.

My thought exactly. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his politics, this is an issue of freedom of speech. The government should not be targeting a private citizen, regardless of who is in power. Support this action on the part of Obama's administration, and watch your own freedom of speech crumble. They take down Rush and then who is next?

[edit on 3/4/09 by GirlNextDoor]

Originally posted by wutone
Regardless of political views, does it bother anyone that a private citizen is being targeted by a political party?

Another line.

Nope

Because the vast majority of the party is comprised of private citizens.

Does it bother you that a man who used to describe people as UNPATRIOTIC
wishes for the ECONOMIC downfall of AMERICA, your bank account included???

[edit on 4-3-2009 by mental modulator]

Originally posted by jsobecky
Obama is either very thin-skinned, very insecure, or both, since thin skin and insecurity often go together as personality defects.

I think he just wants total control of the media. Control the media, control the people, right?



[edit on 3/4/09 by GirlNextDoor]

Originally posted by GirlNextDoor

Originally posted by jsobecky
Obama is either very thin-skinned, very insecure, or both, since thin skin and insecurity often go together as personality defects.

I think he just wants total control of the media. Control the media, control the people, rigth?

Oh yes OBAMA is controlling the media

hell, he is compelling me to bash RUSH right now!

Originally posted by jsobecky
I can't remember an administration that has so loosely thrown out names of media as enemies of their policies. Obama has named Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Fox News several times in disparaging terms.

Very low class for a president to name private citizens.:shk:

While I detest Rush, I couldn't agree with this more. What's worse, is that these people Obama's naming aren't even real political commentators, but rather shock-jock entertainers who will do anything for ratings. In naming them, Obama casts the same light on himself, and it won't be long until he's not taken seriously either.

Rush is entitled to his opinion just like everyone else here in the US.

I listened to Rush during the first gulf war. He was the only person on the tv or radio who's opinion of how the war would progress agreed with mine.

There were broadcasters saying 10-20 thousand dead troups etc etc. Rush said, and this is what I agreed with, that the US military would easily overcome the Iraq army. There were going to be small numbers of causalities for the US.

So, I started to listen to him. I found him funny but not particularly bright when he ventured into areas that I was familiar with. I then decided that if he could be so naive with regard to the things I was knowledgeable about then he's probably missing on other things as well. So, I stopped listening to him.

Now, to me, he seems to have a faithful following of people who choose to let Rush do their thinking . I'm not impressed with his listeners.

I'm not a fan of Rush. But I am a fan of his right and freedom to do his job, saying what he wants to say on his time slot on his show. Just as any political commentator can and and should do. This is freedom of speech at work. Leave it alone.

You can't tell me this isn't part of the movement toward a fairness doctrine, or whatever they end up calling it.

Originally posted by GirlNextDoor

You can't tell me this isn't part of the movement toward a fairness doctrine, or whatever they end up calling it.

It is not -

been sourced and discussed here already

Darthbama said he would NOT attempt to implement the idea...

I would not support it and would defend Rush's right to speak - although I would likely punch him in an extra chin if I saw him.

I just cannot wrap my head around the fact that a person like Limbaugh, regardless of how many followers he has, commands so much attention from our supposed leaders. What happened to freedom of speech? Limbaugh is a private citizen exercising his constitutional right to free speech. Period.

The fact that an administration feels threatened by him, and makes it public knowledge that they feel threatened, is very troubling. They are trying to sway public opinion against Limbaugh and others. This should frighten every one of us.

Who needs a Fairness Doctrine when you have a bully pulpit to intimidate and silence those who disagree with you?

Originally posted by Benevolent HereticRush has been bad-mouthing the Democrats since the beginning of time and Obama since he announced he was running for president. Rush has said some horrible, miserable things about Democrats and Obama for years now. I'm not too bothered by the Dems returning the volley.

And Rush is lovin' every minute of it.

Rush is a citizen who has successfully created a business by exercising his right to criticize the government.

Obama's administration is the government criticizing a private citizen for creating a successful business exercising his right to criticize them.

Doesn't this trouble you?

Our constitution was written such that vocalizing your displeasure with the government is protected. Not the other way around.


Edited to add: there's often a lack of care when someone else's freedoms are being infringed. "Well, I didn't agree with him anyway." Or "Well, they shouldn't have the same rights I do anyway." But standing up for civil liberties is a matter of principle. If we look away when one person's rights are being infringed upon, then our own rights are not safe.

[edit on 3/4/09 by GirlNextDoor]

reply to post by GirlNextDoor

Rush is a citizen who has successfully created a business by exercising his right to criticize the government.

Obama's administration is the government criticizing a private citizen for creating a successful business exercising his right to criticize them.

Doesn't this trouble you?

Very well put.

I think some people fail to differentiate between the two instances.