The New Bad Guy: Rush Limbaugh

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by slicobacon

 

And Rush never said he wanted failure to ensue, he said he didn't want the asinine Obama policies to succeed.

Re-read your statement, Right-Winger, and TRY and see how totally asinine the argument is.

If you are rooting for the President's policies to fail, when it is those very policies that are being enacted to save this economy, then your rooting for failure. You really don't see that? It is downright laughable to say "Ohh no, I want us to succeed, but I don't want the way we are going to do it to succeed..." What?

We are in trouble as a nation when someone's top concern is the proliferation of their views over the success of our country. Beware everyone, Rush is more concerned with the success and spread of his ideology, more so than seeing this country succeed ON ANY terms at all. That's dangerous. We should want this country to prosper no matter what the remedy.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by tommy_boy]

reply to post by tommy_boy


Personal insults to other members aside, are you saying that if we don't think Obama's policies are going to work, which I don't, we should not be allowed to criticize them?

Rush does not believe in the policies of this administration. Exactly like many did not agree with the policies of the past administration. Why was it OK to criticize then and not now?

This double standard does not sit will under the First Amendment

Semper

Need I remind all of those Repubs claiming this story is being kept in the media by the White House that it's been YOUR leaders that have recently attacked Rush, then apparently were reprimanded and had to apologize? Obama didn't do that. Your guys did.

Need I remind you also that one of those people that took issue with Rush was the very leader of your party, Michael Steele, who then also coward and apologized to Rush?

Can you also explain to me why Steele praised Rush for his "Leadership" when he apologized? Isn't Rush just a radio blow-hard? hmmm???? Wow, and this is the new leader of your party. Jindal, Steele, and Palin... It's like Christmas for the Dems all year round!!!!

Seems like alot of back-peddling and #$$#-kissing on the part of the Repubs. Sooo, which party leaders are afraid of Rush again?

Interesting take:

Incorrect, but interesting no less..

Democrats use Web to mock Rush Limbaugh, prominent Republicans

Sign the Democrats' Rush Limbaugh Petition!

Democratic Activists Call Rush Limbaugh the GOP’s Leader

Now there are literally thousands more that you may Google to your hearts content and even two or three about the Republicans..

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


First off, I did not insult the member, I attacked the position, which in my opinion is asinine. I'm sure the member is a wonderfully intelligent human-being. If your referring to the "Right-Winger" comment, I hardly see how that's an insult.

Second, there is absolutely nothing wrong with critiquing a point of view, an ideology, or a policy. It is very much another to not only imply, but outright say that one wants Obama (his policies, whatever) to fail.

One can say (and mean) "my ideology leads me to believe that what Obama is enacting will not work. I hope it does, for the sake of this country, but I really doubt it will...."

That's one message. That's not what Rush (and a few more Repubs have said).

Or one can say "I hope Obama [and his policies, which are incompatible with mine] fail" because they are not my beliefs, and if we can't succeed with my beliefs, I'd much rather have us fail.

You have to see the difference. Tell me you see the difference.

reply to post by semperfortis


Semper!! Cmon! You seem intelligent, and I don't disagree with the articles you posted. But I don't think anyone is debating the existence of as many left-wing cooks and hitmen as there are right-wing cooks and hitmen. None of those articles speak profoundly about the White House or Obama actively engaging in the smear of Rush. Those posts talk about activists and the Democratic National Committee (whose job, btw, is to attack Repubs in order to elect Dems!).

Might I also add that some of those articles were in response to the Repubs putting their feet in their mouths on the whole apology issue.

I hope you jumped up and down in defense of the left's rights to attack Bush and his policies during the previous administration. Remember that? When Repubs were calling lefties "Un-American" for exercising THEIR dissent about the war?


[edit on 5-3-2009 by tommy_boy]

reply to post by tommy_boy


Whether or not I see the difference is not relevant...

When you take your OPINION and use that OPINION to formulate a presentable fact that another persons OPINION is incorrect, you are just furthering the idea that the Left is intent upon squashing free speech.

I too hope Obama's policies fail as I am convinced that if he succeeds in all of his endeavors, we will not recognize the United States as a free nation anymore.

Can you also explain to me why Steele praised Rush for his "Leadership" when he apologized? Isn't Rush just a radio blow-hard? hmmm

I can not speak for ONE Republican and do not consider a single politician to be representative of the entire party.

which in my opinion is asinine

Key word Opinion

You seem intelligent

Thank you
Sometimes I "seem" intelligent to myself as well...

whose job, btw, is to attack Repubs in order to elect Dems

When did representation become synonymous with attack?

some of those articles were in response to the Repubs putting their feet in their mouths on the whole apology issue.

Typical Strawman

Defend an action in response to another action..

I hope you jumped up and down in defense of the left's rights to attack Bush and his policies

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand

Semper

Originally posted by tommy_boy
We are in trouble as a nation when someone's top concern is the proliferation of their views over the success of our country. Beware everyone, Rush is more concerned with the success and spread of his ideology, more so than seeing this country succeed ON ANY terms at all. That's dangerous. We should want this country to prosper no matter what the remedy.
[edit on 5-3-2009 by tommy_boy]

Your statement can't be made. The opposition firmly believes that the Obama policies are making the situation worse. How can you possibly say that Rush is not concerned with the success of this country? Reverse the players in your statement and it has equal merit.
The Obama side firmly believes that the previous policies made the situation worse. Why is Rush wrong in stating his beliefs? Obama is implementing his ideology and Rush judges Obama's actions against his opinions. There's nothing wrong with that and thank God we live in a country where this can go on (at least for now). Its simply an educational outlet for those who care to hear it. Do you think it would be easier or harder to get screwed if the only voice you were allowed to hear was that of the ruling party?

I like Rush and I agree with the conservative Republican point of view (and I'm under 40). My wife is a liberal Democrat and she disagrees with the Republican point of view. We balance each other out and raise our family with an open mind and so far its working out well.

At some point in the future the boneheads in government have to come to a meeting of the minds and realize that the correct answer, like alot of things in life, is found somewhere between the two extremes. Every presidency is now burdened with "fixing" what the last party did and we have to endure this cycle of 2-years of dismantling followed by two years of prepping a new candidate for the upcoming election.

I personally feel that throwing $3 TRILLION worth of Monopoly money at the problem is going to come back and throw salt in the wound. Maybe you think it will heal the wound - that's your right. Then, when you go out and state your beliefs, I won't be standing around saying that you had no concern for the issue at hand - that's would simply be idiotic and childish to come to that conclusion.

Originally posted by tommy_boy

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by slicobacon

 

And Rush never said he wanted failure to ensue, he said he didn't want the asinine Obama policies to succeed.

Re-read your statement, Right-Winger, and TRY and see how totally asinine the argument is.

If you are rooting for the President's policies to fail, when it is those very policies that are being enacted to save this economy, then your rooting for failure. You really don't see that? It is downright laughable to say "Ohh no, I want us to succeed, but I don't want the way we are going to do it to succeed..." What?

We are in trouble as a nation when someone's top concern is the proliferation of their views over the success of our country. Beware everyone, Rush is more concerned with the success and spread of his ideology, more so than seeing this country succeed ON ANY terms at all. That's dangerous. We should want this country to prosper no matter what the remedy.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by tommy_boy]

Right winger or left, I also hope to see Obama's socialist policies FAIL. They can not work long term in America without significantly changing what America is.

Sure - socialist policies maystabilize things for a short time however, we are not a socialist nation and the American people won't stand for socialist ideals for long.

If socialism does give the economy short term stability, it will not give it the growth in the private sector Americans expect and deserve. Socialism may work in wome places, but no, it is not welcome here at any cost for any promise.

I do not want my child growing up in a socialist nation. He will not need any govt assistance in a capitalist nation. There is no benefit for the socialist model to the people of America. Socialism has NEVER worked anywhere long term.

reply to post by tommy_boy

Originally posted by tommy_boy
reply to post by semperfortis

 

Second, there is absolutely nothing wrong with critiquing a point of view, an ideology, or a policy. It is very much another to not only imply, but outright say that one wants Obama (his policies, whatever) to fail.

That's a difference without distinction. Even if we assume that Rush meant for Obama to fail personally, so what? This is America. People are allowed to want others to fail. The Communist party, the NBPP, the John Birch Society, are all allowed to exist.

It may pain you to hear this, but it is true.

I hope you jumped up and down in defense of the left's rights to attack Bush and his policies during the previous administration.

If you knew Semperfortis, you'd know that he will defend your right to say something, whether or not he agreed with it.

reply to post by tommy_boy

Originally posted by tommy_boy

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by slicobacon

 

And Rush never said he wanted failure to ensue, he said he didn't want the asinine Obama policies to succeed.

Re-read your statement, Right-Winger, and TRY and see how totally asinine the argument is.

TRY and see this in another way....

If your house is on fire and someone proposes to use kerosene to dowse it out, would you use the same logic there?

Why not? If the person's intention is to save your house, what difference does it make his approach?

Isn't that the logic you are using?

[edit on 5-3-2009 by loam]

This is part of the Glenn Beck, Faux news, Rush Limbo, fake revolution. As a true conservative al la Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin ect, I know that Rush is a right wing gatekeeper, and can see through the Bullsh**. My family just keeps talking about how Rush is such a "great American". It makes me sick.

This is a new level of assault on those who are confused, those who can't filter good info from mis-info. Just like Hal Turner panders to those who are racist, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbo are pandering to those who don't like Obama, but probably were still Bush supporters, and certainly those who voted for McPalin.

Here is the scary thing. Here is what I see happening, this Glenn Beck fake, controlled rebellion will be allowed to porgress to the point of civil unrest, so that they can do their clampdown/martial law.

This really is the endgame, and the fall into One World Gov't. They know that if they control the rebellion, they will be one step ahead, and will be able to crush it before it can actually win, and give the people their country back. Be really careful when you decide to follow the Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh crowd, as it is a trap.

The NWO/PTB wants us to get violent, they have a plan to deal with that, and it is not pretty. The only way that We The People can win, is to rise up through information, massive awakening, and defeating the NWO through legal means and fundamentally changing the power structure of our Gov't.

Originally posted by xmotex

They don't want to "destroy" him.

Far from it, they want to make him the most recognizable face of the GOP.

I don't think the far right understands how unpopular they have become after eight years of George W. Bush.

Bingo. I'm surprised that nobody has come up with a "OMG Rush is working for the Democrats!!!" conspiracy theory.

If anybody in the GOP was smart, they'd get somebody who really is a socialist, make that person into a prominent radio personality, and portray him as an accurate representation of the Democratic party.

They aren't smart, though. They're apologizing for their criticisms of a man who is ruining their reputation.

The GOP is being seriously owned.

It has always surprised me how few people remember that immediately after the OKC bombing, then-president Clinton suggested that it was talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh that brought about this kind of civil unrest and that shouldn't be allowed. Blessedly that idea died an instant death so it never even had the chance to take off, but I remember hearing it on the news and how horrified me and my (then-) husband were about it.

Not a fan of Rush Limbaugh, however, I have to say, when actual members of government were standing up during their floor time and reading stuff about the Clintons aloud--so it would be recorded forever and could not be buried and lost--Rush was the only person who was even mentioning it (the media, of course, had dozens of spells of mass inattention coinciding with those moments). There's been many times that seemed to be the case. To me it indicates that regardless of Rush "personally" as an entertainer or anything else, there is a whole category of "information" that there is pretty much no other outlet for -- and that is why Rush has grown to the popularity that he has.

The previous comment about how 'far right' republicans know how Bush has made them less popular--just to be clear, Bush is barely right let alone far-right. The portrayal of him as some kind of right-extreme by the media is a wholesale 'sell' to the public to begin with. IMO if we'd had a genuinely far-right president in the big chair things would be different today.

I might add that before any comment on Rush's presentation, it should be pointed out that our entire media has basically taken on the 5th column role in this country, growing stronger for decades, until it is literally like having The Enemy doing the majority of both education and media country-wide. In the name of freedom of speech, we have as a country let this happen. So the idea of calling out one person as being a bad guy is ridiculous.

The Editor of the New York Times should probably be taken out and publicly hanged for sedition and possibly treason in my opinion; the list of stuff done during and seemingly in league with actual terrorists and enemies is pretty long; yet aside from a few right-wing folks like Coulter this isn't even mentioned. There is nothing that Rush has done or could do, not even everything added together, that could equal the offense-to-country comparatively.

But the NYT is in good company nationwide for that seeming agenda. Rush is relatively alone, though there are a few other folks now, still comparatively in the media there are few sources. The FOX news channel got its numbers for the same reason Rush did -- the fact that everything ELSE was like this giant homogeny of anti-American pro-socialist (or worse) philosophy and they were the ONE exception.

If there were even 10% as many media outlets with anything remotely akin to a non-liberal perspective as there are on the other side of the equation, maybe it would be different, but there aren't. It's a given that when you have "the mass majority" in 1000 pieces on one side and "the differing opinion" in one piece on the other, it's going to seem like that one piece is a lot more popular, but that's only because that perspective doesn't have to be divided into so many similar-source competitors.

If it weren't for the ability of someone in the media to be completely biased and anti-government, Obama would never have made president -- the entire Western media news corps functioned as his volunteer PR agents for the occasion.

I personally wish Rush would have phrased his "I hope he fails" with a little more detail. OF COURSE if someone is essentially a Marxist, and you are a capitalist living in a republic based on the constitution, the last thing you want to see is a Marxist succeed--since that essentially means the destruction (sooner or later, or some of both) of the very core of your government. However as an off the cuff comment -- and this is where being an entertainer becomes a hazard -- it was a little incomplete and hence irresponsible, because of course the rest of the media presents that like, "Obama's trying to SAVE US and he wants him to FAIL! That means he wants YOU to be DOOMED!" What people forget is that he is an impromptu, live on radio, emotion-based rant-fest -- unlike a politician who has quite awhile to think about any comment, who has multiple speechwriters and onlookers who write and vet every word and phrase for PC-ness and perfection and many-angled consideration. Someone on the fly in front of a microphone doesn't have that.

The media forcibly made McCain the republican nominee by being so selectively charming to him that by the time it was election time, he was the only one that had enough public clout, there wasn't much point to running anybody else. Except that he is NOT a major conservative -- nor was Bush, sheesh, people who think Bush is right-wing are clearly liberals, he's a big dork to true conservatives -- and as fed-up as the left was with 8 years of Bush the alleged-right-winger, most of the true right-wingers were fed up with 8 years of Bush-the-moderate. But if the media chooses in advance who to give sufficient name-recognition to, which in turn forces the hand of political nominations, then we essentially now have the liberals and various national enemies (in disguise as media and freedom of speech) choosing the conservative candidates. Which is a total disaster.

Rush is not a politician and I'd rather he not become one.

Unfortunately at this point I don't think any politician can undo what is likely to happen during these four years. I think it's going to be a national start of death by obamacide of the fundamental fabric of our country, all in the name of "saving us".

On the bright side, it makes "planetary cataclysm in 2012" seem like a potential alternative to a marxist future, which is downright cheery.

PJ

You can't just point the finger at the Democrats. Why are the Republicans so afraid of angering Limbaugh? Why did Steele make it a priority to apologize? If he's only an entertainer to the conservatives, why does his opinion matter so much? And Rush himself seems to be loving his role, is his ego to big for him to see the damage he's doing to the Republican party and the conservative movement? He may very well, single handedly, kill the Republican party because they aren't distancing themselves from him. They laugh at the newscaster asking the question and say "No, he's not the de facto leader".

I'm not a fan of political affiliations, I dislike the Dems and Reps, but since Bush, I've particularly had a problem with the republicans. They've already screwed up and painted themselves as racist, selfish, anti-middle class, etc. Do they really need this Rush scandal? All they have to do is kick him to the curb, then both the MSM and the politicians will either have to find another distraction or do their damn jobs. Obama seems to work best when being compared to someone else, an enemy. He shined during the campaign stage because of it. If he wasn't busy dealing with the his presidential duties, he'd probably tear Limbaugh to pieces (like only he can, with a smile and a great speech).


For the record, I don't think the Limbaugh situation is a white house conspiracy. People with influence are involved, but it looks like it's more on the "Obama Supporter" side that think the distraction will win over more conservatives. The two guys who seemed to have started this mess aren't employed by the white house, but don't like Republicans. I suppose it helps to be employed by CNN. (one of them is, I think)

Also, for the record, I often times get called a "Liberal". While I do place great importance on individual liberties and equality (wikipedia's words) and would love to be put in the same class as great men like Martin Luther King Jr. and many others, I don't wear that flag or use that title. But it's fun to piss off conservatives by telling them that I do.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by DemonicAngelZero]

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:

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.

I must disagree with your statement about it being low class for a president to name 'private' citizens.

A private citizen is you and I. Rush is FAR from a 'private' citizen. He is a very PUBLIC citizen that has a very large following and fan base and uses this platform to throw lies at others and to attack them. The same goes for the other idiots you mentioned. They are NOT private. For you to say that they can make their attacks but then not be attacked in return by the victim is kind of low class on your part.

Just trying to be fair. This goes for ALL 'public' citizens. If they are out there and recognizable and have a fan base and they attack someone (especially when it is with unfounded statements and twisted 'facts') then they deserve to have the favor returned.

Originally posted by slicobacon
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.

Rush is an extremist, and... if you remember... he's been ragging on Obama for over 2 years. Obama makes one joke about Rush (after years of Rush making jokes about Obama) and Rush suddenly declares all-out-nuclear-war.

Politico may support Limbaugh, but the idea that the Democrats just recently discovered him as Evil Overlord is not true. Rush has been loathed for decades.

The left has found its new Boogeyman.

Perhaps the conservatives are doing it?

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.

Except, it's not a Democrat that said this. RUSH said it:
news.bostonherald.com...

Michael Steele, the head of the RNC, got angry over the nasty and attack oriented speech and called Limbaugh several names. On air. www.politico.com...

Michelle Malkin and others take him to task for criticizing Limbaugh:
mediamatters.org...

Steele then backs down and calls Rush to apologize. He's sorry that he called Rush names over his partly coherent rant against everyone including the Republicans.
www.baltimoresun.com...

Conservative Republicans applaud this, show lack of support for RNC chairman:
www.sfgate.com...

So, who IS running the Republican party? Steele won't stand up for what he firmly believes (and he was right in calling out Rush.) Rush is running around, demanding that Obama drop his busy schedule and come debate him.

Thanks, but I'd rather have him working with Congress. Today it's the committee for reforming health care. That's a more useful thing to do than listen to Rush rant incoherently: www.chron.com...

Sure, the Republicans as a whole could kick Rush to the curb.

Then they'd be verging on silent, unfortunately, since he is one of the few media sources that is basically conservative.

I will concede that Rush is popular enough that it's not like he's just some guy on the street.

However in a way that makes anything (the whole fairness stuff is a big issue--I'm still concerned) regarding him even more a focus because if at any point, anybody can have pretty much any effect on someone as big as he is clout-wise, then it means any chance for the average person in media being conservative is 100% over.

I agree that he should not be representing a political party -- I just don't think he DOES -- I think some powerful media sources are choosing to SAY he does, because then they don't have to actually deal with the real political party, they can just deal with an entertainer.

Somewhat akin to how some scoffers (don't call them skeptics) in science will ignore all legitimate scientists doing research in some areas, no matter what their credentials or credibility prior to that work, and instead take some bozo psychic on TV and use that as some example and what they choose to fight. It's a straw man diversion in its own way.

On the other hand -- this all does sort of remind me of one of my favorite quotes, by one of my favorite people:

"There are too many Republican and Democratic senators, and not enough United States senators."

-- Will Rogers

Ah, you posted this before my response was in...

Originally posted by Byrd
Except, it's not a Democrat that said this. RUSH said it:

So, who IS running the Republican party?

Now that is a good question that may be the crux of the matter. Public politics have gotten a lot of moderates in office as Republicans. I think more of the people that did not already swoon into obama's commune are serious conservatives. These two groups do not actually see eye to eye. They have camped under the same flag for a long time, but I think maybe some of that is coming to an end.

I think this issue may represent less about Rush than it does about, as you point out wisely I think, a fracturing within the Republican party itself.

As for Obama debating Rush -- Obama is now a national politician. Rush is an entertainer. He has no rights in that category.

PJ

This is getting really silly.

First of all, "freedom of speech" does not mean "nobody can criticize you for what you say." It means they can't prevent you from saying it.

Second, I fail to see anything in the Constitution that says that a public official is not allowed to criticize a private citizen
Public officials have the same free speech rights as anyone else.

This whole thread is a lovely example of the "victimology" conservatives like to decry so much.

Nobody is trying to censor Rush or "silence" him

Far from it, as I pointed out earlier, they want everybody to hear them so they can say: "this creep is the voice of the GOP!"

Why? Because Rush has a lower public approval rating with the general public than Reverend Wright or William Ayers - he scares people outside the right wing subculture - and they want people to identify Rush Limbaugh with the GOP.

The fact that conservatives are walking right into the trap is nobody's fault but their own