Reply With Quote
As long as Rush is whining about what other Republicans say about him, Obama has free reign.
I'd be more inclined to listen to him if he'd take a bong hit and maybe lose some of his butthurt anger. I love how he hates America now that we've all given him and his party the middle finger.
As long as Rush is whining about what other Republicans say about him, Obama has free reign.
We are constantly reading your numerous posts, most of which were written by you under the influence . . .
And you don't see us ing about it, do you?
I listen to Rush infrequently; and have for 20 years; "Anger" is not something I would attribute to him.
"Blowhard" "Pompous" "Self-
Righteous" and he is certainly far less intellectual than he thinks he is; his is a knee-jerk conservatism delivered from the hip (as evidenced by his speech on Sat.)
He is VERY good at what he does; filling time in great swaths without a hiccup, and without notes - I've got a Radio producer neighbor who is just awed by that "gift". But again, "angry" is not what I hear when I listen to him; I hear "anger" far more from the left; in speeches at awards shows, etc....
Again, not a huge fan of Rush, but if someone could post quotes of his rampant anger (not isolated cases, please), it might be constructive.
Obama really needs to stop engaging Rush. It looks petty. Weak. Un-presidential.
If Rush is so pathetic and low, why does the White House even acknowledge his existence?
Was the behavior repeated, or do you count attacks by subordinates?
I suppose I'm including Gibbs and Emanuel, because they speak for the president.
For his part, Obama has slammed Rush multiple times, in two languages.
Do you have an exact count?
I hadn't been tracking it. Sounds like you were, doobs. Don't hold out on us, dude.
No exact count.
I recall Candidate Obama running some Spanish ad slamming Rush. I guess that's fair enough, because it was during a political campaign. But then President Obama told Republicans that they needed to stop listening to Rush. It seems Obama has a thing for Rush.
Then Gibbs and Emanuel--speaking in their official capacities as press secretary and chief of staff--talked trash about Rush.
This all seems calculated. They probably decided to try to make Rush the face of the GOP after reading some statistics that showed a majority of the country dislikes Rush.
They are trying to elevate Rush to make the GOP look pathetic. The problem, however, is that they risk demeaning themselves in the process. They also risk giving Rush a ton of free publicity, and the opportunity to convert those who dislike him maybe a little less than they dislike Obama's policies.
If momentarily, yes. The real count is really just once during Obama's presidency, isn't it doobs? One time.But then President Obama told Republicans that they needed to stop listening to Rush. It seems Obama has a thing for Rush
At any rate the hounds have already been released, so Rush will have a million new puny harrassers parsing him word for word.
The master does not descend into the melee, but watches from a distance.
I said "White House," by the way. Gibbs and Emanuel count.
You started by saying this:
Obama really needs to stop engaging Rush. It looks petty. Weak. Un-presidential.
The only appearance of the words "White House" in this thread.
Are you coffeed up, doobs?
Incorrect. WH23 is not coffeed up. doobs did say WH in his first post, but semi retracts his elaboration of this theme. doobs scores the horseshoes differently.
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-03-2009 at 12:44 PM.
So then, to be completely clear, by "multiple times" doobs means exactly twice, once as a candidate, and once as the President.
IMO the opinion that Obama has condescended to the level of a Rush by addressing him directly has legs even it was only posed satirically, but if the conduct isn't repeated, it won't go very far.
doobs counts the mischief of subordinates on Obama's tally. Fair enough. We'll see how much worse it can get.
good post. I concur with that assessment. He comes on as a know-it-all with little room for open debate unless you totally agree with him. Then it becomes a lovefest.
Back in the 90's - during the Gulf War I - I first got aquainted with Rush and liked what he said. He is a conservative and passionate about what he believes. But I also realiized that all talk show hosts, left, middle or right, are entertainers first because it is a business and advertising $$ are what count. Have a good sthick and build an audience. His sthick is politics.
I begin to drift away when he started his campaign of personal assasination against his detractors. He had for years complained about the Clinton class warfare tactics and how the Demos went after their enemies on a personal level. He always used to say he would shine the light of truth on them and debate the issues. Then he starts to use the same tactics himself. I found that hypocritical at best and he lost a lot of validity with me. Then add in the fact that he gets caught abusing perscription drugs after years of demoguging against those who did. Wow, wonder how he felt to finally walk in their shoes?
Humble pie would probably never make it on his menu.
And if he becomes the face/voice of the RP then that might be something the the Demos might welcome. He has a polarizing effect on people and for the most part you either like him or dislike him. If the RP wants to retake the white house then they need to build a concensus and constuct an agenda that wouuld attract more people and allow them to participate in the shaping of this country.
I don't see any issue with Hush becoming the face of the GOP..
reading a post and listing to someone on the radio are two different things.We are constantly reading your numerous posts, most of which were written by you under the influence . . .
And you don't see us ing about it, do you?
Don't you call into radio shows a lot?
gtown.
I'm not Korean.
I approve of the Emancipation Proclamation.
Rush misquoted the Declaration of Independence and thought he was quoting the Cons ution.
You can't start a thread with your other screen name because you're such a .
See, that was easy.
You're not korean...okya
you don't approve of the emancipation proclamation, stop you're lying racist!
Rush somehow has drunk your milkshake, quit the obsession.
I can't start a thread, there. I hope it can make you feel better about you're racist viewpoints.
See, didn't break a sweat.
Sure.
I do approve.you don't approve of the emancipation proclamation, stop you're lying racist
Rush somehow has drunk your milkshake, quit the obsession.
My viewpoints aren't racist and your inability to start threads coupled with your kissing ass to get that ability back is quite funny.I can't start a thread, there. I hope it can make you feel better about you're racist viewpoints.
You still can't start a thread with that screen name.See, didn't break a sweat.
Twice, that I know of. But I'm not keeping track. (I'm not exactly a dittohead.)
You have to take what Gibbs and Emanuel say seriously. You have to. They represent Obama, and Obama implicitly signs off on what they say. Perhaps he's since scolded them for bringing up the fat man. I don't know. I guess you're right. We'll see.
Maybe there's a simpler explanation than the administration wanting to make Rush the face of the GOP. (Though Obama is prone to straw-man arguments when confronting Republican opposition, but I digress . . . ) Perhaps this administration just has an extraordinarily thin skin. Gibbs went after Rick Santelli, remember? Now they're supposedly going after Jim Cramer.
Gibbs for sure has a combative streak, but maybe that's why they picked him. To mount an active defense of policies and identify opponents early.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
