Reply With Quote
I seriously feel bad for the average person who doesn't educate themselves on politics daily and is left to listen to these pathetic snakes twist the truth and brainwash them.
I hope Rachel Maddow fails.
I'm sitting here watching this idiot Rachel Maddow talk about Rush while on Jay Leno. She is ing and ing in typical bag character, until Leno finally says "To be fair, is he saying he wants Obama to fail or his policies to fail." Of course this liberal cheerleader says "No, he actually wants Obama to fail."
Over the past days all of these liberal bags on MSNBC and all the other Obama cheerleader channels have been talking about RUSH RUSH RUSH RUSH RUSH. Yet not one single person that I have listened to even tells the American people what Rush really ing said.
They are either smart enough to understand his message in the context, he makes a great point, so they ignore it and say he means something else.
Or they are too ing stupid to put something into context.
Either way, I am ing sick of these people. Their new messiah is doing such a ty job they are desperately clinging onto this Rush thing way too hard.
I seriously feel bad for the average person who doesn't educate themselves on politics daily and is left to listen to these pathetic snakes twist the truth and brainwash them.
I hope Rachel Maddow fails.
Nah, I read from enough sources to know when someone is bull ting me.
I am constantly listening to and trying to figure out what far-left liberals know that I don't. Not the control hungry politicians, but the good intentioned decent liberals.
It's so easy to see these Obama cheerleader political analysts all following orders by missing the point and lying in this matter. There can't be this many stupid people after having reached the pinnacle of their profession.
Rush misquoted the Declaration of Independence and misattributed it to the Cons ution.
That's what he said while accepting the award for Defender of the Cons ution.
^yet another drive-by liberal media type taking El Rushbo out of context.Rush misquoted the Declaration of Independence and misattributed it to the Cons ution.
That's what he said while accepting the award for Defender of the Cons ution.
How does an asshat like Rush go through life with no bullets and yet this guy is dead?
I think it's funny how so many people especially liberals and Democrats care what Rush has to say. Who honestly takes Rush serious? The guy is just a talking head.
Who takes him seriously? Every GOP politician who has gone groveling back to him.
Thats the point.
I could care less about Rush Limbaugh or what he's said or hasn't said.
Frankly, if he's hoping that Obama fails -- or even hoping that Obama's policies fail -- I think he's patently unpatriotic (after all, those who opposed certain policies of the prior Administration were giddily labeled unpatriotic by those on the right; there's precedent).
But the funny part of this entire episode has little to do with what Rush Limbaugh said or didn't say; it's the unwillingness of Republican/conservative power players to stand by their criticisms of Rush and their immediate moves to kiss Limbaugh's ring when he calls those power players out. THAT -- more than anything else -- makes it seem apparent that Rush is the leader of the GOP in some significant sense.
And from what Gibbs and Obama have had to say over the past couple of weeks, it seems apparent that the administration is scared of Rush in some significant sense, or at least incredibly thin skinned (oh, add Santelli and Cramer in as well).
But I guess that's what hope and change gets you these days - an administration more concerned about criticism it's receiving in the media for its socialist bull than actually leading this country out of the current economic situation.
He's certainly appears a defacto leader - and it is hurting Republicans. Yet, he keeps it up; relishes it, throws fuel on the fire. Why? Because he could give a about those weak asshats, that's why. If one of them criticizes him; OF COURSE he's gonna slam that dude - people tune it for that, right? Controvercy and conflict are the BIGGEST sellers in media, after all. When that guy then cows; that's not Rush's problem; he picked up another million listeners for a few hours, and probably several hundred million more dollars. I think Dude's contract is 2nd only to Oprah's!A ship with no rudder travels which ever way the currents take it.
- Me
He's the leader, not because he specifically went out to grab the le, but because the Democrats gave it to him, and no Republican is willing to take it - either by direct claim or action. , that's a major reason why the Republicans are in the boat they are in; they have had NO conservative leader since Gingrich left - they've had Bush/Cheney politics; which defined, and continues to define conservatism, but which was NOT conservative. They spent WAY too much capital and energy overseas, and at no time were they concerned with actual fiscal responsibility. They have filled the Democrats and liberals quivers with arrows - they rode out into the sunset for other people to deal with them.
But again, if ANY Republican had taken the reigns, or would take the reigns of the party - they could begin to right the ship. As it is what Republicans "are" is going to continue to be defined by Limbaugh and the triumvirate of Carville, Begala, and Emmanuel.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...politico/19596
Gold Rush: Dems launch Operation Rushbo
Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House.
The strategy took shape after Democrats included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise.
Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.
Limbaugh is embracing the line of attack, suggesting a certain symbiosis between him and his political adversaries.
"The Administration is enabling me,” he wrote in an email to POLITICO. “They are expanding my profile, expanding my audience and expanding my influence. An ever larger number of people are now being exposed to the antidote to Obamaism: conservatism, as articulated by me. An ever larger number of people are now exposed to substantive warnings, analysis and criticism of Obama's policies and intentions, a ‘story’ I own because the [mainstream media] is largely the Obama Press Office.”
The bigger, the better, agreed Democrat James Carville. “It’s great for us, great for him, great for the press,” he said of Limbaugh. “The only people he’s not good for are the actual Republicans in Congress.”
If Limbaugh himself were to coin a phrase for it, he might call it Operation Rushbo – an idea that started out simply enough but quickly proved to be deeply resonant by a rapid succession of events, say Democrats inside and outside the West Wing.
The seeds were planted in October after Democracy Corps, the Democratic polling company run by Carville and Stanley Greenberg, included Limbaugh’s name in a survey and found that many Americans just don’t like him.
“His positives for voters under 40 was 11 percent,” Carville recalled with a degree of amazement, alluding to a question about whether voters had a positive or negative view of the talk show host.
Paul Begala, a close friend of Carville, Greenberg and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, said they found Limbaugh’s overall ratings were even lower than the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s controversial former pastor, and William Ayers, the domestic terrorist and Chicago resident who Republicans sought to tie to Obama during the campaign.
Then came what Begala called “the tripwire.”
“I hope he fails,” Limbaugh said of Obama on his show four days before the president was sworn in. It was a time when Obama’s approval ratings were soaring, but more than that, polls showed even people who didn’t vote for him badly wanted him to succeed, coming to office at a time of economic meltdown.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee was the first to jump on the statement, sending the video to its membership to raise cash and stir a pe ion drive.
“We helped get the ball rolling on this because we’re looking and listening to different Republican voices around the country, and the one that was the loudest and getting the most attention was Rush Limbaugh,” explained DCCC chairman and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)
Soon after, Americans United for Change, a liberal group, was airing Limbaugh’s statement in an ad aimed at pushing Senate Republicans to support the stimulus bill.
“It just cropped up out of how much play that comment was getting on the air,” said Brad Woodhouse, who runs the group and is about to take over as communications director at the Democratic National Committee. “When we did it and it generated so much press, it just started to snowball from there.”
But liberals quickly realized that trying to drive a wedge between congressional Republicans and Limbaugh was unlikely to work, and their better move was to paint the GOP as beholden to the talk show host.
This was driven home to them, according to one Democrat, when Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) took a shot at Limbaugh in late January only to appear on his program the next day and plead having momentarily had “foot-in-mouth disease.”
By February, Carville and Begala were pounding on Limbaugh frequently in their appearances on CNN.
Neither Democrat would say so, but a third source said the two also began pushing the idea of targeting Limbaugh in their daily phone conversations with Emanuel.
Conversations and email exchanges began taking place in and out of the White House not only between the old pals from the Clinton era but also including White House senior adviser David Axelrod, Deputy Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Woodhouse.
The White House needed no more convincing after Limbaugh’s hour-plus performance Saturday, celebrated on the right and mocked on the left, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, where he re-stated his hope Obama fails.
“He kicked this into full-gear at CPAC by reiterating it,” said a senior White House official of Limbaugh.
By Sunday morning, Emanuel elevated the strategy by bringing up the conservative talker, unprompted, on CBS’s “Face the Nation” and calling him the “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party.”
Even Republican National Chairman Michael Steele joined in with a surprising critique of Limbaugh as a mere “entertainer,” who is “ugly” and “incendiary.”
“He took a little match we had tossed on the leaves and poured gasoline on it,” said one Democrat of Steele.
Steele was forced into calling Limbaugh to apologize Monday, an embarrassing climb-down following the RNC chairman’s criticism of the conservative talk-show host.
But Democrats kept at it in rapid-fire succession, thrilled that Steele had validated their claim that Republicans were scared to cross Limbaugh.
Americans United for Change launched a new ad featuring Limbaugh’s CPAC appearance. A left-leaning media watchdog group began a new Limbaugh tracking homepage. Democratic National Chairman Tim Kaine tweaked Steele for his apology. Terry McAuliffe tried to inject Limbaugh into the Virginia governor’s race. The DCCC launched a new website, www.imsorryrush.com, mocking the Republicans who have had to apologize to Limbaugh.
And Gibbs served up a made-for-cable-TV quote to end his daily briefing Tuesday.
“I was a little surprised at the speed in which Mr. Steele, the head of the RNC, apologized to the head of the Republican Party,” Gibbs quipped with a grin, before striding out of the press room.
David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager last year and a member of his inner circle still, will publish an op-ed in Wednesday’s Washington Post chiding Republicans for being “paralyzed with fear of crossing their leader.”
A senior White House aide has been tasked with helping to guide the Limbaugh strategy.
Outside, Americans United for Choice, a liberal group, and the Democratic National Committee are driving the message, in close consultation with the White House.
Democrats can barely suppress their smiles these days, overjoyed at the instant-ad imagery of Limbaugh clad in Johnny Cash-black at CPAC and, more broadly, at what they see as their success in managing to further marginalize a party already on the outs.
“I want to send Rush a bottle of vitamins,” said Begala. “We need him to stay healthy and loud and proud.”
With President George W. Bush and Vice-President Cheney out of the White House and Tom DeLay gone from Congress, the left had been suddenly absent an unpopular right-wing figure.
Few Americans know who the congressional Republican leaders are. Even Sarah Palin is now four time zones away from Washington.
Enter Limbaugh.
It’s something of a back to the future tactic for Democrats: painting the GOP as the party of the angry white male. But unlike Newt Gingrich or other prominent Republicans, Limbaugh doesn’t have to mind his tongue.
And the liberal political apparatus is at battle stations taking note of his every comment.
Media Matters, the left-leaning media watchdog and advocacy group, began a “Limbaugh Wire” web-site Tuesday to track him. “For a long time Americans haven’t really been aware that he’s so influential,” said Eric Burns, the group’s president.
Democrats are now working hard to ensure that changes.
“He’s driving the Republican reluctance to deal with Obama, which Americans want,” said Greenberg. “He’s the policeman [keeping them in line].”
They’ll all get a fresh hook for the story after Wednesday, when a Democratic polling firm goes into the field to test, among other things, Limbaugh’s standing with the public.
All the attention only offers upside for the buzz-hungry Limbaugh, said Carville.
“The television cameras just can’t stay away from him,” Carville said Tuesday, a day when cable news played images of Limbaugh seemingly on a loop. “Our strategy depends on him keeping talking, and I think we’re going to succeed.”
I would argue that Gingrich is a big fat neoliberal pansy too, but this is a solid conservative take, warts and all.
Wish I saw more of those. Whiny partisan apologetics has mostly replaced political thought, on this board like everywhere else.
Kudos to you, 101A, for daring to operate outside the ty dualism. .
Republicans are losing the war of ideas and perceptions for people under 40, apparently.
Limbaugh is the albatross around your neck, and is perched right up there with Bush and Cheney.
If new voters start going substantially Democratic, things do not look good in the long term for the GOP, and if Obama DOES manage to pull things out of the fire, or at least make it look as if he is halfway competant if things go badly, it will be even worse for the GOP in congress.
Heh, talk about pegging it, both the politico article, and what I just posted that sums this up fairly succinctly agree with this.
Meh. People are lemmings; political winds shifts; they shift with them.
I could give a crap about the future; the present is chilling.
The younger generation has had their ideas formed with an unpopular Republican President fighting an unpopular war - then presiding over an economy in free fall. They have then seen the savior rise and promise this that and the other miracle. When they see ALL politicians are capable of screwing things up, some will swing back the other way.
Obama's plans, IMO are not going to pull us out of the fire, but he will probably always look and sound competent - although on this recent Russian/Iranian/Missile deal he came off as a neophyte.
Also, if status quo holds - and domestic politics dominate, it'll probably work for him in the time being. If we get hit, especially if we get hit hard; ALL bets are off - everything changes.
Well he is and Russian diplomacy is no joke.
Nothing was promised in the secret letter. Effectively all Obama has done is establish a back channel on missile defense with the Russians. It's not too early for Obama to consider that, not at all, but it is a lot to put on the shoulders of his new Secretary of State while she mediates the Arab-Israeli conflict.
So let me get this straight: you're adopting the right's (alleged) argument that those who disagree with the president are unpatriotic. Does that mean you agree that those who opposed the Iraq war were unpatriotic? (Your little "after all" comment reeked of butt-hurtedness, by the way.)
Is it unpatriotic to hope Obama fails politically? No, of course not. I just don't want him to enact a left-wing agenda. I want him to fail at that endeavor. I want the Democrats to lose congressional seats in 2010. I want Obama to lose reelection if he continues governing from the left. I don't know this for sure, but I bet that's what Rush meant.
drive-by....if you use that term are you not a lemming.
Most of us can recall from recent experience that the catastrophe changes everything.
I'm not personally sanguine about the attempted rescue. You can hardly fault it for being attempted, but we also have to face that the attempt not just to cheat disaster (valorous and worthy) but to deny its very existence (craven, dishonest) is what led us to this point.
I'm not entirely sure I am comfortable with the bare-knuckle politics, but it is about the equivalent of the Pelosi-bashing that goes on for the right, so I guess we get another dose of politics as usual from both parties.
I don't entirely think that is a bad thing, though. Compe ion of ideas and all that.
What does FWD seem to be butthurt about, in your opinion? Do you like being called a traitor for a mere differences of opinion?
I thought it was flippancy, but I could be wrong.
Sure. The liberal cries of "traitor" are more mocking than sincere IMO, but that does not make them any less lame and unpersuasive.
It was chicken in 2001-9 and it still is.
Pelosi is an elected official.
Anyway, if there was any doubt about Team Obama's plans regarding Limbaugh, David Plouffe has come out and said Rush is leader of the GOP:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1
I really think this strategy is foolish. People on the left underestimate Limbaugh's ability to persuade through humor. A great many Americans are impressionable--in the mushy middle--and Limbaugh can reach them. An administration that targets and spars with an influential private citizen like Limbaugh will accomplish two things: (1) demeaning the President; and (2) picking a fight, at a disadvantage. (Rush has three hours a day, five days a week to make his point to millions.)
No one ever called him a traitor, or unpatriotic. (Those are two different thing, by the way.) That's what I don't understand--this imagined narrative about those opposed to the Iraq war having being labeled traitors, or unpatriotic. If it happened, then it was wrong. But to now adopt that argument in reference to those opposed to Obama, even if in jest, yes, that's butt-hurtedness.
Anyway, there's an important distinction to observe. Hoping for the political failure of the president is different from hoping for the failure of the country. For example, although opposition to the war was not unpatriotic, hoping for American soldiers to die and for the US to lose in Iraq is unpatriotic. Once the war started, you hope for the best. There was some professor at Columbia who said something about wanting a million Mogadishus, or something. That was an unpatriotic thing to say. But hoping Bush failed, politically, in his desire to invade Iraq was not unpatriotic.
Likewise, opposing Obama politically is not unpatriotic or wrong. But you should always hope for the best, that his policies don't screw the country up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
