Does this mean Rush Limbaugh hates America???

[Lemur]

Very astute analysis by both Don and Seamus. Let us hope that the Republican party regains its footing in the next couple of years; we can't survive long as a one-party nation, and I would really like the alternative to be sensible and palatable.

A good take on Rush Limbaugh's latest:

He’s out on a limb, Rush. His current themes are about Obama’s radicalism, which, with every day of the new administration, seems a less and less sellable image, and—say-again?—the new president’s racism. Obama’s the racist, you see, in one of those message inversions coded so as to speak to actual racists. (“Racism in this country is the exclusive province of the left.”)

It’s an unaccustomed verbal flailing: “Most of these guys came alive in the Civil Rights battles of the Sixties…” (When Barack Obama was under seven). Obama is being forced on us by a left-wing, racist, homosexual conspiracy: “We’re being told we have to bend over and grab the ankles.”

The game the president is playing is to make a testy, easy-to-arouse, fun-to-rankle Rush come to stand for an odd-ball, tone-deaf, blowhard far right that the rest of the desperate-to-be-liked Republican Party will eagerly distance itself from (if Rush is trying to capitalize on the panty-waist demeanor of so many of his fellow Republicans, he’s also got to suspect that they’ll sell him out.)

Rush’s game is to try to stay in the game. To find some plausible way to characterize and ridicule the president, which will justify the $400 million what-were-they-thinking contract he signed with Clear Channel over the summer. The pressure is on.

[Vladimir]

Rush’s game is to try to stay in the game. To find some plausible way to characterize and ridicule the president, which will justify the $400 million what-were-they-thinking contract he signed with Clear Channel over the summer. The pressure is on.[/indent]

*sigh* The same was said in 1992. The fact is that even though he isn't as good as he used to be he still is the best. Another Limbaugh fat joke? How does Michael Moore escape such shallow criticism? The thought that Limbaugh could be pushed into obscurity by his chief ideological rival, President Obama, is little more than wishful thinking on the writer's part.

[LittleGrizzly]

Another Limbaugh fat joke? How does Michael Moore escape such shallow criticism?

err.. Michael Moore doesn't have cheap jokes made about his weight ? i must have been hallucinating these last few years...

[Ronin]

Another Limbaugh fat joke? How does Michael Moore escape such shallow criticism?

err.. Michael Moore doesn't have cheap jokes made about his weight ? i must have been hallucinating these last few years...

and btw...have you seen Michael Moore lately?...the dude has lost a LOT of weight....so the jokes wouldn´t make sense anymore anyway.

[Lemur]

Also, I believe that men who are hip-deep in identity and victim politics, men who are willing to use anything and everything to attack their "enemies," men like, oh, Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh, deserve to get hit with fat jokes.

It's not as though they would refrain from the lowest common denominator to abuse their ideological opposites.

[Xiahou]

*sigh* The same was said in 1992. The fact is that even though he isn't as good as he used to be he still is the best. Another Limbaugh fat joke? How does Michael Moore escape such shallow criticism? The thought that Limbaugh could be pushed into obscurity by his chief ideological rival, President Obama, is little more than wishful thinking on the writer's part.

Yeah, the link showed some comically inept analysis.... The president of the country calling out of a talk radio show host will isolate him? More like free advertising.

Interestingly, just as I posted this, I caught a segment from none other than Chris Matthews were they discussed what a mistake it was for Obama to call out Limbaugh by name. I believe Matthews words were "My heart would have lusted after such a mention" during the Bush administration. They said it could set him up as the de facto leader of the Republicans.

[Lemur]

Here's some more analysis for your viewing pleasure:

Limbaugh drew huge coverage in the days leading up to Obama's inauguration when he declared that he hoped the new president would fail -- part of a broader condemnation of liberalism in the country.

Obama upped the ante late last week when in a private meeting with Republicans he referenced Limbaugh's brand of politics as a big reason why major legislation hadn't been passed in years.

Then on Monday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs offered another sly provocation of Limbaugh; asked to expand on Obama's comments about the talk show host, Gibbs demurred and then added: "Tell [Rush] I said hi."

Not surprisingly, Limbaugh took the bait. Of Obama, he said: "He's obviously more frightened of me than he is Mitch McConnell. He's more frightened of me, then he is of say, John Boehner, which doesn't say much about our party."

All of the back and forth between Limbaugh and Obama comes just days before the members of the Republican National Committee gather in Washington to elect the organization's next chairman -- a race that has been badly overshadowed by the first days of Obama's presidency.

"The party is in transition," said Ed Rogers, a Republican lobbyist and close ally of Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. "Our leaders have not found their voice or direction....Limbaugh is filling a vacuum in a world that requires a constant media counter-point."

[LittleGrizzly]

They said it could set him up as the de facto leader of the Republicans.

Wouldn't that work out quite well for Obama and Democrats, much better have this partisan hack as your opposition than some well spoken intelligent republican... I now who i'd rather have as an opponent.... or as my opponents voice...

[Papewaio]

To put it another way. How much would the Republicans love it to have Michael Moore as the defacto leader of the Democrats?

Politicians are great at giving out pork. Free publicity is another form of pork, particular for the media. So one has to question and understand 'Why?'. Does RL's rants strengthen or weaken the Republicans position at the polls? Is he preaching to the converted or is he winning the fence sitters, the very broad moderate middle who get overlooked when extremist politics gets played.

Who is gaining the most advantage to having RL as the mouthpiece?

[LittleGrizzly]

Who is gaining the most advantage to having RL as the mouthpiece?

Well probably RL himself first... and then maybe the political party you were thinking off...

[Fisherking]

The Democrats have always been better at attacking and marginalizing their opponents than the Republicans have.

It is just more of the same.

If RL plays into their hands then he is dumb. If he counter them and wins some how he gets more affiliates and a big pay raise.

The only reason the guy is there is because people like to here someone express their own values. Some one else will only take his place.

The Republicans could go away but people are not going to stop being conservative or liberal as defined by the parties. The will just get a new one…and one without much of the baggage that this one has. It might even be a good thing.

Some how the Democrats keep reinventing them selves even when you think they are on their last legs. I don’t know if that is good or bad. I suppose they just shift to where they think the people are.

Prior to FDR they were where the Republicans are now. Aimless!

How did Will Rogers put it; I don’t belong to any organized political party. I’m a Democrat!
Today it is true for the other side…but they have reversed their political positions.

Another 100 years and they may be reversed again.

[Lemur]

A very astute summation from a very astute guy:

Thus the Republicans, arguably, are in something of a death spiral. The more conservative, partisan, and strident their message becomes, the more they alienate non-base Republicans. But the more they alienate non-base Republicans, the fewer of them are left to worry about appeasing. Thus, their message becomes continually more appealing to the base -- but more conservative, partisan, and strident to the rest of us. And the process loops back upon itself.

This is not good. We need at least two parties in this country, and it does nobody any good if one of them curls up and loses itself in a fit of ideological-purity purges.

And speaking of ideological purity, didja notice how the guy who dared to criticize Rush had to go grovelling for forgiveness?

[Xiahou]

A very astute summation from a very astute guy:

Thus the Republicans, arguably, are in something of a death spiral. The more conservative, partisan, and strident their message becomes, the more they alienate non-base Republicans. But the more they alienate non-base Republicans, the fewer of them are left to worry about appeasing. Thus, their message becomes continually more appealing to the base -- but more conservative, partisan, and strident to the rest of us. And the process loops back upon itself.

This is not good. We need at least two parties in this country, and it does nobody any good if one of them curls up and loses itself in a fit of ideological-purity purges.

Hasn't McCain disproved the Democrat-lite strategy of elections? If the GOP is damaged by opposing Obama, it's because they aren't explaining themselves well enough. How will they contrast themselves as an alternative to the Democrats by going along with everything?

Obama's new definition of "bipartisanship" is "agreeing with us". House Republicans were essentially shut out of the crafting of the stimulus bill, yet they're the bad guys for then opposing it? It sounds to me like the administration just wants Republican support as cover for when this turd of a bill starts to stink.

[Lemur]

How will they contrast themselves as an alternative to the Democrats by going along with everything anything?

Fixed. I love how the Congressional Repubs woke up January 21st and discovered that our nation runs a deficit. Who knew? And they don't like it one bit! Why, if they had know about this "deficit" thingy back when they had absolute power, they would have, well, thought about doing something about it. But now that they're the minority party, by gum, they're angry as hell about debt and unbalanced budgets!

[Xiahou]

Fixed. I love how the Congressional Repubs woke up January 21st and discovered that our nation runs a deficit. Who knew? And they don't like it one bit! Why, if they had know about this "deficit" thingy back when they had absolute power, they would have, well, thought about doing something about it. But now that they're the minority party, by gum, they're angry as hell about debt and unbalanced budgets!

Would you prefer it if they were still on the "Yay deficits, yay pork!" bandwagon with the Democrats? Democrats have gone from whining about fiscal responsibility to piling up the pork so fast that there was a sonic boom.

The Republicans were elected on very conservative platforms. By the time Bush got into office, they had already forgotten most of their promises in favor of trying to feather their own nests. They got voted out of power and are now making an attempt at returning to the principles that got them elected and we're being told it will be the death of them?

[Lemur]

Would you prefer it if they were still on the "Yay deficits, yay pork!" bandwagon with the Democrats?

I would prefer that they admit they have been part of the problem, and show some hint of shame or remorse. By my calculations, the Repubs have been bigger spenders than the Dems, and yet they claim to adhere to fiscal conservatism. And now that they're the minority, suddenly they're dead serious about deficits. It only took them eight days or so. It's laughable.

Do you believe the the Gov attempting to do anything to shorten the recession, X?

[Fisherking]

Oh come on Lemur! You are surprised that the party in office spends like there is no tomorrow while the opposition complains? And you think that Politicians should apologize?

Aren’t you the guy that is crying that two parties are needed?

Come on the only difference in the parties is which lie they choose to tell and which one is in office spending the country into a hole!

[Xiahou]

Do you believe the the Gov attempting to do anything to shorten the recession, X?

Yes. Do you believe that this "stimulus" bill is anything other than a Christmas tree for Congress to hang all their pet projects on, and ram it through using our economic crisis as cover?

Ask Gibbs- resodding the Mall would've been stimulus. Or ask Pelosi- handing out birth control is stimulus! If the government is handing out money- it's stimulus. Why do you hate the economy?

I would prefer that they admit they have been part of the problem, and show some hint of shame or remorse.

Now that would cause a death spiral. "Sorry America, we were wrong, it's all our fault. Vote for us now, k?"

[Lemur]

Yes. Do you believe that this "stimulus" bill is anything other than a Christmas tree for Congress to hang all their pet projects on, and ram it through using our economic crisis as cover?

I honestly don't know about that. It could very well be just as bad as the Patriot Act most of these same Republican jokers rammed through after 9/11. It's possible.

Or ask Pelosi- handing out birth control is stimulus!

What is it with Republicans and sexual panic? Here's a doctor talking about contraception.

To understand how this works, it is helpful to look at California's experience with a state-funded contraception and family planning initiative for women with incomes between 100% and 200% of the poverty level:

Four years after implementing the program, California saved an estimated $500 million in public health care spending, net of what they spent on the program itself. In fact, for every dollar invested in the program, the state of California saved an estimated $5.33, over a period of five years. These are conservative estimates that do not include money saved through increased productivity and cost savings from reductions in paid medical leave and sick days that result from unplanned pregnancies. Few other public spending plans can boast such a positive return on investment.

Or, as Drudge would say, Nancy Pelosi is handing out a trillion dollars' worth of STD-ridden condoms to illegal immigrants for gay sex while the earth enters a new ice age.

[Xiahou]

I honestly don't know about that. It could very well be just as bad as the Patriot Act most of these same Republican jokers rammed through after 9/11. It's possible.

Awww, is that a troll? How cute. I was never a fan of the PATRIOT ACT though. Keep trying, you'll find some better bait eventually.

Really though, the two are about as completely unrelated as two bills could be. We're talking about a wasteful spending bill that is approaching almost 1 trillion dollars and your only response is "but the patriot act!".

What is it with Republicans and sexual panic? Here's a doctor talking about contraception.

To understand how this works, it is helpful to look at California's experience with a state-funded contraception and family planning initiative for women with incomes between 100% and 200% of the poverty level:

Four years after implementing the program, California saved an estimated $500 million in public health care spending, net of what they spent on the program itself. In fact, for every dollar invested in the program, the state of California saved an estimated $5.33, over a period of five years. These are conservative estimates that do not include money saved through increased productivity and cost savings from reductions in paid medical leave and sick days that result from unplanned pregnancies. Few other public spending plans can boast such a positive return on investment.

Or, as Drudge would say, Nancy Pelosi is handing out a trillion dollars' worth of STD-ridden condoms to illegal immigrants for gay sex while the earth enters a new ice age.

I think "Nofuzzydreams" said it best:

Fine so have a debate in the house for appropriating money to the cause and since Democrats are the majority let them approve funding as part of the normal appropriations process. The point is that this is funding a worthy cause like many but does not belong in a emergency stimulus package. Turning this into an abortion debate is simply miguided.

The argument you put forth is that birth control is good policy because it saves the healthcare system money. Saving the healthcare system money is NOT stimulus. It does not belong in an emergency stimulus bull. It's a textbook example of Democrats slipping their wishlists into the bill and trying to label it all stimulus.

[Lemur]

We're talking about a wasteful spending bill that is approaching almost 1 trillion dollars and your only response is "but the patriot act!".

And here I thought I was being honest by saying, "I don't know."

Saving the healthcare system money is NOT stimulus. It does not belong in an emergency stimulus bull.

I see your point, although I think it's borderline silly to worry about small-change contraception funding in a bill of this size. But telling that Repubs would focus on it, all the same.

-edit-

Here's an interesting alternative proposal:

Instead of fighting Dems on the dollar amount of spending, knowing that we would lose that fight in any event, we could have stood with Obama and called for large high-tech infrastructure projects that would employ large numbers of minorities in construction and white collar suburbanites in development. These projects (high speed rail corridors as an example) would also capture the imagination of the green close-in suburbs that are turning viciously against the GOP and have the strategic benefit of jamming up the young Dem members (Webb/Warner/Hagan/McCaskill) who depended on these voters for their victories.

Then again, we could just listen to Rush and harken back to the 1980s when Ronald Reagan supposedly curbed spending.

[drone]

I think "Nofuzzydreams" said it best:The argument you put forth is that birth control is good policy because it saves the healthcare system money. Saving the healthcare system money is NOT stimulus. It does not belong in an emergency stimulus bull.

I'm sure some people are stimulated by good birth-control policy.

[Spino]

A very astute summation from a very astute guy:

Thus the Republicans, arguably, are in something of a death spiral. The more conservative, partisan, and strident their message becomes, the more they alienate non-base Republicans. But the more they alienate non-base Republicans, the fewer of them are left to worry about appeasing. Thus, their message becomes continually more appealing to the base -- but more conservative, partisan, and strident to the rest of us. And the process loops back upon itself.

Bah, more of the same blend of apocalyptic alarmism and wishful thinking from the ideological left. The notion that the average pleb has abandoned conservatism for liberalism is ridiculous. Most of the moderate plebs that voted for Obama couldn't name his running mate, let alone his cabinet appointees. Most people vote with their wallets and/or vote with the herd. Right or wrong GW Bush was everyone's whipping boy on everything from Iraq, global warming to the credit/mortgage crisis. McCain did incredibly well in the election considering the economic conditions and how badly Bush's name tainted the GOP.

The Republican party now finds itself in the same exact position the Democratic party occupied during the first Bush administration. As with the Democrats these Republicans won't learn their lessons and won't change their ways. All they need to do is bide their time, fight the majority and wait. This massive recession leaves very little room for error and the population is not nearly as patient, hard working or 'hardy' as it was back when the Depression hit. Mark my words, over the next 4 years Obama and the Democrats will run wild with their insane spending and zany antics only to find themselves cast into the wilderness and taking up residence in the same log cabin of shame & irrelevance the Republicans currently occupy. Wash, rinse repeat.

[Spino]

I would prefer that they admit they have been part of the problem, and show some hint of shame or remorse. By my calculations, the Repubs have been bigger spenders than the Dems, and yet they claim to adhere to fiscal conservatism. And now that they're the minority, suddenly they're dead serious about deficits. It only took them eight days or so. It's laughable.

Do you believe the the Gov attempting to do anything to shorten the recession, X?

You're honestly telling me you're looking for a sense of ethnical & moral closure... from politicians?!?

Give the Democrats time, they've done a bang up job of pissing away $$$ for the last two years. I'll wager they're going to match or beat the Republican fiscal transgressions that took place during the Bush administration... and do it in less time!

[Lemur]

The Republican party is in the exact same position the Democrat party has occupied a couple of times over the past 30+ years.

Grammar note: If it's the "Democrat party" then it should also be the "Republic party." Find some consistency, man.

[Spino]

Grammar note: If it's the "Democrat party" then it should also be the "Republic party." Find some consistency, man.

I HAZ GRAMMARZ!

[Xiahou]

Grammar note: If it's the "Democrat party" then it should also be the "Republic party." Find some consistency, man.

Democrat party members are Democrats. Republican party members are Republicans. Democratic party members would be Democratics. It's simple- see?

[KukriKhan]

If they had just let him buy the St. Louis Rams, or be on Monday Night Football, or keep that gig on ESPN, he'd have been too busy to be a pain in the side. That's all the boy ever wanted: some grid-iron love.

But, spurned love has driven him to his second choice: bugging LIB-ruhlz, and making them squirm. Now he, and the rest of right-wing talk radio, have a built-in cause to bring up anytime they need to fill air-time; the "Fairness Doctrine", and how the evil Dem's will try to shut them up.

Rush, Hannity, Beck, Savage, O'Rielly... all of them mention something about that within their 3rd hour of talk, everyday.

[Lemur]

Democrat party members are Democrats. Republican party members are Republicans. Democratic party members would be Democratics. It's simple- see?

At moments like this, I have to wonder about you, Xiahou.

Do we need to go over the difference between an adjective and a noun again? For a guy who's such a stickler when he hears something he doesn't like, you show a shocking laxity when it comes to pushing bad info. Here, let me Google that for you:

Definition and proper usage of "democratic." That wasn't so hard, now was it? What do you know, it's a real word and it applies to the Democratic Party.

No matter how much you disdain the Dems, why not do the right thing and use the correct term? Do a favor to grammar and usage, and make yourself seem like less of a purely partisan creature at the same time. Double bonus!

[Lord Winter]

At moments like this, I have to wonder about you, Xiahou.

Do we need to go over the difference between an adjective and a noun again? For a guy who's such a stickler when he hears something he doesn't like, you show a shocking laxity when it comes to pushing bad info. Here, let me Google that for you:

Definition and proper usage of "democratic." That wasn't so hard, now was it? What do you know, it's a real word and it applies to the Democratic Party.

No matter how much you disdain the Dems, why not do the right thing and use the correct term? Do a favor to grammar and usage, and make yourself seem like less of a purely partisan creature at the same time. Double bonus!

and the point of this grammer lesson is?