Nothing Personal, But I Hope You All Fail

What's wrong with rooting against our elected officials?

David Harsanyi | March 4, 2009

Is it inherently unpatriotic or immoral to want to see a president fail? After chewing over the larger implications of that vital question, I've come to a conclusion: I am a twisted human being. Thankfully, I'm not alone.

You see, when I'm not wasting time greedily praying to be rich, I plead with some higher power to sentence my middling local representatives to painful obscurity and professional failure. My congresswoman, for instance, carries an intellectual confidence so severely out of step with her skill set that the promise of disappointment, I trust, one day will bring me great joy.

If we can't look to our politicians to fulfill our yearly schadenfreude quota, whom can we trust?

Which brings me to radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who recently, at a conservative conference, had the temerity to reiterate his desire that President Barack Obama "fail"—not the economy or nation, mind you, but the politician. Pundits across the nation went into apoplectic tizzy fits over such blasphemous and ugly thoughts.

Since when is rooting for the success of an ideologically driven elected official a civic duty, you may wonder? Wonder no more. It merely depends on the politician.

Limbaugh's comments were, apparently, so abhorrent that the host is accused now of being the de facto voice of conservatism and the Republican Party.

That, as we all know, is technically impossible, considering someone actually is listening to Rush Limbaugh. Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, went so far as to call the radio host the "voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party."

That is a neat trick. If Limbaugh is the voice of conservatism, conservatism must want Obama and, thus, America to fail. After eight years of seething hatred—plenty of it deserved—for George W. Bush, this brand of contrived indignation touches a new level of creative dishonesty.

Of course, there is always some gullible and amateurish Republican spokesman—which is to Washington what a hooker is to Las Vegas (or, uh, so I'm told)—who picks a needlessly counterproductive fight with Limbaugh. Inevitably, the Republican offers a feeble apology regarding the "inarticulate" or "inartful" initial statement.

The Democrats call this transaction "kissing the ring."

Democrats don't kiss rings. They don't pick fights with allies. Democrats are about peace, after all. Half the Democratic Party's leaders would show up at a Daily Kos convention, and that Web site peddles some of the hardest far-left ideas in this country. I guess you could make the case that progressive bloggers are the intellectual force and energy behind the Democratic Party.

Democrats don't tell union bosses who bankroll their campaigns to buzz off. They rarely question their president. Congress doesn't even bother reading the trillion-dollar bills they send to Obama to sign.

Republicans, conversely, are fighting over their future—a future that grass-roots figures, such as Limbaugh, certainly will be a part of. In the meantime, Democrats are hoping Republicans fail to come to a consensus and regroup, even though two vibrant parties are always healthier for the nation than one.

And many of us are hoping that all those in power fail, because those in power have a grating habit of being annoyingly self-righteous, hopelessly corrupt, resolutely incompetent and completely apathetic about the freedoms that they have sworn to protect.

Embrace the failure. It's patriotic.

COPYRIGHT 2009 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

Comments

|3.4.09 @ 12:06PM|#

Since, as we have had pounded into our heads for eight years, dissent is the highest form of patriotism, isn't it actually unpatriotic to hope the President succeeds?

|3.4.09 @ 12:07PM|#

Is it inherently unpatriotic or immoral to want to see a president fail?

Probably not. But it's small. And it's petty. Right up there with him and his audience.

|3.4.09 @ 12:11PM|#

My congresswoman, for instance, carries an intellectual confidence so severely out of step with her skill set that the promise of disappointment, I trust, one day will bring me great joy.

I don't suppose that would be Louise Slaughter by any chance? I only ask because she use to by my rep many years ago and I had similar feelings. Two decades later, and her failure to fail has only increased.

|3.4.09 @ 12:13PM|#

Does it look from that picture like even Limbaugh has Rush Limbaugh wispering in his ear?

Warty|3.4.09 @ 12:13PM|#

Did anyone else cringe a little bit when Michael Steele called himself inarticulate?

Adam|3.4.09 @ 12:14PM|#

It's immoral - or repulsive, or whatever you want to call it - to root for a politician's failure because of his party, not his policies.

Is there anyone out there who thinks that Rush would be rooting for Obama to fail if he was a Republican? Limbaugh is the personification of partisan insanity - supporting or opposing proposals purely because of who they come from and not their content.

I know that "bipartisanship" is just code for agreeing to support each other's big-government fantasies, but it would be nice to have some ideological and policy-based disagreements instead of just yelling at people just because they're wearing the wrong jersies.

fyodor|3.4.09 @ 12:14PM|#

Rush Limbaugh, who recently, at a conservative conference, had the temerity to reiterate his desire that President Barack Obama "fail"-not the economy or nation, mind you, but the politician

David, I haven't seen the full quote, but it's hard to imagine how Obama would fail at this point in time without it being a failure to improve the economy or protect the nation.

I have to do the Cathy Young on this, though, because when it comes to partisan politics, I really can't see any substantive differences in the parties, even if there may be minor differences in style.

As for coming up with some principle that stands on its own and applies universally, I could only say that it's a paradox. It's not entirely ignoble to want what you see as misguided policies to fail badly enough to be widely seen for their misguidedness so they are more quickly abandoned before they can cause long-term harm. But one's gotta realize that you're wishing short-term harm on folks in the service of the longer term vision, and that there may likely be folks who don't appreciate that (and will use it against you politically!).

But all that said, it's only talk (and wishing). As long as it's not the type of talk that has real effects on the real world, such as giving comfort to the enemy, I don't see how it really matters much one way or another.

Gimme Back My Dog|3.4.09 @ 12:14PM|#

What surprised me about Rush's comments is that he drew an analogy to a Steeler's fan wishing Kurt Warner to fail at the end of the Super Bowl.

For years, we have been asserting that the hard-core D's and R's are more interested in seeing their "team" win than in any policy difference between the two parties, only to have it denied by the partisan commenters. Nice to see one of the partisans confirm his true motivation.

|3.4.09 @ 12:16PM|#

I don't know much about Rush, but have to say that I hope the proposed budget fails to pass...

|3.4.09 @ 12:19PM|#

There's nothing immoral about "wishing" anything. Unless you have a genie offering you some, it's just thoughts and can't affect anyone.

I wish everyone in Washington would be tried for fraud and theft, and then get thrown in SuperMAX. I don't feel the slightest bit immoral.

|3.4.09 @ 12:22PM|#

I for one would love to see socialism succeed. What an easy world it would be if only socialism worked. Sadly, it doesn't. It kills me when people talk about "market ideology". That makes about as much sense as talking about "gravity ideology". Markets are just the word we use to describe how people behave. It is the way the world is. If you don't like that fact, then go live in some other world.

Sadly, obama is going to fail miserably and do incalcuable damage to the country and the world. I wish that wasn't true, but sadly it is. I don't wish for failure. I just comment on the fact that that is what is goin to happen. Let me ask you, when you see a car headed for a cliff, does saying, "wow that car is going off that cliff", make you a gravity ideologist?

ed|3.4.09 @ 12:27PM|#

Can anyone here name a single Democrat who didn't want George Bush to "fail"?
The hypocrisy amongst the left astounds me even now, after I thought I'd seen every political depravity imaginable in this nation.

|3.4.09 @ 12:27PM|#

What surprised me about Rush's comments...

You know what surprised me about Rush's comments? What I find so unfathomably baffling and utterly incomprehensible? It's that anyone even bothers to listen when Rush speaks anymore, that's what.

|3.4.09 @ 12:32PM|#

Obama's appeal to white people lies largly in two areas; white guilt and desire to vote for a black person, and two the idea that the smart and cool set support Obama. This thing is aimed at fortifying the second. A lot of people are seeing their retirements and 401Ks disapear. All this is is Obama appealing urban whites' class prejudice and vanity. If objecting to Obama means being associated with Rush and the people who listen to him, upper class whites will be less likly to say anything, even if Obama means transferring all of their wealth to baby boomer retirees and the government.

TofuSushi|3.4.09 @ 12:36PM|#

Is there anyone out there who thinks that Rush would be rooting for Obama to fail if he was a Republican?

He certainly was rooting against the same policies, that were on a smaller scale, when Bush was in office.

See also immigration reform.

|3.4.09 @ 12:37PM|#

Limbaugh has an 11% positive rating among all voters under 40.

The "conservative" movement is tied to Bush, failure in Iraq, Creationism, enormous deficits, anti-intellectualism, and bigotry.

Sure, reinforce Limbaugh as leader of the conservative movement!

Stupid fuckers - its your own grave you are digging.

Taktix®|3.4.09 @ 12:39PM|#

Did anyone else cringe a little bit when Michael Steele...

...does anything?

Yes. His appointment is from the Run-Alan-Keyes-Against-Obama-Because-They're-Both-Black school of political thought...

|3.4.09 @ 12:40PM|#

"Limbaugh has an 11% positive rating among all voters under 40."

I am under 40 and most of my peers are stupid, shallow and ignorant. Not that Rush doesn't have his flaws. He does. But the fact that he has a low approval rating among the "yes we can" generation sure as hell isn't one of them. I hope all of the under 40 set enjoys giving all of their wealth to the babyboomers and seeing their children and grand children pay for Obama bankrupting the country. But hey, why object when doing so means you have to agree with people who listen to Rush Limbaugh. Isn't better to be cool and broke?

|3.4.09 @ 12:41PM|#

What surprised me about Rush's comments is that he drew an analogy to a Steeler's fan wishing Kurt Warner to fail at the end of the Super Bowl.

GMBMD,
That analogy doesn't place him in the best light. That analogy leads back to rooting for America to fail. Obama:Kurt Warner::America:Cardinals. Obama isn't the head of the Democratic party, he's the head of the country.

Obama's appeal to white people lies largly in two areas; white guilt and desire to vote for a black person, and two the idea that the smart and cool set support Obama. This thing is aimed at fortifying the second. A lot of people are seeing their retirements and 401Ks disapear. All this is is Obama appealing urban whites' class prejudice and vanity. If objecting to Obama means being associated with Rush and the people who listen to him, upper class whites will be less likly to say anything, even if Obama means transferring all of their wealth to baby boomer retirees and the government.

That's such a blindingly stupid comment, I can't even think of a good response to it. It's like saying people voted for McCain because they hate brown people.

|3.4.09 @ 12:41PM|#

Steele is an idiot.

|3.4.09 @ 12:43PM|#

"That's such a blindingly stupid comment, I can't even think of a good response to it. It's like saying people voted for McCain because they hate brown people."

So everyone who voted for Obama did it because they believed Yes We Can? All those right white people voted for him because they wanted hope? The fact that they were guilty white people wanting to prove they were not racist had nothing to do with it? None of the people in Silicon Valley or under 40 or in the big cities voted for Obama because it was the cool thing to do? What planet do you live on Mo? It sounds like a lot nicer place than here.

Warty|3.4.09 @ 12:44PM|#

Rush is a SteelerFan, correct? No wonder he's an obnoxious tub of goo who's wrong all the time.

|3.4.09 @ 12:45PM|#

But hey, why object when doing so means you have to agree with people who listen to Rush Limbaugh.

John, spare us this argument again. You went to town on it yesterday; isn't that enough?

|3.4.09 @ 12:47PM|#

"John, spare us this argument again. You went to town on it yesterday; isn't that enough?"

No. There is never a bad time to heap scorn on Generation Obama. There is never a bad time to make fun of people who watch the daily show. There is never a bad time to call out the young, urban elite for being the callow, vacuous, shallow, know nothings they are. It is like chimps in suits. It just never gets old.

|3.4.09 @ 12:50PM|#

I am under 40 and most of my peers are stupid, shallow and ignorant.

Apparently you did not read the second sentence I wrote. I repeat it for you.

"The "conservative" movement is tied to Bush, failure in Iraq, Creationism, enormous deficits, anti-intellectualism, and bigotry."

That is why your peers hate conservatism. Call it "shallow" if you wish - that is exactly their very valid perception of conservatism.

fyodor|3.4.09 @ 12:50PM|#

It's a little like telling someone, if you're not going to look both ways before you cross a street, I hope you get hit by a car so you learn how stupid it is!

You may adjust the analogy to allow for longer term benefits to outweigh shorter term harm if you like!

|3.4.09 @ 12:51PM|#

Raivo Pommer
[e-mail]

Essen bank krise

Die Frankfurter Sparkasse ist bereit, für einen bestimmten Kreis von Kunden einen Teil des Schadens zu übernehmen, der ihnen durch den Kauf von Lehman-Zertifikaten entstanden ist. "In einigen wenigen wirtschaftlichen Härtefällen bieten wir unseren Kunden aus Kulanzgründen eine Beteiligung am entstandenen finanziellen Schaden an", äußerte ein Sprecher des zur Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen zählenden Kreditinstituts auf Anfrage. Das Wort "Entschädigung" vermied er.

Weiter sagte der Sprecher, bis Ende April wolle die Frankfurter Sparkasse die Prüfung jedes Einzelfalls beenden. Die ersten Schreiben an Kunden seien am Dienstag versandt worden. "In diesen Briefen stellen wir als Ergebnis unserer bisherigen Prüfungen fest, dass unsere Kunden aus unserer Sicht im Rahmen der anleger- und anlagegerechten Beratung auf die bestehenden Chancen und Risiken hingewiesen worden sind, so dass keine Entschädigungszahlung angeboten wird."

BDB|3.4.09 @ 12:52PM|#

John--

Marxists claim to be as "scientific" as the laws of gravity too.

fyodor|3.4.09 @ 12:53PM|#

So everyone who voted for Obama did it because they believed Yes We Can? All those right white people voted for him because they wanted hope? The fact that they were guilty white people wanting to prove they were not racist had nothing to do with it?

Oh Jesus, does it have to be one extreme or the other? I think you'll find bright and stupid people in both political camps. Just as both camps are filled mostly with people who think all the bright people are on their side and all the stupid people on the other.

Carry on....

Taktix®|3.4.09 @ 12:54PM|#

Rush is a SteelerFan, correct? No wonder he's an obnoxious tub of goo who's wrong all the time.

Yeah, but Obama said he was a Steeler fan too, so... well, that doesn't really help my point.

Also, Warty:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Six time World Champions!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Cleveland sucks!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

|3.4.09 @ 12:54PM|#

Is Rush a part of the government in anyway? Isn't he a private citizen? Does the 1st amendment only apply to people who agree with liberal left leaning ideas? This feels more like mother Russia then the USA. Where was the outrage when hollywood types bashed Bush for the last eight years?

While Rush gets on my nerves most of the time, he is right about wishing Obama to fail. Maybe a better way to put it would be that Obama's policies are going to fail! Obama is a socialist and socialism doesn't work. Rush wants Obama to fail because he wants socialism to fail. Socialism is not who America is. Well, it is who we are now, but that was the founders intent.

Rush is dead on about Obama and failing. The problem I have with Rush, is why wasn't he saying this about George Bush as well. Bush and Obama are the same. Bush was taking us to socialism on a bicycle and Obama is doing it on a bullet train. What he and many others need to realize is that there is no difference between the parties. He could be a very useful voice for "change" if he opened his eyes.

|3.4.09 @ 12:54PM|#

John, let me explain something to you. Most people are followers. Fault them for that if you like, but it's perfectly human. Most people want to fit with their friends, and often take positions based on that alone.

And I find it odd that the young urban elite are callow, vacuous, shallow, know-nothings, but that rural dipshits who get drunk in a field and tip cows aren't also?

Side note: it's super easy to pwn a bunch of starry-eyed Obama lovers; just ridicule them for the pathetic belief that this politician will somehow not be corrupt and venal like every politician before him. No one can argue with you without looking like a total chump. Works every time.

|3.4.09 @ 12:55PM|#

How can anyone say Rush is a polarizing grandstander while not calling out the likes of Paul Begala , James Carville, Garrison Keilor, Cartoonist Ted Rall etc, etc, etc..... Maybe there is something to this 'team' thing, too bad more don't look to give power to INDIVIDUALS (classic liberalism) instead of ideologues of any stripe.

At least Rush didn't come to prominence by smearing feces on a white girl while trying to frame a group of black kids for the vile deed a la Rev Sharpton, who never fails to get an airing of his incendiary opinions from his comrades in the media.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 12:56PM|#

John, besides, didn't you say you live in downtown D.C. and have two graduate degrees?

rightshu|3.4.09 @ 12:56PM|#

I actually - gasp! - listen to Rush Limbaugh occasionally. Just as I listen to Air America occasionally. I disagree with both more often than I agree, but I happened to be listening at a time when Limbaugh clarified his statement.

He hopes that Obama fails in his plan to revitalize, you see, because the failure of that "stimulus" plan will go a long way toward driving a nail in the coffin of the belief that government is capable of fixing things, like the economy.

The success of Obama's plan would actually, in Limbaugh's eyes, be a case of the cure being worse than the disease. Imagine a vindication of the expansion of government power into the market, gradually nationalizing banks and industry. Do you want that to succeed?

fyodor|3.4.09 @ 12:56PM|#

Where was the outrage when hollywood types bashed Bush for the last eight years?

Probably coming from the same people who are defending Rush now.

And vice-versa!

BDB|3.4.09 @ 12:58PM|#

"Where was the outrage when hollywood types bashed Bush for the last eight years?"

SHHH! There was a time warp between Clinton and Obama. The last eight years never happened!

|3.4.09 @ 12:59PM|#

"John--

Marxists claim to be as "scientific" as the laws of gravity too."

True. But I think the market and people's behavior is what it is as they say. Even Marxists admitted that the markets reflected how people really behaved. That is why Marxists believed that you had to bring people to a higher political consciousness in order for Marxism to succeed. As long as people continued to act in their own narrow best interest, they would not work for the collective and would become capitalists. Even from a Marxist perspective, the market is just a description of people's behavior given their level of social consciousness. Since we have yet to create the new Socialist man, markets pretty well describe reality as it is not as we wish it to be.

|3.4.09 @ 1:00PM|#

"The "conservative" movement is tied to Bush, failure in Iraq, Creationism, enormous deficits, anti-intellectualism, and bigotry."


Anti-intellecutualism? Are you kidding? Yeah, obama brough those big intellectual terms like hope and change. Most people who voted for Obama couldn't articulate one thing about what he actually believed. They didn't know and they didn't care. Obama is the most anti-intellectual candidate in my lifetime.

Steve|3.4.09 @ 1:03PM|#

"Where was the outrage when hollywood types bashed Bush for the last eight years?"

All I'm saying is, who cares? I didn't care hollywood lefties were bashing Bush, alot of it was deserving, but who cares if Rush bashes Obama? It is very disturbing the way this White House is going after the CNBC guys and Rush.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 1:04PM|#

"Anti-intellecutualism? "

Yes John, anti-intellectualism. Like asking Sam Wurzelbacher for advice on Middle East policy with a straight face.

|3.4.09 @ 1:04PM|#

"John, besides, didn't you say you live in downtown D.C. and have two graduate degrees?"

I don't live in downtown, I can't afford it. But yes. And if you want to interpret my loathing of Generation Obama as an extreme form of self loathing, I suppose you can. Honestly, I can't stand many of my peers. Not all, but many. Even the ones I agree with get on my nerves in many ways.

Steve|3.4.09 @ 1:04PM|#

Isn't "Yes we can" the slogan from the Bob The Builder too? I have two year old who watches it from time to time.

|3.4.09 @ 1:06PM|#

"Yes John, anti-intellectualism. Like asking Sam Wurzelbacher for advice on Middle East policy with a straight face."

What about Chaz Friedman head of the National Inteligence Coucil with a straight face? Or appointing a petty theif and tax cheat whose soul qualfication is running the NY Fed during the largest credit meltdown in history to run Treasury and then pledging to go after international tax dodgers? You mean all that intellecutalism BDB?

Hanging a creepy poster in your window and spouting meaningless slogans is not being intellectual.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 1:07PM|#

"Hanging a creepy poster in your window and spouting meaningless slogans is not being intellectual."

Christ on a crutch, John, you're a pyromaniac in a field of straw!

|3.4.09 @ 1:07PM|#

Put me down for hoping any one with bad ideas that will impact me adversly fails, in government or otherwise.
Aside from that though is it just me or do the Democrats seem really defensive? Already they are dragging out Rush to whine about. What's the point of it?

Barry Loberfeld|3.4.09 @ 1:08PM|#

Today's "conservatism" is for nothing - it's only AGAINST the Left. Click here and scroll down to ""Sock It to the Left!' The Rise of the Spite Right."

|3.4.09 @ 1:08PM|#

Obama is the most anti-intellectual candidate in my lifetime.

Given that Bush #43 and Palin was probably within your sentient lifespan what little credibility you might have had is now completely erased.

Steve|3.4.09 @ 1:09PM|#

"Hanging a creepy poster in your window and spouting meaningless slogans is not being intellectual."

Can I add this to my favorite quotes section on facebook? Well said!

stuartl|3.4.09 @ 1:09PM|#

Limbaugh actually said:
If he does not eliminate the Bush tax cuts, I would call that success. So yes, I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan, but if he's going to do FDR, if he's going to do the new, new deal all over which we will call here the raw deal, why would I want him to succeed?

...I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future, it's not what made this country great.

So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail, if his agenda is a far- left collectivism, some people say socialism, as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?

It is pretty clear that he wants Obama to fail politically if his agenda is "far left." What is so horrible about Limbaugh wanting what he thinks is best for the country?

|3.4.09 @ 1:09PM|#

"Christ on a crutch, John, you're a pyromaniac in a field of straw!"

Did you miss the paragraph above that? Separate the snark from the argument. If you are going to bitch about Sam Wurzelbacher, what do you have to say about Friedman and Geithner?

mark|3.4.09 @ 1:10PM|#

You have got to admit, though, that Rush should have long ago hung his head in shame for politicizing the War Extended Military Engagement in Iraq. Him and everyone else. But did he ever apologize?

And don't get me started on the Viagra bust.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 1:10PM|#

Ok, John, you honestly think Sam Wurzelbacher would do a better job being Secretary of the Treasury than Geithner?

Who should be Chairman of the Fed then? Beavis?

|3.4.09 @ 1:10PM|#

Yes you can!!! Steve.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 1:12PM|#

I guess the checkout lady down at the Farm Fresh could be Secretary of Defense.

|3.4.09 @ 1:13PM|#

"Ok, John, you honestly think Sam Wurzelbacher would do a better job being Secretary of the Treasury than Geithner?

Who should be Chairman of the Fed then? Beavis?"

I wasn't making the comparison. The point is that you act like Dems are some kind of paragon of intellectual discussion, when in fact they are every bit the hoodlums you think Republicans are. Further, what exactly could Beavis have done as the head of the NY Fed and had things turn out any worse than they did under Geithner. Hell, Beavis probably would have at least paid his taxes and not stolen money from the IMF.

|3.4.09 @ 1:13PM|#

"Probably not. But it's small. And it's petty. Right up there with him and his audience."

And almost every single democrat of the last 8 years. You got something there.

|3.4.09 @ 1:14PM|#

BDB,

If a chimpanzee were President over the last month, could the stock market have tanked any worse? Could congress have been any less restrained in drafting the porkulus bill?

BDB|3.4.09 @ 1:15PM|#

I said asking Sam Wurzelbacher for advice on a complicated foreign policy issue was an example of anti-intellectualism from the right.

Then you said "BUT GEITHNER!"

So, who would you rather have as Treasury Secretary? Geithner, or Wurzelbacher?

I thought Rumself was a horrible Secretary of Defense but my reaction wasn't "oh ok, I guess any random person on the street would be better! All people who are qualified must be terrible now! Unqualified=GOOD!"

THAT is anti-intellectualism.

|3.4.09 @ 1:16PM|#

"enormous deficits, anti-intellectualism, and bigotry."

All of which the left has in spades. Nice job, whoever you are.

|3.4.09 @ 1:16PM|#

Anyone who doesn't want Obama to fail to increase government's control of our lives, GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!

|3.4.09 @ 1:19PM|#

"I said asking Sam Wurzelbacher for advice on a complicated foreign policy issue was an example of anti-intellectualism from the right."

What does Sam have to say? I don't really know to be honest. All you are doing is appealing to authority. Since when did "intellectualism" become sonomomous to worshiping degrees? Intellectualism is actually thinking and engaging in ideas and debate. What it is not is assumeing that because someone is wearing a lab coat or has the right letters after his name, he is not full of shit. You are no better than the people claim to criticize, you are just in the other ditch.

John Yoo has a better law degree than I do and a job at Berkley, something I will never have. But I still know he is full of shit about international law. I don't have to have a Wharton MBA to know that Geithner is a petty criminal and was an incompetant head of the NY Fed. I just have to open my eyes.

ron|3.4.09 @ 1:19PM|#

embrace failure: http://www.letspainttv.com

Warty|3.4.09 @ 1:22PM|#

Taktix, which one of these are you?

|3.4.09 @ 1:22PM|#

BDB,

you're a pyromaniac in a field of straw[men]

Is this a well-worn phrase, or did you hear George Will use it on This Week with George Snuffalupagus a couple weeks ago? That was the first time I heard it and thought it was pretty darn funny.

And no offense intended if you thought it up on your own.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 1:23PM|#

Because someone with a law degree from Stanford fucks up does not mean that all people with degrees from Stanford are automatically fuck ups, and therefore any guy on the street could do better.

|3.4.09 @ 1:24PM|#

Who asked JTP for foreign policy advice? And are you equaiting asking him, he is a citizen of the US, about foreign policy to appointing a tax cheat to the Traesury? Talk about straw men. Anyhow, anti-intellctualism is rampant on both sides. To claim any different is to be a partisan clown. BTW, I wouldn't want to have advice from JTP concerning foreign policy. I do have a plumbing issue, though. That I would ask him.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 1:24PM|#

FrBunny now that you brought it up I remember that's where I heard it. I don't know if its a well worn phrase or not, but I like it.

Fluffy|3.4.09 @ 1:25PM|#

Anti-intellecutualism? Are you kidding?

I don't think Rush needs to be defended for wishing for Obama's policies to fail. He does need to be defended for being a hypocritical lying douchebag whose entire schtick is a put-on. John failed at mounting a defense of that yesterday so I won't call on him to try again today.

But despite the fact that both parties are full of dumbasses, John, it is in fact true that conservatives actively cultivate the image of despising book learnin'. It's an inevitable byproduct of the fact that the GOP has a broad populist streak, which they share with the Democrats, but which in the GOP's case is worsened by the fact that a large segment of the GOP electorate considers science a demonic deception designed to seduce people away from the literal truth of the Book of Genesis.

|3.4.09 @ 1:25PM|#

GDP fell a staggering 6.4% last quarter but the market is reacting to Obama's programs?

Its that kind of horse-shit dishonesty that makes conservatives unable to work on their intellectualism.

And Obama wants a 39.6% top tax rate on income?

Holy shit! Socialist!

Never mind that Reagan adjusted the top rate twice - once putting the same top rate at 50%!

I don't hear anything but platitudes from "conservatives".

BDB|3.4.09 @ 1:27PM|#

Again, when Rumsefeld sucked hard at being Secretary of Defense my reflex wasn't "EVERYONE IN THE MILITARY IS A DUMBASS! BRING IN SOME RANDOM GUY!"

|3.4.09 @ 1:28PM|#

"Because someone with a law degree from Stanford fucks up does not mean that all people with degrees from Stanford are automatically fuck ups, and therefore any guy on the street could do better."

No it doesn't mean that. But it also means that the Stanford law degree doesn't mean shit. What matters is what they person has to say. It is just anti-intellectual to claim that no one can argue with self appointed experts. The fact is a lot of "intellectuals" and self appointed smart guys have lead the country into some pretty bad things. You will never find a better intellectual in public life than Woodrow Wilson. How did that turn out? Nixon was a giant brain. In contrast, Eisenhower was an average student at West Point and not a particularly deep thinker.

Intellectualism has become this bizare idea that only eggheads can have a say on anything. That is bullshit. We need to stop appealing to authority and start talking about ideas and facts. I don't give a shit who says something. I want to know if they have a point. If Joe the Plummer or Joe the Bartender has something of value to say I want to hear it. If some self appointed egg head has some bizzare idea outside of reality, I am going to call him on it.

MlR|3.4.09 @ 1:28PM|#

It's obvious what he meant, and there's nothing objectionable about it. I hope Obama utterly fails to further socialize America.

Woohoo. I'm a bad, bad man, baby.

File it under: idiots and those who pretend to be. Just more evidence the press runs with Democratic Party talking points as their default position.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 1:30PM|#

Nixon was very good on foreign policy, actually. If he didn't let Pat Moynihan run domestic policy and get caught being a giant crook he'd be ranked much higher.

|3.4.09 @ 1:30PM|#

"but which in the GOP's case is worsened by the fact that a large segment of the GOP electorate considers science a demonic deception designed to seduce people away from the literal truth of the Book of Genesis."

Stereotype much there Fluffy? Do you even get out of the house? Have you ever met a Republican or do you just read about them in Daily KOS?

Republicans hate book learning. Or is it that they are all evil Neocons bent on taking over the world?

shecky|3.4.09 @ 1:30PM|#

C'mon John, admit it. Conservatives have really fucked up badly. Crying about Obama's "HOPE" slogan or yelling "Dems suck, too!" is a weak defense. In such a short time, the intellectual arc of conservatism has dropped into the gutter with the likes of Palin, JTP and Limbaugh becoming the leaders of the Right. This is simply a massive fail. That this situation exists in a world where Obama is President only illustrates how massive a fail this truly is.

|3.4.09 @ 1:33PM|#

It is funny a shit to hear Liberals talk about Republicans despising book learning. The most narrow minded poorly read dogmatic people I know are liberals. They have spent their entire lives learning from liberal teachers and reading liberal books and reaffirming their pre-concieved notions. They are as a group the least intellectually curious people I know. Again, since when did spouting PC plattitudes and reading Howard Zinn become being "intellectual"?

Fluffy|3.4.09 @ 1:33PM|#

Intellectualism has become this bizare idea that only eggheads can have a say on anything.

I would not accuse the GOP and conservativism of anti-intellectualism if they actively disputed the notion that only credentials mean anything in a particular dispute.

But that's not what they do, John.

They go well beyond that, to arguing that the absence of education or worldly experience makes a person morally superior, and a more "genuine American".

That's what giving someone an appellation like "Joe the Plumber" means, John. It's supposed to identify him as being a "real person", and not one of those morally corrupt "elites". Whether you like it or not, patronizing the petit bourgeoisie and stroking its vanity betrays a fundamental anti-intellectualism. The Democrats did it for years as part of their appeal to labor, and the GOP does it now to appeal to trailer trash and exurbians. Sorry.

Mike M.|3.4.09 @ 1:34PM|#

Since, as we have had pounded into our heads for eight years, dissent is the highest form of patriotism, isn't it actually unpatriotic to hope the President succeeds?

No, no, no, my friend! Dissent WAS unpatriotic, but as of about six weeks ago, it is borderline treasonous.

Fluffy|3.4.09 @ 1:36PM|#

Republicans hate book learning. Or is it that they are all evil Neocons bent on taking over the world?

Actually, it would be more accurate to say that the GOP is an alliance of religious zealots and evil neocons. The alliance used to include libertarians, but it doesn't any more. Oh well.

libertarian democrat|3.4.09 @ 1:36PM|#

It is funny a shit to hear Liberals talk about Republicans despising book learning. The most narrow minded poorly read dogmatic people I know are liberals. They have spent their entire lives learning from liberal teachers and reading liberal books and reaffirming their pre-concieved notions. They are as a group the least intellectually curious people I know. Again, since when did spouting PC plattitudes and reading Howard Zinn become being "intellectual"?

Actually, in my MA (public) High School, our first passage in AP US History was from Howard Zinn. It was used to illustrate how biased historians can be and to teach critical thinking.

But MA public schools are a bastion of conservative thought, so....

|3.4.09 @ 1:39PM|#

shecky,

In my entire life, Liberals have called conservatives stupid and when they are too smart to be called stupid, called them evil. The ideas are the ideas and they are still true today just like they were 20 years ago. Further, where exactly is this "brain drain" everyone is talking about? What David Brooks doesn't like Republicans anymore? Oh no, say it isn't so. There are plenty of brilliant conservative intellectuals and historians, Paul Johnson, Amity Shales, John Q. Wilson, Phillip K. Howard, Marvin Olaski, Richard Epstein. The list goes on and on. Are converative politician often opportunists of decent but not giant intelligence? yes. But what politician isn't? If the Republicans are in the gutter for Palin, where are the Democrats for Joe Biden? For every Rush on the right I see a Jon Stewart or a Micheal Moore on the left. For every Palin there is a Joe Biden or a Ted Kennedy. Where are these brilliant Dem politicians people keep talking about? I sure don't see them.

|3.4.09 @ 1:40PM|#

I can't remember ever seeing as many mea culpas as Rush has forced recently. When Obama himself tells pols and pundits to stop listening to him, you know he's getting traction. Who else is calling the Obama loving media buttboys?

|3.4.09 @ 1:42PM|#

"Whether you like it or not, patronizing the petit bourgeoisie and stroking its vanity betrays a fundamental anti-intellectualism."

Smear campaigns against people like Joe the Plummer just appeal to people's vanity and snobbery. If the Republicans have become populists, what do the Democrats do beyond appeal to peoples worst prejudices and instincts?

|3.4.09 @ 1:44PM|#

James Ard,

No one ever made any enemies for being wrong. It is only when you are right that you really piss people off.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 1:45PM|#

"I can't remember ever seeing as many mea culpas as Rush has forced recently. When Obama himself tells pols and pundits to stop listening to him, you know he's getting traction. Who else is calling the Obama loving media buttboys?"

Are you kidding? He's loving watching every Republican who says something different from Rush kiss his ass. This was a deliberate set-up by Rham Emmanuel and the Republicans fell for it.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 1:45PM|#

"They go well beyond that, to arguing that the absence of education or worldly experience makes a person morally superior, and a more "genuine American"."

Thank you. This is what I mean.

|3.4.09 @ 1:45PM|#

One other thing BDB, who would you rather have running economic policy in this country; Ronald Reagan with his third rate undergraduate economics degree or Paul Kruman and his nobel prize? Or how about the late Herb Stein and his PHD and advice to Nixon that wage and price controls were a good idea? I guess if you chose Reagan you are just being anti-intellectual.

|3.4.09 @ 1:48PM|#

"They go well beyond that, to arguing that the absence of education or worldly experience makes a person morally superior, and a more "genuine American"."

If the Dems would stop appealling to authority and stop acting with the attitude of "we are the experts here you need to get with the program", the Republicans wouldn't be doing that would they? All the Democrats are doing is appealing to people like you's petty vanity. You don't want to be associated with the unwashed masses do you fluffy?

libertarian democrat|3.4.09 @ 1:50PM|#

No one ever made any enemies for being wrong. It is only when you are right that you really piss people off.

Hitler.

|3.4.09 @ 1:51PM|#

BDB, I take it you didn't catch the CPAC speech. Rush had those people on fire. If you think making him the head of the GOP was an Emmanuel trick, it is a trick that is backfiring badly. Now pardon my while I finish my Limbaugh 2012 bumpersticker.

libertarian democrat|3.4.09 @ 1:51PM|#

I mean, is it just me, or is that one of the silliest things ever said?

|3.4.09 @ 1:51PM|#

LD,

Before he started invading countries, Hitler was a very popular guy. A lot of people who should have known better loved him.

Kolohe|3.4.09 @ 1:52PM|#

No one ever made any enemies for being wrong.

Hitler & Stalin were right?

Kolohe|3.4.09 @ 1:52PM|#

dammit

BDB|3.4.09 @ 1:53PM|#

I was wondering how long it would take for John to go argumentum ad Reaganum.

libertarian democrats|3.4.09 @ 1:53PM|#

And all those Jews loved him too, right? Because his views about them were wrong, they loved him?

|3.4.09 @ 1:54PM|#

LD,

You don't understand what I am talking about. On a personal level, people love it when someone is wrong and admits it. It makes them feel better about themselves. What people hate is when you are right and they are wrong. Being right about something tends to make a lot of enemies among the people that your being right shows are wrong. If Rush were truly saying crazy stuff, the Dems wouldn't bother with him. They don't say much about Lew Rockwell do they? It is only when you say something that is true or at least partially true and points out a really uncomfortable truth that people go after you. It is just a variation on the old adage, the truth hurts.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 1:54PM|#

"James Ard | March 4, 2009, 1:51pm | #
BDB, I take it you didn't catch the CPAC speech. Rush had those people on fire. If you think making him the head of the GOP was an Emmanuel trick, it is a trick that is backfiring badly. Now pardon my while I finish my Limbaugh 2012 bumpersticker."

I can't believe it. The Republican Party is committing suicide in front of our faces.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 1:55PM|#

Nominating Limbaugh for President would be like the Democrats nominating Michael Moore.

|3.4.09 @ 1:55PM|#

"I was wondering how long it would take for John to go argumentum ad Reaganum."

If you want to have a conversation lets have one. Why can't you answer my question? For being so in love with the intellectual, you don't seem to interested in engag in the topic very much. Snark is fun and all, but I kind of expect better from you.

|3.4.09 @ 1:57PM|#

BDB, I take it you didn't catch the CPAC speech. Rush had those people on fire. If you think making him the head of the GOP was an Emmanuel trick, it is a trick that is backfiring badly. Now pardon my while I finish my Limbaugh 2012 bumpersticker.

I am so sure that El Rushbo genuflecting 24/7 for the conservative cause will send independents and moderates running for their GOP bumperstickers.

You must live in a paramilitary compound.

libertarian democrat|3.4.09 @ 1:58PM|#

John,

Okay, it makes more sense when you put it that way. I still think being wrong makes plenty of enemies, but I do see the point you are making.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 1:58PM|#

So because Reagan was accused of lacking intelligence or qualifications, it means that whenever a conservative is accused of the same thing the person making the accusation must be wrong? Is that the argument you're trying to make?

|3.4.09 @ 1:58PM|#

I'd bet Limbaugh would draw more votes as an independent than any Republican on the ballot. And the Republican party already committed suicide by becoming Dem lites.

|3.4.09 @ 2:01PM|#

"but which in the GOP's case is worsened by the fact that a large segment of the GOP electorate considers science a demonic deception designed to seduce people away from the literal truth of the Book of Genesis."

"Stereotype much there Fluffy? Do you even get out of the house? Have you ever met a Republican or do you just read about them in Daily KOS?"

When Republican politicians like Hucklebuck and Palin and Inhoffe take that position, is it so surprizing that a large percentage of Republican voters also think that way?

BDB|3.4.09 @ 2:04PM|#

Hey! Huckabee is one of those regular folk who knows whats right in his GUT! /snark

|3.4.09 @ 2:06PM|#

"When Republican politicians like Hucklebuck and Palin and Inhoffe take that position, is it so surprizing that a large percentage of Republican voters also think that way?"

What about the fact that Democrats have people like RFK Jr. who beleive in crazy unscientific things like vacines causing autism. What about the Dem embrace of green supersitions about GM food? A believe in creationism does a hell of a lot less damage to the world than faith based obections to GM foods and vacines. The Dems are just as if not more anti-scientific than the Republicans and are anti-scientific in much more damaging ways.

The difference is that the Dems are anti-scientific in ways that are acceptable to the "educated" class. If I stand around your typical university cocktail party and start talking about creationism people will rightly look at me like I am nuts. But if I start talking about how GM foods are so bad, and vacines cause Autism, I will be looked upon as thoughtful even though I am just as much a buffoon and actually a dangerous one.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 2:06PM|#

"What about the fact that Democrats have people like RFK Jr. who beleive in crazy unscientific things like vacines causing autism"

Did he get second place in the Dem primary for President?

|3.4.09 @ 2:08PM|#

"So because Reagan was accused of lacking intelligence or qualifications, it means that whenever a conservative is accused of the same thing the person making the accusation must be wrong? Is that the argument you're trying to make?"

No. The argument is that because you don't think everyone has to have a PHD to be right about something, doesn't make you "anti-intellectual" nor does pointing out the numerous and obvious failures of people who claim to be "experts"/.

|3.4.09 @ 2:08PM|#

it should be realized thatRooting for one side to win vs rooting for one side to lose are too very different things.
I always root for my team to win but never for the opposing team to lose. Think about it and if you do not see or understand the difference then this country is in trouble.
In politics this should be even more important. The point should be that we need to work at making something work not just to take it down. I listen to Rush at times and it drives me nuts. He will present a thread of logic and I agree with each of his points, but then he come to the summation and his solution does not have any relevance to what he has stated previously. However too many people having agreed with his previous "points" feel that they must accept his conclusion as well.

Its like he adds 2 = 2 comes up with 4 then adds another 2 and the answer now is "fail"

libertarian democrat|3.4.09 @ 2:09PM|#

John, you have to admit there is far more support for creationism or ID among successful republican politicians than there is support for vaccine = autism among democratic ones. Not that democrats are good on science, they just seem to be less bad.

|3.4.09 @ 2:09PM|#

"Did he get second place in the Dem primary for President?"

He didn't run. John Edwards got third. Edwards made his entire career on junk science linking CP to natural births. As a result of his junk science women now have 1000s of unecessary C sections in order to avoid litigation.

|3.4.09 @ 2:09PM|#

john -

you are the epitome of ignorance.. in all of your anti-obama, anit-demorcat BS rhetoric, do you have a single fact that supports any of the wildly absurd allegations you are making? HOW are Obamas policies going to:
"..fail miserably and do incalcuable damage to the country and the world."
where are these so-called FACTS? I read all of your comments and I have yet to see a single real fact. If you are such an amazing economist, then where is your proposal that is better and cheaper than Obamas? Oh you dont have one? Stay the course you say? Let the free market be free? How did that work out for us? How can a president that hasnt even been in office for 2 months be responsible for ANY of the shit that is happening in our Economy right now? HE CANT. He is just trying (which is something that you Republicans should make note of). I think what people are really supporting right now is EFFORT.. No one actually knows if any of these policies will work.. but guess what? Doing nothing GAURANTEES that our country will fail.. With those options.. As we all just saw in November.. the people have spoken. So quit whining and start being constructive already.

libertarian democrat|3.4.09 @ 2:09PM|#

Although the CAM stuff is pissing me off.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 2:10PM|#

"No. The argument is that because you don't think everyone has to have a PHD to be right about something, doesn't make you "anti-intellectual" nor does pointing out the numerous and obvious failures of people who claim to be "experts"/."

Anti-intellectual is when you celebrate lack of knowledge, lack of world experience, lack of desire to learn, making those things desireable traits. The modern GOP has been guilty of this.

You can say the Dems do it, too, that doesn't make it any less troubling.

|3.4.09 @ 2:10PM|#

Further, give me one piece of evidence that the bizare beleif in vacines and autism would have hurt a Dem in the primaries. Also, that is not the only bit of junk science Dems by. What about GM foods?

BDB|3.4.09 @ 2:11PM|#

"Also, that is not the only bit of junk science Dems by. What about GM foods?"

I don't know. What about them? Is opposition to them in the Democratic platform? Did Obama make it a central theme of his campaign?

Kucinnuch doesn't like them, and he got around ~1% of the primary vote.

|3.4.09 @ 2:12PM|#

"If you are such an amazing economist, then where is your proposal that is better and cheaper than Obamas? "

let the banks fail. Cut the size of government. Stop taxing savings and investment income. End all thought of insane carbon regulation. Commit to more free trade and freedom. Let the economy rebuild like it always does and save a few trillion while we are at it. It is a simple sollution. Not an easy one but a simple one.

libertarian democrat|3.4.09 @ 2:13PM|#

John,

Really though. You don't see the greater trend among the republican party? The GM food stuff is bad. The autism stuff is more prevalent among the conservative homeschooling population than pretty much anywhere else, although it has far too much saturation. But there is nothing quite like proID and creationism that is as widely held for democrats.

|3.4.09 @ 2:13PM|#

"Anti-intellectual is when you celebrate lack of knowledge, lack of world experience, lack of desire to learn, making those things desireable traits. The modern GOP has been guilty of this."


Now you are a pyromaniac lose in a straw field. The Dems portray any Republican who calls bullshit on them as doing that.

Tyler|3.4.09 @ 2:14PM|#

What I've learned from this thread:

Trying to defend conservative politicians and the people who vote for them is just as dumb as trying to defend liberal politicians and the people who vote for them.

I hope they all fail to steal my money, guns, drugs, religion, peace, future, and my free will to use those things the way I want to as long as I don't harm another.

I think that philosophy is universal to all, whether they be a slack-jawed yokel or an urban hipster college kid.

|3.4.09 @ 2:15PM|#

what the hell does autism in vacines have to to do with crazy creationists altering government policies to co-incide with their religious beliefs?

its apples and oranges john.. if you are going to argue a point.. at least have one to make.. jesus.. you are making my head hurt with your stupidity

BDB|3.4.09 @ 2:15PM|#

Other Republicans have called the Republicans on doing just that.

Oh wait, all those conservatives are stuck up beltway insider elites who want to get invited to cocktail parties, right John?

|3.4.09 @ 2:15PM|#

"But there is nothing quite like proID and creationism that is as widely held for democrats."

Of course the proID stuff doesn't really damage the world like the autism GM food stuff does. It is an interesting debate to have about where we come from. ID is nothing but a restated teleological argument for the existance of God. We can argue about it and get it wrong and no one dies. That isn't the case with GM foods and autism. Further, even if GM foods are not on the platform, Dems in NGOs and the UN do real damage and kill real people with objections to GM foods and DDT and the like.

|3.4.09 @ 2:15PM|#

Shrike, Do you mean all those independents and moderates that voted for moderate John McCain?

|3.4.09 @ 2:16PM|#

"what the hell does autism in vacines have to to do with crazy creationists altering government policies to co-incide with their religious beliefs?"


They are both unscientific crazy shit based on emotions you nimrod. If you are going to participate in the arguement, at least be smart enough to understand them.

|3.4.09 @ 2:18PM|#

"They are both unscientific crazy shit based on emotions you nimrod."

no you jack ass.. creationism IS NOT SCIENCE.

the end.

|3.4.09 @ 2:18PM|#

"Other Republicans have called the Republicans on doing just that."

Who? I don't see anyone I respect of doing that. I saw a few guilty white pundit who wanted to justify their vote for Obama do it, but I don't see anyone else.

|3.4.09 @ 2:18PM|#

"no you jack ass.. creationism IS NOT SCIENCE."


No shit. Neither are the objections to GM foods. Now you are catching on.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 2:19PM|#

Right. George Will is a guilty white liberal who wanted to justify voting for Obama. So is Daniel Larison. So is David Frum. Ok, John. Whatever.

|3.4.09 @ 2:20PM|#

"Right. George Will is a guilty white liberal who wanted to justify voting for Obama. So is Daniel Larison. So is David Frum. Ok, John. Whatever."

I have always thought George Will was a pompus jackass who thinks that wearing a bow tie and furrowing his brow and speaking slowly is some kind of substitute for real thought. I never like him in the 80s letalone now. And don't even get me started on his bullshit pontificating about baseball.

JB|3.4.09 @ 2:21PM|#

I love all the little communists on here and elsewhere.

I look forward to the demise of this country since you fools are bringing us to that point at a very quick pace. You and yours will get yours. Soon.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 2:23PM|#

Is John Derbyshire a guilty white liberal Obama voter?

I guess he must be since he wrote an article recently saying it was a mistake to let the Republican Party be hijacked by Rush and Hannity.

|3.4.09 @ 2:24PM|#

"No shit. Neither are the objections to GM foods. Now you are catching on."

which is why.. if you actually read.. i didnt mention anything about GM foods..

studying whether or not vaccines have an effect on child development IS science, on the other hand..

which brings us all the way back to 1. you are in fact a jack-ass and 2. your arguments have no actual credibility or point.. apples and oranges douch-bag.. apples and oranges

|3.4.09 @ 2:24PM|#

BDB,

Intellectualism to the people you mention means "just listen to me". They are just pissed they don't matter that much anymore. Why don't they matter? Because, at least in Will's case, they don't have much to say.

|3.4.09 @ 2:25PM|#

"studying whether or not vaccines have an effect on child development IS science, on the other hand.. "


Believing that vacines cause autism in the face of all credible scientific evidence is no different than thinking that cavemen once hunted dinosaurs.

|3.4.09 @ 2:28PM|#

"Is John Derbyshire a guilty white liberal Obama voter?"

I disagree with him. I like Derbyshire more than I do Will, but that doesn't mean he is right about everything. Again, you are just appealing to authority.

MlR|3.4.09 @ 2:30PM|#

But there is nothing quite like proID and creationism that is as widely held for democrats.

As far as you are concerned. Then, again, you probably believe in the modern religion that is "man-made global warming" (oops, I mean "climate change!"). "The debate is over, damnit!"

There are anti-intellectuals in both parties. They aren't, however, equally policed or empowered. Fuck my advanced degrees - so long as "intellectual" is a code word for the pointy-heads experts and kooks in the academia, consider me against them. It isn't anti-intellectualism, it's anti-pseudo-intellectualism.

|3.4.09 @ 2:32PM|#

"Believing that vacines cause autism in the face of all credible scientific evidence is no different than thinking that cavemen once hunted dinosaurs."

bit of a stretch dont you think jack ass? but thats about right.. make some outlandish comparison that makes no real sense and call it a fact..

its douchers like you that have dragged our country down to third-world like respect.. its hard to have a strong two party system that constructivly challenges each other, when one party just doesnt have a grasp on reality.. i promise you that the republicans will NEVER be in power again if you think the likes of Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal are "the future"

The fact is that they (and their beliefs) are so far in the past its down right scary..

BDB|3.4.09 @ 2:33PM|#

Uh, no. I said other Republicans were calling out Republicans on appealing to anti-intellectualism, and your response was:

"Who? I don't see anyone I respect of doing that. I saw a few guilty white pundit who wanted to justify their vote for Obama do it, but I don't see anyone else."

None of those people come even close to being a guilty white liberal Obama voter.

|3.4.09 @ 2:34PM|#

"There are anti-intellectuals in both parties. They aren't, however, equally policed or empowered. Fuck my advanced degrees - so long as "intellectual" is a code word for the pointy-heads experts and kooks in the academia, consider me against them. It isn't anti-intellectualism, it's anti-pseudo-intellectualism."

Well put. I wish I could have said that. That is exactly what I have been trying to say on the entire thread. Kudos to you.

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 2:35PM|#

"There are plenty of brilliant conservative intellectuals and historians, Paul Johnson, Amity Shales, John Q. Wilson, Phillip K. Howard, Marvin Olaski, Richard Epstein."

Actually Rush Limbaugh has stated that the "champagne conservatives" you just mentioned should be expelled from the conservative movement. Same with any person on the right who had the gall to question Sarah Palin's qualifications to become Vice President.

"If I stand around your typical university cocktail party and start talking about creationism people will rightly look at me like I am nuts. But if I start talking about how GM foods are so bad, and vacines cause Autism, I will be looked upon as thoughtful even though I am just as much a buffoon and actually a dangerous one."

With scientists? If you did they'd probably think you were an idiot on both counts.

"I guess if you chose Reagan you are just being anti-intellectual."

Wasn't Reagan influenced by Milton Friedman. If so he wasn't really anti-intellectual.

"let the banks fail. Cut the size of government. Stop taxing savings and investment income. End all thought of insane carbon regulation. Commit to more free trade and freedom. Let the economy rebuild like it always does and save a few trillion while we are at it. It is a simple sollution. Not an easy one but a simple one."

But how are you going to accomplish all that while going to war with all Middle Eastern countries and France?

"ID is nothing but a restated teleological argument for the existance of God."

It used to be a way for people to coalesce their faith around evolution. Now it's basically a cloak for the creationists to argue that we just magically appeared one day while asking no other questions.

|3.4.09 @ 2:35PM|#

BDB,

Derbyshire is the only one on your list I have any respect for. His objection really goes to ID and creationism and he has a point. The Republican position needs to be that the government has no business having a position on such things one way or another and stay out of it.

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 2:36PM|#

You know who I blame, hipsters!

Rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble.

MlR|3.4.09 @ 2:36PM|#

I like Will. I love Derbyshire.

They're right that the Republican Party is increasingly turning to populism, for lack of any other politically viable options. And I'm completely against it.

But there's more to it than simply appeals to the commoner. It's also a rejection of the elevated morons that currently often pass as "intellectuals" and "experts," whose will should overrule everyone elses. And who shape the political debate in Washington a hell of a lot more than the populists.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 2:37PM|#

Reagan was of average intelligence but he was open to listening to new ideas (actors are good at that) and was interested in learning more.

You can't say that about George W. Bush. You can't say it about Sarah Palin.

|3.4.09 @ 2:37PM|#

John,

Where, during the Democratic debate, did a number of presidential candidates raise their hands to, "I believe vaccines cause autism?" If it happened, did those members do better or worse than than the Republican that came in second, who raised his hand to not believing in evolution.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 2:38PM|#

Also Reagan could demonstrate, when asked a question about economics, that he grasaped and understood the issues involved instead of babbling like an idiot about "joe sixpack".

|3.4.09 @ 2:39PM|#

"With scientists? If you did they'd probably think you were an idiot on both counts."

Probably, but not around the English or any of the liberal arts departments.


"Wasn't Reagan influenced by Milton Friedman. If so he wasn't really anti-intellectual. "

Of course he wasn't. That is my point. What matters is what he thought, not what degrees he had or whatever claims he made to being an expert.

"But how are you going to accomplish all that while going to war with all Middle Eastern countries and France? "

That is just snark and not even funny snark.

"It used to be a way for people to coalesce their faith around evolution. Now it's basically a cloak for the creationists to argue that we just magically appeared one day while asking no other questions."

True. I am a religous person and I hate ID. Who the fuck said God owes you scientific proof of his existence or that you have the ability to understand his means and methods?

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 2:39PM|#

John, if I might ask. Why do you so blindly hail Rush Limbaugh even though you've never listened to him for 20 years yet incessently bash Jon Stewart. So do you religiously watch Jon Stewart and ignore Limbaugh, therefore basing your assumptions of him based on what he said in the early 90's?

JB|3.4.09 @ 2:41PM|#

Obama's latest...

Free money for people with $700,000 mortgages:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content
/article/2009/03/04/AR2009030400911.html

|3.4.09 @ 2:41PM|#

"Where, during the Democratic debate, did a number of presidential candidates raise their hands to, "I believe vaccines cause autism?" If it happened, did those members do better or worse than than the Republican that came in second, who raised his hand to not believing in evolution."

since when does the Presidential Debate represent the entire party? What about the large number of liberals in NGOs and the UN that are out doing real damage with very unscientific ideas. The day people start to die or starve because of some kooky IDer getting in power at the UN is the day I will start worrying about ID.

|3.4.09 @ 2:43PM|#

What he and you mean is that you're afraid Obama's policies will be a success, thus discrediting your pet philosophy for a generation. I thought that thoughtful people were led by evidence, not blind conviction.

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 2:43PM|#

"Probably, but not around the English or any of the liberal arts departments."

That's why you ask them about Shakespeare instead of genetically modified foods.

"Of course he wasn't. That is my point. What matters is what he thought, not what degrees he had or whatever claims he made to being an expert."

Yes, and he also had a far better understanding of the economy than both Rush Limbaugh and most Republicans. Notice how much Joe the Plumber was showing up on the campaign trail yet Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh never talked about getting rid of the deficit.

That's populism at it's worst, it'll end up destroying the Republic. More less because we have the nationalists [GOP, Rush Limbaugh] on one side and the socialists [DNC, Barack Obama] on the other.

"That is just snark and not even funny snark."

That's basically Rush Limbaugh's position. We must bomb any country we dislike no matter what the costs. Any person who opposes such actions are defeatists and traitors.

|3.4.09 @ 2:44PM|#

"Why do you so blindly hail Rush Limbaugh even though you've never listened to him for 20 years yet incessently bash Jon Stewart. So do you religiously watch Jon Stewart and ignore Limbaugh, therefore basing your assumptions of him based on what he said in the early 90's?"

I don't blindly hail Limbaugh. I think Limbaugh is an entertainer. I agree with him about a lot of things but I don't think he is some kind of prophet, although he is smarter than his critics give him credit for. I object to people who think that Limbaugh is any different or any worse than polemicists on the other side. If you don't like Limbaugh, don't listen to him. I don't. But stop pretending that he is this unique devil that could only come from the right. I call bullshit on that.

MlR|3.4.09 @ 2:45PM|#

"Well put. I wish I could have said that. That is exactly what I have been trying to say on the entire thread. Kudos to you."

No problem, John. On another subject, thank you for your Army service.

Bingo|3.4.09 @ 2:46PM|#

I love how without joe here we all turn on each other, lol.

TofuSushi|3.4.09 @ 2:46PM|#

If a chimpanzee were President over the last month, could the stock market have tanked any worse?

Are you trying to get joe to come back?

|3.4.09 @ 2:46PM|#

"What he and you mean is that you're afraid Obama's policies will be a success, thus discrediting your pet philosophy for a generation."

Bullshit. I would like nothing better than for it to work. Life would be so much easier if the harsh realities of markets weren't true. Life would be great if we could just spend money and dream up big projects and get out of our problems. Life would be great if smart people in Washington really did have the answers and really could make things better. What a dream. It is no wonder that those ideals appeal to people, especially in bad times. I just don't think reality is that rosey. If I fear anything, it is that he will fail and not get the fair blame for it and we will learn nothing from the failure or worse yet learn the wrong things.

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 2:46PM|#

Odd, I can't recall any criticism you've had of the guy. All you've been doing thus far is saying that those of us who do criticize his rhetoric are "hipsters."

Lefiti|3.4.09 @ 2:48PM|#

Libertrians suck. It's obvious that communist Cuba is preferrable since their government produces beautiful sunshine and sandy beaches.

|3.4.09 @ 2:49PM|#

I was recently linked to LittleGreenFootballs and had previously thought that they were just a rehash of the vapid Free Republic site.

AMAZINGLY, they have been having the same conversation - and are trying to extinguish the campaign hopes of any Creationist. They're even ragging on Limbaugh and Coulter for their anti-science positions.

There really is nothing at all comparable on the left to the religious right Creationist that screams "STUPID" for their party.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 2:51PM|#

"I think Limbaugh is an entertainer."

He just demanded that the head of the RNC apologize for calling him an entertainer, and 51 minutes Steele kissed his ass. So I'm guessing he sees himself as something more.

JW Gacy|3.4.09 @ 2:55PM|#

We have a vibrant party?

|3.4.09 @ 2:56PM|#

"Odd, I can't recall any criticism you've had of the guy. All you've been doing thus far is saying that those of us who do criticize his rhetoric are "hipsters."

I am guilty of defending him at least in some part because I can't stand his enemies and I think he is being treated unfairly. But just because i don't like his enemies and think their criticisms of him are unfair, doesn't mean I don't have my own criticisms of the guy. He is too vapid and some, although not all, of his listeners take him too seriously. But in the end, he is the one person in the mainstream media who on a daily basis goes out and makes the conservative case and goes after the Democrats fearlessly. Rush for all of his vanity and faults, really doesn't give a shit what the media elite think of him. I can't help but respect that in the same way I can't help but despite people like Will and Brooks who spend their lives bootlicking people who hate everything Brooks and Will claim to beleive in.

Lefiti|3.4.09 @ 2:57PM|#

Let's stop it with the Lefiti stuff, people. If we don't believe in him, he'll cease to exist.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 2:59PM|#

Don't you think it's just a LITTLE pathetic when the head of the RNC has to kiss the ass of a guy who you say is "just an entertainer" for calling him, well, "an entertainer"?

|3.4.09 @ 3:02PM|#

Apparently Rush is considering letting Republicans stray from his new party line on the cable talk shows, amnesty he says. Many times Rush had the opportunity to take over the party leader mantle, but this time I think he's going to take it and run with it, for a while at least.

|3.4.09 @ 3:02PM|#

"Don't you think it's just a LITTLE pathetic when the head of the RNC has to kiss the ass of a guy who you say is "just an entertainer" for calling him, well, "an entertainer"?"

No I think Steele is an idiot for not standing up for someone who is for better or worse wildly popular among his party. There is a middle road between kissing his ass and doing what Steele did. All Steele has to say was how much he appreciates Rush soldiering on out there day after day. Does he make enemies sure? But sometimes he makes the right enemies for the right reasons and he wasn't onto something BO and his ilk wouldn't be so upset by him. But that being said, he is not the Republican party. He is not a politician and no matter how many good or bad points he makes, there is a lot of work to be done.

Why is that so hard? Because Steeele is a moron, that is why.

|3.4.09 @ 3:04PM|#

What he and you mean is that you're afraid Obama's policies will be a success, thus discrediting your pet philosophy for a generation.

Exactly.

Obama has been very lucky in his timing. The economic meltdown made McCain look like an idiot thus easing Obama to victory.

And now, regardless of his policy choices, Obama will see a cyclical upturn in late 2010 or 2011.

The future for the GOP will rest on tagging Obama with a scandal of some sort.

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 3:04PM|#

"I can't help but respect that in the same way I can't help but despite people like Will and Brooks who spend their lives bootlicking people who hate everything Brooks and Will claim to beleive in."

What exactly did George Will do that was so horrible? Is it because he might actually know a few liberals and engage in discussions with them?

From reading on George Will here is what is apparently so horrible about the guy:

1. He was one of the first in the beltway to oppose the Harriet Miers nomination.

2. Stated that their were problems with the administrations policies in Iraq and that the government should be frank on the difficulties the United States faces there.

3. This is definitely his biggest sin, he questioned the wisdom of adding Sarah Palin to the GOP Presidential ticket.

If Rush Limbaugh and his ilk want to be demagogues for life they're more than welcome.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 3:05PM|#

John, all Steele did was say "Rush is an entertainer".

Then Rush went on a rant about how no, he's NOT just an entertainer, etc. then Steele called and apologized.

Why was he so offended by that if he's "just an entertainer"?

|3.4.09 @ 3:06PM|#

"And now, regardless of his policy choices, Obama will see a cyclical upturn in late 2010 or 2011."

How will there be an upturn when the government is hogging all the capital, taxing business to death and capping carbon emissions? There won't be an upturn. There wasn't an upturn for Japan in the 90s and there won't be one for us. At best there will an end to the downturn followed by stagnation and a good dose of inflation. That is the best case. The worst case is depression.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 3:06PM|#

You know you'd be laughing your ass off if Tim Kaine called Michael Moore "just an entertainer" and then had to call MM and kiss his fat ass for fear that there would be a backlash.

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 3:06PM|#

"No I think Steele is an idiot for not standing up for someone who is for better or worse wildly popular among his party."

So the GOP is just one big cult of personality and that's it? How do you differ from the Barack Obama supporters that you apparently despise?

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 3:08PM|#

I hate Michael Moore as well, but I will say this about him atleast he was consistent in that he bashed Bill Clinton and George W Bush if he disagreed with them. The same can't be said for Limbaugh.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 3:08PM|#

He didn't criticize him. He called him "an entertainer". Apparently Rush thinks he is more than an entertainer.

|3.4.09 @ 3:11PM|#

Alberta,

He was right about Harriet Myers. Of course it would have been nice if he had done the same with David Souter who he assured everyone was a right thinking conservative. The Myers Suiter cases show why I hate Will. He torpedoed Myers because she wasn't one of the beltway crowd and didn't kiss the right ass. Of course, he was right, she didn't deserve the spot, but he was right for the wrong reasons. IN contrast, he ignored the fact that Souiter was about the worst Republican nominee for the Court since Warren because Souter was a good guy and in the right circles. He made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons.

As far as Iraq. He really added nothing to the debate. It is not like he was ahead of the curve on the difficulties there. He just put his finger to the wind and then stated the obvious. Big deal.

As far as Palin goes, it was just Myers all over again. Palin wasn't in the club so it didn't matter who she was. Even if he was right, and I am NOT going to highjack the thread into a Palin one, he was like Myers right for all of the wrong reasons.

|3.4.09 @ 3:17PM|#

BDB,

The "entertainer" part wasn't the problem. It was calling the show "incindeary" that pissed people off. A lot of people listen to the show and agree with it and are pretty insulted by calling it 'incindeary".

|3.4.09 @ 3:17PM|#

BDB, Rush is a major player in the battle to keep the GOP conservative. He may be an entertainer as well, but he has taken on a bigger role than entertainer these last few weeks.

</|3.4.09 @ 3:17PM|#

Is there any libertarian who hopes Obama doesn't fail? Miserably? I mean smashed on the rocks, disgraced, discredited,a object of ridicule, scorn and hatred, rejected, repudiated, a total fucking failure,crying like a little bitch about what might have been?

If not I totally question your patriotism.

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 3:18PM|#

"Of course it would have been nice if he had done the same with David Souter who he assured everyone was a right thinking conservative. The Myers Suiter cases show why I hate Will."

Actually that was back in 1990 and many people stated that Souter was a conservative.

"He torpedoed Myers because she wasn't one of the beltway crowd and didn't kiss the right ass. Of course, he was right, she didn't deserve the spot, but he was right for the wrong reasons."

So you hate George Will because his residence is in Washington DC? That's anti-intellectualism.

"IN contrast, he ignored the fact that Souiter was about the worst Republican nominee for the Court since Warren because Souter was a good guy and in the right circles. He made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons."

Yes, and apparently you're capable of reading peoples minds. But if you must know George Will was also supportive of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. Was Ronald Reagan a part of the beltway, if so then why didn't Will hate Ronald Reagan?

"As far as Iraq. He really added nothing to the debate. It is not like he was ahead of the curve on the difficulties there. He just put his finger to the wind and then stated the obvious. Big deal."

It is a big deal, since Rush Limbaugh can't even acknowledge any of the problems that happened over there. In the meantime he's trying to exterminate all of those in the conservative movement who were skeptical of intervention.

"As far as Palin goes, it was just Myers all over again. Palin wasn't in the club so it didn't matter who she was. Even if he was right, and I am NOT going to highjack the thread into a Palin one, he was like Myers right for all of the wrong reasons."

Here is what you're basically saying.

Any person from Washington DC or in the general vicinity of the District of Columbia hates anyone outside of it?

Like I said, that's bullshit populism.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 3:18PM|#

Rush was clearly pissed about the "entertainer" part. He said:

"So, I'm just an entertainer? I guess I have 20 million listeners because of my great song and dance routine, Mr. Steele?"

That's when Steele apologized.

|3.4.09 @ 3:19PM|#

Also Will and Brooks in particular both claimed that OBama was a safe centrist more like Clinton than anything else. That we know now was complete bullshit. It was all the self appointed conservative smart guys, Will, Brooks, Chris Buckley who were most taken in by Obama. All the knuckle draggers saw him for what he was.

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 3:19PM|#

"The "entertainer" part wasn't the problem. It was calling the show "incindeary" that pissed people off. A lot of people listen to the show and agree with it and are pretty insulted by calling it 'incindeary"."

You mean when he bashed Michael J Fox and those suffering with Parkinsons for supporting stem cell research he wasn't being offensive.

|3.4.09 @ 3:21PM|#

"Any person from Washington DC or in the general vicinity of the District of Columbia hates anyone outside of it?"

No you are not understanding me. I am objecting to Will thinking that anyone from the right beltway circles must be okay and anyone not from those circles is suspet. Will is an insufferable snob. That is anti-intellectual.

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 3:25PM|#

Here are all of George Will's columns.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will1.asp

John just admit it, all you're saying is that we should all just hate democrats and never question any decisions made by the GOP.

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 3:27PM|#

"I am objecting to Will thinking that anyone from the right beltway circles must be okay and anyone not from those circles is suspet. Will is an insufferable snob. That is anti-intellectual."

How do you know how he thinks exactly? All you're saying is that any person who criticizes the choice of Sarah Palin must be an anti-intellectual. Which is bullshit.

Minarchist|3.4.09 @ 3:28PM|#

Why are Democrat Presidential administrations such whiny crybabies? Especially when they control congress too.Republicans seem to be able to piss all over the Constituion w/o a peep about any criticism.

|3.4.09 @ 3:30PM|#

John, its obvious that you're a social conservative. Libertarianism is anathema to you. Us secular humanists are your enemy, remember?

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 3:30PM|#

"Republicans seem to be able to piss all over the Constituion w/o a peep about any criticism."

Their's nothing wrong with shredding the constitution as long as it's done by someone outside of the beltway.

|3.4.09 @ 3:31PM|#

"John just admit it, all you're saying is that we should all just hate democrats and never question any decisions made by the GOP."

If I am saying that, why do I have such a problem with Steele? Will is better than Brooks. I have no use for Brooks who was taken in for Obama. You are right. Will isn't quite as bad as I made out above. I still think he is a fake intellectual and don't find his collumns that interesting. But, I will stand down on my worst criticims of Will.

|3.4.09 @ 3:32PM|#

"John, its obvious that you're a social conservative. Libertarianism is anathema to you. Us secular humanists are your enemy, remember?"


That is why I am for legalized drugs, gambling in prostitution. Those views go over really well with my bible thumping friends. Idiot.

|3.4.09 @ 3:32PM|#

gambling and prostitution.

|3.4.09 @ 3:34PM|#

"How do you know how he thinks exactly? All you're saying is that any person who criticizes the choice of Sarah Palin must be an anti-intellectual. Which is bullshit."

Give me an example of him really going after someone who is not from the outside and I will concede your point.

aj grands|3.4.09 @ 3:34PM|#

My personal opinion is, I think its pretty stupid to hope for the failure of the president. I dont agree with his ideas. I think theyre misguided. But I hope to god that by some miracle this works, otherwise we're all screwed. I don't think the left was the same way. Nobody was hoping everyone dies in Iraq. They were just saying, hey, that may be an incredibly stupid idea.
In sum, Rush Limbaugh is a tool.

</|3.4.09 @ 3:35PM|#

Seiously, does anyone call themselves a libertarian who doesn't want Obama to totally fail?

Unless and until he completely reverses most of his agenda of course.

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 3:35PM|#

"That is why I am for legalized drugs, gambling in prostitution. Those views go over really well with my bible thumping friends. Idiot."

Rush Limbaugh thinks you're a loser then. Which makes your smitten defense of him even more ironic.

|3.4.09 @ 3:36PM|#

"That is why I am for legalized drugs, gambling in prostitution. Those views go over really well with my bible thumping friends. Idiot."

sounds to me like an identity crisis.. you have no idea what you do or don't support.. its tough never being taught how to think for yourself isnt it?

|3.4.09 @ 3:38PM|#

"Rush Limbaugh thinks you're a loser then. Which makes your smitten defense of him even more ironic."

There is nothing ironic about it at all. Just because you don't agree with someone or even find them particularly likable, doesn't mean that they are not worth defending from unfair criticism. It is called free thinking.

</|3.4.09 @ 3:38PM|#

I want the Government to lose every single taxpayer penny we pour into the bailouts, then I want every bailout recipient to fail, preferably as hard or harder than they would have without the taxpayer money.

|3.4.09 @ 3:38PM|#

"sounds to me like an identity crisis.. you have no idea what you do or don't support.. its tough never being taught how to think for yourself isnt it?"

I seriously doubt you have ever had an independent or geniunely subversive thought in your life. Why don't you go away and let the big kids talk for a while.

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 3:39PM|#

"Give me an example of him really going after someone who is not from the outside and I will concede your point."

John McCain, the Bush Administration, and Barack Obama. Or is John McCain now outside of the beltway?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/186952/page/1

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 3:40PM|#

"I seriously doubt you have ever had an independent or geniunely subversive thought in your life. Why don't you go away and let the big kids talk for a while."

Unless Rush Limbaugh dislikes what one of the big kids says, in which case that big kid will then have to kiss his ass lest Rush smear him incessently.

</|3.4.09 @ 3:42PM|#

Progressives are responsible for the prohibition of drugs,prostitution and gambling.Well they accepted the latter when their greed for revenue outstripped their moral inclinations.

|3.4.09 @ 3:42PM|#

Fair enough AL. That is actually a decent collumn. The first one his I have read in years that was worth reading. Of course it was like yesterday. Maybe the Obama nightmare has awakened him a bit.

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 3:45PM|#

That's why I'm saying it's ridiculous for Rush Limbaugh to try and expel all of the people whom he deems to be "intellectuals" from the conservative movement.

I probably would have liked Limbaugh in the early 90's, but he's just an ass now and more of a GOP shill than anything else.

|3.4.09 @ 3:46PM|#

AL,

You know what bugs me most about the Rush bashing? The morons who do it. It is such a lazy way of argument. Make a really good point to a liberal and the response is always "you just heard that on Rush". It is absurd. It is the condescending smugness that his enemies have towards his listeners. A lot of pretty smart people listen to him. They don't buy everything he says and they think for themselves. But, he is the only guy out there who talks to them and ever makes the case for markets or small governments. If Libertarians think Rush is so stupid, then they need to go start their own talk show. They need to go out there and get an audience and make their case day after day in an entertaining way that makes their case.

|3.4.09 @ 3:47PM|#

I like the way you think, #. Aj glands, did FDRs policy of government is always the answer really help in the long run? Think social security and medicare. Even if we temporarily stay above water, my kids are sunk in the long run.

|3.4.09 @ 3:48PM|#

But of course Libertarians won't do that because they could never gain an audience. They would be too busy being smug and looking down their nose at people to attract an audience.

|3.4.09 @ 3:50PM|#

John, the only thing close to a successful liberatiarn in talk radio would be Neil Boortz. But few here would allow him into the Libertarian club.

|3.4.09 @ 3:50PM|#

The partisanship is going to be funny this year.

To disagree with Bush, at one point, was considered treason by many right-wingers. I also had many right-wing friends tell me how wrong it was to critize a president during war time. Boy am I having fun with them now. I have two friends that were talking about how wrong it was to question Bush's election after Bush v Gore that are now questioning Obama's election over the birth issue.

Partisans are differnet sides of the stupid coin. They complain about action A only when the other team does it. When they do it, they have plenty of excues of why it's ok.

""""It was calling the show "incindeary" that pissed people off."""

Why should it? Rush is incindeary, big deal so are others including those on the left. Steele is correct about Rush, He is a radio personality who's show is sometimes incindeary and sometimes ugly. That's why he has the listenership he has. For right wingers, the more incindeary the better, enter Bill O'Reilly the highest rated show on cable news.

Rush has a problem with honesty when it put him in bad light.

|3.4.09 @ 3:51PM|#

Slamming on Rush is like making a joke about Bush. It is just humor for stupid people to pretend they are smart.

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 3:52PM|#

No, we just relegate ourselves to reading Milton Friedman over and over again.

|3.4.09 @ 3:53PM|#

"Why should it? Rush is incindeary, big deal so are others including those on the left. Steele is correct about Rush, He is a radio personality who's show is sometimes incindeary and sometimes ugly. That's why he has the listenership he has. For right wingers, the more incindeary the better, enter Bill O'Reilly the highest rated show on cable news."

True. It shouldn't bother him. Frankly everyone should be incindery. I don't consider O'Reilly to be right wing. I frankly don't know what the hell he believes.

|3.4.09 @ 3:54PM|#

So John is a social liberal who is railing against the Souter appointment?

Fat chance.

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 3:55PM|#

"Slamming on Rush is like making a joke about Bush. It is just humor for stupid people to pretend they are smart."

No, we're not making jokes about Rush, we're just saying he's a gluebag. I say the same thing about Michael Moore it doesn't mean that Moore is automatically smarter.

It's just that their both hacks who think the world is always black and white.

|3.4.09 @ 3:55PM|#

"No, we just relegate ourselves to reading Milton Friedman over and over again."

There are worse fates. Also, Friedman is not the end all be all. God knows enough goldbugs hate his guts. I think his reputation is going to take as big of a beating out of this decade as Keynes did out of the 70s. I don't have a problem with questioning monetarism. But it would be nice if we wouldn't use that as an excuse to revive some kind of mongrel version of Keynes.

SIV|3.4.09 @ 3:57PM|#

To disagree with Bush, at one point, was considered treason by many right-wingers.

TrickyVic,

Citation please.I keep hearing this but I only remember the accusations, not the actual treasonous statements.

|3.4.09 @ 3:57PM|#

"It's just that their both hacks who think the world is always black and white."

Fair enough. My problem is with the people who watch the daily show every night and have the complete Micheal Moore DVD collection who sit around and talk about how stupid and narrowminded all the dittoheads are. Hello pot this is the kettle calling.

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 3:57PM|#

and PJ O'Rourke, David Boaz, Ron Paul and Bill Kauffman.

Sam Grove|3.4.09 @ 3:58PM|#

What we could wish for is that their failures will be perceived by voters.

|3.4.09 @ 3:59PM|#

PJ ORourke is really funny. I would put him a lot higher on the food chain than Rush Limbaugh.

Old Bull Lee|3.4.09 @ 3:59PM|#

I get a little sick of the Rush-slamming too. I don't agree with everything he says either, but when I was a kid my Repub parents had him on in the summer and he was my introduction to capitalism and a good counterpoint to the left-wing bias of the public school system.

He's smarter than given credit for. Like Reagan, he's no PhD but he does have a brain. He's NOT the right-wing equivalent of Michael Moore. Joe is right, most of those who hate him only hate him because it makes them look cool.

I'm 100% with him on this. I don't want to see socialist policies succeed in this country.

Old Bull Lee|3.4.09 @ 4:01PM|#

(Oops, John not Joe!)

John - you nailed it at 3:57.

|3.4.09 @ 4:01PM|#

Exactly Old Bull Lee. And don't call me Joe. Those are fighting words. :)

|3.4.09 @ 4:03PM|#

"I seriously doubt you have ever had an independent or geniunely subversive thought in your life. Why don't you go away and let the big kids talk for a while."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. sorry.. the "big kids" part just cracks me up..

because that is all you are.. one big dumb kid.. how about you just go away and let us adults have a logical discussion..

|3.4.09 @ 4:05PM|#

Lee, what exactly could socialist policies possibly succeed at? Certainly there's no historical evidence that a socialist government has ever succeeded at anything but hampering the productive spirit.

Fluffy|3.4.09 @ 4:05PM|#

You know why John doesn't like George Will?

Because Will turned against W when W signed McCain-Feingold into law, and never gave W a single moment's slack ever again.

In other words, John hates Will because Will did what Rush SHOULD HAVE DONE, if Rush wasn't completely full of shit.

Thus demonstrating once again that John's standard of value is loyalty to the needs of the GOP. Rush by his own admission carried water for a despicable big-government W administration, but John is OK with that and accepts that, for the unspoken and unadmitted reason that he thinks that's what a good Republican and a good conservative SHOULD HAVE done. Because even though W was despicable he wasn't a Democrat, and that's all that matters.

And Will didn't demonstrate that kind of loyalty, and wasn't willing to pretend that campaign finance reform was a better idea under a GOP President than it had been under a Democrat President, and wasn't willing to pretend that Palin wasn't a moron, and that's just unacceptable to John.

|3.4.09 @ 4:06PM|#

"because that is all you are.. one big dumb kid.. how about you just go away and let us adults have a logical discussion.."

Uhhuh. Why don't you list all of the independent and subversive things you have ever done? I know you voted for Obama. I bet that took courage. Let me guess, you objected to the Iraq war. My God that is right up there with being a freedom rider. How did you ever find the courage?

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 4:08PM|#

"Citation please.I keep hearing this but I only remember the accusations, not the actual treasonous statements."

Here is a sample:

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2006/jul/31/00020/

|3.4.09 @ 4:08PM|#

You Fluffy,

I am all about the GOP. That is why I can't stand Micheal Steele. That is why I think most of the GOP congress critters are crooks. I just never have anything bad to say about the GOP.

If you want to argue with me, fine. Lets have at it. But, can you please argue with me and not the version of me that lives in your head?

|3.4.09 @ 4:09PM|#

It really is funny.

The dittoheads come out to defend El Rushbo from the fanatical pro-liberty types.

|3.4.09 @ 4:10PM|#

BTW,

Fluffy, I defy you to find one post where I have ever had anything good to say about Campaign Finance Reform ever. You won't find one because I never have and Bush was wrong for signing it. Just like he was wrong about NCLB, and the prescription drug benefit and a lot of other things. Again, if you want to argue, argue with me not the me that lives in your head. -

|3.4.09 @ 4:12PM|#

John,
I've been reading this thread a bit and I have to admit I have no idea where you are coming from. Rush Limbaugh is stupid. Not because he's wrong but because he's more interested in being right then getting a message out. AND YES BEFORE YOU GO OFF people on the left who do this piss me off too. It doesn't matter WHAT SIDE you are on even though you seem incapable of saying anything without bitching about the left. As if every attack on the right MUST come from a liberal.
I've also noticed you're mostly wrong.
People who are right don't piss a lot of people off people who are right and cocky piss people off. There's a huge difference. Being WRONG and cocky pisses them off even more.
If the Republicans would pull the dick of the religious right out of there ass. (YES creationism beliefs do hurt the world more than anti-vaccine beliefs because people can look and creationism and easily say OMFG are you fucking retarded while it might take a few seconds of reading to debunk vaccine/autism).
The fact that Repubplicans are so moronically wrong about certain things ( science, sex ed, religion, death penalty etc etc) doesn't make the Dems right but all the dems have to do is sit on there hands and say "really do you want to be associated with racists, and jerry falwell(thank god he died).

It's like if a kid smokes pot and realizes DARE was full of shit then thinks "well if they are full of shit about pot they are full of shit about everything."

Considering this is a libertatian site mostly I don't understand you're defensiveness WE FUCKING KNOW THE DEMS ARE WRONG TOO. ok? So stop talking down to us as if we don't get it.

Fluffy|3.4.09 @ 4:15PM|#

But, he is the only guy out there who talks to them and ever makes the case for markets or small governments. If Libertarians think Rush is so stupid, then they need to go start their own talk show.

Wait, now you are combining 2 arguments in this thread into 1.

I have never said Rush was stupid. I said that Rush is a liar, and that when he talks about small government it's shtick. He does it because he knows there's an audience for it, and because it can be a useful weapon to use against Democrats. He doesn't do it because he actually believes in it, because if he did he would have hated W and fought him tooth and nail.

I don't think we can catch Rush up in our "anti-intellectual" argument, since he appears to be something of an autodidact who has great respect for ideas and has chosen to make his living propagating them. He's a popularizer and not a theorist himself, of course, but I don't think for a moment that he has contempt for the world of ideas.

But if we're talking about conservatism in general and not Rush as an individual, then I stand by my earlier statement that modern conservatism disdains science and the mind in general because of a historically deep suspicion that the intellect is a threat to religion. And it goes beyond populism, because a cosmospolitan populism is possible and that sure ain't the modern GOP.

It's not a matter of subscribing to scientifically unsound ideas. Obviously, the GM food and vaccine issues are examples of cases where many people hold ideas that aren't rooted in good science. Anti-intellectualism goes beyond that, to hold that study, reflection, curiosity, etc. are not good ways to know about the world, but are instead things that are to be distrusted, because they might spoil The Old Ways and Tradition and The Real America.

|3.4.09 @ 4:17PM|#

Fair enough. My problem is with the people who watch the daily show every night and have the complete Micheal Moore DVD collection who sit around and talk about how stupid and narrowminded all the dittoheads are. Hello pot this is the kettle calling.

Traffic in stereotypes much? I live in Manhattan and I've never met a person like that in my life. Rush isn't even in most people's social consciousness unless he says or does something incendiary. This is why treating Limbaugh as more than an entertainer is bad news for the GOP. The current kerfuffle is good for Rush and his rating, bad for the GOP and their electoral prospects. I think that's what Michael Steele was trying to say, but didn't frame it correctly. What is good for Rush is not necessarily good for the GOP*.

BTW, a big difference between Stewart and Limbaugh is that Stewart's schtick is making fun of whoever is in power. So he'll go after Bush, Clinton or Obama. He even gives his crowd shit for it.

* In fact, usually the opposite. His ratings are better when the GOP is the opposition.

|3.4.09 @ 4:17PM|#

John -

No one outside the party believes the GOP anymore.

Bush. Bush. Bush.

You fucked up with him and then supported the dumb Arab cocksucker for eight full years.

Sorry - GOP is dead to us.

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 4:18PM|#

John, the point is that Rush Limbaugh hates George Will because Will was far more prone to point out the problems with the GOP and Bush than Rush Limbaugh was. Oddly enough Limbaugh has only become more critical of the GOP when their in opposition.

Old Bull Lee|3.4.09 @ 4:18PM|#

James Ard - Forgive my awkward phrasing. I mainly don't want to see Obama succeed in implementing socialism.

If he does, I don't want to see him (or it) declared a success when the inevitable economic recovery occurs in spite of Obama or socialism.

Listen to me, I sound like Joe the Plumber with all this Obama=socialism talk.

|3.4.09 @ 4:18PM|#

YES creationism beliefs do hurt the world more than anti-vaccine beliefs because people can look and creationism and easily say OMFG are you fucking retarded while it might take a few seconds of reading to debunk vaccine/autism)."

WTF does that even mean? Anti-vacine dellusions cause kids to get sick and die. Beleiveing in creationism does nothing of the sort.

"The fact that Repubplicans are so moronically wrong about certain things ( science, sex ed, religion, death penalty etc etc) doesn't make the Dems right but all the dems have to do is sit on there hands and say "really do you want to be associated with racists, and jerry falwell(thank god he died)."

Republcians are rihgt abou the death penalty. Democrats have a complete distain for religous freedom and are just as wrong and as bad as the biggest theocrat. As far as associating with Racist, you mean like nominating someone who attended a racist anti-semetic hate mongering church for 20 years? You mean like that? The dems tolerate and associate with racists. They just don't tolerate and associate with white racists.

|3.4.09 @ 4:18PM|#

Cracking on Rush isn't lazy humor. It's funny humor. Anyways isn't he too hoppped up on painkillers to even know right from left nowadays? :) see making fun of someones drug problem is funny!

JB|3.4.09 @ 4:20PM|#

Mo, please. Stewart was and is SO in the tank for Obama. You have to blind and retarded not to see that.

Fluffy|3.4.09 @ 4:21PM|#

Fluffy, I defy you to find one post where I have ever had anything good to say about Campaign Finance Reform ever. You won't find one because I never have and Bush was wrong for signing it. Just like he was wrong about NCLB, and the prescription drug benefit and a lot of other things. Again, if you want to argue, argue with me not the me that lives in your head.

I didn't say you did. Your reading comprehension is really pretty appalling at times.

I said you don't like George Will because he's not a "good Republican", and the reason he's not a "good Republican" is because he jumped ship on W early over campaign finance reform and gave W years of shit after that. And because to you, it doesn't matter if Will was right or not or even if Will holds the same views on these issues you do - what matters to you is that he attacked W.

By the time you get done with all the disclaimers you put out about the Bush policies you opposed, it should be obvious to anyone that you should have hated W, too. But you didn't. You fought for W on these boards tooth and nail for years. And that's the whole key to this discussion right there.

Rush stood up for W, despite the fact that W sucked moose cock. So now you stand up for Rush, because you think what Rush did was the right thing to do.

Will cut loose from W, for reasons that you yourself claim to agree with. So now you hate Will, because he's not a good soldier.

It would be very clear to you if you showed the least introspection here.

Old Bull Lee|3.4.09 @ 4:21PM|#

Fluffy - part of the problem is defining conservatism. If George Will and William F. Buckley are conservatism, and GWB is modern conservatism (or neo-con), I would put Rush somewhere in the middle of those poles.

|3.4.09 @ 4:21PM|#

"Anti-intellectualism goes beyond that, to hold that study, reflection, curiosity, etc. are not good ways to know about the world, but are instead things that are to be distrusted, because they might spoil The Old Ways and Tradition and The Real America."

No one thinks that. That is a complete fucking straw man. Further, show me where our "intellectual" President has ever done that in his entire life? If anything it is the left who thinks that. Anyone who questions a guy in a lab coat is a denier or a fundie. Jesus, how is being dogmatic about nearly everything being reflective? And since when is lack of reflection some exclusive purview of the right?

|3.4.09 @ 4:23PM|#

""""True. It shouldn't bother him. Frankly everyone should be incindery. """

Why is it true when I say it, yet Steele is wrong and needs to apologize to Rush when he says it?

That's what I'm talking about. Partisans rally against the truth when it shed negative light on their team. Say the samething in a nice way, they are ok with it.

|3.4.09 @ 4:23PM|#

It's not a matter of subscribing to scientifically unsound ideas. Obviously, the GM food and vaccine issues are examples of cases where many people hold ideas that aren't rooted in good science. Anti-intellectualism goes beyond that, to hold that study, reflection, curiosity, etc. are not good ways to know about the world, but are instead things that are to be distrusted, because they might spoil The Old Ways and Tradition and The Real America.

Well said, dude. I hate the comparison of ID and AGW. At least the supporters of the latter are trying to prove their point using science. They may be misinterpreting facts, but climate scientists modeling patterns and testing them against reality is what science is about. Make a hypothesis, test it and if it doesn't work, make a new hypothesis. ID is about coming to the conclusion without looking for the answer.

Also, the thimersol vaccine issue isn't really partisan. It's autism groups v. everyone else. I've seen lots of press about the science being in on it on liberal blogs and disbelief of it on conservative blogs (and vice versa). GM is a different beast, but it's largely a group of fringe hippies rather than political leaders.

|3.4.09 @ 4:23PM|#

"By the time you get done with all the disclaimers you put out about the Bush policies you opposed, it should be obvious to anyone that you should have hated W, too. But you didn't. You fought for W on these boards tooth and nail for years. And that's the whole key to this discussion right there."

No I forgave Bush those sins because he was right about the Middle east and Iraq. You don't agree with me but that is a different thread.

Look at it this way, if he had legalized drugs, you would probably defend him to. But it wouldn't be because you are a GOP shill it would be because you thought he was right about something that you considered very important.

|3.4.09 @ 4:23PM|#

Here goes. See most people go from A to B and stop let's take this to Z though.
Here's why creationist beliefs hurt more! ( also the death penalty is inherently un-christian so the repubs are hipocrits there). But creationist beliefs!!!

Here's why. Believing in Creationism makes people lean left tell me exactly how that is a good thing. The republican Party holds on to a narrow minded belief that god made the earth in 6 days this attracts sarah palin to the party. That doesn't hurt? PEople who simply won't vote republican because of it? that hurts to.
You say it doesn't hurt? tell me how it helps?
(personally religion has no place in politics period. I actually like christianity it's just a shame there aren't any christians.)

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 4:23PM|#

In other news:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/04/limbaugh.mocked/index.html

How did the GOP win elections again?

|3.4.09 @ 4:25PM|#

JB,

He is super in the tank for Obama. Of course, on inauguration day, he did a clip montage comparing the things Obama said to the things Bush said. SPOILER ALERT: There was a ton of overlap. His audience booed and he said, in essence, "I'm doing my job."

That's the difference. He knows his job is to satirize the institutions of power and he will, whether or not he agrees or disagrees with those in power. He was in the tank for Kerry too, but he was ruthless on parodying him.

|3.4.09 @ 4:26PM|#

Damn John you take everything so personally. This is fun though.
Regardless of what you think the republicans religious ideals push more people out of there party than they bring in. Why do you think I'm even here? I mean if it wasn't for the GOPS RETARDED religious hypocrisy i'd be on board in a heartbeat.
I'm not saying the dems are better I'm just explaining slowly and with small words why the GOP is wrong too!

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 4:27PM|#

"No I forgave Bush those sins because he was right about the Middle east and Iraq. You don't agree with me but that is a different thread."

You mean there were WMD's in Iraq, a connection to 9/11 and a populace that were going to greet us as liberators.

|3.4.09 @ 4:27PM|#

MO,

So his idea of satirizing Obama is showing how he is really like Bush. Stewart is just as left as Rush is right. They are practically the same guy. Same bullshit different day.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 4:28PM|#

He slammed Obama last night for his Iraq plan.

|3.4.09 @ 4:28PM|#

Rush is in this for his OWN ego. Once you understand that, the rest makes sense.

There is nothing wrong about it, and there is nothing wrong about calling him on it either.

|3.4.09 @ 4:28PM|#

Fluffy, Republicans don't oppose GM foods, space science, or numerous other scientific pursuits. Some do get upset when the minions of death support the further degradation of the value of life for the good of the state. I'm an athiest, but I can see the workings of the devil in this.

|3.4.09 @ 4:30PM|#

oh you defend Bush's middle east policies and you're intellectual. Oh dear god. Next you'll tell me you're a Christian who supports the death penalty or a Democrat who is actually pro choice or whatever your favorite oxymoron is.

|3.4.09 @ 4:30PM|#

"You mean there were WMD's in Iraq, a connection to 9/11 and a populace that were going to greet us as liberators."

No wiping out one of the worst dicators on earch and establishing the first Democracy in the middle east. Stop highjacking the thread. This is not an Iraq thread. The point is that I don't defend Bush out of some blind loyality to the GOP. I defended him out of belief in some, but not all of the things he did. Just like Fluffy would defend someone who did something he really agreed with even if the guy did other stupid shit.

Further, it is not all or nothing. You can agree with someone on some things and think they are daft on others. Just because I think Clinton was alying sleazeball doesn't mean I won't defend his signing NAFTA and welfare reform to the death. Does that make a shill for the Clinton era DNC?

BDB|3.4.09 @ 4:30PM|#

FWIW Stewart's audience is what kills the show most of the time. They're extremely annoying.

wayne|3.4.09 @ 4:31PM|#

I understand the complaints about Bush not being an itellectual, certainly he was not the brightest president in our history. I understand the complaints about the Republicans cozy (and moronic) relationship with the religious right.

I don't get the "Republicans (and conservatives) are racists" meme. I know plenty of Rs and conservatives. I have never met a racist conservative.

The race-baiting, poverty-pimping, soap box pretty much belongs to the liberals.

SIV|3.4.09 @ 4:32PM|#

I hope Obama has at least half the FAIL in this comment thread.
I'm still looking for an example(I'm told there's lots of them) of right wing conservatives(lots of them) calling people treasonous for criticizing policies of the Bush Administration.
The NYTs example in the American Conservative mag cited above was about the paper exposing a covert action, not their criticism of it.

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 4:33PM|#

"Further, it is not all or nothing. You can agree with someone on some things and think they are daft on others. Just because I think Clinton was alying sleazeball doesn't mean I won't defend his signing NAFTA and welfare reform to the death. Does that make a shill for the Clinton era DNC?"

It does if you support Clinton on those actions yet wouldn't support another President simply because they had an [R] in front of their name. That's the problem with Limbaugh.

|3.4.09 @ 4:33PM|#

Rex,

You want to talk about Middle east policy, there are about a million threads upon which to do it. But hurling invective and conclusions does not qualify as debate. Furhter there is about a 1800 year Christian tradition supporting the death penalty in the right cases. It is an interesting theological question. Again though, unsupported smug conclusions don't count as argument.

|3.4.09 @ 4:34PM|#

Thank you trickyvick
That's exactly my point he cares so much more about being right than actually furthering a cause. Must be the oxycotton. Same thing with most talking heads or radio voices they don't actually care so long as they're proven right.
Pride comes before a fall which is why the dems are in power now and will fall and why the GOP fell so hard. Pride plain and simple. Stupid arrogant pride.

|3.4.09 @ 4:34PM|#

"It does if you support Clinton on those actions yet wouldn't support another President simply because they had an [R] in front of their name. That's the problem with Limbaugh."

But Limbaugh did go after Bush for the spending and loaths McCain and Campaign finance reform. He is not quite the GOP shill people make him out to be.

|3.4.09 @ 4:35PM|#

I think it would be interesting if a terror attack occured, and Obama and Biden was requested to testify on capitol hill, yet refused.

Any takers on how pissed off the right wing would be?

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 4:36PM|#

"The NYTs example in the American Conservative mag cited above was about the paper exposing a covert action, not their criticism of it."

They were attacked as traitors for exposing it. That should give you a good idea of how important freedom of the press is to some die hard Republicans.

But we shouldn't forget Michelle Bachman's comments about anti-Americans, which would include anyone critical of Bush.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=asobjtNf.V60&refer=home

|3.4.09 @ 4:37PM|#

"Any takers on how pissed off the right wing would be?"

But would the left be pissed off? I think it depends on the right. The right generally buys into the imperial presidency. My guess is that at least some of them would not pitch a bitch on the grounds that doing so would be beneath the Presidency. Not all, but some. There were some on the right who objected to the SC's decision to let the Paula Jones case go on on the same theory.

|3.4.09 @ 4:38PM|#

Human tradition not christian(maybe jewish but the old testament is kind of contradictory all over the place anyway) but people like to pretend. Whatever gets them to sleep at night.
hey at least you didn't respond to me as if I was defending Democrats that time. That's change I can believe in!

All I'm saying is the Rush Limbaugh is Wrong. I'm not stating my opinion. I'm stating a fact. He's not necessarily wrong on the issues he's wrong on presentation which might even be a bigger sin.

|3.4.09 @ 4:38PM|#

"They were attacked as traitors for exposing it. That should give you a good idea of how important freedom of the press is to some die hard Republicans."

But the NYT admitted the program was legal. It was a valuable program and the NYT exposed it for cheap sales. That was pretty appalling. If it had been an illegal program, then expose it. But as I remember it wasn't illegal.

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 4:39PM|#

"But Limbaugh did go after Bush for the spending and loaths McCain and Campaign finance reform. He is not quite the GOP shill people make him out to be."

As was stated before he basically gave Bush a pass on that because he was a Republican.

If a Democrat were to bring about the Patriot Act, Campaign Finance Reform, and Iraq, how likely is it that Rush Limbaugh would be foaming at the mouth.

|3.4.09 @ 4:40PM|#

"All I'm saying is the Rush Limbaugh is Wrong. I'm not stating my opinion. I'm stating a fact. He's not necessarily wrong on the issues he's wrong on presentation which might even be a bigger sin."

Why is he wrong on presentation? Because you say so? Because you don't think he is funny?

|3.4.09 @ 4:40PM|#

I'm an athiest, but I can see the workings of the devil in this.

Hate to break it to you, but atheists don't believe in the devil.

|3.4.09 @ 4:40PM|#

""""But Limbaugh did go after Bush for the spending and loaths McCain and Campaign finance reform. He is not quite the GOP shill people make him out to be."""

I still say he's a GOP shill, second, a Limbaugh shill first. The GOP guys he's going after are not of the same GOP cut as himself. Rush would probably agree if I said they are not real GOPers, but a new party that abandoned the GOP principles.

But if he stuck to GOP principle first, and ego second. Rush would have to acknowledge the fine fiscal job Clinton did in the Whitehouse.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 4:40PM|#

Here you go SIV:

http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp

An article titled "Unpatriotic Conservatives", i.e., war critics.

Make it harder next time.

|3.4.09 @ 4:41PM|#

"If a Democrat were to bring about the Patriot Act, Campaign Finance Reform, and Iraq, how likely is it that Rush Limbaugh would be foaming at the mouth."

He never foamed at the mouth when Clinton did NAFTA and welfare reform. He foamed about Clinton, but not those things.

|3.4.09 @ 4:42PM|#

"The GOP guys he's going after are not of the same GOP cut as himself. Rush would probably agree if I said they are not real GOPers, but a new party that abandoned the GOP principles."

then how is he any differen than Libertarians who rant about GOP people who abandoned small government principles?

|3.4.09 @ 4:43PM|#

"""Why is he wrong on presentation? Because you say so? Because you don't think he is funny?""""

Funny, What you think he's a clown? ;-)Imagine the fire Steele would have received if he use the word comedian instead of entertainer. And yes, comedians are entertainers too.

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 4:44PM|#

Yes, so it becomes fairly obvious that he just foams when a Democrat is in charge.

|3.4.09 @ 4:44PM|#

""""He never foamed at the mouth when Clinton did NAFTA and welfare reform. """"

NAFTA was Bush Sr's handywork.

|3.4.09 @ 4:45PM|#

"Funny, What you think he's a clown? ;-)Imagine the fire Steele would have received if he use the word comedian instead of entertainer. And yes, comedians are entertainers too."

Maybe I wouldn't hack it as RNC chairman either. I could definitely imagine saying Rush is a funny guy. Maybe he would go all Joe Peschi on me and ask if I think he is funny.

|3.4.09 @ 4:46PM|#

NAFTA was Bush Sr's handywork.


No it wasn't. Clinton supported it and it went through the Senate in the summer of 1993. It is one of Clinton's signature accomplishments. Bush may have negotiated it, but Clinton got it through the Senate and supported it. He deserves credit for that. Don't you remember the pre-insane Al Gore debating HRoss Perot on Larry King?

|3.4.09 @ 4:46PM|#

I don't believe in the devil, but I do believe there are people out there that are trying to take more control of our lives by making us think we're dung.

|3.4.09 @ 4:49PM|#

Back to creationism. Democrats are wrong but Like I said they have better slogans and the stuff their wrong about takes 5 more seconds to figure out then on the right.

Here's why you don't see more small market folks walking around This exact conversation.

20-something 1:hey there was this guy on the news talking about small markets he saw making some sense.
20-something 2: Oh him haha really dude?
20-something 1: What're you laughing about.
20-something 2: Dude he's like a flat earth creationist. He believes in all kinds of crazy shit.

This is why the GOPs beliefs hurt. Because of the RETARDS on the right anytime I talk to my friends or co-workers about small markets and liberty the fucking baggage comes along with it.
People tend to group things.
Sadly because of this small markets get's grouped in with in no particular order: Corruption, idiot science, prudishness, hypocrisy.

Maybe yeah I have just a little bit of a pet peave when I get lumped in with Sarah (i need to be put down like a lame polar bear) Palin.

You know? Can you blame me. I'd be just as pissed if I was big government and they lumped me in with anti vaxxers? But since I'm not I don't think about it.

My point is I'm tired of Rush Limbaugh being the idiot voice of small government since he's not.

That's my point

|3.4.09 @ 4:49PM|#

""""then how is he any differen than Libertarians who rant about GOP people who abandoned small government principles?"""

Ego.

You are not wrong when you disagree with a Libertarian, you're wrong when you disagree with Rush.

|3.4.09 @ 4:50PM|#

Don't believe the devil
I don't believe his book
But the truth is not the same
Without the lies he made up

alan|3.4.09 @ 4:52PM|#

No one thinks that. That is a complete fucking straw man. Further, show me where our "intellectual" President has ever done that in his entire life? If anything it is the left who thinks that. Anyone who questions a guy in a lab coat is a denier or a fundie. Jesus, how is being dogmatic about nearly everything being reflective? And since when is lack of reflection some exclusive purview of the right?

Vehement dogmatism does dominate The Academy in our times. Compare the attitudes of the Neo-Darwinist who dominated the discussion of evolutionary theory in the 40s-70s, to the current Dawkin's generation and the degree of tolerance for descent has declined dramatically.

In terms of ideology the modern liberal belief as it is commonly held among those who describe themselves as liberal has more in kind to a Confucian order than to classical liberalism.

|3.4.09 @ 4:53PM|#

"""No it wasn't. Clinton supported it and it went through the Senate in the summer of 1993."""

John, Bush Sr. wrote the blueprint for NAFTA. SURPRISE!!!!!! Remember, he was the New World Order president

From Wiki.
Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1990 between the three nations, the leaders gathered together in San Antonio Texas on December 17, 1992 to officially sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexico's President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, made history that day when they ceremoniously signed the agreement.

DOH!!!!!

|3.4.09 @ 4:53PM|#

Rex,

I guess my bitch is that if you are so embarassed by creationists, why the hell aren't liberals embarassed by dumb fuck environmentalists, idiot hippies, and people who spent the 60s, 70s and 80s defending communism? I find them equally distastful. It bugs the fuck out of me that one group is kicked out of polite society while the other is welcomed.

|3.4.09 @ 4:54PM|#

because his presentation only alienates. If he wanted to change people minds it would be inclusive, but he's more interested in being right than doing right. it's not just him more people have the "nah nah nah told you so" attitude. Thing is it doesn't solve anything. HE DOESN'T CARE.

alan|3.4.09 @ 4:54PM|#

damn homonyms, and fun games, 'dissent' not descent.

|3.4.09 @ 4:55PM|#

Tricky Vic,

Read my post. Clinton got it ratified by Congress and deserves credit. which part of "Bush may have negotiated it, but Clinton got it through the Senate and supported it." is so hard to understand?

|3.4.09 @ 4:55PM|#

Mo: "Obama isn't the head of the Democratic party, he's the head of the country."

I don't like the USA you live in Mo.

John: "At best there will an end to the downturn followed by stagnation and a good dose of inflation. That is the best case. The worst case is depression."

What about World War III?!

|3.4.09 @ 4:57PM|#

Rex: "because his presentation only alienates. If he wanted to change people minds it would be inclusive, but he's more interested in being right than doing right. it's not just him more people have the "nah nah nah told you so" attitude. Thing is it doesn't solve anything. HE DOESN'T CARE."

Does his listernship go up or down?

|3.4.09 @ 4:57PM|#

Robbie,

I guess that is the worst case. Russia just told BO to fuck off on Iran. I am not positive on that front. God help us.

|3.4.09 @ 4:59PM|#

"""I could definitely imagine saying Rush is a funny guy. Maybe he would go all Joe Peschi on me and ask if I think he is funny."""

If you said it in negative light, he would tear you a new asshole. If you said it in a way that made him look good, he would laugh with you. That's my point. It's not really about truth with Rush. It's about his ego.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 5:00PM|#

If you're going to refer to him by his initials as some veiled swipe could you at least say "BHO" like LoneWacko does? Everytime you say "BO" I think you're talking about body odor.

|3.4.09 @ 5:01PM|#

See john I think we agree. The only thing is I bitch about the GOP more because i get lumped in with their dumb asses. Sometimes I get lumped in with liberals because im in my 20's and don't go to church. And both ways i get sick of delineating my actual belief structure every time I have to be like "whoa whoa.. i never said that."
the problem with the GOP is it's hard to talk about those issues without getting lumped in with what i consider the wackos.

It's like the free hat episode of south park
where the boys are trying to save movies from their directors and all the morons who came out with them are more interested in in freeing a crazed child murderer first. Same thing when I hear conservatives going off about small government all the time it's always "yeah small government... just as soon as we hammer out the abortion, stem cell and evolution thing we'll get right on that" I can tell they mostly don't mean it. It's just to me like "THE REPUBLICAN PARTY (we also happen to believe in small government)"

|3.4.09 @ 5:01PM|#

BRB,

I am not a beleiver in the crazy Obama is a Muslim theories. So I don't consider his middle name to be very important. Further, considering his performance in office so far, I think associating him with body odor is fairly appropriate.

alan|3.4.09 @ 5:02PM|#

I guess that is the worst case. Russia just told BO to fuck off on Iran. I am not positive on that front. God help us.

If we are fortunate and the Russians win, they will kick the Commie Democrats out of power and put them to work in the salt mines to pay off that 1.7 billion deficit.

|3.4.09 @ 5:03PM|#

John go back and read my post. I said "NAFTA was Bush Sr's handywork." and that's true. I didn't comment on who passed it, I was commenting on who created it.

You're right in that Clinton passed Bush's handywork.

alan|3.4.09 @ 5:04PM|#

yeah, but we inherited this mess from Republicans with their stinking wars, and their stinking compassion for the elderly by robbing our wallets for a stinking prescription benefit, so why don't you complain about them?

That was then, this is now.

|3.4.09 @ 5:07PM|#

"""Further, considering his performance in office so far, I think associating him with body odor is fairly appropriate."""

Ha, that a good, and fair game. I have a feeling many people will be using that in a year.

|3.4.09 @ 5:08PM|#

I left out the one after good

|3.4.09 @ 5:08PM|#

REx,

We do agree. Where I part with Libertarians is that I am more of a Jeffersonian Democrat. I think people ought to be free to form their own communities and state and local governments as they see fit. If Utah wants to be Morman land and San Fran, Gay world and Las Vegas, sin world, I am happy to see it. Most Libertarians are appalled by that and think every community should ahere to Libertarian values. I just think the Feds should adhere to Libertarian values. The states and the locals should have more freedom, although I would be more likly to live in Libertarian land than I would Mormon land.

|3.4.09 @ 5:09PM|#

Fair enough Tricky Vick.

|3.4.09 @ 5:12PM|#

Bush wins on: the war.

Bush loses on: PATRIOT Act and wiretapping, torture, NCLB, McCain-Feingold, Medicare Part D, love of expanding the government and huge deficits.

But I still support Bush!

|3.4.09 @ 5:12PM|#

I'm actually fine with that. I'd love to live in vegas.
Problem is when you give these small local groups big voices because they yell louder.

It's a pain in the ass to get the government to pass anything for the laid- back people (read most of the people in the country) simply because we're laid back.

Isn't that the problem with the GOP and Rush he's not furthering the "let bygones be bygones agenda."
Fuck it it all comes down to which side of stupid people vote for.

|3.4.09 @ 5:14PM|#

The GM food stuff is bad. The autism stuff is more prevalent among the conservative homeschooling population than pretty much anywhere else, although it has far too much saturation. But there is nothing quite like proID and creationism that is as widely held for democrats.

Organic food. Anti-nuke.

I'd argue that Marxist ideas are also prevalent though unacknowledged all over the left. Keynesianism itself gets so much support because it is compatible with Marx's 'surplus value' theory of production.

Marxism is the real creationism of the left, it just goes unacknowledged because his ideas have influenced so many subsequent thinkers.

zoltan|3.4.09 @ 5:15PM|#

Where I part with Libertarians is that I am more of a Jeffersonian Democrat. I think people ought to be free to form their own communities and state and local governments as they see fit.

And in what way could those libertarians differ with you? There would be no way for them to enforce their belief that all communities should be similarly built. Personally, though, I'm with you on the 50 different ships at sail.

Also, it's funny that there are only 1800 years of "Christian" thought on the death penalty. Funny that people ascribe things as Christ-like or "Christian" when there's absolutely no basis for it.

|3.4.09 @ 5:17PM|#

the problem Rex is that the bigger government gets the more vicous the fights about it get. If the government didn't run all of the schools and force everyone to pay for the schools, evangelicals wouldn't be so on the war path about evolution. They would just be sending their kids to schools that didn't teach it. I wouldn't do that, but it is none of my business what they do. If the government didn't give benefits based on if you are married and if you have kids, gays wouldn't be screaming about civil rights. People would just belong to whatever church they agreed with and be done with it. The list goes on and on. These social issues get so vicous because the size of government has made the stakes so high.

zoltan|3.4.09 @ 5:19PM|#

I find it horrifying when I run into creationists, but I'd still rather have evolution-denying Ron Paul as president.

|3.4.09 @ 5:23PM|#

"Also, it's funny that there are only 1800 years of "Christian" thought on the death penalty. Funny that people ascribe things as Christ-like or "Christian" when there's absolutely no basis for it."

The New Testiment doesnt' really say a lot. There is the famous John 8 about not casting the first stone. But the pharasees were trying to trap Jesus into either breaking Roman law by advocating the woman's death or mosiac law by saying she should live. Jesus gave a very clever out with the "cast the first stone" line. Some argue that that means he was renouncing the long tradition of the death penalty under Jewish law. But that is a pretty big stretch I think. I don't think the NT case agains the death penalty is that strong to be honest.

SIV|3.4.09 @ 5:31PM|#

BDB,

That was one, David Frum, and he didn't call them "treasonous" but "unpatriotic". The statement that "lots of", "most", or "all" right wingers called those critical of Bush's policies "treasonous" or "unpatriotic" doesn't hold up.I do remember a lot of lefties claimng their "patriotism" was questioned even when no one had. Are there any "Bush policies" other than the war which provoked this charge?
I do remember a few conservatives questioning Bush's patriotism over immigration and campaign finance reform.

Gilbert Martin|3.4.09 @ 5:52PM|#

Let's see.

Obama's policies are pure, unadulterated socialism and Limbaugh wants him to fail in getting them implemented.

Just as any conservative should want since success in implementing socialism always results in an abject failure for the nation where it's done.

Nothing remarkable about it.

Alberta Libertarian|3.4.09 @ 5:57PM|#

SIV, didn't Ann Coulter basically write a book called "treason."

|3.4.09 @ 6:06PM|#

AL,

Your proof is Ann Colture and David Frum? I don't think they qualify as "most right wingers". If all right wingers are responsible for what Colture says, then every left winger was praying for a 1000 mogadeshus in Iraq like Michael Moore was. The Left whinined a lot about thier partiorism being questioned and are no doing exactly what they day Republicans did. Anyone who thinks the stimulus package is a bad idea is just being unpatriotic and obstructionist.

|3.4.09 @ 6:11PM|#

"If these guys are so impressed with themselves, and if they are so sure of their correctness, why doesn't President Obama come on my show? . . . I am offering President Obama to come on this program - without staffers, without a TelePrompTer, without note cards - to debate me on the issues. . . . Just come on this program. Let's have a little debate. You tell me how wrong I am and you can convince the rest of the Americans that don't agree with you how wrong we all are. You're a smart guy, Mr. President. You don't need these hacks to front for you."


that apparently was Rush Limbaugh today. Now if Rush is such an ignorant hillbilly as all of you claim, why shouldn't BO or at least one of his minions go on his show? Wouldn't BO and all of the intellectual giants that inhabit his administration destroy Rush? I mean really kill him and discredit him and the Republicans the way Al Gore discredited H. Ross Perot in the famous NAFTA debate? I mean really the Demcorats, at least according to fluffy and many on this thread, now have a complete monopoly on brians in this country. So how could a buffoon like Limbaugh not be an easy mark? Further, since BO has dubbed him the head of the Republican Party, doesn't a sitting President have some kind of obligation to debate the leader of the oppostion?

jgr|3.4.09 @ 6:12PM|#

"After eight years of seething hatred-plenty of it deserved-for George W. Bush, this brand of contrived indignation touches a new level of creative dishonesty."

Change you can believe in -- the audacity of DOPE!

Barry|3.4.09 @ 6:44PM|#

"Sock It to the Left!"
The Rise of the Spite Right

by Barry Loberfeld

Of those not there, most who know of the incident probably do so from Jerome Tuccille's Radical Libertarianism: A Right Wing Alternative. At the 1969 Young Americans for Freedom convention in St. Louis, one faction -- the libertarians -- opposed the U.S. government's orchestration of both the war in Vietnam and suppression here at home (including the nexus thereof: conscription). Their slogan: "Sock it to the State!" They were met (fiercely) by another faction -- the "traditionalists" (with the actual tradition never identified) -- who opposed that opposition. Their cry? "Sock it to the Left!"
This political drama flashed in the warder of my brain when something recently happened that put into perspective the bewilderment that has possessed observers of "conservatism" in the present age. The bewilderment itself comes from seeing too many individuals evade/dismiss/deny every error/deception/disaster in the "War on Terror" and repeat the same ill-conceived mantras (e.g., "Better to fight them [rump Ba'athists? rival Muslim sects?] there than here!"). People who used to parrot Rush Limbaugh's dictum that the military exists only "to kill people and break things" and condemned Clinton for American involvement in the Balkans, now pout that the "liberal media" aren't covering the super job the Army is doing in rebuilding Iraq. (A Reason commentator observed that the actual level of progress would have embarrassed a Soviet apparatchik reporting to his superiors. My own quip is that today's "conservatives" are so committed to the welfare state that they established another one in Iraq.) It's as if it's a badge of honor to see how long they can continue to support -- no matter how incoherently -- an unsupportable war.
The something-recently that clued me in to what's been going on was a response to a list made by Christopher Garvey (who ran this year for NY Attorney General on the Libertarian line) of rights that Americans have lost under President Bush. The respondent, N. (whom LRCers might recall from my "Letter to a Conservative Friend"), complained that Mr. Garvey's facts "sound like DNC talking points."
Bingo! Now I saw it all too clearly. Forget the Democrats' actual record on the war and related issues: If N. believed "liberals" were opposing Bush's attack on civil liberties, he was going to support it. And I thought about how any questioning of the Administration was always met with cries of "Support the Troops!" -- as if all those who didn't fall in line were '60s radicals spitting on returning soldiers and calling them "baby killers." The struggle isn't against "Islamofascism" (minted by Christopher Hitchens to baby-talk fellow Leftists into backing the war) or terrorism or even al-Qaeda. The imperative, no less now than in '69, is to "Sock it to the Left!" The "conservatism" of today isn't that of Taft or Goldwater. It arguably isn't even that of a "Religious Right," since it seeks, not to serve any God, but only to stomp its Devil. Behold the Spite Right.
The Spite Right was born, not in the reflection of Read or Chodorov or Garrett, but in the confrontationalism of Up from Liberalism. Its progeny include Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Goldberg, Gallagher, Malkin, Ingraham, Savage, O'Reilly -- self-scribbled caricatures who dwell in their own political cartoon, where there are only intrinsically evil "liberals" (Mr. Limbaugh adduces Ed Koch and William Kunstler on the same page) vs. "conservatives" whose goodness derives solely from fighting them. Such "liberals" are the Spite Right's Left, and once that Left was deemed "anti-war," pro-war was deemed anti-Left, i.e., the Good. Thereafter, the only matter of duty was to defend that war from this "liberal" assault. That meant fighting any and all "liberal lies" that challenged Administration Truth, which was Truth because it stood in opposition to those "lies." It meant fighting any moral challenge to the war, which actually could be only immoral because it challenges the war -- the War on Liberals, the struggle that is the essence of morality. It meant fighting the usual "anti-war" suspects, from Hollywood "limousine liberals" to sign-waving street protesters. For the Spite Right, Iraq is another name for Vietnam.
The Spite Right's vacant contrarianism is but one more species of identity politics, which rejects any transcendent norms, any morals that constrain men irrespective of group affiliation. Hence its members hold themselves to no such standards. We are told not to criticize "our Commander-in-Chief" -- this from characters who slapped CHELSEA HAS TWO MOMMIES on their bumpers. We hear roars of indignation over what Senator Kerry said "about the troops" -- roars that were previously directed toward the "liberal media" for distorting Senator Helms' Clinton-better-have-a-bodyguard joke. We see men who never donned the uniform dare to just smear John Murtha -- evidently Spite Rightists themselves are allowed to criticize government officials "while troops are in combat" -- and do so while almost literally hiding behind a woman's skirt. Alas, we have yet to hear or see those who sought to oust Clinton call for the resignation of a president who would not face the 911 Commission (part of his own "War on Terror") because he could not bring along the vice president -- "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived" -- to hold his hand and perhaps whisper in his ear.
This hypocrisy is hardly limited to issues relating to war. Ann Coulter, for example, cracks that if "liberal" jurists "interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the First Amendment, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now." And what exactly does that deserve -- other than a rim shot? This: If conservatives "interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the First Amendment," even the National Guard wouldn't have guns. One wonders if the godly Miss Coulter reads a Bible wherein Christ commands the believer to ignore the beam in his own eye but knock the mote out of his neighbor's -- a musing that extends to that lamest of ducks, the equally crudely written and drawn "Dullard Fillmore," where "liberal" hypocrisy is the only hypocrisy that exists for condemnation. And what is going on in the mind -- in the soul -- of a man, Michael Medved, who decries "save-the-world liberalism" and defends the global-liberationist delusions of George II and his court? (Answer: "Conservatives are both happier and nicer than liberals.") I need only mention Mr. Limbaugh and the subject of drugs.
Spite Right relativism is as metaphysical as it is moral. Because the only reality is of "liberal" harm, there is no consideration of what harm might come from the anti-"liberal" forces, who will consequently continue to aim their fire -- no matter what those blasts actually hit. Any admission of error would be, not a matter of intellectual honesty, but only a concession of right to the Left -- to the Devil. And that can never be. The ultimate evil for Sean Hannity is not to be found in a combat zone in Iraq or even in a cave in Afghanistan, but in the seat across the desk.
I don't require warnings that there is indeed a real Left with real evil -- no libertarian does. But the Spite Right is not alerting but numbing us to that evil. When the wolf is said to be everywhere, people soon come to believe there's no wolf at all -- the most vulnerable state to find ourselves when it finally does appear. The sober response to the Spite Right terror of "liberals" was demonstrated by H. L. Mencken with regard to Communists who acted in support of black Americans: "The way to dispose of their chicaneries is not to fight them when they are right." The whole of morality -- and truth -- cannot consist of waiting for a Howard Dean (or a Nancy Pelosi) to make a pronouncement.
I find myself speculating whether Buckleyism's always-puzzling politics -- suppression of civil liberties (except gun rights) but rejection (if only rhetorical) of "Big Government" on economic issues -- makes perversely perfect sense as a point-by-point opposition to the politics of the Enemy. For the record, there are traces of a pre-Buckley Spite Right. In her April 3, 1948 letter to Isabel Paterson, author of The God of the Machine, Ayn Rand mentions a man who said that he was in favor of conscription "because the Communists are against it." She quotes her husband's comment: "I suppose even Communists are against smallpox. Is he for it?" Such is the mad logic of the Spite Right that if known "liberals" ever officially came out against disease, these latter-day "conservatives" would unsheathe their daggers in defense of any and all diseases. The only remaining question: Would the Spite Rightists continue to practice the anti-Leftism they preach if said Left ever came out against suicide?
"Sock it to the Left!"

Douglas Gray|3.4.09 @ 7:05PM|#

If you are getting ready to jump off a three story building, hoping to succeed in not getting hurt, am I being negative in saying you will probably get hurt?

Obama's program goes against principles which work, and so they cannot produce the outcome he hopes for.

In yesterdays L.A TIMES, a small business owner wrote in about the new tax proposal. She said that it gives her a direct financial incentive to make her business smaller, and hire fewer people, as if she expands and makes extra money, the Government will take the extra income from her. Pretty simple, isn't it??

|3.4.09 @ 7:06PM|#

I believe this president wants to institute a European style socialist economic model on the united states and that doing so would entail significant expansion of the role of the federal government in my life. I believe, no matter how well intentioned, that an expanded role of the federal government in our lives will undoubtedly limit and reduce liberty, personal and economic freedoms. I don't want this for myself or my children and so I hope the president is unsuccessful in his endeavors. If this makes me unpatriotic, so be it. It is what I believe, I may be wrong. Regardless of whether I am right or wrong, let's argue and debate the agenda the president has for this country, not whether my wanting it to succeed or fail makes me patriotic or unpatriotic.

J. P. Carlo|3.4.09 @ 7:10PM|#

What's wrong with the people saying that they want our elected representatives to fail is that they are hypocrites.

These are the same people who, less than eight years ago, were unafraid to brand as unpatriotic or unamerican those that did not openly fellate Bush.

But now that the other party is in charge, suddenly it's bombs away with the criticism.

Either it's always appropriate to criticize government officials, or it's never appropriate to do so. I vote for the former.

</|3.4.09 @ 7:37PM|#

These are the same people who, less than eight years ago, were unafraid to brand as unpatriotic or unamerican those that did not openly fellate Bush.

I've been hearing this same thing all day.
Tranlation: because some conservative said all Americans should support the War no one has a right to criticize Obama's economic salvation of the USA.
FAIL,FAIL,FAIL, I HOPE OBAMA FAILS!!!!
If Obama fails spectacularly no conservative will ever vote for a DemocRAT again and no liberal will ever vote for a Black guy.

Fluffy|3.4.09 @ 7:53PM|#

No I forgave Bush those sins because he was right about the Middle east and Iraq.

Of course, back when I said that it was time for libertarians to abandon the GOP, because the treatment of Ron Paul showed that the GOP platform - its true platform, not the one they printed - was simply War and Torture, and that the small government stuff no longer meant anything...John told me I was crazy and this was unfair.

Even though today, when backed into a corner about his love of Bush, John himself admits that nothing mattered to him but the war.

If nothing matters but the war babe, then you shouldn't have any problem with Obama, because he hasn't ended the war.

Bush = grow the size and power of government PLUS war

Obama = grow the size of power of government PLUS war

No difference.

|3.4.09 @ 7:59PM|#

I only want to see Obama do that Icarus "thingie"; you know wing-wax melts, and ........ SPLAT! Soar Obama, soar, soar!!!
Higher Obama, higher...feel the warmth Obama!!!
Summer's comin' y'all, and the sun is getting a bit warmer. (I hate tossing in with algore on global warmin', but the dingbat might be of benefit in this case)

shrike|3.4.09 @ 8:05PM|#

Damn, you're logical, Fluffy.

Reality is to be avoided for most folks.

Hobo Chang Ba|3.4.09 @ 8:32PM|#

I dunno - to say Rush blindly followed Bush and therefore deserves no right to criticize is not really true. He listed the things he opposed and criticized of Bush on his show today:

- Prescription drug plan
- No Child Left Behind
- TARP
- Immigration reform
- Excessive spending

I get the analogy that Rush's feelings for Bush are kind of like how I feel about Steve Chapman. We're on the same team, but at times I can't believe he could propose such dumb ass policies.

I'm not a huge Rush fan as I am not a conservative, but I think it's pretty pathetic when the Left relies on ad hominems ("fat", "OxyContin") instead of making actual arguments. It actually makes Rush look dignified by comparison.

BDB|3.4.09 @ 8:38PM|#

Keep spinning, SIV. Spin those wheels!

VinceP1974|3.4.09 @ 9:57PM|#

John: you did great work handling the ever more imbecilic Leftists.

Lisa|3.4.09 @ 10:08PM|#

I think I fell in love with John on this thread :)

Justen|3.4.09 @ 10:08PM|#

I don't know. I think it's okay to believe some person or policy is doomed to failure. To hope they fail implies that you don't care whether what they do is smart or effective; you just want them to fail out of spite. In political terms, wishing for a president to fail is the same as wishing for their administration, party, and country to fail; what factual relationship their performance has to the success of the country as a whole is not considered.

I don't want Obama to fail, I sincerely hope he comes up with some sharp ideas that guide us toward more freedom and prosperity. I don't have much expectation that it will happen. His failure would not validate me or satisfy my ego. This is not the same, perhaps, with Rush Limbaugh, who is hopelessly wrong and generally a bad human being. He needs his political enemies to fail because the only way the intellectual abortion he calls his philosophy looks good is by comparison.

Anyway, I'd rather take the high road and say I'm open to whatever works. Things that are working less than perfectly are far better than things that are not working at all, no?

Justen|3.4.09 @ 10:14PM|#

@John: I don't think anyone, even a petty beaurocrat, should be dignifying a hypocritical jackass like Limbaugh with a response. He's not a hillbilly, he's a very smart guy who capitalizes on the small, violent, ignorant faction in the right that somehow manages to simultaneously give the rest a bad name and run their show. Or maybe I'm too optimistic, maybe the majority are violent, ignorant assholes and they're happy to have fascist monsters like this guy speaking for them, I don't know.

Jon|3.4.09 @ 10:20PM|#

Well, presumably we want our politicians to better the country and we hope that maybe we are mistaken about our ideas of which policies are best. Of course, the realist in me believes that the candidate will fail. However, I would rather be wrong on my economic and political thinking, with the country being in better shape, than to be right and have the politician fail. Rush wants Obama to fail simply so he can show everyone he's right, meanwhile we're all fucked. THAT is perverse.

DADIODADDY|3.5.09 @ 7:17AM|#

Let's see...Democrat party in power...is there any need to wish for their (or Barry's) failure? I'd say it's more like a foregone conclusion and we should all be looking for cover.

MJ|3.5.09 @ 7:39AM|#

Saying the conservatives are anti-intellectual is correct...to a point. It leaves out why this is so. Since the French Revolution, with notable exceptions, intellectuals have been the cheerleaders of every authoritarian, illiberal ideology that has come down the pike. Largely because these ideologies have appealed to the hubris of intellectuals. They postulated that social systems as complicated as the market can be controlled by a few people with the right training and intelligence. Putting such ideas into practice has been the major source of human misery for the last century or so, and the intellectual class has been in the forefront of promoting that misery.

Why anyone who is interested in human liberty would prefer a candidate for merely being an intellectual does not recall history.

Roger_Z|3.5.09 @ 9:05AM|#

How about an honest take on this question:

There are those of us that are confident that our mixed economy is both immoral (in that it deprives us of our rights) and impractical (if your goal is to increase wealth). We are therefore opposed to policies that increase the government mix in the economy. We are convinced that the more the government intervenes the more likely it will be that we will become significantly poorer and less free, in the long run.

However, we also recognize that our economy is _mixed_, and that there are still significant elements of private action at work, and therefore, that there is a reasonable probability that our economy will recover in spite of the degree of government intervention (at least in the amounts that seem politically tenable in today's culture). This is not contradiction. It is a recognition of complexity and the fact that these events are probabilistic in nature.

And, we are realistic enough about the American public's level of economic literacy and its ability to think conceptually, to expect that the public reaction to an improving economy during times of increasingly interventionist policy will be to believe that it is the intervention which has caused the recovery.

So ... we don't actually _want_ a recovery to occur at a time when the interventionist policies are on the rise. To us, it is more important that the public becomes convinced that government intervention causes economic hardship (or at least can't help fix it), than it is to be wealthy (or to maximize our wealth prospects) in the short, or even medium, term. It is much more important to us that government intervention be discredited so that what we believe to be the correct policies are enacted over the long term. We want this because we really think it will be better for everyone in the long term.

I don't doubt that interventionists (aka "liberals") hoped for the failure of the Bush administration on analogous grounds. The difference, however, is that Bush's policies weren't in fact capitalistic; they were only perceived that way (see my previous paragraph regarding economic literacy). There can be no reasonable argument that Obama's proposals aren't designed to significantly increase the government's role in the economy.

By the way, this is why I voted for Obama!

|3.5.09 @ 9:45AM|#

WHF? Am I on a libertarian site? I feel like I might as well be on the Democratic Underground. For the WH to plot to go after Rush is very unsettling. I saw it in the campaign. They go after people who disagree with them, then the press follows suit to destroy the target. I don't know what country you want to live in, but this isn't it!

|3.5.09 @ 9:59AM|#

Why anyone who is interested in human liberty would prefer a candidate for merely being an intellectual does not recall history.

Where in history has their been a political movement as hostile to book-learnin' as modern conservatives? So because intellectuals tend to support authoritarian regimes (your uncited assertion), we should trust imbeciles? What exactly was the Bush administration? Freedom's greatest moment?

|3.5.09 @ 11:34AM|#

Ahhhh, cynicism is not dead yet. Thank you, Harsanyi.

|3.5.09 @ 11:59AM|#

I'm coming into this all too late, but-- I pretty much support John on this thread. I'd add this:

The patriotism-questioning, dissent-is-patriotic-for-me-and-not-for-thee thing is kind of a red herring. (I personally find those on the left by far the greater hypocrites here, just my opinion, but let's put that aside.) Citizens of every political stripe are free to question others' patriotism as much as they like, i.e. criticize/attack others (especially public figures) in the strongest of terms, even 'offensive' ones-- that's free speech for you. "A's a racist," "B's a fascist," "C's unpatriotic," etc. And of course A, B, C are just as free to defend themselves/ strike back/ turn that speech against the original speakers (and sue for slander if they feel the need to).

It's no surprise that under alternating administrations you'll have people from alternating parties questioning patriotism/ vaunting their dissent as patriotic. What's *different* under this administration is that you have, not just citizens/ pundits, but a *President & his administration* (in propria persona) go after & vilify *private citizens* (Limbaugh, Cramer, etc.), by name, for speech critical of the administration... and coordinating these attacks with an overwhelmingly collusive, bootlicking media : it's been wall-to-wall anti-Limbaugh in the MSM the last few days. (Of course, we got a taste of this when the MSM went full-cylinder after Joe the Plumber-- at that time not a public personality at all, e.g. pundit or MSM commentator, but merely an ordinary guy who asked a question that happened to be embarrassing to Obama, caught on tape. It's easy to laugh at JTP now, but... this was & remains seriously creepy.) And this, at a time of grave crisis-- when the President & his administration has a lot to answer for.

Imagine the following. (This is an alternate universe so counterfactual it's hard to conceive, but anyway-- just try.) At a particularly difficult moment during the Iraq war (politically & 'in reality')-- say, at the brink of catastrophe, because of the administration's incompetence (& if you like, the 'disastrous' decision to go to war itself)-- GWB as President himself & his highest administration spokesmen target, by name, Michael Moore (and perhaps a few others, Olbermann etc.) for their anti-patriotic, hateful, divisive speech/ expression against the administration/ its policy/ the war. After demonizing Moore, the President/ administration claim he speaks for & represents-- is to be identified as the symbol & representative of-- the entire Democratic party (or more generally, anyone who opposes the administration/ it's policies/ the war). This talking point is (uncritically) taken up, amplified & disseminated by all organs of the MSM-- not just FOX, but CNN ABC NBC CBS NYT etc. etc. etc. They uncritically accept & editorially paint a picture of Moore in accord with the administration's blueprint (hateful, treasonous, anti-American, terrorist-loving), accepting without question, as well, the administration's identification/equation of a huge mass of individuals (at the very least, the entire Democratic party) with the thus portrayed individual/ symbol/ representative/ scapegoat. OK, libertarians-- what would you think & feel in this situation?

It's a funny thing: we heard a lot during the Bush administration about the "suppression of dissent"-- we heard, basically, "help, help, I'm being repressed!" from liberal entertainers, artists, writers, etc. who all the while were being feted & praised at galas, receiving prestigious awards, fawned over by journalists here and abroad, making millions of dollars, lecturing at Ivy League institutions, assailing GWB (and America itself) in interviews/ writings/ TV/ Hollywood movies etc. as the McCarthyist imperialist fascist genocidal scourge of the world (they're so brave! so noble! speaking truth to power!)... with nary a comment or action in response by Bush & his administration. When they felt their "dissent suppressed," this never had anything to do with any kind of governmental/ state power exercised against them-- and for the most part, nothing negative in the MSM (other than exceptions like FOX)-- but merely criticism (free speech) exercised by other private citizens-- manifested in discourse (conservative blogs, talk radio) or the free market (e.g. private individuals choosing not to buy, or organizing to boycott, their products). But this, for them, was evidence of fascism-- and their own heroism/ victimization.

But now, we have a Presidential administration, from its perch of power, colluding with an overwhelmingly biased MSM, retaliating (through e.g. vilification) against private citizens engaging in critical speech. It should tell you something about Obama that-- with a catastrophic national & international crisis on his plate (and proposing to perpetrate what many of us believe entails further catastrophe), & with an opposing party at its weakest ebb-- his administration considers among its top priorities targeting (making an "enemy" of) a lowly talk radio host, along with a couple commentators on cable financial shows... unelected private citizens, with no real power (other than that of ideas), guilty only of daring to criticize his policies. Gotta find something to replace the bogeyman of Bush, after all. But shit, for all the left's paranoia, at least Bush was , you know, *President of the USA*, a figure indeed capable of inflicting great worldwide damage. But now the Enemy, proclaimed not just by partisan bloggers or pundits or entertainers, but by the President of the USA himself, at a moment of extreme national/ international crisis, is... not e.g. an "Axis of Evil," or terrorists aiming for the annihilation of the West/ democracy, who may get their hands on WMD (how simplistic, how naive, the stupid neocons )... but a fat buffoonish entertainer on talk radio, whose great evil consists in criticizing/ mocking Obama (whose party, triumphant, controls not just the presidency but the legislature). Jesus Christ, how fucking petty can a President be? (And note, I'm not even getting into the rhetorical class war thing.)

But the very fact, the mere fact, of critical speech, is unbearable to this administration. (We already saw this e.g. in the slimy Axelrod-orchestrated tactics during the campaign-- jamming of phone lines on radio shows, armies of mobys everywhere, etc.-- but for all my disgust, I was hopeful that it's one thing to campaign, another to govern. I'm hopeful no more. I fucking miss the MSM-ignoring GWB (& that's saying a lot)-- and we're only a few months in.) What an irony that the Obama-serving MSM used all of its investigative resources to persecute a private citizen (JTP) for his tax issues-- I have no doubt, following the Obama camp's instructions-- when now virtually every Obama cabinet appointment-- in an administration self-righteously calling for extortionate taxes-- is himself a tax-dodger. It's enough to make you vomit.

But given all that, it still appears to most of you here, that * Rush* is the fascist, the hateful & divisive one, engaging in slimy rhetoric. Of course (sigh). I very much agree with John that much of the pro-Obama anti-Rush reaction here (among "libertarians") is not substantive or even ideological, but a matter of aesthetics... adopting the hipster's paradigm of 'coolness', uncritically taking for granted the liberal stereotype of "Rush Limbaugh" (racist bigot idiot).

Note: the issue here isn't that there isn't a lot to object in Limbaugh. No doubt there is. (It's irrelevant for the purposes of this conversation that Limbaugh has supported things, in support of the GOP, that are anathema to libertarians here-- that's to be expected: Rush, the individual & unelected voice of an individual, has never presented himself as a "libertarian," or for that matter as an all-supporting GOPer-- he's idiosyncratic even as a "conservative"). The issue (for someone like John or me, who feel compellled to defend Limbaugh despite hardly ever listening to him), is his present demonization & forced equation qua symbol to a huge class of people (or party), through a cynical collusion of Presidential power & the MSM, in the service of cynical political interests-- & the all-too-facile acceptance of this by libertarians/ "elitist" GOPers whose distaste has little to do with substance or real intelligence/ depth, & a lot to do with aesthetics & class/ cultural signifiers. And as long as we fall for this cynical strategy, we're submitting to & enabling an administration doing their utmost to perpetrate a radical multi-faceted governmental transformation many of us here (Obamacons, Obamalibertarians) should find... more than unacceptable. Disastrous. Going against everything we believe as matter of principle (involving the ideal & value of personal freedom), & everything we know, empirically & historically, as a matter of economics, history, etc .

I also want to say a little something about the slandering of Palin qua "creationist" etc.-- a meme never substantiated, basically a tissues of lies, gossip, misinterpretation, demonization (still making the rounds, usually unchallenged, along with many others). And the fact that whatever her religious views, she's already demonstrated that as a matter of *governance* she's always been something of a libertarian in these matters-- i.e. never, at no point in her governance, imposed her religious views (in fact e.g. been a friend to gays, vetoing anti-gay legislation). As others have said: as a libertarian atheist, I would much rather have as president/ governor/ representative an ultra-religious, even fundamentalist person who as a matter of political principle has no interest in imposing his/her religious views on the polity (what do I care about your theology or metaphysics, as long as you're e.g. a federalist-- admitting the power of citizens to admit or resist the imposition of whatever policies ("progressive" or "conservative") may be, in real concrete practical life)... and know something about economics (at least enough to correlate with reality)... than a supercilious, deluded, utopian, technocratic know-it-all believer in moral/ ethical/ political/ social dogmas & prerogatives (e.g. environmental, social, economic, etc.) which have a real, direct, concrete, material effect on our lives-- & on our freedom/ power as citizens. I fear the brilliant enlightened socialist who always thinks he knows better than everyone else what they/ society need(s), & thinks he has the authority & expertise to impose it (by judicial fiat if need be), than the Christian fundamentalist (with some intellectual humility) who just wants the freedom to hold/ practice his/ her spiritual beliefs as he/she see fit, within his power as a citizen in a pluralist republic with limited government (with a preference for federalism, determined by vote, over centralized power).

|3.5.09 @ 1:04PM|#

I hope Ubama falls flat on his not black ass.

|3.5.09 @ 1:49PM|#

I guess I don't understand how Rush wants Obama the individual to fail? Does that mean that Rush wants him to be a poor father or bad husband, maybe an unreliable friend? Rush was speaking specifically about Obama's policies, since that's the only way Rush really knows Obama. Do I believe we are going the wrong way with our current economic policies? Yes. Did I disagree with Bush sending troops in to Iraq. Yes, but I didn't want it to fail.

|3.5.09 @ 1:54PM|#

Off of the topic of the article, one of these Republican politicians needs to stand up and say, "yes, Rush Limbaugh is a sports, top 40 radio DJ who has found a niche and a lot of money in conservative radio. We need a better face than this fat, drug addicted, man who has had multiple marriages; are those family values? Teddy Roosevelt carried a big stick and talked quietly, Rush could learn something from that."

|3.5.09 @ 2:59PM|#

Well put, Rachel.

That piece is a keeper . .

DITTO|3.5.09 @ 3:55PM|#

One of the bests lines in the history of journalism. And, God bless you for the loving use of the, increasingly elusive, comma.

My congresswoman, for instance, carries an intellectual confidence so severely out of step with her skill set that the promise of disappointment, I trust, one day will bring me great joy.

|3.5.09 @ 6:00PM|#

Raivo Pommer
[e-mail]

Gegen krise

Die norddeutschen Länder wollen gemeinsam beim Bund für ihre Verkehrsprojekte kämpfen. Hamburgs Bürgermeister Ole von Beust (CDU) sagte heute nach einem Treffen mit den Regierungschefs von Schleswig-Holstein, Niedersachsen, Bremen und Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Berlin müsse sich der Hinterlandanbindung der Häfen und der Infrastruktur mehr widmen: "Wichtig ist uns, dass der Bund verstärkt einsteigt." Aus dem Konjunkturprogramm I sei nicht genug angekommen. "Da geht es darum, das aufzustocken." Bremens Bürgermeister Jens Böhrnsen (SPD) betonte: "Dazu gehört auch, dass wir (...) deutlich machen, dass der Anteil des Bundes an Hafeninvestitionen und vor allem auch an der Hafenunterhaltung viel zu gering ist."

|3.5.09 @ 11:05PM|#

Wishin and Hopin and Thinkin and Prayin ...

Rush's problem is his lack of confidence that Obama's policies *must* fail. Neither Limbaugh nor Obama understand that the policies in dispute can't possibly succeed, simply because they are contrary to every rational economic principle and the entirety of recent human history.

Rush's fault is in merely *wanting* Obama to fail, as a person and as a leader, rather than showing him pity for the pain he'll have to suffer when the inevitable disaster actually arrives. His ad-hominem ill-will isn't flattering to Rush; nor is his belief that praying for Obama's failure will have any beneficial effects whatever.

The greater sorrow must be reserved for all those who recognized that none of our annointed leaders have the slightes clue about how to run a proper government, but they will all be forced to suffer, innocently, as a result.

MJ|3.5.09 @ 11:50PM|#

Tony,

Intellectual is not a synonym for intelligent, nor does not being an intellectual mean that one is an imbecile. If a group of people admire authoritarian ideologies, it means you should not give them positions of influence over the government to them, unless you want an authoritarian government. You don't want that, do you?

|3.6.09 @ 2:18PM|#

This argument is not even a legitimate question. If our leaders fail, we fail. This would show just how ignorant our society has become. The tolerance of the Bush administration and this question prove that even the people who have grown up in and educated in this country have not one once of common sense. Failure is a catastrophic option at this point. Dumb de dumb dumb.....dumb...

faithkills|3.6.09 @ 3:41PM|#

Let the free market be free? How did that work out for us?

If you're asking this then you have not the least clue about economics. Or you are lying.

We haven't had anything remotely like a free market for a century. That's what got us here, you can't blame something that doesn't exist.

If you want to educate yourself here's a good start.

"How can a president that hasnt even been in office for 2 months be responsible for ANY of the shit that is happening in our Economy right now? HE CANT."

Sorry.

He is.

Every time he opens his trap to announce a new assault on the economy the market dives. Same thing happened whenever Bush announced spending (stimulus/tarp).

Unfortunately size matters. He's either inconceivably economically ignorant or he's destroying the economy on purpose.

VinceP1974|3.6.09 @ 7:34PM|#

Conservatives, like myself, are anti-intellectual meaning we're anti-stupidity.

Bruce Majors|3.7.09 @ 1:50PM|#

They had to use the "wag the Rush" strategy to distract voters from the Odumbian economic collapse. When else would James Carville get to call someone else ugly, or Robert Gibbs get a chance to call someone else fat? It's projection and psychopathology as much as strategy.

Bruce Majors|3.7.09 @ 1:51PM|#

Hey Terry, do you still take Mussolini's corpse out and bathe it annually before you pray to it in the mausoleum?

Bruce Majors|3.7.09 @ 1:59PM|#

Brady, Brady, Brady... rofl. The Demwits are having a party for Teddy Kennedy this week, a half brain-dead, morbidly obese old fart whose family are inarticulate half-wits and closet cases living off other people's alcoholism, and who once drowned his date after he did god knows what to her and left her in a submerged car for 12 hours before calling 911.

And almost all Demwits worship him and would happily felch his fat ass.

And you want to trot out Rush's pain killer addiction as a litmus test. Yawn.

Were you one of those people chortling last year at Sandra Bernhard's stand up about how her blacks (slaves?!?) would gang rape Sarah Palin if she visited New York, or the SNL skits about how Todd Palin had committed incest with his kids.

Demwits are such sophisticated wits.

Bruce Majors|3.7.09 @ 2:08PM|#

Tony poor Tony. Your Prez Odumba is anti-intellectual. He is an intellectual poseur. He kept running about saying all economists agreed with the porkulus power grab, even as 250 of them, including 3 Nobel Laureates, were running an ad they all signed denouncing his policies.

Where was that Olympian debate he sponsored at the White House with Keynesians, rational expectationist, monetarists, Austrians etc. all debating macro theory for the C-Span camera?

You think because someone has a law degree and wrote a book (or had it ghosted) that makes him an intellectual? That would be more convincing if he could speak without a teleprompter and knew what a price earnings ratio was.

Bruce Majors|3.7.09 @ 2:18PM|#

Justen you have clearly never actually listened to Limbaugh's show.

I only started listening to him during the Mark Foley affair, because I was curious to see how the right was covering that, given that the "liberal" media coverage at MSNBC etc was dripping with homophobic venom.

I soon learned that Rush and Sean actually spend most of their time providing commentary on the failures, distortions, evasions and lies of mainstream media news coverage and both Demwit and Rethuglican politicians. He mainly breaks stories about what Demwits are up to and what lies they are telling, several days before the stories are covered on TV, if they ever are.

My "liberal" friends who are actually informed and are media consumers on the same level I am admit this, though many of them have told me Drudge tends to cover stories before Rush.

The media and Odumba hate Rush because he exposes their lies they would rather keep hidden.

|3.8.09 @ 9:49AM|#

These people are idiots.


They didn't know how Rush almost killed himself bashing GWB from his mistakes.

Rush is a self-confessed sinner and never a hypocrite.... and a materialistic bastard.

But as fiscal conservatism and prof-market principles of this man, that cannot be faulted.


THAT'S WHY I LISTEN TO RUSH LIMBAUGH.


Better Rush than Olbermann, Matthews,...., and mesmerizing lying Obama.