Limbaugh: Nothing Wrong With Conservatism That Shouting Louder Won't Fix

Brian Doherty | March 3, 2009

Jeremy Lott, sometime Reason magazine contributor, reports from CPAC for the UK Guardian on Rush Limbaugh's insistence that everything is just fine, always was and always will be, with contemporary conservatism:

The American conservative project faces a problem of faction from people "within our own movement seeking power to dominate it, and worst of all to redefine it," [Limbaugh] warned. And he wasn't having any of that: "The Declaration of Independence does not need to be redefined and neither does conservatism. Conservatism is what it is and it is forever. It's not something you can bend and shape and flake and form."

That captured the mood of CPAC to a tee. On the whole, the conservative movement views the last two elections not as a failure of conservatism but a failure of nerve....

But what if the American people think they had good reason for tossing the Republicans out of office? And what if they don't hold conservatism entirely blameless? Consider this exchange between Limbaugh and the fired-up crowd:

Limbaugh: Did the Democrats want the war on Iraq to fail?

Mob: Yes!

Limbaugh: They certainly did. They not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail, they proclaimed it a failure. There's dingy Harry Reid waving a white flag: This war is lost! This war is...

The really really traditional conservative position--all the way back during New Deal I--might have suggested that the proper conclusion to that last line would be "....a bad idea and not essential to the defense of the Republic." But that's ancient history, just like the W. Bush regime, and a Limbaughian conservative needs to look forward. Let's let Republicans be in charge of wasteful deficit spending and managing everyone's life again!

Comments

Naga Sadow|3.3.09 @ 12:53PM|#

Didn't Limbaugh basically admit that he shilled for Bush policies that he thought were bad?

Taktix®|3.3.09 @ 12:55PM|#

Republicans have been harping for years that, if only they could control both houses and the POTUS, they would finally implement their grand ideas and save the country.

You got your shot, fuckers, and you blew it. Now step aside and let a more libertarian party emerge, since the GOP is basically Democrat Lite...

economsit|3.3.09 @ 12:59PM|#

"Now step aside and let a more libertarian party emerge, since the GOP is basically Democrat Lite..."

Actually, if the Republican party disappeared, it would probably be replaced by a populist party, to the extent that it isn't already.

Reinmoose|3.3.09 @ 12:59PM|#

yo screw the conservatives

Naga Sadow|3.3.09 @ 1:02PM|#

economist,

No need. The party of HOPE and CHANGE would probably just make it illegal for other parties to operate. All that division of opinion would just break down the message of HOPE and CHANGE.

|3.3.09 @ 1:05PM|#

Conservatism ≠ Republican.

Rush is just a GOP fellator. He can be entertaining, he has legions of mindless devotees, but in the end, he just sucks elephant cock.

Taktix®|3.3.09 @ 1:08PM|#

Actually, if the Republican party disappeared, it would probably be replaced by a populist party, to the extent that it isn't already.

So there's no one left who actually values liberty? I could see that, probably because we've been prosperous for so many years.

I guess people don't value liberty when we are so far removed from genuine, hits-close-to-home tyranny. Luckily, that won't last much longer...

|3.3.09 @ 1:08PM|#

"Rush is just a GOP fellator. He can be entertaining, he has legions of mindless devotees, but in the end, he just sucks elephant cock."

If that is true why did he have such aweful things to say about McCain during the primaries? He also didn't have much good to say about him during the election beyond he was better than the alternative.

Your problem J sub D is that the Iraq war seems to define your entire existance like Vietnam defines liberals existence. Get over it. The war is over. They guy who started it is no longer in office. The people who replaced the evil Bushes are now proceeding to destroy the country. But why worry about all that when you can still try to settle scores from six years ago?

economist|3.3.09 @ 1:08PM|#

"No need. The party of HOPE and CHANGE would probably just make it illegal for other parties to operate."

Don't be paranoid. We're past that stage in history. The Democrats don't have to eliminate the competition. Legions of mindless voters do that for them.

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 1:09PM|#

"The Declaration of Independence does not need to be redefined and neither does conservatism. Conservatism is what it is and it is forever. It's not something you can bend and shape and flake and form."

Good stuff, but let us wait a second:

"Limbaugh: Did the Democrats want the war on Iraq to fail?

Mob: Yes!

Limbaugh: They certainly did. They not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail, they proclaimed it a failure. There's dingy Harry Reid waving a white flag: This war is lost! This war is..."

So let me get this straight. Rush Limbaugh wants to conserve the Constitution, yet he believes in a Wilsonian foreign enterprise to spread democracy. Does he not realize that war is the health of the state. Has he ever thought that putting too much faith in the executive could result in problems. Has he had no second thoughts about the Iraq War.

This guy isn't for freedom, he's only for it if the Democrats are in charge. That makes him a shill and that's about it.

Naga Sadow|3.3.09 @ 1:09PM|#

J sub D,

LMAO! Eloquently expressed as usual.

Elemenope|3.3.09 @ 1:09PM|#

No need. The party of HOPE and CHANGE would probably just make it illegal for other parties to operate. All that division of opinion would just break down the message of HOPE and CHANGE.

Naga Sadow, please tell me this is you making fun of people who think that the Democratic party has totalitarian ambitions, and not your actual opinion.

Gilbert Martin|3.3.09 @ 1:09PM|#

Really?

So Limbaugh never criticized Bush for anything or ever opposed anything he did?

As I recall, Limbaugh was extremely cricital and non-supportive of Bush's immigration "reform" plan.

And quite critical of Bush creating a new entitlement in the prescription drug program.

economist|3.3.09 @ 1:10PM|#

"Your problem J sub D is that the Iraq war seems to define your entire existance like Vietnam defines liberals existence. Get over it. The war is over."

Uh, John, since when has J sub D let the Iraq War define his entire existence? And the war's over? And we paid off all the debt the government incurred to fight it?

The Angry Optimist|3.3.09 @ 1:12PM|#

Rush Limbaugh's insistence that everything is just fine, always was and always will be, with contemporary conservatism

Juxtaposed with...

Let's let Republicans be in charge of wasteful deficit spending and managing everyone's life again!

I must have missed the memo where conservative = Republican Party. As a matter of fact, that was probably (definitely) Limbaugh's point, was that the GOP playing at Demo-lite is a fool's errand and a straight ticket out of power.

|3.3.09 @ 1:12PM|#

So, by Limbaugh's inclination. The conservative movement was doomed the moment they conceded segregation.

Elemenope|3.3.09 @ 1:13PM|#

Gil, you really have to nibble around the edges to come up with examples, dontcha?

Fact is, when the chips are down, Rushbo is GOP = Yes!, Dems = SATAN!!!.

Don't forget that your two examples only ever had serious opposition from the GOP side of the aisle. So that makes him more of a general purpose GOP fellator rather than a personalized Bush-sucker.

|3.3.09 @ 1:13PM|#

But why worry about all that when you can still try to settle scores from six years ago?

You know, like how the Republican Party has never mentioned Clinton since he left office.

economist|3.3.09 @ 1:13PM|#

John,
I can remember lots of times that J sub D has talked about things besides the Iraq War. In fact, I would say that the majority of his posts are on other topics. And in the post you were responding to, he never even mentioned Iraq. Methinks you're a tad sensitive on this topic.

The Angry Optimist|3.3.09 @ 1:13PM|#

If you're going to criticize modern conservatism, do it the way Alberta Libertarian or this sentence:

The really really traditional conservative position--all the way back during New Deal I--might have suggested that the proper conclusion to that last line would be "....a bad idea and not essential to the defense of the Republic.

sentence did. It is dishonest to conflate conservatism with the enshrinement of the Republicans in government.

Naga Sadow|3.3.09 @ 1:14PM|#

Elemenope,

Yes.

Reparations advocate|3.3.09 @ 1:15PM|#

I'm still trying to settle a score from 150 years ago, dammit!

Naga Sadow|3.3.09 @ 1:16PM|#

When do we get to do the Scooby Doo ending where John is unmasked as Limbaugh? I keed, I keed.

the innominate one|3.3.09 @ 1:16PM|#

John | March 3, 2009, 1:08pm | #
"Rush is just a GOP fellator. He can be entertaining, he has legions of mindless devotees, but in the end, he just sucks elephant cock."

If that is true why did he have such aweful [sic] things to say about McCain during the primaries? He also didn't have much good to say about him during the election beyond he was better than the alternative.

During the primaries Rush was sucking off other elephants.

During the election - I expect Rush thinks McCain is a RINO.

|3.3.09 @ 1:16PM|#

"Uh, John, since when has J sub D let the Iraq War define his entire existence? And the war's over? And we paid off all the debt the government incurred to fight it?"


Because anyone associated with an R in their name could say "you know I think we need to make this J sub D fellow God dictator for life" and J sub D's response would be some rant about Iraq and deficits. At some point, even I get tired of talking about it. At some point also, you can either take the Republicans at their word and you can let BO run the country and bitch and moan about shit that happened now six or more years ago. I would rather take my chances with the former.

economist|3.3.09 @ 1:17PM|#

Incidentally, I don't think Rush is the worst of GOP shills. If it weren't for the war in Iraq, I might even say that I agreed with him.

For truly sickening Bush shilling, one has to look to Michael Gerson.

Gilbert Martin|3.3.09 @ 1:18PM|#

"I must have missed the memo where conservative = Republican Party. As a matter of fact, that was probably (definitely) Limbaugh's point, was that the GOP playing at Demo-lite is a fool's errand and a straight ticket out of power."

Bingo.

|3.3.09 @ 1:18PM|#

"During the election - I expect Rush thinks McCain is a RINO."


What does RINO mean? It means he thinks McCain is a phony and would raise taxes and spending and sell out to the liberals. Last I looked, when people weren't ranting about Iraq, that was pretty much what Libertarians thought of McCain. Were they sucking the Rs dicks to?

EJM|3.3.09 @ 1:19PM|#

Rush is just a GOP fellator.

If anything, he's merely a Heritage Foundation shill--which is probably scarier.

|3.3.09 @ 1:20PM|#

"Incidentally, I don't think Rush is the worst of GOP shills. If it weren't for the war in Iraq, I might even say that I agreed with him."

So because you disagree with him about Iraq, you can't agree with him about anything else? That is what I am talking about letting Iraq define your entire outlook on life.

Naga Sadow|3.3.09 @ 1:21PM|#

I long for the days when John and Joe would duke it out. It was like watching a gladiator tournament.

the innominate one|3.3.09 @ 1:23PM|#

The libertarians who deceived themselves into thinking that Rs have anything to do with libertarianism, yes, they were fellating the Rs.

The Angry Optimist|3.3.09 @ 1:24PM|#

Naga Sadow, do you like movies threads about gladiators?

On a side note, having read the full article, I would say that Lott is being sloppy by conflating conservatives and Republicans, or I could say that he's merely reporting on the truth that most people conflate them anyway.

At the same time, if you're going to claim that Rush's statements of "nothing wrong with conservatism = nothing wrong with Republicans", well, that IS sloppy.

Harpoon|3.3.09 @ 1:25PM|#

Here's a list of various things Limbaugh criticized Bush and the Republican majority on:

Bush's "New Tone" in dealing with Democrats
Bush's phrase "Compassionate Conservative"
Bush's making nice with Teddy Kennedy
No Child Left Behind
Prescription Drug Benefit
Farm subsidies
Immigration Reform
Harriet Meyers Supreme Court pick
Republican spending/earmarks/pork

So I don't think you can say he's just a Republican shill and be intellectually honest.

|3.3.09 @ 1:25PM|#

I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh since 1993 or so, so maybe he is changed since then. But I recall him being a very consistent supporter of free markets and small governments. Domestically, I would imagine the posters on here would agree with the guy 90% of the time or more. So why do reasonites have such a problem with the guy? Part of it is the Iraq war but it is not like Reason and its readers liked him before the Iraq war so that can't be it. I think more than anything is that it is just low brow to listen to Rush. Libertarians just don't want to be associated with the kinds of average people who listen to him. In the end the Libertarian objection to Rush varies directly with the individual Libertarians desire to fit in with "right thinking" liberals.

I don't listen to Rush because I don't listen to talk radio at work and I generally can only do about one hour a week of talk radio in general. But ultimately, the fact that many people who I can't stand seem to hate the guy makes me like him all the more. I can't imagine ever caring what right thinking liberals think about anything.

Gilbert Martin|3.3.09 @ 1:26PM|#

"At the same time, if you're going to claim that Rush's statements of "nothing wrong with conservatism = nothing wrong with Republicans", well, that IS sloppy."

Or intentionally misleading.

|3.3.09 @ 1:27PM|#

Rush Limbaugh is basically Howard Stern with a Steve Dallas-style alien brain inversion, a fat suit and a haircut, and a less funny Fred and no Jackie or Artie.

He's an entertainer who loves having mindless fans. That's it.

Naga Sadow|3.3.09 @ 1:27PM|#

the innominate one,

The ones who seemed to be under the R spell . . . were they really Libertarians to begin with? I think I worded that such that no drinking is necessary. Anyway, I know some people who are suddenly claiming to be Libertarians since the inaugaration. They are still in my opinion simply Republican shills.

the innominate one|3.3.09 @ 1:30PM|#

Naga Sadow - probably true

remember, Glenn Beck and Bill Maher are LINOs

Boston|3.3.09 @ 1:32PM|#

Rush Limbaugh is basically Howard Stern with a Steve Dallas-style alien brain inversion, a fat suit and a haircut, and a less funny Fred and no Jackie or Artie.

Also no sybian...that i know of.

|3.3.09 @ 1:32PM|#

"Rush Limbaugh is basically Howard Stern with a Steve Dallas-style alien brain inversion, a fat suit and a haircut, and a less funny Fred and no Jackie or Artie."


Why do you say that? Have you ever actually listened to the guy? What does Rush do that is the equivelent of having porn stars take off their clothes or having Stuttering John ask Kathy Ireland if she uses a tampon or a pad?

Rush is funny and says a lot of purposely ironic things, but in the end he makes a pretty good case for small government and free markets. There is substance there. I think people like you say that because that is what you have been told. It is not true. The guy is not Hamilton by any stretch of the imagination but he is not some mindless monster either. I think people say that because they are afraid to stand up to liberals. It is easier to talk to liberals and say "I am not one of those people who listen to Rush". Well fuck liberals.

VM|3.3.09 @ 1:34PM|#

"Limbaugh: Did the Democrats want the war on Iraq to fail?

Mob: Yes!"

sigh.

nuff said.

|3.3.09 @ 1:35PM|#

"Limbaugh: Did the Democrats want the war on Iraq to fail?

Mob: Yes!"

sigh.

nuff said."

The truth hurts. It is true. I don't recall and Dems having a problem with Michael Moore wishing for a 1,000 Mogadeshus. A few Dems are honest enough to admit the truth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/why-limbaugh-is-right-to_b_170815.html

Naga Sadow|3.3.09 @ 1:36PM|#

the innominate one,

Negative. I watch a limited amount of TV. If it isn't on Discovery, History, Animal Planet, or Comedy Central, I'm probably blissfully unaware of anything else on television. Ignorance can be bliss at times.

|3.3.09 @ 1:38PM|#

NS,

Don't forget the odd food network and travel channel show. But other than that you about cover it.

the innominate one|3.3.09 @ 1:39PM|#

yes, John, all Democrats, everywhere wanted the war in Iraq to fail

economist|3.3.09 @ 1:40PM|#

"At some point also, you can either take the Republicans at their word and you can let BO run the country and bitch and moan about shit that happened now six or more years ago."

John, I'll be happy to help Republicans block Democratic legislation. That's why I voted for Chambliss in the Senate runoff. But I'll be damned if I'll "take them at their word" for anything the next decade or so.

|3.3.09 @ 1:40PM|#

LIMBAUGH: Now, I mentioned to you at the conclusion of the previous hour that people have been asking me how I feel all night long. And I got, "Boy, Rush, I wouldn't want to be you tomorrow. Boy, I wouldn't want to have to do your show. Boy, I'm so glad I'm not you." Well, folks, I love being me. I can't be anybody else, so I'm stuck with it. But the way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm just going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, "Well, why have you been doing it?" Because the stakes are high. Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat [sic] Party does and liberalism.

And I believe my side is worthy of victory, and I believe it's much easier to reform things that are going wrong on my side from a position of strength. Now, I'm liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to buck up a bunch of people who don't deserve it, to try to carry the water and make excuses for people who don't deserve it. I just -- I did not want to sit here and participate, willingly, in the victory of the libs, in the victory of the Democrat [sic] Party by sabotaging my own. But now with what has happened yesterday and today, it is an entirely liberating thing. If those in our party who are going to carry the day in the future -- both in Congress and the administration -- are going to choose a different path than what most of us believe, then that's liberating. I don't say this with any animosity about anybody, and I don't mean to make this too personal.

I'm not trying to tell you that this is about me. I'm just answering questions that I've had from people about how I feel. But there have been a bunch of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves -- and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs. I'm a radio guy. I understand what this program has become in America and I understand the leadership position it has. I was doing what I thought best, but at this point, people who don't deserve to have their water carried, or have themselves explained as they would like to say things but somehow don't be -- aren't able to, I'm not under that kind of pressure.

|3.3.09 @ 1:41PM|#

"yes, John, all Democrats, everywhere wanted the war in Iraq to fail"

No a lot of them voted for it. Just the left wing variety of which our current Dear Leader is one.

kinnath|3.3.09 @ 1:41PM|#

I have succeeded in never having listened to Rush.

Naga Sadow|3.3.09 @ 1:42PM|#

John,

Nope. Food Network I might be able to work in over the course of another year or so but the Travel Channel? I'm 24 no 64! I fear CHANGE!

Naga Sadow|3.3.09 @ 1:43PM|#

I've gotta stop doing that HOPE and CHANGE bullshit. It's annoying even me now. Must Obama have everything!

|3.3.09 @ 1:43PM|#

Also no sybian...that i know of.

Oh, it's there.

Why do you say that? Have you ever actually listened to the guy?

Yes.

What does Rush do that is the equivelent of having porn stars take off their clothes or having Stuttering John ask Kathy Ireland if she uses a tampon or a pad?

He cultivates a purposeful mindless devotion in his fans. He does dopey skits. He asks politicians dumb questions.

And the best Stuttering John interview was back on the Channel 9 show when he interviewed Chevy Chase. Holy shit.

economist|3.3.09 @ 1:44PM|#

I didn't want the war in Iraq to fail, because I didn't want there to be a war in Iraq in the first place. I just thought that running up trillions in debt and losing thousands of troops sounded worse than giving up on trying to stabilize a country that is unstable by its very nature.

And, John, you still haven't answered my question. The war is over?

|3.3.09 @ 1:46PM|#

Again, what is people's problem with anythin in the 1:40 pm post? I think the Libertarian dislike of Rush is purely cultural. It all boils down like everything else to high school. Rush Limbaugh is the fat gregarious kid who started listening to some alternative band and got all the un cool kids that are his friends to listen to it as well. Libertarians are goth in the back row who were listening to the same band before they were signed. It doesn't matter how right the fat kid is about the band how much the goth kids love the band, the goths will never forgive the fat kid for letting people on the unapproved list get into their thing.

|3.3.09 @ 1:47PM|#

Jeebus,
How did I get into this discussion? One short, sweet and to the point about Rush Limbaugh (with an honest compliment thrown in)?

I do like the position of God dictator for life though. American Idol will be off the air, if you don't pay your mortgage you get tossed into the street, creationists will be medicated, global warming doomsayers will be relocated to within two miles of a carbon free fission plant, the dumbass embargo with Cuba ends, government operated primary schools will be auctioned of to the highest bidder, and all Dem and GOP fanboys will be sterilized because, let's face it, three generations of idiots are enough.

One last campaign promise, vocal drug warrior proponents that coerce their domestic help into obtaining opioids will have their vocal chords removed.

|3.3.09 @ 1:48PM|#

"And, John, you still haven't answered my question. The war is over?"

Pretty much. It is now more of a peace keeping operation. of course we are staying there too long, but that is BO's decision not mine.

|3.3.09 @ 1:50PM|#

"One last campaign promise, vocal drug warrior proponents that coerce their domestic help into obtaining opioids will have their vocal chords removed."


go find one instance where Limbaugh has ever been a vocal drug warrior? I don't think he has. Maybe he has but I have never heard it. I would be curious to see if you can find any links that support that. If not, you might want to reconsider your strawman of him.

Harpoon|3.3.09 @ 1:50PM|#

Reasonoids don't like Rush because they're a bunch of hipsters and it's just not hip to like anything/anyone that's widely popular.

Andrew|3.3.09 @ 1:50PM|#

Who cares about conservatism? This might be a shocker for some but I just listened to the daily broadcast of Democracy Now and on issues covered today like Israel, immigration and drug laws they have a lot more in common with libertarians than any conservative or Limbaugh every would.

Naga Sadow|3.3.09 @ 1:51PM|#

J sub D,

Just as long as you don't interfere with my fiefdom along the Gulf Coast, I'm sold.

|3.3.09 @ 1:51PM|#

"He cultivates a purposeful mindless devotion in his fans. He does dopey skits. He asks politicians dumb questions"

The only way to think that is to have no sense of humor or irony. That is just not true. He says things like "we are the ultimate journalist authority" to be funny. His listeners laugh and paranoids like you think he is serious not knowing the joke is on you.

Naga Sadow|3.3.09 @ 1:52PM|#

John,

Peacekeeping? It's a war zone. Don't use the Vienam doublespeak of "It's a police action, not a war" line.

|3.3.09 @ 1:53PM|#

"Reasonoids don't like Rush because they're a bunch of hipsters and it's just not hip to like anything/anyone that's widely popular."

Exactly. In the end they don't have the balls to admit to liking something hip liberals distain.

|3.3.09 @ 1:53PM|#

"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be
convicted and they ought to be sent up."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

Bonus:

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use, too many whites are getting away with drug sales, too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

|3.3.09 @ 1:53PM|#

"Peacekeeping? It's a war zone. Don't use the Vienam doublespeak of "It's a police action, not a war" line."

Not really anymore. Have you seen our casualty figures lately?

economist|3.3.09 @ 1:53PM|#

"Pretty much. It is now more of a peace keeping operation. of course we are staying there too long, but that is BO's decision not mine."

Well that's news to me. During the campaign season I was to understand that withdrawing from Iraq would lead to the breakdown of all order in that country and the utter failure of the "mission" (whatever it ultimately was).

|3.3.09 @ 1:54PM|#

mantooth,

Where are the links that go with those? Where did that come from? I have never seen those, but maybe he is a hardcore drug warrior.

economist|3.3.09 @ 1:55PM|#

John,
Unless the casualty figures are zero, with the only deaths being due to things not related to people bombing US troops, the war isn't over.

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 1:55PM|#

"Bush's "New Tone" in dealing with Democrats
Bush's phrase "Compassionate Conservative"
Bush's making nice with Teddy Kennedy
No Child Left Behind
Prescription Drug Benefit
Farm subsidies
Immigration Reform
Harriet Meyers Supreme Court pick
Republican spending/earmarks/pork"

What about the Patriot Act, what about the strengthening of the executive, what about warrantless wiretapping, what about rewriting the Constitution, etc.

From what I can tell Rush Limbaugh just hates Democrats and Republicans who once in a while speak to Democrats.

By the way John, engaging in a useless war could be far more destructive than the term "compassionate conservative." The Iraq war wasn't necessary, cost thousands of American lives, destroyed America's reputation and helped create a larger deficit.

If Rush Limbaugh wanted to be taken seriously he should perhaps learn to learn from his mistakes instead of having a God complex.

Conservatives have historically been far more skeptical of engaging in idealistic wars. This can be seen throughout American history. The fact that El Rushbo, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity, think that anyone who criticizes the executive on such matters are traitors shows how bankrupt the conservative movement has become.

Rush Limbaugh is a happy meal conservative whose more concerned about rhetoric than he is about thoughtful opinion.

|3.3.09 @ 1:55PM|#

"Well that's news to me. During the campaign season I was to understand that withdrawing from Iraq would lead to the breakdown of all order in that country and the utter failure of the "mission" (whatever it ultimately was)."

Leaving today, perhaps. In a year no way. We won the war. We should go home. I have always said that. We should not have a perminent presence there.

Naga Sadow|3.3.09 @ 1:56PM|#

Less casualties means no war? Moving the goalposts are we?

|3.3.09 @ 1:57PM|#

Beta Libertarian,

If the only thing that is important to you is the war, then vote Democrat and shut the fuck up about socialism. If stopping BO is important to you, then get over it. If not, then I don't know what to tell you.

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 1:57PM|#

John, one more point. While Rush and the other conservatives talking heads were rambling on about Iraq, Afghanistan was going to hell. Why the hell would the GOP ignore the country which was far more culpable in 9/11 and instead go after a feckless dictator who was largely contained?

|3.3.09 @ 1:58PM|#

The only way to think that is to have no sense of humor or irony. That is just not true. He says things like "we are the ultimate journalist authority" to be funny. His listeners laugh and paranoids like you think he is serious not knowing the joke is on you.

John, take your Xanax and calm down. I don't think he's serious--I think he isn't very funny. Understand now?

Do you get why I equated him to Howard at all? Howard is no longer funny; at least, not really. They both run on the fumes of their legions of fans' adoration.

I'm amazed that you are expending this much energy defending someone you don't even listen to.

economist|3.3.09 @ 1:58PM|#

"Exactly. In the end they don't have the balls to admit to liking something hip liberals distain."
Not to put too fine a point on it, John, but that's bullshit. Most libertarians here like John Stossel, for example, and the left detests him. Leftists who know about Drew Carey's libertarian leanings likewise despise him. We just don't like it when people shill fro a misbegotten war.

|3.3.09 @ 2:00PM|#

Mantooth those are both from 1995. I have not heard him saying anything about the drug war in 4 years, which isn't too long after his problem with drugs came out. The fact that he quit talking about the subject might be kind of lame, but it's not hypocritical if his position on the matter has changed because of his own personal experience. And that we will never know unless he tells us.

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 2:00PM|#

"If the only thing that is important to you is the war, then vote Democrat and shut the fuck up about socialism."

Don't blame me, I would have voted Libertarian. As was stated before war is the health of the state.

"If stopping BO is important to you, then get over it. If not, then I don't know what to tell you."

I don't have issues with body odour.

oat willie|3.3.09 @ 2:00PM|#

"So why do reasonites have such a problem with the guy?"

I used to listen to Rush, I thought this guy gets it, he's a conservative, until he started in on the "dope smoking, maggot infested, plastic banana, good time rock and roll, dirty hippy" meme. Because I am a responsible user of cannabis and don't like Rush's spin on responsible cannabis use (there are no responsible cannabis users, only potheads and losers), I exercised my right as a listener and stopped listening. He has a right to call people names and that is his schtick, so to each is own.

Then the news comes out that Rush was losing his hearing and there was a rumor that abuse of pain medicine was the cause. There was all the denial and the gnashing of teeth that his use of headphones were making him deaf.

Finally, the truth comes out that he was / is an oxycontin abuser and was caught dealing with his housekeeper for thousands of pills, not your typical personal use stash unless you are popping them like M&M's. Rush immediately goes into rehab, does no jail time and is back hating on the druggies when he gets the chance.

He had the chance to come clean and make a difference in the war on some drugs, but he chose to lawyer up and chicken out by going into rehab and covering it all up, like it never happened. He was also a chickenhawk for using an anal cyst to get out of serving his country.

IMHO, there's a special, more firey, hotter, more raggedy clothes wearing place in hell reserved just for Mr, Limbaugh.

economist|3.3.09 @ 2:01PM|#

"Leaving today, perhaps. In a year no way. We won the war. We should go home. I have always said that. We should not have a perminent presence there."
So when Repubs were declaring that a timetable for withdrawal would give aid and comfort to our enemies, that wasn't true?

|3.3.09 @ 2:04PM|#

Alberta Libertarian: "Conservatives have historically been far more skeptical of engaging in idealistic wars. This can be seen throughout American history. The fact that El Rushbo, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity, think that anyone who criticizes the executive on such matters are traitors shows how bankrupt the conservative movement has become."

To be fair, AL, the war was not strictly idealogical or fewer people would have supported it. It was based on the false intelligence about WMDs and Saddam Hussein support of Al Queda. Speaking in hindsight as if that was the reasoning 5 years ago isn't helpful. You might not have bought the reasoning, but a lot of people did, and weren't idealogical about it.

economist|3.3.09 @ 2:05PM|#

The range of conservative commentators that I could support would increase significantly if they hadn't defined themselves as Iraq war shills. Limbaugh is one. Probably not Hannity. Bill O'Reilly can go to hell in any case. But Beck seems lucid when he avoids talking about the war in Iraq, which is more than can be said for his arch-nemesis, Olbermann, at any time.

|3.3.09 @ 2:07PM|#

The truth hurts. It is true. I don't recall and Dems having a problem with Michael Moore wishing for a 1,000 Mogadeshus.

Dude, are you playing Conservative bogeyman MadLibs? The Million Mogadishu's guy was a random professor from Columbia. I don't expect a party to dismiss every random crazy associated with them. I also seem to remember a bunch of Dems voting for the MoveOn General BetrayUs ads.

I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh since 1993 or so, so maybe he is changed since then.
...
go find one instance where Limbaugh has ever been a vocal drug warrior? I don't think he has. Maybe he has but I have never heard it. I would be curious to see if you can find any links that support that. If not, you might want to reconsider your strawman of him.

WTF? You're obviously just defending him because he's on your side.

|3.3.09 @ 2:10PM|#

I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh since 1993 or so, so maybe he is changed since then. But I recall him being a very consistent supporter of free markets and small governments.

That hasn't really changed. He's definitely an economic libertarian.

Domestically, I would imagine the posters on here would agree with the guy 90% of the time or more.

Not 90%. Rush is also a social conservative. On economic policy, though, definitely a libertarian.

I tuned him in while I was running errands at lunch. The ten minutes I caught was Rush calling out the White House press corp for being a bunch of Obama (and I quote) "buttboys". What's not to like about that.

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 2:11PM|#

"You might not have bought the reasoning, but a lot of people did, and weren't idealogical about it."

My point was that many of the conservative talking heads were throwing the traitor accusation at those who brought some skepticism to the table. One National Review article even stated that anti-war conservatives were "un-patriotic." I didn't hear many who supported the war in the centre or the left throw out the traitor card near as much.

|3.3.09 @ 2:11PM|#

oat willie: "Because I am a responsible user of cannabis and don't like Rush's spin on responsible cannabis use (there are no responsible cannabis users, only potheads and losers), I exercised my right as a listener and stopped listening."

It's so funny when potheads get upset about being called potheads that it's worth it to call them potheads. See how that works oat willie?

economist|3.3.09 @ 2:12PM|#

Nah, Michael Moore was the one who wished the 9/ll attacks had killed more Bush supporters.

And he's a fat, lying piece of shit.

I think that he should win Biggest Douche in the Universe, myself.

|3.3.09 @ 2:12PM|#

If the Dems wanted the Iraq war to fail, they got their wish. If Bush and his minions had told Congress that, six years after the invasion, we would have found zero WMDs, lost thousands of military dead and thousands more permanently injured, spent trillions of dollars with zero reimbursement from Iraq's oil revenues, the AUMF would have been defeated 100-0 in the Senate.

Because it looks like things will turn out better than the absolute clusterfuck the region was turning into in 2006, doesn't make the war a success. If you go to a casino in Vegas with $10,000, lose $9999 of it within an hour, and manage to win back $100 in the next hour before leaving, that doesn't make the trip a success.

Ultra megatron|3.3.09 @ 2:13PM|#

Headline of the year

|3.3.09 @ 2:14PM|#

Hmm. I will say this about Rush: he's right about more than Pelosi. That's not too, too much, but I do think it's something.


When I agree with Rush, we tend to come from the same place (free markets = freedom).

When I agree with Pelosi, we almost never come from the same place (marijuana laws are silly because a person has the right to do with his body whatever he wants vs. marijuana isn't really that bad for you, therefore it should be legal).

|3.3.09 @ 2:16PM|#

Reading this thread and listening to Rush at the same time is a little confusing.

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 2:16PM|#

The thing that I dislike most about Rush Limbaugh is his horde of minions. I read a great article in The American Conservative [http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/feb/23/00006/] which was critical of right wing radio. But this is pretty typical of the response you get from people who are get angry whenever their deity gets attacked.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2192292/posts

Jim G.|3.3.09 @ 2:16PM|#

Limbaugh is a full-time liar.

He repeated his lie that "five million illegals were given HUD loans" even after HUD (under Bush) issued a press release denying this false report.

He blames Dodd and Frank for the mortgage crisis to alleviate pressure on the real villians at Wall Street, like the two had any power at all before 2007.

The sad fact is that his low-info listeners perpetuate his lies ad nauseam.

|3.3.09 @ 2:18PM|#

"If you go to a casino in Vegas with $10,000, lose $9999 of it within an hour, and manage to win back $100 in the next hour before leaving, that doesn't make the trip a success."

This is exactly how the supporters of the war in Iraq think. In spite of all the lost lives, injuries, and destruction of our economy, since there has been somewhat of an improvement in the situation in Iraq, they believe it's been a success. As Justin Raimondo described the success of the surge, it's like putting whipped cream on a pile of fertilizer.

|3.3.09 @ 2:21PM|#

He blames Dodd and Frank for the mortgage crisis to alleviate pressure on the real villians at Wall Street, like the two had any power at all before 2007.

Damn those Wall Street Villians (sic)! The folk would be alright if it weren't for those greedy money lovers! And what about those mortgage lenders? FORCING people to buy homes they couldn't afford --- actually selling them homes at GUNPOINT. Evil bastards...

|3.3.09 @ 2:23PM|#

"He blames Dodd and Frank for the mortgage crisis to alleviate pressure on the real villians at Wall Street, like the two had any power at all before 2007."

The fault is a combination of the easy money policy of the Fed, the Government's encouragement of making housing loans to high risk borrowers, and Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's buying up of those bad loans.

|3.3.09 @ 2:24PM|#

I do like the position of God dictator for life though.

Where do I put in my application for my fiefdom for Sedona? Can I still live in Kingman? I don't want to be too far from Vegas.

economist|3.3.09 @ 2:26PM|#

Jim G.,
Did you get stuck trying to make conservative look smart in comparison to leftists?

|3.3.09 @ 2:26PM|#

go find one instance where Limbaugh has ever been a vocal drug warrior? I don't think he has. Maybe he has but I have never heard it. I would be curious to see if you can find any links that support that. If not, you might want to reconsider your strawman of him.

I listened to him in the car in the early nineties. Like I said, he can be entertaining. He supported the War on Drugs Libertythen. I imagine he's toned it down since getting busted.

oat willie|3.3.09 @ 2:28PM|#

"It's so funny when potheads get upset about being called potheads that it's worth it to call them potheads. See how that works oat willie?"

Glad you are amused. Enjoy your drug of choice responsibly.

|3.3.09 @ 2:30PM|#

Reading this thread and listening to Rush at the same time is a little confusing.

Its almost like the people who loathe have never listened to him, but are going on second hand accounts.

The fundamental thing about Rush that too many of his fans and foes miss is that: He. Is. An. Entertainer. First and foremost.

His schtick is mainly to (a) lambaste people in power (focussing on Dems and fellow-traveller statists in the Republican party) and (b) extol the American dream and American exceptionalism. He's good at it, which is why he draws such strong reactions.

|3.3.09 @ 2:35PM|#

Rush: "there are no responsible cannabis users, only potheads and losers"

Now that's something, coming from a doper like Rush. It reminds me of when Elvis joined Nixon's drug war, then ended up dying himself from drugs. Some people seem to think that abuse of legal drugs is better than the mere use of illegal drugs. Rush is an ignoramous. Contrary to what Rush thinks in his intolerant sheltered world, not all users of marijuana are potheads or losers.

Jim G.|3.3.09 @ 2:36PM|#

Banks have one central duty - risk assessment. They failed.

And Wall Street trafficked primarily in non-conforming loans (those loans Fannie and Freddie were prohibited from obtaining).

Lehman, Bear, and Merrill brought their own demise on. They became public villians for their incompetence and corruption and not for their free market practices.

Kolohe|3.3.09 @ 2:37PM|#

"We don't want to tell anybody how to live. That's up to you."

-Rush Limbaugh Conservative Political Action Conference, 28 Feb 2009.

Unless
1) You're a dude that loves dudes or a gal that loves gals
2) You want to smoke pot
3) You're ambivalent about god.
4) You're an Iraqi.

|3.3.09 @ 2:39PM|#

"His schtick is mainly to (a) lambaste people in power (focussing on Dems and fellow-traveller statists in the Republican party) and (b) extol the American dream and American exceptionalism. He's good at it, which is why he draws such strong reactions."

I used to be a regular listener of his until I couldn't stomach anymore. He draws a strong reaction from me because of his reactionism, ignorance, and intolerance. I basically agree with his economic views, but it's not worth it to have to listen to all his other crap.

Kolohe|3.3.09 @ 2:41PM|#

If anyone gives a shit here's the entire CPAC speech.

Les|3.3.09 @ 2:41PM|#

It's so funny when potheads get upset about being called potheads that it's worth it to call them potheads.

Well, it's only really funny if it's really a pothead who's being called a pothead. If a casual drinker gets upset about being called a "drunk," that's not as funny as a drunk getting upset about being called a drunk.

His schtick is mainly to (a) lambaste people in power (focussing on Dems and fellow-traveller statists in the Republican party) and (b) extol the American dream and American exceptionalism. He's good at it, which is why he draws such strong reactions.

Is he really, though? He fawned over Bush and especially Cheney, who are statists to the core. He strongly supports strong statist philosophies like the war on drugs and militarism. I just don't know why people think he's less of a statist than the Democrats.

Les|3.3.09 @ 2:43PM|#

So, Robbie, do you think that all people who drink alcohol are drunks?

|3.3.09 @ 2:44PM|#

"Banks have one central duty - risk assessment. They failed."

They were given perverse incentives with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying their bad loans. Why not keep making bad loans if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are going to buy it all from you?

VM|3.3.09 @ 2:44PM|#

john - you know where you can stick that.

not everybody is meanly partisan the way you are.

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 2:44PM|#

I recall when I was driving through Michigan I actually caught Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage, throughout my drive. Here was the gist of what was on:

Rush Limbaugh - bashing a Democratic congressman who attacked Hugo Chavez because according to Limbaugh the congressman wasn't authentic and secretly had an affection for Chavez. [Apparently Rush can read peoples thoughts]

Sean Hannity - lambasting the former governor of New Jersey for being gay and cheating on his wife. Despite the fact their were likely more pressing issues.

Michael Savage - going on a rant about how Shakespears Romeo and Juliet is destroying our children and encouraging pre-marital sex.

Needless to say my opinion of them wasn't that high.

Kolohe|3.3.09 @ 2:49PM|#

Michael Savage - going on a rant about how Shakespears Romeo and Juliet is destroying our children and encouraging pre-marital sex.

That doesn't even make sense - they got (secretly) married before they got it on, even in most of the movie versions.

|3.3.09 @ 2:51PM|#

"Lehman, Bear, and Merrill brought their own demise on. They became public villians for their incompetence and corruption and not for their free market practices."

There had to be a perverse incentive for them. It's hard for me that all of a sudden,so many financial institutions would all of a sudden become incompetent and corrupt. Those perverse incentives were the easy money policies of the Fed.

|3.3.09 @ 2:52PM|#

Who gives a fuck what Rush thinks about anything. If you need some douche on the radio to lay out your social / political mindset, you're already a fool.

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 2:56PM|#

"That doesn't even make sense - they got (secretly) married before they got it on, even in most of the movie versions."

Ironically enough it was during a rant about how America was losing her Biblical morality due to secularism. I couldn't help but wonder if that guy has ever read the Song of Solomon or most of Genesis.

|3.3.09 @ 2:56PM|#

"Who gives a fuck what Rush thinks about anything."

Because of the big influence he has on a large segment of the population.

After having said that, I'm glad he is on the air. He does give balance from the leftist media on television.

|3.3.09 @ 2:57PM|#

Les: "So, Robbie, do you think that all people who drink alcohol are drunks?"

Only when it upsets other people.

Bookworm, that wasn't actually a quote from Rush Limbaugh. Oat willie said it.

Song of Solomon|3.3.09 @ 2:58PM|#

Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.
Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn, which came up from the washing; whereof every one bear twins, and none is barren among them.
Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet, and thy speech is comely: thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate within thy locks.
Thy neck is like the tower of David builded for an armoury, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men.
Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies.

|3.3.09 @ 3:04PM|#

What have we learned today?

Rush is a hypocrite.
John loves the Iraq War and hates people who hate it.
There are still some people here who think drugs are bad, mkay.
Republicans don't like teh gays.
The Bible sucks.

Is any of this news?

|3.3.09 @ 3:06PM|#

"go find one instance where Limbaugh has ever been a vocal drug warrior? I don't think he has. Maybe he has but I have never heard it. I would be curious to see if you can find any links that support that. If not, you might want to reconsider your strawman of him."

When I used to listen to him in the '90's, in response to criticism about blacks being punished more severely than whites for drug use, he said they should be punished equally, that is, whites should be punished just as severely as blacks.

Les|3.3.09 @ 3:09PM|#

Robbie, you lost me.

And by the way, regarding medical marijuana, Rush said this:

"The FDA says there's no -- zilch, zero, nada -- shred of medicinal value to the evil weed marijuana. This is going to be a setback to the long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking crowd."
Radio broadcast, Apr. 21, 2006

So, Rush thinks the government knows better than doctors what patients need. The government knows better than patients what patients need. Rush believes the government needs to protect us from ourselves and our doctors. So, whenever he talks about "less government," understand that he's a hypocrite and a liar. Yes, he's an "entertainer," but he's also a hypocrite and a liar.

|3.3.09 @ 3:13PM|#

I don't think I care to be around if we go down this road, but is our friend implying that because the Song of Solomon mentions breasts, religious proponents of chastity haven't understood the Bible?

Les|3.3.09 @ 3:13PM|#

A simple google search reveals more of Rush's dependence on the government to take care of us. The fact is that people like Rush are merely socialists who want the government to control individuals instead of businesses. There's really no difference in the mentality.

We're going to let you destroy your life. We're going to make it easy and then all of us who accept the responsibilities of life and don't destroy our lives on drugs, we'll pay for whatever messes you get into."
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec. 9, 1993

"I'm appalled at people who simply want to look at all this abhorrent behavior and say people are going to do drugs anyway let's legalize it. It's a dumb idea. It's a rotten idea and those who are for it are purely 100 percent selfish."
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993

"If (Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders) wants to legalize drugs, send the people who want to do drugs to London and Zurich, and let's be rid of them.
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993

"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Oct. 5, 1995

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 3:16PM|#

No, but I'm pointing out that the Bible has certain stories that would make Ron Jeremy blush.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16546_6-raunchiest-most-depraved-sex-acts-from-bible.html

|3.3.09 @ 3:17PM|#

When Rush first started he occasionally had a good point or three but he went mad dog rabid about Clinton's pecadillos and I rapidly lost interest. He deevolved to the point where only the fan(atical) still believe . . about where Hannity started.

The whole water carrying speech reconfirmed he's a well-paid shill. Good for him and woe to anyone who believes a word he says.

|3.3.09 @ 3:19PM|#

Ah, our second link to Cracked in as many weeks.

Good times.

Fascitis Necrotizante|3.3.09 @ 3:19PM|#

like so

Taktix®|3.3.09 @ 3:20PM|#

Calling for tax cuts does NOT an economic libertian make.

Rush calls for tax cuts because he knows his listeners like "tax cuts" but if he were truly economically libertarian, he would also be against the massive spending and regulation Bush created...

Warty|3.3.09 @ 3:22PM|#

O HAI GUYZ WHATS GOIN ON IN THIS THREAD

Warty|3.3.09 @ 3:23PM|#

I'm serious. What the shit is this fuck?

|3.3.09 @ 3:25PM|#

Taktix, Rush has been a vociferous critic of the Republican spendfest.

He fawned over Bush and especially Cheney, who are statists to the core.

I don't remember much of anything from Rush on Cheney, but I don't listen that often. I recall a decidedly mixed bag of comments on Bush.

He strongly supports strong statist philosophies like the war on drugs and militarism. I just don't know why people think he's less of a statist than the Democrats.

Because while he supports some elements of a strong state, he opposes others. The Dems pretty much support any element of strong state you care to name.

|3.3.09 @ 3:48PM|#

Libertarians have three basic options here:

The LP: You'll feel smug and superior voting for them, but they will never win any significant elected seat.

The Democrats: This is just giving up. They are for big government in all areas of your life. The bedroom may be your sovereign property, but everything else will be taxed to the max. Including your pot. If you don't believe this you haven't been paying attention to Glorious Leader.

The Republicans: You may have to hold your nose, but they are the only major party that has free markets in their platform. The problem is getting them to stick to their platform. Unlike changing the Democrats, this is actually doable. But it won't happen if you do nothing but whine on Hit&Run.

So join the Republican Liberty Caucus, and proudly declare yourself a libertarian Republican who's fighting to take the party into the future. The social conservatives proved you can take over a party from within, now it's the libertarians turn to kick them out and take over for ourselves. We're not going to see any purist libertarians on the Republican ticket, but we might, just might, see some that will stick to their no-tax no-spend pledge once they get into office.

http://www.rlc.org

David Ross|3.3.09 @ 3:59PM|#

We get it, Les. You like drugs, probably about as much as Rush does.

You can avoid Republican moralistic laws just by not snorting coke off a hooker's butt crack. The economy is not at all hurt by your abstinence. Neither are *you* hurt by much.

On the other hand, avoiding Democratic economic laws are a lot harder. You can't get a job, you can't go to business for yourself, you can't choose your doctor (or else the doctors are all going John Galt too).

I believe in marijuana legalisation, and liberalisation of the other laws. The drug war is a silly and wasteful crusade. But the Left has many, MANY more crusades and they cause much more damage. Check out your own 401(k) some time.

|3.3.09 @ 4:00PM|#

we might, just might, see some that will stick to their no-tax no-spend pledge once they get into office.

No, Brandybuck, we won't.

If we have no hope of a libertarian government, the best we can hope for is divided government.

Les|3.3.09 @ 4:01PM|#

Rush has been a vociferous critic of the Republican spendfest.

Except, of course, when it came to spending billions to invade a country that posed no threat to us.

I don't remember much of anything from Rush on Cheney, but I don't listen that often. I recall a decidedly mixed bag of comments on Bush.

He had Cheney on his show a couple of times and was as giddy as a schoolgirl.

Because while he supports some elements of a strong state, he opposes others. The Dems pretty much support any element of strong state you care to name.

Oh, well, if you're going to lower the bar to the level of the Democrats, a lot of lying hypocrites would pass muster. But if one wanders outside of the "red team/blue team" mentality, maintaining standards of honesty and consistency, reflexive loyalists like Limbaugh are revealed for what they are.

Like I've said before, if you claim to be for less government while passionately supporting increased military spending, warrantless wiretaps, selectively elimiating due process, and the totalitarian war on drugs, the only people who will take you seriously are Republicans.

Fluffy|3.3.09 @ 4:05PM|#

I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh since 1993 or so, so maybe he is changed since then. But I recall him being a very consistent supporter of free markets and small governments. Domestically, I would imagine the posters on here would agree with the guy 90% of the time or more. So why do reasonites have such a problem with the guy? Part of it is the Iraq war but it is not like Reason and its readers liked him before the Iraq war so that can't be it.

Mentioning 1993 makes it very easy for me to explain my problem with the guy.

Rush Limbaugh considered Bill Clinton a Leninist figure whose defeat and destruction amounted to a holy crusade.

But by any reasonable or intelligible measure, George Bush was 1000 times worse on every single "free market and small government" issue other than the non-issue of the minimum wage and some areas of labor law than Bill Clinton ever was.

So it's simply insufficient to me that Gilbert Martin can remember a couple of episodes of Rush's show where he criticized individual elements of Bush administration policy. If Rush believed ANYTHING HE SAID from 1992 to 2000, he should have hated W more than he hated Bill Clinton, and he should have made it his life's work to destroy W, the way he made it his life's work to destroy Bill Clinton.

Since he didn't do that, I can conclude that Rush is full of shit, and never meant a single word he said from 1992 to 2000. And that means he's full of shit now, too.

|3.3.09 @ 4:05PM|#

He can be entertaining, he has legions of mindless devotees, but in the end, he just sucks elephant cock.

Link?

Les|3.3.09 @ 4:14PM|#

We get it, Les. You like drugs, probably about as much as Rush does.

No, not really. I was just point out Rush's blatant hypocrisy.

You can avoid Republican moralistic laws just by not snorting coke off a hooker's butt crack. The economy is not at all hurt by your abstinence. Neither are *you* hurt by much.

Obviously you've not read the regular stream of stories of SWAT teams invading homes and shooting pets and innocent people searching for drugs. You really ought to.

On the other hand, avoiding Democratic economic laws are a lot harder. You can't get a job, you can't go to business for yourself, you can't choose your doctor (or else the doctors are all going John Galt too).

You seem to be under the impression that I think Republicans are worse than Democrats. There's no evidence to support that notion. Just as there's no evidence that the Republicans (having controlled congress 12 of the last 15 years) are less responsible for the economic downturn than Democrats.

|3.3.09 @ 4:41PM|#

I really disagree with Rush on:

The Middle East
Terry Schiavo business
The War on Drugs
Immigration
Anything Religion based.

I was and am in favor of the war in Iraq (But against the Gulf War 1)

And I am not for lower income tax, I believe that the fact that the government can and does collect income tax is immoral.

That said, and while Rush has a lot of boring filler.
He can be very entertaining. And he interprets politics, and politicians very well.

He also stands up well for capitalism and free speech very well.

He doesn't stand up for the 2nd A very well, and that is a very important to me.

Basically, Rush would be a lot better if he were a little more Anarchist and a little less Conservative.

|3.3.09 @ 4:44PM|#

Rush is a bloated brain-damaged propagandist. I am over the moon amused by how Republican politicians have to lick his boots. Makes sense. He has complete sway over a huge proportion of Republican voters. No politician gets that much air time. Rush can destroy any Republican. Meanwhile, everything that comes out of his mouth lately is helping Democrats.

Rush is good for one thing. It is easy to tell when I'm debating one of his minions, since they all repeat the same lies using the same words.

|3.3.09 @ 4:56PM|#

Odd how this thread thinks Rush is so bad and compares him to Stern. The reality is that he is really a right wing Jon Stewart. Stewart engages in the same kind of hyperbole and snark that Rush does and his followers are just as unthinking as the worst dittohead. Yet, Stewart never seems to draw much approbation from Libertarians even though his views on the whole are much more objectionable. Why is that? I think it is because, as someone else pointed out above, that most Libertarians are more committed hipsters than they are Libertarians. For that reason the hipster favorite Stewart gets a pass while the more blue collar Rush is hated.

EJM|3.3.09 @ 4:57PM|#

He had Cheney on his show a couple of times and was as giddy as a schoolgirl.

Not during his appearance in May 2006 (more here).

|3.3.09 @ 4:58PM|#

Jon Stewart is a bloated brain-damaged propagandist. I am over the moon amused by how Democratic politicians have to lick his boots. Makes sense. He has complete sway over a huge proportion of Democratic voters. No politician gets that much air time. Stewart can destroy any Democrat. Meanwhile, everything that comes out of his mouth lately is helping Republicans.

Stewart is good for one thing. It is easy to tell when I'm debating one of his minions, since they all repeat the same lies using the same words.


There fixed it.

Les|3.3.09 @ 5:01PM|#

He also stands up well for capitalism and free speech very well.

He stands up well for capitalism he likes and free speech he likes. He condemns and wishes the government to prohibit the capitalism and speech he dislikes.

Tacos mmm...|3.3.09 @ 5:04PM|#

Why is that? I think it is because, as someone else pointed out above, that most Libertarians are more committed hipsters than they are Libertarians. For that reason the hipster favorite Stewart gets a pass while the more blue collar Rush is hated.

There's certainly some truth to this. I enjoy Stewart because he likes to catch politicians contradicting themselves on video, and his insults are much more highbrow. Rush tends to be more vulgar, and to deal in ossified 70's stereotypes that I can't relate to. He's basically selling to an older audience.

However, I disagree with him on the drug war, the Iraq war, abortion, immigration, gay marriage, and actually pretty much every issue that I can think of outside of the economic sphere, and I suspect most of the noises he makes on economics are essentially populist in nature and not based on a coherent ideology - i.e., he may codemn bank bailouts, but I have yet to see (er, hear) him go after farm subsidies.

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 5:07PM|#

"For that reason the hipster favorite Stewart gets a pass while the more blue collar Rush is hated."

Yeah, his $30,000,000 salary is so blue collar.

"I think it is because, as someone else pointed out above, that most Libertarians are more committed hipsters than they are Libertarians."

I haven't found Jon Stewart funny since 2003. It might also have to do with the fact that we don't worship Rush Limbaugh.

"I am over the moon amused by how Democratic politicians have to lick his boots."

Dude, Jon Stewart's on Comedy Central. Rush Limbaugh has called himself the head of the Republican Party. The difference is that if someone states Stewart is an entertainer he doesn't take offense, if you do it with Rush Limbaugh he'll destroy you.

"Yet, Stewart never seems to draw much approbation from Libertarians even though his views on the whole are much more objectionable. Why is that?"

Because Jon Stewart hasn't proclaimed himself the head of the GOP or asked that those who criticize him immediately apologize. Sometimes I think Rush Limbaugh takes lessons from Stephen Colbert.

Plus I think if I were to disagree with Jon Stewart he wouldn't attempt to beat my argument by just yelling abit louder.

Tacos mmm...|3.3.09 @ 5:09PM|#

You can avoid Republican moralistic laws just by not snorting coke off a hooker's butt crack. The economy is not at all hurt by your abstinence. Neither are *you* hurt by much.

Your flippant attempt to reduce the social and individual consequences of the drug war to a statement about hookers and coke is, quite frankly, obscene. Look up Radley Balko, if you haven't already.

|3.3.09 @ 5:09PM|#

John,

Jon Stewart. Really? Name one Democrat who has had to apologize to Stewart for not towing his line. One. Give me a break.

|3.3.09 @ 5:09PM|#

"However, I disagree with him on the drug war, the Iraq war, abortion, immigration, gay marriage, and actually pretty much every issue that I can think of outside of the economic sphere, and I suspect most of the noises he makes on economics are essentially populist in nature and not based on a coherent ideology - i.e., he may codemn bank bailouts, but I have yet to see (er, hear) him go after farm subsidies."

Back in the 90s at least when I was in a position to listen to such things, he railed on a Clinton era farm subsidy bill. I found him to be very consistent on economic policy. Again I think you are believing the hipster myth rather than reality. Further, outside of gay marriage and maybe immigration, is there one issue you agree with Stewart on? Again why does he get a pass but Rush doesn't other than the fact that someone somewhere decided Stewart, someon who incidentily is about as poorly read and shallow as you could possibly be, was cool?

|3.3.09 @ 5:10PM|#

Funny, I am reading the latter part of this thread while watching 'The Daily Show'

Les|3.3.09 @ 5:10PM|#

Yet, Stewart never seems to draw much approbation from Libertarians even though his views on the whole are much more objectionable.

What views? Which policies does he call for and/or condemn?

Stewart can destroy any Democrat. Meanwhile, everything that comes out of his mouth lately is helping Republicans.

This is nonsense (though I know you were just trying to do something clever). Stewart is helping Republicans now? How?

How many Democratic functions does Stewart speak at? How many liberal politicians does Limbaugh have on his show? How many liberal pundits does Limbaugh have on his show? How many factual falsehoods is Stewart on record as having stated as fact?

Look, Stewart can be smarmy and annoying, but to suggest that he's just the same as Limbaugh is simply baseless.

|3.3.09 @ 5:12PM|#

"Dude, Jon Stewart's on Comedy Central. Rush Limbaugh has called himself the head of the Republican Party. The difference is that if someone states Stewart is an entertainer he doesn't take offense, if you do it with Rush Limbaugh he'll destroy you."


Stewart is a complete asshole to his conservative guests. Further, didn't you see the whole Stewart rant against Tucker Carleson about the state of TV journalism? Stewart totally takes himself seriously. Further, his troglodyte viewers do to. If Stewart is worse than Limbaugh. Limbaugh never hides behind the idea that he is just an entertainer and it is just a radio show. He makes his case and sticks to it. Stewart in contrast is a complete pussy who cries that he is "just an entertainer" whenever someone calls him on something.

111|3.3.09 @ 5:13PM|#

Rush Limbaugh is hardly blue-collar. Few blue collar folks I know make trips to the Dominican Republic to ... Oh never mind. Anyone who can't see the differences between Rush and Jon Stewart isn't going to be convinced by any information.

|3.3.09 @ 5:14PM|#

Ok John Steward stopped being entertaining, and now I am on 'Hardball'

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 5:14PM|#

"Back in the 90s at least when I was in a position to listen to such things, he railed on a Clinton era farm subsidy bill. I found him to be very consistent on economic policy."

Yes, because it was Clinton. I also understand that he wasn't in favour of the war in Kosovo under Clinton. Now he's saying that anyone who criticizes war is a traitor.

"Again I think you are believing the hipster myth rather than reality."

Definition.

"Further, outside of gay marriage and maybe immigration, is there one issue you agree with Stewart on?"

Dude, the show after Jon Stewart is puppets making prank phonecalls. Jon Stewarts job isn't to be a political pundit, it's to engage in satire. [albeit when he attempts to engage in punditry the satire suffers]

"Again why does he get a pass but Rush doesn't other than the fact that someone somewhere decided Stewart, someon who incidentily is about as poorly read and shallow as you could possibly be, was cool?"

Probably because this discussion wasn't about Jon Stewart.

|3.3.09 @ 5:15PM|#

Les,

Stewart is just like Limbaugh. He runs an ideological talk show that mascerades as entertainment. Who cares that Stewart lets Bill Kristol on his show. It is not like Stewart is in any way fair or deliver anything but polemics. They are mirror images of one another. Their fans are to.

|3.3.09 @ 5:17PM|#

Rush is blue collar in the sense that his listeners are. You people hate his listners as much as anyone. Further, blue collar is about more than bank account. They guy is a former sports caster with no big degree. It isn't even cool or good looking. He is everything hipsters hate. How dare some nobody from Kansas City command such influence and especially among "those people" who listen to him. That pretty much sums up the hipster attitude Libertarian or not.

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 5:17PM|#

"Stewart is a complete asshole to his conservative guests. Further, didn't you see the whole Stewart rant against Tucker Carleson about the state of TV journalism?"

Yes I did, he called both Begala and Carlson partisan hacks. Stewart however is more constructive with his guests than is Limbaugh who usually ends any debate with the sound of a toilet bowl flushing.

"Limbaugh never hides behind the idea that he is just an entertainer and it is just a radio show. He makes his case and sticks to it."

Yes, we know. He never admits that he was ever wrong and will never reconsider a position. He goes with his gut instead of his brain.

"Stewart in contrast is a complete pussy who cries that he is "just an entertainer" whenever someone calls him on something."

Because he is an entertainer dude. Same with Stephen Colbert, it's satire.

111|3.3.09 @ 5:18PM|#

Jon Stewart is poorly read? And you know this how? OK we get it; you don't like him. But equating him with Limbaugh is ludicrous, for all the reasons listed above.

|3.3.09 @ 5:19PM|#

"Because he is an entertainer dude. Same with Stephen Colbert, it's satire."

If that is true then why is Stewart out pontificating and his loser listners getting their news from him? That is my point, he wants to be taken seriously think of himself as this big important guy, but when someone points out how full of shit he is, he claims just to be an entertainer.

|3.3.09 @ 5:21PM|#

"Jon Stewart is poorly read? And you know this how? OK we get it; you don't like him. But equating him with Limbaugh is ludicrous, for all the reasons listed above."


What has he ever said or done that would indicate that he isn't poorly read? I don't see how anyone as shallow as he is could be well read or if they were they certainly didn't get anything out of it.

|3.3.09 @ 5:22PM|#

It is funny. I bet I could go over to a Rush Limbaugh board and compare him to Stewart and get the same shocked indignant response. The only difference between Stewart's followers and dittoheads is the dittoheads have a group name.

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 5:23PM|#

"Stewart is just like Limbaugh. He runs an ideological talk show that mascerades as entertainment. Who cares that Stewart lets Bill Kristol on his show. It is not like Stewart is in any way fair or deliver anything but polemics. They are mirror images of one another. Their fans are to."

Yes, Comedy Central has always been about ensuring the masses are converting to socialism.

"Rush is blue collar in the sense that his listeners are."

I think you have to be from a blue collar family to be considered blue collar. I know plenty of people that are blue collar, that doesn't mean that I'm blue collar.

" Further, blue collar is about more than bank account. They guy is a former sports caster with no big degree."

Nobody cares about that, and nobody really brought it up.

"It isn't even cool or good looking. He is everything hipsters hate."

I like Penn Jillette and he's not the greatest looking guy. Same with Ron Paul. Maybe I'm not a "hipster."

"How dare some nobody from Kansas City command such influence and especially among "those people" who listen to him."

Keep on playing the victim card, it's doing wonders for your argument.

"That pretty much sums up the hipster attitude Libertarian or not."

Or, setting up a red herring so you can deflect all these points that show Rush Limbaugh isn't really that principled.

|3.3.09 @ 5:25PM|#

"Jon Stewart. Really? Name one Democrat who has had to apologize to Stewart for not towing his line. One. Give me a break."

Stevo Darkly, please pick up the white courtesy phone.

|3.3.09 @ 5:25PM|#

Your flippant attempt to reduce the social and individual consequences of the drug war to a statement about hookers and coke is, quite frankly, obscene. Look up Radley Balko, if you haven't already.

The Radley Balko stuff is a problem of both the left and on the right.

Well, this is kind of hard to express, not that I have had to much coffee.

But before I listened to Rush, I was a law enforcement Republican. And some of the influence that led me away from that way was Rush.

Take that for what it is worth. Maybe others listen to him get a different message.

Then again most of my Rush listening took place during the Clinton administration. Most of the Bush Admin I was away overseas.

Tacos mmm...|3.3.09 @ 5:26PM|#

Back in the 90s at least when I was in a position to listen to such things, he railed on a Clinton era farm subsidy bill. I found him to be very consistent on economic policy.

He railed against everything Clintonian. I suppose that's a consistent position of sorts.

Further, outside of gay marriage and maybe immigration, is there one issue you agree with Stewart on?

That's another great thing about Stewart. Rush is an endless stream of "I think this, and it's right and if you disagree with me, you're a dirty hippy." Stewart doesn't blast you like that. I can basically ignore his politics and laugh at the spliced together video clips. Rush just gets old and repetitive. We KNOW what he thinks of liberals. He doesn't need to tell us every god damn day.

Again why does he get a pass but Rush doesn't other than the fact that someone somewhere decided Stewart, someon who incidentily is about as poorly read and shallow as you could possibly be, was cool?

Rush is out of date. It's as simple as that. He came of age almost four decades ago, and his perception of America is locked in the culture war of the 70's. Because he's a boomer, he was able to say relevant things about Clinton in the early 90's, but those days are gone now. He may continued as a mainstay of the hike-up-your-pants and get-off-my-lawn crowd, but from my perspective, he just has nothing interesting or relevant to say.

Limbaugh never hides behind the idea that he is just an entertainer and it is just a radio show. He makes his case and sticks to it.

Uh... yeah. Just ask Michael Steele whether Rush sees himself simply as an entertainer.

|3.3.09 @ 5:27PM|#

blue collar is about more than bank account

And George W. "Kennebunkport" Bush was really a brush-clearing cowboy from Texas.

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 5:27PM|#

"If that is true then why is Stewart out pontificating and his loser listners getting their news from him?"

It was a joke. He even said that he really had no responsibility for his audiences political leanings and that most of them likely wouldn't vote because they smoked too much pot the night before.

Les|3.3.09 @ 5:28PM|#

John,

You can say Stewart is whatever you want, it doesn't make it so. You can ignore the fact that Stewart doesn't go to partisan political functions (unlike Limbaugh), that he has repeat guests on with whom he disagrees (unlike Limbaugh), that he doesn't have a long record of stating falsehoods as facts (unlike Limbaugh), that he has conservative and liberal politicians regularly on his show (unlike Limbaugh), that he doesn't repeatedly claim to have an ideology (unlike Limbaugh, who's not even consistent about it), that politicians never have to apologize to him (unlike Limbaugh), that he's never written a book about what's wrong with the country and why one party is mostly to blame (unlike Limbaugh), and then, hilariously, go on to say "Stewart is just like Limbaugh."

Only Republicans will take you seriously.

|3.3.09 @ 5:30PM|#

"Yes, Comedy Central has always been about ensuring the masses are converting to socialism."

No, they are interested in making money. But who cares what they are interested in. We are talking about Stewart and his show, which is just a left wing version of Rush Limbaugh.

"I think you have to be from a blue collar family to be considered blue collar. I know plenty of people that are blue collar, that doesn't mean that I'm blue collar."


Maybe so. My point was regardless of what he is, Rush's fans tend to be blud collar and that one of the reasons hipsters hate him so much. His fans tend to be the epitimy of uncool.

"I like Penn Jillette and he's not the greatest looking guy. Same+ with Ron Paul. Maybe I'm not a "hipster.""

I think Penn and Teller count as cool for whatever that is worth. So what if you like Ron Paul. No everyone likes everything on the stuff white people like list.

"Or, setting up a red herring so you can deflect all these points that show Rush Limbaugh isn't really that principled."

What if he is not? I am saying he is a right wing Jon Stweart. Who said Stewart was principled. Is Limbaugh perfect? No. But he is no more imperfect that Stewart yet doesn't get the pass Stewart does.

|3.3.09 @ 5:30PM|#

Stewart's annoying move is different from Rush's annoying move.

Rush's is ego explosion.

Stewart's is to make an argument as a joke, then hide behind it because it's just a joke. He wants it both ways.

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 5:30PM|#

Actually I do have Jon Stewarts book "America, Democracy Inaction" which I find to be a good read. Maybe I'm one of those loser readers that can't tell the difference between satire and political indoctrination.

Tacos mmm...|3.3.09 @ 5:31PM|#

What has he ever said or done that would indicate that he isn't poorly read? I don't see how anyone as shallow as he is could be well read or if they were they certainly didn't get anything out of it.

I don't know anyone who can look at the glory of creation, and not come to the conclusion that it was created by an almighty, personal God who wants to save me from my sin. And if you don't come to that same conclusion, you're obviously poorly read.

Admit it. You just got busted talking out your ass.

|3.3.09 @ 5:33PM|#

So Less do you honestly believe Stewart is anything but a leftwing ideologue? You think that he is this fair guy out there trying to run to the middle? ReallY? I don't care what he is. It is a free country, but it defies credulity to claim that Stewart is any less biased than Limbaugh.

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 5:34PM|#

"Maybe so. My point was regardless of what he is, Rush's fans tend to be blud collar and that one of the reasons hipsters hate him so much. His fans tend to be the epitimy of uncool."

What do you have against hipsters dude?

"I think Penn and Teller count as cool for whatever that is worth. So what if you like Ron Paul. No everyone likes everything on the stuff white people like list."

So can you make a list of who's in the cool and uncool crowd. I just hope that I'm never in the cool crowd so I can someday be your friend.

"What if he is not? I am saying he is a right wing Jon Stweart. Who said Stewart was principled. Is Limbaugh perfect? No. But he is no more imperfect that Stewart yet doesn't get the pass Stewart does."

This red herring is delicious.

Let's say this, if I had a disagreement with Jon Stewart his counterpoints would involve more than just yelling louder.

|3.3.09 @ 5:34PM|#

"Stewart's is to make an argument as a joke, then hide behind it because it's just a joke. He wants it both ways."


Exactly.

|3.3.09 @ 5:36PM|#

"Let's say this, if I had a disagreement with Jon Stewart his counterpoints would involve more than just yelling louder."

No it would involve some smart ass snarky comment that did nothing but demean you and said nothing of substance. Rush yells, Stewart insults. I don't see the difference.

the innominate one|3.3.09 @ 5:36PM|#

"Again why does he get a pass but Rush doesn't other than the fact that someone somewhere decided Stewart, someon [sic] who incidentily [sic] is about as poorly read and shallow as you could possibly be, was cool?"

smell the irony, it smells like...victory

joe is gone, but joe'z law is forever

|3.3.09 @ 5:37PM|#

"What do you have against hipsters dude?"

Not enough wine or enough time to give that answer, so I will leave it at lots.

|3.3.09 @ 5:37PM|#

John,

How typical of a Rush-bot to equate having an alternative opinion with having a bias. Stewart's shtick is satire, mostly of politics and the media. Rush is a propagandist with no sense of irony whatsoever.

|3.3.09 @ 5:38PM|#

I find myself uncomfortable with John's affirmation.

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 5:39PM|#

"No it would involve some smart ass snarky comment that did nothing but demean you and said nothing of substance. Rush yells, Stewart insults. I don't see the difference."

Of course, that's what I use whenever I deal with people I disagree with.

By the way I'm sure their were plenty of people on here who found Jon Stewart to eventually become insufferable, myself being one of them. Especially once he jumped on the DNC bandwagon.

But once again, I don't recall Jon Stewart asking for apologies from any politician who may have offended him.

|3.3.09 @ 5:40PM|#

Tony,

It is funny. I haven't listened to Rush in nearly 20 years. How exactly am I a Rushbot? Further, Stewart is satire? Ok. Why is that he only satirizes one side? As far as Rush's sense of irony. That is rich. At least when I listened to him what made him funny was all of the over the top stuff he said about "excellence in broadcasting" and "and being the only alternative" and such. All that is irony. He doesn't mean a word of it. His listeners understand that. Humorless liberals hear that and it goes right over their heads.

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 5:42PM|#

I recall seeing frigian Rick Santorum on the Daily Show and Jon Stewart was more than civil with him. The same can't be said of Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh would hang up when a person with such an opinion came up and then argue that they are destroying America.

|3.3.09 @ 5:42PM|#

"By the way I'm sure their were plenty of people on here who found Jon Stewart to eventually become insufferable, myself being one of them. Especially once he jumped on the DNC bandwagon."

Yeah. That is my point. Maybe once upon a time he wasn't the left wing Rush. But at some point in about 2007, he became that way.

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 5:44PM|#

"It is funny. I haven't listened to Rush in nearly 20 years. How exactly am I a Rushbot?"

Probably because even after 20 years your still defending him despite having no knowledge of what he's been saying for the past 19 years.

"His listeners understand that. Humorless liberals hear that and it goes right over their heads."

Yeah, except for Michael Steele's head.

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 5:46PM|#

Here's the difference with Jon Stewart. He hasn't called for all people with book learning skills to be exterminated if they criticize Sarah Palin.

|3.3.09 @ 5:47PM|#

John,

Stewart tries his best to knock Dems too. But Dems, for all their problems, aren't as lockstep nor do they have the propaganda apparatus that Repubs do. It's not because Dems are inherently more thoughtful people, it's because the right has become so far out and loony that anyone with half a brain has abandoned them. This false equivalency is so tired. One presidential blowjob does not equal a torture policy. One windsurfing excursion is not the same as starting an illegal war.

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 5:50PM|#

This pretty well shows whats wrong with Limbaugh and Hannity.

http://www.zimbio.com/Rush+Limbaugh/articles/130/Rush+Limbaugh+Sean+Hannity+denounce+George

Say what you will about George Will, but he isn't a "so-so" conservative.

|3.3.09 @ 5:50PM|#

Fuck you, Doherty.
Limbaugh has been one of the few authentic voices against Barack Obama's fucking nightmare economic agenda, while Reason magazine cunts like you have been sitting back on your shit-smelling thumbs and mildly rebuking Obama, when you know that this dimwitted fuck is trying to dismantle the very machinery of capitalism.
Reason gives lip-service to free markets, while sucking liberal cock.

|3.3.09 @ 5:52PM|#

Yay, Doherty, let's have another Hit & Run post about some overbearing regulation in Shitburg, West Virginia, while the fucking economy gets drowned in Obama's fecal matter.
Christ.

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 5:52PM|#

"Fuck you, Doherty.
Limbaugh has been one of the few authentic voices against Barack Obama's fucking nightmare economic agenda, while Reason magazine cunts like you have been sitting back on your shit-smelling thumbs and mildly rebuking Obama, when you know that this dimwitted fuck is trying to dismantle the very machinery of capitalism.
Reason gives lip-service to free markets, while sucking liberal cock."

No, we just don't suck off two evils.

111|3.3.09 @ 5:53PM|#

Wow, John has been vigorously defending someone he hasn't listened to in 20 years? How do you know what he says or does now? Yet you must watch The Daily Show religiously, since you seem to know Stewart's every move and motivation.

|3.3.09 @ 5:54PM|#

Tony.

Illegal war? You mean like bombing Serbia after the UN Security Council refused to authorize it? You mean that illegal war? Torture, you mean like rendering people to countries where you know they are going to be tortured like Clinton did?


That is why I hate hipsters. They think throwing around terms like torture and illegal war is a substitute for knowlege of international law or anything else of substance. But then they look down their noses at everyone else like they actually know something.

|3.3.09 @ 5:55PM|#

"Say what you will about George Will, but he isn't a "so-so" conservative."

And this is the prime example of Rushian Ego 'Splosion. George Will? Really?

Les|3.3.09 @ 5:55PM|#

So Less do you honestly believe Stewart is anything but a leftwing ideologue?

I have no idea. I can assume that he leans left because he's a Jewish fellow from New York who's in show business. Again, he doesn't write books proclaiming what he is, he doesn't go to political gatherings proclaiming what he is.

I don't care what he is. It is a free country, but it defies credulity to claim that Stewart is any less biased than Limbaugh.

I never argued that Stewart wasn't biased. I simply said that, unlike Limbaugh, he's not a hypocritical serial liar who claims to believe one thing while spouting another.

If you have evidence of Stewart being repeatedly factually dishonest or being blatantly hypocritical and explicitly inconsistent in what he says the government should do (or of Stewart ever saying what he thinks the government should do), then please provide it.

If you can't find evidence of Stewart behaving like Limbaugh, then you should admit that, outside of being politically based entertainers, they're not very similar.

|3.3.09 @ 5:57PM|#

"Yet you must watch The Daily Show religiously, since you seem to know Stewart's every move and motivation."

I haven't seen the ring cycle in over 20 years either, but I still am told that it had something later to do with the Nazis. So what? How many people on here that are convinced Limbaugh is the devil have ever even listened to the guy once?

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 5:57PM|#

"Illegal war? You mean like bombing Serbia after the UN Security Council refused to authorize it? You mean that illegal war? Torture, you mean like rendering people to countries where you know they are going to be tortured like Clinton did?"

Why didn't Rush speak up about any of that in 2003 like he did in 1999?

|3.3.09 @ 5:58PM|#

"Why didn't Rush speak up about any of that in 2003 like he did in 1999?"


I don't know maybe he did. I honestly couldn't tell you. Take it up with him.

|3.3.09 @ 5:59PM|#

There's no way to be sure, John, but I would say that Rush runs an entertainment franchise disguised as an ideological talk show. Potato, potahto.

Speaking of comic relief, here's Tony:

But Dems, for all their problems, aren't as lockstep nor do they have the propaganda apparatus that Repubs do.

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 6:01PM|#

"I don't know maybe he did. I honestly couldn't tell you. Take it up with him."

Then why are going on a rampage against people who say he is a hypocrite?

|3.3.09 @ 6:05PM|#

You mean like bombing Serbia after the UN Security Council refused to authorize it? You mean that illegal war? Torture, you mean like rendering people to countries where you know they are going to be tortured like Clinton did?

Yes, like those. Now what were Rush and his parrots obsessed with in the 90s most? Did any of Clinton's abuses hold a candle to the abuses of Bush? Are Clinton's abuses merely conversation-stopping talking points meant to distract from my point?

BDB|3.3.09 @ 6:08PM|#

Jesus H. Christ is John on one of his Culture War tears?

BDB|3.3.09 @ 6:11PM|#

"If that is true then why is Stewart out pontificating and his loser listners getting their news from him? That is my point, he wants to be taken seriously think of himself as this big important guy, but when someone points out how full of shit he is, he claims just to be an entertainer."

Steele just pointed out Rush was an entertainer, and he had to apologize for it!

No one would have to apologize to Stewart for calling him an "entertainer".

BDB|3.3.09 @ 6:24PM|#

BTW, the leftist equivalent of Rush Limbaugh isn't Jon Stewart--it's Michael Moore. Right down to the weight problem and obvious self-loathing.

|3.3.09 @ 6:34PM|#

BDB,

When Rush wins an Oscar and a Palme d'Or, we'll talk.

BDB|3.3.09 @ 6:35PM|#

That says more about people who give out Oscars than it does about Michael Moore.

Really, they're mirror universe versions of each other. And unlike Stewart, neither of them are remotely funny or entertaining.

|3.3.09 @ 6:37PM|#

Of course it does.

When Michael Moore has a devoted daily fanbase in the millions who believe everything he says as gospel truth, we'll talk.

|3.3.09 @ 6:43PM|#

This is the BS I'm talking about. You have talk radio completely dominated by Rush Limbaugh, whose listeners are almost all Republican voters. Impotent as they now are, they are still one of the more important demographics in American politics, especially in the media. And these people trust completely in him and his lieutenants Hannity and O'Reilly while believing wholeheartedly that the entire rest of the media (not to mention academia and science) are engaged in a huge conspiracy to deceive them.

And because the left has one guy willing to counter the right-wing "conventional wisdom" with nuanced documentaries about the causes of gun violence, the obvious, naked abuses of the Bush administration, and the state of health care, all of a sudden it's just two sides squawking at each other. What's truth? Who cares? The whole world is just pundits making noises, after all.

JB|3.3.09 @ 6:45PM|#

This is the true test: If you agree more with Jon Stewart than Rush Limbaugh, you may need a reality check.

Both are often wrong, but one is more right than the other.

the innominate one|3.3.09 @ 6:53PM|#

shorter John:

Clinton! rabble rabble rabble!

ed|3.3.09 @ 8:38PM|#

"They [Dems] not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail, they proclaimed it a failure."

That's indisputable. Not that they would ever admit such a thing.

Alberta Libertarian|3.3.09 @ 8:54PM|#

Just enjoying some John Lukacs, gotta say he seems more level headed than Rush Limbaugh and the other GOP backers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_99ZCeO7wfU&eurl=http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=John+Lukacs&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f

|3.3.09 @ 11:59PM|#

The funniest line in this entire thread:

"Back in the 90s at least when I was in a position to listen to such things..."

Yeah, because you are so busy now...

Curious George|3.4.09 @ 1:36AM|#

Seldom have I seen such bombast. Usually your diatribes don't hold up stupidity as a virture.

I love such idiots. But shouldn't the author go back to his day job at the Daily Kos?

VM|3.4.09 @ 8:12AM|#

BDB: no. according to tuff gai john, he's the voice of the democrats. "democrats" = mm.

"democrats". in general. so any blanket statement you want to make about anyone you wish to crown "republicans", go ahead. he can't disagree.

(but then again, since he's such a quibbledix and twaddlenock, he just might)

what's worse? the fact that he can't see what a partisan he is, or the fact that the left wing partisan hier kicks his ass every debate?

|3.4.09 @ 9:14AM|#

John,

You keep throwing out the word hipster, but I don't think you know what it means. It does not mean "liberal I do not like". You need to spend a month in Greenpoint or Bed Stuy to see true hipsterdom.

Adam Keith|3.4.09 @ 10:31AM|#

Rush is powerful.

Look at the number of comments.

Does not Rush believe in capitalism and free trade?

Does he not encourage his listeners to read what people say and write?

"Free minds, free markets"

What more do you want?

Fluffy|3.4.09 @ 10:31AM|#

How dare some nobody from Kansas City command such influence and especially among "those people" who listen to him.

I loved Rush when I thought he was telling the truth. His lack of a degree or his weight or his looks meant nothing to me. I was even willing to overlook our culture war issue disagreements - because I thought he meant what he said when he railed against statism.

But you just can't get around the simple fact that the intervening years have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that RUSH WAS FULL OF SHIT BACK THEN, AND IS FULL OF SHIT NOW, when he rails against statism and big government.

So that's why everything John has to say about Jon Stewart is irrelevant, and Jamie Kelly's rant about Obama is irrelevant. It just doesn't matter, guys.

Jon Stewart didn't discredit MY views by pretending to hold them and then abandoning them for 8 years to carry water for Bush. Rush Limbaugh did that.

Don't you realize that when any advocate of small government or laissez-faire now gets up to speak, that the other side can just laugh and say, "Well, we've seen that when you guys hold both the Congress and the Presidency, all that anti-government stuff goes out the window!" They can say that because of the modern GOP, and because of Rush. It's his fault because of his hypocrisy.

If Rush actually had meant everything he used to say in 1993, and had stuck to it during the Bush years and had fought Bush every step of the way with every fibre of his being [the way he fought Clinton] not only would I not mock the notion of Rush as the head of the GOP, I'd be walking around with a Rush for President sign.

Fluffy|3.4.09 @ 10:33AM|#

I don't know maybe he did. I honestly couldn't tell you. Take it up with him.

You're the one trying to defend him and telling people they shouldn't despise him.

If you're admitting you have no basis for such a defense, hey - that ends the disagreement here pretty neatly, doesn't it?

Tacos mmm...|3.4.09 @ 3:16PM|#

That's indisputable. Not that they would ever admit such a thing.

I don't know about the dems, but I admit that I wanted it to fail. I want all unjustified military actions to fail, because in succeeding, they encourage more unjustified military actions. If Iraq had succeeded, we would no doubt have boots on the ground now in Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe and France. The only wars that should succeed are defensive ones.

|3.4.09 @ 5:32PM|#

Anyone who believes that Republicans would be handling this with fewer big-government solutions hasn't been watching the party for the past few decades. They're more addicted to spending than Rush is to OxyContin. Or, as one particularly good running blog of Obama's speech put it...

"9:19 - Lots of bitterness on the right side of the aisle towards the stimulus package. That's where the fiscal conservatives are sitti… wait, those are Republicans. I guess they're angry because they wanted more credit or something."

\"Saddam Must Love You\"|3.4.09 @ 8:42PM|#

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JCakTroF88&feature=PlayList&p=A1B6EEB0C1B50AAB&playnext=1&index=9

Spin SIV! SPIN!

They didn't say the exact word "treasonous" so it doesn't count! Right?