Married to the Mob

Jesse Walker | March 5, 2009

Another day, another mainstream pundit tut-tuts at Rush Limbaugh. This time it's Jonathan Alter:

When Obama first mentioned Limbaugh in a meeting with Republicans during his second week in office, he was chastised for elevating him in a way that didn't befit a president. But it quickly became clear that any contest between Barack and Rush was not really a contest at all--and that this is a fight the president is happy to have. The president's popularity is in the 60s, and the entertainer's, according to internal Democratic polling, is in the 20s. So Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs are now piling on, describing Limbaugh as the "intellectual force" and "de facto chairman" of the party.

It works. And it will keep on working until enough Republicans grow a spine. When they show enough guts to ignore the thousands of calls and e-mails from dittoheads, maybe they'll get their party--and their self-respect--back.

Here's a way to keep your perspective when you read these things. Imagine it's George W. Bush's first term. Every time a columnist condemns Rush Limbaugh, substitute the name of the man John McCain called out at the 2004 Republican convention: Michael Moore. Think back to all the concern trolls who sighed that Democrats would never get anywhere until they stopped letting a demagogic entertainer pollute their brand. Or, put another way, until the Dems turned their fire on someone who can actually rally their troops rather than on the party in power.

Not that the two men are equivalent. Politics and style aside, the biggest difference between Moore and Limbaugh is that Moore has never been as strong a force among the Democrats as Limbaugh is among the Republicans. (Indeed, in 2000 Moore didn't even support the Democratic candidate.) In other words, rejecting Rush is riskier. The reason Michael Steele finds himself forced to bow before Limbaugh is because Limbaugh can mobilize people. Speaking as someone who lived in Maryland during Steele's senatorial campaign, I can report that the chairman of the RNC does not share that talent. You can't win a national election with only your party's base, but -- under normal circumstances -- you can't win without the base either. That's why they call it a base: You build on it.

I say this not because I'm interested in defending Limbaugh or, for that matter, in returning the Republicans to power. I just think it's funny how the professional centrists love to scold any voice on the right or the left who has a history of exciting the rank and file, be he a filmmaker, a talk show host, or a Netroots blogger. You get the impression those pundits yearn for a world where everything is decided in a quiet room by a bipartisan panel of distinguished moderates, with Bill Bradley, David Gergen, and Norman Ornstein rotating as chairman. Well, I know a lesser evil when I see one. Annoying as the Kossacks and dittoheads can be, I'd rather be governed by a pack of them in soccer riot mode.

Comments

Boston|3.5.09 @ 12:24PM|#

Ah Gawd,

Not another Rush thread.

|3.5.09 @ 12:31PM|#

Not another Rush thread.

The band or the Jason Patric/Jennifer Jason Leigh film?

Abdul|3.5.09 @ 12:33PM|#

Limbaugh does have a strange sort of power that no other political entertainer does. His radio demographic skews older than the young internet demographic. Elected officials never want to fuck with old people because those geezers vote.

With three hours of air time a day, he can constantly react and attack in a timely fashion--unlike moore who needs years to put out a documentary.

In the long term, however, all Limbaugh has to do is attack. Obama has to produce results--which is far more difficult.

Jesse Walker|3.5.09 @ 12:36PM|#

With three hours of air time a day, he can constantly react and attack in a timely fashion--unlike moore who needs years to put out a documentary.

True. In terms of impact, the Netroots wing of the blogosphere has more in common with Limbaugh than Moore does.

|3.5.09 @ 12:40PM|#

I just think it's funny how the professional centrists love to scold any voice on the right or the left who has a history of exciting the rank and file, be he a filmmaker, a talk show host, or a Netroots blogger.

I'm going for Occam's Razor on this one... I think the media (like most people) just love scolding somebody who's a bloviating douchebag.

|3.5.09 @ 12:40PM|#

The president's popularity is in the 60s, and the entertainer's, according to internal Democratic polling, is in the 20s.

Here's another useful comparison: Shaq O'Neal is shooting 62.6% from the line while Jermaine O'Neal is averaging 5.3 defensive rebounds a game.

|3.5.09 @ 12:41PM|#

the...difference between Moore and Limbaugh is...

...oh, about 4 pounds. (badump bump)

hipster|3.5.09 @ 12:42PM|#

Nobody should listen to this stupid man. The only people who like him are shotgun-toting rednecks from flyover country.

I hate him, and I don't even have to listen to him to know he's bad. If you like him, I'm clearly better than you.

Get over it. Obama won.

|3.5.09 @ 12:43PM|#

Great post Jessee. You are absolutely right. Professional boring, thoughtful centrists hate people like Limbaugh and Moore because they can't stand the fact that the mob has a voice. It is all about elitism. I can't stand Moore, but that is because I think his views are loathsome. In all honesty, back when he was doing TV Nation I tought he wasn't that bad. Regardless, they are both people outside the approved club who wield influence.

think aobut it Jonathan Alter is a journalist who went to Columbia. It has to drive him nuts that some fat guy from Kansas City is about 1000 times more important than he is.

|3.5.09 @ 12:43PM|#

In terms of impact, the Netroots wing of the blogosphere has more in common with Limbaugh than Moore does.

And it's not just in attacking. Rush (and the Netroots) tend to set the trends in talking points and memes among their respective sides. If you hear several idiots (on either side) spewing the same talking points in the same way over the course of a few days, you have a pretty good bet on where it came from.

Jesse Walker|3.5.09 @ 12:46PM|#

I think the media (like most people) just love scolding somebody who's a bloviating douchebag.

Then how come so many bloviating douchbags are media darlings? Does the name Thomas Friedman ring a bell?

|3.5.09 @ 12:49PM|#

"Jesse Walker | March 5, 2009, 12:46pm | #

I think the media (like most people) just love scolding somebody who's a bloviating douchebag.

Then how come so many bloviating douchbags are media darlings? Does the name Thomas Friedman ring a bell?"

Ouch. My guess is that Rush has been right more times than Friedman has. But Friedman went to Harvard and writes for the New York Times. He has written books. He is errudite. He can't be like that devil Limbaugh. He works out at my gym for Christ sake.

|3.5.09 @ 12:49PM|#

Limbaugh/Moore sways no one. He only functions as a way to keep the rabble roused. A three-hour-a-day pummeling of confirmation bias? A stultifying two-hour documentary filled with po-faced lies? At least we can make jokes when the libertarian drumbeat gets monotonous around here.

the innominate one|3.5.09 @ 12:52PM|#

kind of undercuts that whole disingenuous "Rush is just an entertainer" claim, doesn't it?

You can't win a national election with only your party's base, but -- under normal circumstances -- you can't win without the base either. That's why they call it a base: You build on it.

doesn't al queda mean "the base"?
just sayin'

kilroy|3.5.09 @ 12:53PM|#

Any politician who apologizes to a talk host/blogger/columnist should be flogged.

|3.5.09 @ 12:53PM|#

John, you need to call the toll-free number. Your Rush Limbaugh-agra erection has lasted way more than four hours.

|3.5.09 @ 12:53PM|#

Sugerfree,

If Moore were as funny as Limbaugh, and actually he was close when he was doing TV nation, I would listen to a radio show he did I don't care if he is a leftist. Limbaugh for his faults is can be pretty damned funny. So could Moore to before he made Bowling for Columbine.

|3.5.09 @ 12:54PM|#

Fuck off Epi. I just enjoy kicking around people who think that looking down their noses at the world is a subsitute for thought. Jesse's post and comparison to Friedman is spot on.

|3.5.09 @ 12:57PM|#

Then how come so many bloviating douchbags are media darlings? Does the name Thomas Friedman ring a bell?

Good point... I guess he's a perfect storm of being non-MSM and a bloviating douchebag.

Reinmoose|3.5.09 @ 12:58PM|#

Limbaugh/Moore sways no one

Indeed, they serve for those who cannot be swayed, which is why it's strange that we get ourselves so worked up over movies like Sicko or things Limbaugh says. And those who can be swayed by them are too weak to concern ourselves with.

|3.5.09 @ 12:58PM|#

John, why so serious? This would be the third (or more?) thread in as many days where you beat the same drum.

the innominate one|3.5.09 @ 1:00PM|#

it's because I think that I look down my nose at you

Ska|3.5.09 @ 1:00PM|#

And the world don't move to the beat of just one drum.

|3.5.09 @ 1:02PM|#

Sorry for the foul language Epi. My sincere apologies. I shouldn't be that serious. The funny thing is that I am not a huge Rush Limbaugh fan. His critics just get on my last nerve for many of the reasons Jesse lists.

JW Gacy|3.5.09 @ 1:02PM|#

Limbaugh wrote 2 books. They're written at around a 6th grade level. I know this, because I read both of them around 6th grade.

JW Gacy|3.5.09 @ 1:03PM|#

"And the world don't move to the beat of just one drum."

Would you say it moves on the upbeats?

kinnath|3.5.09 @ 1:04PM|#

I loved Rush in Pirates of the Carribean.

|3.5.09 @ 1:05PM|#

Three hours, my hind end.

I tried to listen to Rush on my lunch break the other day and got 22 minutes of commecials broken only by promises of what would be discussed when we came back.

|3.5.09 @ 1:06PM|#

"Limbaugh wrote 2 books. They're written at around a 6th grade level. I know this, because I read both of them around 6th grade."

I bet they make better reading than The World is Flat or Hot and Crowded or whatever it was. If you just have a gig at the NYT and put out warmed over conventional wisdom that confirms the upper West Side's preconcieved notions of truth, you to can be Tom Friedman.

kinnath|3.5.09 @ 1:06PM|#

He was pretty good in Shakespeare in Love as well.

Gilbert Martin|3.5.09 @ 1:06PM|#

"I think the media (like most people) just love scolding somebody who's a bloviating douchebag."

If that were true, they would be all over Joe Biden like white on rice 24/7.

|3.5.09 @ 1:07PM|#

"I tried to listen to Rush on my lunch break the other day and got 22 minutes of commecials broken only by promises of what would be discussed when we came back."


Welcome to the world of talk radio. Try listening to Jim Rome or Mike and Mike sometime. Mike and Mike do about 20 minutes of work with four hours of commercials and one hour of sport center updates every morning.

|3.5.09 @ 1:08PM|#

Sorry for the foul language Epi. My sincere apologies.

Swear all you want, John, Fuck, I do. I'm just busting your balls.

"I don't wanna work/I just wanna bang on the drum all day"

Do you think Rundgren was actually referring to a "drum"?

SIV|3.5.09 @ 1:11PM|#

Any politician who apologizes to a talk host/blogger/columnist should be flogged.

Although I prefer tarring and feathering before running them out of town on a rail.

|3.5.09 @ 1:13PM|#

Rush hasn't been relevant for the better part of a decade, and now the new Messiah in Chief is scared of one middle aged guy with a microphone.

WTF?!

Warty|3.5.09 @ 1:20PM|#

I thought I would make a list of tolerable radio talk show hosts, but I could only think of Andrew Napolitano. Are there any others?


"We gingers are proud people! We are the noble descendants of great Americans like Ron Howard, and ...others!"

Paul|3.5.09 @ 1:29PM|#

doesn't al queda mean "the base"?
just sayin'

I was about to say something snarky, then I looked it up. Holy shitsky, innominate one, you're right.

Elemenope|3.5.09 @ 1:35PM|#

Rush hasn't been relevant for the better part of a decade, and now the new Messiah in Chief is scared of one middle aged guy with a microphone.


You read this situation as him being scared? Seriously? I mean, say what you will about the relative wisdom of engaging with anyone quite as feckless as Rush, it seems to be paying off in huge political dividends. The GOP look like they are completely bought-and-owned by Rush, and Rush don't look so hot to most of the voting public.

BDB|3.5.09 @ 1:37PM|#

Yeah,the Democrats are getting exactly what they want out of this.

Italian National / Baseball En|3.5.09 @ 1:42PM|#

"doesn't al queda mean "the base"?"

I lova al quedaball, stronzo!

bell curve (the poet)|3.5.09 @ 1:46PM|#

"Limbaugh wrote 2 books. They're written at around a 6th grade level. I know this, because I read both of them around 6th grade."

Sorry to learn you're just average. How sad. Your folks must be so disappointed, unless of course they're average too and simply didn't notice.

|3.5.09 @ 1:48PM|#

A few thoughts on this:

(1) I think the Dems are probably getting a short-term boost out of their base on this, but anyone not already on the Obamawagon is probably thinking that the President and his crew are looking kind of silly picking fights with a radio personality.

Seriously, am I the only concerned with the penchant of this adminstration to demonize and attack individuals? It goes back to the campaign, but now, if you stick your head up and question Obama, you are courting a direct personal attack by government officials, up to and including the President. Cramer, Limbaugh, whathishame at CNBC, etc. What gives?

For a guy who is supposed to be unifying, Obama sure goes out of his way to divide and polarize.

(2) This drives traffic to Rush. Rush wins on that front.

|3.5.09 @ 1:48PM|#

This is nonsense and will be totally forgotten come the next election cycle. Obama should drop the campaigning and start being president, don't you think?

Brown Organic Rice|3.5.09 @ 1:49PM|#

"If that were true, they would be all over Joe Biden like white on rice 24/7."

Racist.

Musician|3.5.09 @ 1:50PM|#

"Do you think Rundgren was actually referring to a "drum"?"

All my drummer friends do.

Elemenope|3.5.09 @ 2:01PM|#

(2) This drives traffic to Rush. Rush wins on that front.

Yes, on that level, it is Win/Win.

Obama kicks the GOP around the park for kowtowing to Rush, thus making the opposition look like craven sissies and wins.

Rush gets to kick around the GOP for expressing doubts about him and boosts his cred as a "fearless truthteller" (not to mention boosts his ratings) and wins.

So far as I can see, the only one who loses out of the deal is...the GOP.

Enough about Rush!|3.5.09 @ 2:02PM|#

Jesus christ, and I had thought that the plethora of Palin posts was positively putrid.

|3.5.09 @ 2:05PM|#

I'm no fan of Limbaugh, but I think the only people who think he "runs" Republican voters are Democrats. He's a bogey man, like Moore is for Republicans.

|3.5.09 @ 2:18PM|#

John, you seem really worked up about "elites" and "hipsters". Do you have a mind reading machine that can determine what Johnathan Alter really thinks? Did some ivy league emo dude steal your girlfriend?

|3.5.09 @ 2:21PM|#

"Jesus christ, and I had thought that the plethora of Palin posts was positively putrid."

As did I.

BTW it was far, far worse.

Warty|3.5.09 @ 2:22PM|#

Dude, fuck hipsters. Next time I see a guy wearing bright green shoes with the tongue hanging out, I'm running him down with my car.

Pssst...|3.5.09 @ 2:23PM|#

"emo dude steal your girlfriend?"

emo dudes only steal boyfriends.

|3.5.09 @ 2:26PM|#

So far as I can see, the only one who loses out of the deal is...the GOP.

I think the vast apathetic middle in this country, to the extent this registers on them at all, sees the President picking a fight with a radio personality. I don't think they view that as a positive thing, but being vast and apathetic, I doubt they care much either way.

Alberta Libertarian|3.5.09 @ 2:27PM|#

I love how Rush Limbaugh apparently has all this pull despite the fact that John McCain got elected.

But it's gratifying to see the GOP go into full destruction mode now that they're grovelling to 15 million American's while ignoring the 285 million.

|3.5.09 @ 2:27PM|#

Next time I see a guy wearing bright green shoes with the tongue hanging out, I'm running him down with my car.

"If one of my teachers loses his face, I lose face!"

|3.5.09 @ 2:31PM|#

John, you seem really worked up about "elites" and "hipsters".

Conservatives wanted this Culture War. They staked their future on it. Now they are losing it.

And now Limbaugh is their winning strategy~!



This is more fun to watch than 'Lesbian Lick Fest'.

Old Bull Lee|3.5.09 @ 2:35PM|#

I don't understand the hatred of Rush. He's a social conservative who supports free markets. We should be thankful somebody is trying to steer the Republicans in the direction of free markets, for all the good it will do.

He's not a highly-educated intellectual, but he's fairly informed on what he speaks about, right or wrong. The comparisons to Michael Moore are way off. They may look the same public perception-wise, but watching a Moore "documentary" and listening to Rush reveal profound differences - and not just what end of the spectrum they're on.

|3.5.09 @ 2:35PM|#

shrike,

I doubt popular opinion supports your assessment of what's more fun to watch.

I changed my mind about the Obama sex scandal. The girl that gets him in trouble is going to be Bristol Palin.

Democratic Party Leader Keith |3.5.09 @ 2:36PM|#

"Think back to all the concern trolls who sighed that Democrats would never get anywhere until they stopped letting a demagogic entertainer pollute their brand."

Are you talking to me, sir? I'll have you know that I attend an Ivy League School -- Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences!

roger|3.5.09 @ 2:37PM|#

Us, and them
And after all we're only ordinary men.
Me, and you.
God only knows it's noz what we would choose to do.
Forward he cried from the rear
and the front rank died.
And the general sat and the lines on the map
moved from side to side.
Black and blue
And who knows which is which and who is who.
Up and down.
But in the end it's only round and round.
Haven't you heard it's a battle of words
The poster bearer cried.
Listen son, said the man with the gun
There's room for you inside.

|3.5.09 @ 2:40PM|#

He's a social conservative

You got it - combine it with the fact that Limbaugh is a vile, smarmy asshole.

That is the frontman of conservatism.

Look at his numbers - they reek.

|3.5.09 @ 2:40PM|#

Wow, maybe we are all socialists now if Jonathan Alter is considered "centrist".

And shrike, NOTHING is more fun to watch than the "cinema" you referenced.

|3.5.09 @ 2:44PM|#

This is more fun to watch than 'Lesbian Lick Fest'.

Speaking for the community:

Yur doin it rong!

|3.5.09 @ 2:46PM|#

And shrike, NOTHING is more fun to watch than the "cinema" you referenced.


I stand corrected. I got carried away and lost my head.

Straightman (not that there\'s|3.5.09 @ 2:48PM|#

I imagine Rush is kicking back with a beer and a couple of oxycodone and laughing his ass off (which takes a lot of laughing).

|3.5.09 @ 2:48PM|#

This is more fun to watch than 'Lesbian Lick Fest'.

shrike, did you know that there is a theory that guys who only watch girl-on-girl porn have tiny dicks and hate to see a dick in the scene because it reminds them of how small they are?

Citizen Nothing|3.5.09 @ 2:49PM|#

(sorry about the weird handle)

kilroy|3.5.09 @ 2:50PM|#

So when this furore is over what's Rush's next "I wish Obama would ..." line going to be to get back in the news?

|3.5.09 @ 2:51PM|#

"shrike, did you know that there is a theory that guys who only watch girl-on-girl porn have tiny dicks and hate to see a dick in the scene because it reminds them of how small they are?"

There are theories about everything.

|3.5.09 @ 2:52PM|#

I'm no fan of Limbaugh, but I think the only people who think he "runs" Republican voters are Democrats. He's a bogey man, like Moore is for Republicans

I don't see how anyone can believe this when every single GOPer who said anything even remotely critical has had to kiss his ring and apologize. The head of the RNC has publicly done a full 180 and has been explaining away his criticism of Rush. The GOP has made it obvious that they FEAR the wrath of Limbaugh. The GOP is the ones proving to the masses that Rush *IS* the GOP.

Where is the equivalent on the Left? People try and pretend like it's just like Michael Moore but thats bullshit. Which Democrats have apologized to Michael Moore for being critical? In fact Democrats have done everything they can to PUBLICLY distance themselves from Moore and the left wing base of their party for years now.

The reality is that GOPers *ARE* afraid of Rush. And the Dems are finally pulling a page from the GOP playbook and tarring them with guilt by association. And the GOP is more than happy to prove the Dems right by publicly embracing and elevating Rush to icon status amongst Republicans.

|3.5.09 @ 2:52PM|#

There is certainly something to be said about the envy factor. Limbaugh has mattered more and continues to matter a hell of a lot more than Jonathan Alter or Tom Friedman. The latter two have not had a radio program broadcast nationwide for over two decades. How many millions listen to him each and every day? Many more millions than Alter and Friedman They have not been able to move and influence the debate as Rush has-in fact, Rush is the '85 Bears and the two ivy dullards are Columbia's junior varstiy with respect to framing, influencing and moving the debate.

Plus, Rush not only does not have a college degree, he is not an ivy. I love it. Please, I hope and pray that no poster here would be foolish enough to assert that Alter and Friedman are Rush's intellectual superiors. Just as one would be a few fries short of a happy meal to claim that Obama is Rush's intellectual superior. Why do folks accord any props to those who are ivies? It is not like they are special or that it is some kind of demonstrable fact that ivies are brighter or more accomplished.

|3.5.09 @ 2:52PM|#

When I got involved with the LP during the Reagan years we were the domain of hipsters and geeks - so I react to the neo-Libertarian crowd who embrace the social conservatives.

So I react to the latter negatively.

You guys under 40 don't understand our history - just an FYI.

Limbaugh types were our enemy.

|3.5.09 @ 2:53PM|#

Addendum: And what of men who only watch girl-on-girl porn AND handjob videos?

Citizen Nothing|3.5.09 @ 2:56PM|#

so shrike - were you a hipster or were you a geek?

|3.5.09 @ 2:58PM|#

Episiarch,

Isn't the opposing theory that guys who like to see male genitalia are of the homosexual variety? That seems to be a more prevalent belief.

ChicagoTom,

I think the concern is more about not airing dirty laundry in public than kowtowing to Limbaugh. That sort of public bickering is what made people think the Democratic party was toast not all that long ago.

And I think you're forgetting a lot of history--the Democrats attacked Limbaugh quite a bit during the Clinton years. That's how I first heard about him--some Democrat was bitching about his nasty statements about Hillary or something like that.

|3.5.09 @ 2:58PM|#

"The GOP has made it obvious that they FEAR the wrath of Limbaugh."

When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.

---------

Success is as dangerous as failure.
Hope is as hollow as fear.

What does it mean that success is a dangerous as failure?
Whether you go up the ladder or down it,
you position is shaky.
When you stand with your two feet on the ground,
you will always keep your balance.

What does it mean that hope is as hollow as fear?
Hope and fear are both phantoms
that arise from thinking of the self.
When we don't see the self as self,
what do we have to fear?

- Lao-tzu
From a translation by S. Mitchell

|3.5.09 @ 2:59PM|#

"Which Democrats have apologized to Michael Moore for being critical?"

Being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry.

|3.5.09 @ 3:02PM|#

I think the vast apathetic middle in this country, to the extent this registers on them at all, sees the President picking a fight with a radio personality. I don't think they view that as a positive thing, but being vast and apathetic, I doubt they care much either way.

Talk about getting is exactly backwards.

Rush picked this fight. (Which makes sense -- Rush gets more attention when he is railing against something or someone -- so now that the Dems are in power he has something to rail against) He is the one rooting for the failure of Obama's economic policies because it would be bad for the GOP brand and the failed conservative ideology for America's economy to get better under Obama and the Dems.

And most voters see this. Heck Rush even admits it himself.

The white house now is basically challenging the GOP: Do you agree with Rush that you would rather put party over country? Is this the guy who speaks for you or do you disagree with him. And the GOP is exposing itself for what it is. A bunch of politically tone deaf idiots who care more about ideology than what is really good for the country.

If the GOP refuses to repidiate Rush, then the message is clear. Rush Limbaugh is the epitome of the GOP. If they do, then the base (which has feasted on a steady diet of Red Meat) gets pissed and treats them like traitors. That's the bed that the GOP made for itself by constantly being the party of vitriol and accusing those who disagree with them of being traitor who hate America.

I think that for once, the Dems made a smart political move.

|3.5.09 @ 3:05PM|#

so shrike - were you a hipster or were you a geek?

I was a geeky hipster. Limbaugh, the WWF, and NASCAR were just bad taste at the time.

|3.5.09 @ 3:06PM|#

I agree that Rush is trying to ride this wave of publicity, but I think it's a strategic error of the worst variety for the Democratic leadership and the president to engage him directly. A short-term lift is almost the best they can hope for. Long term, it'll look petty. It's about ideas, right?

shrike,

What do you have against the World Wildlife Federation?

|3.5.09 @ 3:07PM|#

Addendum: And what of men who only watch girl-on-girl porn AND handjob videos?

We're not going to diagnose you for free, dude.

Isn't the opposing theory that guys who like to see male genitalia are of the homosexual variety? That seems to be a more prevalent belief.

Like? Whoa, you just outed yourself there, ProL?

|3.5.09 @ 3:08PM|#

I think that for once, the Dems made a smart political move.

Which is not their 'modus opernandi'. But you are spot on.

|3.5.09 @ 3:08PM|#

"He is the one rooting for the failure of Obama's economic policies because it would be bad for the GOP brand and the failed conservative ideology for America's economy to get better under Obama and the Dems."

What Rush ACTUALLY said:

As I say, we want the best: Happiness for everybody. Now, about my still-to-me mysteriously controversial comment that I hope President Obama fails. I was watching the Super Bowl. And as you know, I love the Pittsburgh Steelers. [Cheers and Applause] So they have this miraculous scoring drive that puts them up by four, 15 seconds left. Kurt Warner on the field for the Cardinals. And I sure as heck want you to know I hope he failed. I did not want the Cardinals to win. I wanted Warner to make the biggest fool of himself possible. I wanted a sack, I wanted anything. I wanted the Steelers to win. I wanted to win. I wanted the Cardinals to fail. This notion that I want the President to fail, folks, this shows you a sign of the problem we've got. That's nothing more than common sense and to not be able to say it, why in the world do I want what we just described, rampant government growth indebtedness, wealth that's not even being created yet that is being spent, what is in this? What possibly is in this that anybody of us wants to succeed? Did the Democrats want the war on Iraq to fail!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/01/transcript-rush-limbaughs-address-cpac/

|3.5.09 @ 3:11PM|#

I think that for once, the Dems made a smart political move.

Agreed. GOPers have two choices:

1. Agree with Rush that they want the plan to fail, which vindicates their supposed "free market" ideas, but means hardship. That sounds kind of cold.

2. Repudiate Rush, but in doing so say that they want policies that they oppose--and say don't work--to work. That sounds like they're not too firm on their principles or their beliefs in the market.

Both options suck eggs. This round goes to the Dems.

|3.5.09 @ 3:12PM|#

And I think you're forgetting a lot of history--the Democrats attacked Limbaugh quite a bit during the Clinton years. That's how I first heard about him--some Democrat was bitching about his nasty statements about Hillary or something like that.


Limbaugh isn't the issue ProLib. Rush is being Rush. The difference is that the public embrace of Limbaugh by the GOP wasn't the same back then.

I have been aware of Rush (and have listened here and there) since the late 80's. But he still wasn't as mainstream as he is now. The GOP has never embraced him this much this publically and shown actual fear of him.

And it's even worse that during an economic crisis, you have someone like Rush thats actively rooting for things to not get better in order to validate an ideology (and to garner ratings for himself) -- yet a major party is unwilling to repudiate those sentiments.

This isn't about Rush per se -- it's about branding the as GOP the party of Rush and his ilk in the minds of independents/non-partisans. It's about showing the world that the GOP is dominated by the crazy. And the GOP is more than willing to prove that they sure are.

|3.5.09 @ 3:16PM|#

Episiarch,

I'm sorry, I was too oblique. I was accusing you of liking the man pipe. Sorry for any confusion.

CT,

I think that's one reason I don't get this--I thought Limbaugh was much more influential back in the 90s. He had tons more credibility, because he hadn't actually shilled for the GOP, had any major personal scandals, and was still relatively new.

For the record, I'm not a fan. I've listened to him some, but hardly at all in recent years.

I think the Democrats are playing with fire--not with Limbaugh, but with their brazenness in pursuing every piece of legislation they've ever wanted. It's going to backfire big time when the bills start rolling in. Even the GOP's early millennium actions involved less chutzpah.

|3.5.09 @ 3:20PM|#

I agree that Rush is trying to ride this wave of publicity, but I think it's a strategic error of the worst variety for the Democratic leadership and the president to engage him directly. A short-term lift is almost the best they can hope for. Long term, it'll look petty. It's about ideas, right?

I dunno that I agree with this analysis.

They (the Dems) aren't engaging with Rush. They are putting the GOP on record as to whether they agree/embrace Rush or not.

And I think that's the point. To force the GOP into an uncomforable position. Repudiate someone who is popular among the base but scares away normal people, or embrace the crazy and keep the normal people away.

The GOP did this to the Dems re the Iraq war (accusations of the Dems wanting the War in Iraq to fail because it would validate Bush), and the Dems made the political decision to repudiate and distance themselves from not only those that were being tarred as "rooting for failure in Iraq" but they walked away from the Anti-war movement in general because they believed (rightly so) that their base won't abandon them and they can get away with repudiating the Moore's and the Churchills.

The GOP on the other hand is unwilling to do that. The GOP is now actively embracing the wingnut wing of the party and elevating them as the public face of the GOP by of their unwillingness to stand up to the crazy.

|3.5.09 @ 3:21PM|#

The folks that voted for Obama were desperately seeking a change from the Rs ignoring the plight of the common man. Obama presents himself as a man that really cares about the little guys and girls. He is all about making life better for the poor and disenfranchised.
When Rush said he hopes Obama fails, he is wishing doom on all those little voters that the Rs have been ignoring. When the Rs don't bash Rush, they appear to agree with his seeming hatred of the common man.
Obama's villification by the right just reinforces the belief that the Rs don't give a shit about blue collar americans.
IMO, Obama is an amazing politician. He is the right socially aware president, enjoying a perfect storm in american culture and economics.
The Bush administration used fear of terrorism to bang the patriotism drum loudly. Obama is doing something similar, by playing to the belief that many folks have that the Rs really don't give a shit about anyone but rich white hateful power brokers. If you disagree with Obama, it is because you want the little people to remain subservient and voiceless.

this is not necessarily what my politics are, just my take on what is happening.

|3.5.09 @ 3:21PM|#

you have someone like Rush thats actively rooting for things to not get better in order to validate an ideology (and to garner ratings for himself) -- yet a major party is unwilling to repudiate those sentiments.

Exactly.


The GOP has time to recover. My unwanted advice:

1- Repudiate Rush
2- Determine who your leader is
3- Make sure that leader is reasonable, young, telegenic, accepted by insiders and libertarians.
4- Ignore the religious right.
5- No Southerners.

Answer - Congressman Paul Ryan (Wisconsin)


That is your one chance, GOP.

|3.5.09 @ 3:23PM|#

It doesn't matter how popular Rush is, he is not the party spokesman, he is not infallible, he is not God. There are times he needs to be slapped down. Publicly stating that he wanted Obama to fail was one of them.

There's a lot of good he can do for the party, but bloviating ain't one of them. Get back to pointing out the Democrat absurdities through absurd parodies.

Gilbert Martin|3.5.09 @ 3:25PM|#

What Rush is rooting for is Obama to fail in gettting his socialist policies implemented since Obama succeeding in doing do would mean failure for the country.

There is no question about whether Obama's COULD succeed or not - they can't.

It is physically impossible for anything based on socialism to ever be a successs.

Psssst...|3.5.09 @ 3:26PM|#

"IMO, Obama is an amazing politician. He is the right socially aware president, enjoying a perfect storm in american culture and economics."

You've still got a little Obamacum on the left corner of yourt mouth.

|3.5.09 @ 3:27PM|#

Okay, I'll lead the GOP.

Um, GOP people? It's all about free markets, limited government, and individual liberty. All that other stuff you care about? Not politics and not the government's job.

Go and sin no more!

|3.5.09 @ 3:28PM|#

I'm sorry, I was too oblique. I was accusing you of liking the man pipe. Sorry for any confusion.

Suuuuuure. Lies are bad, mm'kay? We all know you are a vegisexual, anyway.

|3.5.09 @ 3:29PM|#

I think the Democrats are playing with fire--not with Limbaugh, but with their brazenness in pursuing every piece of legislation they've ever wanted. It's going to backfire big time when the bills start rolling in. Even the GOP's early millennium actions involved less chutzpah.

Maybe they might over-reach. On the other hand, now is the time. Unlike Bush's thin victory in 2004, the '06 mid-terms and the '08 election have given the Dems a true mandate. The public wants change. After 8 years of GOP rule getting us to where we are today, I think not reaching far enough is the bigger risk. There has not been a recent time when the public had been so tired of failed conservative ideas/principles.
If not now for the Dems, then it will be never.

For the last 8 years the country has been pulled far to the right, and now the dems have to pull hard left in order to bring us back to a center.

ANd let's be real. Whether the Dems over-reach or not they are still gonna get attacked by the GOP for what they do. So may as well swing for the fences. Considering how poorly the GOP has done over the last two elections the Dems really should be treating the GOP like a marginal/regional party and rolling over them. After all, the Dems aren't just a majority but a pretty solid one. They should act like it.

|3.5.09 @ 3:29PM|#

This is nonsense and will be totally forgotten come the next election cycle. Obama should drop the campaigning and start being president, don't you think?

The next election cycle is already here.

Mad Max|3.5.09 @ 3:30PM|#

'The GOP has time to recover. My unwanted advice: . . .

'5- No Southerners.'

The Republicans tried purging Ron Paul last year. They nominated a Western 'moderate' Senator and a lady from the frozen North - as far from the South as you can get unless you annex the North Pole. Meanwhile, the Dems had, for VP candidate, a blowhard Senator from a state below the Mason-Dixon line.

|3.5.09 @ 3:30PM|#

"You've still got a little Obamacum on the left corner of yourt mouth."




I do find it interesting that your mind went immediately to homoerotic images.

Great Grandma, Obama Scares Me|3.5.09 @ 3:34PM|#

The Price of Crossing Obama

It goes like strangely methodical clockwork. Guys like Rick Santelli - never particularly political, mostly economics guys - criticize policies of the Obama administration, and they suddenly become targets of ridicule in places like the Daily Show and the The Huffington Post. Jim Cramer will be seeing more of this.

The Economist will be next, I suspect:

Obama's budget forecasts that the economy will shrink 1.2% this year then grow by an average of 4% over the following four years. It might if the economy were to follow a conventional path back to full employment. But this is not a conventional recession. The unprecedented damage to household balance sheets could well result in anaemic economic growth for years, significantly undermining the president's revenue projections. The economic outlook continues to darken and the stockmarket has already tumbled to 12-year lows. Mr Obama may either have to renege on his promise to slash the deficit to 3% of GDP in 2013 from more than 12% now, rein in his spending promises or raise taxes more.

Second, Mr Obama's scattershot tax increases are a poor substitute for the wholesale reform America's Byzantine tax code needs. Limiting high earners' deductions for mortgage interest, local-government taxes and other things is certainly more efficient than raising their marginal tax rates even more. But it would be better to replace such deductions for everyone with targeted credits, abolish the alternative minimum tax (an absurd parallel tax system that ensnares a sizeable chunk of the upper middle class), and implement a broad sales tax. Rather than simply eliminating the sheltering of corporate income from abroad, Mr Obama could have broadened the corporate tax base and lowered the rate. In sum, Mr Obama could simultaneously raise more revenue and make the tax code simpler and more conducive to growth. But he hasn't.


Tell it like it is
Finally, by asking only the richest 2% of Americans to pay more, Mr Obama is building his vision of a more activist government on a shaky foundation. Mr Bush's tax cuts raised the proportion of American families that pay no federal income tax (or are net recipients of tax credits) from 33% to 38%; Mr Obama's will raise it to 44%, according to the Tax Policy Centre, a research group. Although many of these people do pay payroll taxes, Mr Obama is also intent on reducing the link between payroll taxes and the pension and health-care benefits they were supposedly designed to pay for. It certainly makes sense to keep poor people off the income-tax rolls, but removing a sizeable chunk of the middle class weakens the political bond between taxpayer and government, and will lead to pressure for more such spending.

The Economist endorsed Obama last November.

kilroy|3.5.09 @ 3:35PM|#

5- No Southerners.

Why?

|3.5.09 @ 3:35PM|#

No Southerners. That's just so full of stupid. As bad as Republicans are, these silly memes from the left are just incredibly annoying: "Ooh, can't we kill all of those nasty, stupid people in the South? They're so unenlightened and, frankly, subhuman."

Episiarch,

That's just a hobby.

Psssst...|3.5.09 @ 3:35PM|#

"I do find it interesting that your mind went immediately to homoerotic images."

No surprise, that.

|3.5.09 @ 3:37PM|#

Psssst,

not that there's anything wrong with that...

Old Bull Lee|3.5.09 @ 3:37PM|#

Gilbert Martin - I said as much in yesterday's thread, and someone else pointed out that Obama's ideas are destined to fail anyway. I want Obama to fail too - in implementing them.

|3.5.09 @ 3:43PM|#

Incidentally, I just thought of something. I want Obama to fail, too. I mean, his policies are pretty much everything I oppose as a libertarian. And I want Congress to fail--same reasons.

I wanted Bush to fail, too. And the left vocally agreed with that--what's the difference between that and Limbaugh wanting Obama to blow it? America will fail going down the road we're on right now, so having all of this socialist crap splutter to a stop is fine by me.

Kolohe|3.5.09 @ 3:45PM|#

Meanwhile, the Dems had, for VP candidate, a blowhard Senator from a state below the Mason-Dixon line.

It was literally the right of the line, not below.

Gilbert Martn|3.5.09 @ 3:46PM|#

"I want Obama to fail too - in implementing them."

So do I.

Of course I also want Obama to take a long walk off a short pier.

LOL

|3.5.09 @ 3:46PM|#

Chicago Tom-- *Rush* (as opposed to Obama) "picked this fight"? How so, by freely expressing himself & vehemently opposing this administration's policies? So I guess he's the one & only singular individual in the entire country to "pick this fight"? (I guess along with a handful of others, like that fellow Cramer & what's-his-name-- they're the ones misbehaving & "picking fights.") Or is every person who's publically, vigorously opposed this President "picking a fight" with him? And if so, is Obama going to single each one of them out by name-- since after all, *they're* the ones who started it? They're the ones who "picked a fight"?

There are countless individuals at any time speaking out in opposition & criticism of a President & his administration. The choice to criticize-- "pick a fight with"-- the President (as opposed to any other random individual-- say, the grocer down the street, or your mom) doesn't seem to me to be, oh, just an arbitrary whim. Unless you think it's an extraordinary circumstance to "pick a fight" with the President? (I guess nobody "picked a fight" with Bush? Called him out, like that mean guy Rush, and forced him to take the time out of his busy schedule to respond/ retaliate against such an individual by name? Since they started it? Like Joe the Plumber, who deserved everything he got, because he "started the fight" with Obama?) Please: it is the *President* who chooses which of those individuals he will single out by name, target, & further attack via the MSM (qua administration propaganda machine). For his own cynical reasons. Which in my opinion, just diminish him, demean the office of the presidency, highlight his pettiness.

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong & it will work politically to Obama's advantage. All I know is that this kind of behavior just makes me despise Obama & his administration more (as if I needed any more reasons).

Kolohe|3.5.09 @ 3:48PM|#

seriously, the 'no southerners' thing is obviously a mistake, but it's self evident that the Republicans need to enlarge their tent, and I agree that Ryan may have some traction. He's certainly more telegenic than Cantor, as far as the Republican 'young guns' go.

He still is a 'christer' I think, so I'm surprised you like him shrike.

JB|3.5.09 @ 3:50PM|#

I second the 'Alter as centrist' guffaw. As if!

I'd rather have Rush as president any day over Obama. Then again, I'd rather have a banana as president instead of Obama.

(oh, and I used 'banana' since 'monkey' is racist)

|3.5.09 @ 3:52PM|#

For the last 8 years the country has been pulled far to the right, and now the dems have to pull hard left in order to bring us back to a center.

Ummmm, yeah.

Bush totally dismantled the federal government; it will take generations to get it back up to its former size, reach, and glory.

|3.5.09 @ 3:54PM|#

"For the last 8 years the country has been pulled far to the right, and now the dems have to pull hard left in order to bring us back to a center."

From a fiscal standpoint, the country hasn't moved to the right over the last 8 years. In fact, they've acted like Democrat Lite. It reminds me of when Hoover was accused of being a do nothing laissez faire president when in reality he was very much an interventionist. Just as FDR enlarged on Hoover's program, the Democrats are enlarging on the Republicans' program of big government. Just as FDR prolonged the depression and kept the economy from recovering, so will Obama.

|3.5.09 @ 3:54PM|#

(Of course, Rush is relishing every second of this.)

|3.5.09 @ 3:55PM|#

P Brooks,

I already miss the libertarian paradise of the Bush years, where free markets and limited government were all the rage. Gosh, were there any government regulations or taxes back then? I certainly didn't notice any.

|3.5.09 @ 3:58PM|#

He still is a 'christer' I think, so I'm surprised you like him shrike.

I suspect he is too. But Ryan doesn't force it on others as an issue.

And I like him MORE than other Republicans that have national aspirations.

I admit - I think the Governator is the best the GOP has to offer - but I am just a lowly classic liberal/libertarian. And Arnold is ineligible.

As far as the South goes - for crying out loud, the GOP is at risk of becoming a regional party + Idaho/Utah/Wyoming.

Pure losing demographics there.

Geithner, Daschle, et al.|3.5.09 @ 4:02PM|#

"Gosh, were there any government regulations or taxes back then? I certainly didn't notice any."

Nor did we.

|3.5.09 @ 4:02PM|#

As much as I'd like the GOP to look in the mirror and change into a mainstream libertarian party--or, at least, a more limited government party--it's not likely to happen. The idea that it is in some sort of imminent peril is silly, though. I've heard the same thing about the Democrats, off and on, since 1994. I wish the major parties really were that easy to bring down.

|3.5.09 @ 4:03PM|#

"I want Obama to fail too - in implementing them."

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like that's going to happen because he has a large majority of Democrats in Congress.

Don\'t Worry|3.5.09 @ 4:05PM|#

President Obama, back on February 18:

"[My plan] will not help speculators who took risky bets on a rising market and bought homes not to live in but to sell. It will not help dishonest lenders who acted irresponsibility, distorting the facts and dismissing the fine print at the expense of buyers who didn't know better. And it will not reward folks who bought homes they knew from the beginning they would never be able to afford."

The Washington Post, today:

While the Obama administration initially said it would focus on owner-occupied properties, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac said they would refinance loans for some second homes and investment properties, too.

You can hear it coming, right? "All statements from Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them."

|3.5.09 @ 4:09PM|#

The republicans and the christers are joined at the hip. I don't think the party can seperate itself fron the church folks anytime soon. The southern baptists, in particular, are counting on the Repubs to inflict their christian morality on the masses. It is a huge block of voters that won't be ignored without consequences. The uber mavricky McCain had to make concessions to the moral majority to secure the nomination.
The problem with making oneself politically rigid is that we have a very flexible voting public. Wishy washy is a positive thing in American politics.

BakedPenguin|3.5.09 @ 4:09PM|#

The correct response for the Republicans -kind of mentioned above- is that it doesn't matter whether or not they want his policies to fail, just as it doesn't matter whether they want thermodynamics to "succeed" or "fail". Taking wealth away from those who create it and giving it to those who don't, won't, or can't is not a policy that is going to succeed at anything in the long term except at wealth redistribution. Central planning is not going to succeed at anything in the long term except destroying value.

But to say this, the Republican leadership would have to embrace and understand the free market (e.g., embrace market "fundamentalism"), instead of giving it lip service when it suits them. I won't be holding my breath.

Gilbert Martin|3.5.09 @ 4:11PM|#

"All statements from Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them."

Or to put it a different way, Obama is a bald-faced liar.

Rev. Wright|3.5.09 @ 4:12PM|#

"The republicans and the christers are joined at the hip. I don't think the party can seperate itself fron the church folks anytime soon."

I seem to recall Obama attending church services.

|3.5.09 @ 4:14PM|#

"1- Repudiate Rush
2- Determine who your leader is
3- Make sure that leader is reasonable, young, telegenic, accepted by insiders and libertarians.
4- Ignore the religious right.
5- No Southerners."

Let me add a 6th requirement: cool it with your beligerant foreign policy.

Gilbert Martin|3.5.09 @ 4:15PM|#

"I seem to recall Obama attending church services."

Yes but he doesn't remember anything that was said at any of them.

|3.5.09 @ 4:16PM|#

"Taking wealth away from those who create it and giving it to those who don't, won't, or can't is not a policy that is going to succeed at anything in the long term except at wealth redistribution. "

Very large numbers of Americans are all for wealth redistribution right now with no foresight to the long term costs. Remember, these are the folks unable to see their mortgage payments being a problem when they went up.

|3.5.09 @ 4:19PM|#

It's true, that's the big risk. As Congress was bribed with pork to pass the bailout bill, so too are many Americans being bribed to trade their liberties for some mortgage deductions and other payola. Pathetic--we were once such a strong people, too.

|3.5.09 @ 4:25PM|#

CHeck out this comment at Politico by Norman J. Ornstein, Resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute

Casey Stengel, at a low moment for his 1962 Mets, asked plaintively, "Can't anybody here play this game?" The Republican Party looks a lot like the '62 Mets. Can you imagine getting into a situation where a radio talk show host-- a radio talk show host!-- is not only out there as the most visible and articulate spokesman for the GOP, but other key Republicans, including members of Congress and the chair of the national party, are out there visibly groveling at Rush Limbaugh's feet, debasing themselves and making the party look even weaker. There may be worse things than having as your spokesman someone who says over and again that he wants the president to fail, which is a bit like having a passenger on a cruise ship who doesn't like the way the captain is steering the boat hoping it will hit an iceberg-- conveniently ignoring the fact that he and we are all on the same ship. In fact there is one worse thing: having the chair of the House Republican campaign committee say that his colleagues have learned about their insurgency tactics from the Taliban. Cringeworthy. Actually, I want to apologize to the 1962 Mets; you were much better than the 2009 Republicans.

At least some Conservatives are smart enough to know that hitching their wagon to Rush is a bad idea

ed|3.5.09 @ 4:28PM|#

This whole "Rush" kerfuffle, perpetuated by the likes of Olbermann and Maddow, smacks of desperation. And so soon? Their man has just begun his reign. Sheesh. Where are the new ideas and all that "hope"? Hey Keith, your man won! Sucks, doesn't it?

JB|3.5.09 @ 4:30PM|#

Olbermann knows all about sucking.

ed|3.5.09 @ 4:33PM|#

Olbermann knows all about sucking.

Yes he does.

|3.5.09 @ 4:36PM|#

Very large numbers of Americans are all for wealth redistribution right now with no foresight to the long term costs.

And why shouldn't they be. Up til now, it's been a small handful of connected people that have been redistributing the wealth from the masses to themselves. Whether is no-bid contracts, or a toothless and unwilling SEC and an unregulated environment with which enables these crooks to rip people off(see Madoff, Stanford, etc)

It's time for these rich people (who are being rewarded for failure and excessive risk taking -- see AIG and Merril Lynch/BoA/ John Thain) to feel some pain.

When morons like that Santelli fellow attack people losing their homes "losers" and objects to having to "pay his neighbors mortgage" via government assistance to distressed homeowners but doesn't see fit to criticize the bankers who destroyed all this wealth and are demanding government bailouts and a wealth transfer of our tax dollars to prop up insolvent and failing banks and investment houses (that continue to give obscene bonuses to the people who have lost BILLIONS of Dollars) -- maybe what we really do need is some good old fashioned class warfare.

|3.5.09 @ 4:38PM|#

Bertrand de Jouvenel, writing in 1951 about popular attitudes toward income inequality in "The Ethics of Redistribution":

The film-star or the crooner is not grudged the income that is grudged to the oil magnate, because the people appreciate the entertainer's accomplishment and not the entrepreneur's, and because the former's personality is liked and the latter's is not. They feel that consumption of the entertainer's income is itself an entertainment, while the capitalist's is not, and somehow think that what the entertainer enjoys is deliberately given by them while the capitalist's income is somehow filched from them.

|3.5.09 @ 4:53PM|#

Too bad Jim Cramer and his ilk didn't realize that if you elect an ACORN activist president, you get an ACORN activist president. I see no restraint in the coming redistribution. God, I hope the overreach will get the attention of the middle earners, who will be paying for this.

Grubby|3.5.09 @ 5:00PM|#

"God, I hope the overreach will get the attention of the middle earners, who will be paying for this."

Yes, but here's the rub: when they do realize it, it will be impossible to tell the folks receiving Obama's blessings that their well has run dry.

Obama is the black Charles Manson.

|3.5.09 @ 5:01PM|#

"It's time for these rich people (who are being rewarded for failure and excessive risk taking -- see AIG and Merril Lynch/BoA/ John Thain) to feel some pain."

That's true, but it's not going to happen under Obama. We got in this mess in the first place by the easy money policy of the Fed, the pressuring of banks and lending companies to make risky loans to low income people, and the taking over of the bad debt by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bailout of the lenders and borrowers is keeping the market from adjusting and will create a more severe and longer lasting recession than would otherwise be the case if the market were allowed to adjust ASAP.

|3.5.09 @ 5:20PM|#

Ornstein duly parrots the Dem line:

There may be worse things than having as your spokesman someone who says over and again that he wants the president to fail, which is a bit like having a passenger on a cruise ship who doesn't like the way the captain is steering the boat hoping it will hit an iceberg-- conveniently ignoring the fact that he and we are all on the same ship.

Note that he is assuming that Obama can steer the cruise ship, and is trying to avoid icebergs. Non-metaphorically, he is assuming that Obama can succeed in reviving the economy.

He fails because he is taking Obama's professed goals as his actual goals. Clearly, they are not.

What Rush is saying is that he hopes Obama fails to achieve his actual goal, of turning this country into a redistributionist nanny state.

Way to totally miss the point, AEI-boy.

|3.5.09 @ 5:23PM|#

If Obama fails to fuck up the country, I'll be happy. I doubt Limbaugh or many others want the U.S. to spiral into oblivion, just because they don't like Obama or Congress. They just want Obama to become impotent, like Clinton became. Politically, that is.

|3.5.09 @ 5:24PM|#

"I thought I would make a list of tolerable radio talk show hosts, but I could only think of Andrew Napolitano. Are there any others?"

Warty - Mike McConnell at 700 WLW out of Cincinnati is an interesting listen: He's in favor of legalizing drugs, small gov't and open borders/free trade.

He often cites Reason magazine.

YMMV

|3.5.09 @ 5:27PM|#

Ornstein duly parrots the Dem line:

Ornstein, the scholar at the conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute is duly parroting the Dem line? That's what your going with?

Or Maybe he just is embarrassed that Rush Limbaugh has become the leader of the conservative movement?

Gilbert Martin|3.5.09 @ 5:29PM|#

"Ornstein duly parrots the Dem line:"

That doesn't make him much of an actual conservative, now does it?

|3.5.09 @ 5:33PM|#

The bailout of the lenders and borrowers is keeping the market from adjusting and will create a more severe and longer lasting recession than would otherwise be the case if the market were allowed to adjust ASAP.

This is very true. These guys (Bernake, Geithner Summers et al.) all think that somehow they can keep the bubble inflated and by throwing good money after bad they can make worthless assets worth something. All they are doing is rewarding bad behavior and excessive risk taking.

|3.5.09 @ 5:34PM|#

McConnell is on XM 173 at 9am and 165 at 12. My local station carries his weekend show. I disagreed with the guy once, but it's been so long ago, I can't remembey why.

|3.5.09 @ 5:36PM|#

Hopefully that y looks enough like an r you won't notice it.

|3.5.09 @ 5:38PM|#

noty tilly youy pointedy ity outy.

|3.5.09 @ 5:40PM|#

""It's time for these rich people (who are being rewarded for failure and excessive risk taking -- see AIG and Merril Lynch/BoA/ John Thain) to feel some pain."

They would if this moronic fucker and his band of merry congressmen would quit giving them OUR MONEY!

|3.5.09 @ 5:41PM|#

What Rush is saying is that he hopes Obama fails to achieve his actual goal, of turning this country into a redistributionist nanny state.


Obama's goal is to turn the economy around. And Rush and you wanting that to not happen is because you fear any validation of a political ideology that you don't agree with. It is the height of hackery.

Now I don't know if he will succeed or not, but I do no that tax cuts for the rich and tax cuts during a time of war and crony capitalism and a system of letting financial institutions do whatever they want with little to no oversight helped get us to this point. Maybe you dead-enders should STFU and give Obama a chance to fail instead of actively rooting for him to fail. The country tried it your way, and this is where we wound up.

He isn't your guy so you want him to fail. It's really that simple. And all your socialism, redistributionism, nanny state scare words is just flailing around trying to justify your wanting things to get worse rather than having a different ideology validated.

Pathetic.

Bam Boo|3.5.09 @ 5:42PM|#

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers occur in a word. The olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?

Grandpa Whithers|3.5.09 @ 5:43PM|#

"Obama's goal is to turn the economy around"

Poppycock!

|3.5.09 @ 5:44PM|#

Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part, but I really think that the Republican Party could turn into a regional party based in the South -- in other words, the vestiges of the Dixiecrats of the mid-1900s who switched parties after passage of the Civil Rights Act.

But there needs to be something to take its place, and -- again, this probably is wishful thinking -- I'd like to believe that a majority of Americans would embrace a socially liberal, fiscally conservative party.

I'm not hoping that Obama fails. Instead, I hope that I'm wrong in my opinion that his agenda is just going to make things worse. But if that agenda doesn't succeed (as I think is likely), maybe voters finally will be ready for my hypothetical new major political party.

|3.5.09 @ 5:44PM|#

They would if this moronic fucker and his band of merry congressmen would quit giving them OUR MONEY!

Who signed TARP into law? Whose Fed chairmen gave out the first 350 billion?

I don't want anyone getting bailed out at all, but I am not gonna pretend like only 1 party has a monopoly on handing out gov't money.

Grandpa Whithers|3.5.09 @ 5:44PM|#

"He isn't your guy so you want him to fail. It's really that simple. And all your socialism, redistributionism, nanny state scare words is just flailing around trying to justify your wanting things to get worse rather than having a different ideology validated.

Pathetic."

Barack Obama "spread the wealth"

Pathetic.

Hugh G. Rekshun|3.5.09 @ 5:45PM|#

Hugh Jass

Do I know you?

|3.5.09 @ 5:47PM|#

I think letting the government control too much of the economy in the first place got us the financial meltdown. And it's thrown some additional friction on the economy to boot. Bush helped that process out, and Congress and a compliant Obama are going to make it far, far worse. It's my country that I'm worried about, and I don't give a damn which party is trying to destroy it.

Grandpa Whithers|3.5.09 @ 5:47PM|#

"Who signed TARP into law? Whose Fed chairmen gave out the first 350 billion?"

Who continues to perpetuate this folly?

BTW 350 billion is chicken scratch compared to $3.2 Trillion.

|3.5.09 @ 5:48PM|#

Amzanig. Please don't sound this out by sylables or joe will come back.

Gilbert Martin|3.5.09 @ 10:56PM|#

"Obama's goal is to turn the economy around. And Rush and you wanting that to not happen is because you fear any validation of a political ideology that you don't agree with. It is the height of hackery."

Nope - president 666's goal is to implement as much socialism as is humanly possible as fast as possible.

It has nothing to do with turning the economy around since it is physically impossible for anything based on socialism to ever do so.

dhex|3.6.09 @ 9:28AM|#

"Maybe you dead-enders should STFU and give Obama a chance to fail instead of actively rooting for him to fail."

that's a weird thing to say.

firstly, it presumes there's some kind of magical power in "rooting" or "cheering" and good and bad wishes. a bit like the drunk yelling at the tv in a sports bar, as if the pitcher can hear him.

secondly, what? sounds like a republican talking about iraq circa 200X.

Alberta Libertarian|3.6.09 @ 4:26PM|#

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/#clip145158