News & Criticism

Chris Matthews: Limbaugh an Objectivist

|

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey is taking a beating in the blogosphere for his appearance on MSNBC's Hardball, during which he "thanked god" that he wasn't married to Salon.com editor Joan Walsh and, thus, wasn't forced to listen to her "prattle on" about social justice. The fun starts towards the end:

But the strangest moment comes when Matthews, who clearly doesn't understand politics beyond the traditional right/left Beltway paradigm, wonders why all those libertarians and Randians love Rush Limbaugh so much. From the transcript:

Why do libertarians—and I respect a lot of the libertarian philosophy. It's—at least in ideal terms. The Ayn Rand stuff, it's—I love the idea. It`s romantic. If everybody could live on themselves and take care of themselves, if that could work—it doesn't—fine.

But why do people who say they`re individualists, cowboys, out there all alone, refer to themselves as dittoheads? Why would you take pride in being a ditto of what Rush Limbaugh says, in other words, repeating after him every word he speaks as if it`s gospel? And it—it doesn't make any sense. How can you be both a dittohead and an individualist?

Watch Dick Armey at the 2007 Reason in DC conference here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Reason.tv at Sundance: Shouting Fire!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Quick show of hands: Does ANYBODY actually listen to Rush?

  2. now hear this: calling that crazy dittohead, the angry optimist

  3. Why do libertarians-and I respect a lot of the libertarian philosophy. It’s-at least in ideal terms. The Ayn Rand stuff, it’s-I love the idea. It`s romantic. If everybody could live on themselves and take care of themselves, if that could work-it doesn’t-fine.

    Wrong.

    But why do people who say they`re individualists, cowboys, out there all alone, refer to themselves as dittoheads? Why would you take pride in being a ditto of what Rush Limbaugh says, in other words, repeating after him every word he speaks as if it`s gospel? And it-it doesn’t make any sense. How can you be both a dittohead and an individualist?

    Right.

    Weird.

  4. Dello – not this moose….

  5. Matthews must be retarded.

  6. Does ANYBODY actually listen to Rush?

    I think more than 20 million people do.

    Now does anybody sit through 12 minutes of Chris Matthews internet rerun of an MSNBC show. Other than Moynihan?

    This post is a total fucking FAIL.

  7. I couldn’t. Nausea set in after about 30 seconds.

    UBER FAIL

  8. But the strangest moment comes when Matthews, who clearly doesn’t understand politics beyond the traditional right/left Beltway paradigm, wonders why all those libertarians and Randians love Rush Limbaugh so much.

    I can’t speak for the Randians these days, but count me libertarian who most definitely doesn’t love Rush Limbaugh. And I, too, wonder about libertarians who do.

  9. … count me as a libertarian…

    That is.

  10. Technically he wasn’t saying Limbaugh was an Objectivist, he was saying Objectivists listen to Limbaugh.

    Either way he doesn’t make sense, though.

  11. OK. my first post has disappeared so now my correction doesn’t make sense. I’ll try again.

    I can’t speak for the Randians these days, but count me as a libertarian who definitely does not love Rush Limbaugh. And I, too, wonder about libertarians who do.

  12. Oh. Wait. There’s my first post. I just forgot to change back to my real name.

    This is going to be a long day, I guess.

  13. Because libertarians are easily duped? It must be so, otherwise why would they show so much more deference to the Republican party, which spends more than Democrats, and on useless things like elective wars to boot. The party that quite obviously cares less about civil rights and privacy. The party that has shown contempt for objectivity, the constitution, and any sense of fiscal sanity. I don’t get it. And I know you’re not all sympathetic to Republicans. But I do know that you whine a lot more about entitlement programs championed by Democrats than you do corporate socialism and bloated war spending as championed by Republicans.

  14. Chris Matthews needs to check his premises.

  15. I listen to NPR and read Drudge. That doesn’t mean I agree with them. I just like to shout at the radio.

  16. The more important question is how did Limbaugh come to run the GOP? Republican congressmen can’t even question Rush without the rank and file slapping down anything that breaks the echo chamber. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) commented on Politico about the job for which Limbaugh has no perspective, and was compelled to issue an apology over the remarks just a few hours later.

    http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/bipartisanship/gop-congressman-apologizes-for-offending-limbaugh-fans/

    And they say the Cult Of Obama is strong!

  17. Does ANYBODY actually listen to Rush?

    I do when I run errands at lunch. Call it half an hour or so per week. People forget he’s an entertainer first and foremost, and intermittently pretty funny.

  18. don’t think for a minute this is a mistake. More likely a deliberate attempt to smear libertarian philosophy with Rush’s right wingnutism. I feel sick, because the left is definitely going to tar libertarianism with a lot of crap.

  19. I’m libertarian and I listen to Rush, NPR, and even Air Amerika. But, the idea libertarians are in bed with Rush is nonsense. He is entertaining.

    I’ve watched most of Michael Moore’s “documentaries” too. That in no way indicates what I think of his ideas or his movies.

  20. I nurture no warm place in my heart for Rush Limbaugh. The man is a Republican and can be as crazy as they come.

    In some ways Libertarians are conservative, but only in ways that favor freedom. Rush is not pro-freedom, therefore I am not pro-Rush.

  21. Wait a sec, I think I figured out the problem. He probably skimmed a few libertarian websites, caught a few text references to “Rush”…

    To straighten Matthews out: Libertarians like Rush, the band. You know, “Tom Sawyer”, “Spirit of the Radio”. Not Rush the blabbering fathead.

    Capiche?

  22. I’ve listed to Rush since he first came on the radio.

    I don’t recall very many libertarians callers and I’ve never seen many ‘I love Rush’ comments on this board.

    BTW, ‘dittos’ means “I love your show. It’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. etc.” It doesn’t mean “I agree with every thing you say”.

    ‘Dittos’ is meant as a time saver so the caller can voice his appreciation of the show quickly and then get to the subject he wants to talk about.

  23. There’s no way Rush Limbaugh would sell crack to toddlers. He’d totally bogart that shit.

    Hence, not a libertarian.

    😉

  24. WTH is a dittohead?

  25. I would suggest that Rush Limbaugh is the primary reason for the downfall of the Republican Party. The Dittoheads are in line with him no matter how half assed is logic is.

  26. What’s the mystery? Limbaugh favors low taxes and smaller, less intrusive government. He is generally pretty good about bashing Republicans who support increasing the size of government. He doesn’t bash them nearly as much as Democrats, but Democrats *are* worse on that issue (as we’re seeing this week).

    Sure, he’s been bad on other abuses of government power, especially those related to the war on terror. But realistically those things aren’t anywhere near the threat to my liberty that a huge, taxing-borrowing-and-spending federal bureaucracy is.

    So I don’t see the mystery to why libertarians might like listening to Rush. We might not agree with everything he says, but there isn’t a person in the world for whom that isn’t true.

  27. The problem with this, as with Fox and the right, is that those on the left who live by the MSNBC gospel – ostensibly intelligent members of polite society – will now come to believe these things simply because they come forth from the mouths of Matthews, Olbermann, and Maddow. My liberal friends who know that I am a libertarian, and have as little an idea what that might be as Christopher here does, will now give me dirty looks after shit like this, mistakenly believing that I am one of the so-called dittoheads (whose moniker could just as easily be applied to the throngs of Air America clones and Huff Puffers that ditto Kos and Arianna and that insufferable Rhandi Rhodes).

  28. Rush Limbaugh is a man of many pounds and few principles.

    But I can’t say much in favor of Chris Matthews either.

    But I can see how it would make SIV mad to say bad things about Limbaugh, I mean demeaning a man’s source of intellectual nourishment is to demean that man as well.

    In fairness I always thought the ditto-head thing was some joke to make liberals mad. Back when liberals feared Limbaugh they saw him as a demagogue who could command his people like lemmings and I thought Limbaugh and his listeners had this little inside joke to call themselves dittoheads so the liberals would be like “see, his followers are just unthinking minions” and get all mad like “how could anybody be so…”

  29. I think it’s notable that the term “dittohead” was not “applied to” Rush Limbaugh fans.

    It’s how the self-describe. It’s his, and their, term for themselves.

  30. For a magazine named Reason, praised by Rush Limbaugh…

  31. DGG
    I agree with you. Liberals used to be really worried about right wing media, but if you think about it it has helped in the longrun by creating a rabid easily caricatured column of wingnuts rabidly opposed to any compromise who most other people want to NOT be like. And these people have taken over the GOP, ruining its image in their foaming mouth fury.

  32. now hear this: calling that crazy dittohead, the angry optimist

    Present! Although I am no dittohead. My original “defense” of Rush was that some members of the reality-based community wanted to call him all sorts of intellectual monikers like “stupid” and “idiot”. Telling, that.

    An example I’ve trotted out elsewhere about why Rush can be enjoyable: Rush, when discussing WWII, didn’t go into French-bashing Cheese-Eating Surrender-Monkey Hannity mode and chant “USA! USA!”…No, Rush talked about lend-lease, the oil embargo and the causes of WWII, and even came within a hair’s breadth of making a very paleolibertarian argument and blaming America’s Oil Policy for the occurrence of Pearl Harbor.

    Where the hell else do you get commentary that intellectual on the radio?

    Regardless, I disagree with Rush quite a bit.

    And Chris Mathews doesn’t know what he’s talking about…like, at all.

  33. Rush is miles ahead of Hannity, Beck, or any of the other right wing radio personality imitators. And TAO is right, he boosted the Iraq War, but not as stupidly as Hannity or O’Reilley (LOL TEH FRENCH R TEH SUXXOR!)

  34. I would suggest that Rush Limbaugh is the primary reason for the downfall of the Republican Party.

    I would suggest you not engage in wishful thinking.

    The man responsible for the downfall of the GOP in 2008 is home in Crawford. I’d be glad to elucidate.

  35. Where the hell else do you get commentary that intellectual on the radio?

    Not on NPR !

  36. The man responsible for the downfall of the GOP in 2008 is home in Crawford.

    Well, the puppetmaster who controlled the man in Crawford is in McLean, VA. I blame him as much.

  37. But I think revenant kind of makes a neat point, one which seperates liberals and libertarians, or rather right leaning and left leaning libertarians, if you add to Limbaugh’s GOP fluffing his support for things like the drug war and the police. And that is if you think the WOD and the WOT are less of a threat to liberty than “a huge, taxing-borrowing-and-spending federal bureaucracy is” then you are probably a right leaning libertarian.

    I just don’t really see my freedom that constrained by such a thing. I’ve never wanted to exercise my liberty to buy tainted meat or to work for less than minimum wage, but I’d like to be able to not be afraid of landing in jail for smoking pot or because some copper doesn’t like my looks or something.

  38. Rush has a libertarian streak to him, like most non-neocon repubs. Similarly like those, he beats it down when it gets too uppity and in the way of the narrative, whatever that might be at the moment. Just when you think there’s hope for him, WHAM!

    I haven’t listened to him in a long time, but I’ll echo what others have said: he’s an entertainer and occasionally brutally funny.

  39. “Where the hell else do you get commentary that intellectual on the radio?”

    RadioIQ and NPR, pretty much every hour.

    Really. And you get what Limbaugh and his ilk are such cowards about: intellectuals from across the spectrum.

    Just this week I heard a fellow from the Hoover Institute debate a Phd academic and some guy from Brookings.

  40. NPR has guys from Cato on all the time. Norm Orrnstein from AEI practically lives there. I heard Matt Welch on Fresh Air during the holidays on McCain (it was originally aired before the election).

    I watched pretty much every episode of Rush’s tv show. He would show black legislators fulminating and make funny faces in front of the screen they were shown on. Not much of an intellectual that Rush.

  41. I listen to NPR. Neither funny nor intellectual nor deep. And boring, to boot. Whoever invented This American Life needs to have his Eighth Amendment privileges suspended.

    Really. And you get what Limbaugh and his ilk are such cowards about

    Cowards. Right. How dare they not lend their show to people who hate them?

    You’re like an Ayn Rand caricature, you know that?

    Anyway, that’s not the format of the show, MNG…it’s a successful business model for them and it works, but they’re cowards because they don’t run it the way you want to see it run?

    Alright. Call me when you get hundreds of millions of dollars for your job.

    Anyway, it’s funny to me how many people from across the spectrum hate Rush…and yet they tune in anyway. There’s some reason the people at HuffPo and Mathews are always talking about him.

    Rush Limbaugh is the conservative version of joe.

  42. Everybody has a libertarian streak in them. Rush has never let it get in the way of big government conservatism.

  43. In just the last couple of months I heard extended interviews with Peter Viereck, William F. Buckley (these two were taped from previous shows obviously), Matt Welch, and more on Fresh Air alone.

    And I didn’t have to listen to mind-numbing commercials every three minutes…

    You know, Bill Bennett is a smart man in real life (not on his radio show, he knows his audience).

  44. He would show black legislators fulminating and make funny faces in front of the screen they were shown on. Not much of an intellectual that Rush.

    This must be like the many, many times you called me a racist.

    I suppose you thought that “Barack the Magic Negro” was racist too, right? I cannot believe that liberals had the one chance to intelligently discuss a hotly-debated literary and dramatic device…and they blew it by falsely calling Rush racist.

  45. But why do people who say they`re individualists, cowboys, out there all alone, refer to themselves as dittoheads?

    My experience has been that most poeple who listen to Rush disagree with him quite a lot. Conversations about him tend to go something like this:

    “Yeah I like Rush but I disagree with him on a, b and c.”

  46. TAO
    You’re not tuning in to the right programs then. The Dianne Rehm show regularly has fellows from Cato, AEI, Brookings, the Urban Institute.

    Fresh air has entertainers and stuff, but also intellectuals from across the spectrum (you could really use that you know?).

    Talk of the Nation and Science Fridays have incredible line-ups. It’s like an intellectual who’s who.

    And yes, Rush is the epitome of a coward. He controls who gets to debate him, how long they can respond (he used to cut them off and have a toilet flushing sound, what an intellectual that guy), etc. He’s a big fat pussy, objectively. Oh, and a hypocrite of the first order.

    I watched his tv show years ago when I didn’t have cable. It was either that or Young and the Restless or General Hospital. I grant you he was better than that…

  47. Also Rush beat Jacob on this analysis by about 2 weeks.

    After the House Ways and Means Committee approved its piece of the economic recovery legislation last Thursday, Representative Pete Stark, Democrat of California, said, “We accomplished more today than in the last eight years.”

    Clearly, the Democrats have not been trying to stimulate the economy out of a recession for eight years. But all their budget priorities (any budget priorities, really) are suddenly so urgent that there’s no time to pause for reflection on whether they make any more sense now than they did before.

  48. TAO
    Don’t cry man. I used to watch the show. I remember what was going on.

    Yeah the liberals that criticized Rush on the magic negro thing were stupid though and didn’t get it. You really have some bizarre caricature of “liberals” in your head though, as if Media Matters was the height of liberal thought in the US. This is exactly why shows with experts from both sides would help you out a great deal.

  49. Dude, Diane Rehm is once a week.

    he used to cut them off and have a toilet flushing sound, what an intellectual that guy… He’s a big fat pussy, objectively.

    Sssss! That hypocrisy must sting…just a little, right?

    No one said that intellectuals had to be boring. Ask Feynman (metaphorically, that is).

  50. This is exactly why shows with experts from both sides would help you out a great deal.

    Seriously, if you don’t can it with the condescending “I’m here to educate you spiel”, you fuck right off. It’s getting very old.

  51. One thing you could say about someone like WFB was that the man was no coward. He relished opportunities to go man to man with people who believed the opposite of what he thought.

    Rush is the epitome of a coward, like a man in a bar knowing those he is about to run down have are not there and then boldy runs them down. That’s the whole problem with right wing talk radio (and the rare examples of left wing talk radio if you ask me).

    You know, John Stuart Mill sought out the company of Coleridge especially because he knew that Coleridge was 1. very smart and capable and 2. would disagree and challenge most of what he believed. That’s how you get smart, reading things and engaging brilliant people that you DON’T agree with.

    But sometimes it’s fun to talk to TAO too 😉

  52. Rush Limbaugh is the conservative version of joe.

    Rush Limbaugh actively seeks out alternative viewpoints, because he thinks that having his beliefs and reflexes challenged by people on the other side helps to refine his own?

    I don’t believe you. The man is a real coward when it comes to opposing viewpoints.

  53. I don’t know how they do it in the Buckeye state, but we get Dianne Rehm very single day in Maryland. Hell, my parents in VA get it daily.

    You might have a shitty NPR affiliate, it happens. When I lived in Delaware I had one like that.

  54. No TAO, I mean that Rush Limbaugh is actually and objectively a big fat pussy.

    He’s big, you cannot doubt that.

    He’s grossly fat, you cannot deny that.

    And he’s a big pussy, as I detailed above.

    Being intellectual doesn’t mean you can’t call a man who is big and fat and a pussy a big fat pussy. It just means you’d have to argue well why he is that. And that’s not a hard thing to do with Rush.

  55. Is Rush fat again?

    He had lost some weight for a while there.

  56. Fresh air has entertainers and stuff, but also intellectuals from across the spectrum (you could really use that you know?).

    Talk of the Nation and Science Fridays have incredible line-ups. It’s like an intellectual who’s who.

    That was funny to read. Keep the jokes coming…across the spectrum…funny stuff.

  57. “joe | January 29, 2009, 6:47pm | #
    Is Rush fat again?”

    He’s porked up again. Though being fat really doesn’t have any bearing on how good your arguments are. It’s like making fun of Obama for the ears.

  58. It’s not an ideological thing. I could name a literal ton of conservatives and libertarians who are obviously very smart men and women. And I can name smart and funny ones (P.J. O’Rourke the best on this I should think).

    But Rush Limbaugh? That’s laughable. Set yout standards a bit higher bro.

  59. Rush Limbaugh actively seeks out alternative viewpoints, because he thinks that having his beliefs and reflexes challenged by people on the other side helps to refine his own?

    Is that what you call it, joe? Refinement?

    Regardless, what I meant was, was that you frequently have viewpoints, caricatures and stereotyped viewpoints ascribed to you without rhyme or reason.

    For example: Rush has been called a “fluffer” for the GOP and you have been called likewise for the Dems. That isn’t true of either one of you: you both just criticize the other side more. And you are both conspicuously absent when your side is criticized on its own terms. (i.e. Obama’s ethics waving or Republican lies about fiscal conservatism).

  60. I agree BDB, Rush’s gross obesity is not the cause or related to his lack of intellectual ability.

    He just happens to have both.

    But Lord is that man obese!

  61. Being intellectual doesn’t mean you can’t call a man who is big and fat and a pussy a big fat pussy.

    Actually, as BDB said above, it isn’t terribly intellectual to go after somebody because of their particular body type or size.

    When I criticize Obama, should I call him “the skinny black egghead liberal”?

  62. Set yout standards a bit higher bro.

    What can I say? I like the dregs. You didn’t think I valued your input, did you?

  63. Rush Limbaugh is more of a libertarian than Obama the socialist is.

    I understand that Obama has done more illegal drugs than Rush (and thus has more appeal to certain libertarians).

    I don’t agree with Rush on a host of issues, but he is closer on core issues (such as taxing and spending) than nearly all Democrats and Republicans.

  64. And he’s a big pussy, as I detailed above.

    He competes in a market without government subsidy….so he is less of a pussy then anything on NPR.

  65. It is rather funny to see Republicans groveling to him. It’d be like Democrats kissing Keith Olbermann’s ring.

  66. Transcripts can be so cruel.

  67. But the strangest moment comes when Matthews, who clearly doesn’t understand politics

    Should have stopped right there. Or changed “politics” to “anything more complicated than chopsticks”.

  68. Remember when Chris Matthews said Republicans “lost” the Battle of Gettysburg?

  69. Rush praises Reason magazine, cites Cato,hands the microphone and an audience of 20,000,000+ of to Walter Williams on a somewhat regular basis……..

    Back in the 90s he was always(weekly) referring to things he had discussed with his good friend Thomas W Hazlett who used to write for the print version of this magazine.

  70. Revenant said:

    “He is generally pretty good about bashing Republicans who support increasing the size of government. He doesn’t bash them nearly as much as Democrats, but Democrats *are* worse on that issue (as we’re seeing this week).”

    Except that this is a lie. Nowhere in relevant, recent history have Republicans managed to get smaller government than Democrats. You are believing Republican talking points over actual facts.

  71. And Jason Lewis, Rush’s frequent stand-in, is about as noninterventionist conservo-libertarian as popular radio hosts get. He’s having Dr. Jeffrey Miron to talk about marijuana legalization (Ph.Dm, Econ, MIT) soon.

  72. Tony, no one takes you seriously. Go away.

  73. And NPR is pure fluff and moonbattery.20 minute segments on adult kickball,Bebe Moore-cambell’s classic:


    “There are many in the African-American community who have long held the contention that the NRA’s acronym really stands for ‘Negro Removal Association.’ Many believe that one of
    the conservative organization’s reasons for supporting a sixteen year old boys right to carry an Uzi is because of the likelihood that weapon will kill someone who is black.”

  74. It’s not an ideological thing. I could name a literal ton of conservatives and libertarians who are obviously very smart men and women. And I can name smart and funny ones (P.J. O’Rourke the best on this I should think).

    But Rush Limbaugh? That’s laughable. Set yout standards a bit higher bro.

    He tells the funniest Obama jokes anywhere…of course he tells the only Obama jokes anywhere…

  75. I’m another libertarian who listens to Rush every once in a blue moon, but only to catch a sample of whatever crazy-ass bullshit shilling he’s doing for the Republican Party.

  76. but only to catch a sample of whatever crazy-ass bullshit shilling he’s doing for the Republican Party.

    There mustn’t have been any blue moons during the primaries or during the McCain campaign….

    I also like it when he nails David Brooks better then Reason does.

    I think he invented the term RINO…I know he popularized it.

  77. @SIV
    White kids are too lazy to drive from the suburbs to the inner cities, NPR ought to know that.

  78. He tells the funniest Obama jokes anywhere…of course he tells the only Obama jokes anywhere…

    “If I can’t see it, it doesn’t exist!”

    Is the above quote tattooed on the inside of your eyelids?

  79. Rush only “shills” for the GOP around election time and even then he lets callers on who are conservatives disgusted with the Party and follows up their rants with “I know” and “I,m not going to disagree with you”. the rest of the time he praises where warranted (from a conservative ideological pov) and rips them for big government and compromise.

  80. “The Angry Optimist | January 29, 2009, 7:02pm | #
    Tony, no one takes you seriously. Go away.”

    Is this the chugging intellectual idea factory that is libertarian thought? Kinda reminds me of Rush.

    But actually no one takes YOU seriously. That’s why this country just overwhelmingly elected a man half of them thought was a socialist.

    It’s only in the right-wing echo chamber and here on the curiously named Reason that mainstream common sense is banished as dissenting voices.

  81. TAO

    I can only anticipate his discussion with the drug legalization guy. I hope he drops some of these gems on him:

    “”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. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

    — Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.”

  82. I’ve only seen Tony easily wipe the floor with TAO on these parts.

    Once TAO broke down in tears and said “All you do is knock down and criticize, what do you believe!?”

    It was like Sally Fields…

  83. Tony, are you now, or have you ever been, “Lefiti”?

  84. It is rather funny to see Republicans groveling to him. It’d be like Democrats kissing Keith Olbermann’s ring.

    Not by the politicos themselves. but you do see this around the liberal blogosphere.

  85. Kolohe-

    Yeah, I’d expect it among bloggers. But Congressman? It’s funny.

  86. on the curiously named Reason that mainstream common sense

    Thanks for the reminder, need to buy some beer on the way home from work.

  87. This shows some laziness on SIV’s part.

    What’s objectionable to the NPR quote you give? They didn’t say “The NRA stands for Negro Removal Association” etc. They just said that many blacks think these kinds of things about the NRA.

    And yes, many blacks do think that about the NRA.

    I happen to think they are wrong, but that doesn’t change the basic fact that NPR was reporting.

  88. That’s the thing. I’d be the first to tell you that Keith Olberman is not an intellectual.

    In fact, I find his show to be rather mind-numbing.

  89. Matthews, who clearly doesn’t understand politics beyond the traditional right/left Beltway paradigm,

    This is true, but like an understanding of Newtonian physics without relatively or quantum mechanics, you’ll still manage to get a lot right.

  90. or like writing a blog comment w/o being able to know how to spell.

  91. Look, you can like it or not, but black people like gun control. Given that it’s little suprise that most of them might not like the NRA.

    NPR is right to report that.

    http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t2642008.pdf

  92. “When I criticize Obama, should I call him “the skinny black egghead liberal”?”

    TAO
    Go for it. I guess I wouldn’t be surprised if you thought “black” “egghead” and “liberal” were perjorative terms.

    But I had no idea you felt that way about skinny people.

  93. Yeah, I’d expect it among bloggers. But Congressman? It’s funny.

    It took a while for ‘real’ politicians to embrace Limbaugh. Bush 1 did call into his show while in office, but only when a guest host was on. Most thought he would help lose more votes than he would gain. It wasn’t until the contract with america where they developed a symbiotic relationship. And it worked, at least until 2006.

  94. Nope I’m not Lefiti. Reasonable people walk among you.

    I agree with MNG on Olbermann. Kind of a blowhard. But then again not anywhere nearly as much of a blowhard as O’Reilly or Rush. Just because the left has its loud voices doesn’t automatically mean they’re as propagandistic or as frightened by facts.

    The problem is that liberals, on the whole, actually value pragmatic, fact-based debate (since they believe in such things as truth and reality and know that’s the best way to get to it), whereas Rushbots consider pragmatic debate a suspect affectation of the librul elites.

  95. So I expect the same symbiosis start to develop as more sitting congressman and/or prospective ones appear on Olberman’s (and Maddow’s) show.

  96. Troll Tony troll!

  97. “The problem is that liberals, on the whole, actually value pragmatic, fact-based debate”

    ROFL! Michael Moore? Naomi “CATO is neocon” Klein? Thomas Frank? Fact-based?

    That’s a riot.

  98. Limbaugh and his ilk cower from debate. I suspect they know they’d lose, badly, and like Sarah Palin they would come off as foolish if they were off script.

    Of course this is not to say all conservative thinkers are like this. It’s just to say that Limbaugh and his ilk are not conservative thinkers (in either sense of the word I should think).

  99. Oh yeah, forgot Morgan Spurlock too.

  100. BDB
    I imagine Tony might agree with me that as a liberal, I don’t find much to Moore, Klein or Frank.

    It would really behoove libertarians to find out who thoughtful liberals read and enjoy.

  101. He competes in a market without government subsidy….so he is less of a pussy then anything on NPR.

    Ouch.

  102. Also, PETA and the public health weenies at the CSPI.

    You got your fair share of liars and blowhards, about as many as the conservative right does.

  103. I think Morgan Spurlock is a great film-maker though. You have to admit that his Mickey-Dees movement had creative direction (nice use of graphics, animation, editing, etc., to make his point).

    Compared to Spurlock Moore is a terrible film-maker. His movies are all over the place and many times they actually contain parts that undermine other parts (like in Bowling for Columbine where he demonstrates that gun and ammo availibility cannot be the cause of our unique homicide rate when he mentions how many and how easily obtained guns are in Canada, which he then extols as a crime-free paradise).

  104. I still maintain the original post is FAIL.
    Sure the Rush/libertarian thing is always good for a few hundred comments but has anybody actually watched the 12 minute Chris Matthews video Moynihan posted?

    I think not.

  105. “He competes in a market without government subsidy….so he is less of a pussy then anything on NPR.”

    Do you know how stupid this is?

    By this logic Britney Spears is very, very brave.

  106. I agree with MNG on Olbermann. Kind of a blowhard. But then again not anywhere nearly as much of a blowhard as O’Reilly or Rush.

    So, is this “pragmatic, fact-based” debate?

  107. Canada, which he then extols as a crime-free paradise).

    He also claims it doesn’t have poverty, either. Both claims are total horseshit. Vancouver has the worst homelessness problem in North America.

  108. A good place to start is Jack Balkin’s law blog Balkinization.

    The Boston Review is another one.

  109. BDB
    More importantly, IF Moore’s claims are true then it undermines his major claim.

    The guy’s films are terrible. They are a deconstructionists wet dream.

    Spurlock on the other hand has a great ability to make his points while keeping the average viewers attention.

  110. SIV, since he posted the part we are discussing in text no, there was no point in playing it.

  111. A nation in which Matthews has a tv program is a nation at risk.

  112. “Spurlock on the other hand has a great ability to make his points while keeping the average viewers attention.”

    While lying out of his ass and slipping in vegan propaganda.

  113. Libertarians and conservatives thinking Naomi Klein is the epitome of liberal thought are like liberals who think Jonah Goldberg is the epitome of conservative thought, or that Michael Moynihan is a libertarian or something.

    But if you find Rush Limbaugh to be “intellectual” I can see how one could come to those kind of goofy conclusions…People with a solid foundation to their belief systems, of something other than emotion, know that they are made better and smarter by seeking out and honestly engaging the best of those who disagree with their belief system.

  114. As for Moore, when a conservative claims liberal X hates the United States, he’s usually constructing a strawman.

    When they say it about Moore, it’s not a strawman. It’s true! He does.

  115. I watched an episode of Spurlock’s TV show.
    I don’t know anyone that pussywhipped in real life

  116. I went into Spurlock’s movie thinking “what a crock of shit, that fast food companies are in some way responsible for folk’s obesity.”

    I left thinking that, but I must say he made the best argument out of that turd I could imagine a film-maker doing.

    And he had some really interesting side points (like that the government lunch programs encourage the buying and serving of crappy foods; that many schools get hooked on offering sodas and fast food because they get a cut; that the ad budgets for soda alone is 100 times larger than that for fruits and veggies; that soda consumption is probably way worse for folks than McDonalds; etc).

  117. The problem is that liberals, on the whole, actually value pragmatic, fact-based debate (since they believe in such things as truth and reality and know that’s the best way to get to it), whereas Rushbots consider pragmatic debate a suspect affectation of the librul elites.

    Like attributing bad faith on the part of you opponents?

    Look, I’m no Limbaugh fan either (but he’s a hell of lot less hackish than Hannity, and less crazy than Mark Levin, and a lot less of a blowhard than O’Reilly) but take this trivial example of contempary triviality and manichaeism.

    So Jessica Alba says something like ‘we should be neutral like Sweeden was in world war 2’. Now it’s pretty clear she meant to say Switzerland. But O’Relly gets on his soapbox and calls her a pinhead. Which of course causes Olberman and bloggers like Yglesias to say O’Reily is a pinhead and Sweden was indeed neutral in WW2. Which is literally true, but has plenty of shades of gray. Again, it’s clear that she originally meant Switzerland. But it gets lost in the supposedly ‘pragmatic, fact based debate’ seeking ‘truth and reality’

  118. I enjoyed this YouTube response to Spurlock’s “experiment”.

    It’s called “Super Size Me–with Whiskey!”

  119. BDB
    A lot of liberals see Europe as very enlightened and pine for us to “be more like them.” It’s silly, but I don’t think that means they hate America.

    No more than I think Dinesh D’Souza or Robert Bork hates America when they bewail how popular things they hate in the US are or how much better we were in the 1950’s and such.

  120. No, I’m sorry MNG, Michael Moore really DOES dislike the United States! It’s not Europe-love, its active America-hatred. Like I said, every other time its a strawman. But with Moore, its true.

  121. So, SIV, what was wrong with that egregious NPR quote?

  122. Why do you think that BDB?

  123. But Spurlock is one pussy whipped dude, I’ll give you that.

    That vegan gal of his must be fantastic on the springs.

  124. [Moore’s] movies are all over the place and many times they actually contain parts that undermine other parts (like in Bowling for Columbine…

    BFC was a documentary with a complicated message about gun violence that won an Oscar and a C?sar. If you recall, Moore explores several possibilities for the difference in gun crime rates, and finds evidence against some of them. He boasts of his NRA membership in the film. It’s not an anti-gun film. It’s more of an indictment of the American media.

    Moore’s methods are not 100% scientific, though, but I do find him at least compelling. And getting a message out is a perfectly legitimate use of documentaries. The more complex the message the better, as in any art form.

    What Rush and Hannity engage in is not an art form. It’s propaganda straight from Orwell. The Republican Party sends the right-wing media press releases that they parrot without question. Most Democrats don’t even mention Moore in polite company because they’re too sheepish from decades of right-wing assaults on dissenting voices.

  125. No more than I think Dinesh D’Souza or Robert Bork hates America when they bewail how popular things they hate in the US are or how much better we were in the 1950’s and such.

    One of the oddest things lately are liberals (including Krugman) is 50’s nostalgia (mostly for the tax rates, but also for unionization rates, one big govt project in particular, and overall economic growth)

  126. Most Democrats don’t even mention Moore in polite company

    Which is why he was never would be a the Democratic National Convention in President Carter’s box seats.

  127. Ha! Good one, Kolohe.

    People with a solid foundation to their belief systems, of something other than emotion, know that they are made better and smarter by seeking out and honestly engaging the best of those who disagree with their belief system.

    I sure hope you’re not talking about you…or do I need to roll tape on all those times you called Rush a faggot?

    I guess I wouldn’t be surprised if you thought “black” “egghead” and “liberal” were perjorative terms.

    Uh, I don’t. Although I think it’s funny that you think that “fat” is a pejorative term and simultaneously an intellectually worthwhile takedown of someone.

  128. Most Democrats don’t even mention Moore in polite company because they’re too sheepish from decades of right-wing assaults on dissenting voices.

    That speaks volumes about just how credible “most Democrats” view Moore to be.

  129. I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh. But when I’ve listened to him on accident, occasionally he’s actually quite funny.

    It wouldn’t surprise me if some libertarians liked listening to him, but then I listen to Gang of Four (the early stuff anyway) and their politics are the polar opposite of mine. If you’re looking for political humor on the radio dial, it wouldn’t surprise me if someone was entertained by Limbaugh.

    Bill Maher entertains me at times as well. Olbermann and Hannity, not so much.

  130. While there are certain Limbaugh fans who refer to themselves as “dittoheads”, and there are certain libertarians who like Rush Limbaugh, these two groups do not have much overlap.

    Most of the libertarians I know only like Rush up to a point, and would never–ever–EVER refer to themselves as a “dittohead”. We’re all way to freakin contrarian and independent-minded for that crap.

    The dittoheads largely are Republican partisans, not libertarians.

  131. Libertarians and conservatives thinking Naomi Klein is the epitome of liberal thought

    Who would be the epitome of liberal thought, then? Of course, I know that Klein is too stupid or dishonest, or both, but look at some of the people you guys put out front.

    I mean, Krugman? Is he it? Tell me it isn’t Maureen Dowd.

  132. That’s a question for anybody, by the way. Someone give me an intelligent liberal to read and I’ll gladly go for it.

  133. Unfortunately Obama didn’t have his own ditto heads. No one who could tell him the ayer’s! of his ways or seemingly they couldn’t ayer! the rants of Jeremiah Wright either.
    Even if I was not on his team, I would have opra-herded him about not associating with the hateful, and tell him why I left the congre-ants of Jim Joners.

  134. Anyone who defends Michael Moore is a moron.

  135. Jeez TAO, I answered that at 7:40.

    Look at you, even your guesses are newspaper columnists. It really demonstrates how tenous of a grasp you have on liberalism as an intellectual movement.

    You have heard of this place called “academe” right? Most of the liberal, and conservative and libertarian movements best thinkers are there. They get paid to think there.

    “or do I need to roll tape on all those times you called Rush a faggot?”
    “you think that “fat” is a pejorative term and simultaneously an intellectually worthwhile takedown of someone.”

    I called him a faggot during one thread and as I explained I meant “pussy” by faggot. I still call him a pussy, by which I mean a coward. I think he’s demonstrably a coward and a pussy. And the man is fat. I don’t think that’s a intellectually worthy take down, I just mean the guy is grossly obese.

  136. “Someone give me an intelligent liberal to read and I’ll gladly go for it.”

    This says so much about you TAO. Volumes really.

    I can name numerous intelligent conservatives and libertarians that I enjoy reading.

    For the former, Roger Scruton comes directly to mind (one of my faves). Peter Lawler too. Carl Cohen is very smart.

    As for libertarians Richard Epstein is a brilliant fellow. Most of the guys on Volokh Conspiracy. Robert Levy with Cato is very smart.

  137. MNG | January 29, 2009, 7:47pm | #

    …that the ad budgets for soda alone is 100 times larger than that for fruits and veggies

    uh, you mean ‘infinitely’ larger. I dont recall ever seeing “Cauliflower: So Fucking Healthy It Hurts!” -ads in my lifetime.

    “Pear: The Fruit… With Ass”

    Blaming ad budgets for people’s consumption habits is teh gay. I have seen a billion ads for bullshit i’ve never been tempted to go near. If other people are so dumb that they eat shit because the TV told them so, let them get fat and live crappy lives and expire. Leave me out of it.

  138. The problem is that liberals, on the whole, actually value pragmatic, fact-based debate

    aaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  139. You would do well to start with pretty much everyone on Balkinization, but especially, of course their academic work is far, far better than the blog shit they do:
    Jack Balkin
    Mark Graber
    Stephen Griffin
    Marty Lederman
    Sanford Levinson
    David Luban
    Brian Tamanaha

    Brian Lieter, who does Philosophy of Law down at U. Texas-Austin is a great one to start with too. He has a very influential blog.

    Ronald Dworkin is not one of my personal faves, but his influence on liberal academic thought is pretty heavy. Rawls would fall into this area too.

    I tried to just name ones that have some overlap in law and philosophy which seem to be areas you have some involvement in.

    James Rachel is a great philosopher (and has a great article which plainly lays low Rand’s “ethical egoism” while being awfully fair to it). Ditto for T.S. Scanlon from Harvard.

    Naomi Klein and Maureen Dowd. That is some funny shit. Welcome to the big leagues man.

  140. “I have seen a billion ads for bullshit i’ve never been tempted to go near.”

    Wow, you are such a rugged individualist you!

    I think the fact that businesspersons spend such vast amounts on advertising indicates how much power it has. I mean, I thought you guys were the big believers in the rationality of these guys out there in the market. Those guys certainly “testify” to their belief in the power of advertising to move human behavior every time they write those fat checks for the ads.
    Of course the ads are not fucking mind control, but it’s just as silly to assume they don’t have some influence on human behavior.

    Especially the behavior of kids dude. Which is what I was talking about.

  141. I guess if I was a conservative and was so intellectually lazy or ideologically blinded or insecure in my ideology that I thought the best my opponents had were Naomi Klein and Frank Rich I would hate liberalism too.

    I can tell you one thing, you’re not going to hear much about a lot of the people I named on the Rush Limbaugh Show or in the pages of National Review, so if that is where one is getting huge chunks of their info on liberal thought then no wonder they haven’t heard of better than Klein.

    Shit, I’d love to believe the best libertarianism could muster is Michael Moynihan or Katherine Mangu-Ward, or Ayn Rand for that matter. But the truth is much thornier.

  142. Someone give me an intelligent liberal to read and I’ll gladly go for it.

    Nat Hentoff

  143. Also, PETA and the public health weenies at the CSPI.

    Let’s not forget the anti-nuclear and anti-GMO crowds.

    They’re like the Left’s version of creationists.

    Stop Playing God with Mother Nature! Radiation is Scary! I don’t understand Genetics!

  144. Nat Hentoff?

    Every conservatives favorite liberal writer is Nat Hentoff.

    No liberals favorite liberal writer is Nat Hentoff.

    That should tell people something about Nat Hentoff.

  145. Hazel
    I think the leftists I know that are concerned about nuclear power are concerned about the waste it creates. And I’m not sure that’s a very unscientific stance to hold, but I am no expert on that.

    Again, no expert, but as far as I can tell the liberal fear of genetically modified foods is unfounded and silly. But I think this is similar to the rights fear or genetic modification of humans (both are based on some vague feeling that some things are sacred and we should not “play God”). And both are similar to the libertarians rejection of climate change science.

    Most liberals have no position on GMO, really. I’m not sure I have ever heard it come up among my friends.

  146. I don’t recall ever seeing “Cauliflower: So Fucking Healthy It Hurts!” -ads in my lifetime.

    “Pear: The Fruit… With Ass”

    What is clear is that if they ever need a guy to advertise fruit and vegetables, you’re it.

  147. And I’m not sure that’s a very unscientific stance to hold, but I am no expert on that.

    It is very unscientific. Because it’s based on the belief that long-term exposure to low-level radiation is harmful.

    Yet, there has never been any evidence that long-term exposure to low-level radiation has any health effects. It’s pure conjecture based on a linear projection from high-level dosages. A linear projection, get that? What in biology is ever linear? It’s the dumbest most simplistic assumption you can make.

    The evidence actually suggests that below some threshold radiation doesn’t have any effect. A couple of years ago the WHO came out iwth a study of the effects of Chernobyl – and found that they couldn’t find squat outside of a short-term bump in thyroid cancer rates. No birth defect increases, no solid cancer jumps, other than thyroid. Squat.

    But we’re still using the linear no-threshold model because it’s a conservative estimate.

    And even in that case, if you take it in the context of global warming, we’re comparing the risk that MAYBE in several thousand years a small amount of waste mgiht leak out and cause marginal increases in cancer rates, versus … oh … massive worldwide flooding, famine, drought, starvation….

    These people really are either stupid, insane, or have some hidden agenda.

  148. I listen to Rush. That’s mostly because he comes on at 9am, just after Bill Handel’s program on LA’s KFI, and I don’t bother to change the station on my car radio.

    I enjoy his voice impersonation schticks of John McCain and Bill Clinton.

    He’s good at identifying and explaining the flaws of libruls and progressives. But he is not clear in explaining his own conservatism.

    As best I tell Rush is ditto-head himself, a Ronald Reagan worshiper. Ronaldus Maximus as he says.

  149. black people like gun control.

    Dat’s right mothafucka. Makes it easier fo us to kill whiteys.

  150. I’m a libertarian who finds Limbaugh to be an authoritarian dick. I might agree with him on a handful of issues, but I could say the same thing about Michael Moore.

    Nothing but love for Geddy, Neil, and Alex, though.

  151. In my humble opinion, both Rush and Chris Matthews are complete idiots and worthless, self-absorbed blowhards. Rush is more or less a GOP partisan hack and a defender of all of Bush’s authoritarian policies. As far as the Obama mouthpiece MSNBC is concerned, the only commentators there with any real insight that are worth listening to are the paleo-conservative Pat Buchanan and the progressive Rachael Maddow (I think they should have given them a show together, like a sane Hannity & Colmes type gig).

  152. If you’re looking for political humor on the radio dial, it wouldn’t surprise me if someone was entertained by Limbaugh.

    This thread got me listening to Michael Savage on the drive home from work. He’s the most bat-shit insane, paranoid conservative on the radio, often frightening, but I have to admit he’s usually fascinating.

  153. I dunno. I generally dislike conservatives and Republicans, but I have to admit Rush is a.) damn funny and b.) often right. Not nearly 98.9% of the time like he claims, but he’s definitely the leading voice against the bailout right now so I’ll take what I get. He’s no William Buckley, Jr. as far as intellectual capacity by any means, but he does have at least a decent understanding of free market economics.

    He’s a zillion times better than no-fun crotchety jingoistic assholes like Hannity and especially Mark Levin. Hannity’s fucking CHEESEBALL – the kind of guy who likes eagle sculptures and giant Christian choirs singing the national anthem. Does anybody actually like Mark Levin? I see an importance in distinguishing pundits on their own merits instead of lumping them together based upon political inclinations.

    Rush has got the libertarian streak, although it’s only really well expressed when the GOP is in the minority. But I guess that goes for the GOP or any party – the Dems had a libertarian streak too under the early to mid Bush years. Another good thing is that his doesn’t really inject religion much into his politics.

    I consider myself of the libertarian Left (I believe in meritocracy and equal access as a prerequisite of a free society), but honestly he’s way more entertaining than NPR and knows more about economics than most people on the Left, whose Keynesian and environmentalist policies tend to hurt the poor the most. Obama’s car emissions crackdown is just one of many examples of how the Left keeps shooting themselves in the foot.

  154. And he had some really interesting side points (like that the government lunch programs encourage the buying and serving of crappy foods; that many schools get hooked on offering sodas and fast food because they get a cut; that the ad budgets for soda alone is 100 times larger than that for fruits and veggies; that soda consumption is probably way worse for folks than McDonalds; etc).

    Reminds me, some years back I had a black friend who is a school teacher, he asked me, ‘have you ever wondered why so many black kids buy Laffy Taffy?’

    I said that I really didn’t notice, but thinking about it later, I recalled a black adult with a serious Laffy-Taffy habit.

    He answered, ‘because reps for the company came up to black teachers like me and paid us XX number of dollars a week to hand the candy out in class.’

    I asked ‘really?’, and to this day I’m not sure if he was kidding about that because he then made the joke, ‘do you think you are ready to hear the truth about grape soda?’

  155. That should tell people something about Nat Hentoff.

    That he is an intelligent liberal? That’s what the man asked for.

    At least I didn’t say Mickey Kaus! If he asked for an intelligent liberal journalist rather than “writer” I would have but I figure most people are familiar with him anyways

  156. Rawls would fall into this area too.

    No thanks. Not being a Monad, his ethical system does not apply to me.

  157. if you add to Limbaugh’s GOP fluffing his support for things like the drug war and the police.

    I’ve never gotten the impression that Limbaugh was a particularly enthusiastic supporter of the drug war or of vice laws in general. The man’s an unembarassed sybarite, after all.

    He certainly supports the police. But libertarians ought to as well, provided those police are enforcing just laws. Anarchists may believe you can have liberty without law enforcement, but sensible libertarians ought not to.

  158. No thanks. Not being a Monad, his ethical system does not apply to me.

    LOL, come on alan. What would you do if you were a thinking embryo?

  159. Except that this is a lie. Nowhere in relevant, recent history have Republicans managed to get smaller government than Democrats.

    Sure they did: 1994-2000. Both deficits and the size of government as a percentage of GDP shrunk. Part of that was economic growth, sure, but the Gingrich Congress really did care about reigning in spending. To deny that shows ignorance of history. The problems arose when Gingrich’s cadre got bounced from party leadership in the wake of the impeachment fiasco. Then you got the usual careerists in there and they went hog wild.

    Even then, the events of the last week have show Democrats to be even worse when they control Congress and the Presidency — $800 billion in pork paid for with borrowed money in the first two weeks? Egad.

  160. Matthews. What a moron. An absolute moron. There are smart and thoughtful people who think differently than I do, but this guy is a freaking dolt!

    How is it possible that he’s on TV so much?

  161. LOL, come on alan. What would you do if you were a thinking embryo?

    Wait.

  162. I swear, I hear more about Rush from the left o’ center than I do from the right-wingers I know.

    I have a nice short commute, 3 to 4 songs on one of several FM stations. Wouldn’t know where to find Rush on my local AM if you put a gun to my head.

  163. MNG sez I think the fact that businesspersons spend such vast amounts on advertising indicates how much power it has.

    The RoI is pathetic. If spending was an indication, porn and dope form more opinions than advertising.

  164. I can tell you one thing, you’re not going to hear much about a lot of the people I named on the Rush Limbaugh Show or in the pages of National Review

    That would be a fairly compelling argument if not for the inconvenient fact that National Review has mentioned those people many times, especially Balkin, Lederman and Levinson. Which is pretty impressive considering that the average Democratic Congressman has probably never heard of any of them.

  165. If anyone who is taking MNG and the other resident lefties seriously on how much better liberal thought is and wants to get an idea of what liberal flavored talk radio sounds like for yourself and the quality of thinking on it, just listen to the half hour snippet from WNYC Ron Bailey put up on the Culture Czar post below.

    It will make you laugh, cry, or terribly pissed off, probably all three at once!

  166. “Chris Matthews: Limbaugh an Objectivist”

    Limbaugh has read and spoken favorably of Rand and her writing, particularly “Atlas Shrugged”. Which from Chris Matthews perspective probably does make Limbaugh an Objectivist.

  167. “This thread got me listening to Michael Savage on the drive home from work. He’s the most bat-shit insane, paranoid conservative on the radio, often frightening, but I have to admit he’s usually fascinating.”

    Yeah, I was a captive audience of his once and after one of his spittle filled rants he played the National Anthem. I wanted to stand up and applaud but I was in a car. What a performance!

  168. As for the topic, I really have few qualms with Rush. He sided too strongly with the Neocons, imo, over the past decade on foreign policy matters (and I consider them to be the biggest bunch of traitors since the 1930’s incarnation of Trostkyites), too pro cop for my taste*, too friendly with GWB, but I don’t have any disdain for Rush, and find him amusing to listen to when I am in the mood for talk radio (maybe twenty odd hours out of an entire year). Plus, the man can describe a mean sounding steak. I’m seriously tempted by those promotions for Allen Bro.s he does.

    He certainly supports the police. But libertarians ought to as well, provided those police are enforcing just laws. Anarchists may believe you can have liberty without law enforcement, but sensible libertarians ought not to.

    * I once would have agreed with that as it sounds right in theory but as I get older the less I am prone to find it to be an accurate rule to live by, and I now have a strong tendency to avoid them due to experience.

  169. ” He certainly supports the police. But libertarians ought to as well, provided those police are enforcing just laws.”

    Yeah, cops would also be great if they just ran around handing out candy all day, too.

    They don’t do that either.

  170. “Quick show of hands: Does ANYBODY actually listen to Rush?”

    Only 2112.

  171. ya’ll some classics types…seriously, can you help me find the part in the Odyssey where Telemachus sneezes, or the part in the turner diaries where rush rocks? goin mental over here…

  172. I NEVER listen to Rush, I mean NEVER, except this one time when I was abducted by aliens who had the radio station on Rush’s show — but that’s the ONLY time, really.

  173. Alright. Here’s the thing. If you listen to Rush, or even the likes of Ann Coulter, you (libertarians) will probably enjoy all their talk of Democrats/socialism/Obama drones, etc. At their core, they really are small government-loving Republicans. So there’s something there.

    It’s just… when they talk about foreign policy, or God, or any of their social policy, you need to turn them off.

    But I wouldn’t say that I’m a fan of Rush or Ann. I just don’t hate them with them same sort of passion that most Democrats clearly do. Still, the comment was inane, but what do you expect from Chris Matthews?

  174. “But why do people who say they`re individualists, cowboys, out there all alone, refer to themselves as dittoheads? Why would you take pride in being a ditto of what Rush Limbaugh says, in other words, repeating after him every word he speaks as if it`s gospel? And it-it doesn’t make any sense. How can you be both a dittohead and an individualist?”

    Matthews has no idea what dittohead means.

    It most certainly doesn’t mean repeating whatever Rush says word for word as gospel.

    Rush never claimed to be a libertarian in the first place – he is a conservative.

    There is considerable overlap between the two on some issues – particularly economic ones, so there’s nothing remakable about liberatarians listening to him and agreeing with him on things it that arena.

  175. Chris Matthews needs to check his premises.

    HA!

  176. “At their core, they really are small government-loving Republicans.”

    if we amend this to:

    “At their core, they really are small, government-loving Republicans.”

    i think we have a deal.

  177. dhex, that may be true of many in the party, but it’s not true of the two I was talking about. Rush just put a piece out in the WSJ, in fact, arguing for smaller government, big tax cuts, etc.

    I can agree with the man on a few things and disagree with him on many; that doesn’t make his nack for expressing the few things I agree with him on any less funny. It also doesn’t make those few things I agree with him on (strongly) vanish.

    Don’t be a Matthews.

  178. Rush has a libertarian streak to him, like most non-neocon repubs. Similarly like those, he beats it down when it gets too uppity and in the way of the narrative, whatever that might be at the moment.

    This. I have heard him use very libertarian terminology, then in the next moment turn and support the WOD or something. Very weird at times.

  179. The man is a real coward when it comes to opposing viewpoints.

    Not really, most of his best calls (back when I used to listen to him semi-regularly, which would have been first Clinton term) were from liberals. Now, it seemed like the screeners did a pretty good job of finding some of the most idiotic liberals to let on, but they were there. He didnt duck them. Those that managed not to break down and go on a rant at any point would even get to be on the air a long time. Thru multiple commercial breaks even.

  180. His movies are all over the place and many times they actually contain parts that undermine other parts

    I always considered that Moore’s only good quality. That you consider that a bad thing makes you more of a pussy than Rush.

  181. Yeah. The thing about Rush is, if you don’t get caught up in the hype (“OMFG RUSH IS EVIL! AND HE’S A FASCIST! HE’S A RADICAL THEOCRAT!”), he’s not really that bad.

    He’s just another could-have-been libertarian who lost his way, imho.

  182. (But you’d have to actually listen to him once in a while, instead of just responding to what you hear on the news, to know this)

  183. Look at you, even your guesses are newspaper columnists. It really demonstrates how tenous of a grasp you have on liberalism as an intellectual movement.

    You have heard of this place called “academe” right?

    MOST of any group dont read academics. Even liberals.

  184. Yet, there has never been any evidence that long-term exposure to low-level radiation has any health effects. It’s pure conjecture based on a linear projection from high-level dosages. A linear projection, get that? What in biology is ever linear? It’s the dumbest most simplistic assumption you can make.

    The evidence actually suggests that below some threshold radiation doesn’t have any effect.

    Calling up the info I learned in my health physics classes from nearly 20 years ago…that isnt true. The evidence actually shows a BENEFIT to radiation below a certain threshold. Which isnt surprising since we evolved in a low radiation environment.

    However, because that leads to issues, 1 of 2 models is used, linear starting at a threashold or linear starting at zero. The former is better. However, even more accurate models show the max benefit about half way between the threashold and zero.

  185. I consider them to be the biggest bunch of traitors since the 1930’s incarnation of Trostkyites

    Hmmm…considering neocons ARE trotskyites….

  186. Somebody needs to straighten out Chris Mathews. I know of no libertarians that like that windbag, Rush. I certainly don’t.

  187. I suspect many of you who are talking about how horrible Rush is have never really listened to his show.

    I don’t listen to him often, because he’s on the radio here while I’m usually at work, but I used to listen more often when I was in college.

    Sure, the man is wrong on some things–the Iraq war, police support, etc. But when it comes to economic matters and a number of social issues, he’s almost always dead on, and that’s why I listen.

    And you’re seriously complaining that he doesn’t let opposing viewpoints on his show? It’s HIS SHOW, people. He doesn’t have to let others talk if he doesn’t want to. But he actually does let callers with opposing viewpoints on fairly often. And yeah, so he doesn’t usually have liberal guests on the show. But here’s the thing: Limbaugh rarely has ANY guests beyond call-in listeners on his show. He’s not like Hannity, who apparently can’t go five minutes without bringing some politician or celebrity on.

  188. Matthews can’t really be that suupid, can he? I remember when he sat in for Rush during the Lewinski scandal. What a bore. Rush has emerged as the lead conservative in America, and despite his faults (Palin love), he is our only hope in restraining the Democrats power grab. Bash him if you must, but without him we will be totally fucked, if we aren’t already.

  189. Right. I think a lot of you are having this sort of knee-jerk reaction, like “No! We can’t be lumped in with Rush! That destroys our image!”

    Well guess what, folks? We’re embroiled in an ideological war, here. The moment libertarians begin to make even a slight impact on contemporary American culture, the price will be enemies, as well as an assault on our precious “image”; and I can guarantee you that Chris Matthews will have far less “respect” for the philosophy when it starts to pose an actual threat to his left-wing utopian dream.

    Do you think Rush supports a fat tax? Making cigs illegal? Universal healthcare? What about this stimulus bill?

    I’d take him as a friend and ally over Matthews any day of the week.

  190. “I’ve never gotten the impression that Limbaugh was a particularly enthusiastic supporter of the drug war or of vice laws in general.”

    When somebody responds to the uneven treatment blacks receive in the war on drugs by stating that blacks shouldn’t be treated any more leniently, that whites need to be treated more harshly, I would say that he is an enthusiastic supporter of the war on drugs. That’s what I once heard Rush say years ago. Maybe more recently he’s not as enthusiastic about the war on drugs more recently since the flack over his illegal drug use (pain pills without prescription for his back pain). Maybe he doesn’t want to sound like such a hypocrite.

  191. If everybody could live on themselves and take care of themselves, if that could work-it doesn’t-fine.

    Sigh.

    Why would you take pride in being a ditto of what Rush Limbaugh says, in other words, repeating after him every word he speaks as if it`s gospel? And it-it doesn’t make any sense. How can you be both a dittohead and an individualist?

    One might just as well ask “How can you follow Ayn Rand and be an individualist? Aren’t you part of a group of Ayn Rand fans, mindlessly repeating her dogma?”

    One might go even further and ask how anyone belonging to a class of people calling themselves “individualists” could be individualists. By Matthews’ definition, there could be no such thing.

    Of course, what separates Randians is precisely that Objectivism emphasizes reason over dogma or feelings. When Randians call themsleves dittoheads, it means they have exercised their own reason to arrive at the same conclusion individually.

  192. Not surprisingly, the hack Mathews doesn’t understand what dittohead means, which has nothing to do with agreeing with everything Rush says.

  193. Rush Limbaugh is pure genius. He almost kept Obama out of office with Operation Chaos and his cutting edge stimulus proposal is really funny and should make conservatives really proud. I listened to him for a half hour today and I was really starting to hate our new socialist president. I know that just last month President Bush and Paulson nationalized the auto and banking industries but that doesn’t really count because the 350 billion they spent went to emergency bonuses.

  194. What’s the mystery? Limbaugh favors low taxes and smaller, less intrusive government.

    You’re kidding right?

    I find it amazing Limbaugh can make Georgia Congressman become a trained seal in matter of 15 hours for criticizing him, yet Limbaugh could never get that massive Dittohead Army to prevent President Bush II and Congressional Republicans from giving us No Child Left Behind, Homeland Security, Prescription Drug Benefits and a useless war in Iraq.

    Think about before we start about Limbaugh’s comittment to Objectivism. I doubt if he knows what the word means.

  195. yet Limbaugh could never get that massive Dittohead Army to [blah blah blah]

    I said that Limbaugh was good on a number of libertarian issues. I did not say he had the power to whip the public into line. So your complaints that he failed to prevent [insert your pet peeves here] from being made into law are all irrelevant.

    Here’s a clue for the clueless: the libertarian movement has accomplished exactly nothing in the last 40 years. We have met none of our political goals. If you want to judge a person’s libertarian worth by how many of his desires make it into law then there isn’t a fuckin’ real libertarian in the entire world. We’re all a bunch of poseurs.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.