Just to complete the process of distracting myself with total trivia, I'll mention the spin cycle rubbish of the last couple of days about Rush Limbaugh.
How pathetic can we be in this country, huh? This contemptible creature (why contemptible? because he wants this country to fail to prove an ideological point) actually gets treated as someone who matters. The chief of staff of the President of the United States elevates him, absurdly, to chief of the president's opposition. Even more absurdly, the actual chief of the opposition party spends breath denying it.
Either yesterday or the day before, as I was working out, Wolf Blitzer started to put James Carville, of all appalling people, on the air with some presumably equally appalling person (I'd never heard of the guy — name of Tony Blankley) from the "other side" to talk about it, and I just barely found the remote in time to avoid hearing it.
Moments like this confirm me once again in my firm belief that these people — Limbaugh, Carville and so forth — are all on the SAME side, and that side is opposed to the one I'm on. They reinforce and affirm each other. They live for each other. They define themselves in terms of each other. They depend absolutely on each other to raise the funds that they use to continue their destructive absurdity. They are as symbiotic as symbiosis gets.
And they deserve each other. The problem is, the rest of us don't deserve them. And yet, time and time again, we see actual, real-world issues that affect real people in this country — and the world — defined in terms of choices between these malicious cretins.
We deserve better. We deserve much better.
(What got me to thinking about this, even though it doesn't deserve to be thought about? Well, Kathleen Parker wrote about it in the column I chose for tomorrow's op-ed page.)
Related Posts
If you’re not part of the solution…
… be part of the problem.
Y’all aren’t going to believe this. So I went down to the basement and worked out a little while ago. And I’m on the elliptical trainer, in the middle of my time, and CNN is on with Wolf Blitzer, and he shows a clip from the interview with James Carville on Monday, the one that I managed to grab the remote in time to avoid two days ago!
There’s only one lesson to learn from this. You remember how the character Chef, after having the daylights scared out of him by a tiger in the jungle, says over and over, “Never get outta the boat!” — a creed by which he has obviously sworn to live henceforth?
Well, here’s mine: Never turn on the TV “news.” Not even for a few minutes. Not even so you can get some idea, for professional purposes, of how the “spin cycle” works. Never turn on the TV news…
Right — because even James Carville is deferring to him as the Great El Rushbo. And doing so with what appears to be respect.
I doubt that Rahm Emmanuel was casting Rush Limbaugh as a worthy opponent, but then I’m not sure he considers anyone in CPAC worthy. Come to think of it, I consider most of them somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun, but less lovable. Meanwhile, I’m not in love with these incredible spending sprees either, but at least some of the economic pros seem to think its the only chance we’ve got. At least Obama is putting out his budget honestly, instead of simply not budgeting for a multi-billion, excuse me, trillion dollar war. Does not mentioning it make it more palatable? Why?
Reminds me of another Republican who puts his narrow ideology over the best interests of the citizens of his state…
I am told South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford called me an idiot, not by name. But he said, “Anyone who wants Obama to fail is an idiot.” I don’t anybody else who said it. So, I guess he’s talking about– … Politicians have different audiences than I do and they’ve got to say things in different ways. So, after he said, “Anyone who wants Obama to fail is an idiot,” then went on in his own way to say, “Gosh, I hope this doesn’t work.” … He just had to say, “We don’t want the president to fail.”
Hell we don’t! We want something to blow up here politically. We want something to not go right. … We’re talking about freedom that is under assault!
the governor was not referring to anyone in particular
Steele is not the “chief of the party”, he’s a chairman of a committee. Leadership is defined as getting people to buy into a common vision and working to support it. MLK Jr. is an example. Rush is another.
Brad, this is a problem for ONE party. You do not see elected dems kissing the ring of a celebrity or kissing his butt when they cross him.
Rush has extended an invitation to Obama to come on his program and debate him on any issue he chooses. Or, if Obama cannot make, Rush invites him to send an alternate.
Now, I don’t listen to Rush. He bores me to death but I would listen to this one.
What does bother me a little is why go after Rush Limbaugh? He has his audience but is not the influence Democrats think he is. My friends and fellow conservatives agree he has some good points at times but as far as following this guy, forget it! If the attacks continue, there may be a major backlash. Don’t ever underestimate the voters who may perceive this as a piling on and see Rush as the underdog. And, Americans have a tendency to support the underdog.
There is another crashing bore who has only one original idea and beats it to death. Hannity’s sole purpose in life is to get a liberal or Democrat to admit they are wrong. And, I would rather have the proverbial “poke in the eye with a sharp stick” than watch or listen to Bill O’Reilly. A damn bully and “bloviating” loudmouth.
For me, all of these guys are nothing more than comedians in the Don Rickles style. This includes Keith Olberman who was a dismal failure on ESPN, Chris Matthews (I hope his leg is over the tingle) Tucker Carlson, Scarborough, and all of the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX. They are entertainers, nothing more.
I didn’t think it was possible to be more disgusted at the leaders of this country after the last four years. But this ordeal just piles it on.
Rush Limbaugh is obviously a pompous windbag who slings propaganda and half-truths around to make the Democrats look bad. It’s what he’s always done. What do you expect? Why can’t we just ignore him by now?
And I know Republicans go out of their way not to offend him despite all of the crap he says. They do not escape my vitriol. I find it to be disgusting. But find me one Republican or Democratic politician who won’t go out of his or her way to avoid offending a constituency group. It’s not exactly surprising.
But give me an effing break! The Obama administration has said it is their desire that Republicans work with them and try to be constructive. Uh, WHAT? You cannot offer out a hand of bipartisanship to the same people you are DELIBERATELY painting as out-of-touch fringe loonies. The Obama Administration, by saying stuff like Limbaugh is the “head of the Republican Party” and the “intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party,” is engaging in pure propaganda. To say Obama represents some sort of idea of post-partisanship is foolishness.
Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer who can easily be ignored. The Obama Administration on the other hand is supposed to be leading this godforsaken country! This is not leadership!
I can’t believe any of you out there think that the Democratic Party represents “change” from the Republicans or that Obama is different than any other Democrat. I don’t know who I’m angrier at, the Obama Administration or the idiots who still think the President represents “change”.
But by all means America, keep on voting for these (R and D) bullshitters. And keep believing America will forever be a wonderful and prosperous country.
When you read the morning paper this should catch your attention.
Overall, Timmerman’s compensation last year was nearly half from 2007, when he earned nearly $3.6 million.
The difference was that he sold $1.8 million in company stock in 2007. He sold none last year.
Timmerman, 62, stands to make much more in coming years from stock awards based on the company’s recent performance.
The stock awards, which are not included in The State’s executive compensation calculations until they are sold, were worth up to $4.6 million last year — nearly triple from 2007 and 15 times more than 2006.
Once again Brad misses the point, by a mile. Once upon a time we had two political parties who engaged in open, honest debate about issues on their merits. Sometimes it got ugly. Sometimes brutally ugly. But the focus was always on the way policy affected the American people. Until Rush came along you could pretty much count on the debate to be constructive, even if at times it was rancorous.
And then came Rush. He single handidly changed the landscape of political dialogue. The Democrats were caught off guard and dismissed him as some kind of kook. Well he certainly is a kook, but his vitriol, dishonesty and flamboyance caught on with the Republican party. Eventually it began to affect the process of governing our country. This all came to a head with whole Clinton impeachment fiasco.
It was clear now that Rush was a force. His dittoheads were mobilized and dangerous. We ended up with 8 years of George W. Bush and the catostrophic results of that idiot are now clear for all (but the dittoheads) to see. We have endless imperialistic war, a sinking economy, feastering problems with healthcare and education and a whole laundry list of problems to deal with. All because of Rush and his spinoffs Orielly, Hannity, Beck and the rest.
The Democrats slow response was provoked by necessity. We now have Keith Olberman, Randy Rhodes and Air America. It’s not a perfect counterbalance but at the end of the day it proved to be enough to tip the scales back toward sanity.
Here’s the bottom line. Rush and his ilk poisoned political discourse. The liberals, with no real choice, started to fight back in kind. Do liberals like this approach? Hell no. We hate this kind of vitriol. I’d prefer to see honest debates about real issues with real solutions. That’s why liberal talk radio never caught on. We just don’t like the concept. But this is a necessary evil to counter the reckless dangers of the lunatic right.
Unfortunately many people, including Brad, miss the point. And miss it badly. The real threat to meaningful dialog is from the blathering dittoheads on the right. This is not, repeat not a problem equally shared by liberals and conservatives. Liberals, rather than being a part of the problem, are merely reluctantly fighting back. The entire blame belongs to conservatives.
Fortunately Rush is now less popular than Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers. That’s good news for the Democrats and even better news for America.
Once again Brad misses the point, by a mile. Once upon a time we had two political parties who engaged in open, honest debate about issues on their merits. Sometimes it got ugly. Sometimes brutally ugly. But the focus was always on the way policy affected the American people. Until Rush came along you could pretty much count on the debate to be constructive, even if at times it was rancorous.
And then came Rush. He single handidly changed the landscape of political dialogue. The Democrats were caught off guard and dismissed him as some kind of kook. Well he certainly is a kook, but his vitriol, dishonesty and flamboyance caught on with the Republican party. Eventually it began to affect the process of governing our country. This all came to a head with whole Clinton impeachment fiasco.
It was clear now that Rush was a force. His dittoheads were mobilized and dangerous. We ended up with 8 years of George W. Bush and the catostrophic results of that idiot are now clear for all (but the dittoheads) to see. We have endless imperialistic war, a sinking economy, feastering problems with healthcare and education and a whole laundry list of problems to deal with. All because of Rush and his spinoffs Orielly, Hannity, Beck and the rest.
The Democrats slow response was provoked by necessity. We now have Keith Olberman, Randy Rhodes and Air America. It’s not a perfect counterbalance but at the end of the day it proved to be enough to tip the scales back toward sanity.
Here’s the bottom line. Rush and his ilk poisoned political discourse. The liberals, with no real choice, started to fight back in kind. Do liberals like this approach? Hell no. We hate this kind of vitriol. I’d prefer to see honest debates about real issues with real solutions. That’s why liberal talk radio never caught on. We just don’t like the concept. But this is a necessary evil to counter the reckless dangers of the lunatic right.
Unfortunately many people, including Brad, miss the point. And miss it badly. The real threat to meaningful dialog is from the blathering dittoheads on the right. This is not, repeat not a problem equally shared by liberals and conservatives. Liberals, rather than being a part of the problem, are merely reluctantly fighting back. The entire blame belongs to conservatives.
Fortunately Rush is now less popular than Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers. That’s good news for the Democrats and even better news for America.
Fortunately Rush is now less popular than Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers.
Says who, bud? MSNBC, Hugo Chavez or your spelling teacher?
How much money are Wright and Ayers making on their radio shows?
Limbaugh is just a capitalist, so of course your socialist hero — “the one — the one who plans to tax you and me and everybody else with the cap ‘n’ trade plan that will send electricity prices through the roof — has picked him to fight.
Ditto birch on that one. Why’s the leader of the free world wasting his time fighting a talk show host?
And to correct something you got half right, bud: Liberals, rather than being a part of the problem, ARE the problem.
I don’t see any indication that Brad, bud, or Karen have any understanding of what Mr. Limbaugh and others are saying about the real agenda of Barack Obama.
The same is true of commentators on TV, voicing opinions which are are not based in the facts about Barack Obama, or the facts about what Rush Limbaugh and others are saying.
All such ignorant people can do is dismiss the critics of Obama on some preconceived basis.
Now that it’s been pretty well established that Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party where do we go from here? Limbaugh is nothing but an entertainer who espouses policy proposals that have already been tried, several times, and they have all failed. Our economy has tanked based on the unfettered free-market model that was implemented during Bush Jr’s adminstration. Since it has been established that the GOP way is a huge failure it becomes clear what to do.
First, the Democrats need to craft policies that will work to make us safe and prosperous again. These policies should include pragmatic solutions to the failures of Republican healthcare, failed Republican security policies and above all failed Republican economic policies. Simply gutting the policies of the failed Bush Administration is a start.
Second, once we’ve eradicated the failed Bush policies effective, adult policies need to be passed. The House of Representatives is safe from the meddling of the tyranical GOP. But what about the Senate? Once Al Franken finally takes his rightful place in the Senate the good guys will control 59 seats. That’s one short of the magic 60. It’s simple enough for the Democratic leadership to bring proposals to the floor and simply allow the Republicans to make fools of themselves (as if they need any help) and let them filibuster away. The Dems could wait it out and eventually pass pragmatic, effective legislation. But the GOP is a determined bunch and they could talk for weeks. Perhaps the nuclear option will be needed. If Reid has the stomach for it the Dems could change the senate rules to allow for a filibuster closure based on a simple majority. Given the stakes involved this may be necessary. But first we should probably just let the GOP idiots show the world just what a failed party they’ve become. Let them filibuster.
In the end perhaps some valuable lessons can be learned and the whole world will understand just what a bunch of obstructionist fools this merry band of nincompoops has become. But eventually common sense will prevail and the Dems will once again save the day. But it may be ugly getting there.
If Rush wants to debate the president head to head, then he needs to run for office and get nominated by the Republic Party. The idea that this loud-mouthed ignoramus could possibly really lead the Republicans into the next election is perhaps the surest way to scare 80% of the electorate into voting for Obama again regardless of his record.
Listening to Rush convinces me that we did the right thing in turning the Republicans decisively out of power. Rather than appealing to the majority, Rush is scaring them and is only providing self-justifying reasons for the determined zealots on the far right who want us to become a Christian version of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Rush Limbaugh for Ayatollah!!
Bud, Rush Limbaugh is no more the leader of the Republican Party than you are a prominent talk show host.
The Democratic leaders will craft policies that make them safe and prosperous and keep you hanging on the hook they have you on now.
Al Franken has no more rightful place in the Senate than you have teaching spelling.
You should have put one more “i” in “adminstration” and one more “n” in “tyranical”.
By the way, the tyrants — Schumer, Rangel, Pelosi, Frank et al — are in charge now.
How could you possibly mistake that ragtag bunch of self-centered primates for Justice League of America types.
Here’s hoping that when they crack the tax whip, you somehow avoid its lashes.
Good morning, Rich!
Sure is ironic you turned up talking about a loud-mouthed ignoramus.
I hear they need some history teachers over in France.
Bon voyage!
US Congressmen are kissing Limboss’ butt. That speaks volumes about the state of the GOP. The formal leadership of the GOP is herded through CPAC, the organization that made Limboss the keynote, to reaffirm their extremist positions of goverment is bad and tax cuts for the rich.
The ditto-heads on this site put Boss on a pedstal by apparently suggesting in all seriousness that the president is engaging or could consider debating Limbaugh. That’s akin to Duke U. asking Lee to be a guest lecturer for a class on logic – it’s meaningless to even mention it.
As long as the GOP espouses tax cuts and cutting government, they’ll remain a provincial party. The governor of La, Mr. Rogers, or the Pit Bull with lipstick have no chance in 2012 despite all the adoration from the right wing echo chamber.
Each right winger post on this site; every appearence by Maulkin, Limboss, Coulter, Cantor, and Jindal; and every syllable uttered by Palin simply pushes the GOP that much closer to the cliff.
The 2012 election is pretty much set in stone right now. Barring some type of 9-11/Pearl Harbor event the economy is likely to trump any other considerations. Regardless of whether you like Obama or not he’s a total shoe-in for re-election if the economy turns around. Heck a 9-11 event could even bolster his chances. It doesn’t matter who the GOP nominates, the only thing that matters is the performance of Obama, especially, perhaps exclusively, in the economic arena. On the other hand if the Bush recession becomes the Obama recession the GOP has an opening. Perhaps that’s why they are so zealous to continue their obstructionist ways.
bud,
You might want to stop all planning to corronate Rush as leader of the Republican Party. Some interesting facts are available if you are interested which I seriously doubt you would be.
Personally, I don’t care one way or the other about Rush and he is most certainly not my leader.
However, I do care about the lies spread by both sides and the manipulation of America by self-serving bastards like Carville, the original “official” political attack dog. Then to have the POTUS lower himself to indulge in the same gutter behavior no matter what his political affiliation may be just enhances the simple fact that politics and ideology now overshadows anything good for this country and that includes you.
First, the poll you refer to was taken by Carville and Greenburg’s polling company, Democratic Corps, not a reliable source of bipartisan information. The information gleened from the poll only confirmed what most Americans have known for a very long time. Most Americans don’t like Rush. They never have. Duh! He appeals to the far right just like Olbermann appeals to the far left. Do you watch Olbermann and hang on to his every utterance?
Second, Gallup has a poll for 2009 and one for 2003 and the results are almost identical. Rush had better numbers from the Republican side than from the Democrats. Tell me something new for a change.
Third, Rush has never been a very popular figure with the average American. His numbers in 2007 on the negative side were at 62% and remain very high.
Fourth, 81% of Republicans are very clear that Rush is not the party leader. 8% are undecided and only 11% say he is. That is a damn far cry from an acknowledgment of his leadership. Again, a lie perpetrated by Democrats because for the most part, Rush scares the hell out of them for some reason or another. If he is so damn insignificant nationwide, why is he such a thorn in the side of Obama?
Fifth, the death knell of the Republican Party is a bit premature. In 2007, Democrats had a 6 point lead. In 2008, Democrats had a 10 point lead. In 2009, the lead is back down to a 7 point lead. The indications are that as this economy continues to tank, the numbers will move against Democrats if their control does not produce the results promised.
Sixth, traditionally in this country, more people have identified themselves as Democrats over Republicans when polled.
Seventh, for over 20 years, this country has been engaged in extremely divisive politics and it has finally come to the point where cooperation is not in a politicians vocabulary. Both sides have had their turn at bat and neither has been able to deliver on their promises. There is no doubt Republicans screwed up and are paying for it. But, without a viable third party avialable to welcome those of us who are damn tired of the crap from the D&Rs, we are left with limited options.
So, if all Rohm Emmanuel, Obama, and Democrats have is to demonize the Republican party by annointing Rush as the party leader, that is so damn pathetic it is beyond description. If Democrats are so insecure that they have to turn to Joseph Goebbels type tactics, this country is in deep s@#t. If the policies of this new administration are so wonderful, they should be able to pass on their own muster without resorting to “Saturday Night Special” cheap shots.
The more I hear and read about their obsession with Rush, the more I think something is terribly wrong with Obama and his crew. The mouse shouldn’t be scaring the hell out of the lion.
Their behavior reminds me of a high school rivalry, not the manner in which we were promised a new beginning, change, hope, and all of the other political BS rhetoric.
This is beyond juvenile and sophomoric. Taking time from what is actually important to address a political talk show host? What’s next from this conglomeration of intellectuals? “Your mother wears combat boots?”
You know, it’s always interesting to hear Brad plead for “unparty” bipartisanship, as if somehow there weren’t voices of obstruction in and out of the government that simply have not accepted that the Republicans have been decisively beaten in the last two elections. You can no more have bipartisanship with a disloyal opposition than you can play baseball with one team.
Limbaugh’s blowhard rhetoric may appeal strongly to the right-wing bloggers here who are curiously silent about the billion-dollar bombers, expensive wars, and counterproductive tax cuts that have gotten us into this mess. Do they really want us to believe that freeing capitalism in this country from government regulation and reducing taxes on the wealthy while the workingclass starves or goes without health care and adequate education is really the way to go?
If they do, then they live in fantasyland. Our economic crisis isn’t just the crisis of capitalism; it’s the definitive crisis of a bankrupt Republican ideology that, after eight years, has not only attempted to foist the Christian Right’s nonsensical religious agenda upon the rest of the country, but has also brought us to the brink of economic disaster.
Time to dust off Michael Harrington’s old books on the need for some of sort socialism in America.
Sorry, it should have been “coronate” with one n, not two.
Sorry – should have been “coronate”.
In response to Bart’s comment, it’s not the Democrats who are scared of Rush…it’s just about every elected Republican official plus Michael Steele, who if they dare to voice opinions anywhere close to Bart’s, find that they must immediately backtrack and apologize to Limbaugh.
On the contrary, Democratic leadership and probably Obama himself would love nothing more than to build up Limbaugh (if such a thing is possible). Rush is the one of the greatest gifts to Democratic electoral hopes that exists today. It is no accident that the Dems are loving puffing him up. If the GOP decides in their post-election debacle that their supposed need to “return to their roots” is filled by turning to Limbaugh-ism, then that guarantees the GOP as a minority, even quasi-third-party status for a generation or more. Are the Dems playing politics by this, you bet.
Obama won and Democrats running for Congress won because the Republican party ceded the center to them. The fact that Republican leadership is so terrified of Limbaugh that they will kowtow to him and his ilk shows that they seem to prefer locking in the extreme right wing at the cost of permanently yielding any appeal to centrist, moderate Americans.
The GOP can avoid this by putting forth different kind of leadership and by telling Rush where he can stick it.
Bart you conveniently ignore some important facts. It was the GOP that had Rush Limbaugh give its keynote address at its marquee political event, CPAC. The crowd was jubilant as they hung on his every word. It was Michael Steele who went groveling back to Rush in order to atone for the unforgiving sin of calling Rush an “entertainer”. Many prominent GOP politicians, including VP Cheney are regulars on Limbaugh’s show. Sure Rush is not the leader of the party in any official capacity but when it comes to setting the tone for the party’s agenda Rush is indisputably the mouthpiece. Given the utter lack of any real leader from the elected ranks along with the over-the-top groveling by Steele and other it’s clear that Rush serves as the de-facto leader of the GOP. Since we’re even having this discussion at all is a pretty damning indictment of the Republican Party.
No, of course Democrats aren’t “scared of” Rush, Phillip. They love him. Or they should. Without him, they can’t whip up their people to keep the campaign donations rolling in. What else are they going to do? Demonize Michael Steele? No way; that’s why the GOP picked him. Rush is absolutely essential to what political parties are all about — stupid, pointless antagonism for its own sake, forever perpetuating itself.
Your more partisan Democrats need Rush particularly now. Have you noticed how hard it’s been for them to give up demonizing W? The angry left is still demanding investigations into all the terrible things he supposedly did. Not just the loony left, either. Even the Establishment New York Times, as recently as yesterday, absurdly accused the ex-pres of “mangling the Constitution.” (Prompting me to do a quick check of our founding document — yep, still there, still working.)
But that going on and on about the guy who used to be president is going to wear thin eventually (one certainly hopes, as one hopes for one’s sanity). So they’ve got to have Rush.
And Bart — wouldn’t it be simpler to say “crown,” rather than “coronate?”
More military officers are joining a lawsuit demanding proof of Barack Obama’s legal authority to issue commands to them.
Instead of producing proof of US citizenship, Obama has hired teams of lawyers to stall the 9 lawsuits which are proceeding through the federal courts.
Rich, you say “right-wing bloggers here … are curiously silent about the billion-dollar bombers, expensive wars, and counterproductive tax cuts that have gotten us into this mess.”
Good point, Rich. Your Democrat buddies had control of Congress the last two years, and Congress controls appropriations.
Why didn’t y’all stop funding the war?
Why did your guys vote to support it in the first place?
The angry left is still demanding investigations into all the terrible things he supposedly did…absurdly accused the ex-pres of “mangling the Constitution.” (Prompting me to do a quick check of our founding document — yep, still there, still working.) Brad
Brad, you’ve taken your anti-partisanship to an absurd level. Holding the president accountable is not partisan, it’s justice. Have you not read and heard Cheney revise the role of the VP? You ignore waterboarding? This week legal documents from the W administration stated that the president could deem ANYONE in the US a terrorist and put them away. That is most certainly a mangling of the spirit of the Constitution. (BTW, there was language about subverting media as well.)
I find it striking that a newsman would take such a hawkish perspective.
I agree with you Weldon. The Dems in congress should stop funding the wars. That is something I’m very disappointed in them for not doing.
Brad, would you say it’s preferable for us, the American public, just to forget about everything regarding the Bush Administration, not to look into any of the questionable overreaches of executive power, not to try to learn anything at all so as to try to avoid certain mistakes in the future? Is that the function of a healthy democracy? Should the State just not bother writing articles about the missteps of our local Columbia government? If there were signs of major corruption or infringements upon the law even after the mayor in question had left office, would that prevent the State from digging into the story for the greater knowledge of the citizenry? Your position seems, unusual, let’s say, for a newspaperman to hold.
What’s the saying, “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”? Isn’t knowledge, truth, gathering facts, a good thing? The question is how to best obtain this knowledge?
And as far as “needing” Rush, don’t blame the Democrats for puffing him up. Rush would not be dominating the news cycle if it weren’t so crystal clear that GOP leadership is terrified of him. Rush may be the gift that keeps on giving, but that would end the moment the Republican Party would decide (and that goes back to John McCain/Sarah Palin/Joe the Plumber’s disastrous campaign) to stop running hard to the right, and to aggressively reclaim the center.
Let us know when you are ready to discuss the points Rush Limbaugh and others are making about Hussien Obama:
1. He is governing far to the left of any centrist, bipartisan image he tried to convey during the campaign.
2. All that talk about “accountability” and “ending business as usual” was just talk.
3. Anyone who believed those yarns about “balancing the budget by cutting wasteful and obsolete programs” should feel really stupid by now.
4. One minute, Obama says American needs “my plan for recovery right now”, and the next minute, the waste and pork are not his, but “last year’s business”.
5. Since experts agree that this spending spree is unlikely to save or produce any jobs, and the bailouts cause the stock prices to plummet, is Obama really interested in economic recovery, or in wrecking the private sector so the feds can confiscate entire business sectors of banking, transportation, medicine and retirement accounts?
Convict Dick & W
Touche, bud.
Weldon,
Under our constitution, Congress is a fundamentally undemocratic institution because of the Senate. Not only do states with a very low population have the same two senators as very populous states, but DC isn’t even represented. What’s more, you need 60 votes to get anything done.
Thus, you can have an overwhelming majority in the House and a president of the same party, but even if you have a majority in the Senate, senators from the minority party representing a scant 11% of the total population can completely stifle any bill they don’t like.
This is why Congress never seems to move with great dispatch unless both parties are completely agreed, and that happens rarely nowadays.
It’s time to abolish the Senate and go to a unicameral legislature for all 50 states and for Congress itself.
States don’t need representation in Congress; people do.
This is like watching a bunch of dogs standing around eating dung, vomiting, eating it, vomiting again, eating again over and over and so on and so on.
The Republic of Texas has the right to split itself into five states, each with two US Senators. Wouldn’t that be fun!
No, Rich, like I’ve told you before, a direct democracry would make the United States a third-world country within a decade (see de Tocqueville).
Thing is, Obama appears poised to destroy our country in spite of the protective mechanism the Senate was designed to be.
Watch with pride as he dismantles our time-honored institutions one by one.
When Wright said “God d*mn America,” I believe Obama mouthed the words with him.
By the way, at my first check today, the Dow stood at 6,666.60 and closed even lower. GE closed at 6.66 a share.
Quite a revelation, huh?
When those Obama lovers wake up and find out that they have no nest egg to provide them with enough money to have a comfortable lifestyle, maybe they can blame Bush. Was all of these plans to destroy our nation made in Rev. Wright’s church in Chicago? The chickens that have come home to roost were ready to have their neck wrung when he took office and he wasted no time in placing the noose around our necks and plucking us clean of our savings for retirement.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Maybe we are already on the other side and do not know it. The other side being socialist/communist.
Slugger, my mother’s retirement was devastated as of Jan 19, 2007.
I continue to find the hyperventalating about “socialism” not only hypocritical but almost amusing. Phil Gramm, W, and REPUBLICAN congress were free to deregulate the financial market and cut taxes for the wealthy these past few years and the economy cratered. The GOP simply has nothing to offer but more of these same tried and failed measures. I’d love to see any of the ditto-heads posting on this site to share an alternative approach. If you don’t believe in spending, then we what, cut taxes on the wealthy again? We cross our fingers and hope the economy rebounds?
There’s a concrete-linear litmus test for these clearly disproven conservatist “principles”, are we better off now than in 2000? The answer is a resounding NO!
“…….Phil Gramm, W, and REPUBLICAN congress were free to deregulate the financial market and cut taxes for the wealthy these past few years and the economy cratered……”
Randy,
I hold Bush accountable for not being more aggressive on regulating Fannie and Freddie. And in case you forgot, during ALL eight years of Bush, not once did he have a veto proof majority in congress like Obama does now. It has been documented, verified, and video proofed Democrats were the obstructionists on regulations because of their devotion to social engineering.
The hearings when regulations were asked for devolved into charges against Republicans and those asking for more regulation of racism, lynching, and wanton abandonment of the American dream for poor people who wanted to own their own home by Democrats, especially Barney Frank and every black member of the committee.
John McCain tried to get a bill through but to no avail. No one wanted to take up the cause because every time it was mentioned, the person bringing it up was immediately attacked with the same venom from Democrats.
More than one economist sent up warning signals about the pending disaster but no one wanted to listen. Predatory lenders, speculators, and unqualified borrowers are the primary reason we are where we are. Liars who bundled toxic loans with good ones further exasperated the situation.
This has been hashed and rehashed to death. It would be a welcome relief if for once a Democrat would admit to the truth of the matter. Without bipartisan support, regulations were not going to pass during the Bush years. Democrats were not going to cross the line and there were just not enough Republicans in congress to get it done.
Your argument doesn’t hold up on this one.
Let’s have hearings on the FMAE and FMAC mortgage scams. All the board members who lied in the quarterly reports about profits when there were actually losses, and collected millions in bonuses, should be put on trial so we can get to the bottom of this.
That would be:
* Rahm Emanuel
* Jamie Gorelick
* 15 other advisors and staffers of Hussein Obama.
And in case you forgot, during ALL eight years of Bush, not once did he have a veto proof majority in congress like Obama does now. – Bart
The democrats don’t have 60 senators. They needed 3 republicans for the stimulus. (I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean filibuster proof.)
The GOP congress (REPUBLICAN CONGRESS) spent money like drunken sailors and HE LET THEM. He didn’t veto a single bill NOT ONE because it was a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS. They controlled the government for years and now suddenly the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility, LOL.
How silly to blame Fannie and Freddie for this entire mess.
You still won’t admit Democrats stood in the way of enacting regulations for Fannie and Freddie.
Silly my ass! The loose management of Freddie and Fannie with the support of Frank and Dodd is directly responsible for most if not all of this mess. Don’t forget, Obama was also a recipient of FMAE and FMAC largesse. Oh, just to be fair, Republicans received payoffs as well, just not as much.
I have no problem in placing blame on Bush for not using his veto and allowing the rampage of unchecked spending to go on as long as it did. There, feel better. And, I will admit that Republicans forgot who they were supposed to be, instead acted like Democrats.
Now, have the intellectual honesty required to allow for the fact that it was the Democrats who continued to block new guidelines and regulations that could have prevented most of the disaster we face now. Fannie and Freddie are the primary contributors and that cannot be denied.
What is the GOP answer to this crisis? Bart? Beuller…Beuller…
That’s the worst spell of “Bueller” we’ve had around here since you tried to spell it the last time, Randy.
The messiah would be ashamed of you.
PM, that’s all you have? Your provincial party took the country to the brink of disaster and you nitpick about the spelling of a fictitious character? Sad.
I’ll take that as confirmation that you are indeed clueless about the economic crisis facing this country hence the reliance on parroting tax cut platitudes.
Nah, Randy, your worship of Obama has left you clueless.
I haven’t parroted tax-cut platitudes, but your president has had them adopted.
Why don’t you read what’s in his bills before you show your ignorance again?
Weldon, you’ve done nothing but parrot Limbaugh talking points. Have you even an iota of what should be done about this economic crisis? ANYTHING?
My bet is we’ll continue to hear Poly wanna cracker.
I don’t listen to Limbaugh, Randy.
And from now on, I don’t pay any attention to obnoxious little brain cramps like you.
Do you have any idea what an idiot you look like to anyone with half a grain of common sense?
Randy,
It’s great to see you back on the blog defending our new government. I have been so busy lately, I have barely had the time to keep up.
Watching Limbaugh on the news, however, has been a horror show. While the Democracy will inevitably benefit from the internecine warfare currently raging in the Republic Party, it is sad to the see the party of Lincoln–the party of Union, free soil, free labor, fiscal conservatism, land-grant colleges, and civil rights for African Americans during and after Reconstruction (that noble experiment!)–implode into the ridiculous.
Limbaugh is a caricature of a party that is a shadow of its former self. Why? Because it has lost the roots I mentioned in the previous paragraph. It has become the party that says to us that if there is a crisis and people are starving, don’t have health care, are being kicked out of their homes, have schools that are caving in, or are inadequately protected by too few police and inadequate state social services, then the solution is the coax the RICH into perhaps, just maybe investing in the economy if their marginal tax rate is decreased and the capital gains tax abolished.
If the poor are starving, the best way to help them, according to the Republicans, is to give the rich even more money.
Yeah, that makes sense!! After all, the government doesn’t really have the right to tax us, does it? Read the 16th amendment to the constitution. Or is that, too, a socialist abomination.
Tell me, Lee, after you’ve made your first billion, how many more billions do you need to be comfortable and put food on the table?
What I worry about, and I think we need to stare this specter right in the face, is a coup d’état by the unreconciled right wing.
Sinclair Lewis wrote a book in the 30’s about it during FDR’s presidency entitled, “It can’t happen here!”
You never know. The rich, after all, do not like paying taxes. That’s for poor people and the middle classes.
I think everyone knows by now the NYT is definitely not a conservative rag. Agreed? Randy has not answered anything I posed except for a tired response from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. Back to my point Randy. Here is a complete reprint of an article in the NYT on September 30, 1999. If you don’t believe the authenticity of the article, go to the NYT archives and check.
============================================
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: Thursday, September 30, 1999
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.
”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”
Under Fannie Mae’s pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 — a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990’s. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.
In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.
Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.
In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.
The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.
============================================
The warnings are in the article and by no less than the NYT. If your attention span and comprehension level was sufficient enough to absorb all of the information and implications of this prophetic article, maybe there is a slim chance you may actually understand the root cause of our present economic situation.
Response Randy? Bueller? Bueller? – Right!
Silly my ass! The loose management of Freddie and Fannie with the support of Frank and Dodd is directly responsible for most if not all of this mess. – Bart
Bart, I read the article you apparently suggest is justification for your statement I have quoted above. Where in the article does it suggest that F&F would be THE cause of an economic crisis? Justify your statement. Pull up another article. ANY article that points to F&F.
Did F&F contribute? Was the Clinton Admin involved? Certainly. They were part of the wave but the tsunami was mostly the result of the earthquake caused by Gramm and GOP deregulation.
The pettiness about Beuller or Bueller is sad.
You made my point. Your comprehension level IS minimal.
Pettiness? On whose part?
“What is the GOP answer to this crisis? Weldon? Beuller…Beuller…”
Randy E
LOL, Bart, it’s a simple question. Where in the article does it point to F&F being a potential cause for a depression.
Can you provide a single article as evidence?
My Bueller reference simply highlights the fact that ditto-heads on this site cannot offer up any plan they support to address the crisis. NADA!
My bet is you’ll toss some more red herrings and dodge the issue again…
Obama vs the workers
* The energy taxes will be passed along to everyone in every tax bracket.
Many utility bills will increase 20 to 40 percent.
* The repeal of the Bush tax cuts will raise everyone’s taxes, because the Bush tax cuts were across the
board, for everyone. The media working family got over $2,500 in tax cuts, which the Democrats will take away.
* Obama inherited a recession caused by Democrats’ mortgage programs for unqualified minorities and illegal
aliens.
Obama inherited huge deficits caused by Democrat control of the House and Senate in 2007 and 2008.
* Obama’s top advisers celebrate this spending spree as picking up where the failed New Deal left off.
Robert Reich cheers it as “a revolutionary expansion of the federal government”.
* Pelosi and Reid wrote the stimulus $787 billion spending bill of 2009 and the current $410 billion Omnibus extra spending bill. They told Hussein they were not going compromise with Republicans. Barack is just their salesman, but he likes it, because he is more socialist than they are.
2006 Fox News Poll. 51% of Democrats want President Bush to fail.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/FOX_230_release_web.pdf
August 2006, a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll asked the following of 900 registered voters:
Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?
51% of Democrats voted ‘NO’, they did not want President Bush to succeed.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, James Carville told a press conference that he wanted President Bush to fail. He repeated it several times.
Thanks for this story because the story will implement the democracy
Good words about presidents i agree with this
Christena
Lock in your price today for Your favorite channels – and keep it there until 2010!
Moments like this confirm me once again in my firm belief that these people …..good line
Christena
The only Satellite Television Delivers the Best Value in Entertainment