Obama Vs. Limbaugh Vs. GOP

[ricco67]

What is the deal with Limbaugh?

I understand he is less than thrilled with the GOP in general and the election outcome, but he really seems to be particularly vile to everyone as of late and telling everyone how to turn their own jobs.

Having listened to Limbaugh (and Hannity) in the past, I discovered that he's nothing more than a man with a bad case of diarrhea of the mouth.

Do you actually think that the GOP might actually start distancing itself from this moron?

[20thStDad]

Do you actually think that the GOP might actually start distancing itself from this moron?

I REALLY hope so. He's the political equivalent of Paris Hilton - does nothing of any value, yet gets attention all the time. This country functions much better with TWO healthy parties, and right now one of them is very much ill.

EDIT: I like the term "media (or attention) whore" for Paris and Rush

[Jeebus]

He's nothing more than a more conservative focused Michael Savage. Where Savage gets lost in rants about his mother coddling him in Brooklyn, Limbaugh stays on point with Reganesqe type conservative politics.

I've always found him to be to the conservatives what the most tree-hugging, vegan, socialist protester is to the liberal side - an annoyance of impracticality.

Hannity's not far behind with his "conservatives in exile".

[Fringe]

He's the political equivalent of Paris Hilton - does nothing of any value, yet gets attention all the time.

Ha. Ha. Well said.

I may be conservative but I always hated that guy. He's to full of himself. That being said, SOMEBODY needs to take control of the Republican party. They lost focus years ago. So have the democrats unless your into socialism, but that's a whole different problem.

[Marksmu]

Ha. Ha. Well said.

I may be conservative but I always hated that guy. He's to full of himself. That being said, SOMEBODY needs to take control of the Republican party. They lost focus years ago. So have the democrats unless your into socialism, but that's a whole different problem.

If you are willing to listen to him and decipher through his arrogant attitude, alot of what Rush says is very much true. You just have to be able to tell when he is completely full of it, and when he is just exaggerating the problem. However, the shape of politics in this country has changed drastically in the last 20 years...the Democratic party is no longer a democratic party, rather it is a socialist party mascerading as a democratic party. It is 100% about taking from those who have, and redistributing it to those who have not. The Republican party is however in shambles, and has a huge portion of moderate republicans catering to this Socialist trend, especially in terms of government services.....

This country needs a completely new direction, and neither party is poised to take us there at the moment. Unfortunately - Obama simple seems to be burying the country, by enacting services that the country cannot afford, and starting a massive new socialist agenda, that he hopes to imbed into policy b/c he simply hopes to get his agenda in place, b/c everyone knows - the government is incapable of downsizing. So if he can complete his transformation, it will be nearly impossible to disassemble it.

[Highway6]

I do find Rush a little hard to take and i dont really care about his current war of words with Obama or GOP powers.

However, I find it laughable that all the democratic talking heads and some in the mainstream media are raising this much ado about Rush's "I want Obama to fail" comment.

So now that the Left is in charge, Now it's Un-American to not get in line behind the president, huh?

Maybe they didnt flat out say it in such an obvious way, but the Left wanted Bush's Iraq strategy to fail. Then it was American to not agree with the President, because dissent is the ultimate patriotic act and all that. They didnt want Bush to fail because they don't love the country, but they did want him to fail because they thought Bush's path to fix things was the wrong path and because they resented the situation Bush got us into ( as if that mattered at that point anymore )

It's the same now now with Rush's comments. He doesnt want the country to fail, He wants Obama's initatives to fail becasue he doesnt believe they will save us. HE believe they will do more to hurt then help.. Seems to me his dissent is equally patriotic, even if he is over dramatic and pompous in his delivery.

Ahh.. but now that the Left is in charge.. now dissent is unpatriotic. Bring out the rhetoric and the hypocrisy.

[Marksmu]

I do find Rush a little hard to take and i dont really care about his current war of words with Obama or GOP powers.

However, I find it laughable that all the democratic talking heads and some in the mainstream media are raising this much ado about Rush's "I want Obama to fail" comment.

So now that the Left is in charge, Now it's Un-American to not get in line behind the president, huh?

Maybe they didnt flat out say it in such an obvious way, but the Left wanted Bush's Iraq strategy to fail. Then it was American to not agree with the President, because dissent is the ultimate patriotic act and all that. They didnt want Bush to fail because they don't love the country, but they did want him to fail because they thought Bush's path to fix things was the wrong path and because they resented the situation Bush got us into ( as if that mattered at that point anymore )

It's the same now now with Rush's comments. He doesnt want the country to fail, He wants Obama's initatives to fail becasue he doesnt believe they will save us. HE believe they will do more to hurt then help.. Seems to me his dissent is equally patriotic, even if he is over dramatic and pompous in his delivery.

Ahh.. but now that the Left is in charge.. now dissent is unpatriotic. Bring out the rhetoric and the hypocrisy.

They did actually come RIGHT out and say it....I recall a speech from the scum bag Harry Reid "The war in Iraq

[sevfiv]

No offense to any hard-core partisans (or neo-McCarthyists?!) but the tired rhetoric comes from every direction.

[Jax]

As somebody who grew up in Canada I find it funny to hear people use the word "socialist" when talking about American politics. Neither party here is truly socialist if you really know what socialism really means.

When I hear somebody like Rush say that the USA is going to turn into Sweden just because we want to implement a better health care system, or raise taxes I laugh. That's like saying just because the conservatives want to cut taxes they will USA will turn into an anarchist society. Talk about hyperbole...

I also think it's interesting that in Canada, even the right-wing conservative party supports government run essential services like healthcare (yes healthcare is considered essential even by conservatives). Nobody calls them socialists or communists for doing that. They just consider it a fundamental right that any political system should provide - whether the party is left or right leaning.

Sometimes I think Canadian politics are much more civilized than American politics, although American politics are more interesting - especially now!

[Highway6]

No offense to any hard-core partisans (or McCarthyists?!) but the tired rhetoric comes from every direction.

I concur that it comes from politicians from both sides.

It's disconcerting though to see the hypocrisy from the media.. well its disconcerting to see the media's failure to be self aware of their hypocrisy.. it's either that or they assume all their viewers are blind morons.

And while im speaking specifically of CNN since thats all i watch, i recognize it's probably just as prevalent and probably worse on Foxnews and MsNBC

[TheNiche]

...the Democratic party is no longer a democratic party, rather it is a socialist party mascerading as a democratic party.

I agree with you (more or less) on stated policy preferences, but FYI democracy and socialism are not mutually exclusive of one another. Examples can be witnessed throughout western Europe in the 20th century. It doesn't help your cause to get such basic concepts wrong.

[TheNiche]

What is the deal with Limbaugh?

I understand he is less than thrilled with the GOP in general and the election outcome, but he really seems to be particularly vile to everyone as of late and telling everyone how to turn their own jobs.

Having listened to Limbaugh (and Hannity) in the past, I discovered that he's nothing more than a man with a bad case of diarrhea of the mouth.

Do you actually think that the GOP might actually start distancing itself from this moron?

He's an entertainer, not a great deal different from any ordinary stand-up comedian. It's his job and livelihood to draw people's attention, and at that he's a pro...I mean, the guy engages in chatter for three hours every day and then has to bone up on the day's events before doing it all over again the next day (and still carve out a slice of time for recreational drug use). It's hard to imagine something so professionally challenging, yet he does it well. For his professionalism, in that context, I have to respect the person.

I would suggest that people who have a problem with his act--and it is an act--look inward and look at their neighbors and look at their countrymen. Rush is an effective entertainer only because he reaches an audience. Whether the audience agrees or not with what he says, they give him attention and make his ongoing career possible. I would not go so far as to say that they make him relevant because he isn't. His audience is. Like any other aspect of mass media pop culture, Rush only reflects prevailing societal attitudes.

When members of any given political party speak out against Rush's message or influence, they're not only validating and actually improving his body of work as entertainment (George Carlin's 'Seven Dirty Words' comes to mind), but they are actually abdicating power to Rush, the individual person. They are allowing an entertainer to manipulate them as part of his act. Some might claim that Rush actually does have personal influence because millions of people listen to him and follow his orders...but if people in positions of power, who have the bully pulpit can come up with a more convincing message, then Rush's listeners can decide what policy is most convincing. It isn't as though the consumers of entertainment are all sheep, led around by stand-up comics; the sheep are all listening to the Top 40 stations...and in all seriousness, talk radio actually does have pretty good demographics, reflecting people with the capacity for independent thought and action.

[flipper]

He's an entertainer, not a great deal different from any ordinary stand-up comedian. It's his job and livelihood to draw people's attention, and at that he's a pro...I mean, the guy engages in chatter for three hours every day and then has to bone up on the day's events before doing it all over again the next day (and still carve out a slice of time for recreational drug use). It's hard to imagine something so professionally challenging, yet he does it well. For his professionalism, in that context, I have to respect the person.

I would suggest that people who have a problem with his act--and it is an act--look inward and look at their neighbors and look at their countrymen. Rush is an effective entertainer only because he reaches an audience. Whether the audience agrees or not with what he says, they give him attention and make his ongoing career possible. I would not go so far as to say that they make him relevant because he isn't. His audience is. Like any other aspect of mass media pop culture, Rush only reflects prevailing societal attitudes.

When members of any given political party speak out against Rush's message or influence, they're not only validating and actually improving his body of work as entertainment (George Carlin's 'Seven Dirty Words' comes to mind), but they are actually abdicating power to Rush, the individual person. They are allowing an entertainer to manipulate them as part of his act. Some might claim that Rush actually does have personal influence because millions of people listen to him and follow his orders...but if people in positions of power, who have the bully pulpit can come up with a more convincing message, then Rush's listeners can decide what policy is most convincing. It isn't as though the consumers of entertainment are all sheep, led around by stand-up comics; the sheep are all listening to the Top 40 stations...and in all seriousness, talk radio actually does have pretty good demographics, reflecting people with the capacity for independent thought and action.

good post.

flipper

[Fringe]

I've always believed that if a liberal station offered a conservative personality more money (and vice-versa) to reverse their stance, most would do it. It's all about money.

[Jeebus]

So now that the Left is in charge, Now it's Un-American to not get in line behind the president, huh?

Maybe they didnt flat out say it in such an obvious way, but the Left wanted Bush's Iraq strategy to fail. Then it was American to not agree with the President, because dissent is the ultimate patriotic act and all that. They didnt want Bush to fail because they don't love the country, but they did want him to fail because they thought Bush's path to fix things was the wrong path and because they resented the situation Bush got us into ( as if that mattered at that point anymore )

It's the same now now with Rush's comments. He doesnt want the country to fail, He wants Obama's initatives to fail becasue he doesnt believe they will save us. HE believe they will do more to hurt then help.. Seems to me his dissent is equally patriotic, even if he is over dramatic and pompous in his delivery.

Ahh.. but now that the Left is in charge.. now dissent is unpatriotic. Bring out the rhetoric and the hypocrisy.

This is what I struggle with. Conservatives are usually much more tolerant of the very liberals who claim to be the most tolerant, but instead are the most vocal with their dissidence.

Then they get in power and suddenly when a conservative finds a voice, he is unpatriotic, when the liberals cling to patriotism as the reason for their dissidence.

Ultimately, I'm really disappointed at the immaturity of anyone who acts like this, but even more so when people like liberals become hypocritical of something, when it no longer suits them.

As somebody who grew up in Canada I find it funny to hear people use the word "socialist" when talking about American politics. Neither party here is truly socialist if you really know what socialism really means.

I would think the modern Democratic party could easily be mistaken for a party of socialist desires, solely based on their spending plan - and what they want to spend it on.

When I hear somebody like Rush say that the USA is going to turn into Sweden just because we want to implement a better health care system, or raise taxes I laugh. That's like saying just because the conservatives want to cut taxes they will USA will turn into an anarchist society. Talk about hyperbole...

It is far reaching, but there is truth to his warning. The key is if we continue to implement these policies, the administration behind us will come in and implement more policies etc etc. Look how far we've come in government spending since the New Deal. The government is bloated with spending on programs that are in need of an overhaul.

I also think it's interesting that in Canada, even the right-wing conservative party supports government run essential services like healthcare (yes healthcare is considered essential even by conservatives). Nobody calls them socialists or communists for doing that. They just consider it a fundamental right that any political system should provide - whether the party is left or right leaning.

The worry of conservatives, and myself, is that with universal healthcare, we're going to have to share our personal doctor with the unemployed, and the illegal. The reason we work, and pay for health insurance, is so that we can go see the doctor of our choice. With universal healthcare, the best doctors who are accessable to the tax-paying middle class now, will be lost as they chose not to participate, and then raise their rates to compensate. Only the rich will be able to afford them, and suddenly we in the middle class, will feel like we're being punished again, as we'll lose our doctor and have to share with everyone else the uninspired doctors who choose to just cash a medial government check.

Create a universal healthcare system where you get credits proportionate to the amount of taxes you pay, so that you can continue to choose the best doctors your salary an afford, and I'll have no issue. But in the meantime, I refuse to support any plan that will allow the lazy and the illegal to get in line in front of me - on my one day off that I took from work, to get some antibiotics for the bronchitis I've been fighting off for two weeks at work.

[RedScare]

I find it amusing that virtually all of the responses to this thread are by conservatives. It appears that liberals are not as worked up over it as you all are.

[ricco67]

I find it amusing that virtually all of the responses to this thread are by conservatives. It appears that liberals are not as worked up over it as you all are.

My issue is that, my being a moderate conservative, he will push the GOP too far to the right. Currently, they are trying to find a way to make themselves relevent again to the mainstream. If more moderate voices come in, then they will be able to find some common ground with the "Libs" and actually get things done to satisfy both parties.

My conservative leanings are more in line with commentators like Glenn Beck who take both sides to task, regardless of party affiliation.

Limbaugh and Hanity will defend or overlook the shortcomings of the GOP members as long as they have the "®" beside their name.

[BryanS]

Not one bit concerned. Limbaugh is an idiot... so are his "followers." Always been that way.

[RedScare]

My issue is that, my being a moderate conservative, he will push the GOP too far to the right. Currently, they are trying to find a way to make themselves relevent again to the mainstream. If more moderate voices come in, then they will be able to find some common ground with the "Libs" and actually get things done to satisfy both parties.

My conservative leanings are more in line with commentators like Glenn Beck who take both sides to task, regardless of party affiliation.

Limbaugh and Hanity will defend or overlook the shortcomings of the GOP members as long as they have the "

[crunchtastic]

Rush Limbaugh has probably got a line item in his contract in the event he strokes out On The Air. And another line on it with his bookie.

[TJones]

I find it amusing that Uncle Obama's camp is all shaken up over what a Radio Personality has to say, over real issues that are at hand. It is indeed a sad state of affairs for a President when he is worried about what ONE middle-aged whiteman, who holds no office, has to say.

[RedScare]

I find it amusing that Uncle Obama's camp is all shaken up over what a Radio Personality has to say, over real issues that are at hand. It is indeed a sad state of affairs for a President when he is worried about what ONE middle-aged whiteman, who holds no office, has to say.

It appears that you don't get it, TJ. You should reread the articles on what is going on, and exactly who it is that is "shaken up".

[TJones]

It appears that you don't get it, TJ. You should reread the articles on what is going on, and exactly who it is that is "shaken up".

Why can't Rush say what he thinks? I totally get it, Obama's camp wants to make the other half of America think that the GOP is hoping he fails. Newsflash, WE ARE ! Not to forsake the country, but to show that Obama never had the answers either. Wake up, it is up to US to get America going, NOT the Govt. who keeps throwing good money after bad. Sorry to say this Crunch, but your company is a TOTAL turd of a company, and needs to get scrubbed in a nice big Chap. 11. Not have the Obama minions throw more money at it. Looks like it is time to break out the old Jeep signature again.

[Jeebus]

I find it amusing that virtually all of the responses to this thread are by conservatives. It appears that liberals are not as worked up over it as you all are.

Well, I'm not supporting him, I'm just using this thread to vent about the subject - or at least something close to it (the subject).

[musicman]

I find it amusing that virtually all of the responses to this thread are by conservatives. It appears that liberals are not as worked up over it as you all are.

some are sure aren't working.

[crunchtastic]

some are sure aren't working.

as a liberal I resent that--I still have a job! Even though Hater TJ wishes I didn't!

[memebag]

I'm a Howard Stern fan, so I'm tolerant of idiots on the radio. My problem with Limbaugh is that he presents himself not as an entertaining idiot, but as a political guru. Howard Stern could tell his listeners to vote for gay marriage (and he has) and many would ignore him. Limbaugh has more followers than listeners, and that's scary.

[TheNiche]

While Limbaugh fans love to parrot Limbaugh in claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with him is a flaming liberal...

I've never heard anybody say that. Not ever.

...the fact is Limbaugh's 10 million followers are 3% of the population, and the most hardcore right wing of the GOP. Regular moderates and even moderate Republicans do not agree with Limbaugh, and a GOP that rushes to please Limbaugh will assure that it is a loyal but minority percentage of the electorate. On any given conservative issue, no more than 30% of voters agree with it.

How do you define "follower"? How do you count them? How do you survey their political leanings and how do you then place them on an ideological spectrum? How are you defining various issues? Can you enumerate them for us? Can you cite survey statistics on the matter, issue-by-issue, establishing that no more than 30% of people will agree with Rush's stance on the size of government, on tax rates, on the level of spending, on immigration, on gun control, on abortion, or on any and all other "issues"? Btw, the word "or" is very important. If more than 30% of the electorate agrees with any one of Rush's stances on an "issue" then your statement is in fact...not a fact. For instance, if Rush has ever said that he opposes the slaughter of kittens, and 30% of Americans happen to agree with that statement, then you'd be wrong.

Inquiring minds want to know whether you're making supportable statements...or whether you're very ironically playing Rush's game, but without the excuse that you're a professional entertainer. ...oh, that's right, you're a lawyer. You're excused.

[ricco67]

I find it amusing that Uncle Obama's camp is all shaken up over what a Radio Personality has to say, over real issues that are at hand. It is indeed a sad state of affairs for a President when he is worried about what ONE middle-aged whiteman, who holds no office, has to say.

Sorry TJ, but i think you're not quite getting it;

Limbaugh is going to also wind up splintering the GOP and it is actually the Whitehouse that is taking no small amount of glee in egging this entire exchange and fanning the fires.

Don't let your ideology prejudice you to what exactly is going on.

Obama has a fairly large task ahead of him, and anyone that can hear thunder and see lightning can understand that it is going to take a nimber of years to get this turned around properly.

Anyone who thinks there is an easy remedy for something of this magnitude is just on thise side of being a totally politcal moron who thinks everything can be nothing but sunshine and lollipops if their party can clean it up in under a year.

Additionally, anyone hoping that the US doesn't recover until THEIR party goes in is about as unamerican as you can get.

[TheNiche]

Limbaugh is going to also wind up splintering the GOP and it is actually the Whitehouse that is taking no small amount of glee in egging this entire exchange and fanning the fires.

I don't see how it is in Obama's interests to try and hasten the dissolution of the GOP. A new Party or parties would only fill the political vacuum, probably providing some palatable alternatives to disillusioned centrists and idealists from both of the traditional parties.