The New Bad Guy: Rush Limbaugh

Originally posted by jsobecky
The American public is overwhelmingly conservative. The R's lost the election because they lost their conservative ideals.

Yes, I agree with that.

Well, and having nearly the ENTIRE media act as your personal PR group did not hurt Obama. The amount he did not have to spend probably comes into the billions! Frankly the surprise is that so much effort went into it and his margin--which was large--was not even larger.

Of course, if you look at the national voting maps, you see it's pretty much same as it ever was. Some states shift back and forth every 4-8 years but on the whole, the majority of space is red and the majority of population-density and coastline is blue.

PJ

The American public is overwhelmingly conservative. The R's lost the election because they lost their conservative ideals.

That all depends how you define "conservative" - ask two different conservatives and chances are you'll get two different answers.

As far as the election goes, the majority apparently thought Palin was far enough to the right that she scared them, so...

Really, if America was as conservative as conservatives like to tell themselves, we'd be arguing about the McCain/Palin Administration now, or for that matter the Romney/Huckabee Administration

The red state/blue state thing is also exaggerated, we're talking about a continuum, not "everybody in the boonies is a Republican and everybody in the cities is a Democrat" as people like to think.

The country is mostly not red or blue, but shades of purple.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Common misconception:

The first step in complete control of any populace is NOT to ban firearms..

That comes later..

The first step is to silence the opposition.

Semper

Actually...quite the opposite...it's preferable to have them yelling and squabbling, just at each other.

"It matters not the answer if they are asking the wrong question" or something to that effect.

Rush is great at getting people to squabble at each other...so are other political figures but to my knowledge Rush is making the most money off of it.

reply to post by wutone


Nope, not when it such a hate monger as Rush. He put his self out there in the political arena and for the views he spouses, he is a legit target.

reply to post by xmotex

Originally posted by xmotex
As far as the election goes, the majority apparently thought Palin was far enough to the right that she scared them, so...

Wrong again, sir. McCain was too far left. Sarah will be back.

Really, if America was as conservative as conservatives like to tell themselves, we'd be arguing about the McCain/Palin Administration now, or for that matter the Romney/Huckabee Administration

Strike forty. Yer out!

Originally posted by jsobecky

Exactly. That is what we want to avoid. The hope is that a combination of public and political pressure, along with the off-chance that Obama might smarten up, will reverse the trend of larger deficit spending and more gov't growth before it is too late.

Well reasoned! I can respect that analysis. I wish others would read your post and see how a point can be made without assuming people are attacking the freedom of speech of others. Thank you!

Pressure, dialogue, well reasoned justifications for dissent. I can support someone's desire to protest the current administration in this way. This is much more productive than openly wishing failure on the new President.

I disagree with you about the New Deal, though, but I look forward to debating that with you another day

Originally posted by RedCairo

Originally posted by jsobecky
The American public is overwhelmingly conservative. The R's lost the election because they lost their conservative ideals.

Yes, I agree with that.

Well, and having nearly the ENTIRE media act as your personal PR group did not hurt Obama. The amount he did not have to spend probably comes into the billions! Frankly the surprise is that so much effort went into it and his margin--which was large--was not even larger.

Of course, if you look at the national voting maps, you see it's pretty much same as it ever was. Some states shift back and forth every 4-8 years but on the whole, the majority of space is red and the majority of population-density and coastline is blue.

PJ

Folks, the R's did not lose the election because they lost their conservative values. Those values, that base, has always been there. It's easier to get a monk to convert to Catholicism than to switch a hardcore R to a D.

This last election was a rejection of conservative principles. Take the lead from the Repub leaders.

There's a reason they're re-branding.

There's a reason why a leader isn't emerging. Because they're all the same! And they're all out of touch!

There's a reason why a black man was elected Chairman of the RNC, even if he isn't qualified, and why they're regretting that move now, and why RNC leaders are now asking him to step down.

There's a reason why Newt is considering a 2012 run for the Presidency. Because there ISN'T anyone else.

Palin? Dems hope she runs. She's the gift that keeps on giving...

This country's getting younger and more progressive with every passing year. An Obama Administration is only going to expedite that. Rush's audience will diminish over the next 4-8 years, especially if Obama pulls off this hat trick.

reply to post by slicobacon


This is what the democrats do they coin Rush as an entertainer to try to lessen his incredible findings, expertise and truthfulness about the democrats and what they are up to. In reality Rush is brilliant when it comes to politics and knows the democrat's moves before they do. Sure he does some entertaining but behind and within the entertainment is the truth. The democrats can not stand Rush because he is right 98% of the time of what the democrats are up to and he uncovers the facts and hidden agendas and keeps the democrats on the defense.

reply to post by tommy_boy


In terms of 'results' you might be right, maybe the country will go that way, though I hope not. I believe if it does, as it does, our country is already starting to shift radically in fundamental nature. The full transcript of Rush's rant made it clear the 'absorption' of public sector by government was his primary point there. But if it goes your way, history will be rewritten, should it happen, and the views of the future will probably be different.

It's probably the old grouchy people like me to whom 'better dead than red' is still a pretty valid slogan, that want to perish the thought. The thought of this rather nightmarish scenario--going from bad to worse in my mind, as government goes--kinda makes 'global chaos from 2012' sound like an interesting thing.

PJ

reply to post by RedCairo


"Better Dead than Red?"

That's by no means a centrist belief, wouldn't you say? Socialism is not communism, and I continue to be startled why otherwise intelligent people that choose to perpetuate that propaganda.

Admitting that privatized healthcare does not benefit the patient (but rather the monopoly), and instead applying compassion and caring by looking after our own, is quite far from hailing Hitler.

Acknowledging that the conservative principles that led to an imbalance of wealth distribution (causing similar "bubble-like" circumstances to the ones we are living in now) was one of the causes of the Great Depression, and that progressive socialist policies coupled with SPENDING (whether government or private) is what dug this country out of Hoover's hole, then attempting to actually learn from our mistakes; that's not "Red." That's pretty wise and innovative wouldn't you say?

If your worrisome "nightmarish" scenario is an American "Hilter," then the implementation of social programs should be the least of your concerns.

Rather, a suggestion would be for your criticisms to then be focused on the memos that came out this last week that essentially confirmed we were "technically" under a dictatorship under Bush. That's way more reminiscent of the old Soviet Union than Universal Healthcare.

I'll take nationalized healthcare any day over the suspension of our basic freedoms. Wouldn't you? Shouldn't Rush?

[edit on 7-3-2009 by tommy_boy]

reply to post by tommy_boy

Originally posted by tommy_boy
Folks, the R's did not lose the election because they lost their conservative values. Those values, that base, has always been there. It's easier to get a monk to convert to Catholicism than to switch a hardcore R to a D.

This last election was a rejection of conservative principles. Take the lead from the Repub leaders.

Here is the breakdown of votes by ideology:

***************
www.cnn.com...

Vote by Ideology
Total Obama McCain Other/No Answer
Liberal (22%) ..................Obama 88%..McCain............10% 2%
Moderate (44%) ..................Obama 60% ..McCain............39% 1%
Conservative (34%) ..................Obama 20%..McCain............78% 2%
*****************


I would not say that is a rejection of conservative values. The biggest segment were the moderates.

I could play with those results a dozen different ways that would have resulted in a McCain win.

No, ACORN and the unions did their dirty deed quite well, and have been rewarded by Obama. That and the MSM being squarely on Obama's side resulted in his 'victory'.

The fact that the fastest growing segment of the voters are influenced by Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity are proof that conservative values are on the rise. The fact that he Dems are publicly attacking Rush is proof that they are running scared.

Acknowledging that the conservative principles that led to an imbalance of wealth distribution (causing similar "bubble-like" circumstances to the ones we are living in now) was one of the causes of the Great Depression, and that progressive socialist policies coupled with SPENDING (whether government or private) is what dug this country out of Hoover's hole, then attempting to actually learn from our mistakes; that's not "Red." That's pretty wise and innovative wouldn't you say?

'Progressive spending' didn't get us out of the depression. WWII did. The New Deal didn't significantly lower unemployment or raise wages. It took away some state's rights. It engorged the size of gov't.

You can't spend what you don't have. This administration is plunging us further into debt by enlarging the size of gov't and by more gov't spending. It can only stay afloat if it drastically raises taxes, which it is rapidly doing. Higher consumer taxes. Cap and trade. The resultant loss of more jobs, both permanently and to overseas.

Capitalism didn't cause the current crisis. Failure to regulate the lenders did. Bush tried to impose regulation, but was stymied by the Congress.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky
Wrong again, sir. McCain was too far left. Sarah will be back.

Yes and like Bush before him.... twice... conservatives chose him as nominee. I dont know what the deal is about majority conservatives voting in candidates then taking them out as liberals. It doesnt make sense to me... one would figure some sense would be made on what conservatives want.

Maybe conservatives could solidify their true ideological standing by actually voting in somebody with true conservative values for once, like Paul.

I hope Palin will be 2012 nominee though... I really do. Her and Jindal. The question is... how long will be before the very conservatives oust them as liberals and begin once again distancing themselves.

*fingers crossed*

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I honestly do not know why Mcain was the nominee. Maybe it was a reward for his long years of service to the country. Maybe it was penance for what Bushco did to him in 2000. I do know that McCain and Huckabee conspired to take out Romney in several states, like W. Va.

There are a handful of people being groomed for 2012. I don't think Palin is among them, although she would definitely be a choice for a cabinet position or maybe VP. Crist, Jindhal, Jeb Bush, Romney, maybe Rudy (although he really screwed up with his campaign strategy) are all candidates.

Note that not all of these are strict conservatives.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I do know that McCain and Huckabee conspired to take out Romney in several states, like W. Va.

Which is the problem with the GOP. Romney was the best candidate of EITHER party. They've got to straighten out their house. In this political/economic situation Romney would have beaten any Dem. candidate.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I honestly do not know why Mcain was the nominee.

My feeling was that McCain had a vastly higher public awareness rating thanks to the media over the previous years, so it was felt he'd have the best chance of competing against whatever Dem nominee came about -- since as the previous election had already demonstrated, pretty much the entire national news media of the west were personally assigning themselves as PR campaigns for the Dem.

It really is a problem when the primary communication in your world is run by the other side.

PJ

First off, good stats! jso, moderates essentially determine every election. The dems will vote for dems, the repubs will vote for their own. There most certainly was a rejection of the policies and ideology of the last 8 years... By those that have the tie vote.

Originally posted by jsobecky
'Progressive spending' didn't get us out of the depression. WWII did. The New Deal didn't significantly lower unemployment or raise wages. It took away some state's rights. It engorged the size of gov't.

jso, your both right and wrong on your above points. WWII is in fact what got us out the Great Depression, and yes it is now widely recognized that The New Deal merely limited the affects of the depression. It was a bandaid. The New Deal got people through it. WWII pulled us out.

However, it is also becoming accepted that the reason WWII pulled us out was because of the enormous amounts of spending on the war. People like to claim it was WWII and not Roosevelt's new deal, but fail to acknowledge that both the New Deal and the catalyzing elements of WWII on the depression were one and the same...

SPENDING.

Not Tax Cuts for the rich.

Not Hoover's "Fend for yourself" ideology.

It was Spending.

Most economists agree now that the New Deal failed in its ultimate goals of stopping the Great Depression because it wasn't bold enough, because there wasn't enough spending. So the criticism of The New Deal should venture away from the "Wrong Idea" argument and more towards the "Right Idea Not Taken Far Enough."

You can't spend what you don't have. This administration is plunging us further into debt by enlarging the size of gov't and by more gov't spending. It can only stay afloat if it drastically raises taxes, which it is rapidly doing. Higher consumer taxes. Cap and trade. The resultant loss of more jobs, both permanently and to overseas.

Seems a bit disingenuous to imply in your statements above that an Administration that is 45 days or so into office, Whose budget isn't yet passed, with most of the stuff you noted barely (if yet) implemented, is the cause of the jobless numbers we are seeing. A study of the roaring twenties shows a number of parallel's to the bubble-like conditions that ensued in the Bush Administration.

The primary (but not only) cause of the Great Depression (and now, our own recession) is the delta between top 1-2% of earners and the middle/lower classes; in both eras caused by the trickle-down fallacies that Reagan made so popular.

Capitalism didn't cause the current crisis. Failure to regulate the lenders did. Bush tried to impose regulation, but was stymied by the Congress.

Capitalism most certainly did cause this, specifically, its NEED to be regulated. So again, by my estimation, your half right. The lender situation was the catalyst, the first domino is a chain of dominoes primed to fall. Banks are failing, the auto industry is failing, retail is failing. The stock market is crashing.

Somewhere right now, Rush is sitting and counting all of the money this publicity is bringing him in..

And laughing hysterically

Semper

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I hope Palin will be 2012 nominee though... I really do. Her and Jindal. The question is... how long will be before the very conservatives oust them as liberals and begin once again distancing themselves.

*fingers crossed*

Southern. If you truly care about your party and want it back in power, you need to re-think your Palin/Jindal position.

Conservatism as it has lived over the past few decades, is dying. It will be blamed for the failures of the Bush administration, for this deep recession; it will be painted as the ideology of "Preemptive War." Conservatism will re-invent itself as something much more a hybrid of Democrat/Libertarian. All parties will be less distinguishable from one another beginning with this next election. Current leaders wearing its robe are tainted. Palin was irrevocably wounded in this last election, and Jindal's introduction onto the national stage painted him a laughing stock. The party needed another Reagan figure. Instead, they got a really bad speech by Jindal.

Seek new, younger, more progressive leadership is this party is to survive in any form.

reply to post by tommy_boy

Originally posted by tommy_boy
First off, good stats! jso, moderates essentially determine every election. The dems will vote for dems, the repubs will vote for their own. There most certainly was a rejection of the policies and ideology of the last 8 years... By those that have the tie vote.

Originally posted by jsobecky
'Progressive spending' didn't get us out of the depression. WWII did. The New Deal didn't significantly lower unemployment or raise wages. It took away some state's rights. It engorged the size of gov't.

jso, your both right and wrong on your above points. WWII is in fact what got us out the Great Depression, and yes it is now widely recognized that The New Deal merely limited the affects of the depression. It was a bandaid. The New Deal got people through it. WWII pulled us out.

However, it is also becoming accepted that the reason WWII pulled us out was because of the enormous amounts of spending on the war. People like to claim it was WWII and not Roosevelt's new deal, but fail to acknowledge that both the New Deal and the catalyzing elements of WWII on the depression were one and the same...

SPENDING.

Not Tax Cuts for the rich.

Not Hoover's "Fend for yourself" ideology.

It was Spending.

Yes, but it was PRIVATE spending that gave us the shot in the arm. Spending by the steel industries, the coal companies, the auto manufacturers, the oilcos.

PRIVATE spending.

And the banks were lending the money needed to develop and grow private industry.

You can't spend what you don't have. This administration is plunging us further into debt by enlarging the size of gov't and by more gov't spending. It can only stay afloat if it drastically raises taxes, which it is rapidly doing. Higher consumer taxes. Cap and trade. The resultant loss of more jobs, both permanently and to overseas.

Seems a bit disingenuous to imply in your statements above that an Administration that is 45 days or so into office, Whose budget isn't yet passed, with most of the stuff you noted barely (if yet) implemented, is the cause of the jobless numbers we are seeing.

I never implied jobless numbers. I said debt spending. Where is this money coming from? Where will the revenues come from to replace it?

Government spending cannot get us out of this crisis, when we are spending what we don't have.

And Obama's scatter approach to where he is spending it is bound to fail. It's akin to scattering seed on a barren, arid landscape, and hoping the results will feed a nation.

The only job growth he is stimulating is in the gov't sector. Their salaries and benefits have to be paid by our taxes. The Heritage Foundation estimates that he will create over 250,000 new gov't sector jobs.

Stupid spending, bloated by earmarks and pork.

Spending on tatoo removal. Pig-scent research. Pelosi's mice. Birth control. None of which create any number of jobs.

And his enormous paybacks to the ones who helped him buy the presidency. ACORN. The unions.

The primary (but not only) cause of the Great Depression (and now, our own recession) is the delta between top 1-2% of earners and the middle/lower classes; in both eras caused by the trickle-down fallacies that Reagan made so popular.

How can an income gap cause a depression? Makes no sense.

The primary cause of the GD was buying stocks on insane margins, that got recalled, that tumbled the house of cards.

Capitalism didn't cause the current crisis. Failure to regulate the lenders did. Bush tried to impose regulation, but was stymied by the Congress.

Capitalism most certainly did cause this, specifically, its NEED to be regulated. So again, by my estimation, your half right. The lender situation was the catalyst, the first domino is a chain of dominoes primed to fall. Banks are failing, the auto industry is failing, retail is failing. The stock market is crashing.

I disagree. Capitalism needs to be regulated, to be sure. But that's not an indictment of capitalism. It's a testimony to the failings of human nature.

But what about it's current replacement, socialism? It too needs to be regulated. Gov't's most certainly need to be regulated, even moreso that private industry, because gov't has the power of the gun to back it up.

Propping up failing industries is rarely a good idea. The free markets must be allowed to work. It is healthy for a GM or Citi to fail because of mismanagement.


[edit on 8-3-2009 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky
I just cannot wrap my head around the fact that a person like Limbaugh, regardless of how many followers he has, commands so much attention from our supposed leaders. What happened to freedom of speech? What has replying to bull# got to do with freedom of speech? If people lie and smear and knowingly spread falsehoods they should be replied to, officially, by the WH press secretary, if needs be. How does this infringe upon his freedom of speech? Limbaugh is a private citizen exercising his constitutional right to free speech. Period. So, because he's a 'private citizen' no one holding public office should take him up on his lies and bull?

The fact that an administration feels threatened by him, and makes it public knowledge that they feel threatened, is very troubling. They are trying to sway public opinion against Limbaugh and others. This should frighten every one of us. Why? Are you teh crazy?

Who needs a Fairness Doctrine when you have a bully pulpit to intimidate and silence those who disagree with you?

Fairness Doctrine means equal air time to both/all points of view. That is all. No such thing anymore anyway.

Will someone please enlighten me as to how the WH (white house) press secretary mentioning that bloated sack of manure or replying to his bull# talking points impinges upon his freedom of speech in any way?

I can see most ATS members lean heavily towards the right by the red nuance of their bull# and the nonsensical talking points they regurgitate.

I wonder how many of you are freepers.