About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

White House Cheat Sheet: (Re)Defining Rush



Democrats are seeking to tie national Republicans to Rush Limbaugh. Photo by Saul Loeb of Getty/AFP

Democrats are engaging in a concerted campaign to link the national Republican Party to conservative talk-radio show host Rush Limbaugh, an effort that will ramp up over the next few days in the form of another round of television ads and an increased rhetorical focus on the issue from Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine, according to sources familiar with the plans.

"Rush is the bloated face and drug-addled voice of the Republican Party," said Paul Begala, a longtime Democratic strategist who rose to prominence during Bill Clinton's presidency. "Along with lots of others, I intend to continue to turn up the heat until every alleged Republican either endorses or renounces Rush's statement that he hopes our President fails."

Americans United for Change, a liberal group that draws funding from unions and other Democratic interests, is planning a second ad hitting Limbaugh that will reach the airwaves later this week after its first television foray drew massive coverage and set off a national discussion over Limbaugh's role within the party.

Kaine, the governor of Virginia, issued a statement late Monday attacking Limbaugh as "the leading force behind the Republican Party, its politics and its obstruction of President Obama's agenda in Washington" and officials at the DNC said Kaine would expand on that critique in a series of television appearances today.

The ramping-up of the "Republicans equal Limbaugh" strategy began over the weekend when White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," argued that the talk-radio host "is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party."

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, who has jousted with Limbaugh from the podium before, urged reporters to ask Republican elected officials "whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said this weekend," adding: "Do they want to see the President's economic agenda fail?"

The strategy has already proven effective as Limbaugh and Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele spent the day sparring following a television appearance in which Steele called Limbaugh's show "ugly" and "incendiary". Limbaugh went after Steele on his show on Monday and the chairman quickly backed down, offering his apologies for what he described as a misunderstanding.

Chip Saltsman, a former Tennessee Republican Party chairman and RNC candidate earlier this year, acknowledged the success of the Democratic strategy -- at least for today. "Any time you get your opponents to fight amongst themselves, that's a good day," said Saltsman. "Point to the White House."

National Democratic strategists believe that they have only begun to mine the Limbaugh vein, maintaining that while he is a potent force -- and much beloved by the GOP's conservative base -- he is widely disliked by independent and swing voters. In a recent poll by Democratic survey firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, 44 percent of Republicans felt warmly toward Limbaugh while 32 percent expressed "cold" feelings. Compare that to the broader swath of all voters where 58 percent felt coldly toward Limbaugh and 21 percent felt warmly.

Fred Davis, who led Sen. John McCain's (Ariz.) ad team in 2008, insisted that the attempt to heighten Limbaugh's profile and tie him around the ankles of other Republicans is "clearly a poll-based effort, and I think it has a couple days of legs."

Davis may be right but Democrats are convinced that the best way to keep Republicans in a permanent minority status is to keep Limbaugh moving up the Fix's Line of the ten most influential GOPers in the country. (Self promotion alert!)

Tuesday Must-Reads: We pick the five most interesting stories of the day so you don't have to.

1. In the "only in America" category, former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has signed a six-figure book deal.
2. Norm Coleman's legal team rests in the election contest in Minnesota. It may not be over for some time though -- the former GOP senator appears to be laying the groundwork for an appeal to the state Supreme Court if the three-judge panel rules against him.
3. Sen. Larry Kudlow (R-Conn.)? Yes, that Larry Kudlow.
4. WaPo's Dan Eggen and Jeff Smith scan a series of newly-released Justice Department documents regarding the Bush administration's counter terrorism policies and conclude that the "number of major legal errors committed by Bush administration...was far greater than previously known."
5. J-Mart on Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. As we have noted before, Huntsman is almost certainly running in 2012 and, for a Mormon governor of Utah, is espousing a VERY centrist approach for the party.
6. (For good luck) Time sits down with Will Shortz, the man behind the New York Times crossword puzzle.

Primary Day!: Voters are voting in the Chicago-area 5th district where Rahm Emanuel's resignation has set off a mad scramble in the Democratic primary. The crowded field, which, given the strongly Democratic nature of the district, is almost certain to produce the next member of Congress, seems to have narrowed to a three-way fight between state Reps. Sara Feigenholtz and John Fritchey, and Cook County Commissioner Mike Quigley. Quigley won the endorsements of the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times and Feigenholtz's decision to attack him on the airwaves suggests he may be the man to beat. Fritchey, who is now considered a longshot by those in the know, remains a potential winner thanks to the backing of the Chicago machine.

Toomey Back In Senate Mix: Just when you thought former Rep. Pat Toomey was out of the GOP primary in 2010 against Sen. Arlen Specter, heeee's back! "As this disastrous recession worsens, I have become increasingly concerned about the future of our state and national economy," Toomey said in a statement released Monday. Toomey appeared to be focusing his attention on the open governor's race in 2010 but Specter's vote in favor of Obama's economic stimulus plan (one of only three Republicans to do so) has changed the former congressman's course. Toomey came within two percent of beating Specter in a 2004 primary and a new independent poll out his week showed that two-thirds of GOP voters preferred someone else other than Specter -- a danger sign for the incumbent. Democrats' chances of winning in Pennsylvania may depend on Toomey; if he can badly damage or beat Specter in a primary, Joe Torsella's chances improve drastically.

The Sebelius Effect: Lost amid the coverage of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius's selection as President Obama's Health and Human Services nominee is that the pick all but ends Democrats' chances of winning the open Sunflower State Senate seat in 2010. Sebelius was, without question, Democrats' strongest candidate and polling showed her leading Reps. Jerry Moran (R) and Todd Tiahrt (R) by double digits. Without Sebelius in the race, the Democratic bench is remarkably sparse. Democrats haven't won a Senate contest in the state since 1932 and that streak now is almost certain to continue in 2010.

Say What?: "The odds are long. It's failed too many times." -- President Obama "sells" the potential of universal health care during the unveiling of Sebelius.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 3, 2009; 5:45 AM ET
Categories:  Cheat Sheet Share This:  E-Mail | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Digg | Stumble Previous: White House Cheat Sheet: A Cabinet In Full
Next: Twittering Gibbs


Add The Fix to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Fix! This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Fix.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

>>Except rush is intelligent and witty wheras no known lib suffers that burden.

You know Zouk there's lies and then there's delusion. I'll let you take your pick of the two. No pundit on either side falls into the witty/intelligent catagory because all they want is for people to make decisions on their emotional responses.

Oh and the Dow is not a popularity poll. It'd do your credibility some good to stop using it that way.

Posted by: mtcooley | March 5, 2009 9:54 AM | Report abuse

I love the always classy Paul Begala.

Posted by: billyc123 | March 4, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27 -

"not bad for a half wit"

Please don't be so hard on yourself. You are a pretty smart person. Maybe not as smart as Joe Biden, but pretty smart none the less.

Posted by: leapin | March 4, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

i won't even comment on how sick he is

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | March 4, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

RUSH IS CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | March 4, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

America loves Rush.

Posted by: thegrandmufti | March 4, 2009 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
For months now I hoped and prayed that Palin would vanish from the television screen and it finally happened.
What replaced her? Rush.
Bring back Palin, or better yet, give them twin billing. Palin and Rush or Brainless and the Bloated Addict.

Posted by: seemstome | March 4, 2009 6:52 AM | Report abuse

Now folks. If "Rush Limbaugh" represents the "brain" of the Republican Party - that's not saying anything better than "Joe the Plumber" did. Not much in their heads, about the same, with lots of emptiness. Giving this individual our attention,even to listen to him, at this time is like reviewing the last eight years. We must move forward.

Posted by: ds_cenpak | March 4, 2009 1:33 AM | Report abuse

The Dems attack Rush Limbaugh, and WaPo responds the same day with 5 articles about Limbaugh.

Is WaPo PRAVDA for the Obama Administration? Does the vulgar ballerina Emmanuel actually write WaPo's stories? WaPo sucks, but I like blogging here to allow the dimwit libs to get a different point of view once in a while.

Posted by: pgr88 | March 3, 2009 10:28 PM | Report abuse

He should fit in well with the GOP; drug user, womanizer, divorced 4 times, racist, uneducated. And to top it all off, he doesn't know the Constitution.

Lamebaugh, the perfect Republican.

Posted by: camera_eye_11 | March 3, 2009 10:19 PM | Report abuse

leapin - not bad for a half wit

Posted by: mibrooks27 | March 3, 2009 10:00 PM | Report abuse

However much the left can't stand Limbaugh, the reaction to his remarks from the "ladies who protest too much," is that he landed more than a few haymakers on his liberal opponents.

Posted by: Bluefish2012 | March 3, 2009 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Kruez

Most of these posters are eastern elitist liberal educated ivy league children attempting to get a rise out of us and, from several studies, a lot of the others are genuine bi-racial elitists bent on creating a class war. You would be surprised at the number of these cretins who think that they will survive he collapse of society and create a diverse amusement park they will reign in with undocumented immigrants. They are delusional subhuman cockroaches, bedwetters, cowards, with the survival instincts of a free range, organic raised chicken that wouldn't survive 24 hours in their hoped for Marxist revolution.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2009 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone else noticed how much Rush Limpballs and Karl Rove look like two identical bookends? Then we have the really odd couple in Bobby "the canidate who lied about his Katrina episode with Sheriff Lee" Jindhal, and Michael "wonder boy" Steele. Stelle just jumped thru the hoops and begged Rush to forgive him? this is the new Party of NO Solutions Republican Future Leadership? I'll stick with Pres Obama, leadership with transparancy. BaaRock ON pres Obama. rcm.

Posted by: rcbootsmiller | March 3, 2009 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Rush looks like he suffers from an incurable and severe case of the munchies. I mean can Rush get any fatter?! He may no longer be addicted to oxycontin but it looks like he's now into daily and regular pot smoking.

Posted by: Nashville10 | March 3, 2009 9:17 PM | Report abuse

It’s funny the continual comments over Rush’s prescription medication problem. Go to any pot rally or march and 99.99% of the participants will describe their political persuasion as “liberal” and Barry as their guy.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2009 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Now the kooks are lashing out over drug use.

Unable to make an argument on merits, that's all they have. Truly sad....

"Ignore them. Most of these posters are high school children attempting to get a rise out of us and, from several studies, a lot of the others are genuine white supremacists bent on creating a race war."

It actually amuses me quite a bit. These guys have no idea how bad they make their whole side look. They're almost as bad as the birthers. I say let them talk as much as they can, it'll suck all the wind out of the room that could otherwise be used to mount a Republican comeback.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 8:53 PM | Report abuse

"kreuz_missile -

Just what race are chimps. I was taught that they are animals. Is my black cat African-American? Is my tan cat Asian? Is my grey and white cat gay?"

Ok, you're right, how stupid it is, no one has ever used chimp as a racist rant, I clearly must be just making stuff up to pull the race card out of nowhere. And watermelons on the White House lawn? Just to show his environmental side, right?

"Now, for the history lesson. Since the introduction of Africans to the American shores, they have consistently been called porch monkeys, gorillas and otherwise compared to apes. Years ago, noted sports commentator Howard Cosell, during a Monday Night Football telecast, commenting on a black player, said, "Look at that little monkey go." He was heavily criticized for the offense that I am sure he also did not intend. (Cosell left MNF shortly thereafter. - Editor.) So, unless the editors of the Post have been hiding under a rock, I just don't buy their denials. While they may not have intended the cartoon to be racist, given the context, and the history of race in America, it is offensive and should be condemned as such."

http://www.lohud.com/article/20090224/OPINION/902240308/1076/OPINION01

Give me a break, it's a load of racist crap and the fact that you'd actually defend it really takes you down a notch in my eyes.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Why are the Democrats so obsessed with Rush? He's not an elected official. Why doesn't someone (I know the MSM will never do it) ask the Democrats if they agree with, or like Keith Olberman? Or Chris Matthews? These kooks pose as "TV politicial commentators", when if fact, all they are is hacks for the Democratic/Socialist Party...

Posted by: denves | March 3, 2009 8:45 PM | Report abuse

12thgenamerican -

“if rush is an obese anti-intellectual drug addict,what is barney frank?”
Barney “I luv Fannie” Frank is a bath house landlord, Elmer Fudd aficionado, pseudo-intellectual who had a 30 second conversation with fellow pseudo-intellectual, and fellow Harrrvarrrd grad, Frankie Raines to “oversee” Fannie Mae (see YouTube) , who should be facing charges for his part in the present fiasco, instead of arrogantly lecturing the citizens of this once great country.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2009 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Republicans made it clear why Michael Steele was elected as the Chairman. This was done to draw in minority votes by pushing a black man in front. That's so old school and played out it's truely sad. Now with the RNC so far divided and low in the polls Rush is their only hope. He likes to get attention by saying things so silly. But we have serious problems now after the 8 year crime wave and Republicans should think about getting someone who at lease has read the Constitution and who is intelligent. Rush might have 1 million listeners to his radio show but there are move Americans that vote then those who listen to is foolishness. He wants President Obama to fail, well also means he wants the American people and the United States to fail. We did get to see what Gov. Jindal was all about and that bombed out quick.

Posted by: qqbDEyZW | March 3, 2009 8:44 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile - Ignore them. Most of these posters are high school children attempting to get a rise out of us and, from several studies, a lot of the others are genuine white supremacists bent on creating a race war. You would be surprised at the number of these cretins who think that they will survive he collapse of society and create a lilly white amusement park they will reign supreme in. They are delusional subhuman cockroaches, bedwetters, cowards, with the survival instincts of a barn raised chicken that the wouldn't survive 24 hours in their hoped for revolution.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | March 3, 2009 8:42 PM | Report abuse

next comes the idea to wear a cardigan..

Posted by: king_of_zouk | March 3, 2009 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Now the messiah is suggesting we buy stocks. feel free to take this advice - at your own peril. His track record in economics suggests there may be substantial risk in following his advice.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | March 3, 2009 8:37 PM | Report abuse

It's one thing to say that you fully expect Obama's policies will fail if you do not share his philosophy about the role of government in the economic recovery. It is quite another matter to WISH for his policies to fail, because this will result in increased unemployment, more business failures, more home foreclosures, and more older people without the security blanket of their pensions and retirement accounts.

Why would you WISH for that? Simply so that you could smugly sit back and gloat? Is the GOP that cold and indifferent to the suffering of their fellow citizens? Is their mantra going to continue to be: "I've got mine. To hell with everyone else!" ?

This is why the extreme right of the GOP is increasingly becoming irrelevant to the majority of Americans. There is far too much at stake to wish that ANYONE fails.

Posted by: labman57 | March 3, 2009 8:33 PM | Report abuse

I have been doing my best to avoid descnding to the level of KOZ's drivel, but his postings today were simply too nonsensical to ignore.

On the falling dow: KOZ, surely you cant be so senile that you have already forgotten the dow was falling under your President. In fact, it was in free-fall. And many of the policies which you have been lampooning were actually proposed initially by your President's Secretary of the Treasury. So any 'failure' here has to be spread equally across BOTH parties. Of course, you have never been one to admit the GOP could do anything wrong...

And to call the policies being proposed - most of which are well to the right of what is happening in most other countries 'socialist' is a sophistic act of the most contorted type.

For the sake of the world, America needs to succeed. It need to deal to unrestrained corporate greed. It need to ensure the taxation system is both fair AND sufficient to cover the costs of running the nation. If that means the wealthy pay a little more than others, this is still a far cry from any form of genuine socialism.

KOZ, your party spent all the political good-will it received after 9/11 in childish partisan politics, and now has nothing useful to offer, if your postings are any indication. I think it's time you let the responsible adults - those who understand the concept of a nation reaping what it sowed - lead for a while. Which is what Obama - despite your hate campaign - is doing.

Posted by: anthonyrimell | March 3, 2009 8:31 PM | Report abuse

if rush is an obese anti-intellectual drug addict,what is barney frank?

Posted by: 12thgenamerican | March 3, 2009 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Democrats are attempting to "link" Limbaugh and the GOP because, you know, none of the Republican members of Congress actually listens to Rush Limbaugh, or bows to him, or acknowledges him as the leader of their movement.

I mean, I don't doubt that the effort to point out how Limbaugh is now the de facto leader of the party is concerted, but you and others keep writing as if their "attempts to link" Limbaugh and the GOP are something they invented themselves.

When Rahm Emanuel on Sunday said that "any member of congress who dares to criticize Limbaugh then has to go crawling back to apologize" that probably seemed like some far-out accusation to you and others-- until the very next day, the head of the RNC did exactly that.

They're not "linking" Rush and the GOP. They're using the existing link to point out what the GOP now stands for: obstruction for pure political reasons.

When Bush invaded Iraq, I heard not one Democrat ever say "I hope he fails." I heard almost all rally behind him. It wasn't until it was clear how badly it was going that people began to criticize, and that includes people like John McCain. I still never heard one person say "I hope it fails".

The GOP has now said it, loud and clear.

Posted by: BillEPilgrim | March 3, 2009 8:20 PM | Report abuse

When, if ever, will the neo-Marxists get it? Barrack Obama is a former drug user and wordsmith entertainer who plays on their inner most fears, like pass the Obamulus now!,...and makes a nice living doing so and beef and vodka martini parties on Wednesdays! The vitriol and hatred that spews forth from this miscreant sickens and scares me. But then again, many of his audience are probably heart sick over the disappearance of Uncle Joe Biden from the world's stage. That dynamic duo will be in my and many others opinion, the undermining of the U.S... Don't believe me? Checked your 401k lately? Check the NY Times from 199 on sub-prime mortgages under Slick Willie .Are, or you still convinced of Bin Laden in Afghanistan? Totally inept!

Wake up and shake the martini.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2009 8:20 PM | Report abuse

To those who don"t believe Rush Limbaugh is the de facto head of the Republican party, please check out this story and video on CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/28/limbaugh.speech.cpac/index.html

Two excerpts from the story:

(CNN) -- Rush Limbaugh brought a cheering crowd to its feet several times Saturday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington as he called on fellow conservatives to take back the country.

Limbaugh used his self-described "first national address," which ran more than an hour longer than his allotted 20 minutes, to accuse President Obama of inspiring fear in Americans in order to push a liberal agenda of "big government."


CNN ran Limbaugh's entire "national address" live, as if it were yet another Republican response to Obama's Congressional address earlier in the week. I watched it, and believe me, Rush certainly acted like he was the leader of the GOP, and so did the audience.

Posted by: 2D3D | March 3, 2009 8:19 PM | Report abuse

The GOP seems to have been hooked up in oxycontin with their addicted leader Rush Limbaugh...How can the Economy succeed if the steward fails. only a junkie would posit such preposterous logic.

Posted by: red27 | March 3, 2009 8:17 PM | Report abuse

We should only wish that the Republican, and Democratic parties followed Limbaughs lead. There would have been no mortgage meltdown, no expensive drug government subsudized program, and mop war in Iraq or Afghanistan. Rather than attack Rush with personal slander, why don't Liberals debate him with facts.

BTW Rush became addicted to a prescribed medication. A far cry from Obama's admitted illegal drug use.

Posted by: rpatoh | March 3, 2009 8:14 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile -

Just what race are chimps. I was taught that they are animals. Is my black cat African-American? Is my tan cat Asian? Is my grey and white cat gay?

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2009 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Libs are obsessed with having a leader, as they are perfect followers. Others have taken control of their own lives. I am my master versus government is my master. Of course if I ever need a (former) radio talk show host as a distraction to my actions then there is Al Franken. But you can’t be accused of distorting the political process with so few listeners.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2009 8:01 PM | Report abuse

So, let's see, now we have MrPotatohead98 making racist rants And yes, calling Pres Obama a chimp is racist), Zouk insisting that merely calling Rush the leader of the Republican party is an attack, and schneiderdick thinking that running with that line of reasoning and playing the victim on top of it would be a smart political move.

Wow.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 7:57 PM | Report abuse


More pungent and foul than limburger cheese!

That's Mr. Rush Limburger.

Posted by: maphound | March 3, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse

When, if ever, will the neo-cons get it? Rush Limbaugh is a drug addicted entertainer who plays on their inner most fears...and makes a nice living doing so! The vitriol and hatred that spews forth from this miscreant sickens and scares me. But then again, many of his audience are probably heart sick over the disappearance of Dubya and Dick from the world's stage. That dynamic duo will be in my, and many others opinion, the undermining of the U.S.. Don't believe me? Checked your 401k lately? Googled (R)Senator of Texas Phil Gramm lately? Are, or you still convinced of WMD's in Iraq? Totally inept!
Wake up and smell the coffee.

Posted by: DaveNKy | March 3, 2009 7:53 PM | Report abuse

An all-out attack on a single individual, even if it is Gasbag Limbaugh, will definitely backfire on the Dems. All Rush has to do is adjust his message slightly, which he will do, and the Dems will get the "piling on" label. Such a focuses, pervasive and concerted effort to attack Limbaugh is testimony to his effectiveness with those who actually listen to him. The Dem attack is political folly at its best.

Posted by: schneiderdick | March 3, 2009 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Rush Limbaugh must be linked to the Republican Party strong bad desire that this government fails. We know that the Republicans wanted this government to do things which would be imposed by their party. But since they are minority in the House and know that almost everything can be passed without their consent, they feel crazy and try to make things go wrong. The pessimism of the market these days is somewhat speculative and not real. But market itself works under speculation. Republicans know it and work on bad speculation drawing the economy downward just to force this govern to collapse. I think that politicians are savage anough to go on their interest and not the people's. It is sad to know that, but they are not giving a damn to what people are going through. They look after their carreer in present and future. That's why no Republican voted with the president on the stimulus package. Mr. Jindal showed with his own words that what is worth it is not what people need. Rather, he wish only this government to go wrong anyway. President Obama has no option other than going in public and being clear of what is on right now. Otherwise he will eat the bread Republicans prepared for him: failure. When Republicans talk we can see falsehood and irony stamped on their faces.

Posted by: Miguel1 | March 3, 2009 7:46 PM | Report abuse

MrPotatoHead98 - Rush Limbaugh *cheered* on W when he ran up a 10 trillion dollar deficit. He cheerlead the invasion of Iraq and W's budget trickery of charging the cost for that war. He advocate the very deregulatory policies, the 401K investment and other stock scams that cost people their retirement savings, and he was '100% behind' the TARF bill that Paulson wanted. As for the 3 trillion dollars, you're pulling that out of thin air. The total of Obama's stimulus package is 780 billion. period. The stock market plunge, the bank' continuing to bilk the tax payers, every bit of that is the criminal responsibility of the Bush Whitehouse, Rush Limbaugh, and clowns just like you..

Posted by: mibrooks27 | March 3, 2009 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Chairman Steele, who's ya daddy? Pathetic, just really really sad... Republicans need to change their mascots from the elephant to a jelly fish.. no spine but plenty of sting!

Posted by: maxonhudson | March 3, 2009 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are extremely talented at marginalizing their party and are on track to making it strictly a regional party in the South and the Plains only. And Rush and Ann's vitriol towards the so called RINOs have further increased the chances that the GOP will be in the minority in Congress for quite some time.

If the Right wants to go down in flames with Rush leading the charge then BRING IT ON! In 2012 we might even change our party registration so that we can vote for this guy to become GOP nominee. We'll call this "Operation Chaos - The Next Generation". - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show#Operation_Chaos

Posted by: CynthiaD1 | March 3, 2009 7:22 PM | Report abuse

DEMORATS attacking Rush Limbaugh is an absolute joke.

It isn't Rush's policies losing trillions of dollars since Chimps election.

Yo DEMS - Americans are feeling it in their wallets and not from a loudspeaker on AM radio.

Keep talking your drivel and attack Rush while America is losing trillions due to these radical policies from this nut you call your leader

Chimp keeps attacking big oil, drug, companies, etc. the very backbone of america's wealth

What a SICKO

Posted by: MrPotatoHead98 | March 3, 2009 7:21 PM | Report abuse

the libs, desperate to take the spotlight off thier total ineptitude, try to
Shift the blame to a radio host.

Every day a new confusing position, a new tax cheat, a new low on the Dow, a new surrender overseas, followed by a bloviating speech.

You do what you know. Dems know speeches, little else.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | March 3, 2009 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Since President Chimps election, the market has to go up 50%.

The world markets have clearly spoken and have rejected Obamam's policies which punish success and reward losers.

3 Trillion dollars lost since President Chimp's election.

America is FUMING at the damage these DEMORATS are doing to their life savings.

Lets not forget these demorats have been in control 2 years before President Chimp's election.

PREDICTION : In two weeks DEMS will start turning on the Chimp as they see the destruction of a nation right before their eyes.
In just 6 weeks Chimp has already proven he's the worst president ever. BTW - Yesterday he nominated yet another TAX-CHEAT.
We truly have a clown running America. Presidnet Chimp is an enbarrassment.

Chevy

Posted by: MrPotatoHead98 | March 3, 2009 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Blue_Moose

You dangerously distort the political debate in this country by misusing, and probably misunderstanding, the terms “Inciting a riot” “Facist” and by confusing exercising 1st amendment rights with treason.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2009 6:58 PM | Report abuse

After two crushing election defeats, republicans began talking of “rebranding” to prevent further losses. But who was leading the party? McCain? Steele? Gingrich? Romney? Palin?

Then, only days into his presidency, Obama astutely makes a one-sentence remark about Rush Limbaugh. Republicans swallow the bait, hook, line and sinker: three weeks after Obama named Limbaugh as their leader, republicans have become unhinged trying to figure out who, exactly, is in charge of their party.

According to news coverage of CPAC, Limbaugh has declared himself leader of the republican party, such as it is: A shrinking band of Kooky Konservative Kristian sycophants hoping and praying for the collective efforts of the rest of their countrymen to fail. They seem uncaring of the certain and horrible depression to come if their prayers are answered. My god what a bunch of unpatriotic idiots.

And where are moderate republicans? From interviews I've seen, there aren’t any. They’re apparently cowering in the closet hiding from Limbaugh or publicly apologizing with fealty for having disagreed with him. Thus, it appears that no republican has the...ahem...cajones to tell Limbaugh he's NOT the leader of the party.

Before the last election I was predicting that republicans were going to be out of power for a generation because it would take at least that long to regain the trust of the middle class. But I believe I was wrong: I now believe we're witnessing the end of the Republican Party as we know it. I don’t know what the new “brand” will look like, but one thing is certain: independent voters have given up on the crazy christians and Limbaugh. As long as moderate republicans allow them to run the show, the party will be out of power.

And the current struggle will probably last well past the 2010 congressional elections -- which should start to ramp up in just a couple of months. Republicans don't have enough time to figure out who's in charge — much less come up with a coherent and winning campaign strategy — to prevent the loss of even more seats.

DAStubbs
Minneapolis

Posted by: dastubbs | March 3, 2009 6:58 PM | Report abuse


Limprush is a cancer on America.

Posted by: geomguy | March 3, 2009 6:56 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile - Unfortunately, you are completely correct; Rush Limbaugh is and has been, for quite some time, the leader of the Republican Party. He and his nasty 20 million followers have an enormous influence on the candidate run and policies. We are doing exactly the right thing in pointing this out. If Independents and moderate conservatives, even genuine conservatives in the mold of Pat Buchannon, became aware of that, if it were imprinted on their brains, then the Republican Party would dump this two bit Nazi wannabee or be consigned to the fringes forever.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | March 3, 2009 6:55 PM | Report abuse

"We can analyze it all we want, but what we are seeing is a political party that is turning into a cult."
Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2009 11:06AM
==
How true, drindl!
This whole 2-year drama is interesting.
No sooner than Barack Obama had been sworn in as president, then the GOP began a campaign to recast all things economic as the fault, not the responsibility, of the new President Obama.
The Christian right has been heeding the suggestions of Rush Limbaugh since 'way back in the Primary season, when Republicans called me bragging that they voted in the Texas Democratic Primary election to try to boost Hillary Clinton over against Barack Obama.
Their game fell short and, in the wake of that section of the election, they lost their edge.
So they have been casting about for a voice for the Party.
Who stepped into that vacuum?
Rush, of course.
He's got his own "bully" pulpit.
Only, the base he is focusing on is shrinking.
Most of the former GOP supporters are unwilling to worship at that altar.
To watch Michael Steele and other Party leaders grovel at the feet of this clown humiliates this once-proud Party and alienates intelligent moderates.
As DNC chair Tim Kaine said today, "Rush is ... he who must be obeyed."
That's a form of philosophical slavery that's a monumental insult to voters who find some ideological agreement with the Reagan Revolution and the Contract on America.
Ron Paul this afternoon just refused to even discuss this diminution of his Party.
It's more than embarrassing.
It's an humiliation to what has been a party representing a worthy contrast to the philosophy represented by the Democratic Party philosophy.
A sad descent into the GOP's own private hell, isn't it?

Posted by: Judy-in-TX | March 3, 2009 6:52 PM | Report abuse

DEMA are freakin out and who wouldn't. Since NObama's election the market has lost 3 TRILLION dollars.

The markets have clearly rejected Obama and his radical policies by punishing success and giving it to bums so they can stay in their trailer another month.

Obama's speech today was rediculous as he brages he created a few thousand gov't jobs which of cousr never produce income or generate wealth.

Obama is an idiot to believe these phony jobs he created stimulates anything, they don't as they don't generate wealth in any form. No one buys a paved road, nor does have 1 red cent of value DOH!!

Chevy

Posted by: MrPotatoHead98 | March 3, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Lead by Bluto Limbaugh the Republican frat house is getting ready for another food fight rather than work to help America recover from the mess they have presided over. Too bad John Belushi is not arround to do him on Saturday Night Live.

Posted by: bradcpa | March 3, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

More numbers on that "Crisis of Confidence" for you guys:

"After Barack Obama's first six weeks as president, the American public's attitudes about the two political parties couldn't be more different, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds.

Despite the country's struggling economy and vocal opposition to some of his policies, President Obama's favorability rating is at an all-time high. Two-thirds feel hopeful about his leadership and six in 10 approve of the job he's doing in the White House.

.....

By comparison, the Republican Party — which resisted Obama's recently passed stimulus plan and has criticized the spending in his budget — finds its favorability at an all-time low. It also receives most of the blame for the current partisanship in Washington and trails the Democrats by nearly 30 percentage points on the question of which party could best lead the nation out of recession."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29493021/

A real crisis of confidence, for Republicans....

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

the Dow is only down 1 percent today. That is called up in lib circles.

Meanwhile the messiah is busy surrendering to russia. Sorry Poland. Eat dirt.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | March 3, 2009 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Just curious why the media was not in this tizzy when it was Democrats who were (and are) bowing at the altar of MoveOn.org and Daily Kos? For all this talk of Rush LImbaugh, why no talk about the control the these 2 far left organizations have over Democrats? When MoveOn ran the General Betray Us ad, there weren't a whole lot of Democrats who were willing to go on the record criticizing them. Yet the media didn't make a big story out of it.

Posted by: savvyj2 | March 3, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

I asm happy to attack Limbaugh. I think that he dangerously distorts the political debate in this country. In most countries he would be tried for inciting to riot and for treason.

Posted by: Blue_Moose | March 3, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Ah Zouk, mad to look like a fool on the issues again, runs away to another red herring. I'm shocked....

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

I mean, I sure wouldn't want to be accused of being the leader of the Republican Party, so I can see where that would be an insult...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 6:43 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe that people think Rush Limbaugh is a conservative. He is a fascist and the best reason ever for a return of the fairness doctrine.

Posted by: Blue_Moose | March 3, 2009 6:43 PM | Report abuse

No one's attacking Rush, they're merely pointing out that he's the leader of the Republican Party. Why is that an attack?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

"If Obama's plan works, then he has put out the fire that is burning down our collective home. To say you "hope he fails" is to hope our home continues to burn. Who would want that for their country?

To my fellow Americans, if you or your spouse get a pink slip at work (or have already received one), remember that Limbaugh wants Obama to fail because he doesn't agree with Obama's policies... So ultimately your pink slip has helped Rush feel better because our home continues to burn"

Inhaling all that smoke has clouded your perspective. Rush is your "first alert" smoke alarm. BHO is the arsonist with the gas can behind his back watchibg his handywork.


Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2009 6:35 PM | Report abuse

what is it with libs and paying taxes? They insist all properous Americans pay through the nose, yet when examined individually, they don't pay and cheat. Such hypocrites. Not only
On this issue.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | March 3, 2009 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Rush is a talk show host. Why is Obama so fearful of truth? Let Rush talk and dispute him on issues Not like Begala " He is a fat drug addict" etc etc. I have yet to see any Dem attack Rush on the issues. Simply because they would LOSE that argument.

Posted by: dencal26 | March 3, 2009 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Rush IS THE VOICE OF CONSERVATISM. Not the "Republican" party. After a few years in power, the Republicans forgot why they were there and started acting like democrats. And they were mauled for it. And now there are 40 semi-conservative democrats that replaced them. And they know the Obammy vote buying "stimulus" bill could well be their undoing. Even Pelosi remembered what happened in 1994 with the semi-auto gun ban. That is why she and Reid threw the Congress into reverse and SPED AWAY from Holden's comment on a new semi-auto gun ban. And they WELL KNOW that this vote buying "stimulus" bill is ALL THEIRS. If the economy doesn't turn around within 12-16 months, they know they will have hell on the campaign trail. SO yah, you won. We'll see who gets over it.

Posted by: Fiftycaltx | March 3, 2009 6:24 PM | Report abuse

"Has any lib in the last 8 years hoped for Bush’s success or Limbaugh’s success?"

Quite often actually. Here's one example, but I could track down a couple of hundred similar examples if you really like (not that you care, I'm sure, either since you never let facts get in your way):

"I hope and pray that the surge succeeds. But if it does not, we need to try a dramatically-different approach that does not totally abandon Iraq, the region, or the War on Terror."

http://souder.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsCenter.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=c32b4647-b0d0-fc95-f829-248bc4f24687&Region_id=&Issue_id=67cbefde-7e9c-9af9-7635-4faa54c014ea

You may question the sincerity, sure, but please find someone who openly rooted for Bush to fail. There is a huge difference between saying "I don't think this will work" and "I don't want it to work."

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 6:23 PM | Report abuse

"Why the classic crisis of confidence with BHO? "

A 62% approval rating is now a crisis of confidence?

Maybe this is what you mean by a crisis of confidence:

By a 48-20 percent margin, Americans believe the Democratic Party would do a better job of getting the U.S. out of recession than the Republican Party.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/03/1818512.aspx#comments

That's just gotta hurt...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Why the classic crisis of confidence with BHO? It that’s more and more people, that have any self-respect, don’t take kindly to someone lying to them. After self-proclaiming the most open, honest, ethical administration that administration ramrods an Obamulus that was anything but open, spending earmarks that were anything but honest stimulus and cabinet appointments that were anything but ethical.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2009 6:07 PM | Report abuse

There are only two kinds of republicans. The ones who listen to rush, and the ones who apologize to rush. If there is another leader of that party, pray tell us, Chris. I assure you it is not a dem plot to portray that windbag as the only leader of the repub party. Everyone else who tries to be leader gets shot down by him!! Trust me. He is the leader!

Posted by: tmcproductions2004 | March 3, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Go Rush! I want obama to fail also. How sad to see the destruction of American wealth which continues it's downward spiral. How sad to see the dismantling of our domestic security, the bottomless well of debt we owe to China, created by this president and congress.

I want America back, not some version of France, or Korea, or Russia.

Posted by: playfair109 | March 3, 2009 5:59 PM | Report abuse

If Obama's plan works, then he has put out the fire that is burning down our collective home. To say you "hope he fails" is to hope our home continues to burn. Who would want that for their country?

To my fellow Americans, if you or your spouse get a pink slip at work (or have already received one), remember that Limbaugh wants Obama to fail because he doesn't agree with Obama's policies... So ultimately your pink slip has helped Rush feel better because our home continues to burn.

Posted by: -NQ- | March 3, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Weasel words.

"several people close to obama have stated that it is obama's intention to make America a socialist country."

Several?

I'll bite:

Who are those people?

What are their names?

Posted by: mattintx | March 3, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

"GOP you are gambling what little your party has left away by having this idiot, overweight drug addict bigot speak for you.'

Well you have an idiot, overweight, sex addict, bigot in Slick Willie touring the world for you.

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Over the last few weeks, several people close to obama have stated that it is obama's intention to make America a socialist country.

Obama has stated that he believes in redistribution of wealth.

He is for illegal immigration amnesty.

If these premises are the standards of the obama presidency, I WANT OBAMA TO FAIL!!!!!!

Posted by: MYSTICMOUSE44 | March 3, 2009 5:49 PM | Report abuse

if limbaugh does in fact represent the voice of the republican party, then i feel ever more safe. i listen to good 'ole rush like i would watch a stand up comedy routine. which comedian stated: "you can't fix stupid?"

Posted by: wa_idaho_lonewolf | March 3, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Take your eyes off the stunning incompetence of BHO regarding the economy and now diplomacy with Russia by picking on a radio talk host exercising 1st amendments rights. And do it self-righteously after 8 years of “Kill Bush”. Has any lib in the last 8 years hoped for Bush’s success or Limbaugh’s success?

Posted by: leapin | March 3, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers, New York
03 March 2009

Yes, indeed, ultra-conservative Republican media personality Rush Limbaugh has said that he wants President Barack Obama to fail.

And you know whwat?

All House Republicans apparently agree with him. All of them, 177 House Republicans, voted a resounding "No!" to the Obama Stimulus Package.

Consistent with the Rush Limbaugh diktat, they want President Obama to fail, probably in the bizarre and twisted belief that such a failure will improve their chances of making a comeback in 2010 and beyond--and never mind if the country plunges into the deep and dark abyss!

Rush Limbaugh is now the voice of the Republican Party, and obviously believes that he is also the Leader of that party.

I won't at all be surprised if he succeeds in getting the Republican party to nominate him its next presidential nominee to run against Barack Obama.

He would be a formidable candidate. And if he gets either Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity as his running mate, he has a chance of capturing the White House.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: MPatalinjug | March 3, 2009 5:41 PM | Report abuse

This article says: "Democrats are engaging in a concerted campaign to link the national Republican Party to conservative talk-radio show host Rush Limbaugh."

At same time, I notice today WaPo has 3 articles about Rush Limbaugh.

Seems Washington Post is certainly part of the "concerted campaign!"

Posted by: pgr88 | March 3, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

"Great Depression began - 1929
Protectionism - Smoot Hawley Tarriff, April 1929
Roosevelt takes office - March 1933
Economic Recovery begins - Summer 1933
FDR Reigns in spending to appease budget hawks - Spring 1937
Economic recovery stalls - Summer 1937"

It is pretty amazing how well FDR's New Deal worked, isn't it? Then we had WWII which was basically a gigantic extension of the same concepts of economic stimulus. I doubt we'll get such dramatic results this time since the Republicans managed to water down the essential stuff, but the bill will help.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 3, 2009 5:25 PM | Report abuse

At least zuke admits to being part of the con game.

Posted by: mattintx | March 3, 2009 5:25 PM | Report abuse

"Drivl. Cons do something you are clearly incapble of. Independent thought."

Yup, and your reposting of talking points here every five minutes clearly exemplifies that....

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 5:20 PM | Report abuse

excuse me, "intimidated."

Posted by: mattintx | March 3, 2009 5:17 PM | Report abuse

"Incendiary" is a big word by dittohead standards: five syllables. Maybe they felt intimated by Mr. Steele's vocabulary.

Whoops, that's two more 5-syllable words. Let me try that again:

I bet they thought Steele used those big long words to say, "Take THAT, you dopes." Good thing they had Rush to put that man back in his place.

One-syllable words - much better.

Posted by: mattintx | March 3, 2009 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Drivl. Cons do something you are clearly incapble of. Independent thought. Go back to media matters, huff, kos and move on. So ironic about rush, an actual success.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | March 3, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

GDP During Depression (FY2000 dollars, in billions)

1929 - $865.2
1930 - $790.7
1931 - $739.9
1932 - $643.7
1933 - $635.5
1934 - $704.2
1935 - $766.9
1936 - $866.6
1937 - $911.1
1938 - $879.7
1939 - $950.7
1940 - $1034.1

http://www.housingbubblebust.com/GDP/Depression.html

Yup, must be all FDR's fault... Once again your command of the facts and reasoning skills astounds me.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

It's about time we REDEFINE the Republican party to the CONSERVATIVE party - get rid of the RINOS. Rush rules.

Posted by: totalkaosdave | March 3, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

"Let's review. When the worst recession ever hit, FDR responded by big spending, raising taxes, protectionism and global weakness. The result-great depression, surprise attack, world war, mass misery. Sound familiar?"

Great Depression began - 1929
Protectionism - Smoot Hawley Tarriff, April 1929
Roosevelt takes office - March 1933
Economic Recovery begins - Summer 1933
FDR Reigns in spending to appease budget hawks - Spring 1937
Economic recovery stalls - Summer 1937

Zouk's ignorance never ceases to amaze me.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

The GOP crows about about being the party of patriots...they are a party of hypocrites and traitors.

Posted by: ginouye | March 3, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

"What is interesting is that rush represents the grassroots base- the essential common sense of America. Meanwhile the libs are led by fascist top down comrades who all know what is best for you."

They call them Dittoheads for a reason. Funny, why is it that Republicans always seem to want to find one person who can speak for everyone, and call that the grassroots, meanwhile liberals have built their modern system on the blogosphere, a true grassroots movement with zero over-arching control, and conservatives see that as top-down fascism (and never mond that fascist comrades peice, ignoring that communism and fascismss were opposing movements that despised each other)?

These guys have zero reasoning skills, it's almost unbelievable (if their track record hadn';t already shown that to be the case, that is...).

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Let's review. When the worst recession ever hit, FDR responded by big spending, raising taxes, protectionism and global weakness. The result-great depression, surprise attack, world war, mass misery. Sound familiar?

Case two. ( conviently neglected by lib propoganda) After four years of loony lib rule, Reagan was elected. He lowered taxes, opened markets, deregulated, rebuilt the military. Result - beat the commies, record prosperity, won 49 states.

Pick one. War on prosperity or victory across the board.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | March 3, 2009 5:01 PM | Report abuse

This is no different than the Republican mantra of PATRIOTISM. So now Conservatives must choose to avoid nationwide hypocrasy. So who wants the President to fail? Patriotic, Moral, Conservatives? Country first Yeah Right!!!!

Posted by: minco_007 | March 3, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Glad you're taking time to spend w/ Charlie. Thanks for the links to the articles but was your comment "We pick the five most interesting stories of the day so you don't have to" a tongue-in-cheek reference to Rush? I believe he tells his listeners that he tells them what to think, so they don't have to (think).

Posted by: -pamela | March 3, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

"Meanwhile the libs are led by fascist top down comrades who all know what is best for you."

projection is what the gopers do best. rush is your fascist comrade, zouk, we all know it. you parrot everything he says. why would you do that if you didn't take your marching orders from him?

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

"What is interesting is that rush represents the grassroots base- the essential common sense of America."

It seems like, in America, if you have a small brain, no education, are semi-literate and barely numerate, have never travelled and lack a passport, never learned to weigh evidence or do your own research, and have total disrespect for facts, you qualify as what Republicans call a person with "common sense".

Posted by: kenonwenu | March 3, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. Michael Steele doesn't have the sense God gave a baboon.

Bring Sarah Palin in the mix and you have got sure fire winners for the GOP in 2012. Sure fire winners that will keep progress going in the right direction. President Obama 2012.! Sure fire winners that will keep the GOP what is has become a minority party that will only become more of a minority by being the party of NO!
America is going to say NO to the party of No! No to the party that has Rush Limbaugh speak for them.
GOP you are gambling what little your party has left away by having this idiot, overweight drug addict bigot speak for you.
You will not be able to attract new people especially minorities to your party when you let a man like Limbaugh speak for you.
Oh I forgot, you don't want minorities in your party. You just want to have a few token ones like Michael Steele and Bobby Jindal to bring out for show. You treat them just like you treated Sarah Palin like puppets that you bring out and pull their strings for show when you want it too look like you are in line with the rest of the country. The truth is you have no idea where the country is because you don't know where your party is. I know. Lost!

Posted by: bjlopez1130 | March 3, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Better the libs than cons like you, zuke.

Posted by: mattintx | March 3, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

"Anyone who criticizes TheOne, our beloved Messiah, will be condemned."

Mr. Steele can attest to that, can't he?

Oh, wait, which TheOne were we talking about again?

Posted by: mattintx | March 3, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

What is interesting is that rush represents the grassroots base- the essential common sense of America. Meanwhile the libs are led by fascist top down comrades who all know what is best for you.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | March 3, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Memo to right wingers:

Next time, when you want to hold onto the reins of government, just do something competently while in office. Then you'll get re-elected.

• Botching the Katrina rescue (when you help people from a flood, you really are rescuing them. you don't just stand there and call them stupid for living so close to the water, that conversation is best saved for later.)

• Looking the other way on Wall Street & the entire financial community - there is no better way to bring back Franklin Delano Roosevelt than to make people like me angry and sad all at the same time with the kind of idiocy and risk-taking among banks, bankers and bankers' friends. With talent like this, who needs enemies? It's official, my investments -- all of them -- are all worth less than the original dollars I put into them. Brilliant promotion of capitalism, don't you think? Comrade Obama? What have I got to lose at this point!

• No weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. I know I'm the only person in America who cares about this tiny point, but come on--the reason for this war was laid out by General Colin Powell as WMD's and none were found!

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | March 3, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

What is his view on the The United Nation's Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut world hunger in half by 2015 and eliminating it completely by 2025? An estimated $19 billion would eliminate malnutrition and starvation around the world. Our current defense budget is $522 billion, in comparison.

The Borgen Project (borgenproject.org) provides lots of information about this issue.

Posted by: alenka | March 3, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

drindl gets it right on what going on right now and just has to face up to the fact this is not a correction but a turning point. we are leaving the founding fathers behind us forever,finally, and putting the big govt. vs. local govt. debate behind us. we couldn't do it with electoral college reform so we will do it through the back door, with economics and health care and saving the banks and bailouts and whatever it takes. But when it's over, we will be rid of Reaganism, Nixon and bushism forever and the founding fathers will finally be dust in the wind.

Posted by: lenteach | March 3, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

drindl gets it right on what going on right now and just has to face up to the fact this is not a correction but a turning point. we are leaving the founding fathers behind us forever,finally, and putting the big govt. vs. local govt. debate behind us. we couldn't do it with electoral college reform so we will do it through the back door, with economics and health care and saving the banks and bailouts and whatever it takes. But when it's over, we will be rid of Reaganism, Nixon and bushism forever and the founding fathers will finally be dust in the wind.

Posted by: lenteach | March 3, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

"Where the Democrats are wrong is that every time they attack Limbaugh, his audience grows. Republicans can keep him at arm's length, as Cantor is doing, while enjoying all the benefits of Rush's daily assault on Obama's character, policies, and judgement."

No, they really can't because when they do they incur the wrath of their base. Most Republicans still in congress represent dark red districts, and need the support of the hard right to avoid a primary challenge, ala Tommey v. Specter at the Senate level. Cantor lost a lot of face these past couple of days, and Limbaugh, though he may be extremely popular with Conservatives, is an anchor on the weight of the party. It doesn't matter if self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals if the number of ocnservtives is still only 30% of the population, you need 50% to win in most cases, and unless conservatives number 50%, rallying the base right now won't get you ahead.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Limbaugh is the worst kind of swine-- physically, morally and intellectually, he belongs in the hog pen. The hypocrisy of his oxycontin-larded mind knows no bounds. He has done a lot of damage to our country and to our political discourse, and he needs to be turn into pork rinds once and for all. (I wouldn't recommend the chitlins-- too toxic for human consumption.)

Posted by: alarico | March 3, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Obama's mentor Saul Alinsky's Handbook for Radicals outlines the techniques used by this administration to try and break any link between Rush Limbaugh's influence and the GOP.
-
The president knows well that marginalizing and demonizing his strongest opponents could intimidate the fainthearted into supporting or withholding criticism of his policies... and increase his chances for success. It's basically a divide-and-conquer approach. It's obvious that the goal is to single Rush Limbaugh out, pick him off, and pull him away from influencing the GOP.
-
Where the Democrats are wrong is that every time they attack Limbaugh, his audience grows. Republicans can keep him at arm's length, as Cantor is doing, while enjoying all the benefits of Rush's daily assault on Obama's character, policies, and judgement.
-
And I love how these Democrat hypocrites are condescendingly referring to Limbaugh as an "entertainer"... please.
-
Yeah, he IS and "entertainer"... and an influental one, who became highly successful in the free market- because millions of people want to hear what he has to say. And a lot of conservatives are glad he's around, because a lot of it needs to be said... when nobody else in the party is saying it. I don't listen to the show actually, but you don't see the GOP putting him in the Senate, do you? Or any office whatsoever?
-
Just compare that to Al Franken... has Obama forgot all about that, already? Franken's radio show was a flop because few wanted to hear his boring anti-American drivel, but when that became futile, the DNC put this bozo on the ballot for Senator- good grief. And they'd have done the same for Chris "Tingle" Matthews if the polls wouldn't have revealed widespread revulsion at the thought.
-
Has that Franken done anything in his life other than "entertainer" and author... same as Limbaugh? So, a failed entertainer is OK for Senator... but a successful one (who is a major threat to Obama, apparently) isn't allowed to even have influence on his own political party?
-
Limbaugh and the GOP would be well-advised to ignore these malicious hypocrites, don't take the bait and play their game. Obama looks desperate going after Limbaugh, so just let him go down with his ill-advised policies... shouldn't take long now.
-
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/

Posted by: ReaganiteRepublican | March 3, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

anyone who feels "warmly" about limbaugh should have his head examined. He wouldn't give you or anyone so much as one of his pills or a bite of his cheeseburger, no matter who you were.
Leeches like Limbaugh live for themselves,their addictions,and consider everyone a sucker who is so mindless, it has made a loser like him rich and famous. Otherwise, he'd be buried in his own fat,his own bigotry and his own drug
habits.He would never be poor, in the common usage of that term,being a poor,poor rich boy.But he would be in the oven of anonymity,baking and burning with all his desires unfulfilled.
Sadly for us humans,he has found a way out of that deserved fate and has mastered the art of staying famous by being infamous.

But we do not have to add fuel to his fires and we shouldn't. Just give him what he deserves- forget him.

Posted by: lenteach | March 3, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

No doubt about it, Limbaugh is the defecato leader of the republican party ...

Posted by: hfisher1 | March 3, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

"David Brooks writes today as a moderate-conservative anguished by Barack Obama's budget. I've known David for almost twenty years now. We've had many wonderful conversations, publicly and privately, over those years, and I value the quality of his mind, his decency, his essential sanity. We both consider ourselves moderates, though of different sorts.
But I disagree with him profoundly about the Obama budget--and so, I would venture, do most moderate-liberals. The budget has to be seen in context. We are at the end of a 30-year period of radical conservatism, a period so right-wing that many of those now considered "liberals"--like, say, Barack Obama--would be seen as moderate pantywaists in the great sweep of modern political history. The past 30 years have been such a violent departure from the norm, such a profound destruction of the basic functions of government, that a major rectification is called for now--in rebalancing the system of taxation toward progressivity, in rebuilding the infrastructure of the country, not just physically, but also socially and intellectually."

as you can see by the rightwing neanderthals on this board, intellectually america has fallen a long, long way.

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile - Thank you for the correction. I did misunderstand your post.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | March 3, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Even a false god needs a devil in order to keep his mindless sycophants drinking the kool-aid.

Thus, Rush serves BOTH sides!

Achtung! The NEW POLITICAL ORDER IS HERE!

Anyone who criticizes TheOne, our beloved Messiah, will be condemned. They will be ostracized from society, they will be labeled a threat to national security, they will be called "unpatriotic" and "un-American", they will have to actually pay taxes (unlike loony-left liberal tax-cheats rangle, geithner, caroline "you know" kennedy, olbermann, daschle, killifer, solis, kirk and millions of others) and they will be vilified until they succumb to the ONLY ACCEPTABLE POLITICAL VIEW - that of the loony-left liberals.

All hail TheOne! Resistance is futile.

Posted by: LoonyLeft | March 3, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"Thanks, great article. But I didn't read that the Bush economists believed the tax cuts didn't pay for themselves. What they were saying is that without a decrease in spending that the increase in deficits and debt would end up costing us more, therefore the tax cuts should expire."

They didn't come right out and declare it, but that's exactly what they are saying through the very conclusion you just repeated. Tax Cuts were good to ge tthe economy rolling again, but the mounting deficit (outside of emergency spending) will require either reduced spending or tax hikes to cover the cost of the deficit, the tax cuts won't grow revenues to plug that gap.

This is the money quote, so to speak:

"An important feature of this model is that a permanent reduction in taxes, as compared to baseline, would lead to an unsustainable accumulation of debt,"

If taxes increased revenue at a rate greater than the cost, as supply siders advocate, that statement would be false.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Milbrooks, you seem to be misreading me. "Neoliberal economics" is synonymous with "University of Chicago Economics," is synonomous with "Washington Consensus," etc. It's the school of Milton Friedman, that what's good for the markets is the ultimate economic virtue, and thus liberalization of market regulation and lower flatter taxes are the way to go. It's aview I adamently oppose because what it deems as being the ultimate "good" is not, I believe the proper metric for public sector policy.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

"Your point is correct and equally applicable to debating arguments from the left that we must raise taxes in order to combat budget shortfalls right now."


I think 'the left', in the form of the President Obama, has proposed letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011, not 'right now'. Independant of that, I am in the camp that thinks we have to properly prioritize our economic policy, which in my view is along these lines:

1) short term: stop the economic free-flow we're in now by thawing the credit markets & addressing unemployment
2) mid term: bring the fed budget back into balance - borrowing money for short-term expenses is a recipe for disaster
3) long term: pay down the nat'l debt.

In the short term, gov't probably has to borrow & spend the money. Pretty clearly, nobody in the private sector is capable of stimulating the economy significantly enough to drive a turnaround. Unfortunately that means borrowing more money that we'll have to pay back. At some point, somebody (i.e. taxpayers) will have to pay back the money that's been borrowed over the last 30 years to fund our borrow-and-spend government.

So... Mid term balancing of the budget means we stop adding to the debt. In an ideal world, the economy grows and the budget naturally shrinks, relative to GDP. Relying on growth to solve the debt problem (i.e. "deficits don't matter") is short-sighted, in my view. We need to proactively pay it down, rather than relying on the goodwill of foreign exporters (China, petrostates, etc) to buy our debt & fund our consumption habits.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 3, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile - There is nothing virtuous nor liberal, about committing national suicide. Tax cuts that fuel job growth other than in this country are one of the leading causes of this depression. Globalization has never been anything other than a thinly veiled attack on the middle class. Corporation use the threat of outsourcing or cheap guest workers to lower wages, cut benefits, and degrade working conditions. I simply cannot fathom how any liberal would tolerate illegal immigration or legal "guest workers" when the damage they have wrought has been rubbed in our faces so recently.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | March 3, 2009 3:00 PM | Report abuse

kruez

Thanks, great article. But I didn't read that the Bush economists believed the tax cuts didn't pay for themselves. What they were saying is that without a decrease in spending that the increase in deficits and debt would end up costing us more, therefore the tax cuts should expire. Now I don't have a huge problem with that.

Posted by: RambleOn | March 3, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh is the perfect icon for the GOP. He is corrupt to the core: a drug-addict and a Dominican under-age prostitutes' client. David Vitter -- he of the Washington Madam -- loves him.

Keep up the good work , GOPers. And keep on talking about moral values... Your icons will make sure that you wander in the wilderness for the next fifty years.

Posted by: Gatsby1 | March 3, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1

You are absolutely correct. It is one of those "what if" debates, like where we actually are on the Laffer Curve, that is difficult to prove no matter which side of the issue you take.

My point was that that one cannot say definitely that tax cuts didn't pay for themselves when in fact revenues actually increased (whether caused by the tax cuts or not).

Your point is correct and equally applicable to debating arguments from the left that we must raise taxes in order to combat budget shortfalls right now.

For what it's worth, here's a link to the CBO letter explaining in better detail the increase in tax revenues from 2003-2006:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf

Posted by: RambleOn | March 3, 2009 2:43 PM | Report abuse

"Tax cuts DO work to create jobs and fuel business. There is no denying that. In the past, however, those jobs were created and kept here."

This is the bigger problem (beyond the larger issue that the tax cuts won't pay for themselves - Tax cuts as a stimulus fuel the macro economy, which in a global economy means the global economy. We are spending national resources to stimulate the global economy, which from a purely neoliberal economic standpoint might be the most virtuous thing to do, it means we are subsidizing growth largely overseas. Meanwhile, we are judging the progress of the plan looking at national, rather than global numbers. Government spending, on the other hand, may be slightly inefficient from a neoliberal standpoint, but it can be focused on growth in the US economy specifically, which is what is in the nation's interest, and therefore is the most virtuous thing from a US public policy perspective.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

"Ramble, A does not necessarily lead to B. Tax revenue went up, but did it go up more or less than it would have without the tax cuts?"

Ramble actually made this point. My question is how do we know that B is true? (B = increased revenue)

Posted by: DDAWD | March 3, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

"I'm wasn't referring to GDP as "revenue" but actual tax revenue to the IRS, which did in fact increase after the tax cuts on a absolute basis. So yes, the tax cuts did pay for themselves, meaning the deficits were caused by an increase in spending when the Bush administration threw out Clinton's pay-as-you-go mentality and started allocating spending for the wars as "emergency" off budget spending."

Nope. Revenue went up from an increase in enforcement and due to the housing bubble (which we are now paying for, btw). Even Bush White House Treasury Department officials freely admit the tax cuts did not pay for themselves.

http://www.slate.com/id/2146868/?nav=tap3

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Just finished lunch and checked in - and I thank all of you who shared for posting your current dream second homes-vacation homes-retirement homes.

Kreuz, if you check in again, I favor reorganization that wipes out the stockholders of zombie banks over nationalization for however shrot a time because nationalization requires that the shareholders be paid to give up ownership. But either move may now be academic because yesterday the FDIC announced that it did not have the resources in personnel to run CITI or BOA for any period of time at all.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 3, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

YOU BE DA MAN, LIMBAUGH. YOU BE DA MAN!

GO LIMBAUGH!

By the Way, has anyone seen Michael Steele?

Posted by: lcarter0311 | March 3, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

RambleOn writes
"I'm wasn't referring to GDP as "revenue" but actual tax revenue to the IRS, which did in fact increase after the tax cuts on a absolute basis. So yes, the tax cuts did pay for themselves, meaning the deficits were caused by an increase in spending"

Ramble, A does not necessarily lead to B. Tax revenue went up, but did it go up more or less than it would have without the tax cuts? It is extremely difficult to prove that there is a direct cause & affect between a tax cut and a revenue bump for the IRS. You are identifying a revenue change that happened after a change in tax policy without offering proof that the change in tax policy caused the revenue change.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 3, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

--"I see nothing wrong with agreeing with Rush Limbaugh. ... Well, everyone fails at least one time in their life. Government should not have to bail out everyone who is going to fall on their face. No one is bailing out the people who have to pay for all of this.

Posted by: dominomisty | March 3, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse "--

A reasoned point of view. Here's another one: No one gives a rats-*ss the fate of Ken Lewis - CEO of Bank of America. However Bank of American is laying off 30,000 to 35,000 bank tellers, janitors and other people that work hard and play by the rules. What do we do about them - and their children?

What do we do about feeding the children of these people after their unemployment runs out? Think parents of hungry children are above a little brick throwing?

What's Rush got to say about the parents of hungry children?

Posted by: DonJasper | March 3, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD - Tax cuts DO work to create jobs and fuel business. There is no denying that. In the past, however, those jobs were created and kept here. In the global economy, MOST of those jobs and new businesses created are NOT HERE. Any economist, and a careful reading of the Department Of Commerce statistics will bear this out, can tell you that there is now an inverse relationship between tax cuts (and corporate wealth) and jobs here. Look at the stock market. The top gainers are IBM, GE, American Express, and Wall Mart. Every one of those gains has been to the detriment of the U.S. economy. Their jobs, new factories, are off shore and they are dumping their U.S. work force and increasingly buying non-U.S. made products. So, the old tax cut model is broken and the only way to fix it is to somehow cause those companies to create and keep jobs here. The most effect way, I think, is to use punitive taxes for outsourcing and add very hugh taxes and duties and fees and tariffs when they make or have made a product off shore and bring it in to this country for sale.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | March 3, 2009 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Dominomisty wrote: "I see nothing wrong with agreeing with Rush Limbaugh. As he mentioned in his speach [sic], government take over failed before. I think he means it will not be successful this time either. He said he wants everyone is [sic] America to succeed, but big government handouts is not the answer. The democrats are trying to theaten everyone in America to believe in big government and independence is going to fail. Well, everyone fails at least one time in their life. Government should not have to bail out everyone who is going to fall on their face. No one is bailing out the people who have to pay for all of this."

The problem, dominomisty, is that the bailout proffered by Bush and the bailout and stimulus package offered by Obama, actually do help all Americans in some form or another. If our banking, insurance and housing markets collapse, then we will find ourselves in even more dire straits than we currently find ourselves. There may be some who believe that doing nothing is the answer, but clearly we must do something to help right the economic upheaval that we find ourselves in. Now is the time to unify as a nation and work towards a better America. It is the only answer to solving the megacrises that face us as a nation.

Also, Democrats are not trying to "theaten everyone in America to believe in big government." In fact, some of our greatest expansion of government has occurred under past Republican administrations -- most notably under Reagan and Bush 43. Bigger government may never be the answer, but no government involvement whatsoever will never be the answer either. We have to find a happy medium. Right now, that means that the government must step in and make a measured and thoughtful response to the economic woes that face our country. We don't have to agree with all of the decisions that the White House and Congress make, but we absolutely cannot stand by and do nothing.

Posted by: sdecker | March 3, 2009 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"The fact is that revenues actually went up after the Bush tax cuts." But they did not go up sufficient to pay for the cost of the tax cuts, thus they were inefficient. If I give a tax cut, bvut don't cut spending, of course GDP will increase

Posted by: kreuz_missile
---------
I'm wasn't referring to GDP as "revenue" but actual tax revenue to the IRS, which did in fact increase after the tax cuts on a absolute basis. So yes, the tax cuts did pay for themselves, meaning the deficits were caused by an increase in spending when the Bush administration threw out Clinton's pay-as-you-go mentality and started allocating spending for the wars as "emergency" off budget spending.

I'm open to agreeing with you if you can cite a source that disproves this (I'm trying to locate the source that supports my argument now).

Posted by: RambleOn | March 3, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"You may disagree with why revenues went up, and perhaps there were other forces that contributed to this along with or instead of the tax cuts. But the fact that tax revenues received by the federal government after the tax cuts is, again, not debatable."

Any sources to back this up? I always heard that revenues went down with the tax cuts(although I can't provide any proof)

Posted by: DDAWD | March 3, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

malis, I don't think you can really compare limberger to anyone on the left, because his main message is hate and greed. every word he says is laced with anger and hatred and violence against every democrat, every woman, every gay or black or brown person in this country and the world.

and look at rightwingers who post on this board -- no different. troglydites.

oprah -- i-m not a fan, i don't do celebreity worship -- but she does try to change people's lives -- only for the better.


Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Bluto for President! Let Limbaugh lead the national food fight while everyday Americans go hungrey. The Animal House (Republican) Party wants America to fail so they can blame it on the Democrats.

Posted by: bradcpa | March 3, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

I see nothing wrong with agreeing with Rush Limbaugh. As he mentioned in his speach, government take over failed before. I think he means it will not be successful this time either. He said he wants everyone is America to succeed, but big government handouts is not the answer. The democrats are trying to theaten everyone in America to believe in big government and independence is going to fail. Well, everyone fails at least one time in their life. Government should not have to bail out everyone who is going to fall on their face. No one is bailing out the people who have to pay for all of this.

Posted by: dominomisty | March 3, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"The fact is that revenues actually went up after the Bush tax cuts."

But they did not go up sufficient to pay for the cost of the tax cuts, thus they were inefficient. If I give a tax cut, bvut don't cut spending, of course GDP will increase because both consumer spending will increase with the tax cut and government sepending will remain constant. It is only efficient, and in line with conservative economic thought, if the tax cuts produce more revenue than they cost. The deficits they created leave no doubt that they did not.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

As Mark got me thinking a little more about conservative commentators, I ran across this from Hugh Hewitt:

“A week ago a reporter from a major American newspaper called
me to talk about Rush...The reporter asked me if Rush was a "leader,"
and I said no. He is, I continued, a communicator, a pundit and an
entertainer, one of the two best in the country --along with Oprah.
And a man of extraordinary influence. I think the Rush-Oprah
comparison startled the reporter, but it is exactly correct. They have
the same reach, and though they have almost completely different
approaches to life, both are deeply sincere about their views and
thus far beyond merely "effective." Both communicators change lives.”

…and then this, from Ross Douthat (whom I’d mentioned earlier) commenting on Hewitt’s observation:

“Not only do I think this is true, I've actually said it myself! (Though
Reihan said it first.) But if you accept the parallel with Oprah, then
you also need to recognize that if American liberals treated someone
like Ms. Winfrey the way the adoring CPAC-goers treated Rush –
not just as a great communicator and entertainer, but as an arbiter of
what their movement is and ought to be, and what their party should
be standing for - they'd look like starstruck fools. And rightly so.

“So I'm glad to hear Hewitt say that he thinks of Limbaugh as
"communicator, a pundit and an entertainer," rather than a "leader."
But I wish that more conservatives understood the distinction.”

“…starstruck fools” … that does seem a canny observation, does it not? As an issue, I think this get back to the fact that that in all the American Left, there’s only one ‘communicator’ that’s a parallel to Limbaugh…that is, of course, Barack Obama. And, of course, the Limbaughs and Kouks constantly pushed the meme that Democratic support of Obama is only that of ‘starstruck fools,’ the difference being that the Democrat’s Great Communicator actually risked entering the arena—ran for office and won (and now, by the way, has the opportunity to do what the R’s real ‘Great communicator’ did).

I hope the “Limbaugh as Leader” meme runs down (because I think a principled and rational opposition is better for America), but on a purely partisan basis it’s certainly better for Democrats if all Republicans can’t quite scrub off that odor Of Limbaugh Cheese.

Posted by: malis | March 3, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse


"In his response to Obama’s speech to Congress, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal declared, “Democratic leaders in Washington — they place their hope in the federal government. We place our hope in you, the American people.” Where have we heard these stale talking points before? Instead of choosing a new political path or offering reeds of compromise with the Democratic majority, Republicans are doubling down on the conservative platitudes that worked in the past. But such sentiments seem increasingly out of touch with the challenges facing the country today.

This is not the first time that a political party has gone back to basics after a devastating political loss. In the wake of the Reagan landslide in 1980, Democrats failed to shift course from the New Deal-style populism that had kept them in the political majority for more than four decades. It took a dozen years for the party to offer a new political approach that resonated with middle-class voters.

After Franklin D. Roosevelt’s victory in 1932, Republicans took a similar course, maintaining a drumbeat of Hooverite, small-government rhetoric that led to political calamity in 1936 and kept the GOP in the political wilderness for a generation. "

and this is what we see today. keep going the way you are gop -- a generation wandering in the wilderness and no one is more deserving, after what you have done to this country.

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

armpeg - Your comment shows how little you know about Scandinavia. Sweden has a large black population and huge numbers of Kurdish, Arab, and Iranian immigrants. It also has tens of thousands of South American immigrants, mostly "native Indian" people. Now, the Arab's, it is true, are having a very difficult time "fitting in", but the African, South American, Kurd's and Persian's are doing just fine, getting elected to offices, establishing thriving businesses, inter-marrying, and becoming and contributing to what it means to be Swedish. The most astonishing thing about Sweden and Denmark and Norway is how "normal" they feel to American visitors. I could easily imagine a Kurdish, African or Persian PM in Sweden, whereas that isn't even possible in places like France, Germany, and England.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | March 3, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh isn't worth a warm bowl of cr*p. The Democrats should forget about him. When the GOP trots out a buffoon like Rush and then starts touting Newt as their next presidential candidate, you know they are in trouble. Rush is what, a twice-divorced, a former Oxycontin thief? And Newt was forced out as Speaker of the House of Representatives for ethical violations and has also been known to hop in bed with women to whom he isn't married -- that is, when he's not busy calling Americans back to Christianity, as he suggests the founders intended. What a joke. The only value these two blubber sacks have is as boat anchors or perhaps fish bait.

Posted by: Bob22003 | March 3, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

The only people who really care what Limbaugh spews forth is his ever diminishing base. The same racists and bigots you saw at Sarah Palin rally's with Obama monkeys. True conservative Reps have seen the future and it's bleak. No wonder they are running away in droves. Limbaugh's schtick is to crank up the vitriol so he keeps getting paid. No one cares except for the idiots I just named.

Posted by: CHICO13 | March 3, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Before the right can start blamming the democrats for all the problems republicans created they have to use that same pin on voters that Mr Smith and Mr Jones uses on people to make them forget about the aliens in Men in Black. Maybe Rush has that pin.

Posted by: ged0386 | March 3, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"And the Dems think it's the best use of resources to turn their guns on a guy who is unelected to his position, and paid to be an incendiary pain in the arse?"

What resources? With a few off-hand remarks about Limbaugh, the administration has set the GOP to consuming itself. Aside from a few poor mouth-breathers who consider themselves Dittoheads, Rush is toxic. But the GOP leadership cannot afford to alienate the mouth-breathers. So they're forced to choose between Rush and success at the polls. Everytime someone like Steele is forced to grovel at the feet of The Toad, the party is diminished in the eyes of moderate and independent voters.

It's a brilliant strategy, and costs next to nothing.

Posted by: icoleman | March 3, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

if your policies were at this level of total failure, you would want to change the subject too. The libs are wrecking our country. It may be too complicated for the simpletons, but of course we want comrade obama's socialist agenda to fail. Duh! We like freedom better.

Posted by: king_of_zouk

The libs have been in office for about 6 weeks now. If you just noticed the country's problems you may be the simpleton. I guess people like you were sleep for the last 8 years then you woke up on Jan 20, 2009 and discovered all of americas problems and ask whats going on? Who is in charge and someone told you Obama. So you decided that its the democrats who are responsible based on your experience. Is that what you want people to think because that is the only case I could think of that would justify your post.

Posted by: ged0386 | March 3, 2009 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Lake Chapala Mexico is the best climate in the world and a very popular place for americans. it is 30 minutes south of Guadalahra,mexico . (forgive the spelling)the cost of living is 33% less expensive than the usa. I have been studying it for some time now as a possible place to move to . just type in the browser Lake Chapala and you will find info. on the whole area.

Posted by: gitugumi | March 3, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

It would take a complete horse's arse to stand up and defend the GOP. No one in their right mind, or an objective view of current events would ever stand up and say the GOP deserves a second look, or that it could serve as a viable alternative to the Dems.

This is why Rush is taking lead. He's the only dummy clueless enough to do this.

Posted by: hiberniantears | March 3, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

"I love Canada, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland too -- unfortunately so cold. I think maybe New Zealand. Australia is nice, but unfortunately, burning down."

DK doesn't get as cold as the US. Assuming the Gulf Stream keeps circulating.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 3, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Umm, so let me get this straight. The Dems won the WH and both houses of Congress. The economy is in the crapper and we are at war. So Democratic leadership is set and secure for at least two years to DO SOMETHING and have an impact. And the Dems think it's the best use of resources to turn their guns on a guy who is unelected to his position, and paid to be an incendiary pain in the arse? Way to have your priorities straight folks. Really, why invest in these kind of PR gains when we're not in the middle of an election cycle? Just get to work for heaven's sake!

Posted by: beedeegirl | March 3, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

re. All those "nice Scandanavian countries" like Sweden, Denmark, and other "nice places" like Switzerland that are so much better to live in--according to the liberal Democrap Socialist America--haters.
Say what you really mean libs.
The real reason you blame--America--firsters and America--haters love all these "nice countries to live in" is because they hardly have any blacks, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and all those other people who cause all the trouble. THAT'S THE REAL REASON!!!

Posted by: armpeg | March 3, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

"GordonsGirl, KOZ - Give me a break! I'm quite liberal and even I can see that Obermann, Maher, Maddow, Michael Moore and the like are every bit as toxic as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannidy."

I dunno, I don't really watch any of these guys, but I'd put Olbermann with Limbaugh and Hannity. Maddow? No. Different tone. Maher might be offensive, but he isn't as ideologically slanted. Moore is a lot more clever than the others.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 3, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Republicans need to listen to Newt. He tried the same thing with clinton. The result was a republican congress that looked like obstructionist more than conservatives and in the end they actually forced clintons budgets to be more fiscally responsible but with all of their obstruction they lost their opportunity to take credit for the resulting surplus. When you spend to much time disagreeing with the president hoping he will fail you miss out on taking some credit when he succeeds. This happened to democrats regarding the surge in Iraq. Dems were soo against any troop increase based on the political climate that they looked like they were on the wrong side of the issue when the surge had positive results.

Posted by: ged0386 | March 3, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

...conservatives fully believed, wrongly, that tax cuts would pay for themselves because of their warped interpretation of the Laffer curve and the faith-based economics that told them we must be on the upper half of the curcve, when in fact we are probably pretty close to the bottom.

Posted by: kreuz_missile
----------------
The concept of the Laffer Curve is not debatable, although where we are on the curve is open to economic interpretation. The fact is that revenues actually went up after the Bush tax cuts. You may disagree with why revenues went up, and perhaps there were other forces that contributed to this along with or instead of the tax cuts. But the fact that tax revenues received by the federal government after the tax cuts is, again, not debatable.

The deficits of the early decade arose from Bush's spending spree on defense and the middle east wars, not from tax cuts. Federal spending increased dramatically from the years of Clinton, who of course claimed "the era of big government is over".

So in that sense, Clinton is more of an economic conservative than Bush. Furthermore, Bush's response to the economic crisis laid the foundation for the current bailouts, which of course makes many conservatives now cry socialism. That's the point I was trying to make.

Posted by: RambleOn | March 3, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

What makes me so angry about Rush Limbaugh is that he doesn't matter. He never mattered. But because Rush Limbaugh is so adept at self-promotion, he sucks Democrats (and everyone else, for that matter) into discussing him and his worthless opinions. Democrats need to remain focused on what is important: The United States of America and what is best for the USA! The day that Rush Limbaugh or his pathetic opinions matter to this country is the day that this country is really in trouble. Hell, not even a majority of Republicans like Rush Limbaugh! Then again, who would like a man who makes fun of the young daughter of the President and adults who suffer from debilitating diseases?

Rush Limbaugh shouldn't serve as a distraction to the Obama administration. The man is not worth the Democrats' time or energy, since Limbaugh's only purpose in life is to help pull the wool over hard core conservatives' eyes and help the GOP find ways to use those same conservatives for their own selfish ends.

Obama and his administration are doing a great job right now. We finally have a White House that is being proactive and trying to solve the difficulties facing all Americans. It would be a shame if some loudmouthed, unintelligent mouth-breather like Rush Limbaugh distracted the Obama White House from fighting the good fight!

Posted by: sdecker | March 3, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin asks
"If you could, today, own a second home as a vacation or retirement place, in this economy, where would it be? For me it would have to be in the USA, Canada, or Australia."

If Oz is on your list, add NZ.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 3, 2009 1:15 PM | Report abuse

its a shame that the media is drawing such crowds. we taught our kids not to think. we gave them a canned school learning thing and left out the thinking thing. no one can think for themselves. we need a thing to tell us how it is. we have two different things telling us how it is. the so called left and so called right. we need preachers,talk radio,tv,and every institution is filled with greed and false ways. NO WONDER THE YOUTH HAVE TURNED AWAY FROM THE THUGS RUNNING THE BANKS AND COUNTRY. THE KIDS GOT THE SIMPSONS, AND EVERY LOW THINKING PROGRAM IN THE WORLD . WE HAVE LOST. THE RICH HAVE USED DEVISIVE MEANS TO SEPARATE US AND ROB US OF PRIDE OF ERNERSHIP,JOBS. THEY GAVE US WAR AND A TRADE DEFICIT WHICH HAS CRUSHED THE NATION. YIPPIE .

Posted by: gitugumi | March 3, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

I am so loving this, watching the GOP implode every day. Where Palin is seen as one of the front runners in 2012.

David Letterman had some great lines about that fat windbag Limbaugh last night.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kop_8D89ojw&eurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/02/letterman-calls-rush-limb_n_171259.html

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 3, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

if your policies were at this level of total failure, you would want to change the subject too. The libs are wrecking our country. It may be too complicated for the simpletons, but of course we want comrade obama's socialist agenda to fail. Duh! We like freedom better.

Posted by: king_of_zouk
*********************
project much, stink of dook?

Posted by: LABC | March 3, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

armpeg

Spoken like a true windbag. A bunch of labels and negative name associations to compensate for your inability to actually articulate yourself in an intelligent manner and end it up with the I am more real of an american than those who do not support my views bullshiiit. Apparently the country is made up of more unreal americans than you real americans based on last november's election. Seems you real americans have a problem. No one is supporting your real agendas anymore. Seems as if voters preferred that unreal american's named Obama and Biden. Maybe the trouble is your interpretation of REAL. When a politician uses words like Real Americans he actually alienates voters. Just ask Sara Palin after she referred to her supporters as real americans. She basically was saying to everyone who did not agree with all of her views was somehow not a patriotic. This kind of crap may sound good on message blogs but it hurts you politically.

Posted by: ged0386 | March 3, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

RambleOn wrote: "while Republicans DO have alternative ideas, his rhetoric is doing little to counter the claim that Republicans are nothing more than obstructionists."

It's not JUST Rush that's giving them the reputation as obstructionists, it's the perception that the Congressional Republicans won't even TRY to compromise with Democrats.

Nobody expects them to give up their conservativism, but it seems like they think that ANY compromise is tantamount to capitulation! To many of us, it looked like the view from the Right was that had they helped the Democrats craft a bill that might actually work, they wouldn't be able to finger point when/if it failed.

And regarding their 'alternative ideas'...when it came time to work on the stimulus bills and eventually reconcile the stimulus package from the Senate with that from the House, only THREE REPUBLICANS stepped up. Did they manage to kill the items they disagreed with? No. But in some cases they DID persuade the committee to shrink them, or to expand the tax incentives instead of adding more dollars, etc. IOW, they DID influence the legislation, though it wasn't exactly what they hoped for.

To make a long post shorter, of COURSE the resulting bill wouldn't have reflected everything the Republicans believed in, and yes, there would still have been many items they objected to...but on the other hand, they MIGHT have been able to insert some of those alternative ideas and programs that they DID think would work...if they had chosen to take what they could get instead of whining about what they couldn't.

I can't help but wonder how much BETTER the bill COULD have been, without the spiteful intransigence of the Republican legislators.


Posted by: WilyArmadilla | March 3, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm convinced that Mush could care less who wins the elections. His main objective is to stuff the republican agenda down every one's throat. And destroy the democratic party at any cost. This is what he gets paid for and this is how he supports his habits. His main audience is made up of narrow minded and gullible people. His financial supporters have taken aim at the illiteracy of the nation for support by his broadcasts. By the physical looks of him his days may be numbered, more than likely due to his addiction or habits. His party needs to understand the days of pilfer politics, propaganda, rhetoric cover ups along with the Cpecial Interest Army instigating unrest in the world for the benefit of private profit is coming to an end.

Posted by: kimkimminni1 | March 3, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

"The last economic conservative in the White House was none other than that great Republican Bill Clinton."
------
Then why does Rush (and other conservatives) hate the Clintons so?

Posted by: baltimoremom | March 3, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

"What the Democrap Socialists don't like about what Rush said is that it's the truth."

You tell 'em! And if anyone tries to put together the shattered pieces of the GOP coalition in order to reconstruct a viable opposition party, I hope you're right there to shriek your little head off. Because, until every last GOP candidate is a bat-guano crazy mouth-breathin' loon, whose testicles are a wholly owned subsidiary of the sweaty, fat-faced drug addict, you guys will never get back into power.


Best of luck, and "Drill baby, drill!!"

Posted by: icoleman | March 3, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Thats telling that Michael Steel the actual leader of the GOP has to cop to Rush Limbaugh who is a radio talk show host. The GOP needs to make steel their face not Rush if they want to get new voters. Obama won because he had new voters not just loyal democrats. Rush can get you loyalist but loyalist are called loyalist for a reason. They never left you. Steel can get the party new voters and bowing down to Rush only takes away his ability to get new people behind the party. Not to mention Rush has an ego as big as his fat head so he sees this as his opportunity to be something besides a conservative talk show host and if it means attacking Steel to do it he will. He wants to be a real player in the republican party and this is his big chance. But what republicans need to realize is that in the end Rush only cares about Rush and his own fame and power so when he crashes and burns he will take the party down with him.

Posted by: ged0386 | March 3, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Right on Rush for telling it like it is!!!
What the Democrap Socialists don't like about what Rush said is that it's the truth. Their Marxist agenda, that they're trying to install in our country, is like how Joe Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Fidel Castro, and others like them used to power, and THAT is what all real Americans want to fail.

Posted by: armpeg | March 3, 2009 12:53 PM | Report abuse

drindl - My family and I lived in Vastra Frolunda (suburb of Gothenberg, Sweden) and it is lovely. The summers are gorgeous and the winters aren't that bad - plenty of rain and snow that comes and goes from mid November through the end of April. The people are friendly, lots of things to do (and don't miss the Gothenberg art museum - Monat and other Impressionists, fabulous Ruben's, and visiting exhibits that will delight you), concerts, theater in English and Swedish, the best public library you will ever encounter, sailing, wine and beer tasting, great fishing and hunting... And Nordstrand is one the largest indoor shopping malls in Europe with an eclectic selection of stores that will please anyone. The city newspaper, Goteborg Posten, is liberal, well written and always interesting, and, unlike liberal newspapers in this country, has annual reviews of quality hunting rifles and shotguns! (Imagine that in the Post - a review of, say, Sako's latest Classic model in 6.5X55 with a lead lapped barrel! You WILL see that in Sweden!)

Posted by: mibrooks27 | March 3, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

a lot of the people who used to republican turned away because of the demented ways of the bush bunch and this should serve up the dish of total disdane for the administration and repubs responsible for the death of our kids in a money making deal for the big corporations in the war. we served up our kids blood for the total tanking of our economy and the enrichment of the multinational corporations. a few big corporations got rich and we got poorer. there are a lot of rich people walking the earth today because of bushs war and the repub. scam. what a shame that the Money was the catalyst for the few and that the few had the power to kill our kids. it will happen again and again, it happened in Viet Nam and Iraq and will happen again.

Posted by: gitugumi | March 3, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

98% of the comments here are why we have failed as a country and we are just now seeing our end. There are so many hate filled people today. The american people have taken this "us against them" attitude, but it's againt our own brothers and sisters. This is just another civil war being faught between the R's & D's and in the end we will all fail.
The idea of this country was lost many years ago when we stopped having elections and started have competitions. There are no winners in a loosing game.

I would buy a house in Singapore. Far away where I could watch America rip itself apart.

Posted by: mikeMM | March 3, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Rachel Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar and would beat Rush's big fat behind into the ground in a debate.

Posted by: CHICO13 | March 3, 2009 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Rush is a loser who has become successful from being a divisive talk show host who uses division to promote his own success. He prays on the hatefulness of people for ratings. He is not a problem solver, he is a problem maker and has not proven he has an answer to any of our country's problems except to hate the other party and whoever belongs to it. Republicans should not base any part of their party on this guy. Other than getting republicans to hate everyone outside of their political party more what has he done for america? What did he deliver for the republican party. He did not help garner votes in the 08 election. He did not deliver for McCain seeing that Obama won and he will not deliver any new votes in 2012 because all he is doing is getting the already established anti-democrats voters madder not getting more to join so what is this guy good for? He has peaked.

Posted by: ged0386 | March 3, 2009 12:43 PM | Report abuse

""Conservative" is a dirty word right now, given the economy and certain policies that most American's disagreed with over the past 8 years. But the problem is, and Gingrich very astutely pointed this out in his speech last week, is that Bush was not a conservative in the truest sense of the word. "

More proof, conservatism never fails, it is only failed by mortal men...

Seriously, besides education, immigration, and foreign aid (none of which destroyed the budget), Bush was everything the movement Conservatives have always wanted. What should he have done, cut more from the budget? Don't you remember Tom Delay proudly proclaiming they had trimmed all the excess fat? What other programs was he supposed to cut? The answer is none, because conservatives fully believed, wrongly, that tax cuts would pay for themselves because of their warped interpretation of the Laffer curve and the faith-based economics that told them we must be on the upper half of the curcve, when in fact we are probably pretty close to the bottom.

The one thing we absolutely NEED, RIGHT NOW, is to stabilize the banks. Limited buyouts and dancing around the issue aren't going to do it. we need bold, decisive action - short term nationalization of the major troubled banks immediately, rapid reorganization and stream-lining, then selling them back into the private market. until that happens, no stimulus bill or jobs bill will do any good, because the markets are just sitting, waiting to see who will be the next Lehman Brothers. That is what the markets are reacting to, and if any of it is Obama's fault, it isn't the spending bills, it's their inability thusfar to ease concerns over the financial markets which is where all efforts still need to be focused.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

What Michael Steele meant to say was Yessa Massa.

Posted by: CHICO13 | March 3, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

THE REPUBLICAN DOES NOT NEED TO GO AHEAD AND ATTACH THEMSELVES TO THIS FAILURE THEY ARE BY NATURE THE VERY EMBODIMENT OF THIS SQUEALING GIRLI BOY. EVER NOTICE HOW FAT JAWED HOGS WILL WALLOW IN THE MUD AND SLIME HOLE BEFORE THEY GET STILL. BEING AN OLD FARMER MYSELF , I NOTICE THE HOGS WILL GRUNT LOUDLY AND SHAKE AROUND AND ALMOST DO THE DISCO IN MUD HOLE , BEFORE THEY SETTLE FOR A GOOD OLE TIME OF SAVORING THE DRAWING OF THE MUD PACK. AFTER A FEW HOURS THE OL HOG WILL GET UP AND DO THE SAME THING AGAIN. GRUNT , SNORT, SQUEAL, FLOP.

Posted by: gitugumi | March 3, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

GordonsGirl, KOZ - Give me a break! I'm quite liberal and even I can see that Obermann, Maher, Maddow, Michael Moore and the like are every bit as toxic as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannidy. Worse, they couch the bile they spew as "hyperbole", but it has the same effect on civil discourse as anything Limbaugh says. I turn them off and haven't watched their shows or movies in months. If you want a thinking liberal, watch Campbell Brown. Then, tune in Joe Scarborough and Mika for a reasoned conservative take on events (and Lou Dobbs for a genuine Libertarian take). There is no need (and little excuse) to pay any attention the loudmouth hysterical partisans.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | March 3, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Of course it is never as clear cut as the media and the simpletons like to say it is. It really depends on how one defines "failure". A worsening economy? A long-term depression? Falling dollar? Inflation? Or a stock market that continues to fall to historic lows based on traditional valuation measures?

Regardless of what Limbaugh hopes for, I doubt there is a single Republican in Congress that wants the country to experience a long-term depression, or anything else as painful as that. But many in the center and the right are already calling Obama's economic policies failures due to the market's initial reaction to them. So "failure" is something that is already here, not some draconian event that kills the country.

"Conservative" is a dirty word right now, given the economy and certain policies that most American's disagreed with over the past 8 years. But the problem is, and Gingrich very astutely pointed this out in his speech last week, is that Bush was not a conservative in the truest sense of the word. (Neoconservativism is, of course, and outgrowth of modern liberalism, polar opposite of "classical" liberalism.) The last economic conservative in the White House was none other than that great Republican Bill Clinton.

So with Limbaugh and others attempting to push the party back to its true principles, the administration and the pundits make it seem like it's being pushed into oblivion.

I don't particularly care for Limbaugh, and I think many are probably turned off to the Republican party because of him, but he's the loudest voice right now. And while Republicans DO have alternative ideas, his rhetoric is doing little to counter the claim that Republicans are nothing more than obstructionists.

Posted by: RambleOn | March 3, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't presume to suggest that John McCain is on the same intellectual plane as Bobby Jindal, but it is patently easy to determine that whoever wrote Jindal's latest missive to the country is the same neo-con idealogue that kidnapped the Vietnam war hero and turned him into anything but honorable or heroic in the last presidential election.

There is a fierce war going on for the soul of the GOP and it is obvious that the Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove influence is holding sway. So long as that is the GOP direction of choice, and as long as the GOP prays at the altar of Rush Limbaugh, the ever-widening middle of the political road will belong to the democrats. And we are perfectly fine with that.

And so long as smart, savvy Republicans sell their soul to those dark divisive idealogies, democrats have only themselves to fear. Not the GOP.

Posted by: mnbucklew | March 3, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

A brilliant tactic by the Dems. If Limbaugh is the defacto leader of the GOP, Obama is guaranteed continued popularity and a second term. Remember when Limbaugh said to the Democrats in 2004--"you lost, so shut up." Just shows that the old windbag can dish it out but he sure can't take--what a hypocrite.

Posted by: jsquires | March 3, 2009 12:30 PM | Report abuse

"mark asked "If you could, today, own a second home as a vacation or retirement place, in this economy, where would it be?"

any one of the Scandanavian countries probably, since they seem to be weathering the economic storm much better than many other country. Sweden probably, because of their views on personal freedoms, the environment, and womens rights. Canada is nice too though. Maybe Vancouver or Calgary."

I love Canada, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland too -- unfortunately so cold. I think maybe New Zealand. Australia is nice, but unfortunately, burning down.

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2009 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Mike Steele will henceforth be known as Mike SQUEAL. As in "Squeal like a pig. Come on, squeal. Squeal."

Now, it's usually the fatboy who is doing the squealing, but in this case it's the fatboy who is directing the action.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | March 3, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Re Other places to live:

I've lived in the States (NY, CT, MA and TX), Sweden (Stockholm) and UK (London) and I would take Stockholm anyday, aside from the long winters. Stockholm is extremely civilised and the country works on most every level. Their philosophy (a bit idealistic at times) is to try to make sure everything is taken into account when formulating policy (a holistic approach that includes environment, people, etc). It doesn't always work but it's heartening to see it in action....

Posted by: RickJ | March 3, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

RUSH LIMBERDOURKE IS THE PHYSICAL EMBODIMENT AND SPIRIT OF EVERY RED NECK IN THE USA. AS TRUE AS ANY SPOILED LITTLE GIRLLIE DRAMA QUEEN AND LITTLE BOY FOOT STAMPER. THEY HAVE ALL ATTACHED THEMSELVES BY NATURE.

Posted by: gitugumi | March 3, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

"Didn't they advocate that bush fail?"

Please, give us a quote where they hoped for Bush to fail. There's a big difference between saying someone's misguided policies are doomed to failure (an anlysis of the implications of their policies) and hoping someone will fail (an emotional reaction with alarming consequences). Olberman and Maher hoped by raising these critiques that Bush would change so he wouldn't fail. Big, big difference.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

mark asked "If you could, today, own a second home as a vacation or retirement place, in this economy, where would it be?"

any one of the Scandanavian countries probably, since they seem to be weathering the economic storm much better than many other country. Sweden probably, because of their views on personal freedoms, the environment, and womens rights. Canada is nice too though. Maybe Vancouver or Calgary.

Posted by: WilyArmadilla | March 3, 2009 12:19 PM | Report abuse

It sounds like Obama is touting a lot of things. He is just like a kid with a new toy. Now he is going after Limbaugh!!! Yes, Obama is definately going off in all directions. Me thinks he needs a new battery for his new toy. It is starting to wind down.

Posted by: Pete433 | March 3, 2009 12:12 PM | Report abuse

I find it very interesting that, after all these years, Rush is going mainstream. He is coming out of his dark cave and into the spotlight. Rush, don't you remember the other times you've tried this (ESPN, your own tv show)? Didn't work out too well, big fella. And what was up with the outfit you were wearing? I know that being on radio you don't usually have to worry about what you're wearing, but I thought you were going to throw a little disco in there! Or maybe you were going for the Tony Soprano look?

I did read the transcript of the speech, Rush. Yeah, Republicans love all Americans. Except if they need any kind of help. Except if their last names are Clinton. I've heard your show, Rush. Somehow I don't feel the love.

Posted by: baltimoremom | March 3, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

There are a lot of haters here. No wonder we are in the mess we are in. Everybody hates everybody else. There is the source of all of our problems.

Posted by: mikeMM | March 3, 2009 12:06 PM | Report abuse

"Rush is the bloated face and drug-addled voice of the Republican Party".
__________________________________________

You forgot racist, mean spirited and unjust. He can be arrested more than once in recent previous years for drugs and rise as a great speaker.He's, if anything, is an ENTERTAINER.
He has the attention of the under educated people who are easily led. He'll do well in rural areas. And area where skin-heads are populated. Come up with some REAL solutions as opposed to no solutions. while he is making his numbers for his talk show; he's also hurting those who need help.

Posted by: lindarc | March 3, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Olbermann and Maher cannot be compared to Limbaugh. Yes, both spout liberal/libertarian views, but neither are held up within their party. They are seen as members of the media and entertainment industry, respectively. I've yet to hear any Democrat apologize to either man.

The GOP's major problem with Limbaugh is that he has a preposterously needy ego, a man who lives for the spotlight. Moreover, Limbaugh does not speak for the majority of the GOP. The danger is that he does hold power with the increasingly radical GOP congressional delegation and those who hold the power in the party.

If the GOP is not careful, Rush Limbaugh will prove their ruin.

Posted by: GordonsGirl | March 3, 2009 11:58 AM | Report abuse

The spectacle of the head of the Republican National Committee spinelessly grovelling for forgiveness before the like of Rush Limbaugh, an unelected an unaccountable gas bag belching out nothing but hate-filled rhetorical non-sense, is truly sickening.

Posted by: Gladiator2008 | March 3, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

"Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, a new group led by the former owner of the Hospital Corporation of America, is launching a multimillion-dollar campaign today in opposition to President Obama’s health care reform agenda. The group “is enlisting a group of veteran Republican consultants to fashion a multi-media battle, warning against the move toward more government involvement.”

here we go again -- rightwing corporations out to destroy middle class's americans hopes for decent medical care. and so we sink deeper into being a 3rd world country.

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

ThreadJack Notice!

Two years ago I thought of having a second home in Tuscany, or Vancouver, or San Felipe, MX where I own a parcel. I also own one west of Taos but it does not "percolate". All of that is now impossible for me, but I am not in debt so I am not complaining - been in debt in my life and that is what sucks.

Question: If you could, today, own a second home as a vacation or retirement place, in this economy, where would it be? For me it would have to be in the USA, Canada, or Australia. No more thoughts of Italy [near collapse] or MX [the drug wars].

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 3, 2009 11:56 AM | Report abuse

THIS ARTICLE REMINDS ME HOW FRAGILE OUR DEMOCRACY IS. I BELIEVE OTHER COUNTRIES SEE US AS WELL.

I FOR ONE AM HAPPY THAT MR. LINBOUGH IS OUT SPOKEN. HE REMINDS ME THAT DEMOCRACY UNATTENDED CAN TURN TO HATRED & TERRORISM.

MR. STEELE WAS UNDER THE NIEVE IMPRESSION THAT HE HAD SOME STATUS. HE IS THE GUNGA DIN, THE NATIVE SON OF THE GOP.
HOW SAD THAT THE GOP THOUGHT WE WERE THAT STUPID, THAT WE CONSIDERED THE RACE ISSUE SOLVED BY THE ELECTION OF PRESIDENT OBAMA.
BECAUSE OF THE GOP, THE AL QAIDA CAN RESTRUCTURE THEIR PLANS FOR AMERICA. THE GOP WILL DO THEIR WORK FOR THEM. FIRST DIVIDE OUR PEOPLE THEN OBSTRUCT OUR EFFORT TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS. NEXT THEY WILL OBSTRUCT OUR EFFORT TO GAIN PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND END THE WARS. WARS ARE GREAT INVESTMENTS FOR THE GOP. THE WARS GIVE GREAT CONTRACTS AND FUND CAMPAIGNS. THEY MAKE FAMILY MEMBERS RICH. THAT CAN'T CONTINUE IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE PAY ATTENTION.
RUSS MAKES US PAY ATTENTION.
I FEEL SORRY FOR MR. STEELE. HE LET A COMEDIAN BLOW HIS COVER. BEFORE HE BECAME RNC, HE HAD SOME DIGNITY, NOW HE MUST BOW DOWN TO THE GOLDEN HIPO LIKE THE REST OF THE GOP. I BET SARAH WILL NOT JOIN THAT GROUP. I HOPE SHE STAYS A MAVERICK.

MY BEST TO YOU RUSS. MAY YOU CONTINUE TO LEAD YOUR PARTY. BE SURE TO PUNISH AND OPENLY DISGRACE THOSE WHO DISAGREE BECAUSE THAT IS HOW YOU GET THOSE ONE MIND VOTES AGAINST EVERYTHING OBAMA.

Posted by: sm98yth | March 3, 2009 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Comrade Obama is speaking again. Is there anything else? Dow turns down. Hmmmmm.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | March 3, 2009 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Add Mikey Steele to the list of nutless Repukes who grovel at the feet of the fat pantload Rush Limpballs.

Does this clown have pictures of these guys with farm animals? His rabid mob, I mean loyal listeners, are a small minority of the American voting public.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | March 3, 2009 11:44 AM | Report abuse

A majority of the GOP "wants this President to fail". Limbaugh is merely being used by the GOP as a political foil, with which to voice its distain for Obama's policies. Obama is attempting to re-focus America on its middle class, and the GOP, with Limbaugh's rhetoric, want Obama to fail at this attempt. "Socialism" is the new bigoted race-card, for all things non-white and not wealthy. This is not lost of Limbaugh who make 40MILLION dollar spewing his nonsense. His followers, by and large, are middle income or low wage earners who would benefit more from Obama's policies, than the policies of the GOP, but they are too blinded by hatred to realize this.

Posted by: demtse | March 3, 2009 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Hey Democrats -- You won the election. How about actually governing the country?

Posted by: NoVAHockey | March 3, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Peter Dauo explains why he thinks the dems are pursuing a bad strategy here. He may be right...

"It's bad for the country and it's bad politics. Limbaugh and his cohorts (Coulter, Hannity, Beck, Savage, and so on), are largely responsible for our toxic political environment. Given major media platforms to launch crude and brutal political and cultural attacks, to demonize liberals, and to use rage as a means of lining their own pockets, these 'entertainers' have poisoned our national discourse.

Democratic strategists, busy sparring with Rush Limbaugh, should keep that in mind. The seeds of Democratic defeat are planted not by Republican elected officials, who, like McCain, will carry the Bush albatross for years to come, but by those who can freely fan the flames of outrage, who can fight dirty, who can bend and break the rules with impunity, who can tear down their opponents' integrity and character, and whose apparent reward (as in the case of Ann Coulter) is to be given yet a larger platform."

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2009 11:32 AM | Report abuse

To be fair we should identify an equal representative of the libs:

Keith olberman
Bill mahar

Didn't they advocate that bush fail?

Except rush is intelligent and witty wheras no known lib suffers that burden.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | March 3, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

enemy of the state -- yep.

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

"A bigotted blowhard leading the Republican Party...not much "Change" there.

(Peter Griffin voice) Hey Lois, check it out, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who's threatened by change."

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Let's start identifying a few faces of the Democratic Party who have should send a thrill up the legs of moderate Americans: John Murtha, John Edwards, Bill Richardson... Hey Republicans and Conservatives. Don't allow the WaPo to control the argument.

Posted by: surfbum | March 3, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1 - "If I said "Of course I want Rush Limbaugh to fail if he is plotting to overthrow the American government." Would you say "me too" or would you say I'm an ignorant boob who is misrepresenting his motives?"

I don't care who ya are, that there is FUNNY! LOL!

re Kathleen Parker - though some of her recent columns have been interesting, I haven't quite been able to shake the scorn engendered by her book "Save the Males".

Posted by: WilyArmadilla | March 3, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

RE:"As a case in point, Mark, how long since you saw a thoughtful republican remark on this blog? they are all in the same dittohead category and all sound like they could be the same person, they're 'thinking' is so similar. This is not good sign."
================================
I just realized reading this post that the GOP have become the Borg!

Posted by: EnemyOfTheState | March 3, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, earmarks sure are going to be a winning issue for Republicans....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/02/red-states-gobble-up-omni_n_171186.html

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Limbaugh and Joe the Plumber are the face, heart, mind and soul of the Republican Party. Sanctimonious, uneducated, loud mouthed bullies with a lot of baggage in the closet.

And the sooner everyone realizes this, the better off the nation will be.

Posted by: MorganaLeFay | March 3, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

As a case in point, Mark, how long since you saw a thoughtful republican remark on this blog? they are all in the same dittohead category and all sound like they could be the same person, they're 'thinking' is so similar. This is not good sign.

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

A bigotted blowhard leading the Republican Party...not much "Change" there.

And if Rush wants to lead, why doesn't he step out from behind the microphone and run for office?

Answer: Obvious.

Posted by: anarcho-liberal-tarian | March 3, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

At one time, before his ego started to match his outsized head, Limbaugh referred to HIMSELF as just an entertainer.

Posted by: EnemyOfTheState | March 3, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Forget about Rush; The best thing that ever happened to Conservatives is ole Earmark Obama. His ears sure do leave a mark. His fiscal mistakes will mark his downfall. Hope he takes Pelosi down with him.

Posted by: poptoy1949 | March 3, 2009 11:08 AM | Report abuse

"that can create the same
echo-chamber effect that the liberal media has long produced, "

liked your post, malis -- although [i know you were quoting this[ is simply non-existent. there has never been, on the left, the kind of monolithic, multi-media coordinated media machine that the right now employs.

And Mark, sure there are thoughtful republicans -- unfortunately, we never hear from them, because they are mostly too afraid to speak, because of what happens to them if they dare. And I do sympathize, but they should have repudiated the far right a long time ago-- but they didn't, and so what has happened to the party is the fault of the rank and file as well as the leadership.

And I am angry -- angry that for years now our policies have been held hostage by a small group of let's say it -- lunatics. And what we see before us is the result.

We can analyze it all we want, but what we are seeing is a political party that is turning into a cult.

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2009 11:06 AM | Report abuse

mark, the screenname is more in homage to the wide open spaces of my childhood and not so much to my present home :-)

regarding the economy, rumor on the left is that Obama will soon be tackling entitlement reform, which I expect will go a long way in reducing the projected deficit. Of course i ALSO expect an outcry of 'hypocrits' from the right when we give him more slack than Bush received. What "the right" (for lack of any other groupname) will not understand is that after years of them admitting their desire to do away with the safety net, Obama will be able to make far more sweeping changes than any Republican because liberals will know that his aim is not to DESTROY it but to REFORM it in the actual sense of the word (as opposed to Republican 'reform' which usually means deliberately FUBARing something until it collapses).

Wouldn't it be interesting if that's how it all played out? Republicans getting their 'entitlement reform', Democrats getting their healthcare reform, and the rest of us getting the best of both? LOL! Wouldn't that bug EVERYBODY! heh.

Posted by: WilyArmadilla | March 3, 2009 11:03 AM | Report abuse

It isn't just the Republican Party, the whole conservative movement has been tied to toxic little vermin like Rush, and the whole Fox News rats nest. That is too bad, in many ways, because the knee jerk reaction of most people is of conservatives being treasonous, doped up, crooks, and sexual predators. I know, when anyone says Fox News, everyone in my home thinks of their many individual failings as belonging to the whole group ("..true for one, true for all.."). So, you actually have to stretch your mind a bit to think of people like Pat Buchannen, Peggy Noonan, and John McCain as conservatives. Limbaugh and similar air bags have done grave damage to conservativism and civil discourse.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | March 3, 2009 11:02 AM | Report abuse

1) GOP ruins country

2) GOP loses power

3) GOP aligns itself with the hate filled, drug addled bloviations of a hypocritical buffoon named Rush

Seems perfectly logical to me. GOP couldn't make good decisions when they were in power, so why expect them to start now?

Posted by: hiberniantears | March 3, 2009 10:59 AM | Report abuse

DaMan2 writes
"Of course we want Obama to fail if he is trying to instill socialist and big spending liberal policies."

The thing is, that's not what he's trying to do. If I said "Of course I want Rush Limbaugh to fail if he is plotting to overthrow the American government." Would you say "me too" or would you say I'm an ignroant boob who is misrepresenting his motives?

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 3, 2009 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh is what happens when you combine over opinionation with under education. He is the perfect poster boy for the republican party.

Posted by: TRACIETHEDOLPHIN | March 3, 2009 10:53 AM | Report abuse

malis -- record-breaking heat in CO? Record-breaking cold in NY, 14 in NYC this morning, in March.

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2009 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Those nutty Democrats. Who would possibly associate Limbaugh with the Republicans?

Posted by: spidey103 | March 3, 2009 10:52 AM | Report abuse

The Michael Steele recant isn't the first time someone has gone back on his attack of Limbaugh. Here's a video of Phil Gingry almost begging for forgiveness from Limbaugh (Mr. Cilliza's analysis follows)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/28/phil-gingrey-gop-congress_n_161964.html

If this wanting American to fail comment was an isolated incident, then yeah, I'd say this has no legs, but Limbaugh will put himself front and center time and time again. This is similar to the Republican strategy of tying Democrats to moveon.org, but I think the Democrats will be more successful in making the connection simply because Republicans seem to embrace the guy so much.

Make no mistake, this is good for Limbaugh, this is good for the Democrats. This isn't good for the Republicans, though.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 3, 2009 10:51 AM | Report abuse

This is a great Democratic party strategy! It is way past time for this Humpty Dumpty to have a great fall---and all his unthinking "ditto heads" so easily swayed by his juvenile rants!

Posted by: garrettmoore | March 3, 2009 10:50 AM | Report abuse

This is brilliant strategy from BHO and Rahm.

Rush is now the official face of the GOP like it or not. The rational segment of the party cannot be happy about having a bigoted radio entertainer as the de facto icon of the GOP.

True, Rush, like Phalin, excites "the base," but that "base" is dwindling (probably about 10% of the electorate at present) and consists mainly of fringe deadenders who obsess over race, religion, and foolish side issues (flag pins, people's middle names, etc.) in the Deep South States. And what's more, Rush is a gift that will keep on giving; he likes all the attention and he can be counted on for more intolerant and idiotic I-hope-Obama-he-fails comments as we go along.

Game, set, match, BHO.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 3, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

WilyArmadilla writes
"just out of curiosity...do you think Buckley et al are actually considered 'real' conservatives these days? I happen to like reading Buckley and Brooks even though I seldom agree with them."

Wily, I was going to make the same point. Bukley was pushed out of the Nat'l Review for questioning the orthodoxy. I think Brooks is quoted more by liberals and moderates than conservatives.

To the list I will add Kathleen Parker, of this paper.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 3, 2009 10:41 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin, you are of course correct in that there is much soul-searching by serious, thoughtful Republicans…my simple point was that none of that is by Limbaugh or Kouk. You might be interested in looking up some of Ross Douthat’s comments…here’s a random sample from last October:

The cocoon is the constellation of mutually-reinforcing
conservative institutions - think tanks and advocacy groups,
talk-radio shows and websites - that can create the same
echo-chamber effect that the liberal media has long produced,
and that at times makes it difficult for the Right to grapple
with reality. The cocoon is the place where it took an awfully,
awfully long time for conservatives to admit that the post-
2004 crisis in Iraq wasn't just a matter of an MSM that
wouldn't report the good news. The cocoon is the place where
conservatives persuaded themselves, in defiance of most of the
evidence, that the reason the GOP lost Congress in 2006 was
excessive spending, and especially excessive pork. And today,
the cocoon is the place where conservatives are busy convincing
themselves that Sarah Palin's difficulties handling high-profile
media appearances aren't terribly important, that her instincts are
more important than her grasp of national policy, and that the
best way to defeat Barack Obama is to start with the lines that
Palin has used on the stump - Ayers, anti-Americanism and ACORN

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/what_is_the_conservative_cocoo.php

As to other serious conservatives, I miss Bill Safire—a killer instinct but utterly fair in stating the actual positions of his opponents (the primary failing of partisans on both the left and the right). Brooks is pretty good but sometimes too much of an appeaser (“the Liberal’s Favorite Conservative”). Buckley-the-Younger is more of a snarky satirist than a serious commentator but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t make the occasional serious point.

I also regularly check the Chicago Tribune for their editorial viewpoint…they’re now the only major right-of-center newspaper in the US (the late lamented Rocky Mountain News was right of center, but I didn’t consider them major…anyone have other nominations?)

Living in such a right-wing echo-chamber—Colorado Springs—it’s interesting to watch the effects. There are at least a dozen Kouks who regularly comment in the Colorado Springs Gazette blogs (and to be fair, a number of thoughtful conservatives too).

Weather in COS? Record-breaking highs (high in the mid-70s today breaking the old record by ten degrees…average is low 50s this time of years). Had to run early today before it got too hot. On a conf call right now with folks in Atlanta, postponed from yesterday because they couldn’t get to the office because of snow.

Posted by: malis | March 3, 2009 10:39 AM | Report abuse

"Democrats are engaging in a concerted campaign to link the national Republican Party to conservative talk-radio show host Rush Limbaugh"

to link him to the party? Comrade Limbaugh is the head of the party, CC? Didn't you know? He's the one that passes out the koolaid and they all bow down and worship him.

Posted by: drindl | March 3, 2009 10:39 AM | Report abuse

"Obama HAS failed to revive the economy with his policies" And so the rightwing announces Obama's failure...after he's had a whole five weeks in office. SHEESH!! I think you may be ignoring the views of waaaaay too many Americans.

Per David Linker at TNR - "But will the country really stick with Obama as he attempts to enact his stunningly ambitious agenda? They just might. But not because the 44th president has reawakened the liberalism that's been slumbering in their souls since the summer of 1968."

"As National Review's Rich Lowry noted in a brief post last week, Obama is defending his agenda not in ideological but in pragmatic terms -- saying, in effect, "Hey, I'm not a big-government guy; it's just that the Republicans made such a wreck of the place that I have no choice but to do some big things to clean up the mess." And as Lowry recognizes, that's an argument that just might just persuade the American people to go along for the ride, shifting the political spectrum to the left for a generation, while also managing at long last to bury Reaganite conservatism."

"Welcome to the realignment."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the Republicans have lost their fiscal credibility and they aren't going to regain it by simply shreiking "Socialist! SOCIALIST!" and painting basso voce scenarios of fiscal totalitarianism that are to reality what Reefer Madness is to Marijuana.

Posted by: WilyArmadilla | March 3, 2009 10:36 AM | Report abuse

This is the fun part about ideologues: they don't learn from mistakes. Not even a scorching election loss, not even the complete failure of their economic notions, nothing gets through the bluster and outrage and triggers a moment of reconsideration. They just go right on saying the same crap and don't notice how very few people are listening to them.

Limbaugh speaks for a shrinking minority of powerless people. He speaks on behalf of a bunch of crooks and appeals to the lowest social orders, the rednecks and gun nuts and dormitory libertarians. And in openly hoping for the nation's failure he shows himself to be much more of a traitor than a patriot.

By all mean, GOP jackholes, rally around Rush. Keep going farther to the right. You can fall a lot further, and fall you will. I don't think 2010 is going to be a good midterm for the GOP, and you can thank your allegiance to extremes for your losses.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | March 3, 2009 10:32 AM | Report abuse

"Example: A fair conservative criticism of the budget is that it must eventually call for tax increases on everyone to fill the hole it is creating, because the economy cannot grow fast enough to trivialize the hole. Inflation could trivialize the hole, but I would hardly call that a solution. Your thoughts?"

Very true, and there are many out there who talk, behind the scenes of course, about slow, sustained and manageable inflation being our key to reduce the debt long term (inflate the value of money, deflate the size of debt). Economists on both sides talk in these terms to justify deficits, but of course as you say it would be political suicide to come out and say this. nor, do I believe, is it sustainable as public policy. It still won't make up for the losses, necessitating some way in the future of generating additional revenue to cover the shortfall.

I don't know that tax hikes must be across the board, there are ways to target aspects of it to manage policy effectively while leaving the Middle Class unscathed, of course those measures are always nonsensically derided as class warfare while they continue to cry out let them eat cake (of course, if those folks really want to know what class warfare is, maybe they should consider stonewalling a little longer- maybe it will seem more fiscally responsible for them to start thinkinng about social programs as revolution insurance).

I'm a proponent, first and formost, of reinstating the estate tax to previous levels - that will offset conservative complaints about de-incentivizing charitable giving while simultaneously encouraging those folks to spend money rather than hoard wealth. I would also like to see cuts in social security- reduce growth to inflation levels, rather than wage growth, raise the caps on taxation to eliminate the regressive nature of Social Security, and peg the fixed retirement age of SS to average US life expectency minus 10%, calculated at the date that generation hits 40. (so, on your 40th birthday, if the average life expectancy was 78, you'd be eligible for full benefits at 71 as an example). these are simple, common sense fixes that will go a long way to shoring up many of our current holes in the system.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Wily, where in TX are you? I agree completely but think it is silly for the debates to be held at "DaMan2" level. "Rush will clean clocks - Rush is fat bloviator" is just not an invitation to actual thinking.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 3, 2009 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Rush will clean their clocks. Of course we want Obama to fail if he is trying to instill socialist and big spending liberal policies. If he were to adopt responsible and conservative policies we would all want him to succeed...including Rush. The Dow Jones has already determined that, to date, Obama HAS failed to revive the economy with his policies. The White House should be careful what they wish for.

Posted by: DaMan2 | March 3, 2009 10:11 AM | Report abuse

mark-in-austin -- just out of curiosity...do you think Buckley et al are actually considered 'real' conservatives these days? I happen to like reading Buckley and Brooks even though I seldom agree with them. I also like Howard Kurtz, Peggy Noonan, Andrew Sullivan, Jim VandeHei and Ben Smith (at Politico) as well. I find them to be articulate and conservative but without the lip-foaming hatred for liberals that Limbaugh emnodies. That said, I should ask if ANY of those reasonable voices are still welcome in conservative circles. It seems like anyone who doesn't automatically condemn and demonize of 'the left' is drummed out of the group and only tail-between-the-legs groveling gets them back in.

For example, Buckley just wrote a piece (at the Daily Beast) wherein he describes the President as a 'pragmatist' and voiced the hope that his policies DIDN'T fail and America DIDN'T go spinning down the toilet. For that the right-wing websites exploded into accusations of "RINO" and charges of turncoat, traitor, and (gasp!) 'closet liberal'.

For heavens sake, Georgia's Phil Gingrey was forced to recant for saying that bloviators like Limbaugh and Hannity had the freedom to stir up the base because they didn't have to actually LEAD.

And even the chairman of the RNC was pressured into apologizing to Limbaugh for calling him an 'entertainer' whose schtick was being 'incendiary' and 'ugly'!

Sadly, the truth is that for independants and Democrats alike, the anger and apoplectic outrage of Rush Limbaugh IS the face of the Republican party. The Obama administration neither created nor chose him, the conservatives did.

Posted by: WilyArmadilla | March 3, 2009 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, Kreuz. Of course, I generally agree.

But most Rs I know - and I know many - are not RL fans. At the level of citizen discourse [neighbor-to-neighbor, or even at this website] it is kinda boring and passe to merely agree or disagree with talking points when we are presumably intelligent enough to contribute to problem solving.

Example: A fair conservative criticism of the budget is that it must eventually call for tax increases on everyone to fill the hole it is creating, because the economy cannot grow fast enough to trivialize the hole. Inflation could trivialize the hole, but I would hardly call that a solution. Your thoughts?

I offer that because it is the kind of discussion we used to have at "The Fix" before the campaign heated up last Spring. Since then, it has been much more difficult to find issue discussions here. We always had KOZ stalking Drindl and Drindl baiting KOZ,and we had Rufus,but we had many serious posts like yours about nationalization or my previous posts favoring RTC type receivership.

Just lamenting...

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 3, 2009 9:55 AM | Report abuse

TO: WASHINGTON PRESS CORPS AND INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS

RE: BUSH DOJ LEGAL MEMOS APPROVING DOMESTIC TORTURE VIA MICROWAVE RADIATION WEAPONRY


Scribes, correspondents and producers:


Still-secret Bush Justice Department memos are believed to have approved the covert use of classified, silent microwave radiation weapons on U.S. citizens -- "targeted" under the pretext of the "war on terror" as "undesirables" and "dissidents."

Victims, including the journalist who authored the articles linked below, say these painful, debilitating and illness-inducing microwave assaults constitute torture and "slow-kill" (a military descriptive) homicide -- what could be described as an American genocide.

Victims of these assaults say their family finances are decimated by an array of secret "programs of personal financial destruction" that involve the forced cooperation of private enterprise; surveillance and interception of mail and telecommunications; and the forging of billing, utility, banking and mortgage statements -- what they charge is a process of expropriation and theft by deception.

Sources say these covert programs were justified by the Bush Justice Department under legal theories that are said to include a suspected "nexus to terrorism" and, according to a source, the legal theory that weapons and/or medical experimentation on U.S. citizens is permissible if subjects are under federal investigation for suspected offenses.

These microwave weapons assaults have continued under the Obama administration, and are facilitated by an "extrajudicial punishment network" enabled by federal agencies; local police nationwide; and "community gang stalker" citizen vigilantes fronted by government-funded community policing and volunteer organizations.

***

Victims have asked the FBI/Justice Department to launch a civil rights investigation. They say officials have told them they see nothing to investigate, refuse to run down leads, and hint that victim accounts are delusional.

Victims maintain that marginalizing the persecuted as "unstable" or "mentally ill" is a tactic being used to cover up crimes against humanity, a highly organized and well-funded social genocide.


***


TEAM OBAMA: WHAT DO YOUR BUSH HOLD-OVERS KNOW ABOUT THIS:

• Silent, covert microwave radiation weapons assaults on innocent but "targeted" U.S. citizens;

• Terroristic vigilante community gang stalking, surreptitious home entry, police-tolerated vandalism;

• Secret federal "programs of personal financial destruction."


http://www.nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-targets-terrorizes-u-s-citizens
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/domestic-torture-radiation-weaponry-americas-horrific-shame

OR (if links are corrupted / disabled):

http://www.NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | March 3, 2009 9:33 AM | Report abuse

I've got another couple of weeks...

On some issues I take George Will seriously, on others, he lets his ideology get in the way to a point where he is blatantly dishonest (it's one thing to oppose global warming, it's another to directly lie in post after post about what his source actually said, even after they issued a release calling him out). Brooks is good as well, and there are quite a few moderate conservatives out there with good advice (see my post from yesterday with the need for short term nationalization - a tactic many moderate Republicans now openly talk about as probably the best option). The real probelm, thoguh, is they are not the opposition, they barely have a voice right now because the Republican Party is now fully invested in Rush Limbaugh, Joe the Plumber, and Sarah palin. Until the grownups take control in the party once more, those intellectual conservatives who have decent things to offer are largely irrelevant.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 9:28 AM | Report abuse

The country club Republican Party has been high jacked by the wild Delta Tau Chi wing of the Party lead by Rush “Bluto” Limbaugh. It is amazing how life copies fiction and the current Republican Party reminds me of the desperate fraternity in Animal House trying to be respected on the college campus. Rush who I will from now on refer to as Bluto because of his resemblance to the overweight, drunk, cigar smoking leader of the malcontents in the film. Bluto is crude and rude and proud of it. The Republicans are so bankrupt of ideas that they have nothing to offer us but Bluto trying to wreak the American economy. Bluto and the Republicans have no ideas other than to try and run America in the ditch so they can say I told you so. Do you think it will work? Bluto became a Senator in the last frame of Animal house. I personally think the American people will reject the Republican food fight and behave like adults.

Posted by: bradcpa | March 3, 2009 9:06 AM | Report abuse

malis and Kreuz, the serious conservative intellectual criticism of the Prez does exist and comes from Chris Buckley and David Brooks, among others. But they are now right-center as the grip of social cons and Norquists seems to tighten on the R Party. I mention this not as condemnation of Rs but as a suggestion for all of us who try to absorb some balance of opinions that there are some serious ones that are not aligned with the current Admin.

In fact, I would like to hear from you and other thoughtful posters about other non-liberal voices that are consistent and thoughtful. I usually take George Will seriously. I named three. I think it is helpful to get away from characterizing Rs as RL in order to engage in serious exchanges and the way the two parties are treating this guy simply cannot be thought of as good for the system, or for rational debate, IMO.

Malis, how is the weather in CO? Kreuz, are you reposted away from San Angelo? I forgot when that was to occur.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 3, 2009 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Kudlow is a fool if he thinks he can beat Dodd in Connecticut. I know his poll numbers are low but once he (and his wife) get into compaign mode then Kudlow won't have a chance.

Also are Pennsylvania Republicans stupid? Specter is the only guy who can hold that seat in two years (which he would do easily if he gets through the primary). Toomey is listening to too many of his own supporters and not enough to the rest of the electorate. If he runs as a right winger and beats Specter then the Democrats will be one more seat closer to a 60 seat majority. As a die hard democrat I want this to happen, but Specter is one of the few Republicans who I respect and who I think is a good and fair senator. If the GOP go after him then they are asking to be marginalized as the extreme right wing party for the forseeable future.

Posted by: AndyR3 | March 3, 2009 8:53 AM | Report abuse

It's amazing that the right wing talk show hosts continue to have such a strong following when you consider the magnitude of the economic and international affairs wasteland we find ourselves in at the conclusion of eight years of "compassionate conservatism".

The Republican party seems to be in a fight between the right wing ideologues who espouse the same old tired mantras, and the actual Republican politicians who are struggling to find a new voice, or at least a message of some kind, any kind, that will actually win some voters. The right wing talk show host group has become a cult; they no doubt sit around Limbaugh's fireplace every Saturday night smoking cigars while they plan their weekly agenda to keep their followers listening to their on air advertisements.

And so Limbaugh keeps talking about wanting Pres. Obama's policies to fail, because if they work, the Republicans will be buried in an ever shrinking ideological cultish wasteland (i.e. smaller advertising dollars) for the indefinite future.

Posted by: jrosco3 | March 3, 2009 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Isn't a "major legal error" generally called "breaking a law"? And shouldn't people who break are laws be charged with "crimes"? It's a strange time we're living in--the most influential economic theorist appears to be Carlo Ponzi for one thing. Was AIG a Ponzi scheme too?

Posted by: WillyHSmith | March 3, 2009 8:48 AM | Report abuse

What are you talking about king of zouk?

In any event, the Democrats do not need to do anything to make Rush the titular head of the party. The Republican bowing and scraping in front of him is proof enough. And oh boy, what a man, what a manly, man!

Posted by: eddiehaskel | March 3, 2009 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Another fun read on the brilliance of Wall Street and the the clairvoyance of Larry Kudlow, who wouldnow love to blame Chris Dodd for all the Market's problems:

"Senate Democrats like Christopher Dodd and Chuck Schumer kept harping about income inequality and wage stagnation, trying to change the subject from the excellent economic news and pave the way for a tax hike on the top, most successful American earners. But wages are booming. And the rest of the inequality story is so much statistical illusion and faux arithmetic. (Just ask Washington economics scholar Alan Reynolds)....The recessionists are wrong. The bears are wrong. The pessimists are wrong. The doom-and-gloom crowd is wrong. We are witnessing the Bush/Bernanke boom. It is still the greatest story never told."

http://www.creators.com/opinion/lawrence-kudlow/bernanke-s-goldilocks.html

Hmmm, 16 Feb 2007, and no mention of how Dodd and Franks are destroying the housing market due to their creation of a housing bubble, no warnings impending problems within the financial markets, nothing but a cheer of "Happy Days are Here Again!!" Yup, those guys sure understand the markets...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 8:38 AM | Report abuse

The Limbaugh tactic is brilliant thusfar, hopefully Rahm and the gang can staty ahead of the pack to keep Republicans this organized and flailing. It may not last long, but Rahm's eyes are on 2010, and the longer this distraction lasts, the shorter the election window for the Rs to get organized (Gingrich had been plotting 1994 since the late 1980's, anyone seriously think the Rpeublicans are poised for anything similar right now). Huntsman is an interesting dark horse prospect, not sure how the GOP will do with two prominent Mormons duking it out for the top of the ticket, but it will make the debate more interesting, especially if he gets a lock on the centrist and intellectual wings of the party who recognize how wacky the Republican Party is becoming...

KoZ with the right-wing meme's yet again. Funny how a Dem gets elected and they suddenly ignore every talking point they spewed for the last eight years because they think Americans are dumb. Who are the real elitists here?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 3, 2009 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Very good point CZ (if a little obvious), and its truth cannot be better demonstrated by Limbaugh’s alter boy, good ol’ King o’Zouk, insisting that Rush is the soul and center of the Republican Party. Indeed, Kouk’s posts constantly show why his beloved R’s keep losing, by continually pushing to limit the GOP’s complete platform to:

“Muslim William Ayers Hussein Lib
Pledge of Allegiance Socialist
Birth certificate Wife's comments Moonbat
Hussein Muslim Anti-Christ Black PLO
Militant Lib Spread the wealth Rezko
Whitey Gay Natural-born Bitter Guns
Religion Fistbump Elite Kenya Muslim
Socialist Indonesian school Abortion Hussein
Muslim Celebrity Reverend Wright Muslim
Pfleger Messiah Citizen Paris Hilton
Socialism Blagojevich Hussein Hawaii
Muslim Chicago Khalidi Foreign Redistribute
Hussein Flag pin Muslim Muslim ACORN
Hussein SEIU Muslim.”

Notice what’s missing there? Try:

“Iraq Economy Transportation Asia Education
China Defense Science Labor Troops Immigration
Energy Civil Liberties Europe Education Deficit
Cities Trade Latin America Healthcare Iran
Veterans Agriculture India Pakistan
Manufacturing Competiveness Commerce
Infrastructure Middle-East Environment.”

Indeed as long as the Limbaugh and the R’s ultra-right wing are seen as representing the Republican Party in general, and as they continually obsess on the utterly trivial, entirely irrelevant, and completely fictional (i.e., the typical Kouk posting), they will continue to lose elections simply through demonstrating a refusal to rationally discuss meaningful issues.

What Kouk and the Wacky Acolytes are doing—through fleeing the field of rational discourse and continuing to press forward their fictional stories of the universally wicked, corrupt Democrats—is simply demonstrating the utter incoherence, fearful fanatical craziness, and absolute irrelevance of that tiny intense class of fantasists who find what meaning in life they can, only in attacking what they oppose.

Posted by: malis | March 3, 2009 8:25 AM | Report abuse

another day- another lib tax cheat. Another 200 point drop in the Dow. Another raft of broken promises. Another 400 billion wasted. Lib governance in action. Barry.harry.nan is driving the train over the cliff.

Rush tells the truth and mr thin skin goes after him. How presidential!

Posted by: king_of_zouk | March 3, 2009 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Steele's amazing mea culpa yesterday is all the proof of Limbaugh's status in the GOP that you'll ever need.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | March 3, 2009 8:02 AM | Report abuse

if your policies were at this level of total failure, you would want to change the subject too. The libs are wrecking our country. It may be too complicated for the simpletons, but of course we want comrade obama's socialist agenda to fail. Duh! We like freedom better.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | March 3, 2009 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza, Your column or blog or whatever is becoming increasingly biased and patronizing. First, you seem to blame the Democrats for emphasizing Limbaugh's position in the Republican Party, as if the Democrats were responsible for the garbage that emanates from the mouth of this obese, anti-intellectual drug addict. Then, you are both presumptuous and paternalistic when you write, "We pick the five most interesting stories of the day so you don't have to." Thanks so much for your concern for my well-baing, Mr. Cillizza, but I still have the ability to read and a sound mind, and I don't need you -- or anyone else -- to feed me, change the diapers I don't wear, or do my thinking for me. Your writings are an utter waste of time.

Posted by: marmac5 | March 3, 2009 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Let Limbaugh think he's the titular head of the Republican party. That egotistical blowhard will continue to alienate the majority of Americans while pushing the Republican party further into its narrow-minded fascist corner.

The latest incident with Steele just reinforces the fact that no one is in charge of the GOP. (And let Kudlow run as well, another nut-job that further paints the party as one of very narrow interests..)

Posted by: RickJ | March 3, 2009 7:16 AM | Report abuse

As long as RL is at the forefront, the Dems need to keep the pressure on the GOP. Michael Steele showed that his stature as RNC chief is primarily symbolic pandering by the right. Just because it's (Steele) in his name doesn't mean he has any in his...!

Is it just me or does anyone else see a problem with Sarah P, Joe the Plumber and Rush as the driving force behind the repubs?

Posted by: tradervic1313 | March 3, 2009 6:15 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2009 The Washington Post Company