# Obama vs Rush!



## a_majoor (25 Jan 2009)

Well, it seems the new President has decided that the number one threat to his re-election isn't Governor Sara Palin after all:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTU5MjE3MmQ0NWU1Zjc1YzYyMDE1NzNmZmM2MzYxMmI=



> *Limbaugh Responds to Obama*   [Byron York]
> 
> According to an account in the New York Post, President Barack Obama yesterday told Republican leaders, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."  With George W. Bush now off the stage, it may be that Obama and some of his fellow Democrats view Limbaugh, and not John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, or any other elected official, as the true leader of the Republican opposition.  This morning I asked Rush for his thoughts on all this, and here is his response:
> 
> ...


----------



## Armymedic (25 Jan 2009)

Rush has no love for the new President. "Hope and Change" as a primary campaign was extensively mocked by rush all spring. One of the better was quotes used mockingly by Rush was from actual Obama supporters who said things like "We have to hope for change, because change will bring us hope, and hope will change everything".


----------



## PanaEng (26 Jan 2009)

Hah, me thinks Rush thinks too highly of himself.  :

Don't get me wrong. I think he is a very intelligent individual - perhaps way more than most of his political friends and counterparts. But I think he has made a caricature of himself through the years with some of the disparate points he has taken. He himself has admitted in a couple of interviews that, although he is right wing conservative, he pushes the envelope to the right in order to boost ratings. 
Unfortunately, many Americans (and some Canadians and others) take his words as gospel.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Jan 2009)

Obama got elected because Republicans wouldnt turn out for McCain. As Rush states frequently "elections have consequences". So we have the first socialist president in history and his enablers in Congress. They can pass any legislation they want. Rush is almost as critical of the Republicans in Congress as he is of the dem's so its not a slamfest of Obama. Rush is a conservative and as such wont be supportive of legislation or positions that arent good for the country - from a conservative standpoint.

Obama has led a charmed life since he entered politics in that he has rarely been criticized and when he is he often bristles. He was unwise to criticize Rush,instead he should have had surrogates make the comments. Presidents just dont do that sort of thing. Its just a question of time before the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated which will effectively stifle talk radio - definitely a freedom of speech issue.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jan 2009)

Rush's plan has the advantage of demonstrating quickly and without doubt what actually works in terms of revitalizing the economy. Since this is actually a transfer of wealth to the politically connected for the benefit of the Democrat party and their supporters, we all know what is really going to happen.

Yes T6, the printing presses will be running at white hot speed for the duration of this administration, unless a Republican congress takes over in 2010. Remember Lady Thatcher had it right back in the 80's:

"*The problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money*"

Roger’s Rules - http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball -



> Maybe you should listen to Rush Limbaugh after all
> 
> Posted By Roger Kimball On January 29, 2009 @ 6:36 am In Uncategorized | 10 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jan 2009)

Of course, if your real goal is politicizing the economoy, then using popular figures like Rush as your straw man makes sense:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjVjOWIzZjc2NjViYTEyMWI2ZTQ4YzBmNzljMThkY2U=



> *Obama v. Rush*
> [Maggie Gallagher]
> 
> How should we response to President Obama and Move.on.org's efforts to make Rush the enemy?  Rush is a great American and he has 14 million listeners and a huge microphone to defend himself.
> ...


----------



## PanaEng (30 Jan 2009)

I haven't been paying much attention lately so I am a bit out of the loop...
How many times or how often is Rush mentioned by the president or the vice? 
Is this being discussed widely or just by the republican/conservative press?

cheers,
Frank


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Jan 2009)

The democrats smear anyone who opposes their socialist agenda. Sarah Palin,Joe the Plumber and now Rush. Only Palin was a politician and fair game the other two are private citizens.The attack ad the democrat congressional committee is running against Limbaugh is below. The ad is wrong in that Limbaugh was taken out of context,no surprise there. Limbaugh actually said he wanted Obama's socialist policies fail. Thinking back to Bush not a single democrat wished HIM well and in fact did everything they could to lose the war.

http://www.dccc.org/page/s/rush


----------



## a_majoor (20 Feb 2009)

At it again:

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2009/02/obama-appears-to-circumvent-rush.html



> MORE MIND GAMES
> 
> *Obamists Launch Preemptive Strike Against Limbaugh Essay*
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Feb 2009)

Dissent isnt appreciated now that the socialists are in firm control so these attacks on Limbaugh are the opening salvo in the effort to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Naturally this will only apply to talk radio and the internet. After only a month on the job and already the public is becoming disenchanted. This mortgage bailout for the 8-10% of americans who arent paying their mortgage might be the catalyst that undoes Obama and the democrats in the House and Senate. One Republican in the house has already linked electing republicans if you want to stop the stimulus. It seems that of the $850b in stimulus only $160b will have been spent by 2010. The democrats will continue to overreach which will no doubt fan the flames of their own destruction if it doesnt I will be moving.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Feb 2009)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The democrats will continue to overreach which will no doubt fan the flames of their own destruction if it doesnt I will be moving.



Well at least that's better than having Alex Baldwin or Sean Penn move here to Canada. I have a fold out couch you can use while you get settled....


----------



## a_majoor (1 Mar 2009)

Rush delivers a great speech at CPAC:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030209/content/01125106.guest.html



> Now, let me speak about President Obama for just a second. President Obama is one of the most gifted politicians, one of the most gifted men that I have ever witnessed. He has extraordinary talents. He has communication skills that hardly anyone can surpass. No, seriously. No, no, I'm being very serious about this. It just breaks my heart that he does not use these extraordinary talents and gifts to motivate and inspire the American people to be the best they can be. He's doing just the opposite. And it's a shame. [Applause] President Obama has the ability -- he has the ability to inspire excellence in people's pursuits. He has the ability to do all this, yet he pursues a path, seeks a path that punishes achievement, that punishes earners and punishes -- and he speaks negatively of the country. Ronald Reagan used to speak of a shining city on a hill. Barack Obama portrays America as a soup kitchen in some dark night in a corner of America that's very obscure. He's constantly telling the American people that bad times are ahead, worst times are ahead. And it's troubling, because this is the United States of America. Anybody ever ask -- I'm in awe of our country and I ask this question a lot as I've gotten older. We're less than 300 years old. We are younger than nations that have been on this planet for thousands of years. We, nevertheless, in less than 300 years -- by the way, we're no different than any other human beings around the world. Our DNA is no different. We're not better just because we're born in America. There's nothing that sets us apart. How did this happen?  How did the United States of America become the world's lone super power, the world's economic engine, the most prosperous opportunity for an advanced lifestyle that humanity has ever known?  How did this happen?  And why pray tell does the President of the United States want to destroy it?  It saddens me.
> 
> The freedom we spoke of earlier is the freedom, it's the ambition, it's the desire, the wherewithal, the passions that people have that gave us the great entrepreneurial advances, the great inventions, the greatest food production, the human lifestyle advances in this country. Why shouldn't that be rewarded?  Why is that now the focus of punishment?  Why is that now the focus of blame?  Why doesn't -- Mayor Bloomberg the other day, ladies and gentlemen, resisting his Governor's call for an increased tax on the rich in New York had some astounding numbers. Eight million people live in New York. 40,000 of those eight million pay roughly 60 to 70% of New York's operating budget. He was afraid that if he raised taxes on those people some of them might leave. Mayor, one already has, by the way. [Applause] Stop and think of this, though. Stop and think of this. Forty thousand people out of eight million. He's right, if 10,000 of them leave, or 5,000, they've got a huge problem. Because New York has its own welfare state inside the one the federal government's created. They've got a dependency class that has grown up and been educated that their entitlement is to be fed and taken care of by these evil mean people who have more than they do. If New York City, New York State or Washington, DC were a business, these 40,000 people would be taken on golf tournament trips to Los Angeles, and they would be wined and dined and they would be thanked and they would be encouraged to keep it up. They wouldn't be told they're the problem. They wouldn't be told, except there's -- I pride my accuracy rating. There is one other business where the customer is always wrong and that's the media. Sorry about that. [Applause]



An excerpt. You can see the speech or read the transcript at the link


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Mar 2009)

Yes it was a pretty good speech. Why the democrats suddenly want everyone to give Obama a chance to succeed, when they pounded Bush from day one ,is typical. They just dont get that a big portion of the country didnt vote for socialism and those that did were largely misled.To get elected the democrats and republicans need independent voters and its beginning to look like Obama is losing those independents. Just wait until this time next year if the economy doesnt and we see an explosion in inflation the dem's could lose alot of seats in the House. 

Rasmussen shows Obama with a 39% approval rating but they try to spin it favorably for Obama.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll


----------



## a_majoor (4 Mar 2009)

The Democrats and Administration is using the classic deflection technique to draw attantion away from their (dare I say) "miserable failure". This is a two edged sword, however, since this also could let conservative politicians from the Republican and "Blue Dog" wing of the Democratic party operate under the radar.

The Administration's ability to multi task will be tested by an army of bloggers, "Tea Party" protesters, the silent John Galt strikers and a multitude of potential leaders like Gov. Mark Sanford, Gov. Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Rep. Ron Paul, and Gov. Sarah Palin, to name a few, waiting in the wings. Things might be a bit different if the Administtration would actually start governing....

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/03/03/miller_limbaugh_steele/



> *Blaming Rush*
> By Richard Miller
> Author, “In Words and Deeds: Great Speeches in History”
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Mar 2009)

Interestingly enough, the same tactics have been at work here since Mr Martin was PM. While they might like to blame the Conservatives for attack add campaigning, the Liberals were the first to open that Pandora's box (ie: guns in our streets etc).


----------



## Redeye (4 Mar 2009)

I'm going to have to disagree strongly.  Rush Limbaugh is hardly just some ordinary private citizen.  He chooses to be a public figure, and he's influential (which is terrifying sometimes, I can't believe some of what he says, and I wonder about how much is "character" and how much he actually believes.)  While he isn't a politician, he's fair game because he chooses to be a vociferous part of civil society.  It's hardly fair to say he can jab at Obama but Obama can't respond.



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The democrats smear anyone who opposes their socialist agenda. Sarah Palin,Joe the Plumber and now Rush. Only Palin was a politician and fair game the other two are private citizens.The attack ad the democrat congressional committee is running against Limbaugh is below. The ad is wrong in that Limbaugh was taken out of context,no surprise there. Limbaugh actually said he wanted Obama's socialist policies fail. Thinking back to Bush not a single democrat wished HIM well and in fact did everything they could to lose the war.
> 
> http://www.dccc.org/page/s/rush


----------



## a_majoor (4 Mar 2009)

I can choose to be a public figure as well, but I have no responsibility for policies carried out by any level of government (except to the extent that I may have cast a ballot for the actual governing party). Rush may have the same number of listeners as the US deficit has dollars, but in the end, he only has one vote as well. 

Since the President is making it a personal attack, he and he alone is imbuing Rush with special status among political commentators. Rush responds accordingly:

http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2009/03/04/rush-makes-obama-an-offer-he-cant-accept/



> *Rush Makes Obama An Offer He Can’t Accept*
> 
> Rush Limbaugh has taken one of the more successful pages out of George W. Bush’s first term playbook; longtime readers of the Blogosphere will recall Steven Den Best’s posts about Dubya making foreign leaders offers they couldn’t accept, a unique spin on the Godfather’s famous tactic. Here’s the item on Rush’s Website:
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Mar 2009)

Very much like Nixon and his enemies list.


----------



## Fusaki (4 Mar 2009)

Obama vs <a href=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNZru4JG_Uo>Rush?</a>


----------



## a_majoor (4 Mar 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Obama vs <a href=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNZru4JG_Uo>Rush?</a>



 :rofl: :cheers: :rofl:

Either way, Obama comes off second best.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Mar 2009)

The thing that is scary is that Obama is coordinating the attacks on Rush with members of the media. If this were a republican attack machine the media would be calling for heads.


----------



## PanaEng (10 Mar 2009)

A few more tidbits here for you folks:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090305/usa/us_politics_obama_republicans_2
and 
http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/rss/article/597978

Is it coincidence that the Dems are increasingly speaking of Rush as the voice of the Republicans?

Rush has the wit and the voice to capture conservative listeners - preaching to the choir - but he is making the more pragmatic conservatives squirm and stay out of the limelight.
He should put his foot where his mouth is and run for office; but we all know where that will end up: he will lose and lose his radio appeal which will cost him the 400 million dollars he is making. As he has stated himself, he is a businessman and an entertainer (similarly to Paris Hilton actually).
I would also add traitor; people have been branded as such for far less things than wishing the President fails. (and by extension the government of the US and the ensuing hardships to the US people) 

Anyway, that last bit is just my personal opinion.

cheers


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Mar 2009)

His audience has grown steadily because of the attention paid by Obama's proxies. Recently Howard Dean told the dem's to knock it off as it was counter-productive.


----------



## observor 69 (10 Mar 2009)

Poor ol' Republicans, their boat is cracking apart and is seriously out of date.
Perhaps they can find a Republican Hispanic to put it back together again. Lot's of Luck.  ;D

"Republican chief Michael Steele apologizes for Rush Limbaugh remarks."
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/republican_chief_michael_steel.html


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Mar 2009)

The republican party needs to stick to its conservative roots. There arent any conservative democrats anymore so the voter needs a choice tax and spend liberal or a fiscal conservative republican. Last few elections the voter has chosen the tax and spend liberal maybe in 2010 there will be a shift.


----------



## Redeye (10 Mar 2009)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The republican party needs to stick to its conservative roots. There arent any conservative democrats anymore so the voter needs a choice tax and spend liberal or a fiscal conservative republican. Last few elections the voter has chosen the tax and spend liberal maybe in 2010 there will be a shift.



Forgive me for wondering where the distinction lies.  I haven't seen a "fiscal conservative" Republican in a while.  It was Clinton that was running surpluses, while Dubya ran massive deficits.  There isn't much fiscal conservativism in the GOP I can think of.  Fiscally conservative Republicans are kind of like the tooth fairy... a great myth.


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Mar 2009)

Bush certainly wasnt a fiscal conservative but neither is Obama. Obama has quadrupled the federal debt in his first 50 days. Here's a little chart for you.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/Sa69CWQ0XxI/AAAAAAAAaWY/4aXAmsU74Pk/s1600-h/deficit.gif


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2009)

Most of the Clinton "surplus" was creative accounting (links to follow), and the rest can be attributed to Speaker Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Funny how facts get in the way of a good story.

Now the post Gingrich congress was indeed spendthrift, but the new Administration's spending in the first two month's of operation (quadrupling the Federal debt) can only be characterized as a "miserable failure", and there is no one to blame but themselves.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Mar 2009)

>It was Clinton that was running surpluses, while Dubya ran massive deficits.

The US did not run any "surpluses" recently.  The US has consistently added to its net debt every year for a long stretch.  The US did post net balances with very low deficits during the stretch in the late '90s touted by some as a period of "surpluses", due to expanding revenue intakes and moderate (but not truly restrained) spending growth in the budgets passed by the US government.  Incidentally, the president proposes budgets but congress passes (and amends) budgets.  All the president can do if his proposal gets heavily reworked is veto it.  Congress bears most of the credit for putting some brakes on spending growth in the '90s.

The reason the US did not post any proper surpluses is due to the peculiar way the various trust funds (eg. Social Security) are handled in the US.  In any given year, the contributions into a plan are unlikely to exactly balance the payouts.  If there is a deficiency, the shortfall must be made up by government (ie. from other revenues such as taxes).  If there is a surplus, the excess must by law be used to buy US federal bonds.

The accounting distinction is between the public debt and the intra-governmental holdings.  If the US sells a bond to you, it is public debt.  If the US sells a bond to one of its trust funds, it is part of the intra-governmental holdings (articles refer to them colloquially as IOUs from the government to its own trust fund accounts).  Either way, it is a debt: at some future date, the bond amount (plus interest) must be paid out (to you or the trust fund) unless the government repudiates the debt, which would be an extraordinarily destabilizing act.

The accounting misdirection works like this:
1) Trust fund takes in contributions > benefit payouts.
2) Trust fund buys US bonds with excess contributions.
3) Proceeds from US bond sales to trust fund are treated as revenue (spent, or used to retire public debt).
4) Revenues from bonds issued to trust funds plus all other sources of revenue can exceed spending and therefore be interpreted as a "surplus" because the definition of the budget balance (deficit/surplus) disregards the intragovernmental holdings (ie. ignores the debts to trust funds).

Note that in addition to the "surplus" defined by the peculiar budget practice, a reduction in the net public debt can be realized if the revenues from the intragovernmental bonds are used to retire public debt rather than consumed by new spending - and this is overall probably the healthiest use of the money as long as there is any public debt.  However, just as the "surplus" is  merely an arbitrary definition, so is the "net public debt" - the true net position of the government's finances is an addition of debt.  If $1.00 of trust fund contribution is received and the government writes an IOU to itself to pay back $1.00 + interest, it can be no other way.  When a trust funds comes knocking at the door to collect on its bonds, the money will have to come out of revenues (eg. taxes, new "public" debt, intragovernmental debt purchased by other trust funds which are still collecting more than they pay).

None of the foregoing excuses the larger deficits which followed 2001.  But let us not have any more creative definitions of "surpluses" or pretend that Clinton somehow was the chief agent responsible for small net deficits in the late '90s.


----------



## Redeye (11 Mar 2009)

With respect to the surplus, I've got some homework to do it would appear, and I withdraw the comment.

That said, nothing the current President has done has had any time to classified in any way - either as a success or a failure.  Any measure taken by any government in an effort to influence economic cycles will take a fair bit of time.  If, in two years from now, the US economy remains stagnant, I might accept the description, but it's been less than two months since he took office, and he has a lot of work ahead.  Notwithstanding the fact that Republicans are desperate for him to fail, until such time has passed as to allow an accurate assessment it isn't reasonable to make any such statement.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Most of the Clinton "surplus" was creative accounting (links to follow), and the rest can be attributed to Speaker Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Funny how facts get in the way of a good story.
> 
> Now the post Gingrich congress was indeed spendthrift, but the new Administration's spending in the first two month's of operation (quadrupling the Federal debt) can only be characterized as a "miserable failure", and there is no one to blame but themselves.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Mar 2009)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Any measure taken by any government in an effort to influence economic cycles will take a fair bit of time.




Consider the stock market had a 500 point drop when the election results were announced last November and looking at the performance since the stimulus package was signed, I can say that there is indeed an _*immediate*_ effect (especially since the stock market is predicting future profits, and profitability drives business and economic decisions)


----------



## Redeye (11 Mar 2009)

An immediate impact on the markets which may or may not last.  Markets are leading indicators but not perfect indicators - GDP growth and unemployment are the goals here.  Market movements are fuelled by all sorts of things - including irrational factors like emotion.  There was no real rational, long term reason for the market booms that we saw yesterday, yet they they happened.  In all, I don't think stock market volatility is a reasonable means to assess a President, particularly one embarking on a massive effort to pull the economy out of a disaster, especially not in the short term.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Consider the stock market had a 500 point drop when the election results were announced last November and looking at the performance since the stimulus package was signed, I can say that there is indeed an _*immediate*_ effect (especially since the stock market is predicting future profits, and profitability drives business and economic decisions)


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Mar 2009)

But he isn't embarking on a massive effort to pull the economy out of a disaster.  The "main effort" seems to be to implement policies which have been sitting on Democrat "to-do" lists.  Failure to correctly select and maintain the aim is easy to identify.  If the aim is incorrectly selected, the mission is unlikely to succeed.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Mar 2009)

When a business makes considerations about adding or deleting capacity, hiring or firing staff, adding or subtracting R&D funding for future projects and products etc., they are doing so based on their individual expectations of future profits. 

These individual considerations are represented in aggregate by the market, so it seems self evident that the general downward trend since November 2008 demonstrates there is a general downward expectation of future profitable economic activity. 

The remarkable start of "Smart Diplomacytm" (snubbing Gordon Brown, offering to sell out on Eastern Europe, etc.) seems to reinforce the negative trends, and watching the circus surrounding the attempted appointment of Administration officials (especially the curious non reporting in the MSM of issues: see Instapundit to find out the issues surrounding the Administration's picks) and we have a series of low pressure troughs converging to create a perfect storm.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Mar 2009)

At least Rush is consistent:

http://deceiver.com/2009/03/11/james-carville-wants-the-president-to-succeed-sometimes/



> *James Carville Wants the President to Succeed (Sometimes)*
> By Simon Scowl
> Categories: Crazy People and U.S. Left-wing Politicos
> 
> ...


----------



## PanaEng (12 Mar 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> These individual considerations are represented in aggregate by the market, so it seems self evident that the general downward trend since November 2008 demonstrates there is a general downward expectation of future profitable economic activity.
> 
> With all due respect, you don't seem to know much about how the markets move. That may be the ideal situation but it is far from reality.
> But in reality, no one can really predict it.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2009)

More on the strategy of silencing anti administration voices:

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/ (15 March 2009)



> *THE WHITE HOUSE LAUNCHES A PRO-PORK POLITICAL ASSAULT*:
> 
> “Should be interesting to see if all the Facebook Obamites, assorted young people, Hope-Changers of all stripes will rise out of the trenches for a big bayonet charge in aid of ‘President Obama’s bold approach … for long-term prosperity.’” Plus, from the comments: “I find this ‘community organizing’ on the national level just a bit alarming. It isn’t for the benefit of the people. It’s for the benefit of the kleptocrats in government, and the Community Organizer in Chief.”
> 
> ...


----------

