Obama vs Rush!

[a_majoor]

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:

There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.

Secondly, here is a combo quote from the meeting:

"If we don't get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can't let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That's how things don't get done in this town."

To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective.  Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts.  It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward.  It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.

Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn't Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn't they have to buy the new furnishings? What's the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet's office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs. Are we really at the point where the bad PR of Merrill getting a redecorated office in the process is reason to smear them? How much money will the Obamas spend redecorating the White House residence? Whose money will be spent? I have no problem with the Obamas redoing the place. It is tradition. 600 private jets flown by rich Democrats flew into the Inauguration. That's fine but the auto execs using theirs is a crime? In both instances, the people on those jets arrived in Washington wanting something from Washington, not just good will.

If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of the trillion dollar debacle.

One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals:

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

 

[Armymedic]

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]

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]

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]

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

Hold on a minute: the President of the United States recently [1] lectured his GOP colleagues that “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” Really? Mr. Limbaugh is a man the left just loves to hate, partly because he is so acerbic but mostly because he is so successful. He gives voice to what many, many people believe. It’s just not what the hypertrophied left-wing of the Democratic party believes.

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” But let’s listen to [2] what Mr. Limbaugh has to say today in The Wall Street Journal about the so-called “Stimulus” package coming to a tax-increase near you:

There’s a serious debate in this country as to how best to end the recession. The average recession will last five to 11 months; the average recovery will last six years. Recessions will end on their own if they’re left alone. What can make the recession worse is the wrong kind of government intervention.

I believe the wrong kind is precisely what President Barack Obama has proposed. I don’t believe his is a “stimulus plan” at all — I don’t think it stimulates anything but the Democratic Party. This “porkulus” bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party’s power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party’s majority power for decades.

Sounds right to me. But wait, there’s more.

Mr. Limbaugh has a concrete proposal that, though it has about as much chance of being enacted as I do of being invited to tea with Barack Obama, is nonetheless worth pondering.

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let’s say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion — $486 billion — will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% — $414 billion — will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.

Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people’s wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.

I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate — at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations — in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There’s no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There’s no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There’s no reason to insist that recovery can’t happen quickly, because it can.

In this new era of responsibility, let’s use both Keynesians and supply-siders to responsibly determine which theory best stimulates our economy — and if elements of both work, so much the better. The American people are made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents and moderates, but our economy doesn’t know the difference. This is about jobs now.

As I say, I don’t expect to see Nancy Pelosi undergoing a Paul-on-the-road-to-Damascus metanoia when she reads this (”Gosh, you know that Limbaugh chap may be on to something. Harry, let’s give it a try!”), but we common folk can dream, can’t we? Just imagine checking out the news tomorrow and discovering that the government–what used to be called, without irony, your government–had decided to try something really bold for a change: instead of taking more of your money, they were actually going to let you keep a bit more. Shock. Awe. And, as Mr. Limbaugh predicts, uptick. What then? Imagine: a stimulus package that was not simply a means of funneling money to [3] the great Santa wish-list that resides in Democratic Party headquarters but that actually stimulated: i.e., helped create jobs and foster growth, not bigger government and dependency.

Mr. Obama got this one exactly wrong: “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” It seems to me that if you want to get the right things done, you would do very well indeed to listen to Rush Limbaugh. Sure, he’s funny. He’s caustic. He is not afraid to call a wacko a wacko (are you out there Al Gore?). But he understands something fundamental about the way economies in the real world work that the panjandrums administering our country’s fate would do well to absorb.


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

Article printed from Roger’s Rules: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2009/01/29/maybe-you-should-listen-to-rush-limbaugh-after-all/

URLs in this post:
[1] lectured: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/23/obama-quit-listening-rush-limbaugh-want-things/
[2] what Mr. Limbaugh has to say today: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html
[3] the great Santa wish-list: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html

 

[a_majoor]

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.

So why are they choosing him?  Understanding that is the key to figuring out how to respond.

Here's my take: The ongoing bailout of banks and business executives is not only wrong, it is deeply, deeply unpopular.  By taking potshots at executives—their salaries, their corporate jets, their redecorated offices—Obama hopes to deflect the unpopularity of his actual policies onto his opponents. He wants to channel voters' entirely justified anger at the executives' naked appeal for our cash towards the people who appear to defend them (because they are actually defending capitalism).

This way Obama can turn business executives into another Democratic interest group—and make Republicans pay the political cost. Expect very big campaign dollars flowing into Democrat coffers by scared, scared executives. A little public ritual humiliation in exchange for billions? Yeah, quite a few will go for that. Riding a car to DC should not earn your failed corporation a taxpayer bailout. It's still wrong.

Defending the right of the free market and the goodness of business as an enterpirse is all true, but right now it's besides the real point, and so plays into Obama's hand.

The point is that these are failed business executives seeking taxpayer dollars to bail them out..

Republicans should be the ones making Obama pay for bailing out wealthy business failures with OUR money.

Rush is absolutely right, this is not about Rush: it's about Obama having his cake and eating it too.
01/30 03:29 PM

 

[PanaEng]

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]

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]

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

Clearly hoping to take the wind out of his sails, Barack Obama has launched an apparent preemptive strike against an upcoming Wall Street Journal Fairness Doctrine Op-Ed written by Rush Limbaugh.

Just ahead of its publication, expected Friday, Obama has made his first and only direct, emphatic denial of any desire to push for government regulation over talk radio's content.

Though we'd like to believe his administration values free speech in broadcasting, it's far more likely to represent the same mind games we've encountered from Democrats for over a year on the subject. Just as there is more than one way to skin a cat, the Obamists are certain to find a less direct, back-door approach to the suppression of dissent that avoids inflaming his critics.

First, from Fox News:

    President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.

    The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine -- a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

    "As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said.

    That was after both senior adviser David Axelrod and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs left open the door on whether Obama would support reinstating the doctrine.

    "I'm going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC ... and the president to discuss. So I don't have an answer for you now," Axelrod told FOX News Sunday over the weekend.

    The debate over the so-called Fairness Doctrine has heated up in recent days as prominent Democratic senators have called for the policies to be reinstated. Conservative talk show hosts, who see the doctrine as an attempt to impose liberal viewpoints on their shows, largely oppose any move to bring it back.

After an extended period of silence on the subject, Obama's sudden willingness to address the issue directly didn't escape Limbaugh's attention. From Wednesday's show:


    RUSH: I wouldn't read anything into this. Of course they're not going to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. They're going to call it something else. They're going to use a series of contrivances. They will use ownership restriction, ownership rules. They will use local content rules. The Wall Street Journal, two days ago, asked me for an op-ed on this. I submitted the op-ed this morning. It is an open letter to President Obama asking for clarity and definitive answer on -- on censorship of the media. Now, I'm wondering. I am just wondering if somebody along the line did not leak my op-ed and the White House heard of it coming and they want to preempt its publication." I'm going to...

    At the next break, I'm going to fire off a note to the people at the Journal, because there is an expiration date on every Obama statement. He can say today he doesn't believe in it but then something of an emergency will come up in another day or two, in a week, and force him to change his mind. Now, the FCC, he's got a lot of people working on this. ACORN is gearing up to enforce the same type of restrictions on broadcasting that the Fairness Doctrine would require. They're not going to call it that. They are going to go for it.

    As I've told you, I'm reluctant to talk about this, because I don't want to sound like a victim. I don't want to sound like, "They're coming after me! They're coming after me! (crying)" but they're going after any area there is dissent. They're even going after the Internet. The Obama administration people are talking about the unfairness and the imbalance and the lack of a "filter" on the Internet.

    It's not just talk radio. They're not going after cable TV; they're not going after NPR; they're not going after broadcast TV; they're not going after newspapers or magazines. They are focusing on talk radio. The very idea that he says he opposes the Fairness Doctrine? But he doesn't oppose the results of the Fairness Doctrine. He is in full-fledged support of what would happen if the Fairness Doctrine were ever re-implemented. But I just have to ask myself -- and I spent a lot of time on this op-ed and the publication date scheduled for tomorrow.

    And outta nowhere, out of nowhere, on Fox, some spokesman says Obama's not even considering it? Why now? I mean that didn't come up at the housing meeting today. It didn't come up in Denver yesterday. It hasn't come up on Air Force One.

    Where did it come up from? I didn't tell anyone. I mean, I told, you know, a couple friends that I was going to write this thing. It's fascinating stuff going out there.

    The intrigue, ladies and gentlemen.

At Human Events, Connie Hair has details of ACORN's push for talk radio censorship:

    ACORN’s own website proudly displays their intent:

    II. Make the mainstream media accessible and accountable to low- and moderate-income people.

    A. Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting, so that grass roots community groups have equal time to express their views.

    B. Require cable TV companies to make good on their promises to allow community groups access to air time, or revoke their operating licenses.

    Membership on the local board is a key to the ACORN’s plan: activists on state and local boards can give their national agenda support that can’t be obtained elsewhere. “Diversity” and “underserved communities” are their mantra. The plan is for the boards to control the content of stations with their ability to make licensing renewal recommendations to the FCC. We all know how intolerant the left is of any ideas other than their own -- just look how any conservative speaker is treated by the left when they speak at any college campus around the country today.

    I asked House minority leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) about this open secret called “localism” yesterday. He told me, “‘Localism is quickly becoming code for the efforts of liberals to limit free speech and dissent. The American people do not believe the federal government should be in the business of dictating or restricting what’s on the public airwaves, and Republicans will fight any and every effort to stifle free speech.”


As we noted just over a week ago, Democrats are clearly trying to have it both ways on this issue:

    At the same time, however, the left is engaged in a game of doublespeak, as they repeatedly attack conservatives for "making up" the controversy. It will never happen, they claim, so why are those on the right so worked up about it?

    Though they claim Obama himself is against the forced elimination of conservative talk radio, we don't have him on the record saying that directly. Instead, a spokesperson made that claim on one occasion during last year's campaign. Since taking office, the question has been ducked during press conferences.

While Obama's "opposition" to talk radio censorship clearly isn't fooling anyone, it will be up to those who value a free press and vibrant public discourse to monitor the FCC's future proceedings. Like the fine print buried inside hundreds of pages of the Porkulus bill, the crackdown will likely be hidden inside otherwise-mundane agency business.

 

[tomahawk6]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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”

I read with a mixture of amusement and despair the Democrats’ recent announcement that they intended to make talk show host Rush Limbaugh the “face of conservatives.”

It won’t work.

But in fairness to my few liberal friends, I should concede that there is nothing illegitimate about these efforts. Political parties aren’t in the business of bipartisanship or creating even temporary across-the-aisle coalitions.

The reason why the Democrats’ current campaign against Limbaugh will fail is that he makes a poor target. Unlike earlier villains chosen by Democrats, Limbaugh is not a politician.

The historical reason for political parties is to emphasize the differences, not the similarities with the opposition. They must do so in order to retain, increase and exhort members. Moreover, both Republican and Democratic parties do this by putting a face on political evil and then aggressively marketing the symbol.

Thus, Republicans depicted the Age of Bill Clinton as the Age of Laxity in every thing from national security, political corruption and personal morals.

The Democrats, with their meme factories in newspaper cults (now dwindling at a sufficient rate to be termed a cult) and academia, have generally been more successful in hate-marketing. Those of a certain age will recall when the pinched face and high collars of Senator Orrin Hatch was the symbol; he was quickly followed by President Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, President George W. Bush and others. All of this matters because without hate marketing to exhort the faithful, contributions slack off. Nothing personal; it’s just business.

The reason why the Democrats’ current campaign against Limbaugh will fail is that he makes a poor target. Unlike earlier villains chosen by Democrats, Limbaugh is not a politician. He’s a private citizen with no governing responsibilities; it is impossible to legitimately attach his name to bills, policies or wars that Democrats may portray as evil or wrong headed. In short, he’s just one man with an opinion, and here, resembles pundits of every political stripe. (Interpolation. "Joe the Plumber" is also a private citizen and look how he was treated)

Unlike politicians that hold office and govern, Rush Limbaugh may be “turned off” with a switch on the radio.

And what Limbaugh’s selection suggests is that Democrats are running out of blame targets. The Republicans are now a minority in both houses. And as Obama’s failures aggregate into a deepening crisis of confidence the Democrats’ need for villains will increase in an effort to deflect blame.

And this is why I despair. I predict that in opting to campaign rather than govern, the Democrats are likely to spread the blame net far and wide. The result will be uber-polarization more typical of socialist and fascist polities. The stock market not cooperating? Blame capitalists, the banks, the “investor class.” (Interpolation. Look up Kulaks, hoarders and wreckers for a historical example.)

Not getting your way in the Middle East? Blame Zionists, Christian conservatives, hint darkly at organized “new-conservative” cabals of Jews. Unemployment continuing to rise? Blame employers. I don’t know which of these or other villains are likely to appear, but based on Democratic Party behavior thus far, am certain that blaming Limbaugh is only the beginning.

 

[ModlrMike]

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]

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.

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]

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:

My point here is that these are really odious, empty, nasty people who are feasting on their own arrogance.  They are power hungry.  But, you know what?  They’ve never had a serious debate over ideas.  Their goal is to destroy opponents, which is what they’re trying to do now.  They don’t want to engage opponents.  Their idea of victory is the destruction of the opponent.  They’re not for a level playing field.  They want to clear the playing field so that their ideas do not have to undergo any scrutiny.  So what do they do?  They leak stories to the Politico intended to create impressions about their own importance and their brilliance, when in fact they aren’t even bit players on the nation’s stage.  This is Emanuel, and this is Obama.

But I have an idea.  If these guys are so impressed with themselves, and if they are so sure of their correctness, why doesn’t President Obama come on my show?  We will do a one-on-one debate of ideas and policies.  Now, his people in this Politico story, it’s on the record.  They’re claiming they wanted me all along.  They wanted me to be the focus of attention. So let’s have the debate! I am offering President Obama to come on this program — without staffers, without a TelePrompTer, without note cards — to debate me on the issues.  Let’s talk about free markets versus government control.  Let’s talk about nationalizing health care and raising taxes on small business.

Let’s talk about the New Deal versus Reaganomics.  Let’s talk about closing Guantanamo Bay, and let’s talk about sending $900 million to Hamas. Let’s talk about illegal immigration and the lawlessness on the borders. Let’s talk about massive deficits and the destroying of opportunities of future generations.  Let’s talk about ACORN, community agitators, and the unions that represent the government employees which pour millions of dollars into your campaign, President Obama.  Let’s talk about your elimination of school choice for minority students in the District of Columbia.  Let’s talk about your efforts to further reduce domestic drilling and refining of oil.  Let’s talk about your stock market.  By the way, Mr. President, I want to help.  Yesterday you said you looked at the stock market as no different than a tracking poll that goes up and down.

There’s no “up and down” here.  We have a plunge.  The president yesterday suggested “we’re getting to the point where profits and earnings ratios are approaching that point where you want to invest.”  Uh, Mr. President? There is no “profits and earnings” ratio.  It’s “price and earnings” ratio.  He’s the president of the United States. He doesn’t know anything about the stock market.  He’s admitted it before.  Let’s talk about it anyway.  You want to maintain it’s a tracking poll? I’d love to talk to you about that.  Let’s talk about all of these things, Mr. President.  Let’s go ahead and have a debate on this show. No limits.  Now that your handlers are praising themselves for promoting me as the head of a political party — they think that’s a great thing — then it should be a no-brainer for you to further advance this strategy by debating me on the issues and on the merits, and wipe me out once and for all!

Just come on this program. Let’s have a little debate. You tell me how wrong I am and you can convince the rest of the American that don’t agree with you how wrong we all are.  You’re a smart guy, Mr. President.  You don’t need these hacks to front for you.  You’ve debated the best! You’ve debated Hillary Clinton.  You’ve debated John Edwards.  You’ve debated Joe Biden. You’ve debated Dennis Kucinich. You’ve debated the best out there.  You are one of the most gifted public speakers of our age.  I would think, Mr. President, you would jump at this opportunity.  Don’t send lightweights like Begala and Carville to do your bidding — and forget about the ballerina, Emanuel.  He’s got things to do in his office.  These people, compared to you, Mr. President, are rhetorical chum.

I would rather have an intelligent, open discussion with you where you lay out your philosophy and policies and I lay out mine — and we can question each other, in a real debate. Any time here at the EIB Network studios.  If you’re too busy partying or flying around giving speeches and so forth, then send Vice President Biden.  I’m sure he would be very capable of articulating your vision for America — and if he won’t work, send Geithner, and we can talk about the tax code. And if that won’t work, go get Bob Rubin. I don’t care. Send whoever you want if you can’t make it.  You don’t need to be leaking stories to Politico like this thing that’s published today.  You don’t need to have your allies writing op-eds and all the rest.  If you can win at this, then come here and beat me at my own game, and get rid of me once and for all, and show all the people of America that I am wrong.

 

[tomahawk6]

Very much like Nixon and his enemies list.

 

[Fusaki]

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

 

[a_majoor]

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

:rofl: :cheers: :rofl:

Either way, Obama comes off second best.