Limbaugh Demands To Debate Obama

Poor Michael Steele.

The Republican National Committee chairman picked a fight with Rush Limbaugh, lost and then apologized in a manner that confirmed the chairman's utter inconsequence and his dismal prospects for renewing a party that it is now clear he does not lead.

Limbaugh won't even be bothered to keep picking on him.

Displaying the penchant for marketing maneuvers that has made him an incredibly successful media personality -- if not, perhaps, a party builder -- Limbaugh has turned his shoving match with Steele into an excuse to demand that President Obama join him on the radio for a debate.

That's right.

Not satisfied with running the Republican Party, Limbaugh now wants to run the country -- or, at least, the discussion about its direction.

So the talk show host isn't inviting Steele to debate him.

He's inviting Obama.

"I have an idea," Limbaugh announced on his nationally-syndicated program Wednesday. "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... ''

Here are some highlights (collected by the Chicago Tribune's Mark Silva) from Wednesday's Rush Limbaugh Show rant:

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...

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.

Addressing Obama directly, Limbaugh declared, "Just come on this program. Let's have a little debate... 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," the host continued. "These people, compared to you, Mr. President, are rhetorical chumps."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs tried to find a polite way to say "no."

"It may be counterproductive," observed Gibbs.

Actually, Gibbs is wrong.

It has already been very productive... for Limbaugh.

The self-declared entertainer is promoting his show. And this stunt -- like last year's "Operation Chaos" campaign to get conservatives to vote for Hillary Clinton in Democratic presidential primaries -- is classic radio hucksterism.

And what of Obama?

The whole dust up is almost as productive for the president.

Obama is doing plenty of interviews and press availabilities these days -- more than he did during a somewhat cloistered campaign.

He doesn't need to accept Limbaugh's invitation in order to appear accessible or open to debate -- even if a calm, focused president might come out looking rather good in comparison with a hyper-ventilating prophet of failure.

So for whom is this really counterproductive?

Michael Steele and, by extension, the Republican Party.

Limbaugh has used them to get to Obama.

The radio personality will get several more days of headlines -- especially from the cable talk shows that love to love or hate him -- and Steele and the Republicans will get even less attention at a time when they are trying (miserably, as Limbaugh points out) to present a coherent opposition to a very popular president.

Limbaugh and Obama won't debate.

But they will both have something to celebrate. Limbaugh's getting a billion dollars worth of promotion. And Obama's getting Limbaugh as the face of the opposition.

Comments (299)

1. we need to paste the 371 comments from the other thread about this "person".

   Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2009 @ 4:51pm

2. FDIC Insurance Fund May Run Dry This Year

   Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair said the fund it uses to protect customer deposits at U.S. banks could dry up amid a surge in bank failures, as she responded to an industry outcry against new fees approved by the agency.

   "Without these assessments, the deposit insurance fund could become insolvent this year," Bair wrote in a March 2 letter to the industry. U.S. community banks plan to flood the FDIC with about 5,000 letters in protest of the fees, according to a trade group.

   IT'S OBAMA'S FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2009 @ 4:53pm

3. Wow, sounds like Obama is afraid to debate Rush.

   I thought it was a brillian move for Rush and it has nothing to do with the GOP as I've noted to Mask on the other Rush thread.

   This is clearly about the conservative movement rising up in the absence of the GOP to challenge the far left moves of Obama.

   Perhaps though, Obama, the Democrats, and the far left like the Nation and it's leftist bloggers are not really interested in democratic debate now that they control both Congress and the White House. That seems to be the flavor of Chavez style totalitarianism that the left prefers now.

   Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 4:54pm

4. well,

   this is about as relevant to our current mess:

   IS THIS THE WORLD'S UGLIEST CAT?

   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7919495.stm

   Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2009 @ 4:55pm

5. That seems to be the flavor of Chavez style totalitarianism that the left prefers now.

   Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 4:54pm

   we're coming for your fluids!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2009 @ 4:57pm

6. Take him on Barack! Take him on! Wow. If Obama did so, he could expose what a demagogue Limbaugh is once and for all (except to his minions of course).

   By the way, the Dems have up a very funny satire/parody web site of Republicans apologizing to the real leader of the Republican party.

   Check it out:

   http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/04/li

   mbaugh.mocked/index.html?

   eref=rss_topstories

   Note: website is one line (had to break it up only for post)

   Posted by FDR43 at 03/04/2009 @ 5:00pm

7. Here is a bit of the story:

   WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democrats launched a Web site Wednesday that mocks GOP leaders for apologizing to radio host Rush Limbaugh for criticizing or publicly disagreeing with him.

   The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is hosting the Web site, which allows visitors to create an apology to Limbaugh on behalf of Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Georgia; South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford; or Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.

   "You and I both know that in reality, you simply want President Obama to fail in this time of economic collapse," reads the fake letter of apology template. "How can I disagree with that? Please accept my sincere apologies, oh great leader of the Republican Party."

   Posted by FDR43 at 03/04/2009 @ 5:01pm

8. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democrats launched a Web site Wednesday that mocks GOP leaders for apologizing to radio host Rush Limbaugh for criticizing or publicly disagreeing with him.

   The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is hosting the Web site, which allows visitors to create an apology to Limbaugh on behalf of Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Georgia; South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford; or Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.

   "You and I both know that in reality, you simply want President Obama to fail in this time of economic collapse," reads the fake letter of apology template. "How can I disagree with that? Please accept my sincere apologies, oh great leader of the Republican Party."

   Posted by FDR43 at 03/04/2009 @ 5:01pm

   It simply shows either how ignorant the Democrats are, or how blatantly they engage in lies and deception.

   Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 5:05pm

9. Maybe Republicans can launch a "preemptive apology" for future transgressions against the "great leader" of the Repukelicans?

   Posted by FDR43 at 03/04/2009 @ 5:05pm

10. "Perhaps though, Obama, the Democrats, and the far left like the Nation and it's leftist bloggers are not really interested in democratic debate now that they control both Congress and the White House. That seems to be the flavor of Chavez style totalitarianism that the left prefers now.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 4:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person "

    Rush hardly merits a debate. Further, it was Bush, and not Obama, who pre-screened his "town halls" to keep out all but Bush supporters. It was Bush, and not Obama, who felt the need to give press credentials to a male "escort" so he could ask softball questions at press conferences.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/04/2009 @ 5:07pm

11. Pat Buchannon has it exactly right on Hardball at this moment. this is about Obama and the Democrats trying to deflect the public from scrutinizing what they are doing to destroy the US economy. It is old-fashioned marxist sleight of hand, shadows and mirrors, dishonest politics.

    What we are beginning to see is that the Emperor has no clothes. When his naked aggression against the US economy comes into the light, watch him become worse the Jimmy Carter in the public's eyes.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 5:08pm

12. I would also point out that inviting someone to appear on his show--where, to paraphrase The Outer Limits (where this belongs) "[he] controls the horizontal, [he] controls the vertical", is hardly the same as an open debate run by a neutral moderator.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/04/2009 @ 5:09pm

13. I would also point out that inviting someone to appear on his show--where, to paraphrase The Outer Limits (where this belongs) "[he] controls the horizontal, [he] controls the vertical", is hardly the same as an open debate run by a neutral moderator.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/04/2009 @ 5:09pm

    Left and right debate on sites like this all the time. I don't recall any time we needed a "neutral moderator".

    It seems to me that the public is the best moderator. That is real democracy.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 5:12pm

14. Brunowe, wow. That was quite a "slam dunk" of a post - you nailed him good.

    Of course Obama should not debate him on Limbaugh's show.

    But wouldn't it be nice to see big-fat idiot Limbaugh destroyed by a clear intellectual superior in a genuinely neutral setting?

    Posted by FDR43 at 03/04/2009 @ 5:12pm

15. Something about Limbaugh - you think this thread will end up with more than 350+ posts?

    Posted by FDR43 at 03/04/2009 @ 5:13pm

16. uh, larry, the economy has been destroyed for quite a while.

    it's just festering now.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2009 @ 5:17pm

17. Perhaps though, Obama, the Democrats, and the far left like the Nation and it's leftist bloggers are not really interested in democratic debate now that they control both Congress and the White House. That seems to be the flavor of Chavez style totalitarianism that the left prefers now.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 4:54pm

    For Chrissake, Larry, you sound as paranoid as...dare I speak his name...Limbaugh. So here's where it's at, Larry. You on the right seem to define debate as the Left waving a white flag. You on the right did your damnedest to squelch debate in this country when your boy Bush was running (or is it ruining) the country. In Noveember 2006, you lost. In November, 2008, you lost again. You've been repudiated by the masses who are now more than aware of the damage you've done to our country. And the President of the United States owes nothing more to aa gasbag like Limbaugh than he does to any other citizen of this country. I suppose a debate with Limbaugh will be appropriate when the loudmouth actually decides to get off his fat, bloated ass and runs for something. You know, when he actually does something conservatives don't ever seem to do - get into the line of fire. Oh, by the way, this President would chew that moral degenerate up and spit him out.

    Posted by jmusolino at 03/04/2009 @ 5:29pm

18. Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 4:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Would you have encouraged Reagan to go on a clearly left wing biased program to debate policy with its bloviating host? I think not...If Rush wants to debate Obama, he should run for Republican Presidential Candidacy and debate him in 2012.

    Posted by BizarroRio at 03/04/2009 @ 5:35pm

19. I think Obama needs to debate Rush to show that he's not afraid.

    On the other hand, shouldn't Obama be doing other stuff, you know, like actual Presidents do, rather than attacking radio personalities? Or does he still think he's campaigning? Doesn't Obama realize that campaigning is only a means to an end, not an end in itself?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/04/2009 @ 5:35pm

20. I would rather see Rush debate John Stewart on the Daily Show. But I bet Rush would never go for it. We should not be having our comedians wasting our public servants time. Let the comedians debate each other, after all it is about ratings and entertainment. It has nothing to do with public policy. If Rush wants the opportunity to debate Obama, he should run for president in 2012.

    Posted by Extraneous at 03/04/2009 @ 5:36pm

21. Jmus,

    It's more than that - they are losing the generationaol/demagraphic battle, and they know it. Majority of young people went Dem. With changing demagraphics, the soon to be non-white majority (perhaps one of the things they are REALLY worried about?) will result in an eventual permanent Dem majority. This is why they are whining and bitching and moaning and going COMPLETELY off the rails. Did you see Limbaugh at the Conservative Conference? Have we heard their rhetoric about "socialism" and so on?They sense their time to is coming to an end, that they are LOSING the ideological battle, that someday, not in the too distant future, conservative ideology will join the "dustbin of discarded lies" (to paraphrase Reagan talking about communism, and Bush talking about the anti-western terrorists).

    They days of the conservative movement are numbered - and they KNOW it.

    Posted by FDR43 at 03/04/2009 @ 5:41pm

22. Posted by Extraneous at 03/04/2009 @ 5:36pm

    "We should not be having our comedians wasting our public servants time. "

    Well then, the 'public servants' should stop wasting their time attacking radio personalities, doncha think? And if Barack Obama thinks attacking Limbaugh is a good use of the President's time (which I would concur with if it keeps Barry from further trashing the stock market), shouldn't Barry be man enough to address the man personally?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/04/2009 @ 5:41pm

23. I would rather see Rush debate John Stewart on the Daily Show. Posted by Extraneous at 03/04/2009 @ 5:36pm

    Remember when Limbaugh went on the David Letterman Show? Dave let him have it. What I want to know is, why are comedians and entertainers allowed to go (as they are on occasion) on serious news shows? For example, when Limbaugh was on "This Week." They are blurring news and entertainment - further, by having a demagogue like Limbaugh on a serious news show, don't they know they are to some extent legitimizing him and his ravings? Thus must know this (so much for the "liberal" news media).

    Posted by FDR43 at 03/04/2009 @ 5:46pm

24. Barry?

    Posted by FDR43 at 03/04/2009 @ 5:46pm

25. Amazing some of the names being used for President Obama.

    Posted by FDR43 at 03/04/2009 @ 5:47pm

26. Posted by FDR43 at 03/04/2009 @ 5:41pm

    "They days of the conservative movement are numbered - and they KNOW it."

    Aaah, not really. There are two important counter-trends that will bring the Republicans back to power: a) as young people get older, they get wiser and they lose their indoctrination and learn to think for themselves, i.e., they become Republican and b) as in the Carter years, the catastrophic results of liberal fantasy-based policies (e.g., a crashing stock market) will return the country to sensible (i.e., Republican) policies.

    Anybody catch Jim Cramer yesterday? Wealth destruction is not what most people want out of the liberal/socialist/progressives, but that's what they're going to get. The only question is how long it takes before people get fed up with it.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/04/2009 @ 5:52pm

27. Pont liberals are not the same thing as socialists.

    Because, you see.....ah what's the point.

    Posted by FDR43 at 03/04/2009 @ 5:53pm

28. Pont I believe economic liberalism made this country great, and it's conservative economics that have ruined it.....amazing how different our perspectives are.

    Posted by FDR43 at 03/04/2009 @ 5:55pm

29. Posted by FDR43 at 03/04/2009 @ 5:53pm

    "liberals are not the same thing as socialists. "

    So, whose policies are currently destroying the stock market...(causing Barack Obama to tell the 'investor class' to suck on it)...is it the policies of liberals or socialists?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/04/2009 @ 5:57pm

30. actually, the geithner administration's overtures are about the only thing propping up wall street at the moment.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2009 @ 5:58pm

31. Posted by jmusolino at 03/04/2009 @ 5:29pm

    I'd second many of things you mentioned. The gap between rich and poor in the US has widened exponentially over the past three decades. The CBO reports that since 1979, the average income for the bottom half of american households has grown by 6%. In contrast, the top 1% of earners have seen their incomes Shoot up by a 229 percent during that same period. Under the Bush administration, the average income of Most americans has Fallen, but the average income of top wage earners (those above the 95 percentile range) has Increased from $324,427 in 2001 to $385,805 in 2006. Only one other year has seen a comparable income gap: 1928, the year before the Great Depression.

    WHY THE DIVIDE? The reasons for this rise in income inequality can be split into 3 basic components: government policies, tremendous wage inequality, and high investment income. The federal government under Bush, which provides the fundamental rules that guide how economic gains are distributed around the country, has embraced deregulation and an unstructured financial system. Consequently, huge corporations have raked in profits while the economy sags. The administration's tax policies, which lower taxes on the wealthy rather than the middle class, have furthered the problem. As billionaire Warren Buffet explained, "The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1% of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99%." Reaganomics has spectacularly failed and the President is busy replacing it with a more sustainable system which is more egalitarian yet perhaps not as egalitarian as maybe I or other Nation readers would prefer.

    Posted by hdthoreau at 03/04/2009 @ 5:59pm

32. Posted by pontificus at 03/04/2009 @ 5:41pm

    I agree, Rush does not deserve any recognition from WH officials, no matter how often he attacks our President. It only encourages him, and further inflates an already hyper inflated ego. Rush is only a comedian. The WH house comments should be along the lines of "the president finds the comedian to be ridiculously funny, but sees no practical revlevance in his comedy routine."

    Posted by Extraneous at 03/04/2009 @ 6:12pm

33. Posted by FDR43 at 03/04/2009 @ 5:55pm

    "Pont I believe economic liberalism made this country great, and it's conservative economics that have ruined it.....amazing how different our perspectives are."

    Yeah, 'economic liberalism' has been great for the US steel and auto industry, huh? How has economic liberalism worked out for the blue states like New York and New England as a whole, California, and Illinois? These areas are all economic basket cases.

    In a wider sense, tell me how redistributionist policies create wealth? Even in a theoretical sense? Have you ever owned a business? Do you have any practical experience whatsoever in terms of creating wealth?

    Wealth is created by Republican policies, and wealth is destroyed and redistributed by Democratic policies. Free markets and the profit motive create wealth, whereas envy, jealousy, and redistributionism destroy it. It seems every generation has to relearn this lesson, as they are (hopefully) doing now.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/04/2009 @ 6:14pm

34. Posted by Extraneous at 03/04/2009 @ 6:12pm

    "I agree, Rush does not deserve any recognition from WH officials, no matter how often he attacks our President. "

    Apparently the WH disagrees. What's their problem? Don't they realize they run the country? Or do they think they're still campaigning? How does it benefit the country for Obama and Emanuel to be wasting their time attacking radio personalities? Don't these guys have anything better to do with their time, like maybe addressing the confidence crisis in the stock market?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/04/2009 @ 6:17pm

35. You gotta love Republicans and their desperate attempts to see themselves as relevant despite overwhelming repudiation. Actually, strike that.. No, you don't.

    GWB was in office for 9 months but 9/11 was CLINTON's fault.

    BHO is in office for 2 months but the economy that collapsed under GWB is BHO's fault.

    Republicanism is a DISEASE. Fortunately, it's been diagnosed and is currently undergoing radical treatment.

    It's a classic Republican thought process on display that features them all marching in absolute lock-step declaring how much they "think for themselves".

    Posted by FEARandSMEAR at 03/04/2009 @ 6:22pm

36. Obama is a gutless leftist empty suit, and there is no way he will debate Limbaugh. He may have fooled some, but not all.

    "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. ...

    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!"

    Posted by pontificus at 03/04/2009 @ 6:26pm

37. Posted by FEARandSMEAR at 03/04/2009 @ 6:22pm

    "BHO is in office for 2 months but the economy that collapsed under GWB is BHO's fault."

    Every time Obama speaks the stock market tanks some more. Even people who voted for Obama, like Jim Cramer, are starting to realize that this guy stands for nothing but wealth destruction. Obama himself gave an interview yesterday where he said the stock market direction means nothing to him.

    "Republicanism is a DISEASE. Fortunately, it's been diagnosed and is currently undergoing radical treatment."

    Actually, the cult of leftism is the intellectual disease afflicting this country. And as in Jimmy Carter's day, the country is being given a crash course in lefty economics. Once the economy crashes and burns, that'll be it for leftism for the next 30 years, until we have to learn it all over again.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/04/2009 @ 6:31pm

38. Yeah, 'economic liberalism' has been great for the US steel and auto industry, huh? How has economic liberalism worked out for the blue states like New York and New England as a whole, California, and Illinois? These areas are all economic basket cases

    Posted by pontificus at 03/04/2009 @ 6:14pm

    Dude are you clinically insane? You actually believe it was liberal policies that have been in place for a few weeks have created this mess? I think that black is white and white is black in your world. Don't you realize it was the republican deregulation, tax the middle class, cut taxes on the wealthy policies that are primary culprits for our current economic mess? Are you really such and ideologue fanatic that you only accept truth and facts that fit your ideology? Or were the past 7+ years really controlled by democrats. Only fanatics think that only one group of people is to blame for all the problems, insane!

    Posted by Extraneous at 03/04/2009 @ 6:32pm

39. Posted by Extraneous at 03/04/2009 @ 6:32pm

    "Dude are you clinically insane? You actually believe it was liberal policies that have been in place for a few weeks have created this mess?"

    Actually, I believe it is Democratic labor policies of the last 40 years that have destroyed the American steel and auto industries. Or do you really think it's just a coincidence that unionized American auto companies are bankrupt, while non-union Japanese auto companies operating in America are doing relatively fine?

    "You actually believe it was liberal policies that have been in place for a few weeks have created this mess?"

    The stock market has lost 30 percent of its value since Obama was elected. Every time he talks, it drops hundreds of points (e.g., after the porkulus bill was passed).

    People of both parties who are knowledgeable about the market agree that Obama's policies are destroying stock market wealth by the trillions as we speak. Obama himself has stated that the direction of the stock market is not important to him.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/04/2009 @ 6:40pm

40. Extraneous,

    You say ".....Don't you realize it was the republican deregulation, tax the middle class, cut taxes on the wealthy policies that are primary culprits for our current economic mess?..."

    Extraneous, how did the tax cuts that increased revenue to the treasury (as tax cuts always do) cause the "economic mess"?

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/04/2009 @ 6:43pm

41. "Every time Obama speaks the stock market tanks some more. "

    Just as it did during the whimpering, simpering last days of your boy king who led us all into this quagmire.

    You might want to pontificate on "myopia".

    Posted by FEARandSMEAR at 03/04/2009 @ 6:48pm

42. 'we need to paste the 371 comments from the other thread about this "person".'

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2009 @ 4:51pm

    Yeah ... what I said over there. Oh, and I bet he, right this minute, owes someone money for his latest oxy (chasing the high he had when he came up with the Obama debate thingy ...), score.

    "I would rather see Rush debate John Stewart on the Daily Show."

    Posted by Extraneous at 03/04/2009 @ 5:36pm

    We should start a petition.

    "actually, the geithner administration's overtures are about the only thing propping up wall street at the moment."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2009 @ 5:58pm

    Lol, You're funny.

    Posted by V at 03/04/2009 @ 6:57pm

43. Posted by FEARandSMEAR at 03/04/2009 @ 6:48pm

    The difference being, of course, that Bush is no longer President, and Obama IS. And the markets' reaction to Obama's policies have been decidedly negative, as one would expect when a President presides over a virtually explosion of irresponsible spending and tax increases. Further, Obama has also expressed disdain for 'the investor class' who buy and own stocks. And you're saying he has no responsibility for the resulting destruction of trillions in stock market wealth? Many if not most market watchers would disagree.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/04/2009 @ 7:00pm

44. Limbaugh should run for President if he wants to 'debate' Obama. Though, it is clear he's too much of a fairy to do so.

    I have listened to Limbaugh many times. He's an absolute nut, not worth anyone's time.

    Having said that...he's great for democrats and he's great for liberals looking to promote better economic equity in our society. Keep talkin' Rush. Keep up the incendiary sputum...you will marginalize yourself, your supporters and the republican party...not a bad career.

    Posted by erazma at 03/04/2009 @ 7:01pm

45. Extraneous, how did the tax cuts that increased revenue to the treasury (as tax cuts always do) cause the "economic mess"?

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/04/2009 @ 6:43pm

    That is not allways the case SJ. It only works if cutting taxes actually increases spending. If you cut taxes primarily on the wealthy, and they don't use the money. It does not increase revenue, cutting taxes for middle class does lead to increased spending and more money in the treasury. Trickle down economics was a nice thought, too bad it does not work.

    Posted by Extraneous at 03/04/2009 @ 7:04pm

46. Posted by Extraneous at 03/04/2009 @ 6:32pm

    I don't think he's clinically insane. However, it's important to put ourselves in his shoes. What would you do if you learned that the earth revolved around the sun instead of the opposite? If you 'knew' the sun revolved around earth and then that worldview suddenly is proved false. Could you even be mentally prepared to accept that change in a fundamental belief about the way the solar system is organized? I tend to think that you wouldn't be able to immediately accept a change in your belief system. Indeed, you can imagine certain ppl refusing to accept any change even on their death beds. So, (I'm fairly sure you already knew this) to ask a conservative to suddenly realize that unregulated markets due to deregulation create a financial system so filled with risk and fragility that it couldn't even withstand the bankruptcy of 1 firm, that lack of universal health care along the lines of our peer nations (the #1 reason for declaring bankruptcy for US households are health care costs) is both morally pernicious and fiscally unsound(per capita health care expenditures in the US for 2007 are $6,096, in Canada $3,173, and $2,560 in the UK), and that conservative economic policies have recently wiped out 14.5T in stock market wealth and increased the national debt from 5T after clinton to 10T under Bush( http ://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aGq2B3XeGKok ) is I think asking quite a bit.

    In any case, if you're interested, here's an excellent lecture by psychologist Johnathan Haidt about the differences between liberals and conservatives.

    http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind. html

    Posted by hdthoreau at 03/04/2009 @ 7:07pm

47. How many people want to bet that Obama is not a gutless prick who won't debate Limbaugh now that his bluff has been called?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/04/2009 @ 7:08pm

48. crickets!!!!

    Posted by pontificus at 03/04/2009 @ 7:15pm

49. Posted by pontificus at 03/04/2009 @ 7:08pm

    "How many people want to bet that Obama is not a gutless prick who won't debate Limbaugh now that his bluff has been called?"

    How many people want to bet that the President of the United States of America has no obligation whatseover or business kowtowing to the demands of an increasingly arrogant, partisan, corporate gasbag - despite the fact that a few million semi-retarded people worship him as a deity?

    Posted by FEARandSMEAR at 03/04/2009 @ 7:20pm

50. Posted by Extraneous at 03/04/2009 @ 7:04pm

    "It only works if cutting taxes actually increases spending. "

    Hmm, I'm trying to understand your economic philosophy here. All we have to do to make the country richer is spend more? How about we spend $100 trillion? Would that make us all rich?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/04/2009 @ 7:22pm

51. Posted by FEARandSMEAR at 03/04/2009 @ 7:20p

    "How many people want to bet that the President of the United States of America has no obligation whatseover or business kowtowing to the demands of an increasingly arrogant, partisan, corporate gasbag - despite the fact that a few million semi-retarded people worship him as a deity?"

    So, the gutless prick who happens to be President of the United States can criticize Limbaugh all day - and call out his lackeys to do so as well - but he doesn't have the cojones to debate the man in person, because he's 'too important'? LOL! Well, that's certainly a new low - to add to the collection!

    Posted by pontificus at 03/04/2009 @ 7:25pm

52. The decision by Obama and his lackeys to criticize Limbaugh by name is just another indication that it's amateur hour in the White House. Any canny politician should have known that Limbaugh would issue a debate challenge to Obama, and that Obama could not and would not accept. So now, Obama and his lackeys will shut up and go on their way, and the public will get yet another indication that we are in deep, deep trouble for the next four years.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/04/2009 @ 7:36pm

53. Would you have encouraged Reagan to go on a clearly left wing biased program to debate policy with its bloviating host? I think not...If Rush wants to debate Obama, he should run for Republican Presidential Candidacy and debate him in 2012.

    Posted by BizarroRio at 03/04/2009 @ 5:35pm

    Certainly, we would have. Unfortunately, the left has never had a successful radio program with any substantial listening audience.

    Even the blowhard Ed Schultz has recently been pulled off the air because of low ratings.

    And are you saying that in our democracy, the only time that leaders should debate is during the election campaigns?

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 7:42pm

54. Julius "Rush" Ceaser, at blackcoptermedia.com Hipocrite, why even give Lush the time of day.

    Posted by thesid at 03/04/2009 @ 7:59pm

55. This truely hilarious straw argument is all that is left for leftwingnuts and the nation mag. to pontificate on.

    Obamanation and the Undemocrat congress has successfully sunken our economy with their extremist power grab pork barrel spending bill which offer NO 2.5 million new JOBS, NO investment in established industries, NO real help to faultering small businesses and does NOTHING to reclaim 6 million jobs lost.

    All they all want to talk about is Rush Limbaugh who is a symbol of the 1st amendment FREE SPEECH which they want to stifle all across the nation! That is the real goal of the totalitarian Undemocrat party!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/04/2009 @ 8:05pm

56. All they all want to talk about is Rush Limbaugh who is a symbol of the 1st amendment FREE SPEECH which they want to stifle all across the nation! That is the real goal of the totalitarian Undemocrat party!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/04/2009 @ 8:05pm

    Now, Rio, you are partially correct that the left wants to shut off all debate and speech that isn't leftist speech.

    However, I do need to correct you that Obama's "recovery plan" does create jobs. It specifically allocates 100,000 new Federal Govt jobs as auditors, monitors, and check disbursers.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 8:12pm

57. "Left and right debate on sites like this all the time. I don't recall any time we needed a "neutral moderator".

    It seems to me that the public is the best moderator. That is real democracy.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 5:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person "

    Rubbish. The point is that neither you nor I control this site. The idea that the people are somehow moderating any discussion were Limbaugh controls the mikes is delusional.

    "Posted by pontificus at 03/04/2009 @ 6:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person"

    Gee, you can cut-and-paste Limbaugh. Hardly an example of what you referred to as " as young people get older, they get wiser and they lose their indoctrination and learn to think for themselves,"

    I would point out that the stock market dive started last year, n Bush's watch, and that the continuing collapse is the 2008 crisis simply continuing into this year. The Republican policies under Bush led to bubbles and speculation, not to wealth creation.

    "Well then, the 'public servants' should stop wasting their time attacking radio personalities, doncha think? "

    It's hardly a waste of time to point out what the ideological lodestar of the opposition party in government is.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/04/2009 @ 8:16pm

58. I would point out that the stock market dive started last year, n Bush's watch, and that the continuing collapse is the 2008 crisis simply continuing into this year. The Republican policies under Bush led to bubbles and speculation, not to wealth creation.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/04/2009 @ 8:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Why don't you list for us the banking and financial legislation passed by a Republican controlled congress and signed by Pres. G.W. Bush that caused the financial crisis to prove your LIE!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/04/2009 @ 8:21pm

59. Barack Obama is a punk mama's boy, with his 350 advisors. He has been protected and groomed by others to be where he is. I still can't see how so many voted for this stammering fool. Maybe the dumding down of America is real. But if Barack Obama were to ever debate Rush Limbaugh it would be like a pot of boiling water vs. a monsoon. Obama would be absolutely lost without his protective props.

    Posted by uPay2Play1 at 03/04/2009 @ 8:27pm

60. However, I do need to correct you that Obama's "recovery plan" does create jobs. It specifically allocates 100,000 new Federal Govt jobs as auditors, monitors, and check disbursers.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 8:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Those are jobs the taxpayer does not want to hire anyone for, but we have to pay for as usual! Hmmmm..maybe they could shift those employees to the S.E.C. and other financial service and banking monitoring agencies, now that might help! But, I forget, with C. Dodd and B. Frank in charge it would be a pointless effort!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/04/2009 @ 8:29pm

61. Left and right debate on sites like this all the time. I don't recall any time we needed a "neutral moderator".

    It seems to me that the public is the best moderator. That is real democracy.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 5:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person "

    Rubbish. The point is that neither you nor I control this site. The idea that the people are somehow moderating any discussion were Limbaugh controls the mikes is delusional.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/04/2009 @ 8:16pm

    What a shame you don't believe in open debate-aka democracy.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 8:43pm

62. Senate Democratic leaders are working hard to suppress dissent within their party over boosting agency spending by 8 percent as the government runs whopping deficits and constituents are forced to scrimp on their own budgets.

    A few Democrats are voicing opposition to the bill, however, unhappy with its cost and changes to U.S. policy toward Cuba.

    Most significantly, Democrats Evan BAYH of Indiana and Russ FEINGOLD of Wisconsin announced Wednesday that they will vote against the bill. Both urged Obama to veto it.

    "There's just a disconnect between what people are having to go through in their daily lives _ tightening their belts, economizing where they can _ and what they see the government is doing," Bayh said in an interview. "I just think it's tone deaf and, substantively, we do need to get the deficit under control."

    I wonder if Mr. Nichols missed this proposed vote of his buddy Feingold????

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/04/2009 @ 8:49pm

63. Perhaps though, Obama, the Democrats, and the far left like the Nation and it's leftist bloggers are not really interested in democratic debate now that they control both Congress and the White House. That seems to be the flavor of Chavez style totalitarianism that the left prefers now.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 4:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Sure, why not...what was good for the Bush administration and the Republicans (they weren't interested in debate when they controlled the WH and congress--their Chavez style totalitarianism) should be now good for the Obama administration and the Democrats.

    Posted by jarshadow at 03/04/2009 @ 9:02pm

64. Posted by jarshadow at 03/04/2009 @ 9:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Now that is wholly a LIE you can't substantuate!

    Maybe you can explain WHY it was necessary for Pelosi to abrigate the house rules instituted by Newt Gingrich to allow the minority party to introduce bills and participate in the originating of house bills, as well as rules over 200 yrs old giving minority party access to the legislative process?

    Pelosi has enthroned TRUE totalitarian rule by the majority! You don't know what you speak of!!!!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/04/2009 @ 9:15pm

65. Extraneous,

    The tax cuts grew revenue. The wealthy did use the money. The economy improved during the time of the Bush administration, overcoming the downturn that started during the Clinton administration and overcoming the effect that September 11 had on the economy.

    In the early years of the Bush administration libs and the media used to trumpet the job losses, but then as the economy turned around and the job losses turned into job gains, you heard nothing from libs and the media anymore, unless it was a lib repeating stuff they believed without realizing what the reality was.

    All measures of the economy showed improvement, from job gains to new business starts.

    This happens when taxes are cut. This is why JFK and LBJ cut taxes, by the way.

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/04/2009 @ 9:23pm

66. This is hilarious. The bloated windbag Rush, who has never once debated a single person on his show and who only talks to the goose-stepping reich-wing morons (aka "dittoheads") that call in, suddenly wants to debate.

    What an idiot he is. Or as this book notes:

    http://www.amazon.com/Rush-Limbaugh-Big-Fat-Idiot/dp/0440508649

    Has he run out of oxycontin? Can't he get viagra without flying out of the country.

    Posted by monty_burns at 03/04/2009 @ 9:27pm

67. Hey libs,

    Part of the Obama agenda, that Rush has been questioning, is the gradual movement of our health care system to a more socialist model.

    Libs think this will be great, and drool over systems in Canada and Europe and even Fidel's Workers Paradise in Cuba as the model for what we should have.

    Dr. Walter E. Williams says wait a minute - we know by now that health care in the U.K. can be lousy at times, and Canada's system isn't too great, either - but what about the Utopia known to the world as Sweden.

    Dr. Williams says it is lousy there too! And getting worse!

    So maybe Rush is right to hope that the Obama socialist agenda will fail so that Americans aren't harmed by having an inferior health care system.

    Sweden's government health care By Walter Williams http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams030409.php3

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/04/2009 @ 9:34pm

68. RL's true purpose is to divide, pure and simple.

    He has what sometimes passes for intellect in sociopaths (his audience being, not made up of human beings, but prey) sending thought down twisted, pathological paths ...

    RL peals the onion (cuts the cheese) of the right, to the right. He helps the oligarchs sleep a sleep a tad more sound, knowing no matter what ... they have their 28%.

    Divide no matter what.

    Posted by V at 03/04/2009 @ 9:42pm

69. I still don't believe that there are still people on the face of the earth, let alone in North America, that are still defending Porky. What would Rush say, "hold still you cwazy wabbit". The idiot doesn't know the difference between the; "Declaration of Independence" and the "Constitution". Then neither did the screaming crowd at CPAC.

    Posted by julien38 at 03/04/2009 @ 9:55pm

70. Now that is wholly a LIE you can't substantuate!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/04/2009 @ 9:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Ah yes, the word LIE...throw it around now....what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Posted by jarshadow at 03/04/2009 @ 9:58pm

71. As everyone's heard over and over again, nutty things happen during a full moon. But scientific studies prove there's no real measurable effect except from a few people that 'use' that old wife's tale as an 'excuse' to allow themselves to do what they'd normally wouldn't-- not having an intelligent reason to do so.

    Kinda like saying the devil made me do it.

    And for ditto heads, it's Rump Limppaw. He's their full moon. Not to dismiss the obvious metaphor of being an enormous ass, (literally kept him out of Vietnam), Rump Limppaw's weight has seemingly created a dangerous gravitational pull for the weak minded.

    Thusly, the new con blood sucking luna ticks are being MOONED by Rump Limppaw!

    And what's so great is --- they don't even get it!!!

    BWAHAHahahahahahahahahahaha

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/04/2009 @ 8:50pm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/04/2009 @ 10:26pm

72. BTW

    Sad that new con repubs place such high value on criminality as long as they win and get away with it. For those so hypocritically on the side of law and order; justice to them is if you just let the criminals in the WH go 'Scott' free per the pres is stepping down voluntarily in a few months.

    Yet experience indicates most crime fighters work extraordinarily harder as the statute of limitation approaches.

    OH wait-- THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION FOR EXECUTIVE CRIMES!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2008 @ 1:45pm |

    HSUB, you really think Obama and the Dems will push for criminal prosecution of Bush/Cheney after they leave office?

    Really?

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2008 @ 5:02pm

    Charlie Black's History of Dirty Politics posted by ARI BERMAN on 06/25/2008 @ 12:39pm

    http://tinyurl.com/af7n65

    "In an agreement reached today between the former Bush Administration and Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Karl Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers will testify before the House Judiciary Committee in transcribed depositions under penalty of perjury. The Committee has also reserved the right to have public testimony from Rove and Miers. It was agreed that invocations of official privileges would be significantly limited.

    In addition, if the Committee uncovers information necessitating his testimony, the Committee will also have the right to depose William Kelley, a former White House lawyer who played a role in the U.S. Attorney firings."

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/04/2009 @ 10:30pm

73. "In addition, if the Committee uncovers information necessitating his testimony, the Committee will also have the right to depose William Kelley, a former White House lawyer who played a role in the U.S. Attorney firings.

    The Committee will also receive Bush White House documents relevant to this inquiry. Under the agreement, the landmark ruling by Judge John Bates rejecting key Bush White House claims of executive immunity and privilege will be preserved. If the agreement is breached, the Committee can resume the litigation.

    Chairman Conyers issued the following statement:

    "I have long said that I would see this matter through to the end and am encouraged that we have finally broken through the Bush Administration's claims of absolute immunity. This is a victory for the separation of powers and congressional oversight. It is also a vindication of the search for truth. I am determined to have it known whether U.S. Attorneys in the Department of Justice were fired for political reasons, and if so, by whom."

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/04/2009 @ 10:31pm

74. BTW - More content for the debate:

    How many times did I cite the hsuB/cHeney new con "dic'tatorship" admin:

    "The most vital point is that all of the documents released yesterday by the Obama DOJ comprise nothing less than a regime of secret laws under which we were governed. Nothing was redacted when those documents yesterday were released because they don't contain any national security secrets. They're nothing more than legal decrees, written by lawyers. They're just laws that were implemented with no acts of Congress, unilaterally by the Executive branch. Yet even the very laws that governed us were kept secret for eight years.

    This is factually true, with no hyperbole: Over the last eight years, we had a system in place where we pretended that our "laws" were the things enacted out in the open by our Congress and that were set forth by the Constitution. The reality, though, was that our Government secretly vested itself with the power to ignore those public laws, to declare them invalid, and instead, create a whole regimen of secret laws that vested tyrannical, monarchical power in the President. Nobody knew what those secret laws were because even Congress, despite a few lame and meek requests, was denied access to them. What kind of country lives under secret laws?"

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/03/yoo/index.htm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/04/2009 @ 10:33pm

75. Yeah debate this:

    dic'tatorship + no-bid contracts/secret deals = FASCISM

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/04/2009 @ 10:34pm

76. BTW - this not in debate:

    sjchermak = j er k + ma s ch

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/04/2009 @ 10:36pm

77. Hilarious. Since all our conservatives are in favor of "debate", perhaps Obama should invite Limbaugh to "debate" at some kind of Presidential media event where all the questions are offered up by a specially selected audience of Obama zealots and Obama has the power switch off all the mikes.

    But, Limbaugh wouldn't show up for that kind of set-up, and it better serves Obama's purposes to paint Limbaugh as the voice of the Republican party. If he can frame the discussion so that Limbaugh is the face of the Republican party, a face calling him the "magic negro" and Barack Hussein Obama, then Republicans will be wandering in the wilderness for at least 8 years.

    Brilliant move. It cuts through Limbaugh's attacks on the flank from right wing-nut land and attempts to play it as mere "entertainment" by grouping him together with the Republican party. Then, the entire party either looks like an instrument of right-wing zealots or has to have in-fighting to create seperation. Small price to pay in exchange for briefly raising Limbaugh's profile.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/04/2009 @ 10:48pm

78. BTW, debate this:

    USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 20-22, 2009. N=1,013 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    "As you may know, the federal government has taken many steps to deal with problems in the economy in recent months. Please tell me whether, in general, you favor or oppose the government doing each of the following. How about [see below]?"

    "Funding new government programs to help create jobs"

    ___Favor____Oppose___Unsure

    ____83_______17_______1

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/04/2009 @ 10:55pm

79. "Funding new government programs to help create jobs"

    ___Favor____Oppose___Unsure

    ____83_______17_______1

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/04/2009 @ 10:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Polldancer, just how many jobs does the porkulus spending bill create? Is it the 2.5 million Obamanation promised plus the 6 million jobs lost?

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/04/2009 @ 11:07pm

80. Now that is wholly a LIE you can't substantuate!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/04/2009 @ 9:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Ah yes, the word LIE...throw it around now....what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Posted by jarshadow at 03/04/2009 @ 9:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You seem to have forgotten to substantuate the LIE you posted! No evidence that it is true could be found so like a child you chide!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/04/2009 @ 11:11pm

81. COMA,

    83% of the USA are in favor of it. And it's part of a bigger plan.

    Better than being the party of NO.

    The defeated party that screwed everything up

    The party that's run by a big fat Rump Limppaw luna tick gatherer that wants the the USA ands its leader to FAIL.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/04/2009 @ 11:12pm

82. The new con party that loves FASCISM.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/04/2009 @ 11:14pm

83. "Wealth is created by Republican policies, and wealth is destroyed and redistributed by Democratic policies."

    brilliant! pontificus must have spent years constructing such a profound thought. even the grammatical structure is utterly mindblowing. it's almost like a haiku, it's so......perfect, succinct, poignant. i am going to reflect on these precious words while strolling through my garden tomorrow.

    thank you so much for you wisdom, pontificus. i am so blessed to have you in my life.

    now, go to hell and shut the fuck up.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/04/2009 @ 11:17pm

84. So, just how many jobs did you find that the pork barrel spending bill creates? Show me where it replaces those lost and creates 2.5 million new jobs promised? Do you even know what it provides?

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/04/2009 @ 11:20pm

85. now, go to hell and shut the fuck up.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/04/2009 @ 11:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Proof positive ignorance and intolerence is the hallmark of leftist extremist devoid of intelligence, education, or even a smattering of knowledge of the subjects they disdain!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/04/2009 @ 11:25pm

86. Oh, it apparently gets better. Democrats apparently are making it into a joke - and getting contact information in the process. Who even knew anyone at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had a sense of humor?

    http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/04/2009 @ 11:26pm

87. COMA,

    You talking about the Omnibus bill worked on for 8 months prior that was just signed or the emergency Stimulus bill?

    One has new con repub ear mark/pork and the other doesn't.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/04/2009 @ 11:32pm

88. .....perhaps Obama should invite Limbaugh to "debate" at some kind of Presidential media event....

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/04/2009 @ 10:48pm

    "perhaps"?

    You know darn well even if there had been precedents, there is no way in hell Magic DARES to go into ANY "debate" w/Rush without some prepared `campaign' materials that he must commit to memory and be able to verbally deliver without hundreds of "ah"s, "huh"s, "well, you know"s.....

    Besides the issues Rush cited as debatable, I want to add new ones such as:

    - Shouldn't a new POTUS drive the new administration's budgeting and `stimulus bill'?

    - Shouldn't a new POTUS live up to campaign promises as to the types of people he'll pick, and not the opposite?

    - Shouldn't a new POTUS that campaigned on `reaching across the aisle' (but has NEVER done so), be serious on something that almost ALL Americans want?

    - Shouldn't a new POTUS realize that ours is a capitalist system, even if he wants to change it by 2012 or 2016, and that at a time of severe economic stress, he ought to take that into account? (Our economy is in far, far worse shape than when he first gathered up a head of steam and the CHANGE part of his sloganeering needs to apply to himself!)

    Posted by Happy at 03/04/2009 @ 11:33pm

89. "Proof positive ignorance and intolerence is the hallmark of leftist extremist devoid of intelligence, education, or even a smattering of knowledge of the subjects they disdain!"

    fuck you, too, comanche.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/04/2009 @ 11:33pm

90. Darla,

    They're just new con blood sucking bugs. Making defeated buggy whiny noises.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/04/2009 @ 11:36pm

91. You seem to have forgotten to substantuate the LIE you posted! No evidence that it is true could be found so like a child you chide!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/04/2009 @ 11:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Substantiate a LIE...curious.....you mean like 4,000+ of our troops in Iraq DEAD because of LIES?

    Posted by jarshadow at 03/04/2009 @ 11:39pm

92. ......the continuing collapse is the 2008 crisis simply continuing into this year.....

    Posted by brunowe at 03/04/2009 @ 8:16pm

    You do know that on Jan. 2, the market had reversed the losses of last fall and actually started the year with some up days?

    Are you aware that the market is among the 11 Leading Indicators the Feds, and just about everybody interested in economics and finance, tracks?

    And, from your post, are we to believe that you think a new administration, with very radically different approach, would have NO affect on a forward-looking indicator? Are you being honest or just like Magic, don't know that there is no such thing as a profit and earnings ratio?

    Go look up the graphs of the stock market for the past 3 recessions...it will help you, trust me!

    Posted by Happy at 03/04/2009 @ 11:40pm

93. Ever see new con blood sucking ticks in disarray howling with their tiny little sucky orafice at their fool moon leader Rump Limppaw, the great engorged one?

    Those new cons above-- is it.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/04/2009 @ 11:41pm

94. COMA,

    You talking about the Omnibus bill worked on for 8 months prior that was just signed or the emergency Stimulus bill?

    One has new con repub ear mark/pork and the other doesn't.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/04/2009 @ 11:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    the Omnibus bill- Thats the federal budget which has nothing to do with economic stimulus or job creation!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/04/2009 @ 11:41pm

95. Posted by jarshadow at 03/04/2009 @ 11:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Are you that dense, or just can't scroll up to re-read the lie you posted?

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/04/2009 @ 11:45pm

96. the Omnibus bill- Thats the federal budget which has nothing to do with economic stimulus or job creation! Posted by comancheamerican at 03/04/2009 @ 11:41pm

    But has new con repub ear marks/pork and keeps the gov jobs a'runnin, does it not?

    So all your whining is for not. Just to hide that fact.

    Jobs will come.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/04/2009 @ 11:46pm

97. I want to post something that was said, as a reminder of the man you Lefties felt so inspired by.....when he first started to run for the Presidency:

    By Jay Cost

    March 04, 2009

    The Immature White House

    Barack Obama's campaign was launched in January, 2007 with an appeal to change the tone of our political discussion. In fact, Obama identified that as the principal problem with our politics, saying:

    But challenging as they are, it's not the magnitude of our problems that concerns me the most - it's the smallness of our politics. America's faced big problems before, but today our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, commonsense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first. We have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans.

    I thought there was some real merit to this claim, which is a big reason I found his candidacy so intriguing at the time.....

    ================================

    Like you, I heard some of his Magic and voted for him......but just in the Texas Primary because I felt he would be a better President than Hillary, if the GOP was to lose. I did that inspite of what my man, Rush, wanted us to do, which was to pull for HRC.

    Obama is a fraud once he started campaigning for the presidency.....he is now, reverting to who he really is....the most liberal/radical person in the history of the American presidency.

    Sure, he has similarities w/FDR in wanting big gov't and spend lots of money....but he's much worse, he is undermining the very foundation of our economy at a time when he should do the exact opposite!

    Posted by Happy at 03/04/2009 @ 11:54pm

98. Sad but true Happy, to bad most leftist here aren't smart enough to appreciate the deep hole he and the Undemocrats are digging.

    Posted by comancheamerican at 03/05/2009 @ 12:09am

99. "Sure, he has similarities w/FDR in wanting big gov't and spend lots of money....but he's much worse, he is undermining the very foundation of our economy at a time when he should do the exact opposite!"

    so tell us, happy, what should obama do?

    Posted by darladoon at 03/05/2009 @ 12:10am

100. "to (sic) bad most leftist here aren't smart enough to appreciate the deep hole he and the Undemocrats are digging."

     oh yeah, that "deep hole" was dug by.....the leftists.

     comanche, when did history begin for you? january 20th?

     Posted by darladoon at 03/05/2009 @ 12:11am

101. Posted by hsuBfools at 03/04/2009 @ 11:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Good luck with your being just another government employee trying not to go postal!

     Posted by comancheamerican at 03/05/2009 @ 12:11am

102. BTW, debate this:

     CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Feb. 18-19, 2009. N=1,046 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

     "In general, would you favor or oppose a program that would increase the federal government's influence over the country's health care system in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans?"

     Date_________Favor___Oppose___Unsure

     2/18-19/09_____72______27_______1

     ZZZzzzzZZZZzzzzZZZZzzzZZZZzzzz

     Gallup Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 2009. N=1,027 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

     "Finally, thinking about radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh: Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Rush Limbaugh, or have you never heard of him?"

     Favorable__Unfavorable__Never Heard of/Unsure

     ___28________45_________27

     VVVvvvVVVvvvVVVvvvvVVVvvvvVVvvvv

     Gallup Poll. Rolling average. N=approx. 1,600 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

     "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?"

     Date__________Approve____Disapprove

     3/1-3/09_________61_________28

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2009 @ 12:12am

103. "Why don't you list for us the banking and financial legislation passed by a Republican controlled congress and signed by Pres. G.W. Bush that caused the financial crisis to prove your LIE!"

     Well, you hysterical freak, the culminating problem was the government's failure to save Lehman Brothers in 2008. Fannie and Freddie engaged in the excursion in subprime securities during his watch. And before you rant about Barney Frank, this was during a Bush administration and a Republican congress. It was Bush's SEC that raised the reserve requirements for investment banks that allowed them to leverage themselves to the hilt.

     Posted by brunowe at 03/05/2009 @ 12:15am

104. he is undermining the very foundation of our economy at a time when he should do the exact opposite!

     Posted by Happy at 03/04/2009 @ 11:54pm

     BWAHAHahahahahahah

     You're such a dumb luna tick or is that a Rump luna tick?

     Of course Obama is undermining the very FLAWED foundation of our economy and CORRECTING it.

     One corrects a flaw normally by doing the opposite-- you moron.

     Stop baying at the big ass that's just Rump Limppaw mooning you...

     OOOHHHH DAH!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2009 @ 12:19am

105. So, the gutless prick who happens to be President of the United States can criticize Limbaugh all day - and call out his lackeys to do so as well - but he doesn't have the cojones to debate the man in person, because he's 'too important'? LOL! Well, that's certainly a new low - to add to the collection!

     Posted by pontificus at 03/04/2009 @ 7:25pm

     Ponti, I have to say that this is moronic even by your lofty standards. The President doesn't owe you or your perverted radio hero anything more than he owes every American citizen. As I mentioned before, if Limbaugh wants to debate, let him get off his fat, drug-addled ass and run for something. As for the "gutless prick" thing, Ponti, why don't you explain to the class how you supported Bush's war without ever mustering up the balls (or the decency) to go fight that war. Really, you were quite gung-ho about Bush's occupation and destruction of a nation that had not done a damned thing to this country. One of the more rabid keyboard warriors as I recall. Why did you not have the guts to put your own ass on the line for your cause? Talk about gutless (since you brought it up) - you and the other chicken hawks on the right have defined that term for years.

     Posted by jmusolino at 03/05/2009 @ 12:23am

106. It's pathetic that so much of what Americans know/learn about how We the People are governed comes from comedy shows.

     And that these comedians & their Owners have as their 1st priority not news but profits.

     Hence roadshow performances, tickets sold, of Bill Maher v. Ann Coulter. Sick sign of sick times.

     Maher's agent may be talking to Limbaugh's agent at this moment ... or certainly tomw.

     Posted by sloper at 03/05/2009 @ 12:27am

107. The stimulus bill, the omnibus appropriations bill, and the President's new budget will bring the total debt issued by Treasury and other agencies to $12.704 trillion by the end of the current fiscal year and more than $14 trillion by the end of the 2010 fiscal year. This can be compared with February of 2000 when the gross federal debt was $5.735. The deficit as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product in the 2009 fiscal year will be the largest it has been since the end of World War II.

     The question is, how is this debt to be financed?

     In recent years foreign investors have been large purchasers of U.S. Treasury securities and this has allowed our government to borrow without substantially increasing long term interest rates. At the end of December 2008, China held $696.2 billion in U.S. Treasury securities and Japan $578.3 billion. The question is, will foreigners wish to or be able to absorb the expected 2009 deficit of $1.75 billion, which is 3.8 times as large as the record 2008 deficit, and an additional $1.2 trillion in fiscal year 2010? China is facing a slowdown in its economy, and Japan's exports have fallen off a cliff and its GDP fell at an annual rate of 12.7% in the fourth quarter of 2008. The UK is the third largest holder of Treasuries with $355 billion and its economy fell from the third quarter by the largest amount since 1980 as it moves into recession. It is not likely that these countries will earn enough exports to quickly absorb the vast amount of new Treasury debt that will be hitting the markets.

     So get real about the hole Obamanation and the Undemocrats have dug and are still throwing dirt out of!

     Posted by comancheamerican at 03/05/2009 @ 12:27am

108. Mental midgets like Rush don't debate. They have a show as an unchallenged platform so that they can use it as a bully pulpit (O'Leily et. al.). Besides the fact that Rush is an idiot who doesn't know much of anything (if we take his words as evidence), Obama in an actual debate would wipe the floor with him IF they had equal time. Rush functions on outyelling the 'opposition' and cutting their mikes when they say something he doesn't like. Rush, in other words, is a coward. He knows he's no brainiac and his appeal is based on stating either obvious 'points' or lying in a big way. Thus, Rush IS an entertainer who spouts infotainment and has no facts to stand on most of the time: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1995/05/big-fat-lies

     Rush's supporters like the rhetoric and WANT to believe him, but peel away his bombastic nonsense and you have a lowbrow teleprompter reader who is beneath contempt. If this is what the GOP is reduced to, their fictional God ain't savin' 'em obviously.

     Posted by nukemind at 03/05/2009 @ 12:27am

109. Oh, it apparently gets better. Democrats apparently are making it into a joke - and getting contact information in the process. Who even knew anyone at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had a sense of humor?

     http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry

     Posted by srjenkins at 03/04/2009 @ 11:26pm

     And some fine political sense as well. Hopefully they expand the choices on each of the answers - I'm sure the eunuchs that comprise the GOP will write more of those lines for the DCCC.

     Posted by jmusolino at 03/05/2009 @ 12:27am

110. See that is exactly why we're in this mess. Just imagine a whole White House of full of these new con blood sucking tick dumb ass liars!

     For 8 fucking long years!

     A bunch of dumb ass liars running our government right into the ground.

     And they're still here spewing their Rump Limppaw idiotick luna shit.

     Why is anyone even surprised at how full of shit they really are and what secret dic'tatorshit lies for laws they pulled.

     New cons are nothing if not dumb bullshit.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2009 @ 12:28am

111. "So get real about the hole Obamanation and the Undemocrats have dug and are still throwing dirt out of!"

     comanche, how much of the hole was dug by bush? any of it?

     Posted by darladoon at 03/05/2009 @ 12:31am

112. They should rendition Rush off to fat camp and sweat some gravy out of that bloated bastard.

     Posted by koroviev at 03/05/2009 @ 12:31am

113. What a shame you don't believe in open debate-aka democracy.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 8:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     What a shame you know as much about democracy as you do about the Constitution or about socialism.

     Posted by brunowe at 03/05/2009 @ 12:33am

114. comanche, antisocialist, pontificus---

     what tax bracket are you in?

     (please be honest)

     are you employed?

     do you have health care?

     are you married?

     do you own a home?

     do you have children?

     please answer, honestly....

     Posted by darladoon at 03/05/2009 @ 12:33am

115. "the job losses turned into job gains, you heard nothing from libs and the media anymore, unless it was a lib repeating stuff they believed without realizing what the reality was.

     All measures of the economy showed improvement, from job gains to new business starts. "

     There were fewer people employed at the end of Bush's term then there were at the beginning. The money went into speculative bubbles--that was the "growth".

     Posted by brunowe at 03/05/2009 @ 12:38am

116. "You do know that on Jan. 2, the market had reversed the losses of last fall and actually started the year with some up days? "

     Right, because none of that was bargain-hunting was it? None of the decline was a result of the 4th Q economic numbers coming out, was it? Or the decline in employment or consumer spending? Or that the markets aren't looking forward to a recession that is going to hurt even with the stimulus package? The fact is that a couple of up days at the beginning of the year proves nothing except that you are grasping at straws.

     Posted by brunowe at 03/05/2009 @ 12:46am

117. Funny, but this reminds me of republican efforts years ago to marginalize Howard Dean as head of the democratic party using Michael Moore and Daily Kos and moveon.org as examples of the party's real voice.

     This disingenuous effort to marginalize Steele will probably be just as successful. I see the big difference is at least no one is accusing democrats of being racists. Playing these kinds of games only republicans can be accused of racism.

     It's all good theater and lots of fun for political junkies like us, isn't it? I think the democrats are underestimating the audience though.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 03/05/2009 @ 12:51am

118. lol...a radio talk show host with an approval rating in the 20s challenging a president with an approval rating in the 60s to a debate is laughable...I guess it sucks living in a country where your views are only shared by less than 25% of the population, doesn't it Rush! You could always move if don't agree with the views of most people in this country...

     Posted by danconstan at 03/05/2009 @ 12:58am

119. GOPee tickles DOWn:

     Who's The Most Powerful Republican?

     Rush Limbaugh ______55.77

     Newt Gingrich _______12.29

     John McCain________10.55

     Mitch McConnell______9.7

     John Boehner ________7.4

     Michael Steele _______ 4.28

     http://tinyurl.com/br9zgh

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2009 @ 01:00am

120. Ok do the math. Only about 25% find Rump Limppaw popular. But 50% the population think he's the repub leader. But Rump Limppaw is opposed to the RNC per hsuB's spending. So does that mean there's only about 12% non luna ticks left in the GOP!?!?!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2009 @ 01:25am

121. Who's The Most Powerful Republican?

     Rush Limbaugh ______55.77

     Newt Gingrich _______12.29

     John McCain________10.55

     Mitch McConnell______9.7

     John Boehner ________7.4

     Michael Steele _______ 4.28

     http://tinyurl.com/br9zgh

     Posted by hsuBfools

     No Palin? Damn.

     No Jindal? His stock must've dropped after that awful speech.

     Whatabout the Governator? Surely he has more power than Gingrich.

     Wait, where's Michelle Bachmann? Surely she is powerful if she is going to have McCarthyist witch-hunts for unamerican congess members.

     Posted by koroviev at 03/05/2009 @ 01:28am

122. This happens when taxes are cut. This is why JFK and LBJ cut taxes, by the way.

     Posted by sjchermak at 03/04/2009 @ 9:23pm

     Yes they did, sj. But those tax cuts were geared to the middle class, not the top 5%. Reagonomics was basically about Reagan being pissed off that he spent WWII in a high tax bracket. While he was safe in Hollywood doing movies. While your ancestors were probably in Europe or the Pacific or both, getting shot at or worse. There was a lot of talk in the 1980s about the time during which a new generation would have to pay for Republican borrow-and-spend greed. Well, here we are. And make no mistake, sj - like the debacle that was our foreign policy until January, this economic meltdown is Republican-conservative.

     Posted by jmusolino at 03/05/2009 @ 01:32am

123. ad but true Happy, to bad most leftist here aren't smart enough to appreciate the deep hole he and the Undemocrats are digging.

     Posted by comancheamerican at 03/05/2009 @ 12:09am

     Uh, Rio...you know, some of your rants about Demoncrats, Hillary Rotten (Satan's Favorite Daughter), etc...I'm not sure. on that basis, that you really want to get into a discussion around who may or may not be smart.

     Posted by jmusolino at 03/05/2009 @ 02:19am

124. I would rather see Rush debate John Stewart on the Daily Show.

     yeah!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2009 @ 02:53am

125. "Frosty zoom's" last suggestion is the best.

     Rush Limbaugh and Jon Stewart would be fairly matched. Both are entertainers, and in a pinch, neither claims to be telling the truth. It would be close to a fair fight, though I would bet on Stewart winning, because he's more telegenic and less mean-spirited than Limbaugh.

     Our president should never agree to a debate with a liar in a forum in which there is no fact-checking.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 03/05/2009 @ 04:53am

126. Rush should debate himself via clips of all the dumbass things he's said over his career.

     And I always wondered what Dick Cheney would do with all his spare time.... eh, antisocialist?

     -Wexler

     Posted by WWWexler at 03/05/2009 @ 06:19am

127. Mental midgets like Rush don't debate. They have a show as an unchallenged platform so that they can use it as a bully pulpit (O'Leily et. al.). Besides the fact that Rush is an idiot who doesn't know much of anything (if we take his words as evidence), Obama in an actual debate would wipe the floor with him IF they had equal time. Posted by nukemind at 03/05/2009 @ 12:27am

     Nuke, your own hypocrisy is on full display. HAHA But before I make my point, isn't it odd that a bunch of so-called "intellectuals" here at the Nation have to resort to such name calling. Liberals have always told us that they are decent, caring people who were above name calling. So much for that MYTH.

     As for debating Rush, Obama would end up looking like the bumbling, babbling, fool and idiot that he is. I can say that since name calling seems to be allowed here. Obama can hardly speak two sentences without a teleprompter. So Nuke, you claim that Rush has a show that goes unchallenged. It seems to me that this is your perfect chance to challenge the "de facto leader of the Republican Party". This is your guy's shot at equal time. The "fairness doctrine" so-to-speak. Obama wouldn't last 2 minutes in the arena of ideas with Rush. AND THE WHITE HOUSE KNOWS IT. There is no way Obama's handlers would ever let Rush and the Messiah debate the issues. I hear chickens clucking from the White House grounds.

     Posted by fram at 03/05/2009 @ 06:23am

128. By the way Mr. Nichols, you could be at least a little honest with the headline. Rush did not demand a debate with Obama. He offered one. Big difference but understandable from a feeble mind as yours.

     Posted by fram at 03/05/2009 @ 06:25am

129. That's does it.

     Rush for GOP presidential nominee in '12.

     Then he'll have his debate wish come true.

     And Obama will win in US history's greatest landslide.

     Keep your nose in the the coke & go, Rush!

     Posted by sloper at 03/05/2009 @ 06:35am

130. I'd second many of things you mentioned. The gap between rich and poor in the US has widened exponentially over the past three decades. The CBO reports that since 1979, the average income for the bottom half of american households has grown by 6%. Posted by hdthoreau at 03/04/2009 @ 5:59pm

     Well I'll be. A liberal who is actually admitting that the "Great Society" and the "war on poverty" has failed. What's next? Maybe we can start using the term "terrorists" as it relates to our enemies again. Nah, we might offend someone.

     Posted by fram at 03/05/2009 @ 06:36am

131. Keep your nose in the the coke & go, Rush!

     Posted by sloper at 03/05/2009 @ 06:35am

     Actually it was Obama's nose in the coke. Didn't you read his book?

     Posted by fram at 03/05/2009 @ 06:37am

132. All Rush Limbaugh is, is an overpaid, fat, loud mouthed, fool frothing at the mouth. Let him ramble on to his listeners and get them up in arms, but keep the fat slob out of national politics.

     Rush is no more qualified to debate foreign or domestic matters than Joe the plumber.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 06:59am

133. PS

     I particularly enjoyed the part where Rush was waving his arms around trying to whoop up some support from the audience. It reminded me of one of the gorilla scenes from "Planet of the Apes".

     -Wexler

     Posted by WWWexler at 03/05/2009 @ 07:32am

134. jmusolino,

     Ronald Reagan was not "pissed off" about spending WWII in a high tax bracket.

     You say there was talk during the 80's about "Republican borrow and spend greed"... of course there was.....from libs!

     And, as a lib, you can't stop yourself from bringing up how he spent his time during World War II. Standard lib stuff.

     Here are facts about Reaganomics:

     October 22, 1996 Policy Analysis no. 261 Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record by William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120

     Posted by sjchermak at 03/05/2009 @ 07:36am

135. Wow Wolfgang, it sounds like Rush is a real threat to you. What's the matter, is it because his ideas and beliefs actually make sense? Is his views any less valid than the Messiah's? I ask that because other than the name calling, you don't and can't refute anything he said. By the way, in all of your bloviating, you forgot the term "highly successful".

     Posted by fram at 03/05/2009 @ 07:39am

136. Posted by sjchermak at 03/05/2009 @ 07:36am

     He also raised taxes...including CORPORATE taxes, when the dangers of the deficit became apparent even to him.

     http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0301.green.html

     Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 08:54am

137. BTW, any of the ditto-heads who REALLY believe (not just spouting the line) that "Obama is AFRAID to debate Limbaugh"....

     can explain why Dubya never offered to debate...Howard Dean?

     I'm sure Dean would have accepted if the President had decided to take on the Chair of the DNC....guess ol' George was too "terrified" of "Dr. Scream" to do it, huh?

     Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 08:56am

138. you forgot the term "highly successful".

     Posted by fram at 03/05/2009 @ 07:39am

     The only thing Rush is successful at is lying out his ass and get the extreme nut cases like yourself frothing at the mouth.

     People like Rush are a threat to anyone in this nation with a brain. His followers would screw themselves in the name of big business Amen. He's a paid off spokesman for John Birch ideals.

     The guy isn't smart, nor is he funny. It's amazing he gets paid for what he does. My hat is actually off to him. In most countries, he'd be digging ditches or in a soup line.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 09:05am

139. you forgot the term "highly successful". Posted by fram at 03/05/2009 @ 07:39am

     Lots of criminals are considered successful until they get caught...

     j er k + ma s ch - raygun was a tool that read a script = 0

     Posted by marf at 03/05/2009 @ 06:23am

     Imagine if you will, a White House full of these lying idiot far right new cons: ¬^¬/antisocili, joma/maasch, marf, rio/coma, nappy, freis, acoo..., and you will find yourself in this reality, a disaster we're in now slipping into, a twilight. A twilight zone the Obama/Biden admin is attempting to pull our nation and the world out from under. A twilight zone the new cons want us to be pulled asunder for no other reason than the dems fail.

     Sad unpatriotic new con idiots.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2009 @ 09:09am

140. For you Fram,

     Here's Rush Limbaugh on Wikipedia.

     Education Limbaugh graduated from Cape Central High School, in 1969. His father and mother wanted him to attend college, so he enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University. He dropped out after two semesters and one summer; according to his mother, "he flunked everything", even a modern ballroom dancing class.[5] As she told a reporter in 1992, "He just didn't seem interested in anything except radio."[8]

     In short, he just wanted to rant on without knowing anything. So go ahead and continue to be a fool following a fool.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 09:15am

141. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 09:05am

     Well, there are millions of people who listen to Limbaugh, so I suppose he could be termed "highly successful".

     Although 28% of 250 million adults is 70 million....yet he gets only 5 POSSIBLE million listeners a day (hence his claim to "20 million listeners"...statistic gamesmanship, naturally).

     So there are a lot of folks, even in the small minority who still supported Dubya and think Sarah Palin is a genius...

     who don't listen to him!!!

     Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 09:18am

142. The guy isn't smart, nor is he funny. It's amazing he gets paid for what he does. My hat is actually off to him. In most countries, he'd be digging ditches or in a soup line.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 09:05am

     Be careful what you wish for Wolfgang. We may all be at the soup kitchen when the real effects of the Obama admin start to really take affect. You were warned.

     Posted by fram at 03/05/2009 @ 09:20am

143. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 09:15am

     Ahh, but see they'll claim Rush has "horse sense", not your fancy-schmancy college education.

     Then again, they might not know which END of the horse he gets his sense from!

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 09:21am

144. I'd probably follow Rush too like a blind ditto head if I were educated under one of the Republican's failed educational initiatives like "No Child Left Behind" or grew up in a state where the majority of people had relatives who fought for the glory of the South during the Civil War. Thankfully my parents favored science and evolution over ignorance.

     Thankfully I'm literate and know he's nothing more than a blow-hard pushing the same lame agenda that history teaches is a bunch of bull (yep, that's right, tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, kow-towing to big business has failed time and again).

     Ultimately its not that the Republicans have lost their way (like they claimed repeatedly at CPAC like a meth-addict on an episode of "Intervention"). Nope. They haven't lost their way; their way has lost. And good riddance.

     Posted by slezell at 03/05/2009 @ 09:30am

145. Education Limbaugh graduated from Cape Central High School, in 1969. His father and mother wanted him to attend college, so he enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University. He dropped out after two semesters and one summer; according to his mother, "he flunked everything", even a modern ballroom dancing class.[5] As she told a reporter in 1992, "He just didn't seem interested in anything except radio."[8]

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 09:15am |

     And yet from such humble beginnings he single-handedly rescued AM radio. He has become the biggest pain in the ass for democrats and liberals everywhere. He has a waiting list of companies who want to advertise on his show. He has built the biggest and most successful radio talk show in history. He did all of this while never altering his basic conservative principles of self reliance and self responsibility. He is unapologetic for standing up for the very things that made this country great. Not bad for someone who quit college and flunked ballroom dancing.

     Posted by fram at 03/05/2009 @ 09:30am

146. He is unapologetic for standing up for the very things that made this country great. Not bad for someone who quit college and flunked ballroom dancing.

     Posted by fram at 03/05/2009 @ 09:30am

     Not bad as far as how much money he makes. As far as how much he has learned? That's another question.

     You see, his college days are a reflection of his personality. He is not capable of learning anything.

     Let me ask you this. Would you want Rush Limbaugh to be in charge of your personal finances? How would you like to leave him in charge of your family? Would you trust a guy like him with your daughter or wife?

     Keep in mind that he was heading to South America with a ton of Viagra or something along those lines. Take a look at him. Do you think women would be jumping at the chance to pile into the sack with a guy like him? Not likely. From there, it would seem reasonble that he was planning on paying for his "fun" with his radio show earnings. What a guy.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 09:49am

147. What made this country is the same as what made all advancements in the world-- community. Social interaction, society, groups of people helping each other to survive nature and other regressive cultures.

     The new con would prefer to be aligned with the regressive culture needing to be overcome than an advanced society.

     Naturally, education and universal health would be anathema to new cons.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2009 @ 09:49am

148. or grew up in a state where the majority of people had relatives who fought for the glory of the South during the Civil War. Thankfully my parents favored science and evolution over ignorance.

     Posted by slezell at 03/05/2009 @ 09:30am

     Ah, nothing like a little bigotry, huh sleeze?

     Your parents may have favored science and evolution but you clearly chose ignorance.

     Posted by fram at 03/05/2009 @ 09:51am

149. Then again, they might not know which END of the horse he gets his sense from!

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 09:21am

     Well put Mask.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 09:52am

150. Limbaugh is a bombastic, bloviating, BS'er. An honerless, classless, serial liar with no respect for facts.

     In other words, the perfect spokesman for what remains of the neo-cons.

     Ordinarily, I would suggest that, if he wants to debate, he could do so with Al Franken. However, now that Al is 'Senator Franken', he is well above Limbaugh.

     Now I say, let Limbaugh debate Bill Maher.

     Posted by Lillian at 03/05/2009 @ 09:52am

151. Now, Rio, you are partially correct that the left wants to shut off all debate and speech that isn't leftist speech.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 8:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     .

     You are both either liars or...

     ...delusional.

     (Likely both.)

     Posted by Lillian at 03/05/2009 @ 09:52am

152. Naturally, education, universal health and 'rule of law' would be anathema to new cons.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2009 @ 09:53am

153. Lets all grab our torches and pitchforks and march on Rush's Palm Beach studio and invite him to a debate in the street. I'm sure he would be happy to attend..

     Posted by chaoszen at 03/05/2009 @ 09:55am

154. Here are facts about Reaganomics:

     Posted by sjchermak at 03/05/2009 @ 07:36am | ignore this person | warn this person

     .

     From Cato institute - a right-wing organization developed and funded for the sole purpose of 'catapulting the propaganda'. Way to live up to your handle there...

     ...SJerk.

     Posted by Lillian at 03/05/2009 @ 09:58am

155. Let me ask you this. Would you want Rush Limbaugh to be in charge of your personal finances? How would you like to leave him in charge of your family? Would you trust a guy like him with your daughter or wife?

     Absolutely. I wish I had Rush's financial adviser. As far as trusting him with my wife/girfriend/daughter? Sure, why wouldn't I? It is Bill Clinton I wouldn't trust.

     Posted by fram at 03/05/2009 @ 10:00am

156. Fram, since I'm tolerant of views that are not my own (indeed, I encourage robust debate) I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the term bigotry. Then again, given the near uncountable misstatements of fact in your posts to date, I'm not sure there is much you do understand other than FOX News/Rush talking points. You're an excellent parrot.

     Posted by slezell at 03/05/2009 @ 10:01am

157. Posted by slezell at 03/05/2009 @ 10:01am

     It's that retro Russian gangster fashion statement coupled with the coked up overamped druggie personna that attracts all the koolaid kiddies. Repugs just love that crap..

     Posted by chaoszen at 03/05/2009 @ 10:06am

158. "Imagine if you will, a White House full of these lying idiot far right new cons: ¬^¬/antisocili, joma/maasch, marf, rio/coma, nappy, freis, acoo..., and you will find yourself in this reality, a disaster we're in now slipping into, a twilight. A twilight zone the Obama/Biden admin is attempting to pull our nation and the world out from under. A twilight zone the new cons want us to be pulled asunder for no other reason than the dems fail.

     Sad unpatriotic new con idiots.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2009 @ 09:09am

     Twilight zone...thats about right..these guys Obama hired are from the the Twilight zone...the dems have secured failure for the currency in 45 short daysd and the markets are voting the no confidence vote as they collapse.

     Can anyone one say..

     CARTERIZATION ON THE WAY..YOU, TOO, HAVE HAVE THE RETURN OF 20% INFLATION, 20% UNEMPLOYMENT AND HIGHER TAXES.

     all tax evaders going after other people who they think should pay more pay taxes...perfect.

     great..nice...good for the credibility...

     can't wait to get their version of health care..

     That is a reality disaster...like putting someone who has never run a business in charge of running a business...the learning curve put the business under...and we are on Obamas learning curve as the supporters like FOOLS cheers from the sideline thinking the country is winning...its OK tho...he is tenured, I am sure.

     Fools, you will get what you want in a few years..

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/05/2009 @ 10:07am

159. Rush is their version of "Scarface"...

     Posted by chaoszen at 03/05/2009 @ 10:08am

160. Then again, given the near uncountable misstatements of fact in your posts to date, Posted by slezell at 03/05/2009 @ 10:01am

     Okay, show some courage...name them.

     Bigotry...obviously you have something against people who were raised in the south.

     Posted by fram at 03/05/2009 @ 10:09am

161. That is a reality disaster...like putting someone who has never run a business in charge of running a business...the learning curve put the business under...Posted by YourJomamma at 03/05/2009 @ 10:07am

     You mean like Bush?

     Posted by chaoszen at 03/05/2009 @ 10:10am

162. Limbaugh's an asshole. and I took great joy in telling him so in an email yesterday. Guess I'll get waterboarded if he ever gets elected.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/05/2009 @ 10:10am

163. Posted by fram at 03/05/2009 @ 09:30am

     Beyond the set of people that listen to Limbaugh, he's a liability. Rasmussen puts Limbaugh's unfavorability with the general U.S. population at ~60% (contrast with ~25% with a favorable view).

     I also think talking about success in audience terms leaves you having to look at the top talk shows and what is it about the medium that leaves NPR news shows and right wing ideologues tops in the ratings. Or for that matter, it leaves open the question of other radio "successes" of people like Howard Stern. How is Limbaugh different?

     I can give Limbaugh credit for his skills at self-promotion and the fact that he can appeal to a certain audience - just as Howard Stern can. That's no minor feat.

     Still, you cannot talk about his dedication to "self-reliance" and "self-responsibility" without also taking into account his bigotry, and the fact that his show's "entertainment" consists of putting people down and playing the part of a bully.

     Honestly, would you think Limbaugh was so great if he was a member of your community and his success was built on creating divisions within it? Even if you would, I bet you'd see the Rassmussen numbers above replicate and a large majority wouldn't.

     Posted by srjenkins at 03/05/2009 @ 10:14am

164. Bigotry...obviously you have something against people who were raised in the south.

     Posted by fram at 03/05/2009 @ 10:09am

     In hindsight we should have let the south secede. Then all the bigots and hate mongers would have been able to wallow in ignorance in a single defined geographical area.

     Posted by chaoszen at 03/05/2009 @ 10:14am

165. Maybe we can start using the term "terrorists" as it relates to our enemies again. Nah, we might offend someone.

     Posted by fram at 03/05/2009 @ 06:36am

     Speaking of terrorists, FRAM, did you notice how in January 2001 George W Loser put the "Kick US in the Ass---HARD!!!" sign on America's back? Then Loser went on vacation and stayed there while the nation's top law enforcement officer (Attorney General Ashcroft) was putting clothes on statues (did not want to "offend" anyone, like other religious freaks). And they refused to call a principles meeting for 8 months, abandoning their battle stations.

     Also notice that this series of events which led to the biggest terrorist bloodbath in world history that has since been saluted and celebrated by your fellow traveller SJCHERMAK who has numerous times affirmed the requirement for PNAC's much lusted for "Second Pearl Harbor". CHERMAK is a Septmebr 11 apologist who claims that George W Loser was still working on his "security plan" when 911 occurred -- so leave him alone already, it's hard work presidenting! SJCHERMAK has also made it clear that he nods his head solenmly at the lunatic idea that T-Blair made the UK "safe"-- since CHERMAK's concept of safe is 50 people blown to bits on 7-7-2005 and another 700 almost murdered by fanatics whose sick rightist cause was given fresh oxygen by Blair's own rightist cause via the invasion of choice.

     You may also want to ask another fellow traveller here, the truly dire creep COMMANCHENATION, about his position on rigthwing religious freak David Koresh and ConservaTrerrorist Tim McVeigh. COMA has never answered the question as to whether he belives adult male religious authorities should molest chidren presumably because he is a big supporter.

     Nice friends ya got...

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 03/05/2009 @ 10:18am

166. I can only imagine how entertained Wolfgang1 is by slamming Rush Limbaugh. It is clearly energizing him as he basks in self-importance.

     In his haste he won't even consider his unveiled bigotry against fat people. Instead of making a case against Limbaugh, he chose instead to simply hurl insults, particularly about Limbaugh's weight. Others insult people for being from the south. Others just dismiss Limbaugh's 30 million listeners as idiots.

     Do you people even listen to yourselves?

     I always find it fascinating when liberals behave EXACTLY as Ann Coulter articulates in her books. This blog and the majority of the posts serves as proof, with few exceptions.

     Thank you!

     By the way, it is ridiculous to even consider that the President of the United States would give 2 seconds of consideration to an offer to debate a radio host in his studio on anything. Limbaugh knows this. And he can play you like fiddles.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 03/05/2009 @ 10:19am

167. I said they are nearly uncountable, so please give me a few hours to compile the list. In the meantime, if I did have something against people from the South (which I don't) that would be "prejudice" not "bigotry". When Rush said that feminism was created to allow unattractive women a way into mainstream society, that was bigotry. When he said Obama doesn't deserve support just because he had a black father, that was racism.

     Fram, we get it. You are a huge shareholder in Rush corp. and even with all the evidence showing his ideas have failed in the marketplace, you're still going to follow him emperor's new clothes style. You're a great cheerleader.

     Then again, how you find the time to raise 14 kids and post on this thread all morning I'll never know.

     Posted by slezell at 03/05/2009 @ 10:21am

168. Are you that dense, or just can't scroll up to re-read the lie you posted?

     Posted by comancheamerican at 03/04/2009 @ 11:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Dense? Spoken like an expert.

     Posted by jarshadow at 03/05/2009 @ 10:22am

169. In hindsight we should have let the south secede. Then all the bigots and hate mongers would have been able to wallow in ignorance in a single defined geographical area.

     Posted by chaoszen at 03/05/2009 @ 10:14am

     And of course, as history recorded...they were democrats.

     Posted by fram at 03/05/2009 @ 10:22am

170. Posted by YourJomamma at 03/05/2009 @ 10:07am

     Proves my point: Naturally education, universal health, rule of law, and 'truth' is anathema to new cons.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2009 @ 10:22am

171. Do you people even listen to yourselves?

     Posted by freiheit1 at 03/05/2009 @ 10:19am

     Yeah and we listen to the likes of you aswell. We actually had to learn your disgusting tactics in order to get down in the mud and the blood and the beer in order to defeat you.

     Look at the monster you have created Dr. Frankenstein! :)

     Posted by chaoszen at 03/05/2009 @ 10:26am

172. Fram, please see the library of info. on "Nixon's Southern Strategy" and Strom's "Dixiecrats". Sheesh, you really should get back to those kids...

     Posted by slezell at 03/05/2009 @ 10:28am

173. Then again, how you find the time to raise 14 kids and post on this thread all morning I'll never know.

     Posted by slezell at 03/05/2009 @ 10:21am

     You mean that was your sister???

     Two can play at this game.

     Posted by fram at 03/05/2009 @ 10:28am

174. Did you just "I know you are but what am I?" me??? Well played master of quick wit. Stunning how your party lost.

     Posted by slezell at 03/05/2009 @ 10:30am

175. Posted by fram at 03/05/2009 @ 10:22am

     Democrats? I think not. Democrats reinvented themselves long ago. But you knuckle draggers are lagging more than a little behind, aren't you? Democrats evolve quicker. I guess..

     Posted by chaoszen at 03/05/2009 @ 10:31am

176. By the way, it is ridiculous to even consider that the President of the United States would give 2 seconds of consideration to an offer to debate a radio host in his studio on anything. Limbaugh knows this. And he can play you like fiddles.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 03/05/2009 @ 10:19am

     freiheit, I hammer on fatboy the same way he hammers on his guests who don't agree with them.

     As pointed out ealier, what Limberger is good at is self-promotion. He's made a living at spewing forth hatred toward anyone disagreeing with his warped perspective.

     He's one guy I'd love to get into a ring with for 15 rounds.... though I'm not in his weight class.

     So, what do you think of Al Franken?

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 10:33am

177. Posted by slezell at 03/05/2009 @ 10:28am

     Oh, you must mean J. William Fulbright and George Wallace and Al Gore Sr. and of course Robert KKK Byrd. All segregationists and all democrats. I can list more if you want me to but we are digressing from the topic.

     Posted by fram at 03/05/2009 @ 10:44am

178. Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2009 @ 10:22am

     FOOLZ,

     JOMAMMA's obsession with Jimmy Carter is also astonishing in how much it reveals about Nebraska boob boy's drooling agnosia with regard to the causal series of events of the past 30 years. It would just be pitiful if this species of sickos, of whom JOMAMMA is a particularly windy example, were not the danger that they are for America.

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 03/05/2009 @ 10:49am

179. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 10:33am

     I've read all of Frankin's books. (I thought his breakdown of Sean Hannity was hysterically funny!)

     I respect Frankin. But I disagree with him on virtually every economic and social issue.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 03/05/2009 @ 11:01am

180. .....The fact is that a couple of up days at the beginning of the year proves nothing except that you are grasping at straws.

     Posted by brunowe at 03/05/2009 @ 12:46am

     The following BusinessWeek article, with graphics and significant events dating back to Nov. 4th, explains things far better than I can....IF I am "grasping at straws", I am certainly not the only one nor the smartest one......an awful lot of brainpower, and REAL MONEY, lies behind the `ticker tape'!

     Investing March 5, 2009, 12:01AM EST

     Did Obama Cause the Stock Slide?

     Wall Street has soured on the new Administration's policy moves. Can this relationship be saved?

     By Ben Steverman

     At least on Wall Street, the honeymoon is over for President Barack Obama.....

     Posted by Happy at 03/05/2009 @ 11:14am

181. You mean like Bush?

     Posted by chaoszen at 03/05/2009 @ 10:10am

     I have to agree with you here...

     Bush failed (BTW, did you want Bush to fail or his policys?)

     ..and Obama is failing in the same vein...sadly..Obama is doing it faster than Bush..

     Faster spending,..

     Faster into Afganistan..

     Faster to negoiate away hold cards to our enemies...

     faster to destroying industry jobs..

     faster at destroying wealth..

     faster to destroying the currency...

     faster at hiring felons for govt service..

     (remember when a Reagan advisor(Allen I think was his name) was fired from office for taking a $39.00 watch as a gift and not reporting it?)

     and now 1/2 Obamas guys are tax cheats..including the guy in charge of the nations money and taxes...

     and the hope for me is a change to a conservative who will have a fast change of policys to stop our spending spree for political foolishness and political paybacks..

     Obama may also be faster out of office...for if the country goes 4 years like it is today only worse...Obama will leave office faster than Bush...

     Fools and our our local angry psychotic,Phil McCreviceinhishead...will be cheering away as the parade goes by, eating cotton candy, with impish grins on their faces woncdering why the parade is...on it way out of town.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/05/2009 @ 11:20am

182. "freiheit, I hammer on fatboy the same way he hammers on his guests who don't agree with them."

     Sorry, but in my opinion you hammer like MICHAEL SAVAGE, not Rush Limbaugh.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 03/05/2009 @ 11:21am

183. "Rasmussen puts Limbaugh's unfavorability with the general U.S. population at ~60% (contrast with ~25% with a favorable view)...."

     How many people would rather be right, but NOT popular, as vs. being wrong but POPULAR?

     Anyone recall The Surge?

     Rush has low credibility with Lefties and a large number of average folks who, my guess is, are turned off by his style, the very essence of why he IS so successful, and who fails to listen to his show for a few weeks.....this is like a TV pilot show that gets killed off after one episode even if it's a great show but takes time to `acquire the taste' for.

     Now, I urge everyone to read Jim Cramer's "Response to the WH" today. He is a life-long Lefty, pretty far left in his youth, and is a 6-figure donor to the Dems......and he IS someone I admire and have investments with (TheStreet.com).

     You should be surprised that Cramer buys into every single one of Magic's major agendas,.....well worth reading.

     Posted by Happy at 03/05/2009 @ 11:25am

184. Typical listeners on the telephone with Limbaugh after passing the rigorous screening before allowance on the air-

     "Gosh, Rush, it's such an honor (weeping) to talk to you, sir."

     "Nother stick of Dub-u-Mint Rush?

     "We've named our children after you, sir. There's Flush, Mush,Lush, Tush, Bush, & Cush . You, sir, are a national treasure."

     Posted by Sorelish at 03/05/2009 @ 11:35am

185. Actually, fram the questions should have been...

     Would you let Limbaugh MARRY your sister (unless you were hoping for her to score some big alimony/settlement bucks)?

     and Would you let Rush guard your medicine cabinet?

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 11:38am

186. Actually, fram the questions should have been...

     Would you let Limbaugh MARRY your sister (unless you were hoping for her to score some big alimony/settlement bucks)?

     and Would you let Rush guard your medicine cabinet?

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 11:38am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Would let..Kennedy do the same?

     And he is IN govt...

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/05/2009 @ 11:41am

187. Posted by YourJomamma at 03/05/2009 @ 11:41am

     Okay, MAASCH...if you WANT compare Kennedy to Rush...fine with me.

     Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 11:43am

188. Sorry, but in my opinion you hammer like MICHAEL SAVAGE, not Rush Limbaugh.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 03/05/2009 @ 11:21am

     I'm glad I don't hammer like Rush in your opinion because I could give a rip about your opinion or Rush's for that matter.

     You know as well as I that if Rush truly were to debate Obama that Obama being an attorney would fry Rush's little pea brain in no time.

     One man has spent most of his life learning how the U.S. government is supposed to operate and also studied the constitution in great detail. The other man has learned how to stuff sandwiches in his face doubled with cigars and drugs.

     Go ahead and go back the uneducated moron, your selection of character speaks volumes.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 11:43am

189. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 11:43am

     Look, this is an old trick of self-promotion. Secondary, tertiary guy challenges the Top Dog and when the TD ignores the yelping of the pup...the pup claims "See? He's afraid of me!"

     In radio, it's even more common. Always get some 2nd or 3rd rate Stern knock-off issuing challenges to the big guy to "Come on my show and I'll show how Howard is an idiot!"....Stern ignores them and they come back the next morning and say "See? Howard's not that tough...he refuses to come to KZZZ and debate me Bob 'Mad-man' Reynolds!!!"

     Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 11:47am

190. Rush demanding, can you believe this, demanding a debate with the president of the United States is an absurdity. a bit like a bar brawler in OshKosh demanding a bout with the world champion. it's just a joke.

     I have noticed that the repugs are playing pretty much only to Fox. they will not govern again with this m.o. good riddance.

     the american people are not fooled.

     Posted by emile duBois at 03/05/2009 @ 11:48am

191. Would let..Kennedy do the same?

     And he is IN govt...

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/05/2009 @ 11:41am

     I might let Kennedy guard the medicine cabinet, but I sure as hell wouldn't let him drive anyone anywhere! LOL

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 11:49am

192. In radio, it's even more common. Always get some 2nd or 3rd rate Stern knock-off issuing challenges to the big guy to "Come on my show and I'll show how Howard is an idiot!"....Stern ignores them and they come back the next morning and say "See? Howard's not that tough...he refuses to come to KZZZ and debate me Bob 'Mad-man' Reynolds!!!"

     Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 11:47am

     Agreed. And the self-promoting Limbaugh gets to rev up his base which was probably starting to dwindle a bit. Rush is just trying to hang on the limelight as long as he can.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 11:54am

193. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 11:49am

     :)...or guard the bar...:)

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/05/2009 @ 12:01pm

194. "You know as well as I that if Rush truly were to debate Obama that Obama being an attorney would fry Rush's little pea brain in no time." - Wolfgang1

     I just don't get the "pea brain" comment. Ann Coulter devotes chapters to the liberal tendency to attack the intelligence of those with whom they disagree. She backs it up with great data too.

     I can totally understand your disagreement with Limbaugh. And I can't say that Obama's skills as a lawyer, not to mention that little fact he's the President of the US, wouldn't make him a slam dunk winner against a popular radio host in any debate.

     But clearly Limbaugh isn't a pea brain. Too bad you can't see how your immaturity works against your credibility.

     But then again, you told me already you don't give a rip about my opinion.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 03/05/2009 @ 12:09pm

195. Guess Wolf thinks automatically, attorneys are the smartest in the room....in the case of Magic, with a TelePrompter of course.

     What I can't figure out, is why Congress--made almost entirely of `accomplished' lawyers-- is considered the dumbest institution of the land?

     Posted by Happy at 03/05/2009 @ 12:18pm

196. Posted by Happy at 03/05/2009 @ 12:18pm

     Haha, thanks, I just didn't have the energy to go there! :-)

     Posted by freiheit1 at 03/05/2009 @ 12:20pm

197. Rush demanding, can you believe this, demanding a debate with the president of the United States is an absurdity.

     Posted by emile duBois at 03/05/2009 @ 11:48am

     Of course if you actually took the time to read what Rush said, you would know that Rush offered to debate Obama...not demanded as Mr. Nichols stated. Hey Emile, why don't you go to Rush's website and READ what he said. Or are you too much of a coward?

     Posted by fram at 03/05/2009 @ 12:20pm

198. Fascinating about how the liberals here articulate how low Limbaugh's popularity ratings are and how no one really listens to him. Or, if they do, of course, they are "stupid".

     It is EXACTLY how the right tried to marginalize Michael Moore, saying no one watches his films, oh and he's fat, etc., etc.

     But underlying it all for both sides is a fear that there is influence in the opinions of Moore and Limbaugh.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 03/05/2009 @ 12:25pm

199. But underlying it all for both sides is a fear that there is influence in the opinions of Moore and Limbaugh.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 03/05/2009 @ 12:25pm

     The problem for the WH is and why the fear of Rush is met with their reaction TO Rush..is that unlike Moore..Rush has a constant audience..Moore gets who he is going to get for the movies, and they are gone...no lasting effect other than Moores wallet.

     Rush scares the crap out of the Dem govt hacks because they are the focus of these his show and the failures, and most of the time the evidence of Rush acusations are the actions of the hacks themselves. In other words...

     Rush has credibility based govt nhis targets actions.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/05/2009 @ 12:39pm

200. But clearly Limbaugh isn't a pea brain. Too bad you can't see how your immaturity works against your credibility.

     But then again, you told me already you don't give a rip about my opinion.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 03/05/2009 @ 12:09pm

     I've listened to Limbaugh talk on his show. The guy is full of crap. He just comes off as a simpleton. He simply cuts people off who put forth a better arguement than him since he's in charge of when to cut people off the air.

     I also gauge Limbaugh as a pea brain based on the people I deal with on a day to day basis. I'm an engineer and work with other engineers and people with advanced degrees in many different realms. These folks are smart, Rush isn't. Plain and simple.

     He may be entertainment for people who want to blame someone for their predicament in life, but that's all he is.

     The thing that is scary about him is the fact that someone pays him to shout out his B.S. on the public airwaves and there are people out there without the cranial capacity to realize the guy doensn't know what the hell he's talking about.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 12:53pm

201. what tax bracket are you in? (please be honest) are you employed? do you have health care? are you married? do you own a home? do you have children? please answer, honestly....

     Posted by darladoon at 03/05/2009 @ 12:33am

     10% (bottom)- used to be in the top 10% until I decided I no longer needed that kind of life. So, I purposely limit my income by working part-time

     Employed-self employed

     No healthcare-never use it, don't want it

     Married

     Own my own home

     5 children, 8 grandchildren

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 12:55pm

202. :)...or guard the bar...:)

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/05/2009 @ 12:01pm

     Yep, there's another one.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 12:56pm

203. Haha, thanks, I just didn't have the energy to go there! :-)

     Posted by freiheit1 at 03/05/2009 @ 12:20pm

     Neither does Happy. If he can't make a profit off someone else's ideas or labor, it is just to damn tiring for him. Typing is quite a drain on his energy levels.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 1:00pm

204. "But clearly Limbaugh isn't a pea brain. Too bad you can't see how your immaturity works against your credibility."----Posted by freiheit1 at 03/05/2009 @ 12:09pm

     "Mask, Yet again your observation is wrong. I'm far from a Limbaugh sycophant."----Posted by freiheit1 at 03/03/2009 @ 2:04pm

     Again, I say......Hmmmmmmm?

     Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 1:06pm

205. I agree YJ.

     This whole blog has been a hoot! I am concerned about the bigger picture though. All this Rush/Obama news has pushed the real news out of view again. I think that's exactly what Obama wanted. Insolvency of the FDIC (gee, what a shocker there, not), historic government mandated wealth distribution, the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.

     Instead of focusing on the real issues of the day, we (meaning me too) are like little fish swimming to shiny things with this whole ridiculous Rush controversy.

     While the true deception stands right before our eyes, unseen.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 03/05/2009 @ 1:07pm

206. Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 12:55pm

     Forgot to mention you get a chunk of your income via a Government mandate!

     Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 1:11pm

207. Well, there are millions of people who listen to Limbaugh, so I suppose he could be termed "highly successful".

     Although 28% of 250 million adults is 70 million....yet he gets only 5 POSSIBLE million listeners a day (hence his claim to "20 million listeners"...statistic gamesmanship, naturally).

     So there are a lot of folks, even in the small minority who still supported Dubya and think Sarah Palin is a genius...

     who don't listen to him!!!

     Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 09:18am

     Mask, the real relevance is; who is(was) the only person to have a larger listening audience than Rush?

     the answer----Paul Harvey (who was a libertarian)

     That makes Rush the 2nd largest radio host in our history and currently the host with the largest number of stations and listeners in the country.

     And Rush has been in the Radio Hall of Fame since 1993. I can't find Franken or any of the other Air America hosts there (not to mention other libs/leftists who are not there

     No Ed Schultz, No Amy Goodman, No Bernie Ward, no Laura Flanders,,,,

     http://www.radiohof.org/inducteesaz.html

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 1:19pm

208. Wolfgang1,

     I also work in an engineering environment surrounded by PhD's actually. Gosh, I wonder if we work at the same company and don't even know it! Too funny.

     Anyway, I don't get your point. Who's contending Rush Limbaugh is, golly, I dunno, as smart as Al Gore or Hillary Clinton. So? That still doesn't validate your claim that he's a "pea brain". I mean, like, he must be a "stinker butt" too, right?

     Ask yourself this, since you're so intelligent, do you have any idea how the FDIC is really designed to work? I don't give a rip if you do or don't, but I wonder if you can even consider for 1 second that you are being as duped by Obama as I was by Bush...

     Posted by freiheit1 at 03/05/2009 @ 1:21pm

209. now, go to hell and shut the fuck up. Posted by darladoon

     Silence All who disagree with the doon!!!

     Posted by abell12ct at 03/05/2009 @ 1:37pm

210. Obama may also be faster out of office...for if the country goes 4 years like it is today only worse...Obama will leave office faster than Bush...

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/05/2009 @ 11:20am

     YoJo,

     Just because all the stuff hsuB/cHeney hid deep in the closet are just now coming out to the light of day, you shouldn't confuse the tick skeletons with Obama initiatives. It'll be several months yet for any and all Obama policies to even get a foothold.

     But everyone already understands you're easily confused, slow on the up-'tick', so to speak...

     So what do you say when Obama's policies succeed and our nation slowly moves back from the brink of hsuB/cHeney hidden twilight zone full of tick skeletons?

     "Thank you Mr. President Obama."

     Just keep repeating that 'til you get used to it.

     Might as well start now.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2009 @ 1:53pm

211. "Thank you Mr. President Obama."

     ...he said, bloodied, strapped to the chair in the windowless room at the camp which was now his home.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 03/05/2009 @ 2:07pm

212. the dems have secured failure for the currency in 45 short daysd and the markets are voting the no confidence vote as they collapse.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/05/2009 @ 10:07am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Since Inauguration Day, the dollar has moved from .77 Euro/dollar to .79 Euro; from .70 UK pounds to .71 UKpounds; from 90 yen to 98 yen; from 1.14 Swiss francs to 1.17 (all interbank rate). That's what a currency looks like when it collapses?

     "the markets are voting the no confidence vote as they collapse."

     Right, that has nothing to do with the insolvency of the banks and the collapse of consumer demand.

     ".like putting someone who has never run a business in charge of running a business."

     As opposed to putting someone in charge who botched every business he ran and had to be bailed out by his daddy's rich friends?

     "Oh, you must mean J. William Fulbright and George Wallace and Al Gore Sr. and of course Robert KKK Byrd. All segregationists and all democrats. I can list more if you want me to but we are digressing from the topic. Posted by fram at 03/05/2009 @ 10:44am | ignore this person | warn this person " Of course, you leave out Strom Thurmond, who exemplified where the Southerners went when he became a Republican in 1964.

     "The following BusinessWeek article, with graphics and significant events dating back to Nov. 4th, explains things far better than I can....IF I am "grasping at straws", I am certainly not the only one nor the smartest one..."

     No link to the article? I simply repeat what I said above…nothing to do with the recession and widespread insolvency? In short, the markets were plunging in late 2008 and, after a revival of a few days, found an entirely new reason to plummet?

     Posted by brunowe at 03/05/2009 @ 2:19pm

213. Hey everybody, ask yourself this:

     Is Rush Limbaugh more important than the fact the head of the Federal Reserve, who has handed out $2.2 trillion to financial institutions under the various "bailout" efforts said this week that it would be "counterproductive" to disclose which banks received funds or how much they got.

     Do you think Obama is going to do jack about that? Wait, quick, go back to ragging on how stupid Limbaugh is and don't even think about the Stimulus and other, like, really complicated stuff like that!

     "Thank you Mr. President Obama." "Thank you Mr. President Obama." "Thank you Mr. President Obama." "Thank you Mr. President Obama." "Thank you Mr. President Obama."

     Posted by freiheit1 at 03/05/2009 @ 2:27pm

214. http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content

     /mar2009/pi2009034_253747.htm?

     chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_top+story

     Investing March 5, 2009, 12:01AM EST

     Did Obama Cause the Stock Slide?

     Wall Street has soured on the new Administration's policy moves. Can this relationship be saved?

     By Ben Steverman

     At least on Wall Street, the honeymoon is over for President Barack Obama.....

     Posted by Happy at 03/05/2009 @ 2:33pm

215. Forgot to mention you get a chunk of your income via a Government mandate!

     Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 1:11pm

     As I said to you, the govt mandate makes no difference to me. I would do just as well without it. There is no govt mandate on Life Insurance, Homeowners Insurance, or Commercial Insurance which make up over 75% of my insurance income.

     And since I only work part-time, that amount is truly insignificant.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 2:33pm

216. Happy

     Thanks for the link, an interesting article but there are aspects that don't fully support your position. For example, the article mentioned unreasonable expectations (yes, apparently even Wall Street thought he walked on water) and the fuzziness of Geithner's "plan" as factors.

     Posted by brunowe at 03/05/2009 @ 2:43pm

217. Stock market down another 250 points today as Obama gives the finger to the 'investor class'!!!!

     I hope all you Obamorons who voted for this clown own lots of stock! Bend over for your messiah!

     Posted by pontificus at 03/05/2009 @ 2:51pm

218. JIM CRAMER, OBAMA VOTER AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY CONTRIBUTOR FINALLY FIGURES OUT THAT HE BACKED THE WRONG GUY! NOT THAT WE DIDN'T TELL YOU PEOPLE!

     "Look at the incredible decline in the stock market, in all indices, since the inauguration of the president, with the drop accelerating when the budget plan came to light because of the massive fear and indecision the document sowed: Raising taxes on the eve of what could be a second Great Depression, destroying the profits in healthcare companies (one of the few areas still robust in the economy), tinkering with the mortgage deduction at a time when U.S. house price depreciation is behind much of the world's morass and certainly the devastation affecting our banks, and pushing an aggressive cap and trade program that could raise the price of energy for millions of people.

     The market's the effect; much of what the president is fighting for is the cause. The market's signal can't be ignored. It's too palpable, too predictive to be ignored, despite the prattle that the market's predicted far more recessions than we have."

     Posted by pontificus at 03/05/2009 @ 3:03pm

219. JIM CRAMER AGAIN:

     "Obama has undeniably made things worse by creating an atmosphere of fear and panic rather than an atmosphere of calm and hope. He's done it by pushing a huge amount of change at a very perilous moment, by seeking to demonize the entire banking system and by raising taxes for those making more than $250,000 at the exact time when we need them to spend and build new businesses, and by revoking deductions for funds to charity that help eliminate the excess supply of homes.

     We had a banking crisis coming into this regime, but now every area is in crisis. Each day is worse than the previous one for this miserable economy and while Obama's champions cite the stimulus plan, it's really just a hodgepodge of old Democratic pork and will not create nearly as many manufacturing or service jobs as we hoped. China's stimulus plan is the model; ours is the parody"

     Posted by pontificus at 03/05/2009 @ 3:06pm

220. Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 1:19pm

     Noooooooo...the real question is...how many people does Limbaugh truly represent.

     Again, his "20 million listener" number is phoney (he adds EACH day together to get it)...and of that how much of even the CONSERVATIVE movement listens to him?...again, not stupendous numbers, even if you rationalize it with "So? Many don't listen to ANY radio during the day"....same point.

     Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 3:26pm

221. Posted by pontificus at 03/05/2009 @ 3:03pm

     PONTI, how is it that "the Market realizing how bad Obama is"...

     doesn't seem to be translating into low approval numbers as Cramer claims?!??!?!??

     Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 3:27pm

222. Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 3:27pm

     "PONTI, how is it that "the Market realizing how bad Obama is"...doesn't seem to be translating into low approval numbers as Cramer claims?!??!?!??"

     The news media, totally and completely in the tank for Obama, is systematically lying to the country. That's why most people don't have a clue what is going on. The mainstream media has been lying to the country for years, and they continue to do so as they go down the toilet.

     But Obama's numbers are dropping, and as time goes on, people will have no choice but to wake up, just as they did with Jimmy Carter (whose approval numbers were higher than Obama's at this point). The only problem is, the country will suffer greatly during the process.

     Posted by pontificus at 03/05/2009 @ 3:38pm

223. Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 3:27pm

     "PONTI, how is it that "the Market realizing how bad Obama is"...doesn't seem to be translating into low approval numbers as Cramer claims?!??!?!??"

     By the way, this whole 'Operation Rushbo' by the White House is designed SPECIFICALLY to distract attention of the country from Obama's DISASTROUS spending policies and the CATASTROPHIC DESTRUCTION OF WEALTH they are creating in the stock market (as pointed out by Cramer).

     Posted by pontificus at 03/05/2009 @ 3:40pm

224. Posted by sjchermak at 03/05/2009 @ 07:36am

     Reagan was always pissed about his tax bracket, sj. And, yes, those of us on the left said there would be a steep price to pay for GOP borrow-and-spend economics And we were right.

     Posted by jmusolino at 03/05/2009 @ 3:42pm

225. Reagan was always pissed about his tax bracket, sj. And, yes, those of us on the left said there would be a steep price to pay for GOP borrow-and-spend economics And we were right.

     Posted by jmusolino at 03/05/2009 @ 3:42pm

     As others have exposed, you just keep spouting a leftist lie.

     Reagan doubled tax revenues and the Democratic Congress spent all of it and more.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 3:49pm

226. This is a strange strategy by the White House -- that is to somehow try and marginalize the GOP by accusing it of having Rush Limbaugh as its leader. The short term tactic is clear:

     Divert attention from this incredible budget of trillions of dollars of debt and deficit, expansion of entitlements, spending on incredible array of programs, and hiking taxes on just about everyone (see "Cap and Trade).

     Who wants to talk about substance when you can talk about Rush?

     But if Rush is a leader of something, it's not the GOP, he's the leading voice criticizing Obama, and they have just elevated him and given him advertising that one just can't buy. In the long run, they've elevated their harshest critic (and most effective one too).

     And in doing so, they've trivialized themselves -- what in the world is the spokesman and Chief of Staff to the leader of the Free World doing trying to go toe to toe with a radio talk show host?

     Makes Bill Clinton blowing on the saxophone look like a moment of gravitas.

     The fact is, diversion only works for so long. The "blame Bush first and always" will only work for so long. The "just wait and we'll give you more specifics later" will only work for so long.

     Pretty soon, BHO will have to start making some real and specific decisions, and just having nauseating photo op summits won't do it.

     Posted by J. Saxon at 03/05/2009 @ 3:56pm

227. So what do you say when Obama's policies succeed and our nation slowly moves back from the brink of hsuB/cHeney hidden twilight zone full of tick skeletons?

     "Thank you Mr. President Obama."

     Just keep repeating that 'til you get used to it.

     Might as well start now.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2009 @ 1:53pm

     Fools,,

     Then help me get it...

     If Bush economic policiys of spending and not taxing were the cause of our disasters...then tell me how...

     Obamas 6 times more spending and not having enough taxes to cover the spending..be better?

     Tell me how the economy will grow with those who invest and expand their business do not do so and give the money up to govt in the higher taxes instead?

     I ask the same question for the higher earners, who are already spooked by the taxes coming and are not spending anything, which IS needed to grow the economy..

     tell us, how, with the economy SHRINKING 3.8% in a quarter, 6% or more in a year,...that your Obama economists believe tax revenues will increase and the economy grow 6% a year?

     That is a 12% increase in economic activity of an economy that Obamas very policies are killing? Do you know how much economic activity is at 12% growth?

     The Chinese do...and we are not even close.

     PLEASE tell me how it will be better for all of us now that Bush is gone? What has change from your point of view?

     You never gop deep on thoughts, just fluff and silly names, but no substance that one can think about...

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/05/2009 @ 4:01pm

228. Wow, sounds like Obama is afraid to debate Rush. Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 4:54pm

     That is schoolyard bully stuff, pastor. And not a good sign for any possible 'unity' in our country. That's OUR country... not your country. That's the missing link as to why the republicans a floundering. Do not work well with others.

     Since when is it required of a president to debate policy with a radio talk show host? That's a dumb idea, to put it mildly.

     If that was suggested of George Bush, we already know what the answer would be. His speaking skills were the focus of much humor, even by him. So why must Obama step up to the plate, or lower himself, to debate someone who wants his policies to fail?

     Listeners of Rush Limbaaugh are a sad commentary on our nation. With no plan of their own, they delight in sneering, name calling, being derisive and mean spirited, wishing for failure with no options of their own for success except to reinstate the usual capitalist policies. It's very weird, and points out that immaturity and self centeredness is really Americas biggest problem. Pastor.

     Posted by ficheye at 03/05/2009 @ 4:07pm

229. Posted by J. Saxon at 03/05/2009 @ 3:56pm | Here's what David Frum, the neoconservative who is widely cited as having authored the phrase axis of evil, has to say about this issue: "Here's the duel that Obama and Limbaugh are jointly arranging: On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of "responsibility," and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him. And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as "losers." With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence--exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we're cooperating!... Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined. But do the rest of us understand what we are doing to ourselves by accepting this leadership?... [Limbaugh] cannot be allowed to be the public face of the enterprise--and we have to find ways of assuring the public that he is just one Republican voice among many, and very far from the most important." I think a majority of Nation readers would be pleased by what Frum has said.

     Posted by hdthoreau at 03/05/2009 @ 4:08pm

230. This just in: "Madonna calls Olmert's Bluff, Demands Debate."

     Not to be outdone, "Mel Gibson insists in on a conference with Chavez."

     "Well who the heck are they, getting all the attention," says an irritated Howard Stern. "I demand a face-to-face with Desmond Tutu."

     Quick to respond Paris Hilton says she "has some hard questions for Putin."

     Posted by theo51 at 03/05/2009 @ 4:11pm

231. "So why must Obama step up to the plate, or lower himself, to debate someone who wants his policies to fail? "

     The failure hope is not the issue....Obama called Rush out...and now has boxed himself in...

     and as far as Bush poor speaking..absolutely legendary for sure...

     have you heard Obama without his telepromter?

     Also very scarey...many will be surprised when they hear him without one...which is why they will never let him be seen that way.

     It is pretty Bushesque...

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/05/2009 @ 4:14pm

232. Ask yourself this, since you're so intelligent, do you have any idea how the FDIC is really designed to work? I don't give a rip if you do or don't, but I wonder if you can even consider for 1 second that you are being as duped by Obama as I was by Bush...

     Posted by freiheit1 at 03/05/2009 @ 1:21pm

     freiheit, I have a working knowledge of how the FDIC is supposed to work, don't claim to be an expert on the matter, but as you pointed out, it doesn't matter.

     I'll go you one further. I'm not that cranked about bailing out the banks and wallstreet with federal tax dollars either. It's borrowed money that we will have to pay back. But, I'm also not that cranked about paying for a stupid as war while W lowered taxes. As Mask pointed out repeatedly, you don't fight wars and not increase taxes because you are obviously increasing federal spending on "THE WAR ON TERROR" as your superiors like to call it.

     Now, back to Rush the pea brain. He was a damned cheerleader for the Iraq war, but the damn fool didn't want to pay for it. I see that the Iraqi's aren't going to pay for it either. Guess that leaves us tax payers to pay for it anyway. So, W got to decrease taxes to get people to vote for him. Now comes the time to pay the piper. We're screwed. It was also the deregulation of wallstreet and the banking industry that caused this mess. It started with Reagan and continued through Clinton and onto W's admin.

     If you are as intelligent as you claim, you realize that funding wars, paying for the ever increasing military budget, propping up Israel, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, the UAE and keeping bases all over the globe is bankrupting this country. More money going out and less coming in. It's not that complex.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 4:16pm

233. This just in:

     funny

     Posted by emile duBois at 03/05/2009 @ 4:17pm

234. Listeners of Rush Limbaaugh are a sad commentary on our nation. With no plan of their own, they delight in sneering, name calling, being derisive and mean spirited, wishing for failure with no options of their own for success except to reinstate the usual capitalist policies. It's very weird, and points out that immaturity and self centeredness is really Americas biggest problem. Pastor.

     Posted by ficheye at 03/05/2009 @ 4:07pm

     Conservatives have put forth alternatives to the Obama plans. It is that the left with complicity from the MSM keeps repeating the same lie as you have put forth.

     you don't hear any discussion of the conservative proposal to give a 2 year tax holidy on FICA/Medicare withholding. that goes primarily as a income boost to middle and lower income individuals and families.

     you never hear any acknowledgement of the conservative plan to alter the "recovery plan" dollars to concentrate more on infrastructure projects rather than the billions upon billions of pork.

     Or the conservative proposal to give a tax amnesty and tax holiday to offshore corporations if they use the money for either R&D or jobs here in this country. A proposal that costs the US nothing since the money is not currently taxed anyway.

     those 3 alone will do far more to help Americans than the nonsense that Obama and the Dems are inflicting on the US economy and the citizenry.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 4:19pm

235. Quick to respond Paris Hilton says she "has some hard questions for Putin."

     Posted by theo51 at 03/05/2009 @ 4:11pm

     Well, if we get to pick who we get to debate, I pick Catherine Zeta Jones....she can win too for all I care.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 4:20pm

236. This just in:

     funny

     Posted by emile duBois at 03/05/2009 @ 4:17pm

     Ditto that! LOL

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 4:22pm

237. That's why most people don't have a clue what is going on.----Posted by pontificus at 03/05/2009 @ 3:38pm

     "The people are ignorant"?

     As a die-hard ditto-head, doesn't that sound a LITTLE familiar to you, PONTI?

     Like what Rush used to MOCK about liberals when they didn't win elections or when Dubya or Reagan was popular??!??

     Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 4:27pm

238. Or the conservative proposal to give a tax amnesty and tax holiday to offshore corporations if they use the money for either R&D or jobs here in this country. A proposal that costs the US nothing since the money is not currently taxed anyway.

     those 3 alone will do far more to help Americans than the nonsense that Obama and the Dems are inflicting on the US economy and the citizenry.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 4:19pm

     Why the hell should we give tax money to offshore corporations since they currently aren't taxed here anyway?

     Good God man. You bitch about welfare. What the hell is that but corporate welfare.

     How about giving tax breaks to companies here in America that hire back American workers? Better still, what about tax breaks for companies that build American infrastructure which in turn will be vested wealth in the U.S., not some foreign company.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 4:28pm

239. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 4:28pm

     Not to mention all they have to do (if such a bill passed, which would only happen under Republican control, ergo the loophole would be built int)...

     is hire ONE person here in the States as a "National Co-ordinator" or put $1 into R&D...and they'd "qualify" for the tax cut.

     Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 4:30pm

240. How about giving tax breaks to companies here in America that hire back American workers? ....Let me expand on that.

     How about giving tax breaks to American companies here in America that hire back American workers? How about tax incentives to companies that meet certain employee benefits requirements?

     Screw helping foreign companies employ Americans. Let's get our own companies back on track and competing. No more handouts for international corporations screwing all people of the globe to improve their friggin bottom line.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 4:31pm

241. This just in: Joe the Plumber Challenges Edward Kennedy to Arm-Wrestling Match at Kelly's Pub

     Missing the Media's spotlight, Ex-Governor Blagojevich seeks audience with the Pope to discuss Indulgences.

     Tired of being ignored and distained, ex-President George Bush demands to be quoted about anything,really anything,really.

     Posted by theo51 at 03/05/2009 @ 4:47pm

242. Why the hell should we give tax money to offshore corporations since they currently aren't taxed here anyway?

     Good God man. You bitch about welfare. What the hell is that but corporate welfare.

     How about giving tax breaks to companies here in America that hire back American workers? Better still, what about tax breaks for companies that build American infrastructure which in turn will be vested wealth in the U.S., not some foreign company.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 4:28pm

     I did not say to give tax money to them. I said to not tax them on the offshore money if they bring it here and use it to create jobs.

     The rest of your post merely restates exactly what I was posting.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 4:57pm

243. those 3 alone will do far more to help Americans than the nonsense that Obama and the Dems are inflicting on the US economy and the citizenry. Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 4:19pm

     Now we're getting somewhere.

     I agree with you about the tax holiday on FICA/Medicare withholding.

     I don't agree with the next point about the pork. That's a thing that needs to be minutely parsed, point by point. I'm not saying that there isn't pork, but I think that infrastructure topic is partially addressed with the jobs program to rebuild america. That also addresses the morale problem among less well-to do citizens. I guess it would be more accurate to say that I partially agree with you on the issue, but I need to read a copy of the whole bill to accurately debate the topic point by point. It's a complicated document.

     I'm not onboard with tax relief for offshore corporations. Companies that are outsourcing to other countries? Is that what you are talking about? If it is, we need to have a program to REVERSE THAT TREND, put manufacturing and jobs back on the continent to give younger americans a chance to learn trades outside of the computer and info industry and keep them out of McDonalds.

     As to the original topic, Obama should only debate Rush Limbaugh if he decided to run for a public office at the congressional or senatorial level. Presidents should never discuss policy with radio talk show hosts. It lowers the bar to the ground.

     You can't address Rush's oxycontin addiction often enough, either. The man failed his public on this issue, but they never take him to task about it. The question there is: Why? It's a pretty egregious variance, morality wise, from his stated opinions on drugs and addiction.

     Posted by ficheye at 03/05/2009 @ 5:00pm

244. I did not say to give tax money to them. I said to not tax them on the offshore money if they bring it here and use it to create jobs. Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 4:57pm

     Sorry. Missed that.

     But I have to stick to the fact that they shouldn't be there anyway. That kind of move, off shoring, got way, way out of control to the point that it really hurt the nation economically. And they don't need the tax break like I do. It functions more like bribery.

     Posted by ficheye at 03/05/2009 @ 5:06pm

245. I did not say to give tax money to them. I said to not tax them on the offshore money if they bring it here and use it to create jobs.

     The rest of your post merely restates exactly what I was posting.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 4:57pm

     Liv, What you are doing is giving tax breaks to foreign companies one way or the other. Screw that!!

     It's high time the U.S. government started protecting American workers, American jobs, and American companies that pay their taxes and follow the rules.

     Every other flippin country on the planet is guilty of "protectionism" as you neocons are famous for saying. We should join them.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 5:10pm

246. "you don't hear any discussion of the conservative proposal to give a 2 year tax holidy on FICA/Medicare withholding. that goes primarily as a income boost to middle and lower income individuals and families. "

     Right, that has nothing to do with their long-term plans to privatize Social Security by defunding it.

     "you never hear any acknowledgement of the conservative plan to alter the "recovery plan" dollars to concentrate more on infrastructure projects rather than the billions upon billions of pork. "

     Probably because they didn't do a thing about infrastructure when they were actually in a position to do anything about--which puts their current posturing in the "protests too much" category.

     Incidentally, ponti, the CNN/Money.com headline re the markets read-- "NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks plunged to fresh 12-year lows Thursday as investors waded through more grim news: GM said its survival is in doubt, bank shares took a beating, and Citigroup fell below a buck."

     Posted by brunowe at 03/05/2009 @ 5:24pm

247. "This Limbaugh situation is entirely the fault of the Republican Party. The White House is merely exploiting it -- and rightly so.

     Throughout the last several decades, the Republican Party has been careening willingly towards this destiny. Year after year, the Republicans have been magnetically drawn ever closer to the simplistic worldview espoused by far-right talk radio: a segment of American society that's perhaps a little too comfy with laughing at a racial or sexist joke, or repeating nearsighted bumper sticker slogans like, "Your mortgage is not my problem."

     The Republican Party has become the purview of The Dittohead: the thoughtless undead automaton who lazily yet proudly announces on the radio that he or she doesn't simply "ditto" but, in fact, "mega-dittos" everything spoken by Rush Limbaugh. "Mega" as in millions of times over.

     Michael Steele has proved himself to be a Dittohead. Mike Pence and Rick Santorum and Tom DeLay? All dittoheads. You'd be hard pressed to find a Republican politician who hasn't in some way expressed his or her Dittohead status while also genuflecting at the bloated cankles of their radio warlord.

     So it should come as no surprise that the leader of the dittoheads has become the leader of the Republicans.

     The Republicans have positioned themselves in such a way that publicly renouncing their Dittohead status will provoke the furious anger of their leader who has so often retaliated against disloyal subjects with a Mr. Creosote caliber geyser of acidic hell, effectively emasculating any attempt at escape. Limbaugh has indeed broken the Republicans and I'm pretty sure they know it. Yet they're powerless to do anything about it."

     http://tinyurl.com/coxtcl

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2009 @ 5:27pm

248. Liv, What you are doing is giving tax breaks to foreign companies one way or the other. Screw that!!

     It's high time the U.S. government started protecting American workers, American jobs, and American companies that pay their taxes and follow the rules.

     Every other flippin country on the planet is guilty of "protectionism" as you neocons are famous for saying. We should join them.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 5:10pm

     you keep harping a point I did not make. These offshore companies are US companies with offshore corporate registrations. The same way that every Cruise Line is registered offshore and not a US corporation.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 5:31pm

249. Good analysis This is one of the most able political teams in the country. Carville's wife, Mary Matalin, likened the group of Begala, Emanuel and Carville to a "man's knitting club," but these guys are not knitting a sweater vest. They are making a villain. Obama relies on a villain to execute his highly effective communications strategy. Rail against an enemy, assign blame to this villain for everything that's gone wrong in America, and then position himself as the only one with the correct skills and adequate morals to take on this villain. It's worked well for him, so far. Hillary Clinton was a perfect villain in the primaries. Obama convinced enough Democrats that she represented "old Washington" and the tired politics of another era. He cornered her on her early Iraq vote, beat her with the change stick and then criticized her personality and questioned her likeability. Team Obama "saved" America from the Clintons. (Funny, then, that Clinton and dozens of her husband's former advisors are now implementing all those "new" ideas.)

     Then, Obama moved on to the general election. McCain didn't make a very good villain. The whole war hero thing got in the way, so his team came up with a better villain: George W. Bush. Obama talked about President Bush so much that days would go by when he wouldn't mention his opponent. He strode into office on a message of hope and change, but his demonization of Bush was unprecedented in focus and ferocity.

     Now, instead of getting to the vital work of governing this troubled nation, they are shopping for a new villain. It's a moment of choosing for this new president. Does he do what he promised to do in his inaugural address--demand an end to childish things? Not exactly.

     http://tinyurl.com/br3zat

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 5:37pm

250. This Just In: Decrying the expanding Dittohead Deficit, their leader, Rush Limbaugh demands immediate attention; Insists that he is "Too Big To Fail."

     Posted by theo51 at 03/05/2009 @ 5:38pm

251. Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 5:37pm

     Good thing Repubs never did that, huh?

     Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 5:43pm

252. "To fall under the rule of Limbaugh means that the Republicans have sealed their status as the party of race-baiting. In Limbaugh's world, Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama simply because Obama is black -- excuse me, Halfrican American. In Limbaugh's world, all blacks say "axe" instead of "ask." In Limbaugh's world, it's hilarious to pronounce Mayor Ray Nagin's name as Mayor Nay-ger. In Limbaugh's world, black contestants on Survivor are at a disadvantage because "blacks can't swim."

     To fall under the rule of Limbaugh means that the Republicans have become the party of sexism. In Limbaugh's world, women who seek equal rights are making up for the fact that they're "ugly." In Limbaugh's world, it's hilarious to compare pubescent teenage girls to "the family dog." In Limbaugh's world, women live longer because their lives are somehow "easier." I can't imagine that would apply to Limbaugh's three ex-wives, but okay.

     To fall under the rule of Limbaugh means that the Republicans have become the party of comparing torture to fraternity pranks. They've become the party of multiple divorces. The party of Oxycontin addiction. The party of "phony soldiers." The party of mysterious all-male excursions to foreign nations while in possession of erectile dysfunction medication prescribed under a false name. They've become the party of wild conspiracy theories like the one Limbaugh was repeating in October -- maybe you've heard this one. Did you know that Barack Obama traveled to Hawaii, not to visit his then-gravely ill grandmother, but instead to participate in the cover-up of his secret birth certificate?"

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2009 @ 5:43pm

253. anit/lvl: "you don't hear any discussion of the conservative proposal to give a 2 year tax holidy on FICA/Medicare withholding. that goes primarily as a income boost to middle and lower income individuals and families. "

     Right, that has nothing to do with their long-term plans to privatize Social Security by defunding it.

     Posted by brunowe at 03/05/2009 @ 5:24pm

     You know, I've noticed your arguments to be much weaker recently....is this maybe an issue of confidence in The Messiah?

     Take the above rebut to anti:

     The Repubs are out in the wilderness, at the lowest approval number on memory, and you think a suspension of FICA/MediCare deductions is really about privatization, long-term? And in the short, as in immediately implementable, you don't think this alternative is stimulative? Then, is this alternative "pork" for the sub-$106k workers?

     Posted by Happy at 03/05/2009 @ 5:43pm

254. "The Republicans are bowing to the leadership of a man who physically mocked the involuntary tremors of a Parkinson's disease victim. I can't underscore this enough. Rush Limbaugh, the leader of the Republican Party, actually imitated and exaggerated Michael J. Fox's Parkison's tremors.

     Governor Jindal: "I think Rush is a great leader for conservatives."

     Chairman Michael Steele: "I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh."

     Congressman Mike Pence: "I think Rush Limbaugh -- who I admire, and like millions of Americans, I cherish his voice in the public debate."

     And so the Republicans expect to be taken seriously now?

     No wonder the White House is gleefully winking and nudging everyone in the direction of this Republican clown car of awfulness -- if not for the political advantage, for the sheer spectacle of watching the once mighty Republican Party effectively screwing itself. The Democrats, on one hand, appear to be busily going about the business of cleaning up the mess left behind by three decades of Reaganomics while, on the other the hand, the Republicans are duct-taping themselves to the ample bosom of the most self-satirical political sideshow geek in American media history, while also expecting this will help their electoral chances."

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2009 @ 5:45pm

255. ...but his demonization of Bush was unprecedented in focus and ferocity.

     Now, instead of getting to the vital work of governing this troubled nation, they are shopping for a new villain. It's a moment of choosing for this new president. Does he do what he promised to do in his inaugural address--demand an end to childish things? Not exactly.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 5:37pm

     Demonization? Two words, Larry...Max Cleland. And righties don't get to whine about demonization - hell, it's your currency, your stock in trade. You've been doing it pretty consistently for generations. And Obama never demonized Bush - he simply held Bush's record up for scrutiny. McCain voted 90% of the time with Bush, and Bush was the GOP. Bush and the GOP drove this country to the brink of ruin, and the jury's still out as to whether it can be repaired. At least the right guy's in office, which seriously increases the odds.

     As for the villain analogy, your boy Limbaugh has presented himself as a movement leader. He's a more than appropriate target in that sense. He prefers to see the average American's lot in life get worse, to make his better, a sentiment he has repeated. He and his ilk are a cancer on the body politic and it's high time for end to his particular pathology. Assholes like Limbaugh, and he is an asshole, deserve to be exposed for exactly that which they are. It's time for Rush to take his pathetic, drug-addled ass and crawl back under the flat rock from which he emerged and let those who actually care about this country try to fix what he helped ruin.

     Posted by jmusolino at 03/05/2009 @ 5:54pm

256. Why can't new con repubs see how screwed they are?

     Well maybe this explains it:

     "Tennessee Republican was on the network this morning, railing against any health-care reform effort as move toward "socialism" and "class warfare."

     "Health care is a privilege," Wamp went on to say. "It's not necessarily a right." He clarified that he had in mind people who choose not to pay for health care."

     Er, it's a 'privilege' to refuse to have health care? But then to make it available to anyone isn't? But then new con repubs are opposed to not making it a privilege?

     See-- why would they even get that Rump Limppaw is actually mooning them-- they're attracted to the light in there at end of the tunnel--- no matter how dim; it's still brighter than their own!!!!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2009 @ 6:06pm

257. BTW: the other Rump hit 400!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2009 @ 6:15pm

258. See-- why would they even get that Rump Limppaw is actually mooning them-- they're attracted to the light in there at end of the tunnel--- no matter how dim; it's still brighter than their own!!!! Posted by hsuBfools at 03/05/2009 @ 6:06pm

     You are on a roll, baby!

     Rush Limbaugh addicts are clawing at each other for the last pills in the bottle. When they are gone the only thing left is the pain of withdrawal.

     Rush, the leader of sneering. derisive, mean spirited clueless minions who do not have the best interests of America at heart. They just want to win, to push their thumbs into the eyes of their opponents as we all fall over the edge of the waterfall that they created. Libs, progressives, centrists, lefties, democrats and the green party must unite to confront the party of the 'ME'.

     Ever been to rightwingnews.com? It's a must-see eye opener of meanness and spite. At the top of the page it says 'Stamping out liberalism with a shovel and a smile'. I'm sure that always brings a smile to the face of angry conservatives. Now, doesn't that sound like a fair minded group of people who want to practice democracy and work together to remake our great nation?

     Posted by ficheye at 03/05/2009 @ 6:35pm

259. Posted by jmusolino at 03/05/2009 @ 5:54pm

     Those weren't my words, they were the words of the article's author, Elizabeth Drew who is a liberal journalist.

     Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 6:39pm

260. Happy

     Yes, the Republicans have always had a "starve the beast" approach--the their stint in the wilderness hasn't stopped their embrace of the likes of Peter Peterson, who wants to privatize Social Security behind the mirage of an illusory threat to its solvency.

     Posted by brunowe at 03/05/2009 @ 6:53pm

261. Yes, the Republicans have always had a "starve the beast" approach....

     Posted by brunowe at 03/05/2009 @ 6:53pm

     Still weak, in fact, even weaker.....

     Here's another chance, tell us, even if the Repubs' ONLY motivation to suspending FICA for 2 years is some kinda back/side door to privatization, what exactly is the next step after the 2 year suspension? Will the Repubs by then have a majority in both Houses and can somehow, magically`talk' The Messiah into signing it into law?

     You're deeper thinker than most here, please enlighten us!

     Posted by Happy at 03/05/2009 @ 7:29pm

262. slezell and chaoszen,

     First, slezell said "......I'd probably follow Rush too like a blind ditto head if I were educated under one of the Republican's failed educational initiatives like "No Child Left Behind" or grew up in a state where the majority of people had relatives who fought for the glory of the South during the Civil War. Thankfully my parents favored science and evolution over ignorance. ....."

     Then chaoszen said ".....In hindsight we should have let the south secede. Then all the bigots and hate mongers would have been able to wallow in ignorance in a single defined geographical area....."

     Here is what I suggest:

     The two of you ought to get together and have your picture taken.

     Then the picture should be put up on this website.

     Then - if anybody wants to know what a couple of bigoted, racist, pseudo-intellectual Yankee snobs acting like jerks look like - they will be able to see your picture and then they will know.

     Posted by sjchermak at 03/05/2009 @ 8:05pm

263. Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 5:37pm

     "He strode into office on a message of hope and change, but his demonization of Bush was unprecedented in focus and ferocity."

     For someone that claims an interest in the U.S. Constitution, you show a remarkable affinity for the poor, demonized president that argued broad powers to decide where and when it applies.

     "The legal memos written by the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel show a government grappling with how to wage war on terrorism in a fast-changing world. The conclusion, reiterated in page after page of documents, was that the president had broad authority to set aside constitutional rights."

     Where was all the conservative discussion about honest / open debate and democracy when Bush was in office and when Congress was in his pocket? Why are we just seeing these memos now?

     Also, perhaps Obama didn't need to attack McCain much because it is hard to top Rovian smears that claimed McCain was a homosexual, cheated on his wife, had an illegitimate black daughter, and had a wife addicted to drugs that were floated in 2000 in South Carolina. In fact, Republicans pioneered the unstable argument focused on McCain's "temper" - which could have been an easy point to hammer on to undercut his war hero status. If you want, you can think about it as giving him the old "John Kerry treatment".

     The fact that McCain supported Bush and could be branded as "McSame" was brilliant political framing - and much more positive than anything Rove ever came up with. The only real difference between this administration and the last is that you are now on the recieving end. How does it feel?

     http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090302/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_memos

     Posted by srjenkins at 03/05/2009 @ 9:22pm

264. It is sad that so many Republicans don't see any need for introspection. I can't really defend GOP lackies like Limbaugh.

     But remember, the Dems were in the wilderness not so long ago. The reason they are ascendant today is not due to any re-tooling of old left-lib orthodoxy, rather they've regressed to pre-Clinton era Great Society style economics with a Tony Soprano twist. It's not because of the Iraq War. It's because a very talented campaigner came into his own at the right moment.

     At the helm of a party that has learned nothing from the past, and emboldened by a sense of invincible momentum, Obama is playing fast and loose with astronomical sums of worthless money as if good intentions plus reckless abandon will automatically equal good results.

     In the end, the Republicans, like the Democrats, won't HAVE to do any soul-searching. Just keep criticizing Obama, and wait till people start tiling their roofs with stacks of Benjamins.

     That's where we're at. The Republicans let the swine run off the cliff and take the country with them, then put the swine on life support. The Democrats continue to sponge-bathe the swine, while they bloat a transparently corrupt bureaucracy into a leviathan stamped "Made in China." Every four to eight years, switch places. A cycle of bust-and-bust.

     Posted by gangpapist at 03/05/2009 @ 9:27pm

265. Do you know how much economic activity is at 12% growth? The Chinese do...and we are not even close.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 03/05/2009 @ 4:01pm

     That same night I went by The Village, which seemed so cool when it first arrived and now seems so unnecessary aside from the Apple store and a couple of restaurants. Same thing as The Place: lonely clerks looking plaintively out the store windows, eyes begging you to come in and buy something. But no one does. There is simply too much stuff, too many stores, and no buyers. Do you have to be a rocket scientist to conclude this is unsustainable? And to top it off, they are now finishing the second Village mall down the street, across from the Poppa Bear of all disaster malls, 3.3. All I can say is, WTF??

     I'm predicting The Place and many of its sister ghost malls, shunned by customers overwhelmed by so many malls to choose from, each selling the same crap that no one can afford nowadays, are going to experience a catastrophe, if they haven't already, and will ultimately become burnt-out, boarded-up shells. In turn, this is going to throw a lot of fuel on China's current financial crisis. Real estate will be further cheapened, and the general misery unique to times of deflation will set in. Brother, can you spare a dime?

     All I want to know is how we got here. I told them this was coming 2.5 years ago and no one listened. The day of reckoning, the moment of truth is here. Even if things pick up, these malls are hopeless. Like the Mandarin Oriental, they will need to be razed and replaced with something useful, like affordable middle class housing (wishful thinking on my part). If not, Beijing could become a city pockmarked with looming dinosaurs, huge husks of once breathtaking buildings, now vacant and decaying, like so ma

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2009 @ 10:34pm

266. Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 4:27pm

     "That's why most people don't have a clue what is going on.----Posted by pontificus at 03/05/2009 @ 3:38pm

     "The people are ignorant"?"

     No - just misinformed - like you.

     "As a die-hard ditto-head, doesn't that sound a LITTLE familiar to you, PONTI?"

     I don't know why you keep referring me to a dittohead - I probably spend less time listening to Rush than you do - if only because I simply cannot listen to radio when he's on. The reason why I sound like he does is we both are in tune with reality - unlike the leftist cult that you belong to, which prefers dogma over reality. Been watching the stock market lately? That, my friend, is reality.

     Posted by pontificus at 03/05/2009 @ 11:06pm

267. Been watching the stock market lately?

     Posted by pontificus at 03/05/2009 @ 11:06pm

     if only phil gramm were in charge.....

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2009 @ 11:37pm

268. The reason why I sound like he does is we both are in tune with reality

     Posted by pontificus at 03/05/2009 @ 11:06pm

     two points of light........

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2009 @ 11:50pm

269. From Power Line....well said, stand by your friends!

     Rush says thanks

     March 5, 2009 Posted by Scott Johnson at 7:48 PM

     Rush Limbaugh has posted a transcript of his remarks on-air today acknowledging the conservative voices who have spoken up in his defense. It is a group in whose good company we are proud to be counted. At the bottom of the transcript is a handy collection of links to some of the columns and posts that Rush cites in his remarks.

     JOHN adds: As I recall--it's been a long time--one of the theories of "justice" that Plato deliberates in The Republic is along the lines of "help your friends, hurt your enemies." That wasn't the winning entry, of course, but I've always had a certain amount of sympathy for it.

     If you can't stand by your friends and allies in times of trouble, what good are you? Not much, in my book. There are some Republicans, I think, who ought to take the lesson to heart. Few things drive me crazier than ostensible conservatives who, somehow, have harsh words only for Republicans; rarely Democrats. We conservatives are not numerous enough for schism to be a good idea, so let's stick together.

     Posted by Happy at 03/06/2009 @ 12:07am

270. Been watching the stock market lately? That, my friend, is reality. Posted by pontificus at 03/05/2009 @ 11:06pm

     Your reality is, indeed, all about you and your money. Of all of your oft repeated lines, this is your mantra.

     You are in tune with this reality that is beyond our comprehension, ponti...

     We have all got the message. It's pretty clear.

     We are waiting for you to ascend to the heavens, the second coming, the intellect of the age. When you get there let us know.

     Posted by ficheye at 03/06/2009 @ 01:53am

271. We are waiting for you to ascend to the heavens, the second coming, the intellect of the age. When you get there let us know.

     Posted by ficheye at 03/06/2009 @ 01:53am

     and the oobleck will fall.........

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 01:56am

272. "Here's another chance, tell us, even if the Repubs' ONLY motivation to suspending FICA for 2 years is some kinda back/side door to privatization, what exactly is the next step after the 2 year suspension? Will the Repubs by then have a majority in both Houses and can somehow, magically`talk' The Messiah into signing it into law?

     You're deeper thinker than most here, please enlighten us!

     Posted by Happy at 03/05/2009 @ 7:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person "

     Strategically, it makes as much sense as their general advocacy of tax cuts as an alternative to Obama's stimulus package. This is a case of true believers sticking to their guns in the belief that earlier political failures were a result of insufficient piety.

     Posted by brunowe at 03/06/2009 @ 03:55am

273. "Every four to eight years, switch places. A cycle of bust-and-bust." Posted by gangpapist at 03/05/2009 @ 9:27pm

     You're right. That's it in a nutshell. Reps and Dems have just switched places again.

     Posted by k330k at 03/06/2009 @ 07:43am

274. Strategically, it makes as much sense as their general advocacy of tax cuts as an alternative to Obama's stimulus package. This is a case of true believers sticking to their guns in the belief that earlier political failures were a result of insufficient piety.

     Posted by brunowe at 03/06/2009 @ 03:55am

     I take that as a concession.....choosing to brush aside serious quesitons, w/out any rebuttals as to the true stimulative nature of a universal suspension of FICA taxes for ALL workers; irregardless of any possible ulterior motives to privatize, pretty prepostrous IMO.

     You were just being a loyal ideologue, like Magicbots everywhere.....our country is fucked and you are part of the problem, TODAY! Those losing their jobs since Nov. 4th, are on your head!

     HOPE AND CHANGE

     Posted by Happy at 03/06/2009 @ 11:03am

275. Those losing their jobs since Nov. 4th, are on your head!----Posted by Happy at 03/06/2009 @ 11:03am

     And of course those that lost their jobs BEFORE Nov. 4th?...

     why that was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's fault, of course!

     Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 11:52am

276. http://tinyurl.com/dc9rmf

     Hillarious!!!!!!

     Posted by Lillian at 03/06/2009 @ 12:55pm

277. This poses an interesting scenario for Repubs. If Rush were to get a debate (which he won't) that would help complete the argument he IS INDEED the de facto head of the party.

     He should, however, get to debate the Prez. As soon as he gets the nomination. Heheh.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/06/2009 @ 1:16pm

278. And, anyway, what's with the enduring love affair of the Repubs with entertainers?

     Reagan, Rush, Arnie...I mean, being so "anti-Hollywood" and all.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/06/2009 @ 1:19pm

279. What is up with the HAPPY dude? He doesn't seem very... happy.

     I'd love to see his bumper stickers! But I'd hate to have him following me in heavy traffic.

     I'll bet he spends his spare time euthanizing animals at the pet shelter. I wish that I could come up with an old saying that encapsulates his meanness. Maybe this one will do:

     As I was going up the stair, I met a man who wasn't there, He wasn't there again today, I wish to god he'd go away!

     Rush and Obama debating? Happy McChange and the Oxycontin Kid? Now, who would you rather have drive the kids to school? You know what's coming! Wait for it! Wait for it!

     Posted by ficheye at 03/06/2009 @ 1:42pm

280. And, anyway, what's with the enduring love affair of the Repubs with entertainers? Reagan, Rush, Arnie...I mean, being so "anti-Hollywood" and all. Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/06/2009 @ 1:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     it is because they value appearance over substance, and myth over reality.

     Posted by emile duBois at 03/06/2009 @ 1:54pm

281. In the end, the Republicans, like the Democrats, won't HAVE to do any soul-searching. Just keep criticizing Obama, and wait till people start tiling their roofs with stacks of Benjamins.

     That's where we're at. The Republicans let the swine run off the cliff and take the country with them, then put the swine on life support. The Democrats continue to sponge-bathe the swine, while they bloat a transparently corrupt bureaucracy into a leviathan stamped "Made in China." Every four to eight years, switch places. A cycle of bust-and-bust.

     Posted by gangpapist at 03/05/2009 @ 9:27pm

     Trying to even out the blame at this point for new con dic'tatorship with it's gestapo DoJ, secret no-bid energy/military industrial complex deals and incompetent disaster relief/healthcare/education, bank /wall street deregulation and lack of oversight, has to be purposefully misdirected to stave off the full brunt of the new con repub responsibility for their trail of destruction.

     Much of which will be slowly dragged out from deep within the recesses of the new cons locked closet...

     However, our 'vote' was the 'key' new cons would like us to quickly forget.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/06/2009 @ 2:01pm

282. There is a difference.

     Rump Limppaw is the biggest one.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/06/2009 @ 2:48pm

283. Posted by hsuBfools at 03/06/2009 @ 2:01pm

     I'm not concerned with "evening out the blame."

     My point is that both parties suck. If we continue to blindly accept the dogmas of "our" party, because they supposedly suck less then the other one, we're screwed.

     If Obama put forward a temporary WPA-type program to get people working and productive industries producing, instead of a massive system of payoffs and pork for special interests across the spectrum of Left wing proclivity, I would support that.

     Ideology is more dangerous than greed. The Left's cultic religion of global warming is going to give us a cap-and-trade policy, under which, Obama says "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." (http://obama.wsj.com/quote/015O7UE0Cc63A?q=Obama+AND+Tax)

     Was Obama in Chicago during the heat wave of July 1995 when 739, mostly elderly people died in their homes? I was. I wonder how many will die next time, because they can't afford to run the AC. Or maybe the plan is to let China pay everybody's light bill too.

     Posted by gangpapist at 03/06/2009 @ 3:29pm

284. gangpa,

     No, there are enormous differences between the parties. I do believe you're mixing up the similar environment both exist in, to their differing ideologies interacting with it; simply because both have to address the time we live in doesn't make them the same; for their intent differs.

     And no, we no longer live in the 1930's. It's now the 21st century. We have credit cards, computers, an information industry, as much an asymmetrical influence on what FDR would've done back then had he only a nation of 5 year olds to work with.

     True that we're probably in a depression, but we now have very different tools to work with. The intelligence quotient alone is being used totally different to that of the hsuB/cHeney admin from that of the Obama/Biden admin's. One has intent to create a more efficient and effective government, the other to prove how inefficient government is and to exploit that construct.

     That is way a government run by new con repubs is a very different government run by progressive dems.

     However, there are still the same old profiteering corporations out there trying to influence and lobby and corrupt our government. The difference is that the new cons appointed incompetent cronies, did secret no-bid deals with these corporations, lied about the war, torture, illegal spying, it's funding, even tried to hide the flag draped coffins of our fallen troops.

     Obama has already drawn the line and let the corporations know he's ready to fight.

     Well ok, the corporations have already shot themselves in the foot-- so fighting them won't be that hard. But it's better that We the people's government control oversight, regulate corporations, than the other way around.

     Will it be difficult, oh duh!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/06/2009 @ 4:05pm

285. er, That is 'why' a government run by new con repubs is a very different government 'than one' run by progressive dems.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/06/2009 @ 4:07pm

286. I also have noticed their differences.

     And yes, the corporations have shot themselves, and should be allowed to bleed out.

     I'll stick to fiscal stuff. Look, if the Republicans were who they claim to be, if they were realists who believe that capitalism, though flawed, is better than other isms, and that greed is the engine of capitalism - cool. But they're not. They don't view greed as a necessary evil. They subsidize it, glorify it, close their eyes to its criminality, socialize its losses, and privatize its gains.

     If Dems thought of government as a necessary tool for addressing social ills, but one that should not be used wantonly - bitchin! But they don't. They use it recklessly and inefficiently, for purposes of patronage and consolidating their own power, and fund every pet project in the encyclopedia of left inclinations. And they do it with money we don't have. What happens if China starts cashing those Treasury notes? I know, they probably won't so they can keep flooding us with their cheap, slave-built crap, but we are just giving them more leverage to keep in place trade policies that erode the American working class the Dems supposedly love. I guess the best we can hope for is a three-figure checks and free cheese, so we should vote Dem for life.

     And yes, I know this is a different America than the 30s. I'm not suggesting a program for putting men in cloth caps to work digging holes while singing the Internationale. But a true stimulus would have had a vision, like the WPA, like Ike's super highways bill, in the context of modern America. This stimulus did have a vision of sorts, but its a vision of building up bureaucracies and special interests groups dominated by left conformists, not the people.

     Posted by gangpapist at 03/06/2009 @ 4:49pm

287. Another big difference-- one fixes others disasters, the other allows disasters to fix:

     Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 4-5, 2009. N=1,203 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.5. RV = registered voters

     "Next, as I read you the names of some people in politics, please tell me if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of each one. If I mention someone you never heard of before this interview, just tell me. What about Barack Obama?"

     Favorable__Unfavorable__Never Heard of/Unsure

     __72__________22___________6

     XXxxxXXXxxXXXxxxXXxxxXx

     USA Today/Gallup Poll. Sept. 19-20, 2001. N=1,031 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

     "We'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them. How about George W. Bush?"

     Favorable__Unfavorable__Never Heard of/Unsure

     __79__________13___________8

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/06/2009 @ 5:39pm

288. OK. The Dems are a great party. The only reason they will not retain power forever is because middle America are all evil racists.

     Posted by gangpapist at 03/06/2009 @ 6:03pm

289. ...so they can keep flooding us with their cheap, slave-built crap, but we are just giving them more leverage to keep in place trade policies that erode the American working class they supposedly love.

     ...a true stimulus would have had a vision, like the WPA, like Ike's super highways bill, in the context of modern America. This stimulus did have a vision of sorts, but its a vision of building up bureaucracies and special interests groups dominated by left conformists, not the people.

     Posted by gangpapist at 03/06/2009 @ 4:49pm

     Well as for all those of us addicted to cheap things... while we're at it, can't we stop the drug trade here too? Nope, afraid cheap China shit and drugs are here to stay as long as we don't get a better educational system and preventative health care.

     FDR was elected on November 1932, but it wasn't until May 6, 1935-- did Roosevelt help create the WPA.

     OK ok, a lot happened that first year too:

     May 12 - Congress creates the Federal Emergency Relief Administration to distribute relief funds to states

     May 27 - Congress creates the Federal Securities Act, making corporate issues of stocks and bonds subject to U.S. government approval

     June 16 - Congress creates several new agencies: the National Recovery Administration, to regulate industrial competition; the Public Works Administration, to create new jobs on infrastructure and community maintenance projects; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, to protect bank accounts of consumers; and the Farm Credit Administration, to extend financial aid to troubled farmers

     Nov. 9 - Roosevelt creates the Civil Works Administration for further public works employment

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/06/2009 @ 6:04pm

290. Give the new progressive dem gov a little time to get their shit together. A few months-- maybe a year or two...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/06/2009 @ 6:08pm

291. Then that'll be one great debate.

     Success versus failure.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/06/2009 @ 6:09pm

292. I don't have to give them a chance. They have a chance. They will have a better chance if non-dogmatic Dems, Reps, and contrarian assholes like me raise a big stink when they frolic about, flapping their arms, making money angels.

     Posted by gangpapist at 03/06/2009 @ 7:05pm

293. Er, so aren't non-dogmatic dems/repub and contra rains, just people that do the opposite of what should be done just to not do what they'd normally strive to perfect? Like not following the law, not following the constitution, not creating safety nets, hiring people that aren't experts at their jobs, not telling the truth, then hiding what they did, ultimately to excel to do badly to best of their ability... essentially the hsuB/cHeney administration!?!?!?

     Huh, been there done that.

     Not a good plan.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 03/06/2009 @ 11:26pm

294. Why am I still seeing our neocon friends here bitching about the STOCK MARKET?

     Being such self-described free-market studs, its relative condition should be no impediment to your free-wheeling, fast-moving ways. You should be cleaning up in rare coins, precious metals, and other such "marketplace", innovative, adaptive vectors.

     Doesn't sound too self-reliant to me.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/07/2009 @ 1:19pm

295. You know what's coming! Wait for it! Wait for it!

     Posted by ficheye at 03/06/2009 @ 1:42pm

     Hanging out w/the Darlas? Have another hit!

     Posted by Happy at 03/07/2009 @ 2:03pm

296. Hanging out w/the Darlas? Have another hit! Posted by Happy at 03/07/2009 @ 2:03pm

     Oh, man! I thought you had put me on ignore! It was all in good fun. Click!

     Posted by ficheye at 03/08/2009 @ 6:13pm

297. This is when I throw the remote across the room; with all the issues before us and the country a radio show host seeks his 15 minutes of infamy at the cost of wasting the president time. We have big issues to wrestle with and his is not one of them.

     Posted by vinnyj1 at 03/08/2009 @ 8:16pm

298. If Obama is so smart she should debate Rush. Doesn't Obama send his henchmen Emmanuel (The Ballerina) and Gibbs the retard to do his dirty work. But Obama is the one saying conservatives and republicans should not listen to Rush. Obama shot the first cannon ball over the bow, Now he has conveniently chicken out because he would be exposed as the charlatan he is. If the Great Obama is so smart surely he could Put the lovable fuzzball in his place with all the brilliance obama has.

     Obama would take a good old fashioned ass whipping from Rush.

     Posted by apoorspic at 03/08/2009 @ 9:47pm

299. Obama would take a good old fashioned ass whipping from Rush. Posted by apoorspic at 03/08/2009 @ 9:47pm

     I thought that Rush was the one that was into that kinky stuff. 'Spank me' Limbaugh.

     Anyway, calling Obama 'chicken' because he won't debate the Pillsbury dough boy is definitely not going to make it happen.

     Posted by ficheye at 03/09/2009 @ 02:00am