It was pretty predictable, I guess. With their favorite punching bag out of the white house and the economy tanking badly, they needed a good distraction, and Rush filled the bill.

Amy - Rush's popularity is precisely WHY Pelosi wants the fairness doctrine. They can't compete with him in the marketplace or in the arena of ideas, so they need to destroy him so nobody knows what they are REALLY up to.

Despite the appearance created by seething throngs of nutroots, America is NOT a liberal country.

Personally I would have been very happy if Obama had just flipped the fat gas bag off and called it a day. I completely support Rush's right to say what he wants, I also support Obama's right to do like wise. Focusing on Rush is a hugely stupid endeavor and Rush being smart (though unpleasant) is sitting there with a jar of Mayo for lube jacking off over the ratings he's now getting, rightly so. If Rush was sold on the stock market I'd buy a piece of his fat ass right now. Good old Ann is probably wondering why she hadn't though of it in the first place.

Come on most A-list actors would kill to get this level of attention. One comment just one "badly" worded comment and he's as big as the first black president, and possibly the defacto leader of the republican party.

The other problem is that now that saying you home America fails (which is not what he said but that's how it was taken) gets your ass to the top of the charts everyone will be coming out with their own version.

Not badly worded, vlad - intentionally misquoted by the left-wing media.

And they've gotta be pissing themselves over it. This is the first time they've gone and tried to demonize someone with a bigger blowtorch than they have.

Obviously they didn't learn from the Harry Reid episode.

Lying about Limbaugh is counterproductive. And given his personality, it's no surprise that Santelli went after Obama as well.

Fuck Obama. Fuck his Alinksy rules-for-radicals bullshit. Fuck his God complex.

He's gonna end up resigning before the end of the year at this rate.

"Not badly worded, vlad - intentionally misquoted by the left-wing media." No I meant his choice of words. Which were very easily and probably intentionally mis interpreted. Had he said "I hope Obama resigns in disgrace" he would have gotten his message across quite clearly without opening himself up for flack. Which I think he knew and chose his words accordingly and intentionally.

Rush was hoping to boost he ratings (which is his job as a radio talk show host) and the public response to that comment from both sides exceeded what he could have hoped for in his wildest dreams. The whole country is looking at him and Obama's admin look like fucking idiots. Dislike the man or not he's really good at what he does.

This is Joe the Plumber redux, this time done legally with a more widely known target. I'd feel better if the government looked after the job it was supposed to be doing, instead of acting like a high school sorority out to get the people who are mean to them.

No I meant his choice of words. Which were very easily and probably intentionally mis interpreted.

Don't start talking like Ace and Patterico on me. The instant we decide we need to "choose our words so they cannot be misinterpreted" we lose.

The left can take any sentence and mangle it to mean whatever they want. And they will do so. It's how they win, by redefining the terms of the debate, and changing who gets to decide what something means.

Jeff at Protein Wisdom has been going on about this for years, and nobody on our side wants to listen.

If we are going to let the left get away with completely gutting intentionalism, we have already lost.

There was only one proper response from Michael Steele when he was confronted with the deliberate misquote - "Why do you feel the need to lie about your enemies? That's not what he said at all. If you had the courage to play the entire sound clip, your audience would know that, and you'd be out of a job."

Instead, he agreed with the host that Limbaugh was inflammatory.

Fuck, he didn't slap that motherfucker down when he said that the Republicans were behaving just like the Nazis. The only response to that is a fucking beatdown. If we aren't willing, as conservatives, libertarians or whatever, to DEMAND that the media report only the truth, and not what they want the truthto be then we are going to end up in Orwell's nightmare.

Allowing the enemy to rewrite the rules, and using the language of the enemy are both sure-fire ways to lose.

And if the Republicans don't grow a spine, then there are many among us who are going to kick them into a ditch and start a new party that is based upon the principles of truth, transparency, and limited government.

For centuries, the peasants and small businessmen in Russia experienced the oppression of the government.

The hope was always the same. "If only the Czar knew of the people's suffering, he would act to save us. But, he is advised by thieves and fools, and so does not know what is going on. The Czar is a divine and good man, who will do things right when he finds out."

I agree with Brian 100%, in that the repubs better grow a pair and soon. It's pathetic watching them dance around like a kid on the playground trying to avoid the bullies.

And Obama is just pathetic to notice, much less mention, a talk show host. He is, after all, about the most important man in the world, you'd think he might possibly be able to spend his time more constructively. Just maybe.

A broadcaster from the left should try to unseat Rush in the ratings -- but, the old-fashioned American way, by out-talking and out-thinking him.

Like who?

"The instant we decide we need to "choose our words so they cannot be misinterpreted" we lose." No I think Rush used those words with this in mind. If you that good that a large portion of America hangs on your every word you know damn well how to choose your words.

As far as misinterpreting I don't actually think there was any. Obama want to pull the nation of of a recession. No matter how you view his path his intent is pretty clear. So when Rush said he hoped Obama failed how else would one read that. Or is there more to the comment that points to different intent. There was an other republican who stated that he wanted Obama's legislations to fail passing, where Rush was not that specific.

"For centuries, the peasants and small businessmen in Russia experienced the oppression of the government." Which was replaced by a government that made screwing the peasants it's primary goal. So long as we are all miserable then we are all equal.

Vlad:

As far as misinterpreting I don't actually think there was any. Obama want to pull the nation of of a recession. No matter how you view his path his intent is pretty clear.

Actually, there was considerable misinterpreting. Rush and others (like me) know that Obama's plans will NOT pull us out of a recession. We think that Obama knows this as well. We think that this is Obama's intention. He can't pass his socialist fever-dreams until the people are so broken down that they've got nobody else to turn to but government.

So, if Obama succeeds, then America fails. The media know that Rush said precisely that, and Rush knew damn well that all they were going to take was the last four words. And so he said "I hope that they repeat it every day." And they haven't disappointed.

In fact, the only reason that were making anything resembling traction against this jug-eared moron is because Rush's statement forced people to focus on Obama's plans and what they will ultimately do, and not the media spin of what Obama wants you to believe they will do.

"He can't pass his socialist fever-dreams until the people are so broken down that they've got nobody else to turn to but government." If this were his second term I'd buy it. He'd have nothing to loose. However it's his first term and his main goal would be getting that second one. As far as his plans over all. If he actually balances the damn budget and makes it stay that way great. We all win. Now his removing deduction for those making above 250K I'm not so hot on either. Letting the Bush admin tax cuts expire is a different story. Those tax cuts did very little for the economy then. Also those getting the tax cuts had a huge role to play in the current cluster fuck.

Free Barack from his TelePrompTer!

http://exurbanleague.com/2009/03/06/white-house-introduces-the-obamaprompter.aspx

The one thing I can't get my head around is that higher taxes on the top 2% will reduce their incentive to make money. That's one of key argument to keep the cuts in place.

If I'm making 10 mil per year and need 10 mil to maintain my life style, how would the feds taxing me more make me want to work less? If I like my current life style then I'd find ways to make more money by pushing more deals through.

His charitable contribution deduction is the part of his budget that really worries me. Large number of charities may go under.

Vlad -

It's because you have no clue about human nature. You don't understand people even a little bit.

Also, the Bush tax cuts are the only thing that stopped us sliding into a deep recession after 9/11. Remember, we were on the downside of the dot-bomb when that happened.

Let me try, once again, to explain to you the impact that raising top marginal rates has.

First, it creates an incentive to find tax shelters, so there's an opportunity cost involved since the money that is being used to pay an accountant to shield income is not being used to hire an employee who is productive.

Second, it creates a disincentive as each additional dollar earned is worth less. This is the important distinction.

Let's assume that Obama's not lying when he says he's going to restrict the tax increase to those making $250,000+. Let's also assume that the tax rates look like this: before, 25% and 35% (for under and over 250k respectively), and after 25%, 40%.

Let's finally start with Joe who makes $120,000 working 60 hours a week. Each dollar he makes is worth 75 cents, so there's something of an incentive to work a few more hours, but it's at the expense of spending time with his kids. Maybe those extra 75 cents on the dollar are going to help him put his kids through college.

Meanwhile, John makes $250,000 working 80 hours a week. Right now, every dollar he makes above that point is only worth 65 cents. However, when Obama gets through with him, not only are those dollars only worth 60 cents, but he's also loses his mortgage interest deduction and 50% of his charitable deduction.

It's very easy for John to decide that he would rather keep his money and spend time with his family and continue his charitable contributions than work for 50 cents on the dollar.

It's called "Perverse Incentive". Most people have a visceral reaction to the idea that someone else has a claim on the fruits of their labor. That some walking phallus in DC is going to seize more of his money at gunpoint is likely to ruffle his feathers.

Your problem here is that you believe that rich people have the goal of "accumulate as much cash as possible". You are wrong.

I would rather take the pay cut and work just enough to cover my living expenses than work my ass off to have more of it confiscated to pay for irresponsible little pukes.

His charitable contribution deduction is the part of his budget that really worries me. Large number of charities may go under.

Are you really not paying attention? Obama believes that government is the source of all good things. He is doing this because he knows it will harm private charity.

Which will just drive even more people to Poppa Government, expanding the permanent dependent underclass.

The government apparently knows how to better distribute my charity dollars. I would do something silly and wasteful like give it to support my church (egads) that works with the local homeless shelter for kids, running a school and feeding program. Or give it to our friend who does the same thing as a missionary in the Dominican Republic running a school and feeding center. Or support the local pro-life pregnancy care center that gives the moms a place to live, helps with their medical expenses, and helps with the costs of raising the child.

The government doesn't want the competition.

Vlad,

It's actually rather simple. A big part of it is motivating individuals who are not in the top income tax bracket but who would like to be. In other words, lowering the top income tax bracket encourages would be entrepreneurs to put their capital at risk and start businesses. This creates employment.

"Meanwhile, John makes $250,000 working 80 hours a week." These are not the people starting companies and keeping people employed. In fact the guy making 1.5 mil per year has a great incentive to invest that money into starting another company and then pay capital gains later as opposed to income tax when the company takes off.

"that rich people have the goal of "accumulate as much cash as possible" No I believe that the goal of any person rich or otherwise is to archive and maintain the life style they desire. To some yes this will be a disincentive to other it'll drive them to push more shit through to get back to that life style.

The main problem with welfare is that it gives a life style desired by some without requiring work.

"Which will just drive even more people to Poppa Government, expanding the permanent dependent underclass." Ok, I buy it not part of his policy that I'm a fan of. They are expanding anyway with charities being over whelmed, especially metal heath services/charities. I don't think any one has yet come up with a remotely workable solution for the expansion of the dependent under class. Cutting off services would cause riots and open conflict (which we don't have the man power to deal with), killing them all is unconstitutional (and we lack the personnel), forcing them to work would be ideal but no one has manged to work the system so they have any incentive to do so. They should not have existed in the first place but since they are here they need to be dealt with.

"Rush and others (like me) know that Obama's plans will NOT pull us out of a recession. We think that Obama knows this as well."

I agree that Obama's plans will not pull us out of a recession and will, in fact, make it worse. What I don't agree with is that he knows this. I think Obama is just another starry-eyed liberal, influenced by too much Keynes and Marx, who hung around with too many Che worshipers in college.

One of my co-workers is married to a guy like that. He's a spineless wuss who thinks libertarians lack compassion. There is no reasoning with him - his collectivist prattle is straight out of an Ayn Rand novel. I always thought her "bad guy" characters were an exaggeration, almost a caricature. Not anymore. Just listen to cheezburg on the post from the other day, spewing on about the virtues of socialized healthcare. His motives aren't evil, he's just clueless and very invested in believing he's right. It's just like evangelical religious people who need to believe their religion is the right one. They'll go to the point of believing the dinosaur bones were put there by God to test our faith before they change their thinking.

Obama's the same way - he actually believes all this nonsense about central planning and control working. He's sincere, but wrong.

Another thing to consider is how politically unpopular the truth is. Take someone who's 60 pounds overweight and an alcoholic, who spends all their time sitting on the couch chain-smoking and eating junk food. Do they want to listen to someone tell them what they need to do in order to get healthy? Or do they want to listen to someone who tells them just to keep right on doing what they've been doing? The United States is kind of like that right now - it needs to get off the couch and start running, which is pretty hard to do when it's carrying around so many extra pounds, and it ain't going to be easy giving up the cigarettes and booze. Yet it's either go through that pain and emerge strong, or keep being sick. But people don't want to listen to the truth - it's the same mentality that gets people to try fad diets that don't work. How would people react if Obama stepped forward and said, 'We're not bailing ANYONE out.'

"I would rather take the pay cut and work just enough to cover my living expenses than work my ass off to have more of it confiscated to pay for irresponsible little pukes."

A-freaking-men, brian. Me too. We'll be called unpatriotic for it, but I don't give a crap.

Brian,
I agree that what you wrote needs to be said whenever slick rhetoricians use their twisty tricks.

As you put it:

"Why do you feel the need to lie about your enemies? That's not what he said at all. If you had the courage to play the entire sound clip, your audience would know that, and you'd be out of a job."

But I've never noticed Republicans pundits responding to such challenges either.

PJ - Thank you for understanding. It seems that vlad can't countenance the idea that some of us would rather live lean than fork over more of our hard-earned jack to a jug-eared moron and his idiot brigades.

Jody - You've never noticed it for one simple reason: Republicans are pussies. Newt, and Steele, and all the rest would rather get invited to the "right" parties in Georgetown than risk social ostracism.

Which is why we need people like me who aren't the least bit interested in hobnobbing with the who's who.

"It seems that vlad can't countenance the idea that some of us would rather live lean than fork over more of our hard-earned jack to a jug-eared moron and his idiot brigades." No I'd rather them not raise taxes and get all the fuckers off the public dole and balance the damn budget. Your also assuming that the upper end of that 2% feel like you do. Do I think Obamas plan will work out, actually not sure. As far as harping on raising the upper 2% taxes, if his plan fails I really doubt that's why it fails. Is there shit in his plan that should not be there, yup. We should be focusing (Rush to) on other parts of the plan and leave that class warfare crap he's spewing alone. His class warfare argument is viewed as self serving because he's in that top 2%.

Obama does actually believe in what he's saying. Doesn't mean he's correct nor that it will work.

I don't remember shit from Mc Cain that made me any more confidant in him than Obama. I was damn sure that Caribou Barbie would have fuck this country nine ways to Sunday. I would have preferred Mc Cain as would most of the people I know. Then he picked her and we all begrudgingly voted for Obama.

Vlad -

Let me be perfectly blunt. There is nothing in the "stimulus" or in the 470 billion dollar pork fest that just passed today that is gonna do dick about the economy.

This isn't about the "top 2%". It's about all of us. Because if you raise taxes on the so-called rich, it does two things - it takes money OUT of the economy making it less likely that the businesses will make investments in new product lines or employees, and it creates an incentive to either earn less, or shelter what is earned - which also takes money out of the economy.

The problem isn't something that can be solved by government spending. It was government meddling that CAUSED the problem.

I never said Obama didn't believe in what he was doing, but that he's lying about his intentions. He intends to destroy capitalism because that's been his goal for the past 20 years. All you see is a pretty Trojan Unicorn.

And if you voted for Obama on account of Sarah Palin, I'm gonna have to ask you to turn in your conservative card, because you ain't one. She was the only thing that was even withing striking distance of "conservative" about the McCain campaign, and McCain's own people went out of their way to destroy her. That you allowed McCain's people and Obama's people to tell you who Sarah Palin is tells me that you're just as much of a rube as the bulk of the American people who still believe the New York Times.

I think it's pretty fair to criticise some parts of Rush's lifestyle, which is very different from other rich and wealthy people.

The drug abuse? Probably bad. Lying about it? Worse.

The sex tourism? I'd criticise anyone who did this. I mean really, who brings viagra on a trip to the dominican republic...

- Gavin

Hey Gavin -

Go troll someone else's thread.

"turn in your conservative card" Don't carry one and never did, don't have a liberal card either.

"who still believe the New York Times." Never did still don't.

"He intends to destroy capitalism because that's been his goal for the past 20 years." Based on what?

"That you allowed McCain's people and Obama's people to tell you who Sarah Palin" No I based my opinion on her because of her actions, interviews and behavior. If you have some other way of judging her I'm listening.

"it takes money OUT of the economy making it less likely that the businesses will make investments in new product lines or employees" No it doesn't. Unless the feds put the money into a big freaking hopper and hold it there no. It goes into different industries but the money still flows, he wants to put money into education so companies that support education make shit loads more. Clean energy companies too.

"It was government meddling that CAUSED the problem." Yeah fannie may fredie mac crap hole was the government's fault, credit default swaps was all the financial industry. Madoff was not an agent of the state either.

"Which is why we need people like me who aren't the least bit interested in hobnobbing with the who's who." Just a curiosity question, that you Rush?

Vlad - every dollar that the government confiscates gets about half skimmed off the top before it goes anywhere even remotely useful.

Government cannot spend a dollar without first taking it by force from someone else. That force costs money to maintain.

As far as government meddling, it IS what caused the problem. Congress forced banks to loan money to people who could not pay it back. Obama represented ACORN while they sued banks in Illinois to get them to lend money to people with nothing. The Government created Fannie and Freddie as clearinghouses to buy loans so banks could write more. Barney Frank made them buy more high-risk loans.

The Credit Default Swaps was just the banking industry looking for a hedge against FNMA failing.

"He intends to destroy capitalism because that's been his goal for the past 20 years." Based on what?

Please. The man's an acolyte of Alinsky and Ayers. Dedicated Stalinists all.

"That you allowed McCain's people and Obama's people to tell you who Sarah Palin" No I based my opinion on her because of her actions, interviews and behavior. If you have some other way of judging her I'm listening.

I don't know, how about her record as governor of Alaska. How about listening to her speak when she's not being filtered through the editors at CBS?

"Which is why we need people like me who aren't the least bit interested in hobnobbing with the who's who." Just a curiosity question, that you Rush?

Yeah, I've got nothing better to do during my show than post on someone's blog.

You really need to get out more, vlad.

>>I don't know, how about her record as governor of Alaska...

For crying out loud, brian. At least pretend to play fair when you're being not-very-wittily rude to vlad!

Objectively, her record as gov was by no means glorious PLUS there was all that spinning Palin did herself to play down her own support for grabbing funds for dubious projects, as best as I can recall.

Her record as governor of Alaska was more conservative than any of the other clowns on offer. She was a better choice for President than any of the Republicans that were in the primaries except Fred.

Not that I necessarily want her as president. She's got too folksy a demeanor, and she'd get walked all over. We need another Reagan. He knew how to be a dick when he had to.

You can forget about Air America or its friends matching anything Rush does. There's only so much they can say before it sounds shockingly like nobody on the show has held a job - or understands what a crime is, or a lot of other things.

You who based your vote on Sarah Palin, congratulations. You did what was intended: she was running against Obama, not Joe Biden. You really don't want to think about that.

When did you cast your vote based on Al Gore? Dan Quayle? Dick Cheney?

"I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," Obama declared. "But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change."

Why did he have to sign it now. The government's fiscal year is 1 October to 30 September. Is it just so he could get the pork out before he loses support and is run out of town on a rail?

And Pelosi is saying they might consider another stimulus bill.

Where in the hell do they think the money is going to come from?

People, we are broke! The well is dry. The coffers are empty. The account is overdrawn. The wallet is empty.

The government only gets a minimal part of the money from fees, tariffs, land rights and such. The rest of the money comes from the backs of working Americans.

The way to break the habit of letting the government get away with this is stop direct payroll tax. Change it that you have to pay direct. If a check was coming from your bank account every week, month, quarterly, let alone a tax bill at the end of a year -- you would see a revolt in how the government is run.

My favorite part:

"First it was that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery."

Today's definition of chutzbpah: throwing money out the window and acting surprised when people try to grab it.

A "focused blueprint for economic recovery"? Are these people serious? How about this for a focused blueprint: due process and the rule of law? Everything else will be provided by us, not the new Daddy-in-Chief.

How can people be so lazy with their country?

Some of us don't get a say in the matter, Snakeman.

I've been voting against Lieberman and Dodd my entire adult life. But I'm outnumbered.

What else is there for me to do? I can't run for office, I'll get destroyed. I write letters, and I get ignored, told I'm wrong, or even thanked for my support when my letter was anything but.

I'm not in control of anything but me. I don't get a say in anything outside of my direct sphere of influence.

So much for a representative republic.

"The way to break the habit of letting the government get away with this is stop direct payroll tax. Change it that you have to pay direct."

Withholding was only supposed to be temporary. Government hosed us again. Now you have the majority of people running around with no idea of how much they actually pay in federal income taxes every year. Half of them wil say, 'I didn't pay anything! I got some money back!' A sickening number of people view their withholding as some kind of savings account - they intentionally have a lot withheld so they can get that big check in February.

The Government Bailout IS the Problem

The economy is bad because no one can predict the future with a big government elephant stomping around. The elephant can't solve the problem, and it scares away the elves who can solve the problem. The elves are small, but they are smart and there are a lot of them.

The problem is simple: credit is scarce because nobody wants to lend and nobody wants to buy. The Federal Government is threatening to borrow and spend a TRILLION dollars.

If you are bank, would you loan money if you knew that an A-grade customer was going to be spending a TRILLION dollars soon? Of course not. Even if they choose not to get their loan from you, the price of lending is going to go up. It must go up when a TRILLION dollar buyer is showing up. So nobody is lending now.

"The irony of the Information Age is it's given new repectability to the uninformed opinion."
John Lawson-1995

I love Camille, and would totally listen to a radio show in which she, Amy and Dr. Laura politely argued about/debated various hot-button issues of the day, but it seems to me that she's putting an awful lot of effort into trying to avoid applying Occam's Razor to our current political situation. Namely, that Obama's team is screwing up because he doesn't know what the hell he's doing, because he's an inexperienced politician with no grasp of economics who has never run anything in an executive capacity. I'm not sure what keeps pushing Camille to believe otherwise, unless it's Obama's speaking skills, which are formidable, but no substitute for competence. He's trying to keep doing that which won him the White House - run a campaign. The problem is, campaign time is over.

That having been said, I loved the Pope Leo X comparison.

Marion, I want you to be my bride. Or at least at the table when I have Paglia over for dinner.

It's silly for people to blame Obama's staff. It's like one of Kubler-Ross's stages of disappointment, only funnier. Soon he'll be caught in something worse (or a circuit in the teleprompter will fail) and there'll be no denying his responsibility. I'm not sorry I voted for Obama last May, but I sincerely believe there's an extra sheen of belovedness around him for being the Magic Negro. I can't remember similar faith in a new President in my lifetime.

There are two reasons to think it's this extra Honeymoon love that's causing his team to go after Limbaugh. First, maybe they really think they have nothing better to do; their boss is still deeply beloved, and aren't yet being asked to play strong defense. Secondly, Barack Obama's not even old enough, as a Washington figure, to resent Limbaugh's power as a conservative voice. This is all about Carville.

There are two favorite pieces on on Limbaugh. The first might be my all-time favorite piece from Sullivan. Rereading this passage on "educated liberals" tonight reminds me of the recently unpleasantness from Amy's new visitor, Chezburg: "A large part of their self-esteem is bound up in believing themselves better educated and more enlightened than the average person".

The second favorite Limbaugh piece is from a blogger who's since taken the original copy offline. It's long because it's about about some other things, but it makes important points about Limbaugh's showbiz skills, things that I think liberal listeners truly can't hear.

Frank Zappa had a reputation as a deranged comedian, the Mad Scientist of rock stars. But many of the musicians who worked for him –geniuses in their own right– knew that he was a once-a-century composer. They wanted the gig because he'd challenge their talent as strongly as any class at Julliard.

From his deathbed, he said goodbye to one particularly gifted player/friend/employee with these words: "Remember to always keep the humor in the music."

When considering the terror and repugnance that so many lefties feel for Limbaugh, and their disinterest in even considering that his audience might be listening for more texture than a literal truth, I believe ever more strongly that living without a sense of humor isn't just a shame... It's a sin.

Marion, I want you to be my bride.

My dear, I am honored by the offer, but I think that my current fiance might object. Am totally on board for the dinner with Paglia, though.

Secondly, Barack Obama's not even old enough, as a Washington figure, to resent Limbaugh's power as a conservative voice. This is all about Carville.

Indeed. And, I think, it's not a good long-term move for Carville, though I could be deluded on that one. The guy who engineered the Clinton juggernaut is now being reduced to mocking a radio talk-show host. I would like to think that Mary Matalin is mocking him behind their closed doors, but I tend to think that she's too smart of a wife for that.

>>When considering the terror and repugnance that so many lefties feel for Limbaugh, and their disinterest in even considering that his audience might be listening for more texture than a literal truth.

Crid,
I get the irritable shudders when you so emptily employ "texture" in this ghastly way. Its apparent specificity is so bogus. (Your occasional use of the phrase "personal warmth" produces the same squirm, oddly).

Re: Limbaugh, I'm not sure you have any authority to decode what it is, precisely, that "his audience" hears in addition to - or beneath -the surface meaning of his words, do you?

Your whole comment is so perversely third hand.

If you personally find Limbaugh a barrel of laughs, say so!

I have listened to the guy - and very occasionally chuckled, but I simply cannot stand his cadences. (It's exactly the same problem I had with Imus too - so I don't think it's due to Limbaugh's hearing disability somehow messing with his voice ). Thereafter, sure, I have ideological problems with his shtick as well.

(Nice links. I often used to enjoy Instapunk. Funny guy.)

I have all the respect in the world for Paglia. I don't agree with her all the time, but I nearly always find her arguments well-reasoned. And she's an engaging writer as well.

I think she misses one thing here. She is of the opinion that everything that's happening now is happening because Obama's staff has led him astray. On the contrary, based on Obama's past statements and voting record, I rather think the staff is doing exactly what Obama wants them to do. That's why he chose them.

Brian, you come across as being so far right that you might be a sympathizer with the Ruby Ridgers or the Koreshies. Perhaps you live out in a compound in Idaho or Montana communing with the nuts and squirrels out there. If no one pays attention to your letters and pleadings it might be because you strike recipients as a rabid anti-Gov't. right wing nutcase. There's nothing mainstream about you or your views, as seen from this disinterested outsider. And you surely should be able to get your points across without resorting to name calling and ridicule. I wonder if you have jug-ears?

Rojack,

Would you quote for me some of Brian's name-calling and ridicule? I would like the direct reference. I didn't see that in his comments.

Would you then compare that to you saying that Brian "might be a sympathizer with the Ruby Ridgers or the Koreshies. Perhaps you live out in a compound in Idaho or Montana communing with the nuts and squirrels out there."

And also consider your insightful remark
"you surely should be able to get your points across without resorting to name calling and ridicule. I wonder if you have jug-ears?"

Was this self-parody included to make a more sophisticated point? What was that point?

Rojak - how about you go fuck yourself with 16 feet of curare-tipped wrought iron?

How dare you come out of nowhere and insult me in such fashion. Merely comparing me with such lunatics would earn you significant pain were you to do so to my face.

You may not like it, but I am the mainstream, motherfucker. We are sick to death of the government taking our money to no good effect, and then telling us it's our fault that things suck.

When I write a letter to Senator Dodd urging him not to support some stupidity and his office sends back a form letter thanking a "Ms. Corbino" for her support (I don't know any ladies named Brian, but I could be missing something), that hardly smacks of someone being rejected as being "so far right". It is more a case of our representatives being so completely unconcerned with what their constituents think that we may as well not exist.

And for the record, I do have big ears. I am not, however an idiot. I know my limits, unlike a certain President who shall remain nameless.

Brian, I may not ever agree with you on religion, and rarely agree with you on subjective issue of morailty, but I'd vote for you if you ran for public office

WOOHOO! I've got 2 votes now!

I guess Rojak's just a drive-by douchebag, then?

Yes, free the president from his flacks, fixers and goons -- his posse of smirky smart alecks and provincial rubes, who were shrewd enough to beat the slow, pompous Clintons in the mano-a-mano primaries but who seem like dazed lost lambs in the brave new world of federal legislation and global statesmanship.

I enjoy Paglia for her insight, but she's deluding herself if she thinks Obama's problems are solely the fault of his staff.

His inexperience is showing in the staff that he hired. Inexperienced managers hire personalities. Experienced managers hire competence (sometimes greater than their own).

Hillary has never actually run anything in her life. Maybe that explains why she couldn't find a Russian translator in the entire State Department on the eve of a visit to Russia. Not to mention the fact that she thought a gag "reset" button would make a good gift for the head of a potentially hostile state.

Geithner (sp?) has spent most of his career as a mid-level Treasury functionary. He's way out of his depth...and it shows. The inability to explain his own financial plans is stunning in a Treasury Secretary.

There's a reason Eisenhower kept Patton around...despite his bewildering gaffes and penchant for public self-immolation. There's a reason Lincoln kept Halleck as Army chief-of-staff despite his battlefield incompetence and promoted Grant despite his drinking (and Sherman despite his mental instability). Competence.

> you so emptily employ "texture"
> in this ghastly way.

What's empty about it? It's guileless: Dittoheads know perfectly well that Limbaugh's just a guy with a microphone. He tells some jokes and says some things they agree with. It's third parties who think the listeners have no sense of humor, that Limbaugh's listeners believe him when he says he "has talent on loan from God"...

> Its apparent specificity
> is so bogus.

Huh? If it's apparent, how can it be bogus? And what's being "specified"? (Do not fail to answer this point. In fact, do not fail to answer any of my points, OK? Great. Thanks.)

> "personal warmth" produces
> the same squirm, oddly)

That's a freaky thing to say. What does it mean?

The "odd" thing is that I came that close (---->

> Your whole comment is
> so perversely third hand.

What darling proximity am I lacking? (Do you have it?) What's "perverse"?

> If you personally find Limbaugh
> a barrel of laughs, say so!

That exclamation point speaks volumes. (I must only admire him as a "barrel of laughs", not as merely amusing sometimes, and I must shout it out loud, so you'll be able to take me out with sniper fire.)

That's exactly what Instapunk is talking about with the Salon writer. You're very eager for people to make a simplistic, black & white choice about this. People who hate Limbaugh want to use him as a signifier... You like him or you hate him, and if you like him you're a cold-hearted person who's mean to puppies and orphans.

Well, I like him. I've never listened to him much, but I like him in the same way I like any number of mundane celebrities who I'll never meet but who seem to deliver the goods over many years. (Tom Hanks, etc.) I agree with Paglia: He's a principled thinker and a tremendously gifted entertainer. The principles aren't "schtick".

A guy a work hates Limbaugh. I have a fantasy of paying him $1000 to listen to a show for three hours taking notes on what was said, and then reviewing the tape alongside his notes. I'd bet there'd be little coherence. Liberals are listening with their humorless presumptions, and nothing else.

>>A guy a work hates Limbaugh. I have a fantasy...

So maybe the guy at work has a different sense of humor to you? Possible, right? What's with the need for standing on your podium with "I have a fantasy..."?

The rum thing, Crid, is the way you parrot the same stuff you bash soppy liberals for bleating. Gee, if only the liberals would understand...etc etc.

Aw shit, Amy's software clipped my comment. The missing portion:

--

The "odd" thing is that I came that close to mentioning you (Jody) in the comment last night. Two months ago, you stunned me with your naive surprise that your words had been deliberately misconstrued, when you'd been doing this same thing to me for years. This insensitivity to one's own preciousness is what Limbaugh-culture (both the lovin' and the hatin') is all about.

> maybe the guy at work has
> a different sense of humor

The thing about my friend, and what makes him a friend, is that we're so well attuned in other respects. We work together. I know how his mind works. He's a frickin' TV producer for Chrissakes, so it's doubly strange that he can't maintain enough linear perception to decode a radio show.

It ain't a podium, it's a moderately-trafficked blog (all do respect, Amy.

> Gee, if only the liberals
> would understand

No, in the context, it's not about candlepower, its about courage. I think liberals use their hatred of Limbaugh listeners to create imaginary distance between themselves and people they want to believe are stupid. It's a cowardly, childish thing for them to do.

Due respect. Sorry. Off to do platelets...

>>Two months ago, you stunned me with your naive surprise that your words had been deliberately misconstrued, when you'd been doing this same thing to me for years.

'twas'nt naive of me, Crid, 'twas adorable...though I take your point.
(It was a struggle, but I managed.)

>>Sorry. Off to do platelets...

For which you have my admiration. Seriously. I know it's pretty painless and all that, but it takes time. Well done.

However.

>>I think liberals use their hatred of Limbaugh listeners to create imaginary distance between themselves and people they want to believe are stupid.

And I think people who think liberals think like that are full of it.

Because I suspect some non-liberals parade their admiration of Limbaugh to demonstrate fantasy solidarity with people they claim to believe are the salt of the earth.

Which is annoying.

> some non-liberals parade their admiration
> of Limbaugh to demonstrate fantasy
> solidarity with people they claim to
> believe are the salt of the earth.

That's probably true... and that pattern probably explains a lot of the votes Obama received as well.

(At ucla you can do platelet donations and do blog comments at the same time, because they only tap one arm, and give you a laptop for the other one. But it's tough to type this way, so concision is preferred to proper splling.)

See also this.

Limbaugh cheats by taking phone calls only from adoring fans. Stewart cheats by working only with canned laughter in a room full of roaring fans.

Same thang.

>>See also this.

Your guy makes a nifty point there, Crid.

(But, my god, that piece is not exactly a pleasure to read, is it?"The actual switch is obfuscated within the emotional context of Stewart’s transition...."....zzzzzz)

As boring as listening to Limbaugh or watching Stewart's zombies applaud. If you're going to wrestle with these spuds, you've got to crawl in the mud.

"Brian, you come across as being so far right that you might be a sympathizer with the Ruby Ridgers or the Koreshies."

You know nothing about either case. Go learn something. Make me cite each case and I'll bury you.

Who are you challenging here, Rad? I suspect you're challenging our drive-by douchebag.

I don't know everything about those two specific cases, but I know enough.

Koresh was a dirtbag, nothing more. Reno wanted to show she had a bigger dick than he did, so instead of taking the easy way and arresting him when he went into town, she had her minions use unlawful munitions to "flush 'em out" - with the end result being Davidian Flambe. Message: Government doesn't like religion and is willing to kill followers who don't fall in line behind the "right" leader.

Ruby Ridge - I don't know why the government was interested in them, but Horiuchi took a shot he shouldn't have, killed two people, and walked. My guess is they were wanted for some bogon like "arms violations" or some other catch-all.

My primary bristling was when he brought the separatist militia types into it. They are not right wing, they are (for the most part) either racist or insane - depending.

There's a difference between wanting the government to be as small and weak as possible, and declaring an armed insurrection against it. The Michigan Militia tried that second option - didn't work out so well for them.

And since the universe decided to put David Koresh and Rush Limbaugh into the same post....Did anyone else ever see Rush's TV show (he had a late-night TV show for a while, basically showing him doing his radio show) in which he shows clips of Reno testifying before Congress about the Koresh fiasco and staunchly defends her motivations? Seriously. Yes, Rush, the eeeeeevil partisan conservative, was saying supportive things about Janet Reno. Basically, she was claiming to Congress that she believed that the well-being of children was in jeopardy, so they had to go into the Koresh compound, and they were afraid to go in unarmed, etc. etc. History has not been terribly kind to her arguments, but Rush was more than giving her the benefit of the doubt...WITHOUT acting as though the Koreshites were subhuman aliens from another planet. Oh, and he also liked the fact that she was coming across as tough and unflinching.

(Another Rush memory: I once caught a snippet of a debate between him and Phil Donahue. Rush didn't get to say much, because every time he started speaking, Donahue would interrupt him, and Rush would politely stop talking and listen to Donahue. I don't think Rush is Jesus or anything, but I do think he gets unfairly tarred by people who view his audience as redneck wackos who should just disappear already.)

Marion - he was mocking her.

>>Marion - he was mocking her.

Brian,
Genuinely fascinated - are you sure?
Are you saying Marion missed the sarcasm when Rush appeared to be giving Reno something of an endorsement?

I've been listening to Rush for almost 20 years. I know sarcasm when I hear it. He was merciless in his mocking of "Janet el Reño".

Thanks, brian.

brian, I was responding to Rojak.

People who followed those cases know of serious misconduct by Federal and state officers, who were only spared prison because of distraction techniques and confusion on the part of the public, who thinks that police have more rights than ordinary citizens. They don't.

To summarize the idiocy: the warrant for the Davidian raid was falsified by agent Davy Aguilera, invalidating the entire proceeding; at Ruby Ridge, the Feds were shown to have shot first, federal officers were cited at the trial for prosecutorial misconduct, and a civil award for millions went to Randy Weaver.

Police are not above the law, and those who tolerate those who act as if they are not only enable the most horrible crimes, but throw away the concept of individual rights.

Senators, congressmen and those who run for office are not the only people seeking power. Many join the police force in order to use it - and it's not just street cops abusing the people.

Who will guard the guardians?

Rad -

Serious? I never knew that about the Davidian raid. I just thought that Reno was power trippin' and got all gung ho to take down a guy who liked to force broads to "marry" him. Reno was probably jealous that he turned her away.

Also didn't know about the civil award to Weaver. Although that's not going to bring his wife and son back. Horiuchi should have gotten 2 consecutive life sentences for what he did. There was no reason to shoot, and from what I remember no authorization to shoot.

Joe Biden normally sounds like he really needs to take some sort of poop. Just look at his images.