« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Dems attacking Rush – trying to rob gun stores

Not used to return fire, are you?

Armed robbers are not the sharpest knives in the gene-pool drawer. However, most of them have figured out the basics: don’t try to rob gun stores or karate studios. Stick to convenience stores, gas stations, and other targets unlikely to shoot you or punch your lights out.

For eight years the Dems and their media toadies relentlessly engaged in 24×7 attacks on President Bush – accusing him of every form of dishonesty, corruption, malfeasance, and stupidity. Their attack extended to all Republicans and the soldiers as well. Mostly Bush just hunkered down and took it (thanks again, genius Karl Rove, for that one), even though he could have responded, using the bully pulpit, in deadly effective counterattacks, by speaking directly to Americans without the media filter. Bush never would fight back, and his silence was exceedingly costly to himself, his agenda, conservatives, the Republicans, the soldiers, and the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, the Politico reports that Democrat strategists as early as October 2008 identified Rush Limbaugh as their next target of abuse, in terms of beating all conservatives and Republicans into submission. Recent events have shown a coordinated strategy by administration officials (Emanuel, AxelRod, Gibbs, Plouffe, Pfeiffer, and Obama himself), media pundits (Begala, Carville), leftist groups (Center for American Progress, Americans United for Change, Americans United for Choice) the DNC (Woodhouse, Kaine), and Democrat congressmen (Van Hollen). The Politico article names each of these players by name, as operators in a coordinated plan to attack Rush.

Bush did not fight back. Rush is already fighting back — gleefully, articulately, with his trademark rapier-like wit, mockery, and humor. The Democrats have woefully, desperately miscalculated. Rush’s 20 million person listening audience is the most politically educated and astute bunch in America.

He lost no audience and no influence when he dealt with the prescription drug addiction in 2003. Imagine the odds of him losing any influence because a bunch of low-down, mean, and not-particularly-clever Democrats, leftist groups, and media punks run around telling us what a bad man Rush is. His audience is already well-trained in their knavery.

Democrats, you picked the wrong store to rob. You’ve put America’s #1 conservative (not Republican) in the spotlight for all Americans to examine. That can’t possibly end well for you.

COMMENTS

  • USNJIMRET

    “Bring it on baby, Brint…it….on!!”
    Something tells me that Rush awakes every morning with a gleeful laugh and joy in his heart.
    Which must just piss off Dem’s to no end.

  • mom2oneson

    there is no recommend button!

  • Praying

    It’s about dang time!

    Threatening

  • bobojake

    obama do you got to take a poll first or can you just be a man about it and say Yes Rush I will take your offer??????

    • USNJIMRET

      Unless you were *gasp* serious??

      • From ME to You
        • http://brockwayfamily.spaces.live.com/ Erick Brockway

          n/t

          • $peciallist

            we need a list of symbols that work with this platform…

            the only one I know is :)

            Where is Rus…..errrrrrrrr…Neil anyways?

            Is he now the second person getting paid at Redstate??

  • Praying

    recommended.

  • From ME to You

    The One™ will sit with terrorist leaders but doesn’t have the spine or the talent to debate on any subject withRush because Rush has the facts to back up his assertions.

    Maybe President The One™ can send in the experienced one, you know, Big Joe Biden!!

    • USNJIMRET
      • From ME to You
    • 6eorge Jetson
      • $peciallist

        Joe the Dumber……lol

        It’s Official

      • From ME to You

        5 Lobsters

      • builder20

        Thanks! I will never look at good ol Joe without thinking “Joe the Dumber” now!

        • builder20

          before that was “Capital Idiot”. Since every village has its idiot, why cant a Capital? Though in a certain sense that name would fit Obama quite nicely!

  • redneckjoe

    Watching the Dhims provoking Rush reminds me of Hamas poking Israel with sticks, blissfully unaware of the beat down coming. Then when Israel got tired of the sticks and stones they simply began putting the smackdown on Hamas, whom of course complained that Israel was a bully.
    I hope the Dhims are slow in learning the lesson so we can watch the inevitable disassembly of their attack structure by Mr. Limbaugh. GET ‘EM RUSH!!!

    • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

      Or more specifically, Ariel Sharon reversing the Exodus some 3,000 years later. I still remember the slogans: “Visit Israel and see the pyramids”.

      Only I hope Rush is allowed to destroy his enemy Third Army.

      • E Pluribus Unum

        Hey, Rush answers to nobody. If he gets a shot at that proverbial road to Baghdad, he’ll roll all the way to the palace and water the front steps, so to speak.

        • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth
  • http://www.phxgonline.com phxg

    Bravo to Rush, finally, a conservative voice saying, in public what we believe.

    EPU Contact me.

    • E Pluribus Unum
  • Red_State_CPO

    I watch the news during the day at work. As I flip through the various news channels, they all are focusing on Rush and the GOP. MSNBC has been talking about it for a good portion of the day. All the things wrong in the world and our country and they are more concerned about demonizing a private citizen who speaks his mind. Can you imagine the outroar from the media if the Bush Administration did to Kieth Olbermann or Bill Mahr what this White House is trying to do to Rush?

    • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

      It will backfire on them but let them go ahead and try. What will happen is they will make a figurative martyr of Rush (I don’t think they would actually kill him). Silencing will be like silencing all of us.

      I seriously doubt Obama will debate Rush but he should repeat the offer at least once every day during his show. It will be interesting to see what kind of excuses Obama comes up with to avoid such a debate.

      • Achance

        ever mention it, so the only people who’ll know are Rush listeners and conservative bloggers.

        • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

          No telling for sure, though. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. It will get out though. Rush has too many listeners for it not to get out.

        • E Pluribus Unum

          Ought to count for something.

        • djemi

          And BO was the one who surgested it

    • furious

      …the audience to register as a speck on a pimple on a blip on anyone’s radar screen, and thereby rate any White House’s cycles.

      • E Pluribus Unum

        I suspect RedState_CPO was going for people that might be viewed by us in the same light that the left views Rush. But in terms of scale, nah.

    • teddybrick

      that the WH is behind msnbc covering rush?

  • spainishirish

    Our numbers are down but there are still 178 MoC’s and 41 or 42 senators, roughly half the governors, and a slight minority of state legislators who are Republicans. And who did the Obama Administration make its boogeyman? A radio host. Rush is brilliant, funny and insightful, but he doesn’t have to answer to anyone or any constituency outside of ratings, which are certain to skyrocket as Barack Hussein Nixon goes after the top of his enemy list.

    I agree with someone who wrote the Administration is running out of people to blame for its willful destruction of the American economy. Today they returned to “it is Bush’s fault” mode on the deficit, but that falls flat when right out of the gate Obama has run up more debt than his predecessor managed in eight years. Given the inclinations of this dirty but transparent cabal, I expect whole classes of people to be targeted next. No, we aren’t all socialists now, or all fascists, but we have a few in the White House.

    • GT350

      It’s Barack Hussein CARTER (not Nixon). Otherwise 555555555!

      • JoeG

        n/t

  • crux

    …and you’re a squirrel. How incredibly DIM of the DIMS.

  • Carol Tarasewicz

    Rush loves this, he lives for it. It gets him more listeners and maybe, just maybe, some of the libs that will turn in to listen might realize how wrong they are. I hope a few aren’t as stupid as they seem.

    Obama and his minions are trying to change the subject from the stock market, giving money to Hamas, trying to hike taxes on everyone, etc so they pick on Rush and others.

  • woodsman

    He made on offer of all expenses paid in a 5 star location, airline tickets etc at his own expense to fly Obama to his studio for a live debate.

    He also said he did not want to talk to any of the “butt boys” or any other talking heads…only Obama.

    That would be priceless…

    The analogy above with the squirrel poking a grizzly is right. :)

  • rrpjr

    “Bush never would fight back, and his silence was exceedingly costly to himself, his agenda, conservatives, the Republicans, the soldiers, and the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan.”

    Bush’s silence and pacifism in the face of determined hate led us to this. It wasn’t just “exceedingly costly” — it explains the rise of the Left and the singularly preposterous political existence of Barack Obama.

    • olsmithie

      And now the Dims are in the White House, so apparently not setting the record straight is “Unpresidential.”
      It sure got Republicans out of the White House.

      Regards

  • PopulistConservative

    1. Obama seems to be doing what you’re criticizing Bush for not doing – repsonding to criticism. Its interesting that you contrast Bush with Limbaugh and the media with Obama, rather than Bush with Obama, and the Media with Limbaugh.
    2. I think you’ve misread the motives of Obama and Co, they’re not trying to destroy Rush, they’re trying to make him the symbol of the Republican Party and harm it, and cause division within the party. I would say that they have been at least partially sucessful with this. All of this hoopla has given Rush some good publicity, which is good for Rush, and Obama, but not the Republican Party. Rush is a simplistic hyper-partisan, and if Obama can get independents to listen to him, than Rush will do much more to bring indys over to the liberal side than Obama ever could.

    • furious

      …then they’ll more than likely stay in Rush’s audience. They know it’s not Limbaugh’s stimulus bill pushing the Dow towards 5,000, or Limbaugh’s Cabinet nominees who aren’t paying their taxes. Those Independents who hate Limbaugh already or just don’t care will stay as they are.

      In any event, Limbaugh charges up the base, and Obama has just handed him an even bigger bullhorn with which to do that. And good luck trying to paint Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer (or whichever media figure next commits the apostasy of questioning The One) as “faces of the Republican Party”. Pretty soon the thin-skinned act will start wearing, uh, thin.

      The Clinton White House tried to make Limbaugh the symbol of the Republican Party after the Okla City bombing, Then came the ’94 midterms.

    • http://www.incredibleco.ning.com Incredible

      “Rush is a simplistic hyper-partisan, and if Obama can get independents to listen to him, than Rush will do much more to bring indys over to the liberal side than Obama ever could.”

      First half-sentence: You mistake Rush’s excellent teaching abilities for him being “simplisitc”. He’s educating the masses. Besides, what’s so complicated? These people, thier motives and their policies have been known since before Tocqueville – really, since Gramsci spelled them out.

      Second half-sentence: Rush is much more engaging than these people, and you apparently, know and expect. I’d bet my paycheck that vthe the super-high negatives come from people that have never listened to one full show. If the President brings him an audience, Rush will convert them.

      What’s the old addage about not picking fights with people that buy ink by the barrel? How about with people that host the largest and most influential talk-radio programs in the country?

      • furious

        …and Obama just called out this “simplistic hyper-partisan”, acknowledging his existence, and confirming him as an irritant. Giving him a gift, as it were.

        Now this simplistic, hyper-partisan irritant has responded in-kind, calling out Obama. And he will continue to do so, to 20M people and growing every day, the gift that keeps on giving. And Obama will retreat behind his spokesflacks, confirming that he is an empty suit issuing empty words, afraid of a “harmless, lovable little fuzzball”.

        “Guy in a chicken suit”, beautiful. Obama’s already shown us his thin-skinned ghetto pride (Lipstick on a Pig, Smells Like Fish, Flipping the Bird). Limbaugh will just amp it up, and laugh.

      • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

        has got to be the stupidest made up word I’ve ever heard.

    • rrpjr

      First, after listening to Limbaugh for even a short while it is not hard to notice he’s not a simplistic hyper-partisan. You may be confusing incisiveness with simplicity. His sharp analysis of the Obama mindset and the motives of the Left — and his ability to popularly articulate them — are furlongs ahead of most serious conservative thinkers. His appeal is precisely because of this.

      And, yes, the motives of Obama and co. are absolutely to destroy Rush. There may be other motives, but the Left always, as a matter of course, wishes to destroy its critics. This is simply a given.

    • kweiss01

      I was one of those people who didn’t really like Rush. Whenever I heard him on the radio I quickly turned it off, disliking his style. But when I saw his speech to CPAC, I was astonished. He was articulate, warm, witty, and expressing my thoughts in a much more eloquent fashion than I ever could have.

      The idea that Rush is a blowhard, lowbrow, angry white male is about as accurate as the idea that Sarah Palin is a bimbo cheerleader. And the problem for the Dems, and their mis-step, I think, is that the more exposure Rush gets from this, the more he demonstrates that he’s not divisive, stupid, etc., etc., and he in fact has some pretty well thought out criticisms of Obama and the Democrat’s mission. In short, he’s actually quite a good representative of Conservative thought (something the Republicans have strayed from). He’s not dividing the Republican party – his CPAC speech was a call to arms, a reminder of what we should be about and what we can agree on.

      The more air time Limbaugh gets, the better.

    • UpLateAgain

      They got used to beating Bush up without his responding, and think they can still get away with that whole diversion thing with impunity. They don’t have Bush to kick around anymore, so they chose the next biggest conservative icon. Bush wouldn’t fight back. Rush makes his living talking to a 20 mill or so audience three hours a day, five days a week, and has done so for 20 years. They’re amateurs at this sort of thing (as they clearly are at most things) and Rush is the consummate professional.

      I’m reminded of Marilyn Monroe so enamored of herself and not understanding the true nature of the situation that she asked Joe Dimagio if he had any idea what it was like to have 10 thousand people in one place cheering just for you.

      This is actually going to be fun to watch (er… listen-to that is).

    • bcb1

      The hyper-partisan rants of Rush are very attractive to his base. The thing is, Rush’s base just can’t understand that those hyper-partisan rants just aren’t appealing to moderates and independants.

      The Democrats are peeing-in-their-pants happy that Rush is in the limelight. They absolutely want him to stay there, with all attention focused on him. Two reasons: because they think he’s repulsive to independants, and that eventually he’ll cause a huge rift between moderate Republicans and conservative Republicans.

      The strategy isn’t so dumb, really.

    • mbecker908

      1. Obama seems to be doing what you?re criticizing Bush for not doing – repsonding to criticism.
      Got, like a specific? Other than the fact that he’s talking like a BlueDog and legislating like Karl Marx that one escapes me.

      2. I think you?ve misread the motives of Obama and Co, they?re not trying to destroy Rush, they?re trying to make him the symbol of the Republican Party and harm it…
      And just what planet do you live on? Of course they’re trying to destroy Rush – and the Republican Party, too – because the most effective way to destroy the Party is to destroy it’s symbols. Which is why I’ve advocated for years that we should be doing exactly that to Democrats – and I’ll throw in moderates too. We should have a media team whose job is to lynch the symbols of the Democratic Party in the media every day. Unfortunately we don’t and they do.

      Rush is a simplistic hyper-partisan, and if Obama can get independents to listen to him, than Rush will do much more to bring indys over to the liberal side than Obama ever could.
      People just like you made the same arguments against Ronald Reagan and against Newt and the Contract With America. Guess what? Both were overwhelming landslides with the American People and it took fools like GHW Bush, Christy Whitman, etal to actually stop the conservative tide.

    • Rod_Patrick

      Gosh….. he’s a conservative.

      Rush would praise even a Democrat who would follow the principles of conservatism..

      Have you listened to Rush, btw?

  • redneck_hippie

    is incredibly insightful. If they can have Rush taking over Bush’s job as whipping post, the party should supposedly suffer. The debate offer just shoves their little shell game right back into their faces. When I heard it I felt like standing up and cheering.

    • 6eorge Jetson

      Democrats got their hustlers
      Pelosi’s got her bum
      K Street got Big BO Soreto
      He’s the hoops shootin’ pol, he’s TheOne™
      Yeah he’s as duplicit as they come
      He’s craftier than ‘ole Slick Willie
      And to the press corps delight, teleprompter in sight
      You know they all call Big BO boss, just because

      And they say you don’t tug on Superman’s cape
      You don’t spit at the press show
      You don’t pull the mask off an ‘ole Lone Ranger
      And you don’t mess around with BO

      Well outa South Missouri come a humble boy
      He said I’m lookin’ for a man named BO
      I am a a tax payin’ man, Steeler’s rootin’ fan,
      But on air they call me El Rushbo
      Yeah I’m lookin’ for the king of K Street
      He rides in two new Air Force Ones
      And last week he took all my money, and it may sound funny
      But I’ve come to get my money back
      And everybody say Jack, ooh don’t you know

      That you don’t tug on Superman’s cape
      You don’t spit at the press show
      You don’t pull the mask off an ‘ole Lone Ranger
      And you don’t mess around with BO

      Well a hush fell over the country
      And BO come boppin’ in off K street
      And when the talkin’ was done
      The only part that wasn’t bloody was the soles of
      The BO man’s feet, woah
      Yeah BO’s act was cut in a hundred places
      And his cred was shot even more
      And you better believe they sung a different kind of story
      When Big BO ratings hit the floor, aw

      Now they say you don’t tug on Superman’s cape
      You don’t spit into the wind
      You don’t pull the mask off an ‘ole Lone Ranger
      And you don’t mess around with El Rushbo

      (Spoken)
      Yeah Big BO got his hat, find out where it’s at
      And it’s not hustling people strange to you
      Even if he do, wait til two-thousand one-two…yea

      Now they say you don’t tug on Superman’s cape
      You don’t spit into the wind
      You don’t pull the mask off an ‘ole Lone Ranger
      And you don’t mess around with El Rushbo

      • E Pluribus Unum

        6eorge, that is some inspired satire!

        Jim Croce himself could not have done it better.

  • Brad Smith

    The overwhelming majority of Americans do not listen to Rush. And Rush has very high negatives with independent voters, in part from years of Democrat misrepresentations of what Rush says/does made to people who do not listen to Rush. They don’t care if Rush’s influence grows if they think Republican/conservative influence will wane. Their assumption is that if the Republican Party is identified as Rush Limbaugh’s audience, the Dems will win most independents, who never listen to Rush but have an unfavorable impression of him. The question is not whether Rush loses audience, but whether Republicans lose votes. I love Rush, but this is not a stupid strategy on the Dems part.

    • PopulistConservative

      NT.

    • E Pluribus Unum

      But I think this strategy is fraught with peril. By making Rush the headliner for days upon days [and apparently this is going to be a routine thing for many months], they absolutely ARE going to drive traffic to Rush. Especially some of those moderates. And once they hear Rush, they’re gonna like him. And they are going to be persuaded rightward as voters.

      Second, the coverage is by necessity going to include some of Rush’s spectacular parries of Obama attacks – I’ve already heard some on the horridly leftist ABC Radio News feed. That is being pumped straight into the mainstream.

      So, I say they are gambling with something that ultimately could very quickly go out of their control.

      • spainishirish

        foolish sooner rather than later. Most Americans already associate Rush Limbaugh with the GOP, including independents. Voters soon will wonder, though, why the focus on a radio personality? I don’t think this will end well for the Democrats.

        Like EPU, I think the audio feeds will give the lie to the MSM accounts (and as a result may be squelched). But ultimately, this propaganda stunt will backfire. I say “sooner” because each day the Obama Administration attacks a private citizen with a microphone, the economy continues to tank as a direct result of their policies.

        I fear what will follow. If this Administration is so totalitarian that it will demonize a media personality, and really has no target, it will go after entire classes of people. It has, in a respect, but I imagine we have seen just the tip of the iceberg.

    • olsmithie

      Please elaborate why you think this is so?

      Regards

    • JX12

      What YOU’RE missing is that 20% of self-proclaimed conservatives voted for Obama (and many others just abstained) in order to send a message to the GOP that nominating a RINO will not be tolerated. They probably also think it’ll set us up for another Reagan in 2012 – whether or not that assumption plays out remains to be seen, but the Democrats picking a fight with Rush probably increased the odds of it happening.

      At any rate, turn that 20% around (and factor back in the abstainers), and McCain would have been in the White House now.

      We have nothing to fear from moderates or so-called “independents.” Any of them who are even slightly curious about Rush – enough to tune him in – and who have any semblance of an open mind will, more likely than not, be converted. Those who don’t probably were never going to be convinced anyway. In either case, we gain numbers. Trying to appease moderates is what got the Republicans in trouble in the first place. They didn’t win very many of them over, and they alienated their base enough to reverse any gains they got with the moderates, and then some.

      What I care about is that 20% of conservatives, along with the abstainers. They are the hand that rocks the cradle, and if they return to the fold, then Obama is going to have no choice but to count on additional ACORN voter fraud and amnesty voters to drag him across the finish line in 2012 – because the actual popular vote of Americans who’ve been playing by the rules all along will not be nearly enough to carry him.

      Picking a fight with Rush is a terrible strategy because it will return the 20% to the fold in a hurry. All that will need to fall into place after that is for decent conservative candidates to get out there, bury the RINOs in the primaries, and go on to smack down the Democrats in Nov 2010 and 2012. (I know, that’s a big if – but picking a fight with Rush makes it more likely, not less likely).

      This will galvanize the base – and there will be candidates who will fill the vacuum left by RINOs who dare to run afoul of the base. And then, in the general election, there will be the 20%.

      • AKSteveB

        from my college days isn’t it? A socialist is President. He’s decided it would be a great political strategy to demonize a …TALK SHOW HOST as the symbol of his opposition. We have a DJI below 7000. Someone wake me up.

    • bcb1

      Democrats couldn’t care less if more Republicans listen to Rush, or if he shores up his base even more. The “Rush is head of Republicans” strategy is all about pushing Rush into the spotlight. They WANT people to hear him.

      It’s just that the Democrats are convinced that the moderates and independants will be repelled by his hyper-partisan rants, and the Republicans (well….Conservatives) are convinced that anyone who’s not a diehard liberal will have a come-to-Jesus moment when they hear Rush, abandon their independant ways, and become Conservatives.

      It’ll be interesting to see how it all pans out.

      • E Pluribus Unum

        It’s not just Republicans who will go tune in to Rush. By making Rush the lead of every newscast for months on end, which is what they’d like to do, and by the partisan media playing extended clips of his audio on these widely heard outlets, they are going to cause independents and some Democrats to tune in to see what all the fuss is about.

        And Rush, unfiltered by media, is exceedingly compelling to common people.

        Bring it on. This is fine with me.

  • rrpjr

    If he insisted on a debate, the challenge should have made to any of Obama’s minions. Everybody knows Obama won’t debate him, and I’m not sure the prospect is appealing to Americans. Rush comes off a little unseemly, and Obama loses nothing.

    • From ME to You

      Rush!!!

      If President Obama accepts, he is branded as weak (which he is!) to have accepted a debate with “an entertainer”.

      If he refuses, he is branded a coward (which he is!)

      If he accepts and gets his clock cleaned by Rush (which he would!), he is branded as a fool!!

      How can Rush lose????

  • From ME to You

    Work up a widget with the day count since the debate invitation was extended and let it loose on the web! Something like this:

    Limbaugh v. Obama

  • PopulistConservative

    I listened to Rush a great deal, in my teen years. I didn’t find him particularly entertaining, but he was the only option for talk radio in his time slot. So I did not come to this conclusions based on ignorance.
    Now, I suppose I should explain my view a bit. I think Rush comes off as simplistic because he really doesn’t address the counter arguements of liberalism. He just posts ideas such as lower spending and taxes, stronger military… and attacks anything contrary to this on the basis that it isn’t conservative.
    Another problem is that he does not take a critical look at things like spending and tax-cuts, instead he simply argues that taxes and spending should always be lower. The logical conclusion to that taken all the way would be no taxes and no spending. Clearly, I think we should have a more detailed philosphy on taxes and spending than “less”. Let’s put forth an arguement for principles on what we government should do, and then we can argue from that basis how much spending is necessary and how much tax is needed to suppport that spending. Listening to Rush, you would think that all spending is bad ( except of course for millitary spending) and all tax-cuts are good.
    Of course the other example of Rush’s hyper-partisanship is the fact that he plays hypocrite game. Attack the other side for doing what they criticized your side for doing as being hypocrites, while defending your side engaging in what the other side is doing.

    • Streiff

      in here but I couldn’t find it.

      If you can say that Rush doesn’t address the “counter arguments of liberalism” you disqualify yourself from commenting on this subject on the grounds of sheer mendacity.

      • PopulistConservative

        Of course he addresses his own parody of what the liberals say. But if you think he actually engages in a serious debate with liberal’s best intelectual arguements, well we must be listening to a different show.

        • kweiss01

          Limbaugh’s CPAC speech was not simplistic. It was intelligent, animated, and eloquent. And thanks to the attacks on Rush, we’re seeing a lot more of him outside the radio show, discussing and advocating conservative principles and pointing out the very deep flaws in the new Democratic programs.

          The Emperor (i.e. Obama) has no clothes, and Rush is the first strong voice to point this embarrassing fact out. Folks who wouldn’t hear him on the radio, and who are left going by what others say, are now getting the opportunity to hear his ideas on TV, and THAT’s what’s important.

        • aesthete

          Simply isn’t possible in a radio format. First, Rush’s primary job is to entertain. He could be a storehouse of the conservative wisdom of the ages, but if that’s not what gets him ratings, that’s not what’s going to be on the show.

          Secondly, when you consider that radio is mostly listened to between or in addition to other activities (i.e., doing errands in your car or going to work), Rush simply can’t devote 15-30 minutes on going in-depth into anything. I’d say from my limited listening experience (I’m not a big fan of radio), Rush goes more in-depth than most, though, and is much better than his liberal counterparts WRT depth (unless you count vitriol as depth, in which case, Rush loses by a landslide).

          Intellectual critiques of advanced liberalism is out there (Thomas Sowell is a great contemporary for that sort of stuff), and even though they are occasional guests on radio shows and TV programs, you should note that they operate much differently from regular radio and TV show hosts (they usually propogate their ideas with books).

          Also, what’s wrong with simple? The Ptolemaic model is used for astronomy, despite the fact that it is technically incorrect, because of its simplicity. iPods are the favored MP3 player because of their easy-to-use interface. Newtonian physics have been disproved, but are still used because their calculations are simpler than using Einstein’s equations. Adam Smith’s treatise is “simple”, but revolutionized the economic world. Conversely, Marxism and Scientology are both complicated, but I wouldn’t endorse them for that reason alone.

          And if you honestly believe that our current straits as a party and an ideology are because we have lost against leftists on the intellectual field of battle, I’m impressed: I’ve met anyone who’s had an 8-year blackout after drinking before. How did you manage that?

          • PopulistConservative

            Rush does what he does for ratings, and he’s a great radio entertainer, kudos to him for that. However, that just supports my point that its not good for him to be seen as the symbol of Republicans or conservatives.

            “And if you honestly believe that our current straits as a party and an ideology are because we have lost against leftists on the intellectual field of battle, I?m impressed: I?ve met anyone who?s had an 8-year blackout after drinking before. How did you manage that?”
            Where did I say that we lost the intelectual battle? I said that Rush isn’t on that battlefield. I also said that we should not have him as a symbol of the party which is why Obama is trying to help him toward that status. Even if the moderates that end up listening to Rush aren’t intelectual, calling them names is not going to bring them over.

          • aesthete

            Although I did insinuate drunkenness on your part :) Sorry ’bout that, BTW.

            I simply pointed out a simple fact: we didn’t lose the WH and Congress because of a lack of intellectual ballast; we lost because 1) what we said out of office and what we did when we had power were two entirely different things. And, yes, I say “we”, because “we” did little to correct our leadership, save on certain issues, and in fact, defended their decidedly un-conservative stances. 2) The things that we did get right (tax cuts, constitutional judges) were things that our publicly elected officials didn’t bother to defend and educate the populace on.

            As to the intellectual battle, well, all I have to say is, there you go again. Simple is not a bad thing, it’s a commodity that, like all commodities, has costs and benefits. To continue the battlefield analogy, saying that we don’t need people like Rush in the public square is like saying that we can win a war without infantry. Thoughtful, developed arguments against liberalism take time. Rush and his ilk are basically the rapid-response force: the guys and gals who will look at a given story in the media and say, “that’s not true, and here’s why” quickly. If you have a better way to replace the functions that these people serve, which is to inform and motivate people to action quickly, I’m all ears.

            Here’s what many (including yourself, apparently) don’t understand: Rush isn’t our leader. He’s the conservative’s everyman. He’s not an argument creator, he’s a spokesman. He’s dependent on us, not the other way around, or do you think that he’d still have his high ratings if he called for higher taxes, more welfare and peace throughout the world?

            Also, there is a difference between an intellectual and someone who is intelligent. The terms are not synonymous, thought there is some correlation. I’d liken it to the difference between people like Locke and Adam Smith, and people like George Washington: both vital, and both performing different functions. I don’t see that as offensive in the least bit.

          • PopulistConservative

            Rush is helpful to the conservative movement in that he fires up the base, and that he makes people think about the idea of an alternative, even if imo he gives simple reasons for it. However, he’s not a great outreach tool to indys, and not a good symbol for the party.

          • bcb1

            Because simply, you will never convince true conservatives that Rush Limbaugh isn’t attractive and exciting and completely 100% compelling. I mean, golly…how could anyone in their right mind not get him?

            And you’ll never convince a moderate or Democrat that Rush Limbaugh is anything other than a big fat blowhard that can dish it out but can’t take it.

            So at this point there isn’t much to do but wait and see. How many of those moderates and independants come “Rushing” over.

          • Rod_Patrick

            That’s dangerous.

  • $peciallist

    I’ve never seen anything like this….lolol

    I would but I’m in my truck….

    • $peciallist

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

      • $peciallist

        don’t argue….

      • E Pluribus Unum

        I don’t care who ya are.

        • mom2oneson

          I saved a screen shot 4 u!

        • $peciallist

          This is on the DCCC site…….I guess they play for keeps…

          Are you listening GOP???

  • Achance

    There will never be a debate and the unwashed masses will never know much beyond “Our President called out that nasty old Rush Limbaugh.” They will think that is good.

    Getting in a peeing contest, and I don’t doubt that Rush can pee further and harder, with BHO and his dancing butt boy is exactly the wrong thing. This is Alinsky playbook stuff. They’re doing two things: they’re defining all Repub/Conservative opposition in terms of that nasty old Rush Limbaugh and they’re trying to provoke something that they can characterize as a mistake on Rush’s part. They’ve already jumped on the “fail” meme and their take resonates pretty good with the mush-minded.

    Rush and everybody else on our side of the ditch should concentrate on tending our own vegetables. We oppose The One only through the formal processes, vote against him, quietly, studiedly argue against him, on the Sunday shows and, especially, in our hometown media. He wants a reaction and an overreaction from us. He’ll do stuff trying to provoke it. If we ignore him, he’ll do something stupid.

    • E Pluribus Unum

      I care nothing about a proposed debate, and I think that THEY think they have successfully sold the “nasty old Rush Limbaugh” meme.

      But I’m serious when I say this. MSM outlets are playing extended Rush segments (not just sound bites). And people are going to tune directly in to Rush, which will take away the media’s filter.

      And another thing. Maybe it’s wrong, but I’m not doing any more “formal processes”. I think we can successfully kneecap Obama.

    • $peciallist

      to be objective, things wouldn’t be like this…

      We are constantly fighting the spin because no one else will….and I agree, it ‘looks’ like we’re fighting….the line is drawn

      Not a good first impression for budding Moderates…….but I believe that regular people appreciate toughness and Intelligence and that’s what we never fail to project…

      Fight on!!

  • katesmith

    I’ve been a regular listener for 20 years. I’ve learned a lot from him on various topics. I value him especially at this point in history because he speaks out against the liberal fraud of global warming which is as bad or worse as anything else that’s been done to bring down the US. Several weeks ago he read portions of an AP report on hundreds of hydroelectric dams being built in China with money from taxpayers in Europe under cap and trade. The taxpayers are paying for dams in another country, but there’s no real accounting for where all the money goes and the UN is involved with it. I would have missed this article and its contents were it not for him. Just one example among many. Some comments I’ve read here indicate their authors aren’t regular listeners to his show.

  • The_Rebel

    of this in his headline “Enemies List…’.

    You know that Democrats would be screaming about Bush having such a list if his WH went after Carville, Begala, or any of the other useful idiots. But the Republicans again are silent. They are, by saying nothing in support of Rush, effectively throwing him under the bus. I guess 20 years of support for their causes are not enough for them.

    This party had better get a spine and speak out in support of their de-facto leader. I say this because no one else seems capable of leading.

  • kurtismae

    This post is really too funny.

    The Dems simply focused attention on Limbaugh’s assertion that he wanted the president’s policies to fail – because polling showed that independents overwhelmingly thought that that was a terrible thing to wish for.

    Then, when a Republican congressman had to apologize for criticizing Rush’s statement, the Democrats decided to make a concerted effort to portray Rush as the defacto leader of the R party.

    Subsequently, several more prominent Republicans have been forced to make abject apologies to Mr. Limbaugh, which strengthened the meme. The Dems are supporting Rush in this.
    You all can try to spin it the opposite way, but it’s not going to work.

    • Aaron Gardner

      sad really.

    • http://www.incredibleco.ning.com Incredible

      “Subsequently, several more prominent Republicans have been forced to make abject apologies to Mr. Limbaugh”

      Yes, becasuse he’s in an official position of authority. He, as the head of a government agency, coerced them into response. Very well thought out, kurtismae.

      I imagine much of your life is dark and smelly….

      • kurtismae

        Who is the “head of a government agency”? Who was “forced to respond”? To what?

        I honestly don’t understand your comment.

    • OccamsRazor

      hear the nervous chuckle.

    • E Pluribus Unum

      No? Didn’t think so.

      The Democrats are ON RECORD as saying they are making a coordinated effort to make Rush their Bush. They are not “focusing attention”.. They are making up mud pies and throwing them.

      • olsmithie

        Major difference is that Rush is not hesitant to set the record straight, where Bush, well what was he thinking??!!

        REgards

  • kurtismae

    I came her tonight to see what you folks thought about this issue.

    And all you’ve got to counter my argument is… “sad”.

    Please respond to the meat of my argument.I am truly interested.

    • $peciallist

      dude….liberals lie like no other

      WE ARE NOT BUYING…get it?

    • http://www.incredibleco.ning.com Incredible

      What meat? You posted links that refuted your assertion. What is there to refute?

  • JoeG

    It is now apparent that for the very first time, Republican leaders are listening to Rush. This will mean the dems plan backfires _massively_.

    Do you think we’d be where we are if the Republicans had stayed true to conservatism?

  • kurtismae

    What lies–in the context of this conversation–are you speaking of?

    • $peciallist

      ‘several more prominent Republicans’…..I know of ONE…who else…with links

      “Subsequently, several more prominent Republicans have been forced to make abject apologies to Mr. Limbaugh, which strengthened the meme. The Dems are supporting Rush in this.
      You all can try to spin it the opposite way, but it?s not going to work.”

      BS

    • Caleb (absentee)

      Little button, BIG DEAL.

      Learn it, love it, or leave.
      – c

    • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

  • kurtismae

    Head of the RNC, Michael Steele
    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/rnc-chairman-apologizes-to-limbaugh-in-flap-over-his-role/

    Representative Phil Gingrey
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18067.html

    Gov. Mark Sanford
    http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/04/limbaugh.mocked/

    • $peciallist

      Steele apologized to Rush…..

      Phil bent over…errrrr…apologized on ‘behalf of Republicans’….lol

      Sanford didn’t do JACK….loser

  • kurtismae

    in a little while; please try to form some coherent arguments in the meantime.

    • $peciallist

      ..

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      Nothing personal.

      Moe

      • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

        BLAM STICK… BLAM STICK… BLAM STICK….

  • Lammo

    tends not to work out so well. Here’s an example from my home state via Snopes:

    http://www.snopes.com/crime/dumdum/gunshop.asp

    Here’s hoping the Demoncrats have equally bad luck!

    • olsmithie