Palin is actually playing this much better. She made an initial PR push, but has largely disappeared over the past couple of months. My advice to any Republican Presidential hopeful would be to stay low key until the 2010 election comes into focus. If it appears the Republicans can have a significant victory, go all out campaigning for them. If, however, the Republicans look stagnant or headed to another defeat, come out after the election as the savior for the party. I don't see much of any benefit to being high profile right now.

Tossing out candidates for public consumption at this point is fruitless. We just elected a president. There's no need to start that whole process yet. Let's let the new president fail/succeed first. If Obama does do well over the next 4 years, there would probably be no need to even bother with a Republican candidate.

Im sorry, I was reminiscing on a previous page where you already we're judging success or failure. Please bring back the real MBBF.

Oh, we definitely are judging success or failure already. I just don't think there's any reason to stuff a new candidate in the public's face yet. I think I speak for most Missouri residents when I state I can only stand the onslaught of political TV ads for a few months every 4 years. We don't need to hear about future alternatives until at least the midterm elections as someone else mentioned.

Palin is done. Doesn't matter what she does from here on out. She'll be able to have that percent of the country that believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, abstinence education works, and so on, but nothing more. Republicans need to hope she doesn't get the nomination in 2012 as it would end in a landslide. Her Presidential aspirations ended when she embarassed herself on the national stage.

See, there you go, Flasch. Got your wish ;)

SI

I aim to please. :D

Palin and Jindal are both very, very young in terms of politics. I wouldn't write either of them off at this point, as they could each wait 20 years to run for president and still be a good bit younger than McCain was during this cycle.

I'd argue that being in a position to get the nomination is far from "done".

Agreed 100%. Tho, there's something substantial to be gleaned that they will be very different as a "young, fresh" candidate as opposed to a "Senate/Government veteran" in terms of perception. Palin 2008 is a lot different than Palin 2028, provided the zombies haven't gotten us by then. McCain's a lot different guy in 2009 than he was in the 80s

SI

To be President in this country you have to win over independents. She has set herself up to not be able to do that. Her winning the nomination is a worst case scenario for Republicans in 2012.

I'd agree she's unlikely to be President, but that hardly makes her irrelevant. Generally only three people get nominated for the presidency every two election cycles. If she's in a position to be one of those people she's by default important.

btw- Yes, I know there are other nominees, but I don't consider the Greens or Constitutionists as relevant.

Is that true for the GOP nomination? Will the religious, far-right voters start to realize that they'll have to give up/moderate on some issues in order to be able to win over those moderate/indy voters?

It's currently unclear if the right wing of the GOP is willing to act that tactically. Given their collective fawning over Limbaugh's recent CPAC appearance, I'd say no.

Each party has its fringe element that they need in the election. The goal is to cater to them here and there while giving off an impression that you are a moderate. In the end the fringe elements of the party are forced to vote for you because you're way better than the other guy, and you nab the majority of the independent voters.

Another problem Republicans run into is that they no longer hold the advantage in party identification. They used to under Bush in both elections, but that has dramatically shifted the last 4 years. So even if they get their whole base to show up, the Democrats still win. Palin can get every single die-hard conservative to show up in 2012 and she still loses without those moderate/independent votes.

I'm still astonished at the kind of power that man has.

First, he's an entertainer. These talk radio hosts are like the wrestling industry. They are the face and the other guys are the heels. The sad thing is that wrestling fans know it's fake, these listeners don't.

He's also a guy who hurts them. I truly believe he cost them the Senate in 2006 with his Michael J. Fox stunt. The country is growing real tired of the hate speech stuff on both sides and are turning against it. Getting up and attacking a popular President during this economic time might be red meat for conservatives, but it's a huge turnoff for independents. All he is doing is marginalizing the reach of his party and ensuring more years of irrelevancy for the party. The Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannitty era is over in politics. It's working against them now.

I say this all as an independent too. A guy who is fairly fiscally conservative on a lot of issues. Someone would like to see a real Republican party filled with good fiscal ideas. I think they are setting themselves up for a long journey through irrelevancy.

Why? He's written two Best Sellers. He has the highest rated talk show in the country. He basically took "talk radio" from its late night venue and made it mainstream. Agree with him or not, his show is entertaining to listen to and more times than not, a lot of his commentary is tongue-in-cheek. The reason he is so hated by the left is because they seem to be so easily tweaked and offended. The only time I've ever thought he stepped over the line was with his comments about Michael J. Fox "faking it", but he was dead accurate about stem cell advocates using Fox as a sympathy play toward voters.


I think Limbaugh believes most what he talks about on his show. Apparently he strikes a cord with a pretty large audience too.


That remains to be seen. Limbaugh was deemed irrelevant and washed up after Clinton was elected, but his audience grew steadily all through the Clinton years.

I think if the economy continues to go south, Obama's honeymoon will be short-lived, even with some of his Obamaniacs. While most of the Dem talking heads seem to think this is a brilliant move (sic), I don't see it that way. To single out and attack Limbaugh is probably the best thing that could possibly happen to him under the circumstances. You can't buy that kind of publicity and Limbaugh is getting it for free...and people who have never listened to him will tune in just to see what all the fuss is about.

I'm talking with politicians. You had the head of the GOP groveling to him. We had a U.S. Senator begging for forgiveness. I guess it just doesn't put much faith in a party when they are bowing down and kissing the hand of a talking head on the radio. It's akin to seeing Jerry Jones get on the radio and apologize to Skip Bayless for criticizing him.

I believe he does too. But he's going to present it as entertaining as he can. That's not always good for politics. Playing a song called "Barack the Magic Negro" may be funny parody, but it's probably not going to help the GOP get more votes.

Big difference in thinking a guy is a great entertainer and liking what he says and using him as the face of your party. I've listened to Howard Stern from time to time and like some of his political views, but I think it would be retarded for any party to use him as their mouthpiece.


It's not about Limbaugh per say, just his style. I think the turning of politics and government into a sport where it's my team vs your team is slowly getting played out. We are sick of each side constantly bashing each other. Sick of the crybaby antics. Sure the hate speech radio shows from both sides of the aisle will stay on and have its listeners, but I don't think it'll have the impact it used to.

I agree though that this is great for Limbaugh. It's also why you don't build your party around an entertainer. His goal isn't to attract new voters, it's to bring in a big rating. That percent who loves Limbaugh can cheer all they want about what he says and how the GOP bows down to him. But at the end of the day, it doesn't get them more votes or win them any elections.

The Michael Moore, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olberman Era is working out just great. The only difference between these cast of characters is party identification, right?

No, I could have said any of those names. They are all the same. We were talking about the GOP so I listed conservative hosts.

The GOP nominee is someone you have not even heard of yet.

You do realize that you said the exact same thing prior to the 2008 election season? :)

I thought this the last week, too, after seeing the Michael Steele and the senator, who it was escapes me at this moment, who both have had to formally apologize to Rush in the last couple of weeks. This isn't the playing politics "I'm clarifying something", it's the "I'm sorry I tried to disagree with you".

Your subsequent posts have explained it better than I could but I did want to second this.

Again, I don't see Jerry Jones apologizing to Jim Rome or Dan Patrick personally if he were to rant about the media. Maybe he goes on and apologizes to the fans for signing TO but not a personal apology to the host themselves for disagreeing.

Similarly, you don't see Harry Ried or Patrick Leahey going on record, calling out a particular member of the media like Olbermann and you sure as hell wouldn't see them apologizing. And that's from the pansy side of the aisle, not the gun toting, war hawk tough guys. Hell, could you see Michael Steele going and apologizing to Bill O'Reilly.

So why Rush? Why now? Why bother? I just don't get it.

SI

I said Democrat!! :)

And who knew Sarah Palin or predicted it. (She was the real nominee)

Depends on what you mean 'heard of'. For instance, I was a big fan of Joe Biden in the Senate but, yeah, a lot of people hadn't 'heard of' him. If that's the level of field you're talking about, then, sure. It basically means it's not going to be McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Palin, or, um, I dunno Bush I. I'll take the "field" versus 5 people in the country in most bets ;)

SI

I would as well.

Don't forget...Jeb is still out there. :p

But, my point is, there are more guys out there than that which people have "heard of". I could name a dozen GOP governors, some Senators, maybe a few from the House, a politico or two in exile, and a couple of big time mayors and there's a good chance it comes from that pool.

SI

Because a bazillion of his listeners probably flooded Steele's office with calls and his apology was an "oh sh*t" response.

That is because you are an intelligent person.

I don't know who the Sen. you referenced was but in Steele's case it's because Rush is worth a hell of a lot more votes than he'll ever be, and that's even with me believing that the actual impact on anything beyond motivation with any of the hosts is pretty minimal.

When a relative unknown with iffy credibility to begin with decides to get in a pissing contest with someone that's pretty much an icon, the outcome was pretty predictable. That thing about dragons and ketchup comes to mind.

I beg to differ

SI

Have you seen opinion polls on Rush? The more Republican = Limbaugh the better for Democrats.

You might be interested in this article.

Do Americans Prefer Ayers and Wright to Limbaugh?

If that's actually where we are then we're fucked beyond repair as a nation & none of this stuff ultimately matters anyway, so what's really the difference in the end?

Gallup ran a poll released on Feb. 5 The key is the independents.

App/Disapp/No Opinion

Rep - 60/23/17
Dem - 6/63/31
Ind - 25/45/30

As long as Limbaugh = Republicans the Democrats will do fine.

It also shows the problem for Republicans. Limbaugh is toxic on an overall level, but he's extremely popular among the base. As long as Rush is in the news at all it's bad for Republicans.

It wasn't a Senator, it was Congressman Gingrey from your state. Mark Sanford also apologized to him.

I'm going to argue that Rush doesn't bring in more votes than Steele. Well new votes anyway. Rush has the power to take votes away perhaps, but that's still debateable.

Rush's listeners are broken into two types. Those who agree with him and will vote Republican no matter what. And those who hate him and just need to hear what he says next. He's probably not going to convince those guys to change their vote anyway.

So sure his listeners can flood the phone lines at an office, but it's more of an annoyance than anything. It's not going to bring in more votes for a Republican because these guys aren't voting Democrat anyway. It's just preaching to the choir. Steele's job on the other hand is to bring in new voters to the party and win elections. Ultimately, he is more valuable in the end.

That's a pretty large no opinion no. among independents.

yup but theirs a bigger number just to the left.

That's right, it was Sanford (governor) not a senator. I must have missed the incident with Gingrey (*heads off to wiki*)

SI

Doesn't this all just mean that Rush will be the nominee in 2012?

That remains to be seen.

I would argue that the base of the Republican Party is waiting for the next Ronald Reagan, the type of candidate the GOP hasn't had since, well, Ronald Reagan.

On the campaign trail, only Dubyah has come close to emulating the themes and ideas that Reagan espoused IMO, and he defeated the hand-picked successor of the most popular Democratic president since JFK.

If the economy stays in the tank or growth is flat (and it is starting to look like that could be the case ... at least for the next couple of years) and/or Obama and the Democrats attempt too big a push toward socialism, then I'd say they are very vulnerable during the mid-terms and the next presidential election.

People don't like it when I compare the Obama presidency to Jimmy Carter's presidency, and it's still early, but the similarities are there.

Huh? Fox is THE stem cell advocate. He's not being used. He gave up his career for this cause. He runs an organization dedicated to Parkinson's research.

What happened here is that the conservatives couldn't play their Swift Boat or Willie Horton games with Fox and that frustrated them. That boiled over in Limbaugh's stupid comments.

But that's just because comparing Obama to any other president after less than two months is stupid.

Sure 45 % of independents dislike Rush, but the good news is thirty percent have no opinion. Palin/Limbaugh 2012 BITCHES!

The odd thing about the Reagan/Carter talk from the past is that Carter was much more conservative than he gets credit for and Reagan was more liberal than he gets credit for. Carter was more conservative then W. Much of the Carter hate has come after his Presidency and due to some of his humanitarian and foreign policy stances.

Carter's had his issues but it certainly doesn't mirror anything Obama has done so far. I also think it's far too early to be making any comparisions.

I'm not sure if this statement is accurate.

Views soften on 2 former presidents, CNN poll finds - CNN.com

Carter left the White House with a 31% approval rating and it was in the 60's according to this '07 article.

Many didn't approve of him but it turned to hate years later. You can find tons of threads, blogs and so on calling for his arrest for treason and execution. Many others who call him every name in the book. I don't think he was this polarizing in the past.

I'll give you that. Threads and posts against Carter have been on the rise since 1980.

Jesus Christ, does the GOP know any better? Reagan was a brilliant politician (once in a lifetime), but if the GOP's entire strategy is to wait for another one, how realistic can it possibly be? I try reading RedState at least once a day, and it always fascinates me about the lack of pragmatism - apparently, the solution is to run a candidate who's even more right-of-center (which is when I see the ranting about Specter/Snowe etc, I want to laugh - do they actually believe any other Republican could hold those seats)? I mean, they constantly rail against moderate Republicans - would they prefer them as Moderate Democrat's instead? The entire thrust of the idiocy thus espoused is that even though Barack Obama got the greatest presidential mandate since Reagan, even though his approval ratings are sky-high, the solution is to run further to the right. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the GOP seems to espouse this.

Dola,
let me elaborate. Its clear why the congressional GOP believes this; the candidates, by definition, who are left in the party are likely to be "more conservative" (having come out of safer, more conservative districts); ie, as a whole, the GOP Caucus now is almost certainly more conservative than it was before the election. Nonetheless, if they want to come back into power (and the idea of unchecked Democratic rule for the next X years is not really appealing), they have to offer something to the middle.

Its actually pretty fascinating for us as strategy fans (bring this back to FOF :D )- what's best from the interest of the party as a whole (a moderation that leads to power) is not always best for the interests of the members who are likely to be primaried if they "moderate" ( Leiberman in the Dem primary, and Specter might be this year in the GOP as Toomey is running again).

A successfully executed plan between Rahm Emmanuel and the media?

Rush Job: Inside Dems' Limbaugh plan
Most Emailed News Stories

It's not just the GOP. Both sides have fringe elements at the extreme that somehow believe that when they lose, it's because their candidate wasn't liberal/conservative enough. They live in a different reality than the rest of us though so it's hard to convince them of the need to be moderate.

Funny thing is that if a more conservative guy like Brownback or Thompson won the nomination, Obama would have won with 400+ electoral votes. McCain was their best hope and if they didn't screw it up with the Palin selection and Ayers crap, he may have had a shot at winning.

Sounds like a smart enough move.

In one of his books, Carville talks about learning that move in the 80s from one of his political mentors. He was in a Virginia statewide election and Jerry Falwell had endorsed their opponent, so they pushed that endorsement in the media.

Dutch, even in your cocooned world, this has hardly been a secret conspiracy, right? Every Democratic official has said loudly that they want to link Rush Limbaugh as the head of the GOP. Dems didn't make Steele grovel back to him, or make Gingrey apologize. All they're doing is boasting about it here, and Rush continues to nominate himself as the de-facto leader of the right. And I'd bet if anything, Rush Limbaugh's ratings are up now (I'd bet JIMGA knows this stuff fairly well - I'm curious how ad rates/sales for Rush are going now - is their any noticeable change from say, 2 months ago). Its a win-win for both Rush and the Dems; but a lose for the GOP.

The idiocy here is on the part of the GOP members that let themselves get into a situation with regards to Limbaugh, who is a blowhard of epic proportions (to be sure, the most popular radio host in the country, but still a hypocritical blowhard - I always find the drug-addict who has been married 3 times preaching about the sanctity of marriage as hilarious) - he loses nothing in this whole saga and gains noteriety. But think of it this way - what % of Rush listeners voted for anyone other than the GOP last year? 10% to be wildly optimistic? His demographic is basically you - older white guys who oppose gay rights, are strongly pro-life, and think lines like "feminism was invented by ugly women" are the bedrocks of policy. He's preaching to the choir. To be sure, losing those 15-20M votes would doom any future Republican president - but any future Republican can't win if those 20M votes are seen as the litmus test for the GOP. Its a horrible position for the GOP to find itself in.

Is it really some master plan to let Rush just be himself and not interrupt him being part of the news cycle? It's not like the White House is putting out memos every day talking about Limbaugh. Otherwise, they might have to apologize to him ;)

That said, isn't James Carville the Clinton's big political guy (last seen working on Hillary's campaign)? I haven't heard much from him since she dropped out of the race. I kindof doubt he's running much of anything right now except maybe as some company director board or some university chair.

SI

You know. I would think the democrats should be quietly encouraging their members to listen to Rush. Nothing better than inflating his numbers giving the Republicans even more reason to cowtow to the Rush line. Makes sense to me, assuming that Rush's views are that polarizing.

Conspiracies were behind every corner in Crapshoots world when Bush was in office, so those words are stinging from such a credible source. The reality though is my cocooned world only expects the media to not act like it's run by the state. Let's be honest for a second, Crapshoot, it's not like this Rahm Emmanuel "plan" was mentioned while NBC and MSNBC were grilling Michael Steele and Ron Paul respectively over the matter on TV the other day. What's to hide? Don't blame me when Matt Lauer (NBC) and Chris Matthews (MSNBC) can't and won't explain to the general public that this anti-Rush story is apparently being generated by the DNC itself.

I don't recall gotcha-journalism like this when Michael Moore was the leading name of the DNC during the Bush years.

Yeah, the person Rush hurts the most are GOP moderates. I don't dispute for a second that's he's a commanding personality who has an amazingly loyal following (one interesting comparison I read was to Oprah in terms of a mass audience who takes their cues from an entertainer), but the question is whether Rush is a positive for the GOP as a whole - that, I doubt.

Conspiracies? Firstly, that's bullshit - find me a thread anywhere here where I bought into that damn looney bin of conspiracy theories. Basically, you're making shit up -again. In fact, you're the guy who seems to imagine the media conspiracies for years. Hell, given a vote in 2000, I would have voted for Bush. Secondly, Michael Moore has always been an idiot, but no one would ever claim he has anywhere near the following that Rush Limbaugh has, nor has he suggested he's the head of the opposition in the country. If the Dem leaders had to apologize to Michael Moore every time they said something, they would rightly be ridiculed as idiots.

The point though, is that when a guy like Michael Moore represented the same kind of iconic character on the left, there is NO WAY the GOP plays this game. (not that they wouldn't, just that they couldn't) The allies of the GOP in the media are simply too outnumbered and bullshit like this would be called exactly what it is. This is the perfect storm right now. DNC President, DNC Senate, DNC House, DNC Media. It will definately be a rough ride for anybody supporting the GOP or providing alternative opinions.

The media bias is incredible. Fox News and AP Radio are miniscule compared to their counterparts. If not because of the plan hatched by Rahm Emmanuel, then Limbaugh is getting it because he's one of but a handful of conservatives that even make it into the mass media.


Al Gore was a clown, agreed.


Michael Moore would never have had any following with his hair-brained bullshit and lies if he wasn't propped up by Hollywood and the media who just adored him. So, you might be right, his following could have simply been the media pretending he was popular.

BTW, I don't even listen to Rush Limbaugh. :)

For such a bias, the media conveniently didn't ask any tough questions in the leadup to the Iraq war. I mean Fox News didn't ask a single tough question going into the war yet had 24/7 breaking news about Obama having been in the same room as Bill Ayers 30 years ago. I'm not saying that there is no media bias, I'm just saying it swings both ways at times. The media picks favorites and plays to the populace. Obama isn't picked on because the people like him. Bush wasn't picked on going into Iraq because the public didn't want them to.

Perhaps if the media didn't play to the public, we wouldn't have gotten into that bullshit war.

In fairness, the Rush story didn't get a lot of attention here. Sure it ran on the cable news networks a lot, but that's a rather small audience. Most major news broadcasts were extremely brief and I didn't even see it in my local newspapers. It's more a blogger story and something talk radio and guys like Hannitty and Olbermann run with.

well except that old lady in the front....Helen. She was pissed.

Really? Wow. (found some linkage that caught me up on this). Apparently we've now discussed it more on here than the play it got locally, I didn't see or hear a single thing about Gingrey's comments until after this apology.



Except that
a) there's no evidence to this point that Steele can bring anyone new to the party (and I find the notion that he will to be downright laughable)
and b) if the existing voters aren't motivated to go to the polls then any additions mean squat. And that's where Hannity (who I think is a better at this) and Rush, et al come in.

They have a chance to provide what amounts to a daily pep rally and given the lackluster feelings about the last candidate we managed to send to the post that's something that's sorely needed.

On a random note, I was happy to see that she was still in the front row at one of Obama's first press events. Surprised, since I thought she was retired several years ago, but from a professional standpoint I was glad she still got a chance to work it.

It's like the 2001-2006 never happened in your world. Do you not remember time after time of Democrats asked to distance themselves from controversial statements? After Fahrenheit 9/11? After Natalie Maynes? After Ward Churchill?

Tying extremist characters/language to your opponents isn't exactly a new political strategy. The GOP just walked into it. No Dem made Steele grovel. No Dem made Rush attack the moderate wing so viciously. No Dem made Rush the leading voice of the GOP.

You just keep working the media bias. It appeals to an ever smaller, but more ideologically pure segment. Eventually, if you try hard enough, you can get the GOP down to the 20% or so that are true, Reagan conservatives.

Well, obviously the media should not cover the RNC Chair having to apologize to a popular conservative talk show host. That's not newsworthy. It MUST be a liberally biased conspiracy!

I don't remember the years when Michael Moore was the leading DNC face. Could you point to the time when Howard Dean was deferring to Michael Moore for judgment? Or when someone in Congress was groveling to him because they called him out and his legions of fans were demanding an apology? Oh wait. That's because it never happened and you're full of crap.

Is there some silly little warped world where playing political games is the same type of "conspiracy" as little petty things like lying about WMDs to get into a war, outing a CIA agent because her husband spoke out against it, and secretly recording American citizens phone conversations without discretion, cause, or a warrant?

SI

The difference seems to be that if you had asked Gore, Kerry, Edwards, etc. whether they agree with Michael Moore or whether they think that Bush caused 9/11 on purpose, or whether they agreed with Al Sharpton, they would have said "no." And it's not like the GOP didn't try to tie them all together. The GOP very much tried to make Moore and Daily Kos and Moveon.org the face of the Democrats. And why wouldn't they. That's just smart politics. It's just that the mainstream Dems tried to run from those guys.

So, what drops my jaw to the floor today isn't that the Dems are trying to tie mainstream Republicans to Limbaugh. That's just smart politics. It's that the mainstream Republicans don't have the balls and/or sense to disavow Limbaugh.

I voted for W in 2000, so it isn't like I am the kind of voter who can never be convinced to vote Republican. But NOTHING that the party is doing is even giving me pause in hoping for its continued marginalization.

dola:

I mean, isn't this really an easy ju-jitsu for the GOP? Dems say that they are all about Limbaugh. All McConnel, Steele, Cantor, etc. have to do is say, "No. We are not. We beleive in [good conservative principles], and the Dems fear that. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer; he is not a leader of our party, and we are not afraid to say that. Maybe the Dems want to talk about Limbaugh instead of [whatever bad economic news is most recent.]"

They should be happy to have the chance to slam Rush and get back the moderates, right? What am I missing here?

The problem is that Rush's ego won't let them. There have been 3 figures who have slammed him in 2 months with almost those words and each time he's shown outrage and directed his wing of the GOP to get pissed at them and force them to apologize.

SI

I think Steele was a dumb pick and I don't think he is remotely qualified to bring the GOP back. I don't think the other options were good either though.

I think if you are a Rush listener, there is little chance you are going to skip the polls on election day. You have an interest in politics and probably don't like the other guy too much. I just don't see many of those people sitting at home.

The problem though is that the Rush types only make up a small percent of the voters. The GOP needs to attract those independents who don't care about talk radio, blogs, or talking politics. They catch things in soundbytes. When they see Rush mocking Michael J. Fox for having a horrible disease or playing songs called Barack the Magic Negro, they are turned off. The GOP needs to bring in new voters and by bowing down to Rush, they aren't doing that.

Limbaugh came out today and more or less mocked the fact that Ted Kennedy is dying. It has to feel like Christmas everyday for the Democrats. Just one gift after another.

I guess it is a generational thing with Rush. He has a tall podium, but his popularity still boggles my mind. He is part of the problem, and it's time for him to walk away...imo, of course.

Lol. Rough week for Hillary Clinton?

Tongue-tied Clinton gets warm EU welcome

Clinton gift gaffe: 'Overcharge'

yup, much worse then the glossed over Rush stuff:


Its a dark new day for America and it's foreign relations

Yep...just a step away from socialist utopia!

As I understand it, he said that by the time Congress gets through with the expanded health care bill, it will be the "Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill". That's mocking him?

Now, Rep. Bobby Rush compared Roland Burris to Ted Kennedy a few days ago, saying that Burris shouldn't resign when a Senator "drove off a bridge. People died." But since he's another Democrat, I suppose there's no reason to get our knickers in a twist.

Before any Democrat, liberal, or progressive decides to freak out about Rush Limbaugh, they should spend an hour listening to Randi Rhodes. Seriously. This country's in a world of hurt and the leaders of our nation are picking a fight with Rush Effing Limbaugh?? It would be laughable if it weren't so damned sad.

I think this is relevant.

I guess everyone will have to use their own judgment. The way it sounded to me was mocking and callous.

Bobby Rush doesn't matter. I'd argue that most of the country has never even heard of him. But he has taken a lot of heat, particularly here in Chicago for his comments. It would be a bigger story I'd imagine if Bobby Rush mattered and had any national presence.

Randi Rhodes hardly represents the Democratic Party. Again, I doubt many people even know who she is. I have no doubt that she'd be irritating to listen to as most partisian talking heads are. But I do know there won't be Congressman, Governors, and the head of the Democratic Party groveling and asking for her forgiveness.

As for those people freaking out, I highly doubt they are. They love this. It's Christmas Day for the Democratic Party everytime he says stuff like this. The guy has huge unfavorables, especially amongst independents. When he says stuff like that it simply rallies their base and turns independents off from the GOP.

When was there a media firestorm supporting the White House for the Dem's not disavowing Michael Moore or MoveOn.org or the DailyKos?

The RNC attacks the DNC and vice versa, but that's not my point.

What I am talking about is the media jumping on the RNC vs Rush but never the DNC vs Moore (or any of the leftist nut jobs). Ari Fleisher was asked on MSNBC why he didn't also disavow Rush and he responded, "Why don't you disavow Keith Olbermann?" which the MSNBC host paused, sipped his coffee and simply responed, "Good one."

She's an old blowhard that deserves to be there. She was extremely tough on Bush from the first day to the last. Extremely tough on Obama? Well, she asked Obama if he believed there were terrorists in Afghanistan at his first press conference.

unreal.

It's certainly insensitive about his current condition. Much like the GOP Senator's comments about Ginsburg's condition.


I think there's a difference between bringing up a scandal from the past and mocking someone's current health condition. But anyways, Bobby Rush is a piece of shit and I'd gladly slam him along with Limbaugh.


Rush has made himself the de facto leader of the party. He's been able to do it because the Republicans let him. They're the ones that picked the fight with Limbaugh. Then they didn't have the guts to stand by what they said, so they apologized to him. So now Rush mocks Ted Kennedy's current health condition (so much for that "Culture of Life" Republicans supposedly believe in) and gets attacked for it. If Olbermann suggested a Republican was going to die, you can bet he'd be disavowed.

As for Randi Rhodes, she certainly goes overboard and has been suspended for it (ironically one of her suspensions was in the late 80s for offending the Miami gay community), but she doesn't have nearly the same exposure that Rush has., And the left has not given her the same legitimacy that the right has given to Rush.

When did Olbermann make a comment about a Republican politican's impending death?

I know you keep ignoring this question because we know you know the right answer but llike to make up crap so I'm just going to cut and paste my last post since you didn't respond to it.

I don't know if anyone has watched "Right America: Feeling Wrong" but its an interesting documentary.

If only you took the time to read. Karl Marx would probably be sick to his stomach with people thinking this was a path to socialism. Now if you want to say social democracy, then maybe there's more credibility...but then again that would actually require you to think and read about what you say before you say it.

Let me predict right now that if Obama doesn't promote more Republican ideas there's no way he can defeat McCain.

depends on what polls you're looking at....plus you have to remember that there are some rolling averages out there that are going to skew upwards, I mean downwards, the things youre looking at. I mean remember, whomever wins will only have 30 days to turn this thing around before we judge his tenure as a success or failure, unless of course we decide to give him longer than that.

BTW - I cant believe that the liberal media would be focusing so much on all of the Clinton Gaffe's overseas, eh? They must not have gotten the message that theyre supposed to be biased.

Maybe you've missed this, but Helen Thomas has been real hard on Obama. She recently blasted him for his policy on Afghanistan and sort of took a jab at him for his blueprint toward recovery. She's badgered him about Israel and taken him to task for his support of the country. She was one of the few media members who trashed the media for their fawning over Obama during the election.

And God forbid she ask some tough questions to Bush before he sends some kids off to die in a war that was pointless.

It is sad to see the level of ignorance toward basic government terminology. How adding national health care is suddenly the difference between officially being called socialists. The fact we have socialized highways, police departments, intelligence agencies, military, parks, schools, and so on just doesn't pass the test.

This country has always been a social contitutional democracy. Acting like socialist aspects are suddenly creeping into society is just ignorant.

Well, it give people like Rush one-liners and catch phrases to snare/scare the sheep. So people just cut and paste talking points. I think the above mentioned poster may be the political jbmagic.

I can't believe how freaking insensitive Democrats in Congress are being.

Senate Lion Ted Kennedy Roars Once More for National Health Care - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

Who knew Jeff Bingaman hated Ted Kennedy?

huh?

That's totally equivalent to what Rush said. Totally.

....and stretch.