• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rush Limbaugh Proposes Bipartisan Compromise

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,077
Location
Yokohama, Japan
The subtle bipartisanship of Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh takes to the pages of this morning's Wall Street Journal in praise of what might some dittoheads might consider an unfamiliar notion: Bipartisanship. According to Rush, the stimulus bill didn't have enough of it:

Yes, elections have consequences. But where's the bipartisanship, Mr. Obama? This does not have to be a divisive issue. My proposal is a genuine compromise.
Click to expand...

Rush then goes on to detail his amazingly wacky proposal -- namely, dividing the spending in the congressional bill based on the percentage of the presidential vote that each party won. Under Rush's plan, 54 percent of the stimulus money would go to "infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats." (Sounds fair.) And the rest of the money would go to a series of extreme tax cuts determined by ... Rush Limbaugh. Democracy lives to fight another day.
Click to expand...

Does anyone remember if Rush was into "bipartisan compromise" when the republicans were in power?

ETA: What percentage of the vote was for Rush Limbaugh again?
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
The subtle bipartisanship of Rush Limbaugh



Does anyone remember if Rush was into "bipartisan compromise" when the republicans were in power?

ETA: What percentage of the vote was for Rush Limbaugh again?
Click to expand...
Look, it was Obama that called Rush out. That was a rookie mistake that he will live to regret. Rush is loving it and he will milk it for all it's worth. His idiotic personalisation just elevated Limbaugh to peer level status.
 
Puppycow said:
ETA: What percentage of the vote was for Rush Limbaugh again?
Click to expand...


Apparently, almost half, as Limbaugh seems to be the head policymaker of the GOP these days:

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R) defended the party leadership, and dismissed the right-wing talk-show host for finding it "easy" to "throw bricks" from the outside...

And just how long did it take before Gingrey was forced to back down and grovel for forgiveness after saying something sensible? About a half-day.
Click to expand...

When the rank and file are more willing to defend Limbaugh over their elected officials, who have to kiss the fat man's ring to right the transgressions, it seems to clarify who is running the show.
 
When the Republicans gained a majority in the congress during the clinton years, the pig man was gloating about how forty years of Democratic and liberal policy making was over. He is still insistant that all of Roosevelt's reforms are on their way to the comp[ost heap.

Does the dimbulb not realize that the massive shift in the elections just past might mean that people are sick of this twaddle that we have been sold for thirty years? Who does the eunuch think won in November?
 
Texas said:
His idiotic personalisation just elevated Limbaugh to peer level status.
Click to expand...


The republican "leadership" has folded already e.g. approving a repeat tax cheat for Treasury Secretary. So much for principled opposition :(

Now Obama just has to silence his remaining vocal critics. We'll have to see how it plays out, but I'm sure it's a deliberate strategic attack on Rush. No doubt, Rush is loving every second. As you noted, his new status as co-policy maker to the President must be sweet! He never got this much power with the republicans in charge.
 
Texas said:
Look, it was Obama that called Rush out. That was a rookie mistake that he will live to regret. Rush is loving it and he will milk it for all it's worth. His idiotic personalisation just elevated Limbaugh to peer level status.
Click to expand...
Actually, it was Rush who originally claimed he wanted Obama to fail.

I don't think it was a mistake to bring attention to crazy person's crazy rantings. Indeed, the fact that rush is returning with such obviosuly contradictory statements as this makes it clear that the goal is successful. Rush admitted to not wanting America to Succeed.
 
leftysergeant said:
Does the dimbulb not realize that the massive shift in the elections just past might mean that people are sick of this twaddle that we have been sold for thirty years? Who does the eunuch think won in November?
Click to expand...

No, you may be, but don't project your political worldview on the entire American electorate.

They wanted to unload Bush & anything Republican because of the screwed up war. It had little to do with the economy, and nothing to do with being "sick of this twaddle we have been sold for thirty years."
 
Here is another thought on why Obama might want to draw attention to Limbaugh. Personally, I see this effect being more a consequence rather than by design.
 
After Katrina it was discovered that many of the beneficiaries of help though a debit card used the funds for vacations and luxuries. Rush railed on such irresponsible use of money. That was the reason why welfare was a bad idea.

Fast forward: 2008, John Thain uses $1 million to upgrade his office while the company is going bust and asks for a bailout. Rush's response? The money went into the economy didn't it? He said it with disdain for the idiots who couldn't grasp that the money was used as intended. To increase cash flow in the economy.

No Rush. No. First off it's not simply to get money into the economy.

Irresponsible for the poor is irresponsible for the rich. Sauce for the goose you hypochrite.
 
Last edited:
One of the reasons I have lost a lot of respect for the GOP is they have not seen that Rush has become a liablity rather then an asset.
If the GOP continues to be obsesed with not offending the militant right wing of the party, the Dems don't have much to worry about.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
Here is another thought on why Obama might want to draw attention to Limbaugh. Personally, I see this effect being more a consequence rather than by design.
Click to expand...

20080130_Limbaugh.png


Yep. Only slightly less popular than Bush.

Now the Republicans have just elected Michael Steele as the new RNC chairman. I don't think that'll be enough to get many African Americans over to the R column, but it is "good optics" for moderate whites.
 
dudalb said:
One of the reasons I have lost a lot of respect for the GOP is they have not seen that Rush has become a liablity rather then an asset.
If the GOP continues to be obsesed with not offending the militant right wing of the party, the Dems don't have much to worry about.
Click to expand...

He makes sure there is an active conservative group who in some respects otherwise wouldn't exist. He is an asset just one that needs to be handled better.
 
I posted this link on another thread, but it's worth reposting here.

Do you realize he could destroy the Republican Party forever? If his plan works, and none of them vote for it, can you imagine what he could say four years from now? It would be the end of the Republican Party.
Click to expand...

This must be why Rush wants Obama to fail.

Clearly, Rush is now among the most influential Republicans. Indirectly because of Obama. But mostly because the GOP has been busy alienating "RINOs" and moderates in the name of ideological purity. The big tent has long since been slashed down to cocoon size. His howling about bipartisan compromise isn't about less spending, or smaller debt. Or any principled stance. It's about Republican pork vs Democratic pork.

Furthermore, he has no faith in the virtues of small government or less spending, as he concedes that Obama's plan might even work out OK. And this is where he gets really wacky. What would be good for the economy would be really bad for the Republican party. Thus the hope and prayer Obama fails. And the rest of us via the economy.
 
shecky said:
I posted this link on another thread, but it's worth reposting here.
Click to expand...
From the link:

Because we know that in politics the objective is to wipe out your opponent. It just is.
Click to expand...
We "know" and "it just is". Brilliant Rush, brilliant. Uh... no, it's about representation and coalitions and often compromise.

Rush argument: Appeal to fear and assert that any proposition is just true. It's sophistry but, hey, it works for him. If your audience doesn't know critical thinking from monster trucks then why worry about logic and reason?
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
No, you may be, but don't project your political worldview on the entire American electorate.

They wanted to unload Bush & anything Republican because of the screwed up war. It had little to do with the economy, and nothing to do with being "sick of this twaddle we have been sold for thirty years."
Click to expand...

Really? Because every poll I saw on the run to the GE showed the economy being issue number one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom