Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh has stated that he wants to see the fiscal policies of Obama fail. Not the selectively reported "Limbaugh hopes Obama fails". Nice try to attempt to put Rush in with "terrorists" and others that hope the messiah fails to correct all our woes in spite of us. Obama remains the empty suit that is promoting Bush style bailouts as necessary to "save" us. I also hope that Obama fails in his attempt to socialize our society and oversee a government takeover of the financial system, the manufacturing sector, and healthcare. Col. Obamakiss, USA (Ret) needs to remove his head from up Obama's a-- and get some fresh air.

WbuMongo's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 10:19am.

Targeting Rush: Saul Alinsky Would Be Proud
by David Limbaugh

In his eight full years as the recipient of endless vile, often-delusional slander, President George W. Bush rarely grumbled, much less counterattacked his tormentors. Yet before he completed his first week in office, President Barack Obama -- a dedicated disciple of Saul Alinsky, who is to left-wing radicalism and social agitation what Karl Marx is to communism -- declared war on Rush Limbaugh.

This was a calculated move by a man who professes to be open to all ideas but apparently brooks no dissent. He not only does not tolerate dissent well but also really doesn't even like to be questioned, as we saw during the campaign, when he accused the normally fawning press of grilling him for merely asking a follow-up question. We caught another glimpse of this last week, when he showed irritation at the White House press corps for daring to ask him a policy question after he had decreed that the sole purpose of his visit was to press the flesh.
But Obama's effort to target Rush is not just his ego at work. He has begun a full-court press to advance his extreme left-wing agenda and was angling both to garner enough Republican support to insulate himself against future accountability for failure and to validate his self-styled image as a bipartisan uniter.
That's why he invited a group of Beltway conservatives for dinner, in a move reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's "listening tour" -- as if discerning observers believe that listening, as opposed to projecting an image of openness, was either Clinton's or Obama's purpose. That's why he surrounded himself with big-business CEOs as he unveiled his misnamed "stimulus" package. That's why he often throws meaningless, abstract bones to conservatives in his speeches while having no intention of diluting his specific concrete liberal policies.
Obama is savvy enough to realize he can't eliminate all dissent. But he's enough of an Alinskyite to know that marginalizing and demonizing his strongest opponents could intimidate the fainthearted into supporting or withholding criticism of his policies and increase his chances for success.
Perhaps Alinsky would couch Obama's strategy in different terms, but it is essentially a divide-and-conquer approach. Make no mistake: The goal is to single Rush out and pick him off.
So Obama is trying to parlay his extraordinarily high approval rating to lay a foundation for his shock troops in the press and the party apparatus to discredit and eventually compromise or silence Rush.
As if in conspiratorial lockstep, the media are dutifully responding with round-the-clock distortions and deceitful context manipulation of Rush's clearly articulated statement that he hopes Obama's socialist blueprint for America fails, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is circulating a petition denouncing him. These are part of their larger goal to emasculate Rush and other conservative radio hosts through the Unfairness Doctrine.
Unhappily for them, their plan has backfired so far, as it obviously led to a counteraction, which, in turn, arguably contributed to the consolidation of Republicans in unanimous opposition to Obama's trillion-dollar mega-pork scheme.
But this is no time for Republican gloating -- obviously. Obama is far from dispirited or deterred. He has only just begun. His plan did, after all, pass the House with solely Democratic votes. It has a good chance to sail through the Senate, as well.
For those on the right who still cling to the fantasy that Obama is a bipartisan centrist, I refer you to his recent statement that FDR did not do enough by way of government spending to end the Depression, his decidedly pro-abortion executive order and pronouncement celebrating Roe v. Wade, his Web-documented commitment to the radical homosexual agenda, his announced closure of Gitmo and termination of enhanced interrogation techniques, his planned discontinuation of missile defense systems, his actions on carbon emissions and fuel efficiency in deference to the global warming hoax, his shameless apologies for America to the Muslim world, his arrogant carving out of exemptions for his own staff and appointees from ethical rules he is now otherwise imposing, his groundwork to shut down political criticism, and his government-expansion-on-steroids, non-stimulus pork bill.
The inevitable explosion of federal debt this legislation would cause is reason enough to oppose it, even if it were likely to stimulate the economy. But even some liberals are disputing its potential to stimulate. The hastily crafted bill, with its corrupt funding of ACORN and other favors, is a disgracefully irresponsible effort to expand the public sector, diminish the private sector, empower the autocrats, and further divest us of our individual liberties -- all at the expense of present and future generations.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 1:32pm.

The analysis is simply wrong with respect to silencing Rush. And that whole Fairness Doctrine argument is just wishful thinking from the right, kinda like the birth certificate thing. A fake issue, meat for the base but no substance in reality. Rush is extremely popular with a minority of people who can probably be characterized as more right wing than the average Republican. The more inflammatory Rush and Sean and Coulter are, and the more closely they can be identified as the spokesmen (sorry Ann) for the Republican Party the better for the Democrats.

Read what Mitch McConnell said at the RNC’s winter retreat:

McConnell: GOP becoming 'regional party'

The simple fact is that the two Parties cannot win with just their base and this is especially true for the Republican Party which is now largely a southern regional party. Is there any part of the Rush/Sean/Coulter message that appeals to moderates drawing them into the Republican Party? No, quite the contrary. Their mission is to force the GOP further to the right excluding any broadening of the base. Limbaugh’s “I want Obama to fail” statement is a perfect example. The vast majority of Americans are horrified. Politically, what Rush’s “real meaning” of the statement was is irrelevant. All the overwhelming majority is going to hear is that he wants Obama to fail. Certainly no new Republican converts were won over. Another example: on the immigration issue it was Rush et. al. that sabotaged the deal, dragging the Party to the right and demonizing illegal aliens to such an extent and with such language that now the Rep. Party is seen as anti-Hispanic by almost everyone. Remember when Obama was using Rush’s statements to beat up McCain on Spanish radio stations? A whole segment of the population, conservative trending, family values loving Catholics, who should be prime GOP prospects were driven away.

Rush is just an entertainer? Keep thinking that. No, Rush is the main spokesman for the Rep. Party. Here is his editorial in the WSJ: “under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.”

My Bipartisan Stimulus

“…as determined by me…”? Shouldn’t that be elected Party officials determining that kind of stuff?

Rush is calling the shots; telling the GOP what to do, determining who is acceptable to be let into the Party and what legislation the Party can support. All while demonstrating a command of the Party officials that can bring them to their knees like Phil Gingrey whimpering for forgiveness if they displease him. The more the Dems tie Rush et. al. to the message and mastery of the GOP the better.

Rush’s influence is going to either tear the Party apart or shrink it to the smallest possible core of true believers. To imagine that the Dems are going to try to re-implement the Fairness Doctrine or to otherwise try to silence Rush is sheer fantasy. Obama hit the hammer on the big wedge splitting the GOP. David Limbaugh and the rest are too ideologically blinded to see that they are being played.

Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 10:42pm.

Christian Science Monitor

Gingrich also argued that President Obama was ill-advised to take on conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh. The president told congressional leaders of both parties that “you can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” In the former speaker’s view, “presidents are well served to deal with historic patterns because it makes them feel presidential. I can’t imagine the net advantage of the newly elected president of the United States – with 70 percent approval – picking a fight with a guy who will absolutely profit from the fight.”

I think Newt was right on the mark.

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 12:41am.

About Obama speaking out. Obama doesn't need to get involved. He should sit back and be above it all. I think it's a Machiavellian plot full of twists and turns, heavily nuanced. And I'm sticking with my original analysis that it is an intentional strategy by the D's to make it appear that Rush is the leader and chief spokesman for the Republican Party. In that case, Newt's(correct) observation that Rush will profit furthers the strategy. Since this all started, I've seen lots of stuff tying the R's to Rush.

Newt can't see the advantage but it's clear to me. Excuse me for saying so but my perspective is that southern R's in particular are living in a dream world believing that the Party is losing because it's not conservative enough (McCain et. al.) and all that's needed is to get back to some idealized Reagan conservatism and that would be the key to revitalization. Look at Steele's speeches after he became head of the RNC. Basically they all lined up and said the problem with the Party was that they hadn't gotten out their message, not that the message is fundamentally flawed.

This begs the question of what is the message. I can see the desire to remain ideologically pure. That's Rush and Palin. And Newt too. The problem is that's 25% and no upside. Rush seems driven to purify the Party, gloating when the moderate R's lose and denigrating others. So now the House R's (all from very conservative safe districts since the moderates have been defeated in the elections) have become the party of “no”. The current Republican message has driven away moderates, the educated “elites”, both coast, the entire New England section, urban areas, Latinos and all other minorities. You give me all that to start off with and how are the R's gonna win?

I listened to Sean today saying the Senate R's should follow the House and let the D's own the bailout so that when it collapsed they would get all the blame. IMO that's a stupid analysis. Two years from now the economy is most probably going to be way better and the D's are going to ride it to victory pointing out the R's obstructionism.

If the R's want to follow the Rush/Palin message the so be it. They'll lose in 2010 and it will be a debacle in 2012 when so many more R's are up for reelection than D's. Look where the Party is and is heading, the front runner is Palin who was totally unqualified and ignorant and who excited the base mainly because of her ideological purity on the losing issue of abortion and who scares most people. That's the Rush Limbaugh future for the Party and nobody else is allowed in.

Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 9:00am.

There were some that wrote the Republicans off after their lost in 1976. The banner for the Democrates was Nixon, the sluggish economy and a need to reform Washington. (I can't begin to imagine the view that you had during that time)

Anyways, as we all know that "great pendulum" called public opinion is always swinging.
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 9:26am.

I think a more analogous comparison is to the '60s with the almost complete capture of the Dem Party by the uber-liberal wing. Carter won by bypassing the liberal wing and running in all 50 states an unheard of strategy at the time. But the liberals controlled the Party apparatus. Carter's opponents were Udall, Frank Church, Shriver, Birch Bayh etc. The liberals never forgave him for beating them. Remember Kennedy prancing around the podium in '80 refusing to shake Carter's hand? Besides this insurgent campaign, the Dems nominated Humphry, McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis before the more moderate Clinton drug the Party back to the center.

I have no doubt that the Rep. Party will survive in the long term. A tip of the hat to S. Lindsey, it's all speculation. My speculation is that there is a lot of wandering in the wilderness to be done and with the current capture of the Party by the Rush/Palin/Steele wing the pendulum is still swinging the wrong way and that is why there is a strategy by the D's to promote the idea that Rush et. al. control the Party.

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 2:37pm.

Which side is right.. which is wrong(left) Only time will tell.. I do have some issues with our current President calling out a private citizen..but I am slowly not recognizing the Country I grew up in.. I know things change, but there are some things that should never change.
I really do not believe that America has shifted Center Left I still think it is more Center Right and Rush is not going to move the pedulum much anyway.. It is an opinion show and many people who listen to either Air America (is it still on?) or Talk radio are not going to be convienced one way or another.. They already have their own opinions made up.. The middle sways like wheat in the wind with no set values.. Which ever feels good is the way they will lean.
Rush speaks to millions daily so his influence is inevitiable.. but when did our Elected officials stop having the obligation to listen to it's largest majority.. The GOP is in trouble.. They lost me years ago.. Will I come back.. maybe.. if they stop looking and acting like Democrat lites.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 4:56pm.

as to which is the winning strategy.

And since I wrote the previous entry I looked around:

The Washington Post is also asking if Rush runs the GOP:

Is Rush Limbaugh the New Face of the GOP?

Townhall recognizes the situation and is a little wary of Rush being the face of the GOP:

The Rush Limbaugh Talking Point

FOX News is crediting Talk Radio with being the deciding factor in Republican opposition to the stimulus bill:

Limbaugh Cracks the Whip, and Republicans Get in Line

Here's an anti Arlen Specter ad which I think is very effective posing the question “Rush or jobs”?

Obama vs. Limbaugh

The reasons I included the previous clips is to somewhat refute your contention that Rush is a “private citizen”. The same could be said of Micheal Moore whom I'm sure you will agree should not be immune from comment. Rush is a major political player.

Also, the feeble Air America is not anywhere nearly as influential as Rush and the rest. They're mainly cheer leaders. Certainly Democrats who disagree with their positions do not fear their wrath. Nor can they generate hundreds of thousands of calls and letters influencing Congressmen like Rush et. al can.

Finally (my comments go on too long don't they), the R's hold an advantage of position in the 2010 elections to the extent that more D's are up for reelection. Most probably the economy will be showing strong signs of recovery by then stimulus package or not. IMO the R's have made a strategic political mistake in that they are going to be portrayed as having opposed the stimulus package that the D's will then inevitably credit for reviving the economy. The unanimous vote will be portrayed as an obstructionist mistake by the GOP further reducing the GOP's ability to attract new voters.

Late edit: Speculation Obama will pick Gregg for Commerce. R's demanding Dem Gov. NH appoint R replacement. What are they smoking? With new Dem from NH Dems have 60 (the MN thing is done, Coleman is a dead man walking, just a matter of time).

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 5:20pm.

Making Phil Gingrey crawl on his knees like an fawning lackey to lick Rush's boot and beg forgiveness and re-swear allegiance was hysterical.

Phil Gingrey to Rush Limbaugh: ‘I regret those stupid comments’

Anybody ever remember a elected Democratic official acting like such a pathetic obsequious sycophant because an entertainer called them out?

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 9:34am.

Dear sir, I do regret and apologize for temporarily growing a pair and saying something that was not scripted. What a mouse of a guy! Sad really, that a Congressman would not feel he had the latitude to criticize television and radio entertainers!

Robert W. Morgan's picture
Submitted by Robert W. Morgan on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 8:08pm.

Or maybe she wasn't acting. Maybe she actually is a pathetic aging liberal from commie country/state who really is that way.

But back to your question which was:
"Anyone ever remember a (sic) elected Democratic official acting like such a pathetic obsequious sycophant because an entertainer called them out?"

And the answer is Nancy of course, Al Franken who is about to be elected, Barney Frank and of course Ted Kennedy. Alan Colmes comes to mind as does the Cafferty dude on CNN - not elected you say? Well yes they were by their networks. And soon to join the club is every other Dem that Ann Coulter calls out (yes she is an entertainer). Oh yea, add that Obama guy who is running so scared of Rush that he has to call him out by name when addressing Congress - that is really pathetic.

You didn't hear Bush do the same with the most popular liberal entertainer on radio during his administration - what was that entertainer's name again? Anyone have a clue?

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 11:38pm.

Give me the context. When did Nancy Pelosi ever bow down and suck up to an entertainer on the radio or anywhere else? When did Al Franken? When did Barney Frank or Ted Kennedy? Never. Cite one instance. Rush snapped his fingers and Gingrey groveled like a neutered puppy whimpering to please his owner.

Alan Colmes? Claiming Colmes and Cafferty were “elected” by their networks so that you can drag them into an argument about elected officials is just silly on the face of it and demonstrates the weakness of your argument. You couldn't find a real example of a Democratic elected official acting in such a spineless manner as Gingrey when criticized so you're claiming somehow that FOX “elected" Alan Colmes. Man, that's thin, thin, thin.

And Ann Coulter? Sorry, I don't get the relevance. You're position is that every Dem that Coulter calls out is going to what(?) bow down and slither over to kiss her butt and beg forgiveness? Earth to Robert. It ain't gonna happen.

Sorry, you've lost it on this one. The only thing that made sense was your correction of my using the “a” instead on an “an”.

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 9:24am.

"I also hope that Obama fails in his attempt to socialize our society"

Wbu: Question. When should we put the kabbash on Medicaid, medicare, and begin terminating social security benefits? Lead the way! Let's start billing those senior citizens NOW! Let's get those pesky foster kids out into the street! Fire sale on nursing home furniture!

Oh, and only conservatives with some strange religious view of politics call President Obama words like Messiah. The rest of the world just calls him President Obama.

Robert W. Morgan's picture
Submitted by Robert W. Morgan on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 8:10am.

If you listen carefully to Rush he said if Obama is committed to socialism, yes he hopes he fails. So do I. So does any thinking American.

The good news is that Obama's haste in pushing the huge spending bill this week and pretending it is a stimulus package is that we now have a very long time before his mid=term Congressional election heats up - summer of 2010 is when Republicans can point to the "Failed policies of Barak Obama and Nancy Pelosi" and take over just like they did in 1994.

Of course they could screw it up by doing not much with their new power like they did in the late 1990's, but that's another story.

Submitted by skyspy on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 8:49am.

Socialism has been a stunning failure since the begining of the world. It has never worked. It is simple math. 20% of hardworking people can not and should not try to support the 80% who want to sit around scratching themselves. It is simple math we can't support everyone. There really is no free lunch in life. Someone always has to pay.

Submitted by AtHomeGym on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 9:50pm.

Of course there is a free lunch---you find it in a mousetrap!

Robert W. Morgan's picture
Submitted by Robert W. Morgan on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 9:36am.

You are correct, 20% supporting 80% is questionable at best, but factor in what you said about Geithner the tax cheat - for now you and I are part of the 20% and if we can pick our payment like the new Treasury Secretary did, how are we going to support the layabouts? They need money now! We need to be compassionate and pay all of our fair share. We have responsibility - we are supporting at least 4 people who choose not to work plus another 4 who have been laid off (probably because of the failed policies of George Bush).

What responsibility. I have to go to work and earn some extra money for my "dependents"

Submitted by skyspy on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 10:39am.

I'm not feeling compassionate. I feel like keeping all of the money I work hard for. I know the welfare people and the illegals are counting on us to be stupid and keep working hard, I just don't care about them.

If people who do feel compassionate would work harder or work at all, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. Geither is my new HERO!!!

I will follow our new democratic example.

Theme song for the day:

I don't want to work I just want to bang on the drum all day....

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 8:10pm.

You know I love you, but this is the fundamental difference in conservative thinking and liberal thinking:

"I'm not feeling compassionate. I feel like keeping all of the money I work hard for. I know the welfare people and the illegals are counting on us to be stupid and keep working hard, I just don't care about them."

Sky, I know that if I starve everyone, that will keep anyone from eating for free. I also know that there are those among us who can not do it alone; for whatever reason. I would rather see the elderly, in firm, young and parentless, and the single parents who can't make ends meet be taken care of; even if some cling-ons get over. I don't see medicaid, medicare, SCHIP, WIC, SS, or any other social program going bankrupt or disappearing. They keep too many valuable human lives going.

Your heart bleeding yet?

Submitted by skyspy on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 11:55pm.

We do have different beliefs, but I do love you as a friend. That will never change.

Out of all of our welfare programs the ones we give to illegals gall me the most. Pelosi, a few months ago said that she wanted to give social security to illegals?? She wasn't the only one, many members of congress on both sides said they agreed? HUH?

My parents and your parents and all of the senior citizens who have paid into SS are the only ones who deserve to draw from it.!!

Social security will have run out by the time you and I will be old enough to collect. Now picture the SS program if the money was given to each LEGAL citizen of the USA and they invested the SS money into a 401k account in their name. The government wouldn't be able to use the money for their "sweetheart" deals. The wouldn't be able to use it because the money, that was deducted from OUR paychecks would already be in OUR accounts.

Anyway no code blue at the Sky house yet. I want my money and I want to keep all of it.

I don't want to work, I just want to bang on the drum all day......

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 12:06am.

This is a bipartisan outrage. It was the Bush administration that tried to hide it for three years fighting TREA's lawsuit:


You did credit both sides with it but it's not just a Pelosi thing.

Submitted by skyspy on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 7:29am.

The statment that really set me off was the quote from Pelosi saying that she wanted to give the illegals our SS so they could live fulfilling lives or live the American dream. Huh?

If they want to live the American dream they can come here legally, like my grandparents did and pay taxes like the rest of us.

Like I said BOTH sides are responsible for this. I jacked up our own congressman who I think at the time voted for it. Now I can't remember which one it was. I just remember sending a scathing e-mail.

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 10:32am.

I have said it once and I will say it again..
When I have to work and pay the Goverment more then half my pay to support these welfare programs/illegals then I am going to disconnect from the grid.. move to mountains and start hunting and growing my own veg..They can go somewhere else for the money.. I have just about had it... and Jeff yes it started in the Bush years.. 1 of the reasons I broke from him was over the amnesty for the illegal issue.
Both partys have sold us down the river and for what.. VOTES.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 7:33am.

They can live the American dream in Central America. Maybe Nancy would be down with that.

Submitted by skyspy on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 7:41am.

I hope that our illustrious politicians on BOTH sides took notice of what happened in ILL yesterday. People are sick of corruption. Hopefully some of our bigger crooks will get the hint. Either that, or they will just be more careful not to get caught.

Have a good day.

Robert W. Morgan's picture
Submitted by Robert W. Morgan on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 5:12pm.

Or maybe that was The Kingsman's version of the song.

Either way I like the song and philosophy.
You are right sky, it is much easier to be a Dem.

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 9:30am.

Medicaid doesn't work?

Medicare is a failure?

Should we start making foster parents pay their own way with kids in state custody? And what do we do with those who can't work? Invalids, nursing home residents, and the infirm? Socialism keeps them alive currently. What do you suggest we do with these burdens to us productive taxpayers?

Submitted by skyspy on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 10:43am.

Espescially when it is being handed out to illegals who have never paid a dime in taxes. That is why medicare/medicade and SS are all bankrupt and will probably run out soon.

There really is no free lunch in life. Someone always has to pay.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.