News-Record.com

Such a delicate flower you are. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, but not only do both political parties do this, all fundraising organizations do this. No matter what the situation is with civil liberties, the ACLU finds some outrage to rally its base. No matter how good things are for Christians, evangelical groups find outrages that rally their base.

And do you doubt that the Republicans employed similar tactics a few years ago when it seemed that the world was their oyster?

I'm not saying it's okay or that it isn't weak, but you might as well be reporting another instance of a dog biting a man.

News flash! Political parties act partisan!

Besides, there's another way to read this. If the Democrats are demonizing a radio personality, it might mean that there's no one else to worry about. That is, it might be a sign of how strong the Dems are right now. But don't worry--that'll change.

Tony Snow, does that name ring a bell? Do not recall liberal reports, speaking out against what fellow liberals said about him, at time of his time of death.

Rush Limbaugh is the strongest conservative voice on the radio - there's no disputing that. I see this as another attempt by the lefties to silence the conservative talk that dominates the airwaves. They ARE afraid, and they should be. Given what the Democrats have done to this country's future in just 50 days is astounding. I think they'll all have a tougher battle when it comes to being sent back to Washington next time around.

I don't particularly appreciate the Rush Limbaugh program - but I sure hope he succeeds in his efforts to get the word out there - and that Obama's policies do in fact fail.

Lastly - the words Limbaugh speaks that are found so offensive are more often than not taken out of context, or twisted. I've seen it in this very paper...in particular, by Leonard Pitts in his most recent blurb about Limbaugh. I read his editorial - then I listened to the youtube video...Mr. Pitts twisted the words to change the tone of what was said between Steele and Limbaugh.

Andrew, sure both parties do this. But I'd like to see an example to match this intense spate of attacks on Limbaugh and the hysterical claim that he controls every Republican senator.

2cents, thanks for your comments. I agree that Pitts spins the facts sometimes to support his pre-existing opinions.

I wouldn't plead totally innocent to that charge myself. It's an occupational hazard.

This just sent to me by a reader ...

Camille Paglia in Salon.com:

"President Obama -- in whom I still have great hope and confidence -- has been ill-served by his advisors and staff. Yes, they have all been blindsided and overwhelmed by the crushing demands of the presidency. But I continue to believe in citizen presidents, who must learn by doing, even in a perilous age of terrorism. Though every novice administration makes blunders and bloopers, its modus operandi should not be a conspiratorial reflex cynicism.

"Case in point: The orchestrated attack on radio host Rush Limbaugh, which has made the White House look like an oafish bunch of drunken frat boys. I returned from carnival in Brazil (more on that shortly) to find the Limbaugh affair in full flower. Has the administration gone mad? This entire fracas was set off by the president himself, who lowered his office by targeting a private citizen by name. Limbaugh had every right to counterattack, which he did with gusto. Why have so many Democrats abandoned the hallowed principle of free speech? Limbaugh, like our own liberal culture hero Lenny Bruce, is a professional commentator who can be as rude and crude as he wants."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/03/11/mercury/index.html

I think the Limbaugh move is political gold. The Republicans seem to be constantly groveling to him, and the more they are connected to him, the worse they look and the more support they'll lose. Limbaugh is an extraordinarily offensive person. Perhaps he's taken out of context sometimes, but how do you take out of context his accusation that Michael J Fox was faking Parkinson's symptoms, to name just one example?

"As we've already seen, some Republican senators -- Specter, Collins and Snow, for example -- are willing to support the president when they agree with him."

It speaks volumes about how pathetic a party has become if only a few Republican senators will support the president when they agree with him.

Andrew, plenty of Dems on Capitol Hill will support the president even when they don't agree with him because of party discipline, not to mention the grassroots machine created by the Obama campaign to win support for his agenda. That's politics.

Republican senators, in contrast, likely won't support Obama when they don't agree with him.

Public opinion in this country isn't unanimous. There don't have to be unanimous votes in Congress if there are legitimate differences of opinion.

I joined the Rush-bashing last week, just to have fun.*Doug

That is like being the last Barbarian in a rape plunder raid on a empty English castle!

Hey Andrew, your first error was in saying "I think!" Not that your friends in the left wing media will report this, but many of the Messiah's supporters are blasting his actions thus far. You everh heard of Warren Buffett, Jim Cramer, Jack Welch, Barton Biggs, and the list is growing. Read on Andrew:

Jack Welch up next. He was on MSNBC yesterday with Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, and they had this exchange about President Obama.

WELCH: This guy is locked in another world and he's throwing all these initiatives into this game in the middle of a crisis. Focus on the economy! It's the economy. It's getting the banks going. It's a clear message to everybody, "All hands on deck. We have a crisis. Let's deal with this." Not one day carbon tax, one day take the kids out of the Washington schools. I mean it's -- it's crazy. People need a clear message.

WELCH: I love the guy. I think he's great. I think he's got a beautiful family. I think he's a good man, but these -- you bring up a comment about him, and all of a sudden you're a pariah! You're -- you're not American.

MIKA & SCARBOROUGH: (cackling)

WELCH: You're a bad guy, if you even bring his name up.

SCARBOROUGH: Yeeeeah.

WELCH: My two trust fund daughters, if I bring his name up in anything other than a glorious --

MIKA & SCARBOROUGH: (cackling)

WELCH: They don't have any critical thinking about it at all.

Last night on Charlie Rose on PBS, he interviewed Traxis Partners hedge fund cofounder Barton Biggs, and Rose said to Barton Biggs, "What would you like to see from Washington today?"

BIGGS: I voted for Obama. I'm a fan of Obama. But I think that his tax program has really affected the market, and so I'd like to see him back off from raising the capital gains tax to 20%, the dividend tax to 20% and send a different signal. Don't tax the real entrepreneurial, long-term investment part of the economy. The redistributionist part of his social agenda has bothered the market a lot, and so he ought to step back a little bit from that.

So last night on Mad Money -- that's the title of Cramer's show -- he had this to say about me and Obama.

CRAMER: Rush Limbaugh defended me as a wayward leftist who has seen the light. Hey, I'm thrilled to have allies and defenders. Lord knows I need 'em. But the truth is I actually agree with almost all of Obama's agenda right down to having the rich pay more taxes. I just think it's the wrong time. We need to declare war on unemployment and solve it before it gets out of hand. We need stop house price depreciation. Nothing Obama's done so far will defeat either enemy, and all the initiatives he wants to rush, like the tax hikes, changes in health care, take away the mortgage deduction, I mean good grief, he wants to take away the mortgage deduction right in the midst of the worst housing downturn in history. The tough cap-and-trade rules. Any of these could derail any chance of the economy turning around

CRAMER: I am taking enfilading fire from people I like, people I admire, people I agree with while being defended by, of all people, Rush Limbaugh, the standard-bearer for conservatives, someone who I respect as a radio personality, but whose views are virtually antithetical to my own. How the heck did I get dragged into this mess, becoming the target of the wrath of Obama's fans and the darling, albeit surely momentarily, of his critics?

CRAMER: It's not like my criticism of Obama's handling of the crisis is any more pointed than my criticism of the job the previous Republican administration was doing, or with its pernicious laissez-faire attitude toward Wall Street. So what gives here? The answer, I think, lies in the way the two administrations approach criticism. The Bush administration never questioned their beliefs, therefore never answered to anyone -- not Congress, not the press, certainly not me. They simply chose to ignore my warnings.

CRAMER: I'll take the 50 G's I gave to Rendell back. How about the 20 G's I gave to Spitzer in that first campaign? I want that back. The money I gave to Corzine, I want that back. The Cory Booker money, I want that back. How about the hundred G's I wrote to the party to have a cup of coffee with Clinton? I want that back. I demand it. There should be like some sort of, you know, guarantee, because when they attack you, you should get the money back.

BRZEZINSKI: Ah.

CRAMER: How much -- how much dough I gave to that darn party, I want the money back. No, it's fine. I mean, you look, they want to attack me, they should really -- they should lighten up.

For Andrew Clark, "thinker" here is something else you might want to "think" about before you continue to make a fool of yourself. It concerns your "patriotic" Demo-Rats and how they have ALWAYS behaved. You leftists are truly mentally disturbed. Here it is: From the evil Fox News, another "little" item we never saw in the left wing media!

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."

Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"

The press followed Carville's orders, never reporting his or Greenberg's desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party's top strategists, that Bush should fail.

That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.

"The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed," Carville railed on CNN recently. "He is the daddy of this Republican Congress."

Limbaugh, a staunch conservative, emphasized that he is rooting for the failure of Obama's liberal policies.

"The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country," Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. "I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama's socialist agenda, that hurt my country.

"I deal in principles, not polls," Limbaugh added. "Carville and people like him live and breathe political exploitation. This is all a game to them. It's not a game to me. I am concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation. When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party?"

Carville told Politico that focusing on Limbaugh is a deliberate strategy aimed at undermining Republicans.

"The television cameras just can't stay away from him," he said. "Our strategy depends on him keeping talking, and I think we're going to succeed."

Greenberg added: "He's driving the Republican reluctance to deal with Obama, which Americans want."

In 2006, 51 percent of Democrats wanted Bush to fail, according to a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll.

Andrew you need to get off whatever you're on that is affecting your thought process!

Um, Tony, you addressed all this to me, but did I once criticize Limbaugh's comments about wanting Obama to fail? The answer to that is no, not a single time. Why do you write a huge post to criticize a point I did not make? It's fine if you disagree with people who criticize Rush for making that comment, but I never did. However, in response to what you said, Carville, who I am no fan of, at least had the responsibility to acknowledge that in a time of crisis such attitudes are inappropriate.

In response to your earlier post, am I supposed to be surprised that rich people don't want their taxes raised? I fully expect Warren Buffet and any other rich person to pursue their interests and be against them. That has absolutely no bearing on if they're right or if it's in the interests of the whole country. However, Obama's plan is a tax cut for almost everyone in the country, so one should keep that in mind. You like to call Obama's supporters mindless sycophants and yet here you are gleefully talking about some of his supporters disagreeing with him. I'll let you work out what's wrong with that.

Just as an aside, Cramer is possibly the dumbest guy on the planet, so citing him does your argument no good.

Oh my! GOP Chair Steele said he was sorry to Russ and than today, he calls him and his Republican buddies big fat rats that don''t have hole to hide in!

This gets more funny every day and appears to be replacing that Movie " Mouse Trap" as the most screw up House on the hill.....

GOP chair Steele appears to disparage Republicans on Hill as "scurrying mice"

The Republican civil war continues.

Very weird quote from chairman of the Republican National Committee Michael Steele.
Mr. Steele said he is in stage two of a two-stage process to reform and transform the Republican Party. He won't reveal details, because, "The mice who are scurrying about the Hill are upset because they no longer have access to the cheese, so they don't know what's going on." He says his process has been "insular" because he doesn't want people "pontificating" on his decisions or second-guessing them before they are made."