Limbaugh to Levin: “I’m being Alinsky-ed”

posted at 2:38 pm on January 30, 2009 by Allahpundit

“They are trying to marginalize me,” he insists, which is only half the story. See Ben Smith for the other half, or just eyeball the table he’s posted. The data suggests that Limbaugh’s already been marginalized, which is a hard fact for conservative partisans to swallow but neatly explains why The One and his media accomplices are suddenly so hot to paint GOP stimulus naysayers as doing Rush’s bidding. They need a “villainous” Republican svengali with national name recognition to blame for opposition to the bill (rather than its own astounding crappiness), and right now there’s no one else on the scene. Exit question: If Obama’s the Messiah, does that mean Rush is …? Click the image to listen.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

A “Pork Bill Too Far.”

jukin on January 30, 2009 at 4:23 PM

And even among Republicans, he couldn’t muster enough opposition to deny McCain the nomination.

Allahpundit on January 30, 2009 at 2:47 PM

Is this really the standard you judge him by? If he can’t pick the republican Presidential nominee then he is marginalized? Even when you (should) know he was purposefully staying away from picking someone for the primaries? Isn’t this a bit disingenuous?

Ampersand on January 30, 2009 at 4:24 PM

So what are they so worried about?

I don’t think they are. I think Allah has it right that they’re picking someone to smear us all with, hoping it’ll stick.

Since the MSM has already done such a decent job painting Rush the way they see him that even many Republicans buy it, this could work. Unless the stimulus proves to be as horrible as we know it should.

Esthier on January 30, 2009 at 4:24 PM

Does Ben need the traffic or are you looking for a new gig?

Angry Dumbo on January 30, 2009 at 4:14 PM

ZING!

chunderroad on January 30, 2009 at 4:24 PM

I don’t think they are. I think Allah has it right that they’re picking someone to smear us all with, hoping it’ll stick.

Why? It’s going to pass no matter what. Why don’t they want to own it?

Jim Treacher on January 30, 2009 at 4:25 PM

He doesn’t really seem to realize that terms like “Alinsky-ed” have little to no resonance outside the 20 million or so zombies that listen to him every day.

crr6 on January 30, 2009 at 4:03 PM

But they go, look him up, and others begin to realize that is Obama’s mentor…it is a slow building of information that will envelope Obama, the one thing he can’t afford…people learning, being educated, he relies on people like you who wish to remain uninformed.

right2bright on January 30, 2009 at 4:26 PM

It didn’t do Clinton any good to go after Rush, I don’t see how Obama wins in this, especially since the stimulus plan is already losing popular support.

Rose on January 30, 2009 at 4:27 PM

Why? It’s going to pass no matter what. Why don’t they want to own it?

Jim Treacher on January 30, 2009 at 4:25 PM

Cause they’re not stupid. They get to play it both ways this way. If no Republican votes for it, and it succeeds, they get to tar the GOP with it. If it does badly, they still get to tar the GOP as being unwilling to work on something to help the economy.

Esthier on January 30, 2009 at 4:32 PM

There are certain people on the right — her and Rush, first and foremost — who simply can’t be criticized, even with facts. If the facts are bad, the facts must be wrong. The numbers must be meaningless.

Allahpundit on January 30, 2009 at 2:45 PM

While both Rush and Sarah have areas where they can be fairly criticized–as well as obvious strengths, I hate to say this, Allah, but I think you do have a tendency to let your dislike of these two figures to sometimes get the better of you–and that can be reflected in how you interpret the sources you use. If you view his importance in his ability or lack thereof through the lens of setting the Republican agenda–then yes, he’s not a major player in that–something he will freely concede–nor does he want to be a major player in that way. But, if you view his success through the lens of sparking public debate and focusing attention on an issue–then I’d say that he’s anything but a marginal voice. Bambi miscalculated–by attacking Rush, he gave Limbaugh the opportunity to make it a one-on-one confrontation where Rush could focus the public’s attention on Porkulus–note the rapid drop in public approval of the bill since the beginning of the Bambi-Limbaugh War. This is the sort of thing Rush thrives on–and Bambi walked right into it.

Matt Helm on January 30, 2009 at 4:37 PM

Allah, c’mon. Democracy Corps? Ben Smith? Politico? Proves Rush is marginalized? To whom?

Wishful thinking on their part from a poll taken at the height of “the One’s” ascension.

Why are you buying into this BS, Allah? Because the Politico says they’re “non-partisan”? (chuckle)

ncjetsfan on January 30, 2009 at 4:37 PM

Jim Treacher on January 30, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Big Time. I think that was during the first campaign, so he wasn’t POTUS.

Cindy Munford on January 30, 2009 at 4:38 PM

Another pointless post by Allahpundit.

Not his usual baseless pessimism (see “Oh, no only 7 GOP states left in the country” or “At least 20 GOP House members will defect on Stimulus Bill” classics).

No this one is the vein of being ridiculous (like his assertions that there is no difference between the Huckster and Sarah).

Rush is by far the most powerful media figure in the entire country. Can Allahpundit name a single person in broadcast media (on air) that has more influence in Washington? Didn’t think so.

He is far from being marginalized. In fact, this skirmish with Obama where Rush came out on top showed that his influence and power is greater than ever.

Why would Obama & Co even consider a “Fairness Doctrine” if Rush was already marginalized?

Norwegian on January 30, 2009 at 4:43 PM

He doesn’t really seem to realize that terms like “Alinsky-ed” have little to no resonance outside the 20 million or so zombies that listen to him every day.

crr6 on January 30, 2009 at 4:03 PM

You are such a predictable POS: people are a lot smarter than a cliche-spouting douchebag like you thinks they are, especially the ones who take the time to listen to conservative talk radio

If you were actually smart, you’d avoid repeating the same talking points that you and other Leftards love so much–but you can’t, of course, because you aren’t

Janos Hunyadi on January 30, 2009 at 4:44 PM

This was all just another of idiot boy’s many rookie mistakes; He let his ego get in the way of “acting” presidential and Rush is smart enough to parlay this into several million more listeners. People who never thought they’de listen to conservative talk radio are tuning in to see what it’s all about, and I feel confident in guessing that if Obama keeps up with this bullsh*t stimulous game he’s playing, they won’t tune back out.

anniekc on January 30, 2009 at 4:51 PM

He doesn’t really seem to realize that terms like “Alinsky-ed” have little to no resonance outside the 20 million or so zombies that listen to him every day.

crr6 on January 30, 2009 at 4:03 PM

Snort. Libs are such arrogant idiots.

anniekc on January 30, 2009 at 4:53 PM

As far as Rush not stopping the McCain nomination: he didn’t try, he didn’t support anyone and said so many times.

Engrpat on January 30, 2009 at 4:56 PM

Cause they’re not stupid. They get to play it both ways this way. If no Republican votes for it, and it succeeds, they get to tar the GOP with it. If it does badly, they still get to tar the GOP as being unwilling to work on something to help the economy.

Esthier on January 30, 2009 at 4:32 PM

You’re correct that if Porkulus succeeds without Republican backing, then it probably would result in the destruction of the Republican Party; but you’re incorrect in your second assumption. If Porkulus fails to stimulate the economy–and it will–then the Democrats are stuck with that failure and the GOP–especially if they are on record with having offered an alternative that the Democrats flatly refused to even look at–can use that failure as evidence of Democratic and Bambi incompetence and can say with complete honesty that it was the Democrats that wrecked the economy.

There are times you have to stand on principle to say, “This is where I stand, I can do no other,” and Porkulus is a good place for the Republicans to make that stand.

Matt Helm on January 30, 2009 at 4:57 PM

The Obama jobs bill overwhelmingly passed the House. But not one Republican voted yes. Every Republican member of the House chose to take Rush Limbaugh’s advice. Every Republican voted with Limbaugh. And against creating four million new American jobs.

This is an almost perfect glimpse at the dishonesty of the O’bonehead administation and the liberal Demorats. Just a bunch of stupid lies.

After they get their nuts cut off by the Senate Democrat minority that will undermine this bill, this commercial can be used to strangle Soros, which sounds like a good thing to me.

Jaibones on January 30, 2009 at 4:58 PM

He doesn’t really seem to realize that terms like “Alinsky-ed” have little to no resonance outside the 20 million or so zombies that listen to him every day.

crr6 on January 30, 2009 at 4:03 PM

There was a study during the Presidential election that showed “moderates” tend to take their electoral cues from people around them who have strong views one way or the other. Getting those 20 million Rush listeners to a place where they can embody strong views against the stimulus as well as explain the processes that the Democrats are trying to push forward in marginalizing Limbaugh (“Alinsky-ed”) will perhaps persuade more people to be sympathetic to Rush, assuming their opinions are held strongly, which they probably aren’t, hence their self-identification as “moderates”.

Come on, man, I’m not so stupid as to listen to a commenter like yourself who does not wish me or my tax dollars well. Leftist really are a bunch of “throw that against the wall and see if it sticks” types these days.

venividivici on January 30, 2009 at 5:00 PM

But they go, look him up, and others begin to realize that is Obama’s mentor…it is a slow building of information that will envelope Obama, the one thing he can’t afford…people learning, being educated, he relies on people like you who wish to remain uninformed.

right2bright on January 30, 2009 at 4:26 PM

I guess I should have been more clear with my point, everyone apparently missed because they were too busy patting themselves on the back for knowing who Saul Alinsky is. The point is that the language he uses in general (Alinsky-ed, socialist bla bla bla) isn’t necessarily over people’s heads…it just doesn’t resonate with people unless you’re on the far right. Same as how when the far-left called Bush a fascist the general population saw it for what it was: stupid hyperbole.

crr6 on January 30, 2009 at 5:07 PM

and lemme guess, “Barack the Magic Negro” isn’t racist, either?

Noneya on January 30, 2009 at 3:15 PM

No.

It is the conservative expression of contempt for those white liberals who have poured into Mr. Obama their guilt and longing to atone for the sins of their ancestors, and, by the simple act of that pouring (as you are doing), show just how racist (or, in liberal-speak, non-post-racial) they all still are.

It’s like the lady down the street from me who looked for and eventually found just the right Black person to rent to. She would claim, if she were challenged, that she’s not got a racist bone in her entire body, and that anyone questioning that is a racist themselves.

unclesmrgol on January 30, 2009 at 5:08 PM

Which is 1/10th of the population. And even among Republicans, he couldn’t muster enough opposition to deny McCain the nomination.

Allahpundit on January 30, 2009 at 2:47 PM

And what evidence do you point to which suggests he tried to “deny McCain the nomination”?

Jaibones on January 30, 2009 at 5:10 PM

Same as how when the far-left called Bush a fascist the general population saw it for what it was: stupid hyperbole.

crr6 on January 30, 2009 at 5:07 PM

Problem with that analogy is that Obama has made mention of how Alinsky was an inspiration of his, as well as his mentioning of the many other socialist and post-socialist authors he was so enamored of in college, as well as his career choice of “community organizer”, which is straight out of Alinsky. Other than the tenuous connection of Prescott Bush to the Nazis, Bush never said that Mussolini or Hitler or anyone else we’d associate with fascism was his inspiration.

See, throw something against the wall and see if people are stupid enough to buy it.

venividivici on January 30, 2009 at 5:12 PM

While I don’t believe in blindly following Rush to the end of the Earth, I have to say that Allah’s comments on this thread have been pretty bone-headed.

Rush never campaigned for anybody – he expressed his opinion and that’s that, so to say that he somehow “failed” to defeat McCain in the primary is ludicrous given that he never tried. If anything it’s a testament to how Rush’s audience does indeed think for itself – even though they know that Rush disliked the man they still nominated him because they thought he had the best chance of winning coming off of an unpopular incumbent administration.

And I expect most of the country to dislike Rush, frankly – most of the people in that focus group have probably never listened to the man and only know of him as some sort of pill-popping, smug, fat, Donovan McNabb hating, bigot anti-Christ. Moreover, anyone who has listened to him often enough knows that Rush’s smugness and pompousness is an act meant to parody the media establishment’s self-seriousness, but that’s a fact lost on a large number of moderates and even some conservatives.

Somebody buy Allah a “jump to conclusions” mat please.

Tacitus_SGL on January 30, 2009 at 5:15 PM

The funniest thing is that anybody believes Rush has anything worthwhile to say.

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 5:22 PM

The funniest thing is that anybody believes Rush has anything worthwhile to say.

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 5:22 PM

Yep, that’s why he got a 400 million dollar contract….

rockmom on January 30, 2009 at 5:30 PM

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 5:22 PM</blockquote

I am pretty sure the president things people are listening. And worried enough to comment on it.

Cindy Munford on January 30, 2009 at 5:32 PM

The funniest thing is that anybody believes Rush has anything worthwhile to say.

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 5:22 PM

Well, you convinced me with that brilliant analysis.

Rush generally stands for individual liberty, low taxes, free markets and strong defense. Are you saying none of those are worthwhile things? On what planet? Planet Human Ant-farm, because that’s essentially what the alternatives to those things would create, a giant ant-farm, only instead of ants, with people. I realize that most people of all races come from former slaves, serfs and indentured servants (think about how few aristocrats there were back in the days before democracy and how few ancestors of theirs survive today), but do we really need to go back to those days, only with slick-talking wanna-be aristocrats like BO and his coterie in charge, “for the public good”? Have some backbone and be a free man for once in your life.

venividivici on January 30, 2009 at 5:33 PM

They fear him [Rush].

dogsoldier on January 30, 2009 at 2:48 PM

No, they don’t. Why would they? The people who listen to Rush didn’t vote for the Democrats, and they aren’t going to vote for the Democrats. Consequently, Rush has no leverage over the Democrats.

What’s more, the Democrats have won two decisive victories despite Limbaugh’s opposition. If anything, I suspect the Democrats enjoy having a fat, pasty, drug-addled bogeyman to demonize.

paul006 on January 30, 2009 at 5:40 PM

Rush “stands for” whatever inflammatory right wing rhetoric will get him the most publicity. I suppose conservatives need a male version of Ann Coulter.

Everybody is in favor of all the things you mention, we just differ in opinion on how they are to be achieved. Nothing I’ve seen from Rush either informs or enlightens.

Yeah, I know you hate that Obama speaks well, but most of us enjoy having a president that doesn’t trip all over himself mentally and linguistically.

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 5:43 PM

He doesn’t really seem to realize that terms like “Alinsky-ed” have little to no resonance outside the 20 million or so zombies that listen to him every day.

crr6 on January 30, 2009 at 4:03 PM

That is quite an army of undead.

bitsy on January 30, 2009 at 5:45 PM

AP- I think sometimes when you try to stir the pot for conversation you look a little silly. I’ll take that 30 million for marginalization. And like any good liberal you know how to cook the numbers. 30 Mil. may be 1/10 of the population but when you consider that 122 mil. voted in the last election that percentage is now 1/4. Not bad for being marginalized.

Bic on January 30, 2009 at 5:46 PM

Exit-exit question – who has the larger zombie army, Obama or Rush?

bitsy on January 30, 2009 at 5:49 PM

paul006 on January 30, 2009 at 5:40 PM

They fear that he will motivate the Right to get off their dead hindquarters. Evidence that it is working came with the House vote, hopefully more to come in the Senate. Scared might be too strong of a word but if they didn’t care The One would not have mentioned him.

Cindy Munford on January 30, 2009 at 5:51 PM

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 5:43 PM

Wow, he can talk. Such a talent. All we need in a POTUS.

Cindy Munford on January 30, 2009 at 5:53 PM

Yep, that’s why he got a 400 million dollar contract….

Heh. I never said he wasn’t popular. I suppose you subscribe to the Stephen Colbert philosophy that “the market has spoken”… he must be correct!

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 5:58 PM

Everybody is in favor of all the things you mention, we just differ in opinion on how they are to be achieved.

Really, you can “achieve” individual liberty, low taxes, free markets and strong defense by implementing speech codes and tightening restrictions on gun ownership, raising taxes, inserting government into market functions and cutting defense spending (ceteris paribus of course, not just “spending smarter”, which is possible but not the point I’m making. See, I know Latin just like Barack Obama. Look at how well I can speak!)?

My IQ is 170, OK, which doesn’t mean I don’t make mistakes, but I’m not some yokel or political theory neophyte. I’ve got multiple Master’s degrees and turned down a full ride to Harvard for a Ph.D. to do something that has actually worked out better for me than a Harvard Ph.D. would ever have. I’m well aware of the meaning of words and how some words have enough abstraction inherent in them to allow varying interpretations of how they are to be achieved, but you are straining that concept to the edge of “1984-esque” doublespeak by saying you support those things while simultaneously supporting leftist policies that contradict the achievement of those ends, then hides behind the dodge that “everyone supports those things, we just think differently on how to achieve them”. I’m making an assumption in that last statement, but anyone who says Rush has “nothing worthwhile to say” probably isn’t a big supporter of a flat tax.

Any more brilliant observations you want to share?

venividivici on January 30, 2009 at 5:59 PM

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 5:58 PM

See! And I thought we disagreed.

Cindy Munford on January 30, 2009 at 6:07 PM

I’m not a Rush fan. However, it’s weird how the left picks ONE person and uses them as a punching bag. I’ve been hearing Rush’s name a lot now. It’s like all of sudden everyone in the media gets the same talking points from somewhere. Organized faux outrage. It’s actually kind of scary!

terryannonline on January 30, 2009 at 6:10 PM

Yeah, I know you hate that Obama speaks well, but most of us enjoy having a president that doesn’t trip all over himself mentally and linguistically.

here

and here

and oh baby… here

RalphyBoy on January 30, 2009 at 6:13 PM

I’m not a Rush fan. However, it’s weird how the left picks ONE person and uses them as a punching bag.

Hey, give us a break. We don’t have Bush Jr. to kick around anymore, except to blame for the current disaster we’re in. But you can only do that for so long.

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 6:15 PM

Organized faux outrage. It’s actually kind of scary!

terryannonline on January 30, 2009 at 6:10 PM

It’s the oldest political trick in the book. Make you think you’re isolated and that your passion isn’t as strong as your opponent’s. It’s like virility displays among primates.

venividivici on January 30, 2009 at 6:17 PM

RalphyBoy on January 30, 2009 at 6:13 PM

Three is all you’ve got? You want to compare that to all Bush’s flubs and misstatements? Really? Please.

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 6:18 PM

Count me with Rush.

I. Hope. He. Fails. Miserably. Colossally. On The Biggest. Scale. Ever.

The One is a socialist, a Marxist who if He and His radical socialist agenda succeed will destroy this country forever.

Whatever is necessary to prevent Him from succeeding must be done.

pdigaudio on January 30, 2009 at 6:22 PM

“And even among Republicans, he couldn’t muster enough opposition to deny McCain the nomination.”

Allah, are you really this stupid?

The Republican Party has open primaries. All it took was enough Dems to cross over to get the RINO they figured they could beat. Add in the way the MSM refused to cover any other Republican favorably and that’s all she wrote.

SDN on January 30, 2009 at 6:27 PM

The funniest thing is that anybody believes Rush has I have anything worthwhile to say.

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 5:22 PM

fixed.

ExTex on January 30, 2009 at 6:30 PM

Three is all you’ve got? You want to compare that to all Bush’s flubs and misstatements? Really? Please.

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 6:18 PM

Dude… that took like three minutes to put up here, and the One has only been national news at that level of speaking for a while. Give him time to ripen.
-
What I’m really afraid of are his BIG mistakes, like messin with Rush. Who knows where that could lead???

RalphyBoy on January 30, 2009 at 6:32 PM

The funniestobvious thing is that anybody believes Rush has I have anythingnothing worthwhile to say.

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 5:22 PM

You could fix it that way, too.

venividivici on January 30, 2009 at 6:33 PM

ExTex on January 30, 2009 at 6:30 PM
venividivici on January 30, 2009 at 6:33 PM

The whole “fixing” things is so clever and original… if you’re living in 2005. Really hack.

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 6:37 PM

The whole “fixing” things is so clever and original… if you’re living in 2005. Really hack.

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 6:37 PM

I guess if I’m living in 2005, it’ll take you 25+ years to catch up, Mr. Still Living In The Era Before The Empirical Experience Of Stagflation Undercut All The Assumptions Of Democratic “Pump-Priming” Intervention A La Obamanomics.

Talk about hack.

venividivici on January 30, 2009 at 6:40 PM

Hey, give us a break. We don’t have Bush Jr. to kick around anymore, except to blame for the current disaster we’re in. But you can only do that for so long.

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 6:15 PM

You do realize that the irony here is that this current economic mess is not completely Bush’s fault–that your lot is mostly responsible for this mess to begin with: Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Democratic Pork Train rolls on. Now, yes, Republicans from 2002 through 2006 did partake in the feeding frenzy and corruption, and Bush didn’t do enough to curb it, but to put it all on Bush is typical disingenuous leftist tactics.

The left’s tactics: Isolate a target and pour on the bile. Create a stampede mentality amongst the general population–do not give the people enough time to think about the issue or individual in question. Keep the emotional heat up. Intimidate opposition into silence. In other words, bully behavior.

And we all know the best way to deal with a bully…

Matt Helm on January 30, 2009 at 6:42 PM

Here
Since you asked though… Really dumb shit that the mess-i-ah..um-uh has said. This One is good.

RalphyBoy on January 30, 2009 at 6:43 PM

Oh… h-e-double toothpicks… one more.

here

RalphyBoy on January 30, 2009 at 6:49 PM

Hey RalphyBoy, those are great, I bookmarked all of em.
Watching him speak is like watching a crowd at a tennis match. Watch how his head goes back and forth between teleprompters, and NEVER straight ahead or any other directions. It’s totally distracting.

redshirt on January 30, 2009 at 6:57 PM

Mr. Still Living In The Era Before The Empirical Experience Of Stagflation Undercut All The Assumptions Of Democratic “Pump-Priming” Intervention A La Obamanomics.

Stagflation? Wrong era. Reagan’s reign taught us that deregulation, slashing social spending and huge gifts to corporate America weren’t the solution, and he ended his two terms with a huge deficit. Sound familiar? Conservatives are still chanting the mantra of tax cuts, even though they disproportionately benefit the wealthy and hello, have proven to do nothing to stimulate the economy.

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 7:00 PM

redshirt on January 30, 2009 at 6:57 PM

Yeah… Hes very artikulate, for a telepromperer addict.

RalphyBoy on January 30, 2009 at 7:08 PM

Stagflation? Wrong era. Reagan’s reign taught us that deregulation, slashing social spending and huge gifts to corporate America weren’t the solution, and he ended his two terms with a huge deficit. Sound familiar? Conservatives are still chanting the mantra of tax cuts, even though they disproportionately benefit the wealthy and hello, have proven to do nothing to stimulate the economy.

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 7:00 PM

OK, that clearly went over your head, unsurprisingly. Stagflation occurred in the era before Reagan became President and showed that, in fact, contrary to Keynesian theory, you could have high inflation and high unemployment. Obama’s plan is straight out of those times, so in fact his is the regressive philosophy.

I wish Reagan had vetoed more spending, that’s true (although then we would have heard even more howls of protest from the parasite class), but, in case you forgot, Presidents don’t originate spending bills, that’s Congress’ job and Congress was, for about 90% of the time Reagan was in office, under a Democratic majority.

You don’t benefit as much from tax cuts as I do because I make more money than you and pay more in. I know liberals are bad at math, but are they really that bad at it?

You might want to contact Christine Romer, Obama’s head of the CEA because she just finished a draft of a research paper showing the multiplier for GDP is higher from tax cuts than any other fiscal action the government can take.

I’ll give you leftists one thing, you’re just as tenacious as Muslims in your willingness to remain ignorant slaves to some imaginary god, Allah for them and the government for you.

venividivici on January 30, 2009 at 7:08 PM

Screw the polls! Speak the truth and never stop promoting the truth. I’ll let the media figureheads play their poll numbers games.

AP, You work for Michelle. I’ll wager that the negative press that she receives from her work does or would result in worse numbers than the Rush poll numbers you cite. But Michelle speaks the truth and I’ll support her work. Same with Rush.

MoCoM on January 30, 2009 at 7:11 PM

parasite class

venividivici on January 30, 2009 at 7:08 PM

Hot damn… I know some of those.

RalphyBoy on January 30, 2009 at 7:12 PM

I wish Reagan had vetoed more spending, that’s true (although then we would have heard even more howls of protest from the parasite class), but, in case you forgot, Presidents don’t originate spending bills, that’s Congress’ job and Congress was, for about 90% of the time Reagan was in office, under a Democratic majority.

Partly, I think this is selective amnesia on the part of libbies, partly, I think it’s because at heart, they’re supporters of the “enlightened despot” mode of government–with someone reflecting their philosophy as the enlightened ruler and themselves as the enlightened aristocracy, of course. As someone who lived and worked during the Reagan years, I know for a fact that Reagan did want to veto more spending, but he really didn’t have a choice. As you correctly pointed out, the Democrats controlled Congress and Reagan really did get the best he could out of that body–budgets have to be passed and the government has to function.

Matt Helm on January 30, 2009 at 7:18 PM

They need a “villainous” Republican svengali with national name recognition to blame…

Where’s Karl Rove when you need him? Dick Cheney?

Hmm, yeah, they do need a replacement “bad guy” don’t they?

gekkobear on January 30, 2009 at 7:19 PM

Stagflation occurred in the era before Reagan became President and showed that, in fact, contrary to Keynesian theory, you could have high inflation and high unemployment. Obama’s plan is straight out of those times, so in fact his is the regressive philosophy.

My point being this is not the 1970′s. As far as the tax cut math, what you don’t seem to understand is 1) you’re not going to stimulate growth by giving tax cuts to people who don’t need it, and 2) wealth is not created solely by those who have it. You may have come up with a great idea for a product and done well in the marketplace, but you didn’t do it alone. You’d be nowhere without employees, utilities, an infrastructure and of course, customers. The current tax system recognizes this, but of course when the money flows in the opposite direction it goes to those who need it least.

And yeah, thank goodness Reagan had a Democratic congress, or we may still be feeling the repercussions of a protracted war (again, sound familiar?) that he so desperately had a hard-on for in Central America, denied him by the legislative branch. Hence the Iran-Contra affair.

I’ll give you leftists one thing, you’re just as tenacious as Muslims in your willingness to remain ignorant slaves to some imaginary god, Allah for them and the government for you.

Just. Wow.

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 7:22 PM

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 7:00 PM….

Stagflation was pretty much a late ’70′s thing…oh my, that was the Carter years, who knew…

t on January 30, 2009 at 7:27 PM

You may have come up with a great idea for a product and done well in the marketplace, but you didn’t do it alone. You’d be nowhere without employees, utilities, an infrastructure and of course, customers. Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 7:22 PM

And if my taxes are so high, the minimum wage is so high, and regulations are such that it makes it too expensive for me to run my business, then I’m closing shop, laying off what employees I’m still able to afford, taking what money I do have, and I’m moving to another place or country where I can do business. Suspend capital gains for a year, cut the corporate tax rate to about 15% or so–which puts it about on par with the rest of the world–including your socialist paradises, then watch our economy pick back up again.

Or…you can bloat the budget with useless social programs, print more money and even more money, watch inflation go up into double digits as unemployment also goes into double digits and you’ll have the socialist paradise you’ve always wanted–congratulations–me–I’ll take true freedom any day.

Matt Helm on January 30, 2009 at 7:31 PM

Carville doesn’t have much dog left in skewing numbers anymore. He’s become a fairly respectable political analyst.

MadisonConservative on January 30, 2009 at 2:55 PM

Carville is on a conference call with the White House and the major networks and outlets every morning helping craft a message. This will be four years of the campaign, and we have all observed how Obama works.

chunderroad on January 30, 2009 at 7:57 PM

My point being this is not the 1970’s.

I know, it’s actually a less propitious time to pursue Keynesian stimulus because we’re further into debt than in the 70′s. Thank you for pointing out that Obama’s actually failed to learn two, not just one, lesson from the 70′s.

As far as the tax cut math, what you don’t seem to understand is 1) you’re not going to stimulate growth by giving tax cuts to people who don’t need it, and 2) wealth is not created solely by those who have it.

This is just raw stupidity. First of all, who are YOU to decide how much money I need? Seriously, of all the nerve. Do I tell you how much stupid crap you have to spew on Hot Air? No, you spew as much as feels right to your little pea brain.

Secondly, there are these things called “markets” that connect people with ideas and people with capital. You should check them out. They do all of that magical stuff you talk about like creating wealth, only cheaper and more efficiently than applying for a grant from the Bureau of Entrepreneurial Political Economy at the Department of Labor Region Seven Headquarters.

You may have come up with a great idea for a product and done well in the marketplace, but you didn’t do it alone. You’d be nowhere without employees, utilities, an infrastructure and of course, customers. The current tax system recognizes this, but of course when the money flows in the opposite direction it goes to those who need it least.

The “need” for money again. Have you ever heard of something called the “bequest motive”? Did you ever stop to think, gee, maybe some of those rich people want to give their money to their own kin, rather than to some stranger (let’s call him “Constantine”) who just happens to share a geo-political landmass with them? Secondly, whereas you seem to think rich people live like Scrooge McDuck, hoarding their money in vaults in the backyard so they can take baths in it and toss their little nephews around, in actuality they invest it in those things called “markets”, which I already explained above.

And yeah, thank goodness Reagan had a Democratic congress, or we may still be feeling the repercussions of a protracted war (again, sound familiar?) that he so desperately had a hard-on for in Central America, denied him by the legislative branch. Hence the Iran-Contra affair.

Yeah, and now we get to deal with the mess, aka Chavez and the other Latin looney left so beloved by Bill Ayers.

I’ll give you leftists one thing, you’re just as tenacious as Muslims in your willingness to remain ignorant slaves to some imaginary god, Allah for them and the government for you.

Just. Wow.

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 7:22 PM

Is that the “Just. Wow.” of, hey this guy’s got me pegged and he doesn’t even know me or the “Just. Wow.” of, damn, I got no comeback. I guess it would be too hopeful of me for it to be the “Just. Wow.” of, this guy’s right, I’m gonna stop being an ignoramus.

Don’t really care anyway.

Run along and go worship Obama now little boy. I think I hear the muezzin. Make sure you bend over real nice for him.

venividivici on January 30, 2009 at 8:21 PM

Yeah, I know you hate that Obama speaks well, but most of us enjoy having a president that doesn’t trip all over himself mentally and linguistically.

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 5:43 PM

That’s the problem. Morons like you are more concerned with how well he speaks than you are over what he actually says, and worse, does.

Meanwhile, I bet you’re a used-car salesman’s wet dream: “Sir, you talk so well, how can I not pay you $4,000 more than the car is worth…and throw in the environmental protection package too. $400 bucks for a wax job is a steal. And make it fast, the vacuum cleaner salesmen is coming by today, and he needs just one more sale to win a trip to the Bahamas.”

Moron, lol…..

xblade on January 30, 2009 at 8:32 PM

Matt Helm on January 30, 2009 at 7:18 PM

I remember the Reagan years pretty well, too. He could have done wonders with the Gingrich-led Congress of the mid-90′s instead of that Dan Rostenkowski/Tip O’Neill hog-fest.

The conservative idea of “distributed power” does seem the opposite of the centralizing, “enlightened despot”, tendencies of leftists. Centralization was a reasonable policy in the era of mass markets, but in the age of micro markets and mass customization, centralization is yesterday’s news. The GOP could also take that more to heart.

venividivici on January 30, 2009 at 8:32 PM

I’ll give you leftists one thing, you’re just as tenacious as Muslims in your willingness to remain ignorant slaves to some imaginary god, Allah for them…”
venividivici on January 30, 2009 at 7:08 PM

The God of Islam is the same God worshipped by Christians and Jews, but with different prophets and a different tradition.

This is just a drop in your torrent of stupid. I’m not really interested in taking time to rebut it all, just the most offensive part.

Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 8:56 PM

He doesn’t really seem to realize that terms like “Alinsky-ed” have little to no resonance outside the 20 million or so zombies that listen to him every day.

crr6 on January 30, 2009 at 4:03 PM

crrr6: Do you think that SoS Hillary Clinton knows what Rush means by being “Alinsky-ed” ? And is she a zombie too?

Red State State of Mind on January 30, 2009 at 9:10 PM

The God of Islam is the same God worshipped by Christians and Jews, but with different prophets and a different tradition.
This is just a drop in your torrent of stupid. I’m not really interested in taking time to rebut it all, just the most offensive part.
Constantine on January 30, 2009 at 8:56 PM

So “Just. Wow.” Is your idea of a rebuttal then? Pure genius. You’re a regular theologian, aren’t you?

The gods of those two traditions have some overlapping characteristics (all of which were stolen by Muslims from the Jews and, to a lesser extent, Christians), but they are not the same. Just one example of many, the Christian god wants you to love Him (among other things), whereas the Muslim god wants you to obey him and that’s that. If we were talking about two human beings, we’d never say that someone who wants you to love him and someone who wants you to obey him are the same kind of person. Again, you don’t have the slightest clue what you’re talking about.

Try a Wittgensteinian experiment and imagine a Martian coming down to Earth and reading the Koran, then reading the Bible. Do you think that Martian, if asked, would say they were about the same god (assuming the concept of god had been explained to the Martian)? I didn’t think so. No more than a Martian reading a myth about Ares and a myth about Hephaestus would say they are the same god. Just because some Muslim tells you they’re the same god to try and give their political cult a veneer of respectability among decent people doesn’t mean you have to take it at face value, you know.

You should stop now before you lower my opinion of leftists’ intelligence even further. You haven’t rebutted a single thing I’ve said, despite what appear to be your best efforts and I’m not even trying very hard over here to rebut you, it’s just coming naturally.

venividivici on January 30, 2009 at 9:38 PM

Yeah, just like all the polls showing Palin is a polarizing figure. Conservatives love her. Everyone else must, too.

There are certain people on the right — her and Rush, first and foremost — who simply can’t be criticized, even with facts. If the facts are bad, the facts must be wrong. The numbers must be meaningless.

Allahpundit on January 30, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Allah…I haven’t read the thread, and I’m sure someone has made my points, but I feel I must make them if for no other reason than for emphasis.

The Democracy Corps survey is Carville’s outfit, the survey was made November 4 – 5, and McCain is the one who appears to make us feel all warm and fuzzy.

In short, I don’t believe any of it, especially the McCain part, one bit. In fact, any survey that would conclude that McCain is our favorite is suspect, to say the least.

kakypat on January 30, 2009 at 9:50 PM

Cause they’re not stupid. They get to play it both ways this way. If no Republican votes for it, and it succeeds, they get to tar the GOP with it. If it does badly, they still get to tar the GOP as being unwilling to work on something to help the economy.

If it goes badly, the GOP will have been right. If the Dems are so confident in this bill, I don’t see why they can’t abide a second opinion.

Jim Treacher on January 30, 2009 at 9:51 PM

WoW . . . Some of you sure use a lot of words to say nothing.

Unfriggin real. . .

Texyank on January 30, 2009 at 11:19 PM

A man with 15-20 million listeners a week is marginalized?? Please. He’s the most power media personality in this country. Quit drinking the Democrat kool aid.

therightwinger on January 31, 2009 at 1:16 AM

Yeah, I know you hate that Obama speaks well, but most of us enjoy having a president that doesn’t trip all over himself mentally and linguistically.

Which is practically irrelevant when one is lying through his teeth. You are ignoring his uh uh uh uhs when he isn’t with a script or in front of a teleprompter. The boy is in way over his head.

You aren’t listening to What he’s really saying. You only care How he says it.

starman on January 31, 2009 at 1:46 AM

Utterly lame analysis of the Rush/Obama War. This little scrap will only bring Rush more listeners and make Obama look like an idiot as he tries to spar with him. Look how badly he humiliated Harry Reid, AP. He’s going to do the same to Obama, trust me.

Now stop being such a freaking pessimist all the time!

R. Waher on January 31, 2009 at 5:03 AM

Yeah, I know you hate that Obama speaks well, but most of us enjoy having a president that doesn’t trip all over himself mentally and linguistically.

Wasn’t one the Democrat’s criticisms of Reagan that he was just an actor and that had trained him to speak well?

Reagan could speak well without a teleprompter.

schmuck281 on January 31, 2009 at 6:08 AM

Look how badly he humiliated Harry Reid, AP. He’s going to do the same to Obama, trust me.

One of the reasons I think Rush will be able to do this is because he has a finely honed sense of the absurd, and a great sense of humor. I think both of those traits have been bred out of progressives/leftists/Dems. When you can make somebody laugh at your opponent, you know you’re winning.

And I have to agree with somebody who earlier chided AP for taking the numbers from Democracy Corps at face value. Always look at who’s behind the source of any statistics, Allah.

Lurking Vet on January 31, 2009 at 8:49 AM

and lemme guess, “Barack the Magic Negro” isn’t racist, either?

Noneya on January 30, 2009 at 3:15 PM

That is correct, unless you believe the originator of the article at the L. A. Times, which “Barack the Magic Negro” is a spoof of, was being racist.

BTW, the people who want you to be TOOLED have been working hard at Google to keep the truth from you. I just worked overtime to open just one of these sites, and I was NOT hit by ANY malware.

So yet again we get a person who doesn’t listen to Rush claim to be the purveyor of all Rush associated knowledge. OWNED! :oP

DannoJyd on January 31, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Obama is doing this because it´s an Alinsky tactic – exploit the middle class aversion to conflict and disturbance. He needs an antagonist whom he can smear as the root of the conflict. In this narrative Limbaugh would be the spoiler or underminer who won´t let the country unite.

If Americans are dumb and conformist enough to fall for it, they deserve what´s coming to them.

el gordo on January 31, 2009 at 12:07 PM

As far as the tax cut math, what you don’t seem to understand is 1) you’re not going to stimulate growth by giving tax cuts to people who don’t need it, and 2) wealth is not created solely by those who have it.

Have you ever been employed by a poor person?

celtnik on January 31, 2009 at 12:10 PM

I long to hear the words “wow, Rush wasn’t the problem, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi were”. I’m not holding my breath though. It seems that every 30-40 years Americans wake up and smell the shit that liberalism, progressive-ism, etc. really IS and dump it temporarily….or long enough for conservatives to fix things then run amok themselves.

I don’t think anything will change regarding this cycle until a group of people with the mindset the forefathers had come forward and rectify this situation on a more permanent basis.

I’m guessing it would have to start with a THIRD party at this point, but the cahones are absent at the moment in the general populace. I guess things have to hit bottom and go even LOWER before the asshats take the ass out of their hats and move in the right direction.

Maybe this song phrase is true; “Freedom’s just another word for ‘nothing left to lose’”.

Spiritk9 on January 31, 2009 at 6:39 PM

The point is that the language he uses in general (Alinsky-ed, socialist bla bla bla) isn’t necessarily over people’s heads…it just doesn’t resonate with people unless you’re on the far right.

crr6 on January 30, 2009 at 5:07 PM

“Alinskeed” is right on the money and Rush should use the word often. Not because of the tactic Rush talks about, there is nothing new about that tactic and Rush does the same thing to Democrats all the time. It’s good to use the Alinsky name with repetition so that moderates will understand Obama’s radical communist tendencies.

I agree that the word “socialism” doesn’t have any resonance. Most people probably think it sounds like a nice thing. It would be much more useful to describe things in terms of the Communist Manifesto. “Fifth Planking”, for instance, could be used to characterize the bank bailouts; “First Planking to characterize eminent domain, etc.

Buddahpundit on January 31, 2009 at 11:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3