Video: Steele, Cantor dismiss Limbaugh’s “I want him to fail” rhetoric
posted at 3:46 pm on March 1, 2009 by Allahpundit
The first clip comes from last night’s chat with D.L. Hughley, the second from this morning’s “This Week.” Skip ahead to the last minute of the latter after clicking the image for the bit on Rush. The media enjoys pressing Republicans about this for the same reason wiseass atheists like to ask believers if God can make a rock he can’t lift: No matter how you answer, you’re in trouble. Steele and Cantor are pols and are worried about expanding the tent, so like Mark Sanford, it’s a fait accompli that they’ll side with the president who’s popular with most of the country over the talk-show host who’s popular with their base. Steele, at least, gets off a good tu quoque in Limbaugh’s defense. Cantor just ducks and covers.
I like his comeback about who the real leader of the party is, too. Exit question: Every conservative scheduled to appear on cable news this week should probably have an answer to this question ready, no?
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 Next »
I guess you are too clueless to read the redstate article frome erick erickson. He knows what he is talking about
ousoonerfan15 on March 1, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Cantor should have started with: Do your viewers know you’re a partisan Democrat, Steph?
Followed by: Like Rush, I don’t want socialism.
K?
artist on March 1, 2009 at 3:50 PM
I want to quote a comment from the Headlines:
That’s what they should say.
INC on March 1, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Hey Hughley, that’s one ugly-ass tie.
Disturb the Universe on March 1, 2009 at 3:53 PM
I read Erick’s post and he was being far too nice to Cantor.
I said this earlier before this video was up, after I’d seen the transcript:
While Steph was obviously painting the worst picture he could of Cantor in the summary, when I looked at the transcript, IMO, Cantor is dancing around and trying not to be pinned down into saying he hopes Obama’s policies fail. I thought he was really, really wimpy and ineffectual, apologetic even, when he did have the chance to do a robust rebuttal and make the case for conservatism.
INC on March 1, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Who are we kidding?
People who think Uhhmerica can be saved by the GOP, are in for a VERY rude awakening.
artist on March 1, 2009 at 3:54 PM
I support Obama.
I don’t support his mission.
RadioFreeUSA on March 1, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Yep – have to smack-down the false premise *first*, then say what needs to be said *correctly*.
Midas on March 1, 2009 at 3:55 PM
My question is “do they not learn and just not go on these shows that only want to savage them?” That’s the crap that makes it on the MSM. Make the people go to Fox to see what’s really going on if they are curious. Dummies, they aren’t going to change any of the wacko’s minds and that’s all that listen to ABC, NBC and CBS except the seasoned citizen in between their doctor visits and riding in their brand new Buicks to “early bird dinner” somewhere. And, I say that and I’m 57 and would never dream of walking into a McDonalds and asking for free coffee. Users…. the world owes them everything. Makes me sick.
suzyk on March 1, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Cantor allowing Stephanopoulos to paraphrase Limbaugh’s statement into a strawman illustrates what an intellectual midget Cantor is.
besser tot als rot on March 1, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Rush isn’t the leader of the Republican party, he is the leader (or at least the most visible leader) of the conservative movement within the Republican party.
Rose on March 1, 2009 at 3:58 PM
GOP: The party of wusses. And they wonder why they lost the election?
jencab on March 1, 2009 at 4:00 PM
+100
portlandon on March 1, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Cantor dissing Limbaugh. He was on his show a few weeks ago promising conservatives that he will unite the repubs in the House against the bill. Now he dismisses Limbaugh when push comes to shove. What a joke. Steele is another coward who looks and sound like a fool when he tries to be “hip hop.”
Three republicans (Steele, Cantor, Sanford) dismissing Limbaugh three times. Anyone hear the rooster?
jencab on March 1, 2009 at 4:04 PM
No he’s the spokesperson for the Conservative Movement period. The Republican party is a different thing altogether.
But Republicans really have to stop buying into the Liberal world view. The liberal always believes they’re coming form the position of reason, strength and correctness. This has got to be challenged. Republicans are always challenged with “You don’t really believe this do you?” Republicans have to respond “Only an insane person wouldn’t”. It shows a lack of confidence in thier principles that they don’t. It also shows a grovelling attitude which I despise.
Iblis on March 1, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Re: the DL clip… Now you know why race dialog issues are so totally effed up in society – when here you have three black men come together and cannot have a decent, color-blind conversation on politics. It really bugs me that DL takes a holier than thou approach by default, by slinging around his black dialect as bona fides.
LadinPlaid on March 1, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Why? You say that you see what he meant and here’s how you would rephrase it. Extreme liberalism on economy will hurt people. The President may mean well but his proposals are wrong and they need to be stopped or amended significantly. In the absense of those changes, we hope Obama’s proposals will not be implemented.
radiofreevillage on March 1, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Well, at least Steele finally said the painfully obvious– how all these clowns on the left were openly rooting for Bush to fail– personally and politically. And as Rush said yesterday, we even had Harry Reid saying “This war is lot” with troops on the field simply because Bush was C-in-C. Why is it is so damn hard for elected Republicans to throw this back in their questioners’ faces?
Pasalubong on March 1, 2009 at 4:08 PM
It is a very important thing to note that while there are over 9000 earmarks in the omnibus spending bill.40% of those earmarks were authored by republicans., the same republicans who are screaming about the cost of the bill. As long as republicans continue to be hypocrites, they will never take back the majority in congress.
paulsur on March 1, 2009 at 4:09 PM
And guys like Steele have to not allow themselves to be tricked into answering for a pundit who does not, in fact, speak for the RNC in any official capacity.
Crusty on March 1, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Limbaugh’s not the only one; Many of us do. The idiot in the White House now thinks he’s smarter than his predecessors and that his ideas are new; Is that stupid or what? Apparently Obama never studied, or read any history.
You can take the dumbest kid in day care, tell him every day he’s special, and he’ll think he’s the messiah when he’s an adult. That’s what we have here. If our forefathers were as sensitive to being called names or compared to apes or other animals, we’d never have become the nation we are today.
Efin grow up.
Cybergeezer on March 1, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Thank God someone speaks the truth. Did you used to post at Polipundit?
True_King on March 1, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Re: Redstate Commentary
Regardless of whether or not Stephanopoulos prefaced the question with Rush’s actual comment doesn’t matter. Cantor allowed the strawman to stand and he addressed it as if it were the truth. The premise of the question should have been immediate refuted rather than answered.
If someone asks you, “why did you beat your wife?”, do you attack the premise of the question (i.e., I didn’t beat her) or do you answer the question? Cantor answered the question.
besser tot als rot on March 1, 2009 at 4:10 PM
I don’t want socialism. To the extent that Dear Leader’s policies will lead towards that, I do want him to fail. Prosecuting the war in Afghanistan, I want to succeed.
The Republicans are letting the Democrats & MSM control the message. They need to go on the attack against porkulus, higher taxes, etc. Don’t let the debate be framed around what Rush said.
rbj on March 1, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Rush Limbaugh is the leader of his talk show and that’s it. Just like Keith Olbermann is the host of his and only his show and he is not anymore important than that.
terryannonline on March 1, 2009 at 4:13 PM
And these Bafoons wonder why they only have 170+ and 41 or 42 seats in the house & Sen. Rep Cantor is just plain stubid .The money is drying up for the GOP consev like me will not give to people who think Obama is just so wonderful and woukd never want him to fail.You fools keep acting like Dem and soon you will have even less seats.
thmcbb on March 1, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Cantor talked out of the both sides of his mouth-saying that he did not want to see the President fail but that he believed in conservative principles.
technopeasant on March 1, 2009 at 4:15 PM
OK, Last time I cut and paste this today… Sorry for repeating it on so many threads.
______________________________________
Late last night, I watched all the Rush clips; That is the most I’ve listened to Rush in years. While I’m mostly in agreement with him politically, there are things about his persona and delivery that ‘rub me the wrong way.
Other than the personality related things that again irritated me and perhaps a bit diluted his message, I have to say that was the best socio-political speech I have heard since MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech.
Even better than any I can remember of Reagan’s.
Equal to in truth and importance, (but less boring and repetitive) than John Galt’s epic address to the nation in Atlas Shrugged.
Steele’s and Cantor’s reactions are just the straw that broke the camel’s back of why I despise what the GOP has become. I liked Steele before, and almost sent the RNC some money last month after the (R) Congress Critters all voted NO! to “porkulus” on the day I received yet another RNC request for cash ; I had a generally positive feeling about the little I know about Cantor. No longer. The GOP can go to hell. I’m changing registration to Independent as soon as I get a chance.
Gladder than ever I’m heading to my mini- Galt’s Gulch soon.
LegendHasIt on March 1, 2009 at 4:16 PM
I look forward to the day when Republicans are unapologetically capitalist and vehemently anti-socialist.
Not that I am holding my breath… but at least there are some who are. Rush is doing a good job making it difficult for Republicans to play politics with their stances. Time to be clear and vocal and firm.
beatcanvas on March 1, 2009 at 4:17 PM
That so few lack the courage to say something as common-sensical as “As a conservative I do not want the liberal Obama agenda to succeed” explains why Rush is the leader of the Conservative movement.
DarkKnight3565 on March 1, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Cantor should have changed the subject. Period. Just don’t play Rahm Emanuel’s game. If the newsies want to talk about actual GOP policy ideas, great. If they want to talk about Rush Limbaugh, then Cantor should tell them to bring out their media critic. That’s the best way to smack down this whole thing Rahm Emanuel is trying to pull off.
Steele handled this EXACTLY right, IMO. He said firmly that HE is the head of the Republican Party and that Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, period. And he reminded Hughley of all the hate and failure rhetoric thrown at George W. Bush by the Left. There is no good comeback by Rahm Emanuel or any of his media guard dogs to that. Hughley was totally disarmed by Steele there and ended up complimenting Steele, which to me is great.
rockmom on March 1, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Yes, and I heard Kyl on one of the shows this morning being confronted about it, and he did the mamby-pamby dance and tried to rationalize. “Well, uh, I wouldn’t call these earmarks, and uh, well, you know, I can justify every one of mine, and…”
Save it. Please. These people are all about personal power, period. Not one gives a rats-tail about US!
PrincipledPilgrim on March 1, 2009 at 4:19 PM
I support Obama.
I don’t support his mission.
RadioFreeUSA
———————————————–
How the hell can you separate the two? This is the same twiddled headed talk of ‘I support the troops but not the war!’. The two instances are one in the same. Troops are for war. They execute war plans. That’s their job.
If a half starved thief breaks into your home to steal how do you separate the two? You will support the thief but not his mission? Were it not his mission he would not be a thief!
Sigh….
Dr. Dog on March 1, 2009 at 4:20 PM
I worry for my beloved country. I support neither.
Entelechy on March 1, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Isn’t Stephanopoulos still getting morning briefing calls from the White House…………..?
Seven Percent Solution on March 1, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Cantor should know the “controversy” the MSM has stirred about Rush. His answer demonstrated weakness. And can anyone in Washington, who happens to be a republican politician have the onions to confront Stephanopolous about being the butt boy of Rahm Emanuel and Obama?
jencab on March 1, 2009 at 4:20 PM
I support Obama.
RadioFreeUSA on March 1, 2009 at 3:55 PM
I bet you do
Libertarian Joseph on March 1, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Tell us how you really feel. ;-)
PrincipledPilgrim on March 1, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Thank God someone speaks the truth. Did you used to post at Polipundit?
True_King on March 1, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Yes, still do once in a while.
But it went downhill 2 years ago.
artist on March 1, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Well, Steele basically said Rush’s words were no different from Bush Derangement Syndrome. I mean, is that the proper parallel?
I think the catch here isn’t so much what specifically Rush said. It can be easily defended. The catch seems to be that Republican officials don’t want to be in the business of being a press-secretary for Rush. Once you defend him once, they fear, they will have to do it every day.
radiofreevillage on March 1, 2009 at 4:23 PM
I just put this on the CNN thread but it works as well here.
For goodness sake! Please elected Republican officials and paid spokes people for the RNC, huddle up. Rush Limbaugh is a talk show host. Every time the MSM tries to make said people responsible for what Rush says, they should repeat that with a blank stare. Why in the world would Rep. Cantor or Mr. Steele have to explain Mr. Limbaugh or any other citizen of the U.S.? They should be shocked at the interviewer that can’t tell the difference between and entertainer and an elected official AND THEY SHOULDN’T EXPAND ON IT. Sometimes the folks in the Republican party are to stupid to breathe.
As for Mr. Huckabee being our next candidate, a poster on a thread last night (Limbaugh, I am sure) stated that Mr. Huckabee went on Geraldo’s show and threw the participants of CPAC under the bus. I have no way of knowing if this is an accurate portrayal. Maybe Allah could look into it for us.
Cindy Munford on March 1, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Next tea party signs need to have a theme about Conservatism.
Not right, Not left… Conservative
American Conservative seeking Political Party to Trust
GOP: Conservative, but no longer your lap dog.
More???
PrincipledPilgrim on March 1, 2009 at 4:24 PM
How on earth does one fact-check this? It’s clearly already a “talking point” for the dems. Without any true DD I’m willing to call BS!!
zeebeach on March 1, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Two things:
1) What Steele did with Hughley(and what Scarborough did with Matthews right after the election) is what needs to happen from now on anytime this subject is brought up. Throw right back in their faces how they never supported Bush even before he was inaugurated and many of them openly rooted for him to fail. Same goes for their attitude toward the Iraq war and the surge.
2) It’s pretty obvious what the media and the Dems are doing here. They’re well aware that Obama’s policies could lead to disaster and they’re trying to offer cover for him when he runs for re-election. Think about it. If unemployment is in double digits, taxes are through the roof, housing prices are in the toilet, and inflation is out of control, the vast majority of this country will be justifiably pissed off and looking for (real)change. What the left is doing is setting it up so Obama can accuse the GOP of having rooted for the American people’s misery so they could benefit politically. It’s a flimsy argument and it likely wouldn’t prevent him from being voted out after one term, but it’s a strategic move regardless.
Doughboy on March 1, 2009 at 4:26 PM
You people don’t get so let my draw a picture.
The Libs responded to the notion that they weren’t patriotic because they didn’t support the Iraq war. They came up with the lame bumper sticker phrase , “I support the troops. I just don’t support the mission.”
My comment is using the same lame logic as a comeback when they get their underwear in a not over Limbaugh’s statement “I hope Obama fails.”
See?
RadioFreeUSA on March 1, 2009 at 4:26 PM
The surprising thing is, D.L. Hughley started by conceding the point that conservatives want Steele to make–that Liberalism is the thing that Rush wants to see fail. And if Steele doesn’t care for Rush’s show, or Rush’s brash style, that’s his loss. But not worth crucifying him over.
RBMN on March 1, 2009 at 4:26 PM
I hope Obama fails.
rob verdi on March 1, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Where is the guy with the ugly tie and hard to understand accent from?
Wade on March 1, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Cantor is being hailed in media circles as “the next Newt Gingrich.” That tells you all you need to know about his credentials. WTF was Newt doing at CPAC? He did such a bang-up job of representing conservatives while he was in power, didn’t he? [/sarc]
gryphon202 on March 1, 2009 at 4:27 PM
He doesn’t need to hope that Obama fails. Obama will fail. There’s no doubt about that.
Thanks to him the US will end up like the UK. Luckily, you Americans are still legally armed, unlike in the UK, where Labour under Blair and Brown (who should both be shot for treason), have been grabbing guns and abolished civil rights left and right.
Penguin on March 1, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Hughley is COMPLETELY unprofessional. He talks to fast, he speaks with too much emotion, he puts his finger in his mouth.
It’s a wonder the guy is doing a serious talk show.
Get back to scripted comedy, loser.
fossten on March 1, 2009 at 4:29 PM
The Obamaloons are at it again. Check the polls …
tarpon on March 1, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Of course. That’s the end game here for Emanuel. Make Rush the tar baby for the whole Republican Party. Tie him like a bell around the Republicans’ neck and ring it whenever you want to shut up the opposition.
Emanuel is also trying to neuter Michael Steele. Behind this show of thuggery is a real fear that Steele will be successful in broadening the appeal of the Republican Party. It’s a real fear that the millions who listen to Limbaugh and other conservatives will never be bought off by tiny tax cuts and the other bread and circuses being thrown out by this naked Emperor.
Emanuel is doing this in a far too hamhanded fashion. It may be the Chicago way, but America ain’t Chicago. Not yet, anyway.
rockmom on March 1, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Yes, yes, and yes.
How depressing.
Note to my Obamanation caretakers: I’d rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a frontal- lo-bot-o-my. Do it my way, it’s less of a cost to national health care.
petefrt on March 1, 2009 at 4:30 PM
All these people on here who liked Cantor so much huh? Did not know that much about him, but what I saw today, was a little boy… I am so tired of this can’t we get along and bi-partisan crap. You either believe in conservative principles or not.
Steele was slightly more tolerable at the end, but his shtick is starting to wear thin on me as well.
No $$ from me to RNC. All going to SarahPAC until further notice.
davek70 on March 1, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Steele summed it up well- where was all this outrage during the last 8 years?
Seriously, where was it? Where were all the drive-by’s questions to Democrats while groups were holding public shoe-throwing rallies, burning flags. rioting, storming the stage at conventions (Code Pink), etc.? The list goes on and on.
Rush, love him or hate him, is an entertainer. For all effective purposes (and I sincerely apologize to Rush for this analogy), he’s little different than any of the liberal talk show hosts who want Bush imprisoned for war crimes or the nutcase groups all over the place. He’s not and never has been a politician and has never done anything to suggest otherwise (unlike Chris “Tingly” Matthews).
Rush has been exceedingly clear- he wants Obama’s policies to fail because the success of Obama’s policies means abysmal failure for American people and our nation as a whole. That is no different that what we’ve heard from every talking head on almost every network and liberal radio show for 8 years in reference to Bush. In fact, it’s tame in comparison.
So first, why are Steele, Cantor or anyone else taking such a concessionary position on this? Rush does not any never has officially spoken for the Republican party, so why do they not simply dismiss the allegation disguised as a question as totally irrelevant? Second, why do they not say that Rush is right, or at least set the record straight on the allegation/ question; since it’s being used to tar and feather the party?
It is precisely this pansy, concessionary, “I don’t want to offend anyone and I have total respect for the jackasses who are opening calling me a racist/ war-criminal/ sadist/ terrorist/ murderer/ etc. ” bull crap that cost us the election.
The war against Rush by Stephanopolis/ Obama/ etc. started prior to inauguration day… before Rush said anything. Now, every time Rush speaks, these asses twist it and take it out of context to further their yet-to-be substantiated argument. Meanwhile, our official leadership essentially apologizes for it.
We are so screwed.
Damiano on March 1, 2009 at 4:34 PM
I love how a supposed Rush’s defender reinforces the Dems’ lies about the intent of Rush’s words.
radiofreevillage on March 1, 2009 at 4:34 PM
So DL Hughley is now considered serious journalism?
SouthernGent on March 1, 2009 at 4:35 PM
For the sake of incluuusion, my suggestion for the next tea party theme:
Not pro-Republican
Not pro-Conservative
just pro-Constitution
DrStock on March 1, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Say it over and over again, if there are questions about Rush Limbaugh, they should be directed to Rush Limbaugh. It’s stupid to be forced to take heat for anyone other than yourself.
Cindy Munford on March 1, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Cantor is another wimpy Republican. I thought we might have a little hope with Steele but I am beginning to think he is another RINO. If the republicans don’t get some testicles I will not send them another dime.
apoole on March 1, 2009 at 4:39 PM
I suspect Rush agrees with you, and he’s tweaking him to draw him out into hamhandedness so heavy that the public will backlash.
petefrt on March 1, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Actually, he’s confusing the “failures” here. Obama will probably succeed in implementing his policies; and those policies will be a failure.
Conservatives want successful policies to be implemented. Therefore, we want Obama’s tired 1930′s retread policies to fail.
besser tot als rot on March 1, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Rush Limbaugh is the leader of his talk show and that’s it. Just like Keith Olbermann is the host of his and only his show and he is not anymore important than that.
terryannonline on March 1, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Wrong. If Rush were just another Keith Olbermann (talk about “angry and sinister!”) the left wouldn’t mess their pants every time he opens his mouth. Rush IS a leader and that scares the hell out of them (another poster had it correct saying that Rush isn’t the leader of the Republican party but of the conservative movement). Olbermann is just a big, whiny girl. He doesn’t scare anyone (although you might want to keep the knives away from him).
Lizzy on March 1, 2009 at 4:40 PM
I should say we want Obama’s attempt to implement his tired 1930′s retread policies to fail.
besser tot als rot on March 1, 2009 at 4:41 PM
To all milk toast, week spine,lame brain Rep Sen. & Congressmen if Obama is sucessful in turning our country into a socialist nation we all loose the freedoms that our const.gives us.NO MORE MONEY FROM ME TO THE REP PARTY FEDERAL STATE OR LOCAL UNTILL YOU GROW A SET AND PUT PEOPLE IN CHARGE THAT OR 180 DEGREES DIFF.THAN REP CANTOR.What a wuss.
thmcbb on March 1, 2009 at 4:45 PM
INC said, “I thought he was really, really wimpy and ineffectual, apologetic even, when he did have the chance to do a robust rebuttal and make the case for conservatism.”
Wimpy doesn’t begin to describe Cantor this morning. He almost sounded like he was about to cry. And this guy is supposed to be a shining light and a conservative hope for the future. Cowed by Stephie! Come on! Grow a pair, Eric!
We must have someone better than this.
ncjetsfan on March 1, 2009 at 4:46 PM
It’s become the new litmus test. “Are you among those who do not wish success to Dear Leader?” Maybe some day there will be a public figure other than Limbaugh to have the guts to point out how creepy it is.
ddrintn on March 1, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Profile in courage? Not.
MB4 on March 1, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Cantor may be bright as the sun and able to raise big sums of money for the caucus, but he projects absolutely no strength whatsoever, and is 100% a product of the Beltway ie, an establishment Republican who has an abundance of what we call in my neighborhood “the weenie factor.”
Listening to him, one gets the impression that Rahm Emmanuel would kick his ass, steal his lunch money and Cantor would say thank you sir may I have another?
I personally wouldnt follow this guy into water, until and unless he starts talking back to the DC powers-that-be.
The oldest tactic in the book is to not answer the liberal biased question asked of you, but to turn the tables and make your answer into something YOU want to talk about. Dems have perfected this, while Reps seem hell-bent on answering the questions as framed to them by their antagonists in the MSM.
Mike D. on March 1, 2009 at 4:48 PM
If the left is scared of Rush than why are they bashing Republicans over the head with Rush’s comments. They doesn’t sound like fear to me. It seems like a fight they are absolutely loving.
terryannonline on March 1, 2009 at 4:49 PM
They do not need their base. You see how well it worked when McCain and Dole alienated their base.
Johan Klaus on March 1, 2009 at 4:51 PM
In times of change, the Patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated and scorned. If his cause succeeds, however, the timid will join him, for then it will cost nothing to be a Patriot.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on March 1, 2009 at 4:53 PM
If they’re not scared of him, why do som many of them cherish this idea of getting him off the air? This is just an attempt at marginalization, with roots in genuine fear.
ddrintn on March 1, 2009 at 4:54 PM
If the left is scared of Rush than why are they bashing Republicans over the head with Rush’s comments. They doesn’t sound like fear to me. It seems like a fight they are absolutely loving.
terryannonline on March 1, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Bring it on!
Lizzy on March 1, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Yes, he is. Which is at the heart of the controversy. Which in turn is why I’m surprised that people still walk into this trap, considering it’s been clearly marked by now.
What is excusable for a website visitor is kind of strange when it comes from an RNC head or a Congressman. How hard is it to tell… ok, five/em> smart people to spend a day figuring out the best way to approach this question, and then send a memo to everybody?
radiofreevillage on March 1, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Well they should be trying to get him of air because he seems to help the Dems make their points. He’s like every bad stereotype they’ve tried to link conservatives.
terryannonline on March 1, 2009 at 4:56 PM
We teach them to take their patriotism at second-hand; to shout with the largest crowd without examining into the right or wrong of the matter, exactly as boys under monarchies are taught and have always been taught. We teach them to regard as traitors, and hold in aversion and contempt, such as do not shout with the crowd, and so here in our democracy some are cheering a thing which of all things is most foreign to it and out of place, the delivery of our political conscience into somebody else’s keeping. This is patriotism on the Russian plan.
The true patriotism, the only rational patriotism, is loyalty to the Nation ALL the time, loyalty to the Government ONLY when it deserves it.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on March 1, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Meant to write “shouldn’t”
terryannonline on March 1, 2009 at 4:59 PM
How so? Care to flesh that out a little?
ddrintn on March 1, 2009 at 4:59 PM
And that should have been Cantor’s comeback.
onlineanalyst on March 1, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Hughley (Hughley!) cut through all the BS with the correct interpretation: Limbaugh wants liberalism to fail, not the man, Obama (will anybody else on the Left be that nice to Steele???).
But Limbaugh wants to play the ‘Alinsky card’, and the sycophant MSM is more than happy to slap it back while America’s future gets flushed down a Chinese money pit.
Cantor! We don’t need your help.! I’m sick of milk toast pander politicians like Cantor with all this suck up ‘big tent’ cr@p about gub’mint making jobs & understanding the misunderstod, blah, blah. Find your core, grow some stones and vanquish your enemies, dammit!!! Look at Obama’s voting record and tell me he’s ‘bi-partisan.’
And stay off the lap dog media circus shows when head idjit has ‘i (heart) obama’ monogrammed knee pads. Stephanopoulos holds daily conference phone calls with Obama’s White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel!!
Fools.
locomotivebreath1901 on March 1, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Well they should be trying to get him of air because he seems to help the Dems make their points. He’s like every bad stereotype they’ve tried to link conservatives.
terryannonline on March 1, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Wrong again. The left is so scared of Rush they can’t see straight. They wouldn’t be trying to take him off the air by bringing back the Fairness Doctrine if he didn’t terrify them. Rush inspires people to be better and to do more and that’s something the left certainly doesn’t do.
Lizzy on March 1, 2009 at 5:03 PM
He’s obnoxious, mean-spirited, flamethrower and is known for insensitive racial and sexists remarks. That pretty sums up what liberals want to peg conservatives as: mean, racist, sexists, and just plain don’t care about people.
terryannonline on March 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM
It reminds me of a phrase from Andrew Klavan that I go back to a lot because it’s so spot-on:
ddrintn on March 1, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Any quotes in particular?
ddrintn on March 1, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Instead of conservatives maybe we should call ourselves constitutional capitalists ???
I think we are past the liberal/conservative tags now.
DeweyWins on March 1, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Dear Leader Obama’s songbun system:
The population of Dear Leader Barack Obama’s coming Democratic People’s Republic of America can be roughly divided into three tiers, and ones place in these tiers is called songbun. An individuals songbun is mainly based on ones position at the time of Obama’s ascendancy from questionable circumstances of birth to ruling occupation: loyal party members, largely comprised of the capos of Reid, Pelosi and Kennedy and their sub-capos, are the elite; people who helped to bankrupt the nation while lining their own pockets are at the next level in the hierarchy and often have high positions in congress or are appointed to cabinet positions and other high offices; the final group is comprised of an as yet to be determined number of distinct classes, each with lower songbun then the next. Occasionally useful tools to the regime such as Eric Cantor are near the bottom but have at least temporarily managed to position themselves above conservative talk show hosts and bloggers and people who still believe in Ayn Rand’s philosophy of individual rights or in the soon to be outdated U.S. Constitution who have the lowest songbun, and consequentially occupy a role analogous to India’s untouchables.
MB4 on March 1, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Why don’t these guys turn the question around into a statement and grab hold of the dialog.
When asked if they agree with Limbaugh, they should ask the host, “Do you support Obama’s aggressive agenda to restructure the economic foundations of the US and invalidate the US constitution, because I will tell you that I do not” Press them until they answer, don’t answer, change the subject or lose their cool. It’s a win win.
katy on March 1, 2009 at 5:10 PM
And you just personified the ignorant blather that is found in those who do not listen to his show.
fossten on March 1, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Doesn’t it bother you that so many people don’t see it like you do? Other than the fact that the things you say sound like talking points, how can so many people be wrong but you’re right? I can understand that Rush may not be your cup of tea, that’s fine, but I just don’t see or hear the things you do. That said no person should be required to answer for Rush. He’s an entertainer and he should be the only one who has to answer for himself.
Cindy Munford on March 1, 2009 at 5:13 PM
I don’t get it either. How is Rush a negative stereotype? I certainly don’t agree with him on everything, and disagree with him strongly about a few things, but his views, like conservatism, have withstood the test of time which liberalism has repeatedly failed, so how can he be a negative stereotype? Only leftists and people who’ve allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the MSM without ever having heard his side of the argument would share that opinion.
FloatingRock on March 1, 2009 at 5:14 PM
As Ann Coulter effectively demonstrated with Joy Behar on the Larry King show.
ddrintn on March 1, 2009 at 5:14 PM
I support the Presidency as defined by the constitution. I’ll never support francy socialism.
Talk is cheap. Prove it.
Back to topic: This instantly reminded me of a Rush inspired term [Rush-ism?]. Linguini spined.
DannoJyd on March 1, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Cantor=Neo-Castrati?
Good one.
fossten on March 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM
I don’t get a chance to listen to Limbaugh much anymore due to time/work constraints. I don’t agree with him all the time, either. Far from it. But I think something like this is at work:
“Rush is hated by the media and some of my more leftward friends. They say he’s an idiotic bigot. I don’t want to be disliked by everyone, so I’d better agree.”
After a while, it becomes a conviction. Hey, I have no problem with those who can disagree with specific things Limbaugh says. I always did the same when I was a listener. But to dismiss him entirely simply because his name is mud among the MSM-types is a bit much. The same thing happens to Coulter. As I pointed out, someone like Maureen Dowd is vicious in ways that put Coulter to shame. But there’s no race on the left to distance from Dowd.
ddrintn on March 1, 2009 at 5:19 PM
FYI. God can make a rock He can’t lift. Reason being that God is only limited by himself. Much in the same way he cannot destroy the earth by flood. He has limited himself by making a promise not to do so. So,
No need to feel like you are putting one in trouble by posing the question or as if you are gonna get in trouble by answering.
stewardoftruth on March 1, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Exactly! How dare Michael Steele say that Rush get’s ugly!!! Or that he’s just an entertainer!!! Right Michael!
We quit giving to the Republican National Committee about five years ago because of all the ways they dropped the wrecking ball on their conservative base. Looks like Steele is continuing.
I’ll repeat what I wrote on another post: Conservative politicians need to sit in a room with Ann Coulter and be taught how to throw back the “why did you beat your wife” questions back in their faces. They need to figure out how to deal with a hostile press and win. Ann does it all the time — she’s very good at it! And I suspect she could teach them how and even how to do it without being as feisty as she is. (You got to love how she put Katie Couric down.) She goes in prepared for the hostile questions and turns them back on her inquisitors/interviewers.
Christian Conservative on March 1, 2009 at 5:23 PM
I’m not an Ann fan but I agree that the Republicans could learn a lot from her about how to deal with the MSM, preferably somewhat less caustically but through some of the same tactics. We can’t let the left continue to set the field and make the rules, we need to force them to leave their zone and battle in the open. If they refuse they’ll appear ineffectual and weak.
FloatingRock on March 1, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »