OBAMA'S FOLLY »
Posted By pc25 9 months, 2 weeks ago in NewsBarack Obama ran on a platform of post-partisanship, of healing and uniting a divided nation. Yet it didn’t even take him a week to enter into the partisan fray, taking on the Right’s biggest megaphone — and making it even bigger. Instead of marginalizing Rush Limbaugh, Obama managed to make him the most credible voice of opposition:
Read Full Story at hotair.com »
2631 Views Share Story 262 Comments Report
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 262 (view all)
-
47%
pc259 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Big mistake by Obama. This now makes for an interesting scenario if the Democrats decide to make a move to silence talk radio. It's not as if the broadcast syndicates Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingrahm, Levin and others dont have a war chest to wage a Freedom of Speech battle with the Obama administration. Smart on Limbaugh's part not too bright on Obama's. Any attempt now to to go after talk radio now will result in big problem for the Dems come the 2010 election.
Reply-
-
20%
wtagg9 months, 2 weeks ago
-
67%
Hhussk9 months, 2 weeks ago
-
61%
antibrainwasher9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What does it say about the republitools when their hero is a coward draft dodging closet homosexual with a bleeding anal cyst, drug addicted to oxycotton, racist, fat, uneducated, worthless hatemongering pig?
Reply
And behold for this fine day, another republicircle jerk. You fools will never win another election with this swiftboating kindergarden liquid crap. -
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned
-
86%
JamesMarcus9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I sincerely doubt that the Democrats will attempt to silence talk radio. As for Limbaugh--come on, the guy has been launching vicious, shrilly partisan attacks on Obama since the presidential campaign began. In November, he mocked Obama's final visit with his dying grandmother in Hawaii. Is this something you want to defend? In that sense, Limbaugh is a perfect symbol of the kind of partisanship Obama is trying to avoid, hence his casual allusion in that meeting. A better litmus test of Obama's own nonpartisan ambitions (which will certainly hit some speed bumps along the way): his choice of Rick Warren for the inaugural invocation. That alienated some of Obama's own base, but he did it anyway.
Reply -
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user2 Replies
-
jaspersneedComment removed: Spam1 Reply
-
-
50%
buckncindykill9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Exactly pc. To make the argument about Limbaugh instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If Limbaugh can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of their TRILLION dollar debacle.
Reply -
51%
pc259 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA
Reply
Anytime a man in a position of great power attacks someone with significantly less power, it lessens the greater man and raises up his opponent. The American President is, thanks to the office, the most powerful man in the free world. If he’s worried about any political pundit so much that he has to attack him personally, it shows WEAKNESS, which is exactly what Obama cannot afford.-
36%
Hhussk9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
pc, I have to disagree with your application of this to the current situation. I don't believe that Obama attacked Limbaugh. He used him as an example, a very fine example, of an extreme partisan who's hatred does more harm than good (to Rush's own cause and to the country at large).
Reply
I disagree with your assessment.
It doesn't matter what liberals and Democrats believe Obama said. When President Obama told Republicans on Friday not to listen to Limbaugh, he legitimized Rush Limbaugh as an opponent. That, in itself, validates Limbaugh to retaliate. -
80%
willottica9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
pc, I have to disagree with your application of this to the current situation. I don't believe that Obama attacked Limbaugh. He used him as an example, a very fine example, of an extreme partisan who's hatred does more harm than good (to Rush's own cause and to the country at large).
Reply
What I find even funnier about this quote is that there is a certain amount of truth in it. A truth that you fail to see applies equally to the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If GWB hadn't gone after OBL in Afghanistan, would OBL have had the power he did? Not nearly, there is no way he could have cost the US so many trillions of dollars. By focusing on a man and an organization, and not on protecting against a general threat, GWB gave incredible power to that man and that organization, and decreased his own power to fight against unknown threats.
BTW, stating that Rush is a partisan blowhard is not an attack (especially not in the much more polite terms that Obama stated it -- it's an easily obsevable fact.). Going after him about his drug problems or other non-sequiturs would be an attack, and that WOULD do as the quote suggests.
(You'll also remember that attacking the man rather than his policies was the chief strategy of the McCain campaign. Remember how well it worked for the next election.)
-
-
46%
cherev9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"if they try to silence talk radio it will become obvious to the electorate as to what is starting to go on........"
Reply
To those of us who opposed Obama, it's already obvious.
To the intellectual elite who support Obama, they want what Obama has to offer.
To the masses who supported Obama based on race, party, promises, etc., they've already gone back to paying attention to their jobs, families, etc.
Obama has the backing of Congress. Whatever civil liberties he violates, he'll do with the blessing of those who hold power in government, academia, and the media. -
64%
nostalgia9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think Obama will live to regret this
Reply
All he did was create more interest in Limbaugh as more people will tune in to hear what Rush has to say
Ratings will go up and more advertisers will be attracted
A case of "open mouth insert foot"?-
58%
Leemck029 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do this for me, Watch CSPAN when a liberal speaks on a topic you think Rush (or FOX for that matter) will comment on. Determine how accurate what they regurgitate is to the original. If you want to hear lies then just know that's what you are getting. President Obama cannot do anything to hurt Rush, that Rush on the drugs or doing propaganda are not doing to himself.
Reply
So, you want more of that Truth Rush is putting out? I defend his right to give you the story you want and take the profit to the bank. -
-
-
-
75%
wtagg9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Feel free to post evidence of this occurring. It is interesting to see you agree with this point and the man who said he wouldn't support and then did support the candidate that you allegedly didn't vote for.
Reply
In essence, you are agreeing with Mr. Limbaugh's belief in the direction for the republican party and its platform/politics. -
100%
wtagg9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why is Obama suggesting to representatives that following a person's political belief that led to their failure at the last two elections necessarily a bad thing? Also someone who directly stated he wanted the president of this country to fail.
Reply
Obama didn't personally attack him. He stated that following his brand of politics is divisive, counterproductive, and as evidenced by the election results, currently not very successful.
You must also like Kucinich, based upon your benchmark.
Someone who doles out opinions in a public forum, whether it is Palin, McCain, Obama, Biden, Limbaugh or Olbermann is fair game
-
-
47%
BB649 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Once again, I'm reminded why he reminds me of Jimmy Carter...
Reply
The problem when he goes after talk radio is that there isn't anyone around in the media whose worth a fart. ABC, CBS and NBC are little more than front groups for the DNC. Their "news" and "entertainment" groups did nothing but cover for his failings. They would never go after their messiah.
As for BO and his party, they're going after talk radio. Free speech is only protected by the libs when it meets their policies and standards.-
86%
nostalgia9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What exactly in my post would lead you to believe I agree with Limbaugh?
Reply
I was simply pointing out what should be obvious - Obama sniping at Limbaugh was not a very smart idea
Was McCain's direction for the Republican Party a winner - hardly
I'm interested in fiscal conservatives regardless of the party they belong to - Republicans, Blue Dog Democrats, Independents, Libertarian doesn't matter to me
I like the Democrat Patterson appointed to fill Hillary's Senate seat - how about you?
She voted against that original baulout bill
"allegedly didn't vote for"?
AH I get it, you think I'm lying! Nice try but as usual you lose
You must have missed what I posted about McCain on several occasions:
"McCain was just another pandering politician
Read his biography/family memoir, Faith of My Fathers
He has some real psychological problems - he doesn't feel like he ever measured up to his father and grandfather - both 4 Star admirals
The only way for him to "live up to expectations" was to become commander in chief" -
44%
Hhussk9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Incorrect.
Reply
What is actually occurring is that the FCC board, when reformed in this new administration, had the capability of enforcing the Fairness Doctrine de facto, without the approval or disapproval of Congress.
By focusing on people such as Limbaugh and Hannity, Obama is clearly recognizing them as opponents. His first task is making them look like bad guys. If he succeeds, then he has an outlet to make his attacks on AM radio public.
If you were sincere, you would notice that Obama has mentioned Hannity, Limbaugh and Talk Radio many times, but has rarely vented against newspaper or T.V. It is not a mere coincidence. -
89%
Tangent0019 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In reality, something the neo-cons avoid like the plague, Obama has stated he would NOT support the return of the Fairness Doctrine. It's just stubborn residue from their campaign to paint Obama as a Marxist.
Reply
"In June of this year a spokesman for Barack Obama had this to say about reimposing the “Fairness Doctrine”:
Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets." [emphasis added]
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-fairnes... -
89%
wtagg9 months, 2 weeks ago
-
-
-
55%
buckncindykill9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The reason why Barack Obama doesn't want people listening to talk radio is because it is a major speed bump in the way of his massive government spending and national socialist schemes. Talk radio is really the only form of media that is willing to challenge democrats and Barack Obama .. somehow talk radio icons just don't seem to get tingles up their legs every time he speaks. Talk radio is willing to ask the tough questions. And now, more than ever, is the time for tough questions.
Reply -
-
80%
ADAGUY9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"If you could point out an example where Rush Limbaugh blatently perpetrated a lie, I would like to hear it."
Reply
You asked for it!
Do you recall the last year of Clinton's term, when the cuban boy was found floating in the ocean? For the first 3 days, limbaugh said they should send the kid back where he came from. Then, when the attorney general made the decision to send the kid back, Limbaugh immediately labeled the kid a refugee from communism, and said he should be allowed to stay.
How many times have you heard him say that the auto makers problems are the unions.
It takes 14 man hours to make a jeep. (1100 dollars in labor)
It takes 33 man hours to make a ford automobile(3300 in labor)
This is the most efficient plant in the US as well as the least efficient plant in the US.
Do you honestly think that 1100 per car would save Chrysler? HELL NO!
Why do you think the auto makers are not concerned about labor costs. Because they know it is under control. The problems are elsewhere!
Hoiw about the lie Limbaugh tells when he says "Every member of congress was able to see the same info Bush saw" (regarding the invasion of Iraq)
Bald faced LIE!
Congress was not allowed to see the classified info that Bush sorted through. They were allowed to see only the documents that Bush wanted them to see, as these were the documents that he used to justify his attack on Iraq! If the current info said there were believed to be no WMD's, but a three year old report said they had WMD's, then congress was shown only the older report! -
75%
icono19 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
..."Free speech is only protected by the libs when it meets their policies and standards."
Reply
True.
In most countries controlled by a singular entity; a dictator and 'his govt', the suppression of dissenting ideas is seen as a necessary caveat, ( a warning enjoining one from certain acts or practices) to protecting the policies as well as the public image of the individual in control.
In this society, where 'the right' of free speech is supposedly held higher than the 'image and self serving goals of politicians', I find it interesting that 0Bama would warn the public against listening to a particular individual like Rush Limbaugh. The question Iwould have about that is what is it that 0Bama does not want us, the public, to hear and why does he not want us to hear it.
Although I'm not a big Rush Fan, I guess it is time to start listenting to Rush to see if I can discern what the big threat is to 0Bama and the Democrats.
-
-
-
60%
ADAGUY9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Free speech is only protected by the libs when it meets their policies and standards."
Reply
Do you think all people should be responsible for what they say about others? Yes or No?
It's that simple.
There are tons of liberal talk radio hosts on the west coast, as well as in and around the northeast. They too will be held responsible for what they say.
If they want to make up lies, as they all do, then they should be held liable, or, give the other side
an opportunity to counter those lies. -
73%
wtagg9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How is this different than the policies of the previous admin? Your mixture of suggested fascism and communism is somewhat troubling, considering the incompatibility of the ideologies. Da would have been a better choice to provide consistency.
Reply
As I asked Mr. Wisconsin above, where has Obama suggested he wanted to deny free speech?-
-
71%
rightiswrong9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
buckncindykill:"And now, more than ever, is the time for tough questions."
Reply
LOL, where has your boy Rush The Fat been for the last 8 years. That was when we needed someone asking " tough questions." Guess he was out making fun of Mike J Fox. Did that give you a tingle up your legs.
-
-
60%
slate9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The thought police are gonna start knocking at your door before long.
Reply
You listen to NPR Mr' Slate? Ahhhhhh goot
You listen to CNN and MSNBC Yaaaah goot.
Leftist internet sites? Goot again!
What? You listen to Rush, FOX, Hannity, Beck and Savage? Take him away comrades. These types should never see the light of day again for listening to any view that isn't state sponsored.-
100%
wtagg9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The problem he had with our party was the fact we lost our way."
Reply
The problem is that he led the way. Shall I go on about all the liberal spending policies and lack of fiscal accountability of the previous admin that he fully supported? -
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned7 Replies
-
75%
wtagg9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"It's about time somebody told the truth about Limbaugh! Hatred and lies are not acceptable on our airwaves!"
Reply
I'm blowing in two ways on this. Telling the truth about a subject is always desirable. Preventing speech is always undesirable.
My suggestion is to pursue the first wherever it leads and let others judge for themselves what they want to believe in.
I equate this, and free speech in general, to the idea of religious freedom in this country. This idea is the foundation of the first amendment.
-
-
50%
Hhussk9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How is this different than the policies of the previous admin?
Reply
Excellent question.
The previous administration never tried to silence any media outlets. They never pandered to the media, even when it was popular to do so. And certainly, President Bush never singled out, in a speech, a member of the media as "someone not to listen to".
The closest example I can think of was a reporter G.W. called an "a-hole" during his 2000 campaign. He did this in a private conversation with Dick Cheney, which was overheard by the microphones.
In his Presidency, Bush never made the media an enemy. Not even MSNBC. He also never tried to silence any particular outlet.
But when President Obama targets AM radio only, by naming specifically and only, conservative talk show hosts, it is clear to me that he has a beef with only one group of the media -- the ALTERNATIVE MEDIA.
President Obama will not directly confront the Fairness Doctrine. The rules of politics suggest he will use indirect outlets...just like the Clintons did.-
-
75%
wtagg9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First, you are telling me that the government never tried to silence, for example, Howard Stern?
Reply
Second, how is Obama's comment possibly construed to mean "silence"? I can't wait for this answer.
"conservative talk show hosts, it is clear to me that he has a beef with only one group of the media -- the ALTERNATIVE MEDIA."
Hilarious. You are suggesting that the highest paid, one, if not the most influential talk show entertainers is not part of the MSM. Is he an alternative? Certainly, just as a Ford is an alternative to a GM product. That doesn't one or the other not an automobile. Limbaugh is as much of an automobile as Olbermann or any one else on the other side of the political fence. -
100%
RedstateLib9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"And certainly, President Bush never singled out, in a speech, a member of the media as "someone not to listen to"."
Reply
Maybe not but he sure singled out Helen Thomas as a member of the White house Press corp as some who would not be called on to ask questions at press conferences as punishment for asking questions he did not like.
-
-
100%
k9kssr9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Surely, regardless of political affiliation, most individuals in this country would rebel against suppression of free speech.....wouldn't they?
Reply
I also think it is sad that even the president thinks republicans and conservatives make up their minds based on what Limbaugh has to say. It's stereotyping which is the precursor to bigotry. Personally, I haven't listened to him in years.-
-
-
75%
Jeboba9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Anyone that promotes hatred and validates the loonie toon nutcases on either side, should be silenced for 'inciting to acts of violence". THIS is Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. THEY spew such bile that the nutbag righties out there feel like they are empowered to carry out whatever they have in mind.
Reply
THAT is why Rush, et al are dangerous. They have the right to say what they want. They do NOT have the right to recruit domestic terrorists which is what they help to do!
I'll bet you anything that Timothy McVeigh was a fan of Rush Limbaugh! -
64%
dunkirk9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO after Bush more then doubled the size of the government Limpaw is worried??? ROFLMAO. I think there should be a mandatory class given for all right wingers to show them what hypocrisy means. it seems that is one of the key planks of their party.
Reply -
60%
Jeboba9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sadly, there are millions of less than brilliant Americans who make up their minds based on what Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, etc., have to say. They believe the lies. They are too lazy to find out the truth on their own so they drink the koolaid of the neocons. ANYTHING that can be done to either silence or tone down the purveyors of bile, hatred, and lies on the right will be good for the country as a whole!
Reply
-
-
67%
dunkirk9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, I can understand his opposition to the prescription bill since it required verification something Limpie seemed to have bypassed. BTW what did become of Limpie calling for mandatory sentences for ALL drug users? Oh yeah I forget he IS a drug user.
Reply
AND I can definitely see your a prime candidate for the Hypocrisy class. Seems complaining about increased government size after supporting increasing government size for non essential political gain qualifies you hands down. -
-
50%
BB649 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don't lump us in with your side when it comes to learning about a candidate. They listen to Rush or Sean simply because there isn't anyone left. Most members of the GOP are not on welfare or AFDC so we can't afford cable. We listen to traditional TV. ABC, NBC and CBS are little more than entertainment shows today. I don't care about American Idol or that someone is leaving CSI. We'll have 20 minutes of a sports team that stinks but we won't hear about a gaff Biden made. Then again, they only have a 1/2 hour, there isn't enough time to cover all of them.
Reply
BTW, I don't hate the President. I don't like him at all. I think he's a stuffed shirt. I think he's terrible. But I will not hate him. Hate is generally a feeling reserved by the DNC for their use. Your words describe the DNC of Wisconsin and much of the mid-west perfectly. -
33%
Hhussk9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I was against President Bush's increased size of government.
Reply
I am vehemently against Obama's 1 trillion est. quadrupling of government.
The only thing I can say in President Bush's defense is that some of his actions were used to increase the defenses of our country. President Obama is actually reducing our defenses (according to comments from his website). -
52%
stephen-johnson9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Limbaugh correctly notes that the purpose of the Obama "stimulus" package is to stimulate the growth of government, NOT the economy. And it's loaded with special interest pork to boot. No Republican should support it. Obama is using Limbaugh as a boogeyman now that the left's favorite boogeyman - Dubya - has left the scene.
Reply
It will be interesting to see Obama's public approval ratings a year from now as more and more of his far left agenda gets enacted. His ratings now could be his high water mark. -
56%
jimdoze9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails."
Reply
Next time you quote him, get it right.
Personally, I would strongly assert a correction to Rush. That is, if Obama does all that he said he would in the run up to the election, he will fail. My biggest cause for hope now is that Obama seems to have toned down his approach dramatically in the days following the election... particularly in regards to foreign policy... and, perhaps even in re: domestic policy.
Sorry, DenCuddly, the republicans did not screw the economy nor did they concentrate on the wrong war. In regard to the economy, let's start with Fannie, Freddie, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd... and then perhaps move on to the primarily democrat supporting banking houses that were securitizing the mortgages not held by Fannie and Freddie. In regard to the war... Bush Iraq policies have removed as the greatest flashpoint for world war since the Treaty of Versailles. Obama can now draw down the troops from Iraq specifically because of the surge. In fact, Bush threw Obama a major bone by not drawing down more troops at the end of his term when he clearly could have.
Delusional? Decidedly not, my friend. -
71%
DenCuddy9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wasn't it Limbaugh who stated "I hope he fails"? I've heard nothing of a response from the administration. Pundits, sure but nothing official. The poor republicans world is crashing down around them and they don't have a delusional president to reassure them everything is OK.
Reply
Guess what guys republicans screwed the economy and concentrated on the wrong war. Now reality shines in and they start screaming obscenities, hope the country collapses and convulsing, LMAO! Then they claim to be patriots.-
-
42%
GLee9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To sit back and have Bush to point at with blame is very easy. Yes, an easy way 'out' for our liberal friends. Alas, the famous 'do nothing Congress' who has literally done nothing for 18+ months to help set up an election at a dear cost to its citizens. Congress with the help of our dear MSM. But yes, Bush is the sole cause of our 'mess'.
Reply
Now really, who is full of BS Mr Cuddy? -
-
-
-
86%
Tangent0019 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Re-instituting the draft would take an act of Congress.
Reply
I don't think Obama will necessarily increase (or decrease) the size of the military, but he will re-focus on bin Laden and the Taliban. As I recall from campaign statements, Obama is looking for a military that is more nimble, adaptable, and responsive. -
-
-
-
hefaa1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
63%
4thchance9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm glad you brought up the DRAFT issue.
Reply
I PREDICT that Obama will reinstate the draft.
I'll also predict that Obama will be even more tough on terror then Bush was.
I alos predict that Obama will greatly increase the size of our military.
anyone want to bet me?-
-
100%
aceofspades19 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
", but lefty talk radio just does not fly with people."
Reply
Maybhe its because the people you call "lefties" are a bit smarter than the lockstep cons who need someone who stinks like Limburger to guide them.
Go for you who think a former hack for a baseball team, loudmouth drug addled womanizer (that's if he can find his viagra) radio panderer is your savior. -
88%
Tangent0019 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Progressive radio is a relatively recent phenomenon, while Conservative radio has decades of entrenchment. While Air America had had it's mis-steps, progressive radio in general has been steadily gaining market share. I don't know what programs they have in Seattle, but the AM760 line-up in Denver is pretty solid and I have yet to hear any giggling.
Reply -
-
-
90%
Tangent0019 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"And the Dems acually compromised and gutted the infrastucture allotment to give the Repubs more tax breaks and agreed to cut expenditures to social programs like family planning."
Reply
Yet the Republicans are still hollering that the bill is not bi-partisan enough. Well, guess what? We've had decades of Conservatism at the reins of the economy, and look where it's got us. I think it's high time to mix in a fair amount of Liberalism.-
100%
Jeboba9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We will never know because Bush's Mr. Paulsen didn't put on any requirements to tell us how they will use the money. Mr. Bush's Mr. Paulsen just GAVE 'em the money, no strings. Now THAT is smart government, REpublican government...yesssiiirreeee.
Reply
-
-
85%
Charlson9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The stimulus bill that the Repubs have rejected because it didn't give enough tax breaks is just obstructionism. 33% of the bill goes to tax cuts which wil not produce enough jobs and economic stimulus to get our country back on it's feet. But the 17% for infrastucture will give jobs to both workers and companies. And the Dems acually compromised and gutted the infrastucture allotment to give the Repubs more tax breaks and agreed to cut expenditures to social programs like family planning. The Repubs don't want to work to get our economy back in shape but want it to fail just like their hero Limpballs said.
Reply-
38%
4thchance9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I find it odd that millions of people listen into conservative talk radio, but lefty talk radio just does not fly with people. It's weird? But then again, I have tuned into AIR BISCUIT AMERICA here in the Seattle area a few times (Yes it's still on here) and found that for the most part, those people are INSANE! They compare Bush with Hitler and so on, they sit around and giggle about it like little school girls. It's really really hard to listen to their hate filled BS. I'm guessing it's their obvious HATRED that most don't like or want to hear.
Reply -
92%
greenmac9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When are people going to learn...it is not the time for the "them and us mentality". the economy is sinking and something must be done. whatever is implemented will require tweaking as it goes forward. Investing in infrastructure keeps people and companies working and it appears the infrastructure requires the attention.Jobs and companies also provide tax revenues coming back to the government...so a percentage of each dollar going out comes back. Without these jobs , more would be on some form of social assistance..money going out..not much coming back.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
85%
Poulenc9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ye gods, you conserv guys 'n' gals posting here are just too much!
Reply
The point was, you've got to dig yourself out from under nasty partisan spew--i. e., that of Limbaugh--to be able to address effectively the actual problems that besiege our country.
Using Limbaugh as an example of partisan zealotry--which, god knows he is--is not the same thing as being partisan oneself. It's merely recognizing disabling negativity. -
50%
Georgia509 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Whatever one thinks of eloquence, it is not and never has been an excuse for refusing to address one's opponent on point.
Reply
We hear Limbaugh making points supported by facts.
We then observe liberals refusing to address his points and instead making flimsy partisan accusations, as if Limbaugh's assertions amount to claims of nonpartisanship on his part.
Connecting the dots has never been so easy.-
75%
Tangent0019 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"We hear Limbaugh making points supported by facts."
Reply
No, we hear Limbaugh wishing for the President to fail, without giving any reason to believe Conservatism has at all succeeded, or would succeed at repairing the economy. Limbaugh just wants four more years, four more years, four more years (repeat and fade). -
60%
willottica9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We hear Limbaugh making points supported by facts.
Reply
Off air? There's not a lot of facts presented on-air.
Why would Liberals bother to respond to made-up facts?
Partisanship refers to supporting (or denigrating) a party over all others. This is something that Rush excels at. I base this observation on those posts that PC25 has submitted to Propeller (right out of the horse's @ss, as one might say).
The claim that by getting people to tune into Rush you're going to give him more voice is somewhat laughable. Everyone I know who isn't an ardent Rush supporter already, would see his rants for what they are. Unsubstantiated, unsupported, temper tantrums.
-
-
JustTrollKingComment removed: Hard Banned
-
43%
PatrioticAmerican9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So the left seems to know a lot about what Limbaugh and Hannity have to say more then i do, Do they listen and watch them???? or do they get their Info from a 3rd party??? if they listen and watch then they are part of the reason these kind of shows are so popular so thank you for listening and thank you for watching. If you don't listen or watch and you get your info 3rd party then you cant really put a lot of power behind what you are saying here because every story changes every time its told
Reply -
100%
Jeboba9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I listen to them so I know what the enemy's talking points are for the day. Keep your friends close...keep your enemies closer. It's about all I can do to keep from vomiting every time one of them opens their mouth and the lies and hatred come spewing out.
Reply-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
78%
willottica9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama will have to go toe-to-toe with an authentic, thoughtful political opponent and genuine conservative.
Reply
That would be great! But it's not going to happen with the current republican party. McCain lost for the reasons that Democrats were saying he would lose, right from the outset. There was free advice given: Stop focusing on attack ads and try to win on your own merits. McCain didn't do that. There was precious little time devoted to McCain by McCain's campaign, and since Obama didn't go there (as he needn't have) McCain got precious little coverage. -
71%
antibrainwasher9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Entrenched beligerent idealog religious supersititous irrational fearmongering coward racist morons: I give you the republican party after the brains and money pulled out, like Rush Limpbaugh's third wife pulled out when she found the kiddy porn and oxy cotton and closet homosexuality.
Reply
BTW, did you see the new revelations of the great Republican, the Rev Ted Haggart????
He was boinking some guy in his church, preaching gay bashing. The stench from republican cowardice and hyprocracy is like the brown cloud of toxic sludge over china, it blots out the sun.
-
-
100%
cherev9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Obama still thinks he won. "
Reply
He's got pretty good reason to think so. Put whatever spin on it you'd like, the Republicans dropped the ball back in 1988. Bush Sr. was a terrible president and a lot of true conservatives deserted the party in 1992 which paved the way for Bill Clinton. Then, the Republicans put up Bob Dole. Nuff said.
Then, the Republicans put up George Bush who, although he was much better than his father, didn't do what should have been done. And, then the party selected McCain who, while I have the greatest respect for his service to our country, didn't represent true conservatism.
So now, Obama is president. However, he got there, he's it. And he's got a Democrat Congress to back him up. Let's admit the truth - we've gotten our clocks cleaned just like in 1992. If Obama is smarter than Clinton, he won't get a Republican congress like Clinton did in 1994. Of course, that's what saved Clinton.
Chalk up Obama's win to whatever you want, but that's a waste of time. Conservatives have to take back our party, kick out the RINO's, and get ready for the future. At the same time, we have to be ready for what Obama is going to do to us. -
33%
Georgia509 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How am I part of the problem?
Reply
Not that you perchance read Coulter's recent article, but here you are bloviating about the divisiveness of conservatives, yet we're not the ones who produced books and films about the assassination of a president we disagreed with, nor are we the ones who booed and hissed an outgoing president.
Do try and know your own team. By so doing you at least raise the possibility that you can be taken seriously. -
47%
Georgia509 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama still thinks he won. In a number of states, he failed to outperform Kerry. Rather, McCain underperformed Bush.
Reply
It's one thing to know you won the contest. It's quite another to know why. But that's another story.
Now that Obama managed to get to the White House fighting Bush, Cheney, Palin, and everyone but McCain (I say this to McCain's disgrace as a leader), he now takes up the fight against an entertainer on the radio. You know...the same medium our grandparents grew up on. Oh wait...radio is going strong. Wherefore is the NYT? Other liberal rags?
One day the world will edge ever-so-slightly toward perfection. And in that marginally more perfect world, Obama will have to go toe-to-toe with an authentic, thoughtful political opponent and genuine conservative. Not to be confused with McCain. Obama will rue that day, just like every other liberal who's had the pleasure.-
50%
Jeboba9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bush deserved more booing and hissing than he got. He did more to damage this country than anyone in history. He's lucky all he got were boos and hissess....so far. Hopefully he will be the sole inmate at Gitmo soon and have only one cellmate ... Cheney. THAT is what he really deserves!
Reply -
Georgia50Comment removed: Spam
-
-
-
80%
Poulenc9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Georgia, may I suggest to you, with all the humility I can summon (which feels like enough), is that the time for endless finger-pointing with obligatory ad hominem attack, of which MO you are an exemplar, is OVER.
Reply
That's the point.
No more partisan p*ssing contest.
Fini.
Be now or be square.
-
-
-
-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
83%
fjgalt9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I listened to Rush Limbaugh back in the early 1990s, when Clinton and the Democrats in Congress were in charge. It was useful to learn about issues from Rush; he was a good source of information.
Reply
Once the Republicans got control of Congress in 1994, they reneged on their 10-point pledge for limited government, spending reductions, etc. I hoped Rush would criticize them as he had the Democrats. All he did was apologize for everything the Republicans betrayed. They were always right, even when they did the same things for which he criticized the Democrats.
I gave up listening to his misinformation. Now that the Democrats once again control the presidency and Congress, he might serve as a source of information, but always with the filter that he is a mouthpiece for the Republicans.
Paul -
86%
djn3nunez39 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Good advice to Republicans by President Obama. Don't listen to comedians when determining policy.
Reply
Why would anyone with half a brain beleive the tripe the get broadcast on Limbaughs show(or any of those rabid right lunitic fringe shows)? -
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned
-
75%
ELISHEVA19 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Please - this is sooooooo childish! How is this even news? Obviously Obama was making a point, and it's a good one. If we don't find a way to co-operate - get together - focus on the goal of survival, we are done. When will some of you wake up and realize the seriousness of our situation. Add that to the gift of someone who may be able to lead us out - with our co-operation. Do we really think we have the luxury of giving lip service to the supposed opposition? We are all in this together. Let's make the best of it!
Reply-
50%
PatrioticAmerican9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
we were all in this together for the past 8 years where was yhe "co-operation" then oh wait thats right the repubs were in control and the dems were ****** so they REFUSED to work with Bush even when he asked them too. But since now its the dems in charge and Obama has asked for co-operation all the past hate is gone ???? wow that is really 1 sided
Reply -
-
-
89%
NoWayMan9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
more funny stuff from hotair and pc25.
Reply
FTA: "Instead of marginalizing Rush Limbaugh, Obama managed to make him the most credible voice of opposition" (I stopped reading right there, btw)
if Obama has done anything that makes Rush the most credible voice on the right, then that's only good for the left. and that's horrible for the right, since no one who dwells anywhere near the center wants anything to do with Rush.
here's your ticket for 2012 cons: rush and palin.
run with it cons. please. pretty please.
we double dog dare you.
-
-
More News
LA Times
A story of shock, chaos and bravery unfolds in Ft. Hood shooting
Historic healthcare overhaul passes House
Afghanistan government says foreign officials are interfering
Unemployment rate rises above 10% ; Obama signs jobless benefit extension
Jason Rodriguez : Shooting at downtown Orlando office building leaves 5 hurt, 1 dead
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.