The American Spectator : Doing the Limbaugh

Text Size

Doing the Limbaugh

By Jay D. Homnick on 1.26.09 @ 6:07AM

Obama’s men do a new dance, in the shape of a triangle.

A crusty old doctor I knew was fond of this little pronouncement: “The Democrats told me that if I voted for Goldwater in 1964 our country would end up in a war in Southeast Asia. Turns out they were exactly right. I voted for Goldwater and we ended up in a war in Southeast Asia.”

The real irony in this joke was that Goldwater’s continued presence in the Senate after the election did more to advance Johnson’s policies than the election itself. Every time the Johnson Administration tried to push a major initiative, needing some Republican votes for either passage or legitimacy, they made sure to get Goldwater on record in opposition. Then they would pressure Republican lawmakers into signing on, lest they be seen as extremist Goldwater Republicans.

In later eras, Jesse Helms and Newt Gingrich served in this role on behalf of Democrat triangulators. Fortunately or unfortunately, there are no serving Republicans, House or Senate, who can be cast in this curmudgeonly role today. This puts the Democrats at risk of having to pass all their bills by party line votes. The Democrat electoral future will be at risk; if the policies are seen to fail, the principled Republican opposition will win back the Congress.

Who can they use as the symbol of party extremism, enabling them to bend the spineless Republican center to their will? By now it has become quite clear how they have solved this problem. Right alongside appointed Senators Burris and Gillibrand, the Democrats have appointed as Honorary Senator none other than Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh has been targeted for criticism by Democrats before, usually for things taken way out of context. When Democrats claimed that Social Security was insufficient to provide old people with more than dog food, Limbaugh joked about buying his mother a can opener for the Alpo. Congresswoman Pat Schroeder ran to the House floor to decry this heartless abandonment of his mother to a harsh fate. More recently, Rush referred to “phony soldiers” who had invented atrocities which were later disproved. Harry Reid signed a letter to radio stations protesting this attack against the military.

Still, these forays have been periodic; perhaps better said, episodic. Other than a brief interlude in which Bill Clinton seemed to be obsessed with him (until James Carville advised against giving Limbaugh attention), there has not been a general strategy to go after him relentlessly. In the last three weeks, this has clearly changed. From the Trojan Horse attack by General Powell to swipes from more Democrats and media personalities, an unrelieved barrage has been directed his way. This campaign reached its climax last Friday when the newly minted President told Congressional Republicans in a meeting that listening to Limbaugh would not endear them to the American People.

Here the President is demonstrating the exact nature of the strategy. Use “Senator” Limbaugh to triangulate just as Goldwater and Helms were used in the past. Surely the Arlen Specters and the John McCains and the Lindsey Grahams would not like to be seen as Dittoheads. They can only prove their vaunted sophistication, their acclaimed moderation, their lauded toleration, by becoming the useful idiots of the Obama juggernaut.

If indeed the phrase “Republican principles” has not been rendered an oxymoron, their only hope at ever achieving primacy in the public eye again is if they are observed scrupulously. Time and again we have seen that if Republican want to define themselves as big-government-but-cheap, they will be doubly rejected for lacking both direction and generosity. If the Democrats’ Limbaugh strategy works, Republicans will spend a generation or more in remote exile.

Ironically the only hope for a comeback in the near future is to embrace Limbaugh, or at least to embrace the people like me who are proud to have Limbaugh as our voice to the nation. The next time, or the next hundred times, some Democrat agitator culls some quasi-toxic quote from the fifteen hours a week of Rush’s ingenious advocacy, every Republican Representative or Senator should be ready with the same sound-bite. “Boy that Rush, he is a hoot, always with a clever joke to back up his profound analysis. Discount his little gag lines and underneath you will find a substantive Reaganesque analysis as good as any pointy-headed intellectual type.”

Do I have much hope that Specter and McCain and Graham et al. will withstand this assault? Well, I would love for my words to make me the tightener of bad bearings, but I fear my dyslexia may get in the way.

topics:
Barack Obama, Rush Limbaugh, Triangulation

About the Author

Jay D. Homnick, commentator and humorist, is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator. He also writes for Human Events. Here he speaks at the Rally for Religious Freedom in Miami on June 8, 2012.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (138) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Ted| 1.26.09 @ 6:51AM

WTF, at least El Rushbo is constitutionally qualified to be President!

Rush Limbaugh was born in 1951 to an American mom "Millie" and an American dad lawyer & WWII fighter pilot in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Since 'President' Obama now wants to silence El Rushbo even before BHO has a chance to re-establish the "fairness doctrine" to silence all conservative talk radio, I've got three questions (but answers to only two of them):

FIRST QUESTION: Who IS the actual and lawful 44th President of the USA?

ANSWER: Joe Biden

Biden was initially the Acting President for at least 5 minutes under either the Constitution’s Article 2 or the Constitution’s 20th Amendment, from 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, having already taken his Oath of Office and before Obama completed his ‘oath’ at approximately 12:05 PM, 1/20/09. Under the 20th Amendment if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, or alternatively under Article 2 if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term, being 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, which ability and/or qualification includes that he take the Article 2 oath “before he enter on the execution of his office,” then either the Presidency shall devolve on the Vice President under Article 2 or the Vice President shall act as President under the 20th Amendment. (The importance of the oath in ‘commencing’ an ‘Obama Presidency’ — rather than merely the 1/20/09 Noon time — is confirmed by the re-take of the ‘oath’ by Obama at the White House on 1/21/09 after the first ‘oath’ was NOT administered by Justice Roberts NOR recited by Obama in the words as required under Article 2.)

This is significant because at such time that the Supreme Court finally rules on the merits on Obama’s disqualification as not being an Article 2 “natural born citizen” (clearly he is NOT, on either and/or both of two bases -- (1) BHO refuses to show Birth Certificate to deny Kenyan birth/res ipsa loquitur "action speaks for itself" or (2) BHO admits dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen at Jr's birth), Biden’s automatic status (without needing to take a separate Presidential Oath) of being President would be predicated upon four different bases: First, having been Vice President under Article 2; second, having been Vice President-elect under the 20th Amendment; third, having been actual President in the hiatus before Obama took the ‘oath(s)’; and fourth, retroactively deemed President during the full period of the Obama usurpation so that the acts of the Federal Government under the usurpation can be deemed authorized and/or ratified by Biden’s legitimacy.

SECOND QUESTION: Who will be the 45th President?

ANSWER: Hillary Clinton

One must assume that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been aware of all of the above. Biden’s wife recently “let the cat out of the bag” on the Oprah Show that both Biden and Hillary had considered alternatively Veep or Secretary of State, in either case, setting up Hillary to be President on a vote of the Democratic Congress if need be.

THIRD QUESTION: Is Obama an unwitting victim of this troika or a knowing participant?

ANSWER: Not yet determined.

Melvin| 1.26.09 @ 6:59AM

Limbaugh is doing something that the feckless Republican should be doing..Fighting back. Sen. McCain is up to his old tricks again, as others in the Republican Party whose time has come to an end.
I personally have disagreed with those who think the President is the next best thing to sliced government cheese.
We have nothing to fear from President Obama and the Democrat controlled Senate and House. But we best damn sure fear the policies that he and the Legislative Branch will churn out faster than a high school issued condom.
The President and his cabinet are just mere flesh and blood and they bleed. They are no impervious to criticism or political scandal.
"But we'll be called racists if we disagree with the President and his policies." So what else is new. "Racist," is an over-used, least understood word in the dictionary. Americans who have disagreed with Liberal Democrat policies have been called "racist" by the race pimps since time immortal, we should be immune by now because this is the only thing that the failed Liberal Democrat policies have to stand on.

Scott| 1.26.09 @ 7:08AM

Pretty sad Republicans don't have a politician of any consequence to the general public. God what an opportunity for someone with charisma, principles, etc., to really throw a wrench in the upcoming social engineering.

John Daniel| 1.26.09 @ 7:16AM

Actually, the lead quote is attributable to Nancy Ames playing a ditzy blond on the television program "That was the week that was" (or, as the BBC version was known, "TW3").

Kitty| 1.26.09 @ 7:42AM

When my two children were little -- about 7 & 8 -- my son used to torment his little sister by 'accusing' her of acting just like me. "And everybody hates it!"

I told her the next time he said it, thank him. It worked like a charm :)

Of course, it may not work on all the spineless Republicans and useful idiots we're stuck with now. After all, they're not as resolute as children.

...

Jeremiah| 1.26.09 @ 7:59AM

Ted --

Sir, you've got your facts all in a knot.

If Barack Hussein Obama had pulled a mallet out of his coat pocket and thwacked the Chief Justice over the head with it, instead of saying the oath, he'd still be president.

The oath confirms for the public a Constitutionally mandated presidency that began at noon on January 20th.

Second, what gave you the idea that Obama is trying to "silence" Limbaugh?

That is absurd. He urged members of Congress (in a private meeting) to abjure Limbaugh's extremism (his desire, for example, for the recovery package to fail), and in general, in keeping with his desire to alter political discourse, is hoping that Republicans will try to live for a while without false rancor, cheap cynicism, bathetic sarcasm, and exasperated and witless ad hominem attack. They can learn to do this by relying for a time on their own better nature and by means of a thoughtful engagement of the issues. (In other words, by turning off Limbaugh.)

MWB| 1.26.09 @ 8:05AM

Obama is building Rush up to be his prototypical evil Republican. How is this going to play when he then attempts to muzzle him by tinkering with broadcast regulations? Doesn't it make it obvious that any attempt to silence Rush is a glaring violation of free speech once you have directly named him as the spokesperson of the opposition party?

Bill| 1.26.09 @ 8:21AM

Yeah Jeremiah, just like the Dems did for the last eight years. Why reward stupidity by withholding comment on bad policy.

Ryan| 1.26.09 @ 8:25AM

What continually amuses me about the left is their continued insistence to not understand Rush. Limbaugh's shining grace - which, IMHO, puts him in a league above the other hosts - is his congeniality and refusal to take himself too seriously. There are times where it seems that Rush is the only one of the talk radio guys who actually enjoys his job.

The aftermath of the Harry Reid letter is the best part - Rush sold the thing for charity and matched the price it sold for, and I want to say the final price was well in excess of $1million. Far more than the Dems in congress probably gave away in their lifetime.

Wankel| 1.26.09 @ 8:40AM

I can hear McCain now, "Yeah... tell 'em Mr. President!"

JP| 1.26.09 @ 8:42AM

The whole episode last Friday was kind of strange I thought. Here was a newly minted, young president. His party has clear majorities in both houses of congress. Why go out of your way in issuing such an idiotic threat? The RHINOS are already on your side. The only thing the president' threat does is to cement his arrogance in public and distract attention from his first test (and pet project), the stimulis bill. During President Reagan's first week in office, he invited the House Speaker (Tip O'Niel) and his party whip to a well publicized breakfast, and then conducted a closed door meeting in order to hammer out the negociating points of Reagan's first budget. Obama refuses to show such class.

Obama and his minions in Congress are playing with political fire. They either are blissfully unaware of the antipathy for such a huge spending bill, or simply think they are immune from the political fall-out if the bill fails to "create jobs" by July or August. Having a sizable minority of GOP lawmakers would provide some political cover for such an eventuality.

Instead, Obama is opening a Pandora's Box. The GOP's problems are not so bad that 10% unemployment and double digit inflation cannot solve.

J David| 1.26.09 @ 9:04AM

Nailed it, Mr Homnick! Unfortunately, we are now in an oligarchy and craven "bi-partisanship" has joined the only two parties recognized by ANY media, INCLUDING RUSH! Until Rush gets off of the dead elephant he is desperately (and hopelessly)trying to kick-start, and begins to, for leverage purposes against the Benedict Arnold RINOs if nothing else, endorse some other vehicle, even the mighty Rush is on the sinking ship with rest of us.

Kitty| 1.26.09 @ 9:05AM

Wankel, that was EXCELLENT!

...

J David| 1.26.09 @ 9:11AM

If, *Republican* means nothing, and Rush claims now that he is NOT a *Republican*, but endorses shameful Knee-Pad RINOs like Juan "Petain" McVain to lead the country, then they really have him - despite his vigorous protestations - in a forward-bent position over a barrel.

Alice Moore| 1.26.09 @ 9:14AM

The GOP does have a principled leader in Gov. Sarah Palin.

I get mail from the RNC all the time. They seem to want my money and votes at every election time. Trouble is they've done nothing to earn them. They invoke the bogey Democrats. There is no appreciable difference between the Washington parties; at this time. One is a rotten to the core apple the other a rotting apple.

The GOP/RNC seems to think those who vote in the (R) column are yellow dog Republicans. The events of 2006 and 2008 haven't yet set them straight.

Now is not the time to reach across the aisle. This time is the opportunity to be the opposition ; at the same time avoiding any fallout from Obama's disastrous policies.

J David| 1.26.09 @ 9:15AM

Wankel illustrates exactly why Rush, nor Ann Coulter, nor any other real conservative had ANY business endorsing Juan Amnesty McVain, the other Soros candidate!

Kitty| 1.26.09 @ 9:20AM

J David: I don't think you listen to Rush, otherwise you wouldn't make some of those comments.

...

J David| 1.26.09 @ 9:20AM

I love Saracuda, but she isn't "leading" anything but Alaska right now. She is the head of no party apparatus and she is thoroughly hated by most of the RINOs that are, and those who *follow* someone who is not leading in the emotional fantasy that she is, are going to go in circles. The problem is immediate survival of the country, not imaginary leadership four years out.

Jeremiah| 1.26.09 @ 9:23AM

Alice --

The GOP has a "principled leader" in Sarah Palin?

How do you know what her principles are?

I'm talking about her political principles, now, not her social-conservative credentials.

True, she was unafraid to suggest that Obama is a terrorist. She was a proud ignoramous, something that in some circles passes as "conservative."

But what political philosophy did she lay out? How could you tell, through all the chaotic syntax and tongue tied jibberish?

Let me ask you this: if Ronald Reagan had been asked what Supreme Court decisisions other than R v W he disapproved of, don't you think he might have been able to supply an answer? (Like maybe, Oh, I don't know, Dred Scott?)

J David| 1.26.09 @ 9:24AM

Kitty, I not only liste to Rush, virtually daily for 18 years, I gave the reader interview to Human Events for his 20 year anniversary week. I love Rush. But Rush, while claiming he is NOT a *Republican*(for the last several months)and beating up Juan Amnesty McVain for nearly a decade, endorsed him for president. I think, kitty, you are the one not listening, or not paying attention, to Rush...

J David| 1.26.09 @ 9:32AM

Rush is a captive, as are the rest of us, to a now non-existent entity in the GOP. It is no longer a vehicle, at the national level, that can take this country back to conservatism - without a vicious purging - as its identity is completely corrupted. Only a departure by those whose conservative identity has not been fatally corrupted, into a split, or another party, for however long it takes to clear up their vision or replace them completely. The GOP is not lead by conservatives, as RUSH says every day now... SO WHY ENDORSE IT? How does that leverage anyone back to the correct position? What kind of bargaining position is it if I say I hate what the party is doing, as the rubber stamps to the commies, but I'll still endorse whomever they foist off on me?!

Heavy| 1.26.09 @ 9:34AM

Here's the REAL question. Why does THE ONE not show his BC? He should be run out of town on a rail!

Robert Rosencrans| 1.26.09 @ 9:43AM

Barack Obama has hedged or fallen back on almost every campaign promise he made. Now, he is using the office of the Presidency, the nation’s highest elected office, to launch an attack on an outspoken private citizen. Under the rules of Saul Alinsky, Barack Obama is a success. One of those rules states it’s better to demonize your political opponents by personalizing them, rather then respond with political values of your own.
While the public’s attention is sidetracked by the economy, Barack appears to believe his other actions will go unnoticed, or will be soon forgotten. In a way he’s right. If he had been elected 100 years ago the headlines would have been different. How about this one?

Terrorist Lover Launches Jihad Against the Unborn!

Looks rather alarming doesn’t it, but it’s oh so accurate. And that’s the problem. While the MSM ignores the major issues surrounding Barack Obama, they continue to do a disservice to America. If there is any group that should not listened to, it’s the mainstream media in America, or as Rush has accurately defined them, the drive-by media.

Tim| 1.26.09 @ 9:58AM

When the Republicans in Congress or Republicans anywhere, or independents for that matter begin to treat Obama as the 44th president and not some special, entitled and God Like "African American" Diety, then sanity will be restored and honest debate and loyal political opposition will again be just that.

That is what democracy is all about.

People in power being sometimes dragged over the coals by people out of power over policy decisions.

Unless of course there is a new Presidential order that was signed that now forbids this normal democratic tradition of check and balances.

If so, please tell me and I will be happy to join the A-men choir.

Dustoff| 1.26.09 @ 10:08AM

J.David
You say that you've been listening to Rush for all these years. When did he ever endorse McCain?

Try never. After McCain was picked he supported him because he was the Rep choice.
Get you facts in order!
Rush has always gone after McCain, because of his left leanings.

Kitty| 1.26.09 @ 10:14AM

J David, I've been a dittohead since April of '92. We all knew how Rush felt about McC, and most of us understood why he belatedly supported the "knee-pad RINO."

Rush doesn't strike me as being held captive to anything, least of all a political party. One of his many talents is knowing how to make lemonade out of lemons. It's the reason why many of us can't wait to hear how he responds to his critics, like Dingy Harry Reid's letter. How ingenious was that!

...

J David| 1.26.09 @ 10:44AM

Kitty, I love Rush for his optimism, but... Optimism requires ignoring things that will limit it (optimism).

Optimists help the prisoners around them by seeing the bright side, which requires minimizing or ignoring it, ostensibly for something better to think about or ponder, that might, and very often does, happen.

Everyone HATES a prophet(let me tell you! Look at the Bible!)and Rush, as prophetic as he is, has an audience he will not keep if he lets too many of the cats out of the bag, so to speak. Do you tell the audience EXACTLY what is coming down on them, or do you stick - as much as possible without harming credibility - to the bright-side possibilities and hope that they come true?

We don't know exactly how Rush feels when he is not on the air, as performance requires a certain amount of *manufacture* to be successful, even while telling the truth. He is effective, a genius, as far as I am concerned, at pulling off superior performance even while sick, or distracted, or grieving, or deaf. There is never going to be anyone like him, ever in the history of the world, but he has a balancing act to perform, on the highest of high-wires...

One of things immediately in the balance, right now this very minute, is Rush Limbaugh's career.
He will need very single voter that listens to his show to back him up when legislation already being considered to end him comes up for a vote, and gloom-and-doom message is not going to keep the flame alive. He chooses to continue *HOPE* the dead elephant he has been riding will experience a miraculous resurrection...It won't.

The people now voting, and the reason for the RINO betrayal, is that we have a couple generations that do not know history, or even basic civics. They have no ideology, but that they DESERVE *the dole*, and are socialist in their expectations. Only massive disaster, on a mind-bending scale can jerk people out of the illusion that gov't can always step in and save them(and not, enslave them).

NhoJ| 1.26.09 @ 10:46AM

In every two party system, there is a "loyal opposition". In today's world, we are told to be quiet and tow the line.

"I won" appears to be a statement of one opinion dictatorship.

J David| 1.26.09 @ 10:51AM

...Rush, the optimist, is throwing the dice every day, betting on a culture he loves, against the culture that now is, that they will wake up by themselves without him having to tell them they are doomed...

As much as I wish it were true, and I desperately do, the odds against liberty are growing longer by the hour, and we have well over the last century to see what happens to countries that embrace what ours has now embraced.

james wilson| 1.26.09 @ 10:57AM

Limbaugh was great once, perhaps last in the middle ninties. His own listeners begged him to see what was coming down the pike for years, but he was now inside the establishment.
Perhaps the Obots have chosen to use Limbaugh as a focal point not because he is a threat but because he is not.
He isn't.

Larry| 1.26.09 @ 10:58AM

"The real irony in this joke was that Goldwater's continued presence in the Senate after the election did more to advance Johnson's policies than the election itself."

The writer needs to get his facts straight. Goldwater left the Senate after 1964, since his term had expired, and was replaced by Paul Fannin (R-Ariz.). Four years later, Goldwater returned to the Senate after Johnson had left the presidency.

WendyG| 1.26.09 @ 10:59AM

Obama has picked a fight he can't win. His weird attack on Rush reminds me of his "lipstick on a pig" crack about Palin during the campaign. Petty, silly, beneath him. Recall that about that time McCain-Palin were up in the polls.. The lipstick on a pig remark hurt Obama. If not for the Wall Street meltdown, they might have stayed up in the polls, and won.

Never pick a fight with Rush. It's a loser.

Kitty| 1.26.09 @ 11:02AM

J David, you wrote that Rush "chooses to continue *HOPE* the dead elephant he has been riding will experience a miraculous resurrection..."

To quote Rush, "Hope is an excuse for doing nothing. "

...

J David| 1.26.09 @ 11:12AM

Yes...Ironic, isn't? He *HOPES* that - in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary - he can find leadership in a dead national party, and that must be some of his excuse for doing nothing about MOTIVATING them by carrying(or more importantly, threatening to carry)away 22 million of their conservative base. Breaking new trails is hard even for great thinkers like Rush, which is why he such an admirer of John Adams.

Thomas| 1.26.09 @ 11:33AM

I agree that the Democrat attacks on Rush Limbaugh are partially designed to segregate "moderate" Republican Congressmen from conservatives. There is another component in this though. The President is similar, in many respects, to the Wizard of Oz. He is a product of smoke and mirrors and can not stand up to close scrutiny. Limbaugh is very probably the most vocal and widely followed critic of the Emperor's new clothes effect in this country. The liberals, Democrats and the President would love to silence him.

Now, IMHO, Ted is partially correct, as is Jeremiah. With regards to the assumption of the Office of President by Joe Biden, should it be proven that Barack Obama does not meet the Constitutional qualifications for President; Biden would assume a caretaker Presidency until such time as a qualified Presidential candidate can be chosen. Unfortunately, the mechanism for choosing a qualified Presidential candidate is more than a little vague. I'll enclose the relevant section of the XX Amendment:

"Section 3.
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."

As you can see, this would surely end up before the Supreme Court. Lower courts have held that a term of office begins at the constitutionally appointed time, not upon the taking of the oath of office. In recent times the oath of office has generally been seen as being a necessary formality, not as the formal assumption of office. Therefor, once again IMO, the timing of the taking of the oath would not be a significant factor.

I realize that Sarah Palin keeps coming up in these discussions, probably because she is viewed as a lightning rod for Conservatives and therefor a threat to those who wish to marginalize Conservatives and their ideals. But, it is more than a little premature to worry about her becoming a leader of the Republican party, or even of the Conservative movement. Just wait and see what happens.

As to the question of conservatives abandoning the Republican Party. Forget it. In the first place, this is not England, or any other government having a multi-party parliamentary system, in which a third party can have a significant influence. In this country, we effectively have a two party system with an independently elected Chief Executive. While it is theoretically possible to elect a third party candidate as President, he would have no support in the Congress. Therefor, if Conservatives want to have a voice in government, they must remain a part of one of the two established national parties. Formation of an independent Conservative Party or a mass migration of Conservatives to an established third party would effectively render them powerless. Besides, most Conservatives do not consider themselves to be Republicans anyway. They will support any party's candidate who espouses and supports their ideals.

Stan Redmond| 1.26.09 @ 11:40AM

Re Wankel:

I can here McCain saying, "When I was campaigning for president Obama......"

Chip| 1.26.09 @ 11:46AM

So, everybody wants to junk the Republicans. Okay. Where do we go? The Libertarians, who can't win an election, much less run a nation? Constitution Party? What Constitution? Start a new one?

Kitty| 1.26.09 @ 11:46AM

J David, go back in Rush's archives to 24 Oct 2008 and read his GOOD RIDDANCE, GOP MODERATES:
"We're going to rebuild (the GOP) even if McCain wins. We're going to have to. These people, these moderates who wanted the big tent, they have taken the party exactly where they said they wanted it to be -- and when it got there, these little cowards jumped the ship! I have lost all respect for these people. And, folks, when I said at the beginning of this that I wanted to turn around and pat myself on the back, it's because I (and so many like me) knew this exact thing was going to happen and tried to warn people about it during the primaries and so forth. I am not happy it's happened except for one reason. We flushed 'em out. We found out they're not really Republicans and they're by no means conservatives, and now they're gone. Now the trick is to keep 'em out."

...

Michigan-Matt| 1.26.09 @ 11:49AM

As a lifelong GOPer, I've tried repeatedly to listen to Rush and gather just a sense of what so many seem to see in him... when I can force myself to listen for more than 5 minutes, it's a downright struggle. Why soc-cons like him and protect him so much, is amazing and beyond reason.

If one reference by Obama is enough for soc-cons to see a triangulation strategy emerging from the inaugural fog, well, it looks more like wishful thinking to me. And a stretch. Obama, if he ever met up with Rush would make mincemeat out of him like he did with Rush's fellow blowhard, Bill OReilly.

Rush is an entertainer who happens to practice his craft in the political arena. He's like a politics-talking Dr Laura without the jewish princess syndrome... his listeners get to hear him berate and argue and debate people the listeners fancy they'd like to bitch-slap themselves, but don't have the requisite intellectual tools to carry out the deal. Rush is best debating himself... when he can make-up the other side's debating points and shamelessly twist them into pretzels. All that's left is spreading the mustard b4 consumption.

Come on folks, there are tons of people in Congress, inside the beltway, in business and media who can dance circles around Rush's slovenly ways... and are far, far better "voices" of conservativism, the loyal opposition or selfless service to the GOP cause than Rush-blow.

The guy's only claim to fame is he puts blue whale spouting to shame.

Kitty| 1.26.09 @ 11:53AM

Mich-Matt, your 1st sentence says it all.

...

Michigan-Matt| 1.26.09 @ 11:57AM

Kitty, I'm not sure if you're referencing that nonsense from BlowHardRush as an indictment of him or an indication of your capacity to be misled.

The reason why McCain became the nominee was the influence of non-GOPers over the nomination process in open primary states.

The real reason the GOP is suffering today isn't because of McCain, Bush or Palin. It's because of soc-cons rapists like Delay and Cunningham and Hastert and Lott and Thurmond and Helms and Norquist and others.

Terry Schiavo, the prolife extremists, Congressional spending amuck, the Nativist racist illegal immigrant ranters are why the GOP is suffering today. They were the leaders of the Party once; hopefully no more.

The trick is to keep THOSE folks out of the big tent. And if not, let 'em in but don't hand over the keys to the Party's decision making processes. They cost the Party more in disenfranchised independent voters then they bring to the dance on Election Day.

J David| 1.26.09 @ 12:15PM

Ah, I hate to remind you, Kitty...Since Rush said that we lost, in all quarters, to the commie-lib Dems. Moderates don't realize they got flushed out, and don't care because they are still in charge.

Thinking like RINO Michigan Matt is what is running the party, and wrecking it.

J David| 1.26.09 @ 12:24PM

There is NO PARTY without social conservatives, as they are 40% of hard-core reliable GOP vote. many of them stayed home, or just did vote for Juan. Without them there WILL BE NO GOP in power, ever again, period! Principles/ideology are not negotiable or up for a vote. Social conservatives don't stick their fingers up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, or compromise universal absolutes for momentary temporal political inanities. They will not be bullied by the like of Kristol, McCain, Brooks, Frum, Michigan Matt, or anyother human being. This is something RINOs are unable to apprehend intellectually, as they are devoid of souls, worship no god but themselves, and will go in any direction the wind blows for power. They call themselves Republican for perceived negotiable benefits, not out of adherence to conservative principles.

Thomas| 1.26.09 @ 12:25PM

Mich-Matt sums up the current Republican leadership's concept of the "Big Tent" philosophy that they continually point out is the basis of the modern Republican Party. Everyone is allowed to enter, except for Conservatives. Conservatives are expected to sit in their pick-up trucks in the parking lot and vote for the Republican candidate, irregardless of who he is or what policies he espouses. Of course, that this strategy hasn't been working so well for the party leadership, is also the fault of the Conservatives not the leadership of the party.

JP| 1.26.09 @ 12:31PM

Yes,
Those Soc Cons are the problem!. All they did was put Reagan into office twice, Bush41 once, and Bush43 twice. I do remember all of those moderates who went over to Perot, Clinton, and Obama. As a matter of fact, when Soc Cons fail to show up and vote (over 4 million didn't vote in 2008 when compared to 2004), the GOP loses.

But, hey. Soc Cons are the problem! Moderates, on the other hand, are so dependable. They loyalties faster than Elizabeth Taylor switches spouses.

J David| 1.26.09 @ 12:43PM

Without so-cons there is no reason for *Republicans*, in the traditional, Reagan meaning of the word. The only actual, non- negotiable PRINCIPLES that exist inside the GOP are so-con principles, and all compromises to *conservatism* come from "big gov't" RINOS attempting the same strategy that gives power to commie-libs the world over...Which is breaking people into classes and interest groups, and then being the self-appointed mediators between them, which always means taking money(and rights)and giving them to "victims". It is called COMMUNISM, a revolutionary, conquest ideology which always results in authoritarianism to then enforce it on all of the people "equalized" down to a common poverty. It is the result of secular humanism/atheism/existentialism/moral equivalence, and has no universal absolutes to take it beyond the mightiest human sinner (totalitarian) that happens to running at a given moment.

J David| 1.26.09 @ 12:48PM

...But, "There are none so blind as those who will not see..."

Len| 1.26.09 @ 12:49PM

Jeremiah, and what would those "issues" be that you mentioned at 7:59? How about whether or not we are going to continue to allow the usurpation of State and personal powers by the those in the Federal Government in DEFIANCE of Article 1, Section 8 and the 9th and 10th amendments. That is what you were referring to of course? It surely couldn't be Medicaid - NOT IN THERE, Medicare-NOT IN THERE, Department of Education-NOT IN THERE, The NEA-NOT IN THERE, Job creation-NOT IN THERE, Economic policies-Well only so far as it relates to trade as covered by the Commerce Clause? Any others?

D Divinci| 1.26.09 @ 12:59PM

JD just what is your point?

Tim| 1.26.09 @ 1:13PM

Wendy G,

Or at least if you are going to pick a fight with conservative America, ie, Rush.....make sure you have 60 plus votes in the senate and the Gov from your state isn't going around dropping the dime on everyone around you........

This is where the Ivy street arrogance....clashes with main street common sense.....and it happenes all the time to both the right and the left and main street always wins eventually.

Except in this case, it may win before the 2009 spring flowers bloom.

Jeremiah| 1.26.09 @ 1:35PM

Limbaugh is a radio entertainer. He's a satirist.

These are great things to be. He's enormously talented. He's earned his millions.

However, he is NOT any of the following:

a) a journalist; b) historian; c) politician; d) political philosopher; e) sociologist; f) religious leader; or g) guru.

Yet many of you treat him as if he were or should be these things -- and more.

Rush is kind of like MacDonalds. There is nothing wrong with eating there; it's cheap and it tastes good; it's like a little holiday from normal life.

But if you try to get all your nutrition there, why, you'll end up -- looking a lot like Rush Limbaugh.

cdc| 1.26.09 @ 1:46PM

Don't have to much pity for Rus, he's probably loving this. He has a popular opponent in the WH, much better radio than an unpopular ally would be. But said opponent is actually paying attention to him. He's probably as giddy as a school girl being checked out by the football team captain in anticipation of the upcoming fun.

Robert| 1.26.09 @ 1:55PM

@ Jeremiah

The last time I checked, POTUS don't single out entertainers or satirists, and tell Americans to ignore him. You can list everything he isn't. 25 million listeners per week indicate he's more than you think.

Jeremiah| 1.26.09 @ 2:04PM

Jeremiah, are you going to anwer my questions at 12:49. BTW, how does not being any one of those you mentioned at 1:35 disqualify someone from being right, or even honest? Either the truth is the truth, no matter who's presenting it or it's not. Now granted the truth we are talking about here needs to be learned, but clearly most politicians and journalists don't know it, or don't care. As for the others, it's not that hard to read the Constitution, the debates framing it, and the subsequent debates concerning ratification, and the ratifications themselves. The real need is honesty and integrity, which are greatly lacking.

stmichrick| 1.26.09 @ 2:11PM

Jerry (miah):
You listed a number of things Rush is NOT;
What he is is a REMINDER. All of the above cannot be trusted to suggest what is in the interest of country by themselves. They all have axes to grind and other priorities to whom they are beholden. You seem to want to disqualify Rush's message based on his chosen vocation.

After all; what are YOU?

stmichrick| 1.26.09 @ 2:13PM

P.S. The fact that Obama singles out Rush by name suggests he is MORE than a mere entertainer.

J David| 1.26.09 @ 2:23PM

D Davinci, my original point, is that there is no bargaining position in accepting the GOP, without exception, as the default *conservative* representative party, because, at the national level especially, IT IS NOT CONSERVATIVE. It, in market terms, has a monopoly, and can raise its price as high as it wants, and has. Rush, while in anger, says "I am not a Republican(in an effort to disconnect himself from their daily betrayals), he ALWAYS endorses ONLY *Republican* candidates, even as vile a scoundrel as Juan Petain McVain. He howl his outrage until he is blue in the face, and we can agree completely with his outrage, but absolutely ZILCH has changed from Nov 4, and as long as the present steering entities of the party remain in place the same direction will be held to the next national disaster.
If the Knee-Pad RINOs suddenly realized they really could go the way of the Whigs and Tories, and etc. the soulless pragmatics might suddenly experience a "come-to Jesus" conversion back to Reaganism. They certainly will NOT as long as they have total power in the Gay Old Party

Chris| 1.26.09 @ 2:23PM

To "Michigan-Matt:"

"...Come on folks, there are tons of people in Congress, inside the beltway, in business and media who can dance circles around Rush's slovenly ways... and are far, far better "voices" of conservatism, the loyal opposition or selfless service to the GOP cause than Rush-blow..."

Name one!

Bob| 1.26.09 @ 2:24PM

MichiganMatt could not have said it better. Rush is an uneducated entertainer who consistently misstates facts and data to appeal to his uneducated listeners. Make no mistake, he has excellent entertainment sense and, like Ann Coulter, knows how to get ratings. That said, his listener base is narrow but listens often. The more outrageous statements he makes, the more press he gets.

What Obama, intelligent Republicans, and others realize is that the downside of a narrow audience and ratings is the marginalization of the Republican Party. With all of the race bating he does, it is not surprising that the Republican party now has fewer minorities than ever before.

It is true that social conservatives now represent about 40% of Republicans -- but Republicans now represent only 28% of the voting public while Democrats have now grown to about 39%. Four years ago they were approximately equal. Rush has been successful in that regard.

If the party does expand by decreasing the importance of social conservatives and welcomes non-white conservatives, it will hurt Rush's ratings as more Republicans will speak out against him.

He is a prototypical non-college educated, limited mathematical and economic ability, social conservative candidate and why the continued dominance of social conservatives in the Republican party will doom it to minority status.

Jeremiah| 1.26.09 @ 2:30PM

Folks,

I said Limbaugh is an entertainer AND a satirist.

A satirist, traditionally understood, is an excellent source of knowledge and "truth."

Only the way a satirist communicates "truth" is different from the way an historian or journalist or run of the mill pundit does.

A satirist, for example, is NOT bound by decorum or rules of proper argument. A satirist is expected to make ad hominem attacks, and in a literate society, people can distinguish between those attacks and reasoned critical discourse.

Satirists are a cultural necessity, and Rush is or at least was one of our finest.

One very interesting point about every good satirist is that he must be able to identify WITH the object of his satire. He must know it, as it were, from the inside. Therefore, he does more than attack it: he learns about it, studies its habits, and knows it, sometimes, better than it knows itself.

This is why Rush was so great during the Clinton administration. Limbaugh had, as we say, Clinton's number. His perfect impressions of Clinton were more than a stage trick: they were the result of Limbaugh intuitive grasp of something essential about Clinton.

(We now know why Limbaugh had such an uncanny hold on Clinton. They're very similiar men, ultimately.)

However, on Obama I see Limbaugh losing his footing. He does not "get" Obama. He objects to him, he makes fun of him, he will probably land a few punches. Like I said, Rush is good at what he does. But don't expect a return to the Golden Years on Limbaugh's program: like I said, a satirist knows and even empathizes with his target, and Limbaugh can't seem to do that with Obama.

Jeremiah| 1.26.09 @ 2:33PM

Len --

What are the issues?

Sir, buy a newspaper. There are plenty.

stmichrick| 1.26.09 @ 2:33PM

Bob! You didn't let me down!

Your condescending put-down of Rush (uneducated, misstates facts, non-college educates, limited...ability,) is true to form. Thank you. (you left out knuckle-dragging Neanderthal though).

As a great proponent of REASONED argument, you might try taking him on based on what he says, rather than who he is.

Like Harry Reid did.

Len| 1.26.09 @ 2:34PM

That's it Jeremiah, keep avoiding my avoiding my posting at 12:49. Is it that you, yourself have an aversion to truth?

Bob Montgomery| 1.26.09 @ 2:39PM

Has O told anybody to stop listening to Jeremiah Wright? Al Franken? Keith Olberman? Are there any traditional or independent reporters out there trying to find out about all these Harvard-University of Chicago-Hyde Park relationships?Is ACORN off the hook? What about other non-profits? Who has Obama's Blackberry address? Do they have security clearances? When and how many US Atty.s will be fired? How about everyone canceling their subscriptions to the Times/Post/Chronicle and signing up for the Washington Times for example. I am all in favor of relegating McCain, Graham, et al to the trash heap, but we need more INFORMATION and less misunderopinionating.

Robert| 1.26.09 @ 2:50PM

Take note. Liberals love "smart" people. Witness Hillary Clinton and her "smart power" nonsense. They don't give a wit if their geniuses are fools. Or ignorant. Last time I checked all the liberals that ran the big investment banks were super smart too. How'd that work out?

Bob| 1.26.09 @ 2:53PM

stmichrick -- just go to Rush's site and read his idiotic stimulus proposal. There are so many misstated "facts". First, tax cuts have NOT increased GDP for Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush. Secondly, capital gains reductions no longer increase business capital. Most economists on both sides indicate there is plenty of capital, but there are no returns on that capital. Besides, most of the capital is invested overseas, and not in the U.S. Third, he talks about ALL of Obama's proposals going into infrastructure when only 18% goes into infrastructure.

There is no reason in Limbaugh's arguments because he lacks the knowledge and training to understand the underlying facts. His listener audience does not know any better, so he gets away with it.

Bob| 1.26.09 @ 2:55PM

Furthermore, Rush says he "supports" the President but not his "policies". How can you do that? You cannot -- it is an illiterate statement -- and I think you know that.

Thom| 1.26.09 @ 3:21PM

After over 20 years on the air and being relatively consistent in his style, format, often reminding those that listen more than five minutes that it usually takes about 6 weeks to get the full scope of what his show is all about and having a weekly audience nearly equal to the entire population of Texas or New York we still get statements like this:

“As a lifelong GOPer, I've tried repeatedly to listen to Rush and gather just a sense of what so many seem to see in him... when I can force myself to listen for more than 5 minutes, it's a downright struggle.”

Add to this:

“Why soc-cons like him and protect him so much, is amazing and beyond reason.”

on top of what Rush has said many times over the last 20 years that he is not a role model for anyone else and certainly not a “Saint” by any means and one has to conclude the person(s) making these kinds of offhand statements are completely ignorant about that which they speak or simply using this as a entry into just bashing people of faith. Either way it doesn’t match up with the facts about what Limbaugh has stood for going on most of his adult life.

To add insult to injury we have this fabulous statement:

“Come on folks, there are tons of people in Congress, inside the beltway, in business and media who can dance circles around Rush's slovenly ways... and are far, far better "voices" of conservativism, the loyal opposition or selfless service to the GOP cause than Rush-blow.”

To that I simply say name one that has the reach, audience and has made any difference to date where as Conservatives issues are concerned? George H. Bush, Bob Doyle and John McCain are exactly the kinds of candidates you get (and results) when you insult the Social Conservative base that forms the core of the Republican Party. Fools do that with predictable results every time.

Robert| 1.26.09 @ 3:28PM

Growth rates for states and nations are higher when tax rates are lower.

http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/news/do-taxes-affect-economic-growth

ruth| 1.26.09 @ 3:33PM

Bob, an illiterate statement like, "I support the troops but not the war?"

ruth| 1.26.09 @ 3:37PM

Insult Rush all you want, but he's not going away. He will have a resurgence in popularity, especially after Obama's petty attacks.

Jeremiah| 1.26.09 @ 3:38PM

Len --

What do you want? Do you want me to admit that the Constitution says nothing about Medicare?

OK. I admit it. It says nothing about Medicare.

It also says nothing about space travel, the Beatles, the gross domestic product of Sweden, or squirrels.

What's your point?

Jeremiah| 1.26.09 @ 3:41PM

There is NOTHING wrong with Limbaugh saying he does not support Obama.

This is a non-issue.

I think Obama's words to the legislators (which were NOT intended to "silence" him) were intended, in effect, to say "If you want to pretend you are Rush Limbaugh, and take absolute stand against me, and not compromise, you are not going to go home having moved your agenda at all. Either play ball, or learn what it's like to stand out in the cold."

This is a standard tactic for any president to take with the opposition when its in the minority.

Bob| 1.26.09 @ 4:02PM

Robert, the arguments made on that site are specious on several accounts.

First, GDP did no grow any more under Kennedy, Reagan and Bush that they did with any other president. I notice they used selected periods rather than all of the information. Here is a graph of GDP over the entire timeframe:

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230

It is easy for any of us to use selected data to make a point, but difficult of we use all of the data points. Furthermore, our tax structure is different than other countries. We actually don't rank that high on total taxation including federal, state, and payroll taxes:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_as_of_gdp-taxation-total-as-of-gdp

Several people have also made the argument that spending is the issue under Democrat administrations, but this is also specious:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S1-Federal-Spending-Has-Increased.html

The fact is the only thing low taxes have really given us is a lot of debt:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

I was a math major in college. It is easy to prove any point you desire with selected data. The charts that I use show ALL data points so you are not biased by the selection of specific data.

The real fact is that government is not that effective in controlling economic growth so tax cuts and spending only have marginal effects. Monetary policy, on the other hand, if pushed too hard to control inflation, can hurt the economy. However, interest rates are about the lowest they can go so further monetary stimulus is not possible.

Ron J| 1.26.09 @ 4:16PM

Libs don't get it but thats not important, they're just shooting off their mouths anyway. I wish & hope the O-bots go after Rush and try to shut him down. The backlash would be incredible. Most Republicans in office are spineless jellyfish whos main desire is to his his holiness' rearend and get some of that bailout money. At this point in time, just like Obi-Wan-Kanobi, Rush, "you're our only hope."

ruth| 1.26.09 @ 4:21PM

Limbaugh is not an elected official. It is not standard policy to call out a media personality--unless he's powerful like Rush. This episode made Obama look weak.

Len| 1.26.09 @ 4:23PM

Jeremiah nice shallow response to my questions, is that how you typically avoid substantive, definitive dialogue on topics? I can only assume by your response that your concern is seeing that your value system is imposed upon others regardless of what is right or the truth. Frankly that's odd considering that you said this.."They can learn to do this by relying for a time on their own better nature and by means of a thoughtful engagement of the issues. " Would you somehow consider your response to me to fall under "thoughtful engagement"? Do you want to have dialogue like a man or a child?

Jeremiah| 1.26.09 @ 4:33PM

Len

You obviously think it is plain as day what conversation we are or should be having.

What is it, Sir, you wish to argue?

I'm not avoiding anything, but you have to make argumentative points.

jm| 1.26.09 @ 4:39PM

Mr. Homnick,
Don't give up your day job as a comedian. Barry Goldwater did not run for re-election as Senator in 1964. He was elected in 1968. In other words, during Lyndon Johnson's one full term, Goldwater was not a member of the Senate. Try to get your facts straight

Bob| 1.26.09 @ 5:02PM

Don't any of you get it? Obama has just named Limbaugh the head of the Republican party. Polls show that the public wants the parties to work together so naming Limbaugh further marginalizes the Republican party. It is a brilliant political move. If there is anything Obama is good at, it is political strategy. And you guys are playing right into it. It makes other Republican "leaders" look very weak.

Todd| 1.26.09 @ 5:10PM

Bob, who the hell cares that you were a math major in college? No one is impressed. You basically say nothing with all your data points nonsense. Tell me Bob, why has America become the economic superpower it is? Let me use one of your own sentences, "Furthermore, our tax structure is different than other countries. We actually don't rank that high on total taxation including federal, state, and payroll taxes." Maybe this should give you a clue if you were able to pull your head out of your ass. Maybe we have a better standard of living than all other industrialized nations (though places like Singapore and Hong Kong are very close due to having the most free-market societies on Earth) because we don't have the confiscatory taxes and welfare states that is found throughout Europe and have more of a free market.

Of course, this will be under serious attack by Obama and his liberal supporters who seek to install a European high tax welfare State. The result of this will be stagnant growth and a constant unemployment of around 10% like found in France and Germany.

You might want to study Singapore Bob if you want to learn how a former small backwater Island like Singapore has become the economic superpower it is today. It is all based on having the most open market possible with low business taxes and rewarding excellence, everything Obama stands against. Btw, I grew up there so I know what a great country it is and is without doubt the greatest economic success story post WWII along with the USA.

Hawkhealer| 1.26.09 @ 5:36PM

I believe that the assessment that Rush is part of the old triangulation ploy now being used by BHO but I think Rush will not allow it to occur. Of course the Republicans are spinelss they have proven that for the last decade but Rush is not a "Vox Clamanitis in Deserto"(Voice crying in the wilderness) but an articulate, strong willed fighter who will not back down from a fight and has a very large following. I look forward to the upcoming battle.

Thom| 1.26.09 @ 5:37PM

Bob said, "We actually don't rank that high on total taxation including federal, state, and payroll taxes:"

Please speak for yourself Bob regarding taxes. I know what I pay and it is well above the average because there is no average tax payer. The numbers are skewed big time by the progressive nature of the tax system. If everyone paid what I pay per dollar we wouldn't be having this conversation about debt and have twice as many people working for the government. Those who pay the bulk of the tax burden are few compared to those that pay little or nothing. Average tax burden doesn't mean anything useful in a skewed system.

Bob| 1.26.09 @ 5:40PM

Todd, I've spent some time in Singapore as well. So let me get this straight. You want an economy that utilizes central planning with a strict immigration policy. You want an economy that got its start through strong spending on infrastructure and education.

I've studied Singapore because I did business there. I agree they are tremendously successful but we generally do not believe in central planning and ethnic purity.

Todd, only neanderthals don't look at the data. I know you don't understand basic economic concepts, but facts are facts. The reason you don't care is that the facts disprove your point of view.

Len| 1.26.09 @ 6:11PM

Jeremiah, in your first posting you mentioned issues, which as most people employ that word today they are talking about healthcare reform, medicaid, education, and a whole slew of other items that the Constitution gives no power to the Federal government to touch. You seem to advocate some kind of reasoned approach to this. Now granted a large portion of the populace is ignorant of what exactly the limitations of the FG are, but this should not be true of any Senator or Representative, or President or Federal Justice, yet the limitations are continually breached in defiance of rather plain language. This does not leave room for reasoning but resistance. Adamant, unyielding, even strident opposition to those who continue to take upon themselves powers never given.

Jeremiah| 1.26.09 @ 7:11PM

Len --

Very well then. Here's my belief.

I do not believe that the Constitution constrains the federal government to be what it was in 1791. The process of amendment is constitutional, and the document is fundamentally different now than it was then.

Medicare and Social Security alter the role of government in society. The people could petition their representatives to pass a constitutional amendment banning them, or -- more simply -- pass laws revoking those programs.

However, despite what a noisy minority on the right claim, these are the two most popular social programs in history, and many more people hope for their continuance, than wish their end.

I think federalism ought to be better employed, however.

Fifty experiments in liberty and good governance are better than one, and the more government can operate on the state level, the better.

But where the states are not providing medical care for the needy, or a dignified life for the elderly, I'm all for federal acts that do.

Thom| 1.26.09 @ 8:15PM

Jeremiah, you apparently don't know how these programs actually work. The current tax rate, 15.3% will have to rise to around 21% to just cover the Boomers. The bottom third that receive SS now have nothing else but that and get a minimum wage life for it. The next third have SS as half their income. The top third get half what the median income is today and have some if not a lot of what they get taxed away because they have other investments. All total, with the average annual payout being $13,000 today per person, and the low end getting the same income as when they worked and everyone above that subsidizing them by getting a whole lot less, the systems robs those that do the responsible thing over their life and rewards those that do not. Naturedly more people benefit from this because of the progressive wealth redistribution but the nature of it is still theft on a grand scale and the tax rate started out at 3%. It is popular for those that get a windfall from it and those that can't put away another 15% to not have to depend on it. It is what it is. Theft.

Len| 1.26.09 @ 8:26PM

Jeremiah, your response touches a lot of issues, and issues that volumes have been written on, such as the purpose of government,and how then to form the government for that ,or to what degree is man responsible for his neighbor, so I will try to as concisely address one point of what you said.
You said that you don't believe that the Constitution constrains as it did in1791, and mentioned amendments and it being different now. True we have had some amendments, mainly dealing with electing officials and such, but here is what confuses me in your words, you say it doesn't constrain as it did 1791, but not one word concerning it's limitations has been changed. Merely because men who love power implement such programs as Medicaid and Social Security despite never having the authority to do so, does not change the fundamental issues of my or anyone else's rights. Yes, many may like these programs, but who are they? What would the percentage look like if we took out of the equation those who are benefitting at the expense of others?

Len | 1.26.09 @ 8:40PM

So much to say and so little space and time. I would really like to get into the problem of usurping the government to impose a particular value set and essentially imposing others their values(religion?), without their consent. Government is to be instituted in the main to allow people the greatest freedom for which they have the potential, naturally without harming others in such pursuit. To then limit one's ability in that pursuit(such as taking one's money) merely because someone else does not have the same potential, is to commit a crime against that individual, and any society or government that will do such a thing is inherently bad. Should someone who has worked hard in his life to be able to have a family and provide for them be forced to pay for someone else who decides to have a family but can't provide for them, or just decides he wants a hop in the sack and just doesn't want to provide for them. More to say but done for now.

Bob| 1.26.09 @ 8:59PM

Todd, look, I must appologize for my lies, before Jay bans me the way Quin Hillyer did - for telling outright, obvious lies - a few weeks ago. I was not a math major in college. I did not serve in Vietnam per my claim here a few weeks ago. I never studied religion, and I am sorry, but, contrary to my claim, I did not translate the original five books of Moses from the "original Aramaic" [those works were in Hebrew] when I was at the tender age of 10. I did spend some time in Singapore - on-line, because I don't know the difference between an income statement and a P 'n L. Never did - should be obvious from my lame economic comments.

'Im sorry for the condescension and the lies. Some day I will get real. In the mean time, you guys are playing right into it.

tony| 1.26.09 @ 9:02PM

No matter what board you look at on this site, there's good ol' Bob telling everyone how smart he is, reminding us of his stellar background, as if he is the only one who understands math or statistics and, of course, letting the rest of us know how stupid we are. One has to wonder why a person with such and educational background and towering intellect wastes his time with us. It can't be to persuade, because he obviously does not believe we have the intellellectual capacity to be persuaded by facts.

So why does Bob slum here on AS message boards? If anyone has an answer, I'd like to know. In fact, let's have a contest to see who can come up with the best reason. Let's keep it clean and refrain from any name calling. We'll leave that to Bob and Jeremiah (the liberal one). Maybe we can have a vote, then Bob himself can give us a statistical breakdown and tell us what it means.

Jeremiah| 1.26.09 @ 9:11PM

Len --

I hear your concerns, but generally I'm less and less moved by concerns about the government's "theft" of private property through taxation and some of the other things you mention.

To speak of the law, Medicare is perfectly constitutional. It might be challenged, but there's a constitutional mechanism created to facilitate that challenge.

You don't just pick up Milton Friedman, read it, and say, this or that program is "unconstitutional."

Now, as I say, you are free to petition your government to cancel Social Security, Medicare, and what not. Or, you can sue the federal government, or whomever you wish. Perhaps under Roberts you'll be heard. Who knows? This is a great country.

Fifty years ago the tax rates were much, much higher on the wealthiest than they are today. In those decades when taxes 'redistributed' wealth more aggressively, the disparity between working people and wealthy people was far less. And, you'll notice, during those decades, we were in general a happier country, less acrimonious in debate, in more general agreement about our common values.

As political philosophers since Pythagorus, Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero have acknowledged, the health of the polity depends upon the ability of the state to regulate markets and redistribute wealth.

Prince of Darkness| 1.26.09 @ 10:04PM

Rush: your words come at a momentous time in the nation's history and obviously bring inspiration to the readers of these pages. You are the 21st Century embodiment of Julius Streicher and with the cooperation of Ann Coulter, Michael Medved, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin, Dennis Prager, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, and many others, life is given to Streicher's words and deeds in a way that would be unthinkable for so many others. Stay the course, Rush, and you will ultimately receive the public and just recognition you deserve.

Len| 1.26.09 @ 10:29PM

Jeremiah...SIGH..you say Medicare is perfectly Constitutional, I ask you to read to Article 1, Section 8 and tell me under which of the powers listed for which Congress can pass laws does it come under. Just writing up a bill and voting aye on it does not make it Constitutional, Congress may only act in the power which has been delegated to it and such a thing as Medicare isn't given. You speak of a mechanism to challenge, but if one part is broken isn't it then possible that another is broken? You seem to impute some kind of infallibility to individuals just because they have some such title as Congressman, President, or Justice, no they are all human like us and as such liable to err or abuse their position because they have an agenda. Jeremiah I'm sorry but it's people like you who think things are Constitutional when no such evidence can be found who are a part of the problem in this country. That doesn't mean I wish you ill, but would hope for better. Please read Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution closely, and not with what you may have been taught but just letting the plain language say what it does. I would be interested to hear from you if you see any powers given for those programs we have discussed.

loulou| 1.26.09 @ 11:11PM

Jeremiah: Ted is correct. Obama is probably an illegal alien with Indonesian citizenship. Hillary knows this and knows she will be elected president in 2012.

GOP is dead. The RINOs will not get any money or votes from me.

Jeremiah| 1.27.09 @ 8:05AM

Loulou --

Spare me.

Greg| 1.27.09 @ 8:31AM

Why is it that Soc Con's want the government out of our lives in business and the economy, but then they insist Big Brother stand in our bedrooms and tell us how to love?

This religious authoriarianism is the reason why the "stupid party" is split.

I'm against big government everywhere, especially in my bedroom!

Michigan-Matt| 1.27.09 @ 9:11AM

As far as RINOs go, in this last election, the RINOs were all those soc-cons who sat on their hands and didn't support the Party's nominee --even though the soc-cons got one of their own selected as Veep... just like Ronnie picked #41 in '80 to appease the GOP progressive and moderates and foreign policy wonks.

RINO was Tom Delay and Duke Cunningham and Denny Hastert raping the appropriations process and violating a central GOP tenet: fiscal restraint, downsizing govt, strong dollar.

So when a soc-con like Rush-blow and some here start tossing that label around, it's pure self-defense on their part at a Freudian level.

Rush's pandering to the racist, nativist base deeply entrenched inside the soc-cons is what led to the GOP losing this year: we lost what Karl Rove wisely thought was the most significant pillar of GOP Majority... the hispanic vote. It's part of what Bush 41 and 43 successfully cultivated over 20+ yrs... it's what Jeb could bring back to the Party in 2012 or 2016. It's what we need. We don't need the Nativist bigots who pop in and out of the GOP depending on how strongly some subset of GOP nominees beat up on Hispanics, blacks, gays, etc.

The Nativists like Rush-blow wanted a wall at our border. I wonder if he knew it'd cut into his access to illegal drugs muled by Hispanic housekeepers?

Nawh, listening to Rush-blow and believing his nonsense is the ultimate act of denial --and political suicide-- by the soc-cons. The GOP doesn't need the baggage they bring to the Party. Like I said, the soc-cons lose us more votes than their purity tests bring into the tent.

Nietzsche| 1.27.09 @ 9:24AM

Hee-hee! I love all of you God-denying hedonist self-worshipers! We should all have lots of fun after the judgment burning for eternity in the Lake of Fire. See you there soon!

Learn the ways of GOD| 1.27.09 @ 10:20AM

Here goes the rightious again they fail to see, their evil ways that shall haunt them for the rest of their lives.

They complain about giving to those less fortunate than themselves. Yet claim they are CHRISTIANS.

Some are complaining about paying TAX but want to use the services TAX pay for.

Some are complaining about paying for other peoples children, yet complain about those who have abortions, because they can't provide for the unwanted kids.

250 years ago they were breeding BLACK people to do all the work, do you think Blacks wanted to be treated as animals, to put food on your WHITE table?

I am not perfect, but you people are a sick perverted society, the more I learn about you, the more I know how evil and sick you all are.

Wall Street has RAPED your assets from you, and yet you blame the poor, it's better to give to someone less fortunate than your self. Go and learn the teachings of CHRIST you may learn something, your economy may never recover and all you thought you owned will evaporate before your very eyes.

Bob| 1.27.09 @ 10:40AM

Greg, while you are absolutely correct, that from an intelligent and logical perspective policies of limited government and social conservatism are not congruent. The argument from social conservatives and traditionalist are based upon a reactionary point of view, i.e., they want to bring back Reagan and Ozzie/Harriet instead of looking forward. They see reactionary/"traditional" traits as the binding theme. Since your argument is based on rationality/reason and theirs on belief without reason, it is not something that can be addressed through dialog effectively. Eventually, Republican party leaders who wish to regain a voting majority will push back at the reactionaries and regain control. This is beginning to occur with the conservative intellectuals of the party and moderates like Colin Powell but it will take a number of years to occur.

MichiganMatt, I couldn't agree with you more.

Len| 1.27.09 @ 2:39PM

Bob, what a load of hooey. You say that logically, limited government and social conservatism are not in agreement. This may be true of some who seek to have their values brought into realization through government, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt in that you may have only been exposed to a small portion of SoCons, I do doubt that you have made significant attempts to draw your conclusions other than from a small field. The concept of limited government in America has its origins in those who objected to church hierarchy imposing a rigid creed that left no room for conscience or one's own searching of the Scriptures for one's own understanding. The early settlers here and many following after were those with a mindset to allow the individual to have greater determination in the course of one's own life. This is a mindset that was prevalent among many of those of a spiritual bent, and in conjunction with those who were coming here to seek their own prosperity in a new world led to an emphasis on limiting governments ability to dictate to the individual. I, myself see restricting government to it's most limited operations as fundamental to creating an environment where I will be as free as possible to determine my own morality and that which creates a competitive marketplace of ideas. I(and certainly God) don't need the governments assistance in this, but I also don't want to be handicapped by government in their support of a particular value set such liberalism, or socialism, which is certainly done contrary to the first amendment.

Bob| 1.27.09 @ 2:57PM

Len, you may be surprised to hear that I agree with most of your statement. But modern social conservatives are basically tied to two issues -- abortion and gay marriage. With those issues, they do want governmental intervention -- and that's where the history veers off into a different direction and is exactly my point.

The "I didn't beat my wife" argument always enters the picture here. Social conservatives say that by allowing choice you telling them how to behave. That is a specious argument and you know it. As with you, whether it is a secular or religious issue, the government should allow all of us to make our own choices.

Len| 1.27.09 @ 3:19PM

Bob, I will touch lightly on both of the issues you mentioned, as I'm sure we could go round and round on whether abortion is murder, and quite frankly I can make my case on a scientific basis. Anyway, if the Federal government was not imposing upon all states a manufactured right to privacy and neatly avoiding a coherent scientific discussion of life such as DNA remaining constant, a non sophism laden definition of viability not so mention other specious arguments we could establish a easily defined contrast between those states allowing murder and those not. Let's really see the type of societies arising around these opposing viewpoints and certainly let's not have the Federal government taking money to suport such an abomination when even if it was just healthcare Article 1, Sectin 8 of the Constitution makes no provision for Congress to tax for or implement any such program. This is something that anyone who wants Constitutional government should be riled about. As for gay marriage, again if there was not so much room to force one state to recognize what another does under the Full Faith and Credit clause it would surely lessen in importance as their would be a greater freedom to reside in a state that hews closer to ones values. Remember at the time of the ratification of the Constitution several states had anti-sodomy laws on the books, so such a thing is not unconstitutional statewise, let's just not have the Federal government imposing it on all.

Bob| 1.27.09 @ 3:39PM

Len, we could both make our cases on a "scientific" basis. But the bottom line is that you want more regulation on the federal level and I want less -- and that is the major point here. Regarding taxation, if it is legal, there should be no funding restriction. We also disagree that federal government should dictate on the basis of sexual orientation. We should again leave those up to the individual.

You can always try to justify exceptions like abortion and gay marriage, but they do, indeed, limit, rather than expand behavior.

We are not going to agree on this because I refuse to agree with your religious dogma and for you, belief is more important than reason.

len| 1.27.09 @ 4:50PM

Bob I'm not sure how you into my comments a desire for more regulation, when I was making a point for less. You appear to make a habit of that. For example taxation is only authorized for those powers enumerated under Article 1, Section 8. Healthcare is not one of those, thus any taxation for such s purpose is illegal. Sir quite frankly it is your dogma which is hindering your reasoning, otherwise you would not be reading into my comments or the Constitution what is not there. I have made all my points on a reasoned basis referring both to the Federal Constitution and State Constitutions. You sir have not, and then accuse me of relying on dogma. I suggest you look in the mirror. I made my case for less interference from the Federal government and pointed out that the historical understanding is that states do have the right to legislate mores. If individuals do not like those mores then they are free to move to states that do. I would remind you that there is quite a distinction between the operation of the federal government and a state government. Simply put states have a greater freedom to enact particular moral laws, being closer to the people, and it is nowhere given for the Federal government to intervene. Now do you want to discuss constitutionality or philosophy?

Bob| 1.27.09 @ 4:56PM

Len, then if healthcare is not covered, then you are saying that medicare is illegal. As long as medicare is legal, so is any other healthcare expense. You just don't make any sense.

If, as Sarah Palin did during her debate, believes that there is a privacy right in the constitution, then Roe is just fine. That's why we have a Supreme Court and people far more educated in the law than you or I are split on this.

Regarding federalism, again, if you consider the ability for gays to marry to be a civil right, it can, indeed be a federal issue covered by the Constitution. But if you want a federal amendment covering abortion or gay marriage, that weakens your argument of federalism. So which is it?

Bob| 1.27.09 @ 5:15PM

quote..Len, then if healthcare is not covered, then you are saying that medicare is illegal. As long as medicare is legal, so is any other healthcare expense. You just don't make any sense. ...unquote. Ok Bob let's do this, cit me the power given to congress to make any laws concerning healthcare. I also need to point out some failures in your logic here. You assume that someone appointed to the Supreme Court has a better understanding of the Constitution than I do. This is stated without any objective reason other than that of my not being a Supreme Court member. Now it may be true, but to assume so is faulty logic. Case in point, if being more "educated" in Constitutional was all that was necessary then quite frankly at best we would have 7-2 decisions and not so many 5-4 ones, nor with so many differing opinions. Consider that many Justices are nominated because they have a particular bent by others who would like to see that bent applied in rendering decisions. Take for instance Hugo Black a KKK member and as such sworn to oppose Catholicism, yet he is the one most responsible for the fabrication of "Seperation of Church and State" which is not found the Constitution, but is actually found in a letter of Thomas Jefferson meaning quite the opposite from how it is construed today. One only need read all the exchanges between him and the Danbury Baptists to see this.

Bob| 1.27.09 @ 5:33PM

Len, you say this....

"cit me the power given to congress to make any laws concerning healthcare"

As long as the legislature and Supreme Court considers medicare to be lawful according to the Constitution, you cannot argue against any legal medical procedure being covered as well under the "promote the general welfare" doctrine. It is intellectually inconsistent and weak to argue for one without the other.

"You assume that someone appointed to the Supreme Court has a better understanding of the Constitution than I do. "

Yes. My assumption is based upon your unreasoned postings. For that matter, I believe they are also better schooled in the Constitution than me -- even the ones with which I have some disagreement.

Your arguments are weak, sketchy, and inconsistent, Len. That said, I do understand a more libertarian position that gets rid of social security, medicare, and some taxation principles. I just don't happen to agree they can be obliterated effectively without drastic economic effect and increased poverty. I haven't seen ANY of the Supreme Court justices argue for it either notwithstanding their ideologies.

If you think you are better at the law than the Supreme Court justices, I suggest you first go to college, then get a law degree, then practice Constitutional law, then become a judge, and if you are as good as you think you are, get appointed to the Supreme Court. Good Luck....

Len| 1.27.09 @ 6:50PM

Bob, honestly you fail to see understand the weakness of your own arguments. "General Welfare Doctrine" is not an enumerated power, it is a purpose, to which purpose powers are given. Again, AGAIN, if congress does not have the given authority any "law" they "pass" does not make it so. Your inability(purposeful omission?) to cite any such any power makes quite clear the weakness of your argument. You also act as if the there is a magical process by which I will be filled with a mystical understanding of the Constitution. The Constitution is not written as a legal document and merely requires a simple reading comprehension level, probably about what I had around the 3rd grade, as at that time it was considered to be college level.

Jeremiah| 1.27.09 @ 7:53PM

Bob, your quite overdue confession is not comprehensive. In that sorry display of preposterous claims, you failed to mention that very unpleasant episode in Ft Leavenworth, were you there by accident?

Jeremiah| 1.27.09 @ 7:57PM

Bob obviously thinks our Constitution is a wikipedia document that you can edit and tamper with whenever you feel like it. That was Clinton's position on the issue, is it Hussein's too?

Adam| 1.28.09 @ 4:27PM

Jeremiah~ "Republicans should turn off Limbaugh."

MichiganMatt~ "I wonder if he knew it'd cut into his access to illegal drugs muled by Hispanic housekeepers?" and, "Rush's pandering to the racist, nativist base..."

Bob~ "Rush is an uneducated entertainer who consistently misstates facts and data to appeal to his uneducated listeners. "

Really? Is this the caliber of Democrats we are up against? You guys are a freakin' joke dude. Please, pull your head out. Obama is going after Rush because Rush couldn't be righter. The truth hurts the most. This attack does makes Obama look weak. In fact, he looks completely inept in the office of the presidency. By the way, how many times is he going to ask Greg Craig for clarification/direction on a serious issue facing the nation? Should we apoint Mr. Craig the defacto POTUS?

Oh.... he went to an Ivy league school? Oh, well that's different. Mwaaaa Haaaa Haaaa! Big freakin' deal! You guys twist your little Hitler mustaches and talk about how educated you are, but in actuality your high-priced educations made you dumber. What a waste of money. Hell, a 6-year-old kid give us a better strategy for getting out of this economic mess.

Here's a tip: Next time think with your heads before you open your big yap.

If your best Rush slams comprise of rehashing an old oxycontin addiction, claiming his listeners are racist, uneducated rubes, and Republicans should tune him out entirely and "play ball," then you guys must be smoking some good stuff.

Len I appreciate your words and second them.

Nick| 1.28.09 @ 6:06PM

Len,

If you want a good laugh, ask Bob to define ensoulment. That is how he "scientifically" argues for killing unborn babies.

I, like you, am a Federalist and a strict constructionist. I might quibble a bit on your distinction on legislating mores, though.

What laws really are in essence is one group of people forcing their definition of right and wrong on society as a whole. Human nature being what it is; people are constantly trying to move the line in the sand further than it was yesterday, for themselves, while at the same time controlling the rest of us. Liberals want to erase the line on evil and impose a straight-jacket on good, all in the name of individual autonomy.

Congress was given strict limitations on what areas they could enforce their morality on us. They have transgressed these limits in many areas with the stamp of approval from SCOTUS.

But I can be a Federalist and still support a federal amendment to outlaw abortion. Congress doesn't have the power to do it. My reasoning: It is never justifiable to kill innocent human beings. We as citizens have the right to persuade fellow Americans to end all abortions through the amendment process. This is what it means to live in a constitutional republic. The 13th amendment did the same to slavery.

If I misconstrued your meaning, my apologies.

Mary in TX | 1.28.09 @ 10:34PM

Rush tells it like is: The only reason the Republican party is suffering the turmoil it is now is for 3 reasons: 1) The Democrats turncoated on the country and burned Bush in effigy for 8 yrs. (due to bitterness over 2000 election) stirring up the Kool-Aid and the MSM played it to the hilt for all the world to swallow, thus serving the Kool-Aid up. 2) The Republicans drank the Kool-Aid because 3) they put their political futures ahead of their principles. Praises to 'The Last Man Standing' up for America. Hugs and kisses, too!! I'll be a slobbering fool for Rush any day!

AK| 3.4.09 @ 9:52PM

The democrat party has become a party of class warfare. They will loose this war and any other war that will come along in this country as a result of their dividing the people. I am happy that I have left a party of losers. It is funny how I used to disagree with Rush Limbaugh, but now stand behind him 100%. Their are millions that the party has drove away. The democrat party is known as the party of the immoral, the free loaders those who always want something for nothing, even if it means taking from others to complete their agenda. Enjoy your political power now because I have a feeling that it will be short lived. Used2bdemocrat

Pingback| 3.5.09 @ 9:02AM

Doing the Limbaugh - Spectator.org — But As For Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Doing the Limbaugh - Spectator.org — But As For Me .addtoany_share_save

Pingback| 3.5.09 @ 9:04AM

Doing the Limbaugh - Spectator.org — But As For Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Doing the Limbaugh - Spectator.org — But As For Me .addtoany_share_save

Trackback| 6.14.09 @ 1:04AM

Museum Quality Model Ships, on Museum Quality Model Ships, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Ten years ago, I owned the original program w from Franklin Covey program which developed into PlanPlus. It was called Ascend Ascend ran under Windows 3. 1 at CGA resolution. However, it was still then better than any of the other software programs that came to be called Personal Information Managers. The image you see is a scan from one of our historic Mindware Catalogs with our entry for Ascend. The headline was "Soar to New Heights of Productivity with a Little Help from Benjamin Franklin."…

jhjhjh| 11.19.09 @ 10:20PM

MKV Converter,
Convert MKV File

wonder| 4.5.10 @ 12:04AM

Blu ray Ripper Mac is the latest software that allows Mac users to rip Blu ray DVD on Mac OS X.

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|60 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|65 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|26 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|14 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|13 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|23 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|10 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|16 comments

The Spectacle Blog

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 10:09AM

Morning Round-Up 5-23

Patrick Ryan | 10:06AM

I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel

Ross Kaminsky | 9:16AM

Sorry, You Can’t Delegate Responsibility

Ray V. Hartwell, III | 9:10AM

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5.22.13

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?