The American Spectator

ConservativeWanderer| 3.2.09 @ 7:17PM

With all due respect to his Chairmanship, may I offer a wee bit of advice?

Think before speaking, not after.

Alan Brooks| 3.2.09 @ 7:20PM

he said Rush was "ugly"
what did he mean by THAT, even if he wasn't thinking before he said it?

BD57| 3.2.09 @ 8:01PM

Well that's nice.

Fat lot of good it does ... how do you "un-shoot" your own?

ruth| 3.2.09 @ 8:07PM

Steele didn't shoot Rush, he shot himself in the foot and stuck his foot in his mouth. Whatever it was, it was ugly.

Alan Brooks| 3.2.09 @ 8:38PM

Steele to Rush:
"I'm sowwy, and I wont do it again (sniff) cross my heart and hope to die. when you see the cookie jar on the floor in pieces, with cookies all over the kitchen, I am soooo sowwy.

Admr. S.B.O. Buniontow VII| 3.2.09 @ 9:08PM

Flush this turd. Steele is not fit for duty. He's too busy hangin' wit the Hippy-Hoppy.

J David| 3.2.09 @ 10:05PM

You want to see fury see what reaction Allah and Ace get for defending Steele...Heh!

Conservative Hottie| 3.2.09 @ 10:45PM

Aye, aye, Admiral!

james23| 3.2.09 @ 10:47PM

Steele is toast. Dems will roast him for apologizing to Rush. and conservatives have written him off as yet another clueless Republican RINO.

Too many cringe inducing moments for Mr. Steele.

Crusader| 3.2.09 @ 10:50PM

Why was Steele on frigging DL Hughley's show? DL Hughley? Are you kidding me?

CH| 3.2.09 @ 10:53PM

Dude's nasty lookin'.

Alan Brooks| 3.2.09 @ 11:08PM

which dude? remember, being specific is conservative.

pjean| 3.2.09 @ 11:10PM

I watched the entire Rush speech at CPAC, but he's not the "godfather". Rush's words resonate deep within me, but how can Republican's say he isn't running the party when anyone who speaks less than glowing of him must "kiss his ring" and ask for forgiveness. Adulation, no matter who it is towards, grows irritating.

Conservative Hottie| 3.2.09 @ 11:19PM

Hughley, Alan. C'mon, babe, get with the program, not all Conservatives are that dull. Not friggin' dull at all!

Just Plain Conservative| 3.3.09 @ 12:20AM

pjean, Rush never asked for an apology. What he did do was reveal what kind of man Steele is. Rush had always spoke glowingly of the man; defended him & even helped him raise money.
How was he repayed? By Steele betraying him for the approval of some pop-culture talkers. Hmm...sounds a little like something the last GOP presidental (losing) candidate would do, doesn't it?

Bob| 3.3.09 @ 9:05AM

This just proves that Rush IS the leader of the Republican party. So you have the leader of a party that doesn't know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. (Yes, I listened to his speech at CPAC and cringed that he, and the audience, weren't educated enough to know the difference.)

Rush is entertaining and funny -- just like Steele said -- which, by the way, is not a negative. But Rush, a guy without a college degree, is all feeling and no data. I agree with the basics of fiscal conservatism but to be represented by a guy who doesn't understand that his facts are all wrong makes Republicans, and social conservatives, look dumb.

tonypal| 3.3.09 @ 10:28AM

Bob:

Couldn't disagree with you more. Why does it matter that Rush doesn't have a college degree? It's awfully snobbish, not to mention silly, to think that one must have a piece of paper to evidence intellect. Bill Gates attended one semester of college. Also, since everyone is busy comparing Obama to Lincoln, where exactly did Honest Abe get his Doctorate?

You obviously do not listen to his show. You might come back and say you do, but all the evidence is to the contrary. Rush is very clear that it is not feelings but thought that guide him and conservatism.

Now, what I would like to know from you, since you assert that his "facts are all wrong" (an oxymoron; facts by their very nature are correct), can you give us some examples? Since you had the confidence to make the original post, then surely you've got "facts" to back it up.

Bob| 3.3.09 @ 10:51AM

Regarding a college degree. If you are talking about the leader of a party, it is important that the leader be an example to our children. I know a large number of people without a college degree that are exceptionally bright. I want my children, and grandchildren to believe education is important. I want them to go to school and college. This experience allows individuals to learn how to accomplish critical analyses and the correct uses of data sources. I don't want a leader who did poorly in school, didn't go to college, or is an example of not being able to establish personal relationships in marriage. In this country we need good leaders and examples. Rush is not one of them.

Regarding facts that are wrong, I'll start with his claim that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is from the Constitution. When he discusses tax cuts, he doesn't talk about the debt created with Reagan and Bush. He talks about things like the magnetic train from Disneyland to Las Vegas even though that was not in the bill, etc. If you want a huge laundry list just Google "rush limbaugh wrong".

The claim that Rush's position on conservatism is based on thought is laughable. It is a rationalization of Reagan. You really ought to read an analysis of Reaganomics by William Niskanen once of Reagan's chief economists:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Reaganomics.html

It is obvious that Rush never reads facts and analysis like this. By the way, the far left is just as bad as Rush in this respect -- perhaps worse.

Angelo Z| 3.3.09 @ 11:12AM

There comes a time in one's carreer, that is a defining moment, and this attack against Limbaugh and millions on Amercan conservatives, wil be that moment for Michael Steele. Not so long ago, on Rush's show a former NFL player, and now pastor by the name of Hutcherson said: "When they attack you Rush, they attack me and your listeners." The reverand pastor had it right, and while Michael Steele had a brilliant future in the Republican party, it will most likely be impossible to live down, this attack on the conservative base of the Republican party

Sean| 3.3.09 @ 12:23PM

Steele seems to be like those RINO's. They really want to be like by the liberals that they will stab their own in the back to please them.

Bob| 3.3.09 @ 12:29PM

Angelo -- if Limbaugh becomes the de facto leader of the Republican party, it will continue to decline from the 29% of registered voters down to 25% or less. Limbaugh gets a dedicated audience of ideological conservatives who only listen to him and more money for himself (lemmings are quite profitable), and the Republican party continues to die in the process. You don't expand your base by ignoring the needs of those you want to join you.

Furthermore, you don't appear like an Eastern European thug with a dark jacket, silk shirt, and an unbuttoned top when you are giving your first "national" speech.

Bob| 3.3.09 @ 12:32PM

Sean, you need to stop your simple minded comments. I am a proud RINO. I stand for strong fiscal conservatism and social libertarianism. I don't care what you call me, but I am the vote you need to win. And no, I couldn't give a rat's you know what about being liked by true liberals who want to grow our government. Nor do I care about those social conservatives who want to tell me how to live my life and utilize belief over reason.

tonypal| 3.3.09 @ 1:01PM

Bob:

Very lame. Tax cuts did not create the deficits of the 80's, spending was the culprit. If you were right about tax cuts, then you would be able to show how the Reagan tax cuts decreased treasury revenues. But you can't, because tax receipts increased, just as they did after the '95 capital gains tax cuts.

As for his assertion that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is found in the constitution, I wonder if maybe that was a slip of the tongue. Given your ignorance regarding tax cuts and their impact on tax revenues, you should not be so eager to jump on a single misstatement.

As for his lack of a college degree, given the state of higher education in this country, quite frankly I'm more confident in the thinking of people with practical experience as opposed to those who have had their minds filled with propaganda from college professors who are generally unqualified to run the local newspaper stand.

The high speed train you speak of was in the bill signed by Pres. Bush last June. Here's your link: http://www.worldhum.com/travel-blog/item/high_speed_maglev_train_from_disneyland_las_vegas_gets_45_million_20080609/.
You can verify this and then admit you're wrong, if you have the intellectual honesty to do so.

Lastly, as someone who actually listens to Rush's show, I can assure you that that the last thing he desires is to be the leader of the republican party. So your snotty remark about his marriages aside, if you don't want him as your leader, trust me when I tell you that he doesn't want you as a follower.

Bob| 3.3.09 @ 1:27PM

Tonypal -- you need to see the trend in federal revenues to understand why you are wrong about the tax cuts. Perhaps if you had taken a few more economics classes you would have been able to analyze this yourself. Here's a chart directly from government information that shows federal receipts over time. You'll notice that the greatest growth in revenues came from Clinton's administration where there were TAX INCREASES.

Since you need a lesson in economics, let me explain. The primary progenitor of tax revenues comes from a strong business cycle -- not tax cuts or increases (and not spending, by the way). During Reagan we had the growth of personal computers and the beginning of significant business productivity increases leading to increased business profits. With Clinton, we had the dotcom bubble bringing in revenues and with Bush, up until last year, we had the financial services industry through the housing bubble. If you do a mathematical regression of the data, you'll find that the economic cycle has a higher coefficient of correlation with federal revenues than tax cuts OR spending. Saying that Reagan's tax cuts were stimulative when tax increases during Clinton led to even greater growth is both simple minded and wrong. The cap gains tax cuts in '95 were the RESULT of a strong economic cycle in the early 90's, not a cause of it. In fact, if you refer to the chart again, you will see the slope of the increase achieved its level BEFORE the cap gains cuts thus disproving your premise.

Before you begin to talk about ignorance, perhaps you should go to school and learn something.

Regarding the high speed train, you are absolutely right. However, Rush, Jindal, and others were relating that to the current stimulus bill, not the bill that was signed last June. Now let's see if YOU have the intellectual honesty to admit to your mistake.

The fact that Rush doesn't want to be the leader of the Republican party is great schtick. If he were serious about that, he would not have given the keynote speech at CPAC -- or for that matter, invited to do so. Every politician when asked if they will run for President always says they have a current job to finish and they have little desire at this time to run. Rush's statement is similar -- and you should know that. Rush makes himself relevant by tying himself to the Republican party and he only gains in ratings by saying he doesn't want to be the leader of the party for that means he couldn't continue to say outrageous things and bring in a coalition that could actually win a national election.

Bob| 3.3.09 @ 1:28PM

Tonypal -- here's the link to the chart:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-R2-Federal-Government-Tax-Revenue.html

ruth| 3.3.09 @ 1:59PM

Bob, you got ripped off! Rush has fame, fortune, the power of persuasion, and let's not forget; tons of charisma, and he didn't even graduate from college. It's called native ability, a gift from God. What do you have to show for your fancy education besides a snotty attitude? RINOs like you have lost, Bob. The train is leaving the station; you'd better get on it.

Bob| 3.3.09 @ 2:25PM

Ruthie -- I've done just fine coming from South Central, going to the best schools, and having a great career. Most importantly, I've raised great, successful kid who are as moral as they come. I wouldn't trade that for all of the money Rush has made. His "gift" has caused him to get hooked on drugs and not be able so sustain a strong marriage. He can keep his "gifts". My rewards are far greater.

By the way, Paris Hilton is probably much more successful than you. What do you have to show for yourself?

ruth| 3.3.09 @ 2:54PM

No analogy there because I haven't knocked Paris, stupid. You're the one constantly flapping your lips, putting others down, not me. You're slipping, mister.

Bob| 3.3.09 @ 3:18PM

Ruthie, my comment holds. In no way am I envious of Limbaugh. The fact that he didn't graduate from college shows. He does have the "native ability" of getting hooked on drugs and not being able to sustain a marriage. Another "gift" from God?

The analogy holds, Ruthie. Would you rather be Paris Hilton than yourself? She certainly has a "gift from God".

Again, my wife, my children, and the fact I'm doing far better than my parents are the "gifts" that I cherish. Besides, I didn't come from a prominent family like Rush Hudson Limbaugh III came from. He flunked out of college because he "wasn't interested". The same is true today of his logic and facts.

I have no envy whatsoever.

ruth| 3.3.09 @ 3:45PM

You're illogical. You attacked Rush so I called you out on it. You can't call me out on something I didn't do, stooge. You're shadow-boxing, arguing with those specters in your mind again. You need help.

Bob| 3.3.09 @ 3:49PM

Ruthie -- illogical? You are funny. You made a reference based on Rush's success and I made a reference based on Paris Hilton's success. The analogy makes a lot of sense to me.

ruth| 3.3.09 @ 3:59PM

No, you made references to Rush first and I called you on them. Paris was irrelevant. Nice try-but no cigar, bub.

Basil Plumley| 3.3.09 @ 4:38PM

@ Bob

Does pointing out the sins of others make you better? How in the name of Sam Hill does it even advance your meager point?

Your constant drumbeat of education is tiresome, almost nauseous. By all means lets look at the man and not his message or his ability. One day you may post something of substance instead of nonsense, innuendo, and statistics that actually don't prove your point. (oh wait, I did credit you on the defense spending article-blind squirrel meet acorn)
Oddly, that is how you think. You want us to be impressed with you the person and not so much with what you have to say. You see, you the person are much more important than the issue; it supersedes all issues and topics. Limbaugh does not operate under such delusions.
It would not shock me if you referred yourself in your day-to-day activity in the third person.

So now you're comparing Ruth to Paris Hilton. Is there any depth to your moral relativism? Do you have any idea how dumb and insulting that premise is?

In your mind you are the Superman that German philosophers wrote about but you are not faster than a bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and unable to leap tall buildings in a single bound. But your ego sure can.

ruth| 3.3.09 @ 4:50PM

The sting of Bob's insults is negligible because I consider the source. LOL

Bob| 3.3.09 @ 5:06PM

Actually, Basil, it was Ruth who brought up the comparison -- not me. But then again, it seems you have a comprehension problem. She blogged about his "gift from God" and I responded that I felt more "gifted" because I consider my family and wife more important than a radio show host who has lots of moral failings. The analogy of Ruth with Paris Hilton -- a celebrity with a "gift from God" was simply meant to show that some things are far more important than celebrity.

But then again, you seem to be a biased and bigoted fellow.

I will continue to beat the drum about the importance of education as I believe that only through the education of our population can we be competitive with other countries in the future.

I couldn't give a _________ whether you are impressed with me or not. And you say that Limbaugh doesn't operate under delusions like he is a "gift from God" and can operate with half of his brain tied behind his back? Give me a break. He has an ego the size of the former Soviet Union.

I'm having fun. Are you?

ruth| 3.3.09 @ 5:26PM

It's unseemly that you bring up a young woman like Paris. Makes you look like a dirty old man.

Basil Plumley| 3.3.09 @ 5:51PM

Yet, I have the reading comprehension problem.

Bob also has a problem addressing issues. If his boss at the Fortune 100 company (after today, it maybe 250) will ask Bob for 4th quarter figures but in return Bob will give his boss 3rd quarter figures from several years ago. Bob will then impress his boss with his education.

Well, at least your wife and children love you. You must keep them entertained.

ruth| 3.3.09 @ 10:34PM

LOL. You crack me up, Basil; even more so when it's at Bob's expense.

Just Plain Conservative| 3.4.09 @ 3:04AM

Ruth, Basil you are to be commended!
I enjoy your spirit as well your self-control you display while being hit below the belt.

Have you ever noticed how the first people who cry bigotry and prejudice end up being the prejudiced bigots? The recent cartoonist blow-up was a fine example of that only those lean even saw it as racist – imagine that.
You know, I am new here but amazed at how Bob is quick to point out Rush's personal failings. When all else fails, make a druggie reference, point out the failed marriages or say he thinks he's God – yeah THAT will bring weight to your argument.

First, let's start with facts: Rush WAS addicted to prescription paid medication - a number of years ago. Back then, at the end of one show, like a man, he confessed this to his audience, immediately went into & completed rehab. Unlike Paris (a reference he seems fond of) or other celebs he NEVER had to go back. He has remained sober & still speaks of the many things that he learned from the experience. SO DROP IT, BOB.
Second, Rush has NEVER said he was "a gift from God." The actual statement that incites the left is that he has "Talent, On Loan From God!" This is something he has explained to his audience many, many times. He openly & honestly acknowledges that every talent each one of us has, including Bob, comes from God.
Much like the drug stuff, as long as you discard the facts, you can use that one too. Of course one who actually listens regularly might know this, but is so much easier to take your info from his critics, especially if it fits your agenda.
Third, his marriages did not work out. Wow, that has never happened to anyone else! The fact is, I am desperately trying to hold my 2nd marriage together. My wife is a saint, but she can also be the devil - as can I. We call that being human. We pray together, that helps. (Oops, there I am touting my religion …lol)
What I find so amazing is how intolerant those who preach tolerance to those they judge (Basil) as needing enlightenment. However, if a minority preacher cracks a joke about a white man while at the pulpit – rather than be upset, we are supposed to sympathize his plight. If a minority woman states that she hopes that the only black Supreme Court justice dies young of heart disease, RINO’s look the other way, so as to appear “above the fray.”
While the left were brutally attacking Sarah Palin’s credibility, record and members of her family, they looked the other way again, embarrassed that not only did she know how to hunt but she also bucked the party big boys when the party was wrong.

Meanwhile, they teach that elections are one in the middle. They scold those who boldly declare conservative values. They proclaim that the era of Reagan is over. This way they can make nice-nice with their left wing buddies who make fun of them when they’re not around.
Apparently, they are as hell-bent on bipartisanship as the left is on instituting the “Great Society…” both of which are hoaxes. They tell others to “tone down the rhetoric” while they quietly adopt or co-opt the causes their “fellow” conservatives oppose.
THAT is why the RNC is wandering in the wilderness, because they are not conservative, they are centrists. They lack a solid core – a lot like jello.
The “base” was giddy with happiness when the RINO’s running McCain’s campaign failed to muzzle the outspoken Sarah. However, they kept up the moderate way – and lost miserably! Does anyone here actually doubt that a Palin-McCain ticket would have faired far better than McCain-Palin? Puh-lease.
As for education, how about forcing higher education to lower their prices? The left & moderates are the first to demand that of the oil & pharmaceutical companies but somehow everyone should just accept to continue paying more & more for a service that we get less & less from. Don’t force them to earn it or threaten to withhold payment if the job is not done satisfactorily. Instead clamor for yet more help with tuition from their Uncle Sam. Sadly, many who go to “the best schools,” they are so busy looking down from their Ivy League towers that they end up unable to see things eye to eye with common folks (dummies) like us.
Finally, although I did not see it in this thread, the co-opting of the crumbling infrastructure cries from the left was the icing on the cake. Does anyone remember why the levies in New Orleans never got strengthened anywhere near the standards set by the Army Corps of Engineers? Was it lack of funding? No! It was the squandering of the funds by those in charge. So, given proof that government bureaucracy is the very thing that paralyzes growth & progress, do we denounce it?

No, that sounds to harsh & critical. Instead, they cast the 3 votes needed on the biggest piece of legislative swine that ever came out the senate with a squiggly tail.

That is why RINO’s will always be in the minority.

Just Plain Conservative| 3.4.09 @ 3:30AM

I wanted to quickly correct my mistype:

they teach that elections are WON in the middle, (not ONE in the middle) I did not want to be called stupid, foolish or under-educated for being human!

Bob| 3.4.09 @ 9:00AM

Conservative, here's my response:

If Rush was not caught by the police for doing drugs do you think he would have changed? If it did not potentially hurt his source of income do you think he would have changed? Do you want your children to have his experience?

Regarding marriages, it is important that a leader set an example. I thought marriage was important to social conservatives. This proves that is just a show. You can marry the wrong person. But give me a break -- three times? This shows a guy that doesn't learn.

Lastly, if we want this country to maintain our dominance we must have more scientists, mathematicians, engineers, doctors, and teachers. Those of you that eschew education hurt our society and our competitiveness. I don't look down on people, I look down on stupidity. My children all have master's degrees and I'm proud of them. I'm the first in my family to go to college. If it were not for my education, I never would have left the ghetto. So yes, education is extremely important and I believe in it. I would like to see more people get the opportunity to go to the best schools no matter which socioeconomic level they came from.

And your thinking is weak. Do you really believe that the levies in New Orleans would have been fixed without any government? It would have been worse.

We RINO's/independents are in the majority now, and will remain in the majority. But then again, you don't believe in analysis. Why believe facts?

You are an example of why the Republican party is failing right now -- belief without reason.

Greg| 3.4.09 @ 9:57AM

The controversy about Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh (who I don't really particularly listen to anymore) is more than about Rush. When the liberal talk show host said that CPAC looked like a bunch of Nazis Michael Steele nodded in agreement.

Some said his nodding wasn't in agreement with that statement but still at the very least he was quiet and did not speak out against that outrageous statement.

This is more than about Rush the person. This was about the speech he gave and if you listened to the speech and agree with it then it is not only Rush but you, and all other grassroots conservatives that Michael Steele has rebuked in the harshest of terms.

Well, if that is the way the "leader" of the GOP feels about me then I say no, no, no, not God Bless the GOP, GOD DAMN the GOP. It isn't the party I thought I knew!

Just Plain Conservative| 3.4.09 @ 12:45PM

Bob, Bob, Bob...

How typical of the snob class. The smartest people in the room that refuse to see anyone else's view. My thinking is weak? Says who, a RINO with a spine of soft rubber? You have successfully insulted everyone in this thread proving that your ego is of the greatest importance.

News flash, you are not in any majority except for the many "Bluebloods" such as yourself that are being systematically rejected by the majorities that are on the left & the right. Your love of government makes you indistiguishable from your Democratics friends. You are used as needed by the left like a useful idiot, then discarded like a fawning schoolgirl used by some bully on the football team.

You prove your ignorance when you said I was a supporter of the Republican Party as I am not. Like Reagan said of the Democrats, I did not leave the party, they left me. Their lack of spine and willingness to compromise everything is the reason why true conservatives hang up on RNC phone calls for donations.

Check again in this thread Bob, you are in the minority buddy. Go insult someone else, I am done here.