The American Spectator

ruth| 3.4.09 @ 6:25PM

Oh no, they've found out; Conservatives like Rush, what will we do? Libtards.

BD57| 3.4.09 @ 6:32PM

That's fine.

At some point voters will lose patience with the perpetual campaign and start demanding some results from the President and his minions in Congress.

If they don't deliver - which, given the program they're pursuing, seems likely - blaming Limbaugh & Bush, etc. won't help them a bit.

Howard| 3.4.09 @ 7:40PM

Good lord, Limbaugh is a *talk show host*, and a private citizen. It is a very dangerous precedent when our government can attack private opinion leaders. If anyone doesn't see the problem with this, they are insane. Have a great day.

Crusader| 3.4.09 @ 8:30PM

Why does it even matter who is the leader of the R party? Psst, Dems, YOU WON, remember? You have the presidency & both houses of congress. Why are you hung up on who is running the show in the other party? Like BD said, the campaign is OVER.

Greytdog| 3.4.09 @ 9:22PM

"It is a very dangerous precedent when our government can attack private opinion leaders"
perhaps even more so than the Bush administration's DOJ's memos showing a Republican administration how to go about circumventing the Constitution of the United States, allowing warrantless (and meaningless) wiretapping of private citizens who had/have no contact whatsoever with any know terrorist organizations, and committing war crimes against humanity? Oh wait. I forgot. Bush and Cheney kept America safe - by terrorizing Americans. How nice of them.

Stuart| 3.4.09 @ 9:27PM

BD57, you're right. This deeply dishonest and cynical diversion by Emmanuel, James Carville, Axelrod, and the One will run out of gas.
People, including many Republicans, complimented Obama on running a respectful and responsible campaign. But he habitually misrepresented the other side- remember his "they're going to say I don't look like the other presidents" comment?- and here he is, running the country in the cheapest political way he can.

adagioforstrings| 3.4.09 @ 9:41PM

re:Greytdog:"perhaps even more so than the Bush administration's DOJ's memos showing a Republican administration how to go about circumventing the Constitution of the United States, allowing warrantless (and meaningless) wiretapping of private citizens who had/have no contact whatsoever with any know terrorist organizations,"

Uhm...I believe the people monitored by wiretaps did have contacts with terrorists.

adagioforstrings| 3.4.09 @ 9:43PM

re: Stuart: "People Kool Aid Drinkers, including many Republicans, complimented Obama on running a respectful and responsible campaign"

Jeremiah| 3.4.09 @ 10:30PM

OK, fine.

But folks -- Rush Limbaugh is *NOT* a "private citizen."

The man is on the RADIO all over the country for 15 hours a week telling millions of people that Democrats are traitors, socialists -- and worse.

He makes tens of millions of dollars BROADCASTING. He does not qualify in any legal sense or any sense at all that I can think of as a mere "private citizen." He's a celebrity and fits the definition of a public figure perfectly.

Get over it, folks.

If he gets a little push back, I'm sure it doesn't bother him.

Thomas| 3.4.09 @ 11:01PM

One must ask oneself, why would the current administration care what a radio talk show host has to say. Unless, of course, it may be an inconvenient truth.

BD57| 3.4.09 @ 11:04PM

Jeremiah:

You're right, as far as American defamation law is concerned, Limbaugh is a public figure. And I agree there's nothing particularly scandalous about the O-bots going after him - - - attacking straw men is pretty much par for the course in American politics these days.

Where you're wrong, though, is in suggesting Limbaugh's not a "private citizen" - he certainly is. He holds no elective or appointed office and he has no responsibility for the formation or implementation of public policy.

The President, et al. are indeed making a private citizen (albeit one they can slander with impunity, for the reason you identify) their boogie-man ... strange thing to be doing when they have solid control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

Siegfried Xanten| 3.4.09 @ 11:29PM

A Republican Senator today said that Limbaugh is part of the Republican "leadership". So I guess Rush is fair game. From thehill.com:

[Senator] Richard "Burr said that the party’s leadership is split intro three: Limbaugh, the “spokesperson of the conservative element of Republicans, Democrats and independents”; Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman in charge of the party’s infrastructure; and the legislative leaders in Congress.

Brian Kirk| 3.4.09 @ 11:31PM

Re: I hope he fails...

http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingnutz

Mutty| 3.5.09 @ 12:06AM

Baloney. I don't care what you say a Repub senator said, Rush is a private citizen. Azzwipe.

regent| 3.5.09 @ 2:54AM

I want Obama policies and programs to fail too.

Attack me me me me Mr. President so that I will be famous too, like Rush.

It's against your Dem's Fairness Doctrine, right?

And it's against your Distribute The Wealth, right?

Interloper| 3.5.09 @ 3:23AM

Jeremiah is right.

Under the seminal libel case of New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), and its progeny, it is impossible for a media personality to be a private citizen. As a celebrity, Rush Limbaugh is impossible to slander under just about any circumstances. Nor does he have much of a right to privacy. In fact, it is difficult to think of anything that Limbaugh could complain about and be taken seriously. The public already knows he had marital problems in three unions. That he can't get it up without Viagra. That he goes on sex tours to have sex with mixed-race prostitutes in the Dominican Republic despite his racism. That he abuses drugs, including oxycontin. That he has an eating disorder that results in massive weight gain. And on and on and on. How could he have any kind of expectation of privacy?

Thomas said: "One must ask oneself, why would the current administration care what a radio talk show host has to say."

One must answer: Because Rush Limbaugh is perfect for making a useful fool of.

Matt| 3.5.09 @ 3:46AM

Leave, loser. You're just pi$$ed off because your Obummer wet his pants when Rush challenged him. Obummer is weak, certainly not ready to lead. What a disaster.

Pecos Pete| 3.5.09 @ 6:40AM

The point is that the GOVERNMENT is attacking a private citizen. It is not about slander or that in a lawsuit Rush would not be treated as a court defined "private citizen."

Kitty| 3.5.09 @ 7:34AM

Rush told several liberal callers yesterday, "You wanted me to be the leader. Well, here I am. I lead."

RIGHT ON, RIGHT ON!
...

Dwight Lysne| 3.5.09 @ 7:57AM

I just got done watching Matt Lauer’s interview of Mr. Steele on the Today Show about infighting within the Republican Party and I think that overall he did a good job of dealing with the difficult questions he faced.

However, I think he could have also given Mr. Lauer the perspective that when Mr. Limbaugh is saying he wants President Obama’s policies to fail, he could be viewed as using “hyperbole” in order to magnify his concerns about President Obama’s “liberal” philosophical approach to solving the nation’s economic problems in order to get “conservatives” in this country to “pay attention” to what is going on and to “motivate” them to “be involved” and to take “action” within the party that best represents their interests, i.e. the Republican party, and that this can be an appropriate and important role for someone to take.

Even if Mr. Limbaugh himself is “literal” in what he is saying, that doesn't mean that what he is saying has to be taken that way. He has a large voice among conservatives in this country through his listening audience and no one but Mr. Limbaugh knows what his motivations are for saying what he says. I'm sure he knows that in his role as an extremely successful daily conservative radio talk show host he has a certain amount of power to motivate those who consider themselves philosophically conservative across this country and although he presents himself as literal on the radio he may need to present himself in a "hyperbolic" way as a figurehead for conservatism in order to call attention and motivate others to action against the "liberal" policies of President Obama.

If Mr. Limbaugh's use of "himself" in this “hyperbolic” way as a means of articulating his message to motivate others to take action, his message and his role gets misunderstood and he gets viewed as someone who is at odds with the Republican Party.

Kitty| 3.5.09 @ 8:24AM

Dwight L: Rush may demonstrate absurdity by being absurd, but he's not prone to hyperbole. You must not listen to Rush, otherwise you'd know that he says what he means and means what he says.

Rush's response to Steele (3/2/09): "If we don't want Obama and Reid and Pelosi to fail, then why does the RNC exist, Mr. Steele? Why are you even raising money? What do you want from us?"

...

Dwight Lysne| 3.5.09 @ 9:34AM

Kitty: I'm not sure where you would draw the line between absurdity and hyperbole? I stated that even with Mr. Limbaugh being literal in what he is saying, he none-the-less may be (intentionally) using himself as a icon of Conservatism to provoke fellow conservatives and the Republican Party to take action and that doing so would be an appropriate role for him to play - a leadership role that would be "politically incorrect" for someone in a formal leadership position in the RNC to pull off.

Bob| 3.5.09 @ 9:56AM

Isn't there anyone here who understands politics and targeting? Rush has a very high disapproval rating among Republican moderates and independents. These people are the swing vote in any election. Just like the Republican party attacked moveon.org about Patreaus, the Dems gain by attacking Rush who has a similar disapproval rating among the swing group.

All of these things are modeled and planned. Recently, the Dems have been far more effective in understanding how to go after swing voters than Republicans. Remember that Republican voters are only 29% of the total. Dems are currently about 39% of the total. The swing vote is very large. That's where the game is won.

This is Steele's problem. He's seen the numbers and knows he has to get moderates and independents. Rush doesn't care because he has a dedicated audience and it makes no difference to his pocketbook whether Republicans or Democrats win. He has absolutely nothing at stake here.

WendyG| 3.5.09 @ 10:12AM

Obama's policies WILL fail. Then Rush will look like a genius. :)

Bob| 3.5.09 @ 10:32AM

Wendy, you don't have a clue. Anyone who has studied politics knows that all politics is local. First of all, they see Obama on the TV every day talking about another new program. They like that. Secondly, the economy will start to turn around -- probably by the end of this year -- and Obama will get credit for that even though it will have little to do with what he has done. Next, both large companies and the vast majority of people want someone to help them with health care. They couldn't care less about "socialism". Lastly, the public debt growing is not seen by the vast majority of people because all they care about is the taxes they pay and 95% of them will get tax cuts. It is all about their personal pocketbooks.

Just like FDR, Obama will easily succeed with the public no matter how much debt is created. Reagan knew this and let the debt rise hugely. Bush also knew this and also let the debt rise. Republicans have advocated tax cuts to get votes, not because it was the responsible thing to do in the face of increased spending.

Rush looks like a fool now to moderates and independents and liberals. He will remain the fool to those groups who comprise 71% of voters.

Wendy, you are part of a minority group -- social conservatives -- and that agenda will continue to lose elections.

tonypal| 3.5.09 @ 1:00PM

Another day and another opportunity to bask in the glow of Bob, the master of the unfounded assertion.

CH| 3.5.09 @ 1:05PM

Snark

Angel| 3.5.09 @ 1:07PM

Rush already is a genius. He made Obama, 'leader of the free world' blink. Funny.

Bob| 3.5.09 @ 1:26PM

There you go again, tonypal! Making another assertion without supporting data. Another example of a social conservative lacking reason.

Matt| 3.5.09 @ 1:48PM

If we lose, so do you, Bob. Sux, don't it?

Bob| 3.5.09 @ 2:09PM

Matt, when you lose, you lose on all accounts. When I lose, I still get a social libertarian administration. I would vote for a social conservative who was smart, educated, and pragmatic (i.e., not ideological). Wouldn't that be the best for both of us?

CH| 3.5.09 @ 2:15PM

You're still a loser, Bob. Sorry.

Bob| 3.5.09 @ 2:30PM

CH, another intolerant and dumb response... Oh, well...

CH| 3.5.09 @ 2:41PM

Dumb and dumber--you're dumber.

Basil Plumley| 3.5.09 @ 3:31PM

Hey Bob

What are your thoughts on the Ivy Leaguer Obama getting schooled by the College dropout Limbaugh.

BTW, do you realize your response to WendyG was pretty poor. I know you (as well as the Interloopy) love to use stats that bolster your weak argument. They are also OLD stats.

If you were honest or at least up-to-date, you would know that the latest Rasmussen tracking poll of party identity had the difference between R's and D's at 2%. A far cry from the nonsense you have been posting.
I would hazard a guess that if the economy keeps tanking Obama and the Dems will also tank.

Your argument about more debt is good is completely inane. If that is the case, why not spend more money that we don't have. After all, it's not like you eat off the dollar menu at McDonald's.

The more you post Bob, the more I am inclined to believe that you aren't who you say you are. You claim to be fiscally conservative, yet, have no outrage over what is going on in Congress. (the Socially liberal side must approve?)
Somehow, in your mind, the real enemy is the Social Conservative. Exceptional thinking Bob.

You are either a fraud or failed logic. I will hang up now and wait for your response.

Bob| 3.5.09 @ 3:43PM

Basil, I was using the CNN/NBC exit poll data. Here is the current trend by Gallup:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx

You'll see that Republicans in this poll were about 38% in 2004 and 28% in November 2008 just as I said. Democrats were somewhat less than the other polls I saw. That said, down 10% is a huge loss for Republicans.

You really need to do your homework, if you know how without schooling, Basil.

So someone calling for a significant reduction in the largest part of our budget is not a fiscal conservative? Try again, looney tunes.

tonypal| 3.5.09 @ 3:51PM

Bob:

Ok Bob, I know I should not bother challenging your Olympian intellect, but since you've decided to parrot me by claiming that I made unfounded assertions, a statement for which you provide no proof, let's see what you had to say to Wendy.

"Secondly, the economy will start to turn around -- probably by the end of this year -- and Obama will get credit for that even though it will have little to do with what he has done. " Do you have any evidence to support this? If you don't, that would qualify as an opinion based in the Obamian concept of "hope." In other words, an unfounded assertion.

"Next, both large companies and the vast majority of people want someone to help them with health care. They couldn't care less about "socialism." Have you taken a poll to make this determination? Now I'm sure you will whip out some poll in a lame attempt to support your statements, but unless the question in the poll gives a complete explanation of the pros and cons of the specific health care proposal/entitlement, it is worthless.

"Lastly, the public debt growing is not seen by the vast majority of people because all they care about is the taxes they pay and 95% of them will get tax cuts. It is all about their personal pocketbooks." Do you have some empirical evidence to support this? Perhaps one of your famous charts? Also, how does one receive a "tax cut" when one does not pay taxes.?

"Just like FDR, Obama will easily succeed with the public no matter how much debt is created. Reagan knew this and let the debt rise hugely. Bush also knew this and also let the debt rise. Republicans have advocated tax cuts to get votes, not because it was the responsible thing to do in the face of increased spending." Again, nothing more than an assertion with no supporting evidence.

Lastly, "Rush looks like a fool now to moderates and independents and liberals. He will remain the fool to those groups who comprise 71% of voters." Oh really. Have you conducted a poll to determine this?

ANgel| 3.5.09 @ 4:23PM

Mark my words, Rush will win this dustup. Obama blinked and people will remember.

Basil Plumley| 3.5.09 @ 4:59PM

There you go again Bob
Presenting last year's data to this weeks Rasmussen Poll. You do know that Gallup did not fare real well predicting last year's race. Rasmussen and IBD pretty much hit it on the head.

It is but one reason folks who really follow politics don't cite Gallup.

You said-So someone calling for a significant reduction in the largest part of our budget is not a fiscal conservative?

Good Lord you are OBTUSE!
You advocate piling up debt is good and when called out, you respond with this. Like I said, either you are a fraud or you failed Logic. I'll let you pick.

Please tell me you can do better. Pleeeease, I am losing faith in you and your educational pedigree.
You really need to consider suing your School for Educational Malpractice. I am sure you know some really good Trial Lawyers.

Bob| 3.5.09 @ 4:59PM

OK, tonypal, I'll answer your questions.

Regarding an economic turnaround. No one knows when a turnaround will occur, but all economic cycles have bottoms. The market has already dropped over 50% and we are beginning to see technical signs of bottoming in some industries. We still have some dropping to do based upon more foreclosures do to Alt-A mortgages. We just saw a small increase this week in consumer spending. Furthermore, if you take a look at historical home prices, we are seeing it approach the historical pricing curve. My best guess is that we will see a turnaround by the end of the year but it could certainly be delayed for another year. The key is the financials and the stability of the financial system. There is currently no market for derivatives so they are most certainly undervalued. At some juncture, capital will come in to buy these securities. In fact, we are beginning to see some of the ousted lenders who got us into this mess now buying mortgage portfolios. The point is that even if the turnaround does not occur until the end of next year, Obama will still get credit even though I believe he will have little to do with the recovery. FDR got lots of credit for reduced unemployment levels even though the country was still in depression.

With regard to health care, there is not specific proposal for polls to be taken. My statements are certainly supported on the public's and businesses desire to change the health care system, however. Just look at the proposals by the health care industry, chamber of commerce, AMA, nurses, etc.

As for people voting their pocketbooks, there are so many election polls, including this last one, that supports this proposition, I'm sure you can find them with Google. By the way, ALL working people pay taxes whether they are income taxes, social security, medicare, etc. Dollars are fungible, and don't care what the tax is called. I would have preferred to see a payroll tax cut in the current stimulus bill as an economist rather than an income tax cut as the payroll cut should be more stimulative as many Republicans have said.

Regarding the reference to FDR. He is the proof that just putting programs into the system with minimal results makes a President extremely popular. You need to study FDR a bit more. In fact, both conservative and liberal historians consider FDR our 3rd best President.

With regard to Rush looking like a "fool", I would submit the polling information showing his very high negatives as support. Here's the latest Gallup poll on the subject:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114163/Limbaugh-Liked-Not-Republicans.aspx

Instead of being another "just say no" Limbaugh clone, can you be productive?

CH| 3.5.09 @ 5:05PM

Blah, blah, blah, blah. Snore

Thomas| 3.5.09 @ 5:09PM

Bob,

You presuppose that team Obama wants the downward economic spiral to "bottom out" and reverse itself. As any student of politics knows, it is extremely dangerous to make any assumptions of future events. Just ask Barney Frank.

Bob| 3.5.09 @ 5:12PM

Basil, I suggest you go to school and actually take a look at the Rasmussen tracking poll:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/party_affiliation/summary_of_party_affiliation

It still shows a drop from 37% to 33% for Republicans and an increase from 39% to 41% for Dems. I'm sure the polling methodologies are different but the directional trends are the same. By the way, these number differ only slightly from those I showed with Gallup. These numbers do not change any of the conclusions. Are you smart enough to realize that or do you need to go to school?

Bob| 3.5.09 @ 5:15PM

Thomas, I don't presume Obama "wants" anything. My conclusion is not based on what he wants, but on voter behavior profiles. I don't think Obama has much to do with the bottoming out of the recession. As I've stated before, I believe private enterprise and the market is more responsible for economic trends than government.

Matt| 3.5.09 @ 5:16PM

Nice off the page post, Bob. You need to go back to typing school.

Basil Plumley| 3.5.09 @ 6:47PM

Umm, Bob ...... nice try
Here is what Rasmussen says:
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
The race between Republicans and Democrats has once again tightened up in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot. For the third time in the last four weeks, Republicans have pulled to within two points of the Democrats.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 41% of voters said they would vote for their district’s Democratic candidate while 39% said they would choose the Republican (see crosstabs).
While support for the Democrats has not changed since last week, support for the GOP has increased two points.

Over the past year, Democratic support has ranged from a low of 40% to a high of 50%. In that same time period, Republicans have been preferred by 34% to 41% of voters nationwide.

Of course, I should have said the generic Congressional ballot instead of party identity but this Rasmussen poll has much better news than you cite.
Could it be that the independents are shading to the right? Isn't that who the GOP and Dems need to attract in order to win?

You said-As I've stated before, I believe private enterprise and the market is more responsible for economic trends than government.

Nah, government meddling has never harmed private enterprise and the market.
Bob, it's probably time to feed your pet unicorn.

Something to think about Bob:
"One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary."

—Ayn Rand, 1975

Interloper| 3.6.09 @ 2:06AM

The Rasmussen poll Plumb Dumb is citing is old (January) and it was an outlier even then -- before the inauguration. The current Rasmussen tracking poll shows the same trend as has occurred for at least the last eight months -- a lead of around 10 percent for the Democratic Party.

http://tinyurl.com/2d34ul

The generic Congressional ballot stuff is data in search of a meaning. Candidates are not generic, and most districts are represented by Democrats. The generic Congressional ballot questions ask people to play 'what if.'

The most interesting Rasmussen headline is this one from Wednesday:

Just 11% of Republicans Say Limbaugh Is Their Party’s Leader

"Despite efforts by the Obama political team and its surrogates to link Rush Limbaugh to the Republican Party, just 11% of GOP voters say the conservative radio commentator is the party’s leader.
Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republican voters disagree and 8% are undecided in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey."

http://tinyurl.com/bwxq3q

The extremists who populate the American Spectator are even out of touch with the Republican mainstream.

ruth| 3.6.09 @ 11:28AM

Interloper, better hope you're not on the Obamas' gift list.

Basil Plumley| 3.8.09 @ 12:13AM

Interloper,

You pompous twit. Limbaugh is a leader of the Conservatives not the GOP. Repeat as often as necessary. The 11% are the Lincoln Chaffee's of the party. They vote Dem if/when the GOP run a Conservative candidate. What did you think they would say? They are party of Bobs.

Rasmussen and outlier in the same sentence? Only someone with your particular outlook on politics could even fathom such a sentence construction. I would ask you to try harder next time but if your past efforts are any indication, I will not hold my breath.