The American Spectator

Tom Paine| 4.26.09 @ 11:27AM

I get the joke, and I think it's been slightly misunderstood -- as you mention.

However, it was a nasty joke -- there was something really mean about it.

Chortling over the deaths of "black teenagers" -- you'll forgive me -- is a little off-color.

What irritates me is that 10 minutes after the captain was taken hostages, right-wing pundits were comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter. Why didn't he act? Then, when he acted, you have the king of right-wing pundits scoffing at the action and comparing it to inner-city shootings of American "black teenagers."

I don't agree with the criticism you site, in other words, but I have my own criticism.

And I'm perfectly eager to laugh and enjoy myself. But jokes like Limbaugh's -- sound too much like something else.

Tom Paine| 4.26.09 @ 11:30AM

re: "Liberal talk radio"

I freely admit that conservatives do talk radio better. One fist-pounding, outraged and red faced voice giving marching orders to ditto-heads doesn't sound like a forum made in heaven for liberals.

Nevertheless, there are markets (my home town is an example) in which a few liberal hosts are beating out lesser right wingers like Hannity. They aren't unseating Limbaugh, naturally. No one ever will as long as the man still draws breath. I'm not so sure what that says about liberals, or conservatives.

Ran| 4.26.09 @ 12:42PM

Rush's point was on-target, but a diversion, because I believe he missed important facts:

Here we had a situation in which a media-dependent Administration was panicking to cover it's sorry rear during a hostage crisis. The courage of the Maersk's captain can't be stressed enough: He put himself in active danger several times in order to create the situation that would allow the Navy to overcome the interference laid-down from the White House. What Obama & Co. did was raw political cowardice. There a re section of the US Code that gives the Navy clear mandates to act in such circumstance. There was absolutely zero requirement for the White House or anyone else to interfere.

That the Captain escaped with his life is a miracle of courage and professionalism on his part and the Navy's. Who gives a damn what the drive-by's and the T-P's of the world think? Rush, too, missed the point. The point was that the White House and it's FBI team were interfering and nearly got the Captain shot. That sort of policy objective isn't going to prevent future piracy of American vessels.

By the way, RSM... Whenever T-P posts here, just remind yourself that T-P is... on a roll.

Tom Paine| 4.26.09 @ 12:46PM

Why isn't American Spectator covering the detention of David Duke in the Czech Republic.

Might we, as Americans, just this once -- even if only for half a minute -- celebrate the lack of free speech in Europe?

Might we, as Americans, who abhor coercive and abusive interrogation practices, silently (and guiltily) hope that Czech agents are at this very minute water-boarding Dr. Duke to get the names of other anti-Semitic scum bags who may be peddling books in their jurisdictions?

Now there's a thought.

What would become of our sympathies if we learned that David Duke -- right now -- had his hands lashed to an overhead pipe. He's naked; men throw cold water on him; men taunt him and threaten him with sexual assault; he's made to soil himself where he stands.

Wouldn't our sympathies transfer even to David Duke if we knew this were happening?

Now... I would repent of the moment's satisfaction I might feel. It would be wicked to feel any pleasure at the thought.

But what of our young woman in Iran. If we knew she were being water boarded, wouldn't we say "they are torturing her"?

Tom Paine| 4.26.09 @ 12:50PM

Ran --

Wow, that's sharp.... TP is "on a roll." Because T and P are my initials, and they also colloquially stand in for "toilet paper." I get it. You've got a mind like a steel trap. Anyone ever tell you that?

Your reading of the hostage situation is taken directly from Sean Hannity's television program. He made nearly every point you made, often using the same words. Do you take notes when you watch Hannity?

Conspicuously absent have been similar criticisms from -- oh, I don't know -- the navy, Republicans in Congress, the men who were held hostage ....

It's getting lonesome out on these fringes of the fringes.

MarkJ| 4.26.09 @ 1:06PM

TP,

Actually I thought Ran was referring to a "dinner roll."

And, Tommie Boy, do get off the "marching orders" shtick--it's so....1988. I've listened to Rush for nearly 20 years. However, gosh dang it, I've yet to get any Ultra Secret EIB Marching Orders for my Dittohead Decoder Ring...much less any "John has a long moustache" messages on my shortwave receiver.

Basil Plumley| 4.26.09 @ 1:07PM

Yes ...... Ran is indeed sharp.
You ...... T-P/Jeremiah ... not so much. Your solipsism (a great description by Mary the poster) makes you a legend in your own mind.

BTW, it was Ran who first exposed Tommy Pain as our old liberal poster Jeremiah.

P.S. Ran, I am hearing that the Captain of the Bainbridge made the call to take out the pirates in spite of Obama's ROI. Have you noticed the dearth of inquiry by the MSM concerning Obama's "decision" to take out the pirates.

Basil Plumley| 4.26.09 @ 1:18PM

MarkJ| 4.26.09 @ 1:06PM
TP,

Actually I thought Ran was referring to a "dinner roll."

And, Tommie Boy, do get off the "marching orders" shtick--it's so....1988. I've listened to Rush for nearly 20 years. However, gosh dang it, I've yet to get any Ultra Secret EIB Marching Orders for my Dittohead Decoder Ring...much less any "John has a long moustache" messages on my shortwave receiver.

I received the following message:
Wounds my heart with a monotonous languor.

What does that mean?

MarkJ, somehow, I doubt T-P/Jeremiah will understand the humor.

Tom Paine| 4.26.09 @ 2:19PM

Maybe Rush's fans don't "take marching orders" from him.

It seems to me like they're reluctant to criticize their hero. Which is fine by me.

But it just isn't the sort of situation you find liberals comfortable in. You're right: we don't do talk radio as well, and I think that's because of talk radio's authoritarian format.

We do panels and debates on CSPAN; we do conferences at universities.

Sure, it's not as entertaining as Rush. But it's more likely that everyone gets his say.

Roy Mustang| 4.26.09 @ 2:22PM

>>>However, it was a nasty joke -- there was something really mean about it.
Chortling over the deaths of "black teenagers" -- you'll forgive me -- is a little off-color.

Roy Mustang| 4.26.09 @ 2:22PM

So let me get this straight. You're upset over a parody of race baiting but have no problems with the real thing.

Tom Paine| 4.26.09 @ 3:13PM

Roy --

I don't get your point.

Tom Paine| 4.26.09 @ 3:15PM

David Duke continues to languish in a Czech prison cell. Why doesn't the American Spectator do a story on this?

David Duke thinks Obama is a "fascist" and a "totalitarian."

Isn't that what people here think?

George| 4.26.09 @ 3:49PM

But it's more likely that everyone gets his say.

Only the people who are invited, who invariably agree with each other.

Ran| 4.26.09 @ 4:13PM

Basil, old chap... I won't take credit for the identification, though I thinks it's entirely plausible.

Thing about Rush' comment is this: Obama didn't order any such thing. The Prez was cowardly attempting to avoid it. Problem becomes two-fold: First, the Maersk Captain, aided by Navy SEALS, boldly and successfully end the situation.

Second, the media - in it's hagiographical fashion hurried to pin the 'Bravery Under Fire' medal on the Prez... What's O-Oh going to do? Order the arrest of the SEALS and the Navy Captain on a criminal charge?

This is just a no-win for the old media. Rush was correct in his analysis of the media's conundrum... just that he didn't see how messy it was. Poor old media.

BTW, at today's price, I'll bet one could swap even a NY Times share for a pack of... T-P.

Tom Paine| 4.26.09 @ 4:30PM

Ran --

Setting aside the more assinine elements of your post (which takes some doing), I'd like to know what evidence you have that Obama wished to avoid or hinder the rescue mission?

When did Obama take any credit for this?

I admit the media were a bit fawning, but when did Obama present himself for accolades?

Instead of speculating about people's motives, a variety of ad hominem argument that has been held in contempt since antiquity, why not deal in facts? Why not offer claims for which some evidence might be found? In other words, why not make an argument, rather than just random accusations? Finally, why carry Sean Hannity's water, and be the stooge of a stooge?

Viewer| 4.26.09 @ 4:31PM

Ha! Limbaugh is not a 'victim' of anything. He benefits from the controversy he deliberately provokes. Furthermore, Limbaugh's comments were not 'jokes.' They were clunky expressions of pissy sarcasm. If there's any bias in the media, it's toward whatever grabs attention and $$ at the moment.

Tom Paine| 4.26.09 @ 4:54PM

George --

re: "only the people who get invited..." and "invariably agree with each other"

I have to say, George, I can understand why you might think that.

But it just couldn't be further from the truth. Liberals on a panel, liberals at a conference -- these are the sites of more disagreement and cantankerous battles than are to be found anywhere in Christendom. Believe me.

From the outside looking in, it might look like a secret-handshake club. It's not.

I'd like to see Rush Limbaugh on a panel on CSPAN, where he has to wait his turn and respond to reasonable criticism. I doubt he'd be very impressive. But then again, that's not his thing. He's a one-man act. The operative word being "act."

Tom Paine| 4.26.09 @ 4:56PM

By the way, George --

Your criticism could as easily be applied to Rush Limbaugh's radio show.

His callers are carefully screened and dismissed as soon as Rush doesn't feel like listening anymore. It's not exactly courage on Rush's part to have a caller.

Mary| 4.26.09 @ 5:03PM

I’ve been listening to Rush for the past several weeks. Last week he had Mark Steyn hosting for him; it was great! What a great voice! I could listen to an English accent for days on end. It’s so civilized.

The only time I heard Rush get nasty was when he made fun of Chelsea Clinton. She was just a kid, a few years later McCain did the same thing and I found it just as distasteful.

But you know what, one of his regular listeners called in and gave it to him both barrels, and she humbled him. He didn’t cut her off and he didn’t defend it either. Rush is no authoritarian. His show and everything that he is about is liberty. Also, IIRC the Annenberg School of Communication gives him high marks for accuracy.

At his CPAC speech he said conservatives love people and I think that’s true. And I know he loves people. I wish he’d drop some weight. Not because that would make me more fond of him, but it would give his detractors less to bash him with. And Rush comes off well on TV. Unlike a lot of other radio personalities, he does not have a face for radio. He has a nice face. A very nice face.

Anyway, Basil, Ran, here’s the quote of the day, my capitalist and freedom loving brethren:

***Only because people were not allowed to talk or to think about the nature of the socialist community was Socialism able to become the dominant political movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

These statements can hardly be illustrated better than by a quotation from the writings of Hermann Cohen, one of those who, in the decades immediately preceding the world war, exerted the strongest influence on German thought. "Today," says Cohen, "no want of understanding prevents us from recognizing the kernel of the social question and therefore, even if only furtively, the necessity of social reform policy, but only the evil, or the not sufficiently good, will. The unreasonable demand that it should unveil the picture of the future state for the general view, with which attempts are made to embarrass party Socialism, can be explained only by the fact that such defective natures exist. The state presupposes law, but these people ask what the state would look like rather than what are the ethical requirements of law. By thus reversing the concepts one confuses the ethics of Socialism with the poesy of the Utopias. But ethics are not poetry and the idea has truth without image. Its image is the reality which is only to arise according to its prototype. The socialist idealism can to-day be looked upon as a general truth of public consciousness, though as one which is still, nevertheless, an open secret. Only the egoism implicit in ideals of naked covetousness, which is the true materialism, denies it a faith."[8]

The man who wrote and thought thus was widely praised as the greatest and most daring German thinker of his time, and even opponents of his teaching respected him as an intellect. Just for that reason it is necessary to stress that Cohen not only accepts without criticism or reserve the demands of Socialism and acknowledges the prohibition against attempts to examine conditions in the socialist community, but that he represents as a morally inferior being anyone who tries to embarrass "party-Socialism" with a demand for light upon the problems of socialist economies. That the daring of a thinker whose criticism otherwise spares nothing should stop short before a mighty idol of his time is a phenomenon which may be observed often enough in the history of thought—even Cohen's great exemplar, Kant, is accused of this.[9] But that a philosopher should charge with ill-will, defective disposition, and naked covetousness not merely all those of a different opinion but all who even touch on a problem dangerous to those in authority—this, fortunately, is something of which the history of thought can show few examples.***

P.S. Rush has the best bumper music, bar none. And per my comment, a girl can dream, can't she?

P.P.S Dear Amspec, can we get a blockquote feature? It would make things real purdy.

Mary| 4.26.09 @ 5:29PM

By the way, the Goodbye To You is directed at socialism and most of all its purveyors.

danny g| 4.26.09 @ 5:59PM

man you are just so pissy that GOP took a beating last year. Everything you say is so petty and completely hypothetical. "Can you imagine how it would be if it was a REPUBLICAN that did this or that....but when a LIBERAL DOES IT...etc" Just stop bitching about the fact that Obama got praised for the pirate situation and stop picking it apart and trying to turn it around. Its easy to see through you.

tonypal| 4.26.09 @ 6:01PM

Tom Paine:

You state "His callers are carefully screened and dismissed as soon as Rush doesn't feel like listening anymore. It's not exactly courage on Rush's part to have a caller. " Can you please supply some evidence for this statement?

While it's true that he has a call screener, it is not for the reason you give. The purpose is to put callers on the air that have something of interest to discuss, usually something topical. As a regular listener of the show, I can tell you that Rush's policy regarding callers is thus: Those who call on cell phones go to the front of the line and those who identify themselves as liberals or democrats get the same treatment.

The fact that the vast majority of callers who get on the show agree with Rush just might have to do with the fact that the vast majority of people who seek to get on the show agree with him. Perhaps that's because the vast majority of people who listen to the show agree with him. It's simply a numbers game.

As for his comments regarding the pirates, etc., he was spot on. Maybe liberals take offense to the remarks because they hit a little too close to home. Let's face it, any time a conservative speaks out on a matter of race, there's some liberal watchdog group waiting to twist the words of the speaker and make accusations of racism.

To wit, the leader of the congressional black caucus James Clyburn accused the white conservative governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford, of racism because as the governor of a state with a large black population, he turned down funds from the latest stimulus package. Although Sanford carefully laid out his reasons, ostensibly because he did not want to be bound by dictates from DC, Clyburn predictably looked at his decision and comments through the liberal prism of race. Thus, because there were a lot of black people in South Carolina, Sanford must be racist. That's the kind of demented thinking and demagoguery that conservatives put up with every day.

Ran| 4.26.09 @ 6:22PM

Mary,
Thanks for the quote. Ah, music lovers, conversationalists...

When I was a wee tad of 11 years old, I recall reading a heavy bit of political analysis by a psychologist familiar with Germany of the '30's - I vaguely recall that it was Jung? Reich? Freud?

The point of the essay was the ease with which so many Europeans had bought the Fascist dream - Germans in particular, but Italians and Spanish and others. His thesis was that these people feared liberty because they feared responsibility. They feared others having freedom, because they feared being victimized. Along comes a system! and a charismatic huckster! that sells the idea that smart people will run the economy, guarantee national security and take care of them in their old-age. Not a bad platform for a generation that had seen the great War ravage their economies and populations - and who responded mostly to fear. It was all way over my head at the time.

The essay came back to me when I started reading Tocqueville's volumes and Michael Ledeen's wonderful responsa, "Tocqueville on American Character". Tocqueville - and Ledeen - describe a radically different character, one that embraces life as opportunities rather than as problems to fear.

Thanks again - now that I have Tocqueville read and on the shelves, it's time to read Von Mises (and Hayek and Friedman...)

Cheers,

Bob| 4.26.09 @ 6:43PM

Do any of you really think that Rush does what he does for the benefit of America? He does it so he can earn that $400 million in 10 years. He knows and understands his viewer base and plays to the crowd. He is one of the best targeted entertainers in the history of radio. For that reason, making jokes like this keeps his ratings high among his target viewership. He gets all of you dittoheads to come to his defense which only raises his ratings more.

But he certainly hasn't done much for the Republican party. According to the latest Pew poll, Republicans now represent only 24% of voters which is a significant decline from the 36% in 2004. It is the lowest amount since 1977 when the number was 21%. But digging into the numbers, there is an even greater problem. The old Reagan coalition is gone with "fiscal conservatives" calling themselves Democrats or Independents rather than Republicans. Furthermore with evangelicals being 19% of that 24%, only 5% of voters are moderate Republicans (i.e. RINO's). You guys have succeeded in driving non-social conservatives out of the party. Adding to this, the people who call themselves "evangelicals" has dropped another 5% this last year, makes the old Reagan coalition a non-starter. If Reagan were to run today, he couldn't expect more than 40% of the vote. Add to that the change in demographics, and the party is in real trouble.

The problem is not whether Rush's statement was "racist", but what it is doing to make the Republican party smaller. Personally, I thought the comment was humorous, but I've been involved in consumer marketing long enough to know that it is a net negative for the Republican party.

The point is that what benefits Rush, does not benefit Republicans. Rush is a capitalist who wants to make a lot of money. But he is not helping the country by doing that -- he is making it easier for the big spending Democrats to win. We all know that having a common enemy is the best way to bring a group together. Rush does a good job of being the common enemy of blacks, Hispanics, liberals (of course), and moderates.

Of course, every time a politician bows to Rush for saying the "wrong" think, Republicans lose even more.

Mary| 4.26.09 @ 7:24PM

Ran, thanks for the link. Before the election I read this work of Mr. Ledeen.

You wrote:

The point of the essay was the ease with which so many Europeans had bought the Fascist dream - Germans in particular, but Italians and Spanish and others. His thesis was that these people feared liberty because they feared responsibility.

I couldn't agree more.

It hadn't been that long that Italy had become unified when Mussolini came to power. The monarchy was very weak, though beloved. My father still sings the anthem to the House of Savoy (Vittorio Emanuele).

Lincoln had asked General Garibaldi to lead some Union troops, but Garibaldi declined. IIRC it was because he wasn't allowed full control.

Garibaldi is the first name I think of when I think of the Italy united. Ran, the poverty and misery at the end of the 19th century and into the early 20th was not a poverty you could climb out of, and the misery just gnarled souls. There was no middle class and there was no anarchy or much crime, just complete enervation.

Anywat, O/T I know and I promise, my last post. But the following quote from a commenter at Contentions is worth reading in full, but the following bit of it is what we have to bear in mind. Let's not worry about cul-de-sac conservatism; let's let it die the death it deserves.

"This is an absolutely pathological way of thinking about politics, and the Left applies it to all spheres of life. It is totalitarian, whether soft or hard. In the end it crashes, but it takes a lot with it–conservatives’ job right now is both to accelerate the crash and try to hold on to some pieces out of which we can rebuild once it has happened."

Cheers back at you.

Robert| 4.26.09 @ 7:29PM

Rush's audience has the nuance and sophistication that these liberals just don't have. We see shades of gray, and they are so black and white. Open your minds you humorless leftists.

Basil Plumley| 4.26.09 @ 7:42PM

@ Bob

This is what makes you so charming as a poster; you have no idea what you are talking about.
You have just proven RSMcCain's premise: you are (a) too stupid to comprehend Limbaugh's arguments, or (b) so dishonest as to pretend they don't comprehend Limbaugh's arguments.

Throwing out stats does not help your argument. You make the usual mistake of equating the GOP with Conservatism.
Reagan swept the nation in 1980 and 1984. When the GOP abandons Conservatism, they lose like they did in 1992-1996-2006-2008.

Ya know Bob, you are so many things (usually wrong) on so many issues. Yet, you seek to maintain a persona of educated brilliance and experience in many areas. If you want to change your handle like Jeremiah, may I suggest Walter Mitty.
It would certainly define you as a legend in your own mind. Then again, every time you post, you weaken the nation.

Mary| 4.26.09 @ 7:56PM

There was no middle class and there was no anarchy or much crime, just complete enervation.

Bit of correction here in that Mussolini led a strike that brought him to the attention of King Emmanuele. So there was agitation, but for the most part the peasantry was enervated and fearful. Mussolini's men came knocking on their doors asking, demanding, their wedding rings and any other gold they possessed.

Jim| 4.26.09 @ 8:57PM

Tom,
Rush is bad but Olberman is an honest American trying to get the truth out.
You are a buffoon.

Roger| 4.26.09 @ 9:20PM

Rush was perfectly on the mark. Teenagers? Who cares? These idiot terroritsts/criminals knew EXACTLY what they were doing whether they were 15-17 or 25. As did our snipers! Hoo Ra! You leftists just don't get it, at least the buggers won't have to go to Gitmo! You should be happy.

Basil Plumley| 4.26.09 @ 9:58PM

@ Mary

One thing that must be remembered about Fascism/Socialism and Europe; it is/was a "top down" movement.
The people of Europe were used to authoritarian/totalitarian rule. Many of those who sought Freedom from this type of rule, emigrated to America. Those who remained were loyal to King and Country. Now, that loyalty has been transferred to "Philosopher-Kings" and European Unions.

The American Revolution was in effect a "bottom-up" movement. The elitist/aristocracy class and their followers remained loyal to the King/Parliament. The Scotch-Irish immigrants were the backbone of the Revolution. Even George III proclaimed it "that Presbyterian uprising".

There is a lot more to discuss on this subject. Perhaps, later.

Troll Hunter| 4.26.09 @ 10:17PM

Roger sounds rather like a leftist fake of what an enraged ditto-head supposedly says. Likewise, Jim sounds like a conservative faking bland vacuity. If either of you jerks are for real, do try the Neopets website instead. It's WAY above you, sure, but those cute little cartoons and all should keep you salivating.

Ran| 4.26.09 @ 10:23PM

Basil, old chap, could you recommend a book or three on the Revolution? So far I've only read but one: Baylin's "Ideological Origins of the American Revolution."

Thanks in advance...

Mike| 4.26.09 @ 10:32PM

When I run for Congress in 2010, I pledge that if elected I will not join or serve as Chair for the White Congressional Caucus.

Basil Plumley| 4.26.09 @ 11:02PM

@ Ran
I have some old books I would recommend as well as a pamphlet/book.
Charles Howard McIlwain, The American Revolution: A Constitutional Interpretation

James Fenimore Cooper, The American Democrat (a must)

John Adams, Works (very important)

Pamphlet-Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (probably much more influential than the work of Thomas Paine--Paine was more embraced by the Jacobins of the French Revolution than our Founding Fathers. One of the unsung Founding Fathers was John Witherspoon who fully embraced the principles of the mentioned pamphlet. If I recall, there were 9 of his pupils who signed the Declaration of Independence and/or drafted the Constitution.)

A couple of these are out of print and a couple are in reprint. A fascinating time in History.

Your Majesty| 4.26.09 @ 11:33PM

If calling the pirates "black teenagers" is "nasty," then what adjective(s) describe the following?

- The 2000 NAACP "James Byrd" ads.
- The anti-Bush fake memo that fooled CBS News and retired Dan Rather.
- The 2008 NY Times article alleging John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist.
- The race to find the truth about Sarah Palin's children.

Bob| 4.27.09 @ 7:06AM

Basil, you need to get help -- quickly. You eschew fact and logic and just make statements that others are wrong. Besides, you continue to just outright lie.

Who cares about "conservatives" when there is no such thing as a "conservative party" (well, there is a small one and you should join it if you really are a conservative). But you guys don't join the conservative party, you are Republicans -- and Republicans win or lose elections. But someone with an elementary school education like yourself wouldn't understand that concept and is why your lemming/dittohead statement that you are a "conservative" is not only a lie, but makes little common sense.

It is YOU that doesn't seem to understand how Rush's comment marginalizes the Republican party and makes it more difficult for Republicans to win.

And if you are truly a conservative and don't think that "Republicans" have meaning for you, please help the party and leave it.

I do notice that you probably lack an education in data analysis. That's too bad because that is what wins elections, describes economics, and makes science effective and you could never understand. But then again, you are a supreme example of a Rush lemming dittohead.

Nelson H| 4.27.09 @ 7:39AM

It has never occurred to me that espousal of conservative principles should first and foremost be predicated on winning elections. We express our principles because they are sound and defensible, not because they poll better. If they happen to poll better that's wonderful, but it is not a precondition to expressing them in the first place. We have to stand for something more solid than "winning" otherwise we lose our way.

The evidence suggests that when our side has articulate, persistent and didactic candidates they tend to succeed much more often than candidates who have an unfirm grasp of conservatism, eschew ideology, pride themselves in being a "maverick" and point to their record of "bipartisanship". To the extent the GOP orients itself to "winning" (expediency) as opposed to standing on a clear set of principles and policies that flow directly from them (idealism), they will increasingly become irrelevant.

Bob| 4.27.09 @ 7:53AM

Nelson H -- what evidence? Reagan? That was 30 years ago. Was Bush an example of your type of conservative ideologue? He is the last Republican to win the presidency?

You don't seem to like polls or analysis -- that is understandable because it allows you to make sweeping statements that aren't true. However, the analysis of McCain's loss shows the major factors were Bush, Palin, and his handling of the economy. Besides, McCain beat all of the others in the primaries.

So who would be your candidate for President in the last election? Why did he lose to McCain? If he couldn't win the primary, what makes you think he could win the general election?

Nelson, you are suffering from reactionary Reaganitis. The demographics and positions of the Republican party today indicate Reagan would only receive about 40% of the vote rather than the 50.7% he actually did receive.

By the way, Reagan won by putting together a coalition -- that's how you win elections.

Tim| 4.27.09 @ 8:37AM

Rush Limbaugh is the greatest threat to human civilization since Attila the Hun. With his massive media empire and questionable personal connections ( "talent on loan from God"), the man is a kidney stone in our great national , er, thingy.

Alan Brooks| 4.27.09 @ 10:59AM

worse than you think,

now EVERYONE is PC.

Basil Plumley| 4.27.09 @ 11:26AM

@ Bob
You said--By the way, Reagan won by putting together a coalition -- that's how you win elections.

Why don't tell the whole story? It was a coalition of C-O-N-S-E-R-V-A-T-I-V-E-S.
Nah, that would destroy your template of stupidity. John Anderson, a Liberal GOPer who ran as a Independent, took 7% of the vote.

Bob, W ran as a conservative despite having very few bona fides as a conservative. W was a CINO. Don't those little facts get in the way of your weak pablum.

You said--You don't seem to like polls or analysis -- that is understandable because it allows you to make sweeping statements that aren't true. However, the analysis of McCain's loss shows the major factors were Bush, Palin, and his handling of the economy. Besides, McCain beat all of the others in the primaries.

More nonsense from Bob. You must have missed the hard data that showed 20% of the folks who voted for W in 2004 went to Obama as well as the numbers that showed that Kerry actually garnered more votes in 2004 in OH than Obama in 2008.
Lest you forget, McCain also spent the last 15+ years peeing in many Conservatives' Cheerios. He was on the wrong side of many of the better Bush policies. McCain won the plurality of votes which were less than 50% of the GOP primary voters. Imagine if George Allen did not lose his Senate race in 2006. But, as usual, your conclusions are wrong.

BTW, what is it with you and Palin? You have the DNC talking points down pat.

However, in your Walter Mitty world, you still correct. No wonder you think your family adores you. Keep posting Bob, we need a good laugh.

Bob| 4.27.09 @ 12:26PM

Basil, you said:

"20% of the folks who voted for W in 2004 went to Obama"

Where did you pull that number from? If that were true, Obama would have won by an even larger amount.

You also said: "John Anderson, a Liberal GOPer who ran as a Independent, took 7% of the vote."

In order to make your case, you would have to assume that ALL of his vote would have gone to Reagan. In fact, from the data I've seen, most of his vote came from independents. By the way, Obama had a Republican crossover vote of about 8%. You logic escapes me.

Like I said, you know little about data analysis. But please, continue to humor yourself.

And for the record, many "conservatives" voted for Obama because they distrust you right wing whackos. Reagan was a new face, but if he had to run in the Republican party today, he would lose. There was also a huge generational shift this time with McCain getting most of the older vote and Obama getting the young ones. Older voters will die off while younger ones tend to vote with the party they first joined.

Again, Basil, your misunderstanding and lies continue. Perhaps we need a movie -- "Republican Nightmare on Main Street". By the way, I consider myself a fiscal conservative and you've seen my positions on fiscal issues. But the "conservatives" today are more concerned with social issues than fiscal issues. That's your problem -- blinders.

Basil Plumley| 4.27.09 @ 1:30PM

Bob

What can I say? When it comes to veracity on this board, you tend to be at the bottom of the barrel. Even when you have good data, you always seem to come up with the wrong conclusion.
You are a fiscal conservative? That's one of the funniest comments you have made in a while. Nothing could be further from the truth. Repeating the premise does not make it true.

I would say more Bob; maybe when you post something serious. Maybe, when you post like someone who actually possesses the education and experience you claim. Until then ...... keep us laughing.

Josey| 4.27.09 @ 1:35PM

Limbaugh long ago wore out and humor that could be attributed to him. It doesn't take much to recall another incident where he unapologetically mocked Michael J Fox' Parkinson's Disease.

I suspect that when Limbaugh dies [no doubt from some short illness resulting from his obsessiveness - obesity, diabetes, stroke, heart attack], few except his winnowed down fan base will mourn his passing.

Sharon| 4.27.09 @ 2:12PM

This "junky" just keeps on going!!!

rick| 4.28.09 @ 10:06AM

humor. the free passes you people give limbaugh in the name of humor is bizarre.

the excuses you make up for this man is ridiculous.

you people are sheep unable to think for yourself (hey, that's a joke!). you're all racist misogynist pigs (hey, that's a joke!).

oblermann huh? one small difference, keith is wedded to truth and facts while limbaugh is free to ignore those to fit his own needs.

is there an original thought among you dittoheads? or is frontal lobotmy part a requirement? (hey, that's a joke!).

Basil Plumley| 4.28.09 @ 10:55AM

@ rick

You said-oblermann huh? one small difference, keith is wedded to truth and facts while limbaugh is free to ignore those to fit his own needs.

Forgetting the spelling-grammar-punctuation problems, you are one funny SOB. The stage awaits ......
Perhaps, it will be even funnier live.

rick| 4.28.09 @ 11:22AM

oh basil, i'm gettin misty by your sweet comments. really, you must stop.

i'm particularly moved by your oft used personal attack as a response. nothing quite like the ol getting all in your face approach is there?

i am a bit disappointed though. with all the snide remarks - education, too stupid, too dishonest, blah blah blah... there is not a single "you hate america". what's up with that dude? that's your rallying cry for heavens sake.

nonetheless, i am moved by your kind words of encouragement.

Basil Plumley| 4.28.09 @ 3:40PM

@ rick
You are welcome!

I am not sure who you were referring to in your 3rd paragraph but that's okay; I'm in a forgiving mood.

jj| 5.15.09 @ 6:53AM

Good one!
Incidentally there is an interesting website that is specifically dedicated to recession victims.It offers help and discusses all issues related to recession-www.angstcorner.com. It’s worth a visit!

mimi| 12.14.09 @ 10:57PM

cheap watches