Posts Tagged ‘Rush Limbaugh’

A Venerable Holiday Tradition

November 30, 2015

The Holiday Season is here and coming with this joyous season are the various traditions we keep. Among the more venerable of these annual traditions are the handy lists of talking points provided by the Democratic National Convention and assorted left wing groups for the aid of young progressives who might want to ruin a holiday gathering with friends and family by starting arguments over politics.

604661-538791

The holiday season is filled with food, traveling, and lively discussions with Republican relatives about politics sometimes laced with statements that are just not true. Here are the most common myths spouted by your family members who spend too much time listening to Rush Limbaugh and the perfect response to each of them.

These talking points are arranged by subject in the form of simple scripts to use in response to statements by a Republican uncle. These subjects include Obamacare, climate change, immigration, “equality”. and various presidential candidates. Thus if the Republican uncle says something like:

We should repeal Obamacare.

They provide a handy response.

Nearly 1 in 3 Americans who were uninsured a few years ago have coverage today — that’s more than 17 million people. If the ACA were repealed, millions of Americans would lose access to quality, affordable healthcare. And none of the Republican candidates for president have a plan to solve that problem.

There are smiley faces and frowny faces to ensure that the young progressive doesn’t become confused over which line to use.

I don’t know what someone is supposed to do if the Republican uncle departs from the script by using different arguments or answering the responses with facts of his own. For instance, the Republican uncle might note that if Obamacare has provided coverage for 1 in 3 uninsured Americans, this means that 2 in 3, a majority for the progressives who might not understand math, are still not covered, hardly a rousing success, not to mention that Obamacare co-ops in Oregon and Colorado have collapsed putting the future of the whole program in jeopardy. For climate change we have:

Climate change is just a liberal scare tactic.

And the response:

Why are conservatives more likely to believe that climate change is a conspiracy than to acknowledge what 97% of climate scientists-and the majority of Americans-believe? Climate change is real, and it’s man made. The Republican presidential field is living in denial.

He might point out that citing polls of climate scientists or the the general population is worthless unless you know how the poll was conducted, what were the precise questions were, how large was the sample size, etc. He might also point out that the same sort of dodgy statistical methods were used to generate the 97 % consensus as Michael Mann’s infamous hockey stick, and given their past history of scientific malpractice and outright deception, there is no reason to believe anything that the proponents of climate hysteria have to say.

I don’t think that the people who have written these scripts have had very much real contact with their Republican uncles. They mostly seem to be set up to deal with strawmen or a liberal’s caricature of what a conservative might say. They have a section on  Jeb Bush. I have never heard any conservative who supports Jeb Bush’s candidacy. I am not really sure who wants him for president, except for a group of big donors who are RINOs.

I have to wonder what the actual point of all of this is. Surely they don’t really believe that someone’s Republican uncle is going to experience some sort of epiphany and conversion after hearing their Democratic nephew spout off a memorized script? Do they really imagine a life long conservative smacking his forehead and saying something like, “By God you’re right! I have been misled my whole life by Rush Limbaugh and Faux News but now thanks to you I see the light!”. Somehow I doubt it.

I suppose the real purpose this exercise is to build loyalty and conviction in the people who are already Democrats, by giving them a feeling that they are part of the team fighting for the right. The Democratic nephew can read through and recite these talking points that he already agrees with and feel that he is part of the struggle to bring social justice to America, even if he doesn’t manage to convince his Republican uncle. All sorts of organizations from cults to corporations like to use this sort of technique and I see it in fundraising e-mails from both parties; send money to us and be part of the fight.

I have a suggestion for any young progressive who might want to have a political discussion with his Republican uncle. Instead of reciting bite-sized talking points intended for idiots incapable of thinking for themselves, why not try listening to your Republican uncle. He might have good reasons for believing the things he does. If he is older, he might have life experiences more valuable and relevant than what you might read on the internet. Even if you don’t agree with everything he says, you might still learn something and might be able to better understand why you believe the things you do. Try thinking for yourself for a change. Maybe you might both learn something.

Advertisements

Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot

November 15, 2014

That was a book written by Al Franken back in 1996, obviously to show he possessed the maturity needed to become a US Senator. This title is the personal opinion of Frankin’s. There are many who might disagree with the opinion that Rush Limbaugh is an idiot, including Mr. Limbaugh but the question of whether Rush Limbaugh is or is not an idiot is not one that is readily decided by any observations and cannot really be determined to be objectively true or false. On the other hand, the statement that Rush Limbaugh is in favor of sexual assault or rape is a statement that can be determined to be true or false based on Rush Limbaugh’s own statements. This is not simply a personal opinion. If someone takes Rush’s words out of context to make the accusation that he believes that sexual assault is acceptable behavior, they are making a statement that is false and potentially damaging to Rush Limbaugh’s reputation. If someone makes the statement, knowing it to be false,with the intention to cause damage to Rush Limbaugh, that is defamation and Rush Limbaugh can take legal action against them.

This is not just a hypothetical case. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee really did make such statements in a campaign to have advertisers boycott Rush Limbaugh’s show and Rush Limbaugh is really considering legal action against them. Here is the story from the Daily Caller.

Radio host Rush Limbaugh has threatened to sue the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) for defamation, The Daily Caller has learned.

Limbaugh retained the services of lawyer Patty Glaser and demanded that the DCCC “preserve all records in anticipation of a lawsuit for defamation and interference” after the Democratic Party group led a campaign against Limbaugh based on out-of-context statements the host made about sexual assault. Limbaugh’s legal team delivered a letter to DCCC representatives Monday informing them of the legal threat. Limbaugh has also demanded a public retraction and apology.

The Limbaugh team is currently proceeding from the standpoint of litigating and has not yet made a decision as to whether the DCCC could make any concessions at this point to prevent the lawsuit.

The DCCC “has intentionally disseminated demonstrably false statements concerning Rush Limbaugh in a concerted effort to harm Mr. Limbaugh, and with reckless disregard for the resulting impact to small businesses across America that choose to advertise on his radio program” according to the GlaserWeil law firm’s letter to the DCCC, which was obtained by TheDC. “Mr. Limbaugh clearly, unambiguously, and emphatically condemned the notion that ‘no’ means ‘yes.’”

“Let’s be clear: Rush Limbaugh is advocating for the tolerance of rape” the DCCC stated in a September fundraising email after Limbaugh mocked Ohio State’s new mandatory sexual consent guidelines. (RELATED: Democrats Attack Rush Limbaugh On Way To November Loss)

Limbaugh’s team said that the DCCC’s campaign against Limbaugh provides grounds for a defamation case, based on legal precedent.

“The DCCC may believe it to be immune from liability by quoting words, taken out of context. This is untrue,” Glaser said. “There is significant on point precedent in the 9th Circuit for holding an organization responsible for falsifying meaning through selective quoting. In Price v. Stossel, the court held that, if a party accurately quotes ‘a statement actually made by a public figure, but presents the statement in a misleading context, thereby changing the viewer’s understanding of the speaker’s words,’ that constitutes defamation.”

I don’t much care for litigation of any sort, but I hope Rush Limbaugh goes ahead with this lawsuit. The progressives have shown over and over that telling the truth is simply not an action they value very highly. If slander is useful to gain power and destroy their opponents, they have no trouble with slander. Maybe legal action will teach them better.

Thankfully Dictatorial

June 9, 2014

In her article in the National Journal, Lucia Graves is thankful that Barack Obama has taken “dictatorial” action with the new regulations restriction carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, and in so doing has managed to solve the greatest problem in political theory.

In college classes, climate change is taught as a textbook example of where democracy fails. And there are a whole host of reasons to think America will fail on climate change: We’ve waited too long; the consequences aren’t as tangible as in other areas of policy; we’re bad at sacrificing in the short term to achieve in the long term.

President Obama, who on Monday rolled out landmark regulations for coal-fired power plants, has found a way around that age-old political problem posed by climate change and democracies, in part by acting a little bit more like a dictator. This is something he’s been skewered for on the right, with Rush Limbaugh accusing the White House of focusing on global warming just because “it offers the president opportunities to be dictatorial.”

Limbaugh is onto something, but he has it precisely backward: The decision to use executive authority is the means, not the ends. It also makes a lot of sense when it comes to global warming given Congress’s failure to pass the Waxman-Markey energy bill in 2009, and, for decades before that, to pass any sort of comprehensive climate legislation whatsoever.

Considering that a fairly large number of Americans do not place global warming high on the list of problems they want solved, it seems that democracy in America is working just fine, on this issue. Congress has not acted because there has not been much public pressure to act. What Lucia Graves really means, of course, is that democracy has failed on this issue because the public has the wrong opinion on this issue, so the problem cannot be resolved democratically. A little but of dictatorship is in order.

If a little bit of dictatorship is necessary to deal with climate change, why not with other issues? There must be quite a few problems facing this country that are difficult to resolve democratically. Consider the federal deficit. Almost everyone agrees that the federal budget ought to be balanced, yet the government continues to run a deficit every year. Most people want the government to cut spending, except for the government spending they happen to be in favor of. So, spending increases. I wonder if Lucia Graves would approve of a president who decided that since Congress cannot act to balance the budget, he will make out the budget himself without consulting with Congress. For that matter, I wonder if she would approve if President Obama’s successor simply reversed the emissions regulations with a stroke of his pen.

Progressives have been impatient with the whole concept of checks and balances at least since the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, if not before. In this view, checks and balances, rather than being a safeguard against tyranny, just get in the way of the wise and benevolent Tribunes of the People from doing good for everyone. If it so happens that the people don’t really know what is good for them, all the more reason for them to be ruled by those who know better. Unfortunately, people who wield power are seldom wise and benevolent and are usually most interested in what is good for themselves, which is why the framers of the constitution put in so many checks and balances. I wish that the people who write admiringly of President Obama’s “dictatorial” actions would think about what a president they thoroughly disapprove of could do if allowed to act as a dictator. Perhaps they would be less thankful of the example he is setting.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Blaming Rush Again

August 27, 2013
Rush Limbaugh booking photo from his arrest in...

More powerful than the President? (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

I was reading this column by Rush Limbaugh‘s younger (and smarter) brother David Limbaugh at Townhall.com and a couple of things stuck me. First of all is the unpresidential spectacle of Obama blaming Rush for his inability to get his legislation passed.

 

Once again, President Obama is personally attacking my brother, Rush,
this time to shamelessly blame him for congressional gridlock. Nice
try, Mr. President, but what really bothers you is that Rush has your
number and daily shares it with his vast audience.

In an interview last week with CNN’s Chris Cuomo, Obama charged
that most congressional Republicans oppose the move to defund Obamacare
but are afraid of saying so publicly for fear of Rush’s public
condemnation. Obama made the same type of charge prior to the 2012
elections.

Obama also glibly blames congressional Republicans for any impasse
with him on budgetary policy, saying the least they can do is to pass a
budget. “Congress doesn’t have a whole lot of core responsibilities,” he
said, as if to suggest that passing a budget is a mere ministerial
function.

 

Despite the fact that Rush Limbaugh has a large platform with which to present his views, he is still only a private citizen. He has no power to enact or block legislation and it is beneath the dignity of any president to personally attack a private citizen. This sort of thing only makes Obama look petty and probably helps Limbaugh maintain his ratings. The second thing that struck me was this remark by Obama.

 

But Obama continued to dig a deeper hole of deceit in his interview, telling Cuomo that sometimes his Republican friends (who are these creatures, by the way?) tell him privately that they would support his agenda but for their fear of a primary challenge from a tea party member, or they’re “worried about what Rush Limbaugh is going to say about me on radio.”

I seriously doubt that any such conversations took place between Republican congressmen and Obama, but if they did, it shows the type of Republican who would befriend Obama — the type who is dishonest with his constituency.

 

I wouldn’t doubt that many such conversations have occurred. But the point is that isn’t this how democracy is supposed to work? These people in Congress are supposed to be representing their constituents. If their constituents are opposed to Obama’s agenda, then shouldn’t they be representing such opposition? One gets the idea that President Obama would rather rule by decree with a rubber stamp Congress giving some fiction of constitutionality. Probably all presidents have felt that way from time to time, but Obama seems less able to conceal it.

 

One of the greatest frustration that conservatives have had is politicians who talk conservative while campaigning but then vote liberal as soon as they get to Washington. Until recently these spineless wonders have been more afraid of the New York Times saying something bad about them than the reaction of the people back home. If fear of the Tea Party has caused these people to actually start expressing the will of the people they actually represent, than the Tea Party has been a very good thing for this country.

 

 

 

The World Turned Upside Down

February 14, 2013

I have for some time suspected that the whole world is going mad, and every day I seem to find new evidence to back this contention. While driving today, around noon I turned my my car radio and listened to the first part of Rush Limbaugh‘s show. I like Rush well enough, but I don’t usually spend much time listening to him. This time, though, it was worth it. It seems that the top two stories on CNN the past day are whether Senator Marco Rubio has ruined his political career by taking a drink of water during his response to the President’s State of the Union address, and whether mass murderer Christopher Dorner is a hero. I wish I were making that up.

Here are some selections from the transcript of Rush Limbaugh’s show.

RUSH: Let’s do a little A-B, side-by-side comparison.  On the one hand, Marco Rubio may not be qualified, not only to be president, but to be US Senator.  He took a sip of water from an average looking bottle while delivering the answer to the State of the Union address on Tuesday night.

Meantime, elsewhere on that network, you’ve had panel discussions celebrating the relevance and the great contributions to fighting police brutality of a mass murderer, Christopher Dorner, on the very same network.  CNN had a panel all excited, and I’ve even got some additional tweets.  Listen to this, Marc Lamont Hill.  This guy’s a professor a Columbia University.  He was on CNN’s Newsroom yesterday afternoon with the anchorette infobabe Brooke Baldwin, and the infobabe said, “Do these Dorner sympathizers have a point?”  Now, keep in mind later on CNN, Wolf Blitzer was gonna ask whether or not a drink of water could ruin somebody’s career, whether they liked it or not, whether Rubio liked it or not.  But prior to that, this happened on CNN.

HILL:  This has been an important public conversation that we’ve had about police brutality, about police corruption, about state violence.  As far as Dorner himself goes, he’s been like a real-life superhero to many people.  Now, don’t get me wrong:  What he did was awful, killing innocent people.  He’s just bad.  But when you read his manifesto, when you read the message that he left, he wasn’t entirely crazy.  He had a plan and a mission here.  And many people aren’t rooting for him to kill innocent people.  They’re rooting for somebody who was wronged to get a kind of revenge against the system.  It’s like almost watching Django Unchained in real life.  It’s kind of exciting.

RUSH:  First day, I warned you they’re comparing this guy to Django, and here is a heralded, highly acclaimed professor — I don’t know what he teaches.  Doesn’t matter.  He could be teaching a course on ballroom dance and I guarantee you it’s politics.  Revenge, vengeance, grievance politics, whatever.  “It’s almost like watching Django Unchained in real life. It’s kind of exciting.”  So it’s not just the kooks on Twitter and Facebook, it’s now the liberals on CNN who are attaching legitimacy and value to Christopher Dorner.

Now remember that this is not just some nut tweeting. This is a guest on a show on CNN. It is simply unbelievable that a news organization with any pretense of responsible journalism (I know.) would have someone on who is essentially cheerleading a murderer. Of course since Dorner’s manifesto apparently repeated a standard list of leftist memes, perhaps it is only natural that people on the left might try to make him into some sort of folk hero. This celebration of a lunatic killer illustrates the moral incoherence of many people on the left. Here, by the way, is an excellent column on this subject by Dennis Prager.

It may very well be that Christopher Dorner had legitimate complaints about the actions of the LAPD. So what? That doesn’t make him any sort of hero. His ends do not justify his means.

Perhaps this is why so many people on the left feel that gun control is such an urgent necessity and why they accused the TEA Party of being violent and dangerous. These people seem to have a deep psychological need to glorify, and even fantasize about violence and so maybe cannot conceive of citizens peaceably assembling to petition for redress of grievances. They imagine that everyone is as unstable as they are and since they cannot be trusted to own guns, or really any sharp objects, and so believe that no one can be trusted.

Maybe I am wrong about this. If so, prove me wrong and stop cheering on criminals and mass murdering dictators.

 

The President is not Our Father

February 7, 2013

Way back when Rush Limbaugh had his television show, he liked to show this video from one of the 1992 Presidential debates.

I am as nauseated by this man stating that we are symbolically the President’s children as I was when I first saw this. I might have hoped that this sentiment might have lessened over time, but I guess with Obama it is as strong as ever. Here is a more recent video of Chris Rock saying the President and First Lady are our father and mother.

No, no, no. No, Ponytail guy, the president is not our father and we are not his children. No, Chris Rock, we are not obligated to support the President’s policies.

The Russian peasants used to refer to the Czar as “our little father’, little only in so far as God was the Great Father. This usage is appropriate for slaves and serfs of a despotic monarch. It is utterly wrong for free born Americans to refer to our leaders in such a way. We are not serfs. The President is not our master any more than he is our father. Rather, he and all the other politicians are our servants. The sooner we get that into our heads and treat them as particularly undependable servants, apt to steal the silver when not supervised closely, the better and freer we shall be.

Rush Limbaugh & Elton John BFFs?

July 23, 2012

 

 

According to this article I read in Politico, Rush Limbaugh and Elton John have formed a rather unlikely friendship.

To the shock of many (given the gap in their political ideologies), Elton John performed at Rush Limbaugh’s wedding in 2010 and, in a new interview with USA Today, the performer opened up about his friendship with the conservative talk show host.

John’s hope of eroding stigmas has led him into some unlikely alliances. After he agreed to perform at Limbaugh’s wedding in 2010, the two men bonded over music and formed a friendship, despite Limbaugh’s conservative views.

“He sends me the loveliest e-mails,” said John. “What I get from Rush privately and what I get from Rush publicly are two different things. I’m just trying to break him down.”

So is the on-air Limbaugh just an act? The interview seems to suggest that. Traci Watson, who conducted the interview for USA Today, writes John believes that “his friend Rush Limbaugh doesn’t truly oppose gay marriage.”

Why is it so hard to imagine that two men with different politics can nevertheless respect one another and even be friends? Why is it so easy to assume that anyone who has differing opinions must be evil incarnate. Judging from the reader comments, there are far too many people who put politics above everything else, especially simple decency. This seems to be more of a problem on the Left than on the Right, perhaps because for many on the Left politics is a sort of substitute religion.

 

Defending Rush Limbaugh

March 6, 2012
English: Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh

Image via Wikipedia

I am not really a regular listener of the Rush Limbaugh show, though I like him well enough, so I didn’t hear his remarks about Sandra Fluke. He has apologized for them, though she is not gracious enough to accept his apology, which may indicate something about her character. As I understand the matter, she has enrolled in Georgetown University Law School knowing full well that their health plan did not pay for contraceptives and now she is trying to compel them to. In other words, she wants other people to pay for her lifestyle choices. I don’t know if that makes her a “slut” and Limbaugh probably shouldn’t have used the word, but it does make her a thief and a parasite. I have no intention of apologizing for saying so.

I know that two wrongs never make a right, but I would like to point out that Rush Limbaugh’s ideological opponents have said far more vile things on the air and over the Internet. To the best of my knowledge, Rush has never fantasized about the death of anyone. He has never stated he would like to rape a feminist as some liberals have Ann Coulter. To get a better idea just how vile the Left can be please see The Real Radio Hatemongers. Some of the people who have been loudest in condemning Rush Limbaugh for an offensive but harmless remark have not one word of condemnation for the likes of Ed Schultz or Mike Malloy, or others. Rush is being criticized for a misdemeanor while others get away with felonies.

Rush Limbaugh’s real crime has nothing to do with any remarks he has made. His crime is that he has been an effective voice for Conervatism for 24 years. To the Left that is the unforgivable sin.

 

Update: Here are some more examples of classy statements about women from the left courtesy of the Daily Caller.


%d bloggers like this: