When Rush Limbaugh offers a well-received speech detailing the conservative opposition to the President of the United States, offering facts and arguments, the White House coordinates with its allies (Clinton Administration veterans) in the MSM to attack Rush personally.
Former Clinton White House aide Paul Begala called the talk show host “the bloated face and drug-addled voice of the Republican Party.” Talk about ad hominems.
Instead of responding on that level, Rush replies, offering to talk about the issues, man to man without notes or TelePrompter:
Let’s talk about the New Deal versus Reaganomics. Let’s talk about closing Guantanamo Bay, and let’s talk about sending $900 million to Hamas. Let’s talk about illegal immigration and the lawlessness on the borders. Let’s talk about massive deficits and the destroying of opportunities of future generations. Let’s talk about ACORN, community agitators, and the unions that represent the government employees which pour millions of dollars into your campaign, President Obama. Let’s talk about your elimination of school choice for minority students in the District of Columbia. Let’s talk about your efforts to further reduce domestic drilling and refining of oil. Let’s talk about your stock market.
Rush contends that Rahm “Emanuel is the leader of all of this.” So, we’ve got the White House Chief of Staff coordinating an effort not to challenge the ideas of an adversary, but to discredit him.
Clintonism redux. Attack the messenger, ignore his message.
It appears the talk show host’s response has thwarted the attack before it has even begun to see success Dan Riehl succinctly summarizes the situation:
How does Rahm justify claims that Limbaugh is the defacto head of the opposition with a decision to not engage? He can’t. That lets the air completely out of the Democrat’s latest anti-Rush campaign pretty much before it got started in the eyes of the general public.
So, there you have it. Democratic veterans of the Clinton Administration attack the man they label the head of the opposition, but refuse to engage while that leader is spoiling for a debate.
Which side prefers, to borrow a phrase from the Executive Director of the Democratic National Commitee, “the failed partisan attack politics of the past“?
Engage in a debate over which policies will lead us? Didn’t we just do that? I think it was called an election… How did the GOP do? What did that vote and the current polls show on who is trusted more to lead the economy and country: Obama or the GOP? Why should Obama debate with an entertainer who has managed to claw his way to the top of the tottering GOP? Rush can make his claim to the American people in 2010 when he leads the GOP to victory in the mid-terms (snort).
(Funny how Rush didn’t seem to mind the deficits when it was the GOP running them up for pork back in their red districts…)
“Democratic veterans of the Clinton Administration attack the man they label the head of the opposition, but refuse to engage while that leader is spoiling for a debate.”
So you want Paul Begala to debate Rush?
I must have missed the defining moments of the Presidential campaign where Obama expressed in detail what changes he had in mind for us. And the debates over policies…and who would he have debated? John McCain? Excuse me if I exclude McCain from consideration as a leader of the conservative movement.
Let’s not rewrite history wherein the election was anything but one last shot at the departing administration and the culmination of years of near rabid coverage of Republicans by the MSM propaganda machine.
Funny how the polls show rapidly dropping support for the Obama policies – if you can rightly call unfettered government spending a policy. Be sure not to ask his brain trust for the details of their respective plans – they just stammer and stutter that they don’t have a plan other than spending money, then spending some more when that doesn’t work.
So, yeah I would like to see Obama himself articulate his plans and policies and defend them in a debate with Rush. My money is on Rush in that battle of wits and substance.
Yeah, torrent, we had that debate and during that debate, Obama promised that for each dollar of federal spending he proposed, he’d cut another. Check the transcript if you don’t believe me.
Torrent, have you even been reading our posts and the rest of the media? It’s the president’s own press secretary who called Limbaugh the head of the GOP. So, Rush wants to dispense with the middleman and debate the President himself. And since you’re borrowing the talking points, then shouldn’t you want the man you define as leader of the GOP to debate the leader of the Democrats.
And BTW, when are you actually going to address the points of my posts? Do you countenance the way the Obama White House handles critics? And just because we’ve had an election doesn’t mean the debate is over. I mean, didn’t you guy advocate a new kind of politics, one that avoids partisan attacks and now his own White House orchestrates such attacks.
Oh, and if Rush is just an “an entertainer who,” has you put it “has managed to claw his way to the top” of the GOP, why is the White House so eager to attack him? Shouldn’t they just ignore him if he’s as insignificant as he is in your attempt to dismiss him?
Rush offered serious criticism of the Administration policies. Address those points. Insist that Democrats do the same. And don’t hide behind the cheap argument that Obama won. Can you imagine how you’d react if four years ago, we’d said the same thing when faced with a serious criticism of Bush’s policies?
Can you imagine how’d you’d react if we’d said thing in response to any angry anti-Bush tirade?
This first posting is so full of idiotic libtard rantings and DailyKos talking points that it is a veritable gold-mine of rebuttals. To wit:
“Why should Obama debate with an entertainer who has managed to claw his way to the top of the tottering GOP?”
For starters, why was Obama and the MSM so afraid of Joe the Plumber for asking a simple question? Why was Obama/Biden so scared of Sarah Palin?
And why doesn’t The Snob try to debate El Rushbo? Easy – he’d get his big-eared head handed to him on a silver platter.
“Funny how Rush didn’t seem to mind the deficits when it was the GOP running them up for pork back in their red districts…”
Again, TP, please show us the proof of this statement. Put up or shut up.
“Rush can make his claim to the American people in 2010 when he leads the GOP to victory in the mid-terms (snort).”
Actually, it was through the magic of talk radio that the GOP did in fact become the majority party of both houses in 1994. The freshman GOP class in both House and Senate made Rush an honorary member of their ranks in 1995, due largely in part to his efforts in rallying the base behind the Contract With America.
PWN – right in the kisser. But I digress. Next:
“So you want Paul Begala to debate Rush?”
Not really – I want to see if The Snob has the testicular fortitude to match wits with someone who can not only deliver a good argument but has the truth and facts to back him up. And let’s face it – if the DNC MSM had vetted Count Baracula with a better effort, we wouldn’t be in this mess today.
Match, set, game. You lose. We have wonderful parting gifts for you backstage. Enjoy the Summer’s Eve.
Regards,
Peter H.
Proof positive Torrentard is both a blatant hypocrite and mouthing off about something he knows absolutely nothing about. Rush REGULARLY railed against Republicans spending. He opposed the prescription drug benefit, NCLB, the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, earmarks, and increased spending in general.
Yet while torrentard bitches about Republican spending, he cant utter a word of condemnation for Obama, who spent more than the entire cost of SEVEN YEARS of war in Iraq and Afghanistan in just one MONTH.
But somehow, in liberals addled minds, spending exponentially more than bad spending is somehow GOOD spending.
Torrent, you are a complete joke as usual.
Rush certainly did Bash Bush for spending. Regularly.
Comments 2 thru 6, AMEN. Rush was constantly on Bush’s butt for his excessive spending habit with taxpayer’s money.
Obama and his Clinton shadow presidency have revived the vitriol and anger of the first Clinton administration. He lowered himself and the office of the presidency when he joined in the attack against Rush. Bush at least stayed above the fray and not once do I remember him attacking Alan Colmes.
“Funny how Rush didn’t seem to mind the deficits when it was the GOP running them up for pork back in their red districts…”
Another Daily Kos leftist makes an assclown of himself. Stop getting your news from MSNBC and the Agriculture graduate, Keith Olber-doofus.
If you would listen occasionally to someone such as Rush you would know that he was constantly on Bush arse because of his willing to fund Liberal ideas like immigration and throwing more money at the teachers Union. When Rush says conservative, he means conservative not some marxist lite. He understood though that as bad as Bush was that Obama would be twice as bad. And Obama proved him right in the 1st 30 days.
And now he has completely shutdown your “uber-intelligent” leftist boob by playing him for the sucker Obama is.
FILTERED
Obamateleprompter can’t debate anyone without the man behind the curtain telling him what to say. He would stammer and “yaohh” his way through any debate or interview. I guess the NYT had a front page article on BHO’s greying hair, haha, no mention of those ears though.
How does the President of the United States do a 3 minute introduction of his new HHS secretary while using a teleprompter, and the press not be curious about why he needs such an aid? Limbaugh did an hour and a half rebutal of Obamanomics and socialism at CPAC with one 3×5 card. Obama must have been dumbstruck with terror.
I believe it was Karl Rove in today’s WSJ who said that within 10 months, Chairman Obama will outspend the ENTIRE 8 years of Bush.
You know how you occasionally hear of a man who kills several women in unusual, perhaps gruesome ways, so that when he kills his wife, he won’t be the first suspect? (Or is that just on t.v.? I get so confused between reality and fiction; they seem to differ so little lately.)
Similarly, Obama must spend trillions so that no one will notice the billions he’s giving to ACORN and other community organizers. He had to thank them but he couldn’t be too obvious. “Billions” seems like a piddlin’ amount when you’re talking about spending trillions, doesn’t it.
Just my theory. Or he may actually be trying to destroy America so that he can remake it to his liking, then lead it magnificently, who knows.
Either Democrat, Republican or Independent, when someone wishes the elected President of the United States of America to fail, one must question that person’s Patriotism. – Tom, USN Ret
tom, so I guess you are questioning the patriotism of the better part of the Democratic caucus in Congress then as well as much of the “netroots” and media professionals, given their behavior these past eight years.
#1: “Engage in a debate over which policies will lead us? Didn’t we just do that? I think it was called an election… How did the GOP do? What did that vote and the current polls show on who is trusted more to lead the economy and country: Obama or the GOP? Why should Obama debate with an entertainer who has managed to claw his way to the top of the tottering GOP? Rush can make his claim to the American people in 2010 when he leads the GOP to victory in the mid-terms (snort).”
torrentprime’s quote once again illustrates the difference between liberal ideas and conservative ideas. Conservative ideas succeed when they are implemented and bring about the change desired. Liberal ideas “succeed” when a liberal wins an election. For them, it’s all about power, so it doesn’t matter if their “ideas” actually work. The “desired result” is the winning of the election and the acquisition of power itself. Liberal ideas “work” because Obama was elected. Conservative ideas were forever discredited because McCain lost the election.
Tom,
So you don’t agree with the current sec of state that dissent is patriotic?
This says it all
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/toons/hitch/hitch030609.php3
Please, keep following Rush. He’ll lead your right off the cliff.
Houndentenor, please, keep mindlessly following Obama. He has already led your 401k off the cliff, next it will be your health care, then your electric bill will go through the roof, then you’ll have to take a fourth mortgage to get the cash to fill your gas tank, then, if you have any freedom left, he’ll find it and end it.
But I’m sure that, even though Obama has decided not to repeal the Patriot Act, he won’t mind at all when you telephone your terrorist friends overseas.
#20 – Polly, the USSR had a term for people like Houndie: useful idiots.
Or in Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” they were the sheep. Four legs good, two legs baaa-d. Keep it short and simple for the stupid ones.
You know, like when the unwashed masses yelled “hope and change” without knowing exactly what it meant.
Regards,
Peter H.
#14 tom….sometimes I use extremes to illustrate things so….
In 1938 would those that wanted Hitler’s new policies to “fail”, were they unpatriotic?
Every media talking head who brings up the Rush/Obamateleprompter “wish him to fail” quote should be asked…..”did you want Bush 43’s policies to succeed?”
#24 – Gene, I’d give what’s left of my 401(k) to watch someone like Boehner, Jindal, McConnell et al throw that back in Charles’/Katie’s/Brian’s faces. Unfortunately, it will never happen.
The GOP won’t win back Congress unless it gets over this fear of not being liked by the DNC MSM. As I decided early on in life, if I’m going to be good at what I do, I don’t care who likes or doesn’t like me.
Regards,
Peter H.
That would be the same person(s) who wanted your fellow swabbies, Marines, soldiers etc. to fail in Iraq.
Good idea Tom! Let’s have a ticker tape parade for those who openly advocated the defeat of your pards. Jeezus! Why didn’t I think of that? I mean, nothing says “patriotic” like demanding the defeat of our own military.
You must be really really really really really smart!
Sean A, that’s very well put. Of course, when the 20% inflation rates hit in a few more years, liberals will be losing elections. (Assuming America hasn’t degenerated to the point of having a total death wish, which is a real possibility IMHO.)
It’s fun to see liberals so prickly about Obama – so defensive right now – so very, very hypocritical and contorted. They know that their Dear Leader has the nation on a path to ruin. They have to forestall anybody else noticing – and saying it.
Thanks, ILC. I wouldn’t have to worry about the economy at all if I had a dollar for every time a libtard commented here (or elsewhere) that Republicans “just don’t get it” and “haven’t faced the reality” that the “voting public has rejected” the Republican Party and its “failed ideas.” It’s as if they think the election was a unanimous shut-out and we were supposed to wake up on November 5 and say, “Well that settles it. I guess tax cuts really DON’T stimulate the economy, and the quickest way to prosperity is to spend trillions on government programs. Wow, I guess liberal ideas were right all along! The election obviously proves that.” Accordingly, the Left has been genuinely shocked that we didn’t all become liberals overnight (which would have been the “patriotic” thing to do apparently).
And you’re right, ILC. The clock is ticking. The liberals might be able to get past the mid-term elections by blaming a dismal economy on the one Obama “inherited” from Bush, but I don’t think they’ll be able to pull it off after four years of pure financial nosedive. They have this small window of time to steer the ship and fu*k everything up royally, and then the grown-ups will have to come back in and try to clean-up the huge bloody mess they will leave. This Democratic majority will be short-lived and the liberals can handle that because as with all of their calculated plans, this one has the usual fail safe for contingencies–if Obama has to leave the White House after only one term, well then his failure will be explained by those mean old Republicans not giving his agenda a chance to “succeed” or “get off the ground.” Same liberal playbook. Same plays. Over and over again.