The Rush Limbaugh Thread

[ShadowBoxing]

What comes after "denial" in the stages of grief Norman, is it "acceptance"...I think it's acceptance?

 

[Marx]

What comes after "denial" in the stages of grief Norman, is it "acceptance"...I think it's acceptance?

The Stages of Grief

1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

And for your viewing pleasure...

[YT]XCoaBN6iOu0[/YT]

 

[C.F. Kane]

What comes after "denial" in the stages of grief Norman, is it "acceptance"...I think it's acceptance?

Nope. The stage following denial is anger.

And yes, it is very hypocritical of both parties in the way they used the "can question/can't question" argument with regards to who was in the White House.

The Democrats are sadly making the same mistake that Bush made when he was in office: mistaking the current administration for the country as a whole. I don't for a moment think that Limbaugh was saying he wanted America to fail when he made that comment about Obama. Nor do I think that the Democrats who criticized Bush wanted America's failure either.

However, I do think that he phrased it in that way to generate controversy and inflate his public persona. If any Republican had said, "I hope Obama's plans to reshape the economy fail", there would be no outrage, at least not at any level beyond the standard partisan bickering we see everyday.

But Rush is at heart a rabble-rousing populist. He doesn't phrase his thoughts with a debate in mind. He wants people to be as angry as him. He deliberately phrases his beliefs in clear-cut ultimatums purely because it sounds good on the airwaves. He doesn't consider other views. He only wants to roue his base.

He is not a politician, he is a cult leader.

 

[Kelly]

The Stages of Grief

1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

And for your viewing pleasure...

You forgot 6, "Get even"...

 

[Oddzball]

2006 = Bush 2nd TERM. February 2009 is only WEEKS after innaugaration. SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[VampElvis]

Nope. The stage following denial is anger.

And yes, it is very hypocritical of both parties in the way they used the "can question/can't question" argument with regards to who was in the White House.

The Democrats are sadly making the same mistake that Bush made when he was in office: mistaking the current administration for the country as a whole. I don't for a moment think that Limbaugh was saying he wanted America to fail when he made that comment about Obama. Nor do I think that the Democrats who criticized Bush wanted America's failure either.

However, I do think that he phrased it in that way to generate controversy and inflate his public persona. If any Republican had said, "I hope Obama's plans to reshape the economy fail", there would be no outrage, at least not at any level beyond the standard partisan bickering we see everyday.

But Rush is at heart a rabble-rousing populist. He doesn't phrase his thoughts with a debate in mind. He wants people to be as angry as him. He deliberately phrases his beliefs in clear-cut ultimatums purely because it sounds good on the airwaves. He doesn't consider other views. He only wants to roue his base.

He is not a politician, he is a cult leader.

Finally - coherent thought!

 

[Kelly]

2006 = Bush 2nd TERM. February 2009 is only WEEKS after innaugaration. SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

what?

 

[Oddzball]

Flashback: 2006 Poll Showed Most Democrats Wanted Bush to Fail

An August 2006 poll conducted by FOX News/Opinion Dynamics showed 51 percent of Democrats did not want Bush to succeed.


Rush Limbaugh took a lot of heat for saying he wants President Obama to fail -- but a lot of Democrats felt the same way about former President George W. Bush during his second term.

An August 2006 poll conducted by FOX News/Opinion Dynamics showed 51 percent of Democrats did not want Bush to succeed. Thirty-four percent of independents also did not want Bush to succeed.

By comparison, 90 percent of Republicans said at the time that they wanted Bush to succeed, and 40 percent of Democrats said the same.
Conservative radio talk show host Limbaugh says he doesn't want the economy to fail -- just Obama's policies. But his comments last month at the Conservative Political Action Conference drew sharp criticism from the White House.

After CPAC, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told CBS' "Face the Nation" that Limbaugh's stance was the "wrong philosophy for America."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/fir...hback-poll-showed-democrats-wanted-bush-fail/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#29645306 see 2:20 wrt that poll.

 

[SentinelMind]

what?

He's trying to say its ok to want your President to fail when he's serving in his second term.

 

[Bathead]

He's trying to say its ok to want your President to fail when he's serving in his second term.

No, he's not. He's saying the Democrats (if this is even true, it is after all, a FOX poll) waited a term and a half,i.e.SIX YEARS, before expressing the desire for Bush to fail, Conservatives gave Obama less than two months before doing the same.

 

[bell110]

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."



Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"

So, after the country was in a national crisis, Carville felt that it was important for Bush to succeed? Interesting.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."

Apparently, it was only Carville that didn't want the president to succeed. Most other Democrats think it matters if the president fails. That's how I read Fox's lame attempt to turn the tables on Democrats.



Ok, Carville wanted Bush to fail. That doesn't change the fact that Limbaugh is a huge hypocrite and Republicans trying to justify him are just as hypocritical.

In 2006, 51 percent of Democrats wanted Bush to fail, according to a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll.

They still have not provided the wording of the poll. Did 51% of Democrats WANT Bush to fail, or did 51% of Democrats THINK Bush had failed?

 

[Addendum]

Especially since this poll from "3 years ago" just suddenly pops up out of nowhere

 

[SuBe]

Polls Say Democrats Are Gambling By Taking on Limbaugh
by Matt Towery

First, just a word before the following is dismissed by Democratic readers as partisan, or as being from someone who doesn't know what he is talking about. My polling firm, InsiderAdvantage, is non-partisan. It polled the 2008 presidential race for the red-hot political site Politico, and was in a recent speech at Fordham University named by a guru who even D.C. liberals praise as one of the three most accurate national pollsters for the presidential contest.





This column isn't about partisanship. It's about strategy.

I've only met Rush Limbaugh once. It was back when I was politically active, running Newt Gingrich's campaign. One time in particular I had occasion to sit and casually chat with Limbaugh.

It was enlightening. He was the complete opposite of his persona. He was soft-spoken, extraordinarily polite and clearly not taking himself too seriously. My friends who know him well tell me he is still that way today.

Now for a second big personality, Democratic strategist James Carville. He was revealed just this week by media to have reportedly once said he hoped President Bush would fail -- just as Rush Limbaugh has recently been assailed for hoping the same about President Obama.

To be fair, Carville is much like Limbaugh. Sorry, conservatives, but while James can be nasty and shrill on TV -- and, as I write in my book, a tough political opponent -- he also is in private very polite and unassuming, not to mention kind and funny, too.

I would never make James Carville my target if I were trying to tear down the Democratic Party. Likewise, I would be wary of targeting Rush Limbaugh if I were an Obama strategist.

I can understand why some might suggest otherwise. A recent McClatchy newspaper poll reports that Limbaugh has only a 30 percent approval rating, and a 46 percent disapproval rating.

But that poll needs to be placed into perspective. It's likely that most of the 46 percent who say they view Limbaugh unfavorably have never heard his show. And reports of the survey's details suggest that Limbaugh suffers from weakness with independent voters.

Those two facts could prove dangerous for the Democrats in the future. Here's how:

Independents are the swing voters who place either Democrats or Republicans in the White House and in control of the House or Senate. When times are good, most independents will stick with the party for which they last voted. But let an unpopular policy start to get legs -- such as Hillary Clinton's health care proposal years ago -- or let the nation appear to be headed the wrong way while one political party is in charge, and look out!

Independents are open-minded. They will also turn on a dime. Here's a good example: How does anyone think that the Republicans managed to capture the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994 after decades of solid Democratic control and with Bill Clinton in the White House? The answer was "Hillary Care," combined with a general feeling that things in general weren't going so great under Democratic rule.

That's where this Limbaugh strategy seems flawed to me. By taking on Rush, the Democrats are calling attention to his show. That adds listeners. If President Obama were to continue sinking in the polls, and should some of his major early initiatives start to become unpopular, it is highly likely that the curious might just tune in Limbaugh to see what "the other side" has to say.

Limbaugh has two things already going for him. First, he has nearly a third of the nation that views him favorably. Second, anyone who listens to his show knows that Limbaugh plays the role of pompous ringmaster, but in jest. After five minutes it is clear that he is not a hatemonger. And he articulates a message that disaffected independent voters might readily embrace. There is, after all, a reason why he is the No. 1 talk show host in America.

In public opinion polling we keep in mind something that often is not obvious. If just 5 percent of those who say they have an unfavorable opinion of someone shift to favorable, it can be huge. For example, if 7 percent of those who view Limbaugh unfavorably switch to a favorable view, that makes the numbers 37 percent favorable, 39 percent unfavorable. A statistical tie. Curious independent voters could make that a reality.

The Democrats need to hope that things go well and Limbaugh doesn't keep adding listeners as a result of this attack strategy. Otherwise, two years from now it may be Rush who is in the 50 percent-plus favorable column. That would be quite a feat for a talk show host, and a true threat to the Democrats.

 

[The Senator]

Yes, Rush Limbaugh-- who currently has a 29 percent favorability rating according to a recent Research 2000 poll-- is going to have over fifty percent support from the American public two years from now. Because Independents love nothing more than a frothing partisan drug addict who enjoys debasing women and minorities on a regular basis while also mocking people with crippling illnesses.

 

[Backdrifter]

^ Lol.

Such a whiner these days, Jman.

What's the deal?

 

[The Senator]

I don't really think that's "whining," but sarcastically pointing out that Rush Limbaugh has no chance in hell in winning over independents. The author of that article is obviously living in a grand conservative fantasy land.

 

[Backdrifter]

I don't really think that's "whining," but sarcastically pointing out that Rush Limbaugh has no chance in hell in winning over independents. The author of that article is obviously living in a grand conservative fantasy land.

Maybe they aren't as jaded and filled with hate about someone they don't pay much attention to as you are?

Have you ever really listened to Limbaugh's program? I haven't listen to much my self, but it's nothing like how you describe it. Your comments are just seething with hate. If he really bothers you that much, why not just ignore him and this thread? If he is really that dismissible....why give him any thought at all?

 

[The Senator]

Maybe they aren't as jaded and filled with hate about someone they don't pay much attention to as you are?

No... they're just completely blind. Much like Palin's supporters, Limbaugh's apparently don't know what opinion polls are.

Have you ever really listened to Limbaugh's program? I haven't listen to much my self, but it's nothing like how you describe it. Your comments are just seething with hate. If he really bothers you that much, why not just ignore him and this thread? If he is really that dismissible....why give him any thought at all?

I have listened to his program. My father used to listen to his show all the time. And it was his comments about feminism being comparable to Nazism which originally turned me off, and then his hate-filled rants over drug users which only magnified how much of a hypocrite he is. I rarely discuss Limbaugh; but the fact that he is the center of attention lately is worthy of a comment or two from me.

And again, I find his attack on Michael J. Fox's "exaggerations" of Parkinson's Disease-- in addition to the "Halfrican American" remarks he has made on more than one occasion-- to be wholly reprehensible and disgusting. The fact that anyone can defend him as a legitimate political pundit shows how blind some of his supporters truly are.

 

[VampElvis]

If you study the actually PHILOSOPHIES of feminism, not the political movement, you maybe surprised to find that many of it's branches are very radical and could, I suppose, be compared to nazism on that ground. (Stuff that would drastically alter society if adopted.)

 

[Kelly]

Anyone who mocks people with neurological disorders and refers to people of both African and Caucasian descent as "Halfrican Americans" has no credibility with me whatsoever. Rush Limbaugh is an absolute horror of a human being, and his character flaws are only surpassed by the terrible political punditry he produces on a regular basis. He is the Father Coughlin of our time and is destined to be remembered as such.

Yes, Rush Limbaugh-- who currently has a 29 percent favorability rating according to a recent Research 2000 poll-- is going to have over fifty percent support from the American public two years from now. Because Independents love nothing more than a frothing partisan drug addict who enjoys debasing women and minorities on a regular basis while also mocking people with crippling illnesses.

No... they're just completely blind. Much like Palin's supporters, Limbaugh's apparently don't know what opinion polls are.



I have listened to his program. My father used to listen to his show all the time. And it was his comments about feminism being comparable to Nazism which originally turned me off, and then his hate-filled rants over drug users which only magnified how much of a hypocrite he is. I rarely discuss Limbaugh; but the fact that he is the center of attention lately is worthy of a comment or two from me.

And again, I find his attack on Michael J. Fox's "exaggerations" of Parkinson's Disease-- in addition to the "Halfrican American" remarks he has made on more than one occasion-- to be wholly reprehensible and disgusting. The fact that anyone can defend him as a legitimate political pundit shows how blind some of his supporters truly are.

1. Hypocritical drug addicts, bad.
2. Making fun of people with Parkinson's Disease, bad.

Got it.....

If all of you guys would simply listen to NPR, you wouldn't have to worry about this idiot.

 

[VampElvis]

If NPR had a conservative voice included I'd consider it!

 

[Kelly]

If NPR had a conservative voice included I'd consider it!

No, you wouldn't like it Vamp, they actually report the news in an unbiased manner.

 

[Addendum]

Well, speaking as an independent, I have listened to some of Rush's stuff in the past (high school during the Clinton years). While there were some things that the Clinton administration did that I didn't agree with, overall those 8 years weren't that bad. It seemed like whenever I happened to hear his show, which was a bit often since my parents generally vote Republican, Bill Clinton has or had ****ed up the country. Then you actually look at what he's complaining about and it's a meh thing.

Then there was that entire ESPN debacle.

So yeah, Rush really hasn't done much to convince this independent that Republicans (specifically conservatives) have all the answers.

 

[C.F. Kane]

If you study the actually PHILOSOPHIES of feminism, not the political movement, you maybe surprised to find that many of it's branches are very radical and could, I suppose, be compared to nazism on that ground. (Stuff that would drastically alter society if adopted.)

True, just as if you do a survey of the Republican party you're likely to find overly unrealistic reactionary movements.

Still, the basic tenet of feminism - that women and men are equal and should be treated as such - is a pretty mainstream belief.

 

[VampElvis]

No, you wouldn't like it Vamp, they actually report the news in an unbiased manner.

After 2-3 years of listnership I gave up on objectivity from NPR about 7 years ago and moved on to fart humor for my morning commute. But then the music they play got to be to horrible to tolerate and I tired of their same old shenanigans and I moved onto sports radio (local hosts). But it's nice to hear NPR has changed since my departure - maybe I'll give them another shot (I'm getting itchy for something new to which I can listen).

True, just as if you do a survey of the Republican party you're likely to find overly unrealistic reactionary movements.

As with the Democrats or probably any large organization.

Still, the basic tenet of feminism - that women and men are equal and should be treated as such - is a pretty mainstream belief.

It is - and I agree with that basic tenant wholeheartedly. I want my daughter to grow up in a world where her professional opportunities aren't limited. But I also want her to understand how such an basic and seemingly innocuous thing can be twisted into some really weirdo crap - and when she's old enough I'll teach her that using this and other examples. But my basic points remains - if you investigate the philosophy you can probably find a valid grounds for comparison. Though I choose to hope they political practitioners don't ascribe to any of these more radical schools of thought because I don't want my children in the type of society some of them could create.