The Rush Limbaugh Thread

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Well, isn't there really supposed to be like four parties?

If you count Indepents, that is.

 

[Shemtov]

Why is Limbaugh the Posterboy of the extreme right when you have Micheal Savage?

 

[Marlboro Man]

Because Rush Limbaugh has been around for over twenty years now, has built a huge following, has a radio show on at a prime broadcast time, and has been long seen as the voice between the party and the people... Michael Savage is just just an extremist nut, and he doesn't really align himself with the Republican Party...

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I think it's the goatee.

We all know goatee = evil...dun dun dunnnnn!

That, and he does say some pretty ****ing crazy ****.

 

[StorminNorman]

So the solution is vote GOP and hope they actually reduce the size of government, even though they had 4 hours of near absolute power to do so and didn't do it?

You are like a wife who keeps on returning a husband who is unfaithful, all he has to do is promise to change and you will believe him and he will cheat again.

The solution is to change the GOP.

Also, that comparison is quite flawed. For example, in your hypothetical the obviously correct answer would be to ditch the cheating husband and try to find another partner out of the billions of other people in the world. In this case, however, there is only one other choice. So it's like choosing between the unfaithful husband and the physically abusive husband. I will take the unfaithful one, thank you.

 

[Ocramed]

I find it interesting that:

1) Everyone seems to ignore the fact that Nancy Pelosi was calling RL, the Republicans and anyone who was critical of President Obama's policies NAZIS.

2) That everyone expected RL to NOT respond in kind (being the bomb thrower that he is).

3) That Israelis particularly don't like Obama for being "pro-Muslim/Arab".

4) And that everyone is ignoring the striking similarities of how the strategy for the implementation of Universal HEalthcare is similar to the one used by the Nazis, who were, putting their genocidal practices aside, were Socialist.

Personally, I like Pres. Obama, but his lack of leadership (by having Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Reed take center stage in pushing healthcare reform) of late is appalling. VP Biden should have been the point man in this, laying out, in bullet form, exactly what the president wants in his healthcare policy. Heck, right or wrong, VP Cheney got things done where the Bush II Administration. And now, I'm afraid that the Pres. will be so damage by this fiasco, that there is a good chance of losing House or Senate seats, and that would be bad. Then again, Pres. Clinton suceeded b/c there was a credible opposition. But, we'll see what happens.

O.

 

[Marlboro Man]

Clinton had credible opposition?

I don't think the Republicans, who were led by a man who cheated on his wife while trying to impeach Clinton for doing the same thing, were all that credible then.

 

[Kurosawa]

But backing neither renders you irrelevant. I am too pragmatic to take any comfort in the delusion of a third path in politics.

I used to back the Democrats and oppose the Republicans. Now I oppose both and back nobody. If that makes me irrelevant, then I welcome it. Screw politicians, they are all filth. I'm just here to watch the fail and the carnage.

 

[Addendum]

I used to back the Democrats and oppose the Republicans. Now I oppose both and back nobody. If that makes me irrelevant, then I welcome it. Screw politicians, they are all filth. I'm just here to watch the fail and the carnage.

Finally I have another person to join me roasting some marshmallows over the fires

 

[bell110]

But backing neither renders you irrelevant. I am too pragmatic to take any comfort in the delusion of a third path in politics.

That doesn't make you pragmatic, it makes you part of the problem.

The solution is to change the GOP.

Also, that comparison is quite flawed. For example, in your hypothetical the obviously correct answer would be to ditch the cheating husband and try to find another partner out of the billions of other people in the world. In this case, however, there is only one other choice. So it's like choosing between the unfaithful husband and the physically abusive husband. I will take the unfaithful one, thank you.

The GOP won't change. Apparently you're not pragmatic enough to see that.

So you would chose the unfaithful guy over the physically abusive one completely ignoring the nice quiet guy in the back because he's not popular enough to win?

 

[StorminNorman]

That doesn't make you pragmatic, it makes you part of the problem.

Hardly. You have to work within the reality of the situation, not outside of it.

The GOP won't change. Apparently you're not pragmatic enough to see that.

No, I just have a better understanding of it than you do. I don't expect the GOP to change on it's own - I expect to change the GOP. With a little help, of course, but I do aim to be a player in that change.

So you would chose the unfaithful guy over the physically abusive one completely ignoring the nice quiet guy in the back because he's not popular enough to win?

No, I ignore the nice quiet guy because he isn't real - he's an imaginary friend that I create to make me feel better about myself.

When Americans want a third party, when a third party candidate is more than just a fantastic idea that everyone talks about improving everything, I will start looking at it. But that day is not today, and it is not tomorrow and it is very unlikely going to be in the near future.

 

[bell110]

Hardly. You have to work within the reality of the situation, not outside of it.



No, I just have a better understanding of it than you do. I don't expect the GOP to change on it's own - I expect to change the GOP. With a little help, of course, but I do aim to be a player in that change.

HAHA, right. Way to work within the reality of the situation. How exactly are you going to change the GOP? By continuing to vote for mediocrity? Are you trying to be the next Karl Rove? Maybe you're going to invent the southern strategy of the 21st century.

No, I ignore the nice quiet guy because he isn't real - he's an imaginary friend that I create to make me feel better about myself.

When Americans want a third party, when a third party candidate is more than just a fantastic idea that everyone talks about improving everything, I will start looking at it. But that day is not today, and it is not tomorrow and it is very unlikely going to be in the near future.

So you will pay attention to a third party when everyone else does? Way to be a follower. And that is the problem with this country. If everybody who didn't vote, and everybody that believes they have to vote for the "lesser of two evils" actually voted for a third party, it would have a real impact. But everyone won't because no one else does.

Here's an idea, why don't you use your superior political savy to help a third party become a viable option? You claim to be a Libertarian, yet you seem to be perfectly fine with kow-towing to the Republican party. You're not going to change the GOP, you are going to become one of them.

 

[StorminNorman]

HAHA, right. Way to work within the reality of the situation. How exactly are you going to change the GOP? By continuing to vote for mediocrity? Are you trying to be the next Karl Rove? Maybe you're going to invent the southern strategy of the 21st century.

I don't see why not. I have more connections and more experience at my age than Karl Rove did. There are few 20 year olds in this country better positioned than I am right now. If I do the work, if I live up to the potential I have - there is no reason I can't be Karl Rove, or more.

So you will pay attention to a third party when everyone else does? Way to be a follower. And that is the problem with this country. If everybody who didn't vote, and everybody that believes they have to vote for the "lesser of two evils" actually voted for a third party, it would have a real impact. But everyone won't because no one else does.

See, this sounds great, but it's purely an idealistic approach - not a practical one. A third party with no support isn't a party - it's a joke. Political power has EVERYTHING to do with numbers, with support. I am not delusional enough to think that sporting a "Party X" bumper sticker on my Alero makes a difference. Or telling my friends about some third party means anything. If there is momentum for another party (mainly finical support, grassroots efforts, etc.), then I will consider another party viable and consider it over the GOP at such a time. But until then, voicing support for a third party is a waste of breath and a threat to your own credibility amongst anyone that knows anything about politics.

Here's an idea, why don't you use your superior political savy to help a third party become a viable option? You claim to be a Libertarian, yet you seem to be perfectly fine with kow-towing to the Republican party. You're not going to change the GOP, you are going to become one of them.

Because understanding politics isn't enough. Any possibility I have of influencing others comes from within the GOP. I go outside of it, the benefits I have in politics are gone. I am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face. Again, I am far too pragmatic than to do anything as foolish.

 

[Marlboro Man]

^I disagree with you a lot, but I fully agree with you on third parties.

It isn't the 1960s anymore. The country isn't as divided along so many lines that a third party is feasible. Hell I think Ross Perot only won seven counties when he ran for president in 1992, even though he won 18% of the vote...

 

[bell110]

I don't see why not. I have more connections and more experience at my age than Karl Rove did. There are few 20 year olds in this country better positioned than I am right now. If I do the work, if I live up to the potential I have - there is no reason I can't be Karl Rove, or more.

See, this looks like idealism. You sound like a high school guidence counselor.

And really, if you are aspiring to be like Rove, I hope you like not having a semblance of a soul.

See, this sounds great, but it's purely an idealistic approach - not a practical one. A third party with no support isn't a party - it's a joke. Political power has EVERYTHING to do with numbers, with support. I am not delusional enough to think that sporting a "Party X" bumper sticker on my Alero makes a difference. Or telling my friends about some third party means anything. If there is momentum for another party (mainly finical support, grassroots efforts, etc.), then I will consider another party viable and consider it over the GOP at such a time. But until then, voicing support for a third party is a waste of breath and a threat to your own credibility amongst anyone that knows anything about politics.

Because understanding politics isn't enough. Any possibility I have of influencing others comes from within the GOP. I go outside of it, the benefits I have in politics are gone. I am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face. Again, I am far too pragmatic than to do anything as foolish.

Wow, how ironic that your signature says "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." It sounds to me like you want political job security rather than actually change anything. Again, you claim to be Libertarian, but are willing to play along with the Republicans. Do you really think you can make the GOP any more socially liberal? Isn't everyone laughing at Megan McCain for suggesting the same thing? I see one of two things happening: You're going to try and steer the Republicans to become more Libertarian... and fail; or you are just going to become another Republican lackey.

 

[Hobodeluxe]

sign hanging outside Rush's studio

 

[Hobodeluxe]

lag double post

 

[StorminNorman]

See, this looks like idealism. You sound like a high school guidence counselor.

And really, if you are aspiring to be like Rove, I hope you like not having a semblance of a soul.

No, it looks like being the son of a man who gave Karl Rove his first major position in the Republican party. I am blessed to be the son of a former GOP communications chairman and a man who has a ton of powerful connections. Politics is not just about who you know, but who owes you favors. My dad has a lot of favors. Favors alone, however, aren't enough - which is why my own abilities must push me through when my toe is in the door.

It's possible to have a soul and have political power. I do not aspire to be Rove, but better than Rove and, honestly, more influential than Rove. For one things I have a much better face and greater charisma, elective office would be easier for me than Karl.

Wow, how ironic that your signature says "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." It sounds to me like you want political job security rather than actually change anything. Again, you claim to be Libertarian, but are willing to play along with the Republicans. Do you really think you can make the GOP any more socially liberal? Isn't everyone laughing at Megan McCain for suggesting the same thing? I see one of two things happening: You're going to try and steer the Republicans to become more Libertarian... and fail; or you are just going to become another Republican lackey.

No, I would simply rather change something than talk about changing something. People are laughing at Megan McCain because she is a ditzy lightweight - not simply because of her stances. A libertarian can do more under the cloak of the GOP than he ever can as a libertarian candidate. Ask Ron Paul which race he ran was more important: his failed GOP nomination or his running as a libertarian in the general election. It's not close.

 

[The Overlord]

I don't see why not. I have more connections and more experience at my age than Karl Rove did. There are few 20 year olds in this country better positioned than I am right now. If I do the work, if I live up to the potential I have - there is no reason I can't be Karl Rove, or more. .

I think someone is being too optimistic here, you might be in for a rude wake up call from reality.

There tons of would be politicos have connections like you say you do and have the same dreams, but go no where, its like trying to be a rock star, many will try, few will succeed.

Your dreams and a token will get you a ride on a sub way, your dreams won't matter until you have achieved the means that will allow you to succeed in your chosen field and frankly I have seen many people have big dreams, but fail to achieve them. I am far too cynical to care about dreamers, unless I see proof they made their dreams came true.

See, this sounds great, but it's purely an idealistic approach - not a practical one. A third party with no support isn't a party - it's a joke. Political power has EVERYTHING to do with numbers, with support. I am not delusional enough to think that sporting a "Party X" bumper sticker on my Alero makes a difference. Or telling my friends about some third party means anything. If there is momentum for another party (mainly finical support, grassroots efforts, etc.), then I will consider another party viable and consider it over the GOP at such a time. But until then, voicing support for a third party is a waste of breath and a threat to your own credibility amongst anyone that knows anything about politics.



Because understanding politics isn't enough. Any possibility I have of influencing others comes from within the GOP. I go outside of it, the benefits I have in politics are gone. I am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face. Again, I am far too pragmatic than to do anything as foolish.

What's the difference between being pragmatic and just selling out though? Not everyone intends to sell out what they believe when entering politics, but they often do so for the sake of being pragmatic, just little compromises they need to make get ahead and achieve their dreams. They do it again and again, until it becomes second nature and what they believed in becomes irrelevant, they are just another politician.

The "I can change him" mantra is used by every wife as an excuse to stick with an unfaithful husband. It hardly ever works and is often just an excuse to stick with a partner you know is no good for you.

The fact is the GOP had a 4 year window to reduce the size of government and they didn't do it. Why should anyone believe they ever will?

 

[BlackestNight]

See, this sounds great, but it's purely an idealistic approach - not a practical one. A third party with no support isn't a party - it's a joke. Political power has EVERYTHING to do with numbers, with support. I am not delusional enough to think that sporting a "Party X" bumper sticker on my Alero makes a difference. Or telling my friends about some third party means anything. If there is momentum for another party (mainly finical support, grassroots efforts, etc.), then I will consider another party viable and consider it over the GOP at such a time. But until then, voicing support for a third party is a waste of breath and a threat to your own credibility amongst anyone that knows anything about politics.

The only way for a third party to become prominent would be for them to employ a regional strategy for victory. They need to start winning local elections in specific regions and then try to upgrade to winning state elections. As things stand right now, Third parties can’t compete on a national scale.

 

[StorminNorman]

I think someone is being too optimistic here, you might be in for a rude wake up call from reality.

There tons of would be politicos have connections like you say you do and have the same dreams, but go no where, its like trying to be a rock star, many will try, few will succeed.

Yes, but there is no benefit to striving to be anything less than stellar. I am absurdly confident in my own abilities, and every day I interact with people in the field, my confidence is bolstered. If I don't become the next Karl Rove, fine - I don't need to reach that mark to be happy with life. But there is no reason for me to plan to be anything less than at this point.

Your dreams and a token will get you a ride on a sub way, your dreams won't matter until you have achieved the means that will allow you to succeed in your chosen field and frankly I have seen many people have big dreams, but fail to achieve them. I am far too cynical to care about dreamers, unless I see proof they made their dreams came true.

I have the means to succeed in my field. At age 18 I was a lead campaign strangest for a $400,000 dollar sheriff campaign in North Florida. I have spent the last year interning with one of the most experienced campaign strategists in the state. Over that time I have advised a leading Republican Congressman from Alabama. I am currently doing consulting work for a Republican congressional candidate in North Florida. All of this and I turned 20 this month. I am taking over the medical marijuana campaign in Orlando, a vehicle, if successful, will be a major feather in my cap - most 20 something political wannabes can't point to an actual legislative change they can take credit for.

What's the difference between being pragmatic and just selling out though?

Intent. Biding time in order to strike when the going is good is not the same as being complacent with the status quo.

Not everyone intends to sell out what they believe when entering politics, but they often do so for the sake of being pragmatic, just little compromises they need to make get ahead and achieve their dreams. They do it again and again, until it becomes second nature and what they believed in becomes irrelevant, they are just another politician.

Those people that find it pragmatic to sell out entered politics with the intent on personal success. My intent on entering the political field is purely ideological. I want the power to make the changes I want to see done, not to make my bank account fuller.

The "I can change him" mantra is used by every wife as an excuse to stick with an unfaithful husband. It hardly ever works and is often just an excuse to stick with a partner you know is no good for you.

The fact is the GOP had a 4 year window to reduce the size of government and they didn't do it. Why should anyone believe they ever will?

Because parties DO change. History proves this.

The only way for a third party to become prominent would be for them to employ a regional strategy for victory. They need to start winning local elections in specific regions and then try to upgrade to winning state elections. As things stand right now, Third parties can’t compete on a national scale.

The only way for a third party to become prominent is for the two parties to fail hard and for someone with a ridiculous sum of money (or groups of people with ridiculous sums of money) to give a third party the finical success major parties have.

 

[Hobodeluxe]

the only way for a third party to break the duopoly is to have elections reform with instant runoff voting and pure public financing of campaigns with strict limits on "in kind" contributions by partisan media outlets. I hate to say it but we would have to limit the advocacy ability of media outlets to control the debate.

limit each candidate to equal coverage by the media and stop these 2 yr long/half billion dollar campaigns.

 

[Hobodeluxe]

the only way for a third party to break the duopoly is to have elections reform with instant runoff voting and pure public financing of campaigns with strict limits on "in kind" contributions by partisan media outlets. I hate to say it but we would have to limit the advocacy ability of media outlets to control the debate.

limit each candidate to equal coverage by the media and stop these 2 yr long/half billion dollar campaigns.

 

[BlackestNight]

the only way for a third party to break the duopoly is to have elections reform with instant runoff voting and pure public financing of campaigns with strict limits on "in kind" contributions by partisan media outlets. I hate to say it but we would have to limit the advocacy ability of media outlets to control the debate.

limit each candidate to equal coverage by the media and stop these 2 yr long/half billion dollar campaigns.

Obama could have made a statement by not opting out of public financing but he just kept looking back at that wad of cash.

 

[Marx]

I'll be happy to take those off your hands blackestnight.