Over the weekend, Chris Matthews compared Rush Limbaugh to a James Bond villain and claimed the radio talk show host was a "human vat of vitriol. He relishes the attention and he sells anger as a weapon." Before playing a clip from "You Only Live Twice," in which a Bond nemesis drops a victim into a piranha tank, Matthews, on his syndicated "The Chris Matthews Show," offered up the following description of the talk show host:
MATTHEWS: Before we break if you didn't know better this past week, you'd think Rush Limbaugh was more important than the guys in Washington and women in Washington actually elected to do things. How many U.S. senators would invite the President of the United States to come to their home turf and debate them? Well two facts are clear about this human vat of vitriol. He relishes the attention and he sells anger as a weapon.
(Begin clip)
RUSH LIMBAUGH AT CPAC: What is so strange about being honest in saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed? We, we are in for a real battle.
(End clip)
MATTHEWS: Limbaugh's high-handed, melodramatic, off with their heads, oratory reminds me of those over-the-top movie villains. You know, the ones who issue ludicrous commands to snuff out the good guys, like James Bond's arch nemesis who wanted the supremely confident Bond - gone.
(Clip from "You Only Live Twice")
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
Matthews wasn't alone in his bashing of Limbaugh as other members of his panel, the Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page and Time's Managing Editor Richard Stengel, also offered jabs as Page dismissed, "18 percent of the public agrees with Limbaugh. You don't win elections that way, you get radio ratings," and Stengel questioned: "And by the way, I'd say to Rush Limbaugh, and he says to his folks, how is capitalism working for you these days? Not very good? Right?"
The following exchanges were aired on the March 8 edition of "The Chris Matthews Show":
CHRIS MATTHEWS: You know who can talk? Limbaugh. You don't have to like the big guy but you know what he does? He defends capitalism. But what he says is, "You Mr. President are out there raising taxes and getting rid of deductibility and itemization and putting more injury on those of us you've already injured. You're hurting the people driving the truck."
CLARENCE PAGE, CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Right. And nobody believes that but Dittoheads. Fact is Bush has already done the same darn thing. That argument isn't working right now. People, people know that, that government is in a spend mode. And by the way you know we've been in-
MATTHEWS: Limbaugh's numbers are doubled, Barack Obama's numbers are not doubled.
PAGE: That's his job. Hey that's his job though, though look at the numbers, about 18 percent of the public agrees with Limbaugh. You don't win elections that way, you get radio ratings. But ever since Reagan we've been on a trend of taxing lower income people and giving breaks to the upper income. Obama has slightly reversed that now and I don't see a revolution in the streets.
...
RICHARD STENGEL, TIME MANAGING EDITOR: Look I confess that some of my best friends are investment bankers. I, you know, you shouldn't hold it against me. But, but they are-, to a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail. They are just looking for the things that help them. They are not looking for the wider economy. Relationship between Wall Street and actual value of companies has never been wider. And by the way, I'd say to Rush Limbaugh, and he says to his folks, how is capitalism working for you these days? Not very good? Right? I mean these people are hurting and people want to have the government do something.
...
MATTHEWS: Before we break if you didn't know better this past week, you'd think Rush Limbaugh was more important than the guys in Washington and women in Washington actually elected to do things. How many U.S. senators would invite the President of the United States to come to their home turf and debate them? Well two facts are clear about this human vat of vitriol. He relishes the attention and he sells anger as a weapon.
(Begin clip)
RUSH LIMBAUGH AT CPAC: What is so strange about being honest in saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed? We, we are in for a real battle.
(End clip)
MATTHEWS: Limbaugh's high-handed, melodramatic, off with their heads, oratory reminds me of those over-the-top movie villains. You know, the ones who issue ludicrous commands to snuff out the good guys, like James Bond's arch nemesis who wanted the supremely confident Bond - gone.
(Clip from "You Only Live Twice" with the kitten-stroking Ernesto Stavro Blofeld sending victim into piranha tank)
MATTHEWS: Piranha tank. That's what we do to "I don't know," people. Any way our guy Rush doesn't have a kitten on his lap when he's issuing those fatwas but he does have a certain satisfaction.
—Geoffrey Dickens is the senior news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Matthews is as bad as
March 9, 2009 - 17:52 ET by AcrosMatthews is as bad as Olbermann and Madcow,all three talked down about Bush wanting the war in Iraq to fail calling Bush's policies dumb. This is like the pot calling the kettle black... or should I be politicly correct and say the pot calling the kettle white..
All these
March 9, 2009 - 18:04 ET by 10ksnookerpeople have gotten so pathetic there is no reason to even comment anymore.
The things that were said about Bush and America, did they think everyone in America is a s dumb as a Kenyan.
i think i just thought of an incredibly lame pun
March 9, 2009 - 22:11 ET by puredmashiecan you name the country where our president was born? kenya?
don't worry, i'll keep my day job.
swing hard in case you hit it.
puremashie... Bulls-Eye!
March 9, 2009 - 22:18 ET by bigtimerpuremashie...
Bulls-Eye!
How-ah-ya, puredmashie?
March 9, 2009 - 22:36 ET by JerYeah, that was lame.
Jer
The left needs to quit
March 9, 2009 - 18:03 ET by goldbarThe left needs to quit criticizing Rush. They should leave him alone and let him talk. Let him trash the right and leave them to their infighting. He can say what he want's about the left, I really don't care. He's preaching to the converted anyway. Nothing he says shocks anyone anymore. If he says he wants the country to fail, that's his opinion and he's entitled to it.
Goldbar, Rush doesn't
March 10, 2009 - 06:14 ET by wearymanGoldbar,
Rush doesn't want the country to fail. He wants the country to SUCCEED. However, the only way the country CAN succeed is for Barack Obama's policies to go down in flames. IE: For Barack Obama to FAIL in implementing his ideas.
So Rush wants OBAMA to fail, and by extension, AMERICA to succeed. If you knew anything about Rush beyond what you hear in the MSM you would know that. Try giving him a listen for a few weeks. Even if you disagree with him, AT LEAST you will be well informed.
Goldie, some info for you.
March 10, 2009 - 08:43 ET by Mike BrattonLeftists are people who want the country to fail so their party can try to make something out of the ruins.
Mr. Limbaugh has never, once, said "he wants the country to fail," so I suggest that you check your sources before you continue to embarrass yourself.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
If Obama fails, and his
March 10, 2009 - 09:04 ET by JerIf Obama fails, and his policies fail, the nation's economy will fail, and the Democrats will go down in flames. The Repubs will be elected to pick up the pieces. That's the Limbaugh formula for conservative ascendancy. That's why he hopes for failure. So what if millions suffer in the process. The evil ideology of liberalism will be vanquished.
Jer
~I believe that
March 10, 2009 - 09:26 ET by choselife3xIf Obama succeeds in implementing his policies (greatly increased taxation on producers to fund social programs), those policies will cause the economy to fail. If he fails to implement his socialist policies, the economy will recover.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
choselife...
March 10, 2009 - 10:20 ET by JerThe financial, credit, automotive and housing markets have been and continue to be in free fall. For example, do you want the major banks to fail, be bailed out, nationalized? There's no consensus even among the Republicans on this issue.
This isn't a typical downturn where reductions in the capital gains rate, or tax breaks for the wealthy "producers" will serve as financial rocket fuel to reignite a stagnant economy. This is a different animal and requires different solutions.
Jer
~If these banks were operating
March 10, 2009 - 10:33 ET by choselife3xIn such a fashion that they caused their own failure, then they need to fail. The surviving banks which operate under sound business practices will flourish and expand, creating jobs.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
Jer,
March 10, 2009 - 09:29 ET by AgnosticIt may be inappropriate for me to answer without listening to his show but it seems evident that neither Rush nor President Obama want America to fail. The president has set his agenda and it is to move the country toward a large government with tax rates similar to what they were with former President Reagan. The differences are the trends. Trending down in scope and taxes sparks the economy and trending up depresses the economy. Reagan was trending down, Clinton was up and down (arguable) and Bush was down and now President Obama is going to attempt to take us back nearly 30 years in a very short period of time, expect investments to follow.
This is what I’m guessing Rush wants to fail, what he sees as the potential to regress to a 70s era economy. While President Obama is expecting to do wonderful things by spreading the wealth of the government around to those he deems to be in need. In my opinion the wealth of the government can only be confiscated from the populace so there is in spark the economy sees in one arena due to a government bounty will be felt as depression some where else. True growth must occur without the confiscation of profits and that is not to say that growth cannot occur with some confiscation but it must be made to fit the times much like spending.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Missed again Jer
March 10, 2009 - 09:41 ET by general companyIf Obama fails, and his policies fail, the nation's economy will fail, and the Democrats will go down in flames.
Actually, if Obama fails, the people win. If he listen to Rush and became more friendly to business and rejected his socialist policies, we might never recover the White-house or Congress.
He will fail, because the policies are not sound. Just ask yourself, What happends when the money runs out? Well
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
If Obama adopted Rush's philosophy,
March 10, 2009 - 09:59 ET by JerIf Obama were to adopt Rush's philosophy, he may as well change his party registration to Republican. But Obama wasn't elected to enact the Rush Limbaugh legislative vision for "The Way America Ought To Be". Rush doesn't hold political office. His real power is to root for failure, and, possessing one of the largest megaphones in the nation, he is proving quite adept at fulfilling that role.
Jer
Home Team
March 10, 2009 - 10:12 ET by AgnosticAnyone, regardless of affiliation or political influence, who champions one cause is supporting the failure of another. To deny this is simply wanting to live in the fantasy of 'everybody wins'. Stating that you want to win and therefore another must lose is realistic eventhough in the current PC climate it may sound cruel.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Right now, we're all in the
March 10, 2009 - 10:35 ET by JerRight now, we're all in the same boat. Debate is fine, but once a decision is made, we don't need to be paddling in opposite directions.
I view the current economic crisis as tantamount to a financial 9/11 [remember?...when the Democrats joined hands with the Republicans and sang God Bless America on the steps of the Capitol, rallied behind President Bush, passed his anti-terrorism legislation--even though it was larded with Republican earmarks?].
We need confidence in our leaders and they need our support. Rush's "hope for failure" headline, which he implored the media to widely report a couple of days before the new President was sworn in, was the wrong message at the wrong time.
Jer
Jer, not entirely
March 10, 2009 - 11:36 ET by AgnosticNot going to completely disagree with you but a few things need to be pointed out about your comparison.
- 9/11 had not outlet. In this I mean that the economic crisis is a disaster of our own making and something that, even though bad, people are generally aware that we will get through the crisis and come out the other side. How we come out is the debate. 9/11 was an event that left the population of the nation feeling powerless and angry.
- There was strong support for many of the ideas behind the anti-terrorism laws under Clinton as most of the prominent members believed that Iraq had WMD and that Iran was a viable threat. Because of this it was no great compromise of core principals that brought the two sides together.
- At the time one of the few vocal opponents to the events you described above was Senator Obama. He was counted among those who looked to blame America for giving the terrorist a reason to attack us. This is not entirely evident and mostly how I feel about things I've read from his statements made before the State Senate but it was clear he was not cheering the actions of his nation at that time.
- We need confidence in our leaders? Ridiculous!! Leaders have to EARN the confidence of those they lead! I wish for President Obama to succeed in negotiating the nation out of our current crisis, to begin building the economy again and continue the history of our great nation of doing our best to improve our opportunities for our lives, our freedom and for each member of society to pursue their own happiness with minimal government impedence. He has not said or done one thing that gives me any confidence that he will do so in a manner that does not make matters worse before they will get better. At best I see policies that will allow the pain to spread out over more people so fewer will suffer greatly. But mostly I see a more social system that will use capitlism as a tool to earn capital instead of captialistic system that uses socialistic ideas to attempt to help the unfortunate.
In essence I see a failure of the founding ideas of our nation. I see an suppression of human instinct of freedoms and a desire for prosperity.
I don't really want to be all gloom and doom about this because it is way to early to assume that things will continue along their current path. However, given the few opportunities President Obama has been presented with during his time in office and key points during the later stages of his campaign I see nothing to inspire me to have confidence. I had little confidence in former President Bush and I feel that caution has been justified. I have little confidence in President Obama and currently see his policies as potentially being a painful lesson to America. You could say that I wish him to fail but in reality the only way I see him succeeding and remaining a Democrat would be to return to the ideas of the more conservative Democrats the ruled the congress in previous decades; not my ideal but I believe he would see greater success in the current crisis.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Agnostic...
March 10, 2009 - 11:49 ET by JerJust noticed and read your post. I have to log out in just a couple of minutes, but you make some very good points.
Back later,
Jer
Jer,
March 16, 2009 - 06:58 ET by AgnosticJust saw this but I have to get back to work. Have a good day.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
With all due respect Jer, I
March 10, 2009 - 11:47 ET by PeskyDaneWith all due respect Jer, I find your brand of patriotism awfully convenient.
And what brand of
March 10, 2009 - 11:51 ET by JerAnd what brand of patriotism would that be?
Jer
You think you're being
March 10, 2009 - 12:01 ET by PeskyDaneYou think you're being smarmy and clever. By all means indulge yourself. I stand by my oberservation.
My friend Blonde defends you so I try to take it easy. Even I've defended you now and then. But I stand by my observation. Your patriotism is convenient.
I'm being neither smarmy
March 10, 2009 - 12:09 ET by JerI'm being neither smarmy nor clever. I'm asking a simple question. Explain your accusation. Am I not entitled to that?
If you want to be coy, forget it. I don't have the time for it.
Good grief.
Jer
Entitled? Poor choice of
March 10, 2009 - 12:43 ET by PeskyDaneEntitled? Poor choice of words. A sense of entitlement is what got us into this economic downturn to begin with. But as a courtesy, we'll start with this basic question: was the projection of power overseas into the various theatres of operation in the current conflict in the best interest of the United States?
Forget it, Pesky...Don't
March 10, 2009 - 13:09 ET by JerForget it, Pesky...Don't extend me any courtesies. Poor choice of words my A$$.
Jer
Hey you're the one who
March 10, 2009 - 13:20 ET by PeskyDaneHey you're the one who asked to come sit at the grown-up table. You're here trying to act all reasonable, but lift one corner of the veil just a teeny bit... Yes, you are a convenient patriot. Stings a bit, doesn't it?
Sting? Not at all. But,
March 10, 2009 - 13:31 ET by JerSting? Not at all. But, please, play your games with someone else. I thought maybe you wanted to have a mature dialogue. I was wrong.
Jer
Appears you're making a number of poor choices, Jer.
March 10, 2009 - 14:08 ET by Mike BrattonChoices of language, factually-unsupportable statements... quite a bad run for you.
Obama (and by extension, his administration) is actively working to tank the United States economy, and Rush Limbaugh is the bad guy? Of course. All you have to do to figure Barry out is remember Alinsky's Rules.
Number 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." Rush can't just be disagreed with on the issues facing the nation; no, he must be mocked and taunted. He's not wrong, he's fat. And racist. And a drug addict. It's a tactic liberals employ frequently, and one that seems to be popping up among so-called "conservatives," though if you use such a tactic, you're probably not as conservative as you make yourself out to be.
Number 12: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Rather than discuss issues, Obama, his surrogates, and his media vassals are attacking private citizens--and not just Mr. Limbaugh, but Jim Cramer (an Obama supporter) and Rick Santelli of CNBC. Notice any similarities in how the Obama White House went after each man?
A Socialist who has cultivated a cult of personality around himself currently occupies the White House. How is it, Jer, that you're good with that?
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
Mike...I've been trying
March 10, 2009 - 14:40 ET by JerMike...
I've been trying to get out of here for the past two hours. I'll have to respond more fully later. In the meantime, examine your post...particularly the first sentence below your name, and then note your style of argumentation. Slightly ironic isn't it? You make naked assertions or state pure opinion, and then attach questions to them as if they were proven foundational facts.
It complicates the dialogue. But I'll be back later tonight.
Jer
BTW...I trust you're not implying that you agree with PeskyDane's tactics in his earlier exchange with me. I know you are sympathetic with his political views, but his manner of posting was absurd.
Hard to tear away sometimes, isn't it?
March 10, 2009 - 18:15 ET by Mike BrattonI've had that same problem before.
And what's wrong with my "style of argumentation"? Not a thing, actually--I'm big on calling a spade a gardening implement. You've made poor language choices, and said things you can't support. On the other hand, I've made no "naked assertions" and haven't advanced an opinion as fact.
The only irony in play is that you're blithely ignoring your own faux pas while inventing others' out of wholecloth.
But I digress.
I believe I made it clear that issues should be discussed, rather than personalities. That goes for everyone, Jer. I've caught it on the chin enough from some so-called "conservatives" for their mimicry of liberal brickbat-tossing to be considered "equal opportunity" on that subject.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
Well, Mike... Please do
March 11, 2009 - 03:16 ET by JerWell, Mike...
Please do me one favor. At least specify my poor language choices and unsupportable statements. It will make it much easier to respond.
I'm big on calling a spade a gardening implement.
Me too, unless I'm playing poker. In which case I would lose my shirt.
Jer
Sure thing.
March 12, 2009 - 08:33 ET by Mike Bratton"Poor choice of words my A$$."
Marking those with knowledge of Obama's country of birth, and those who reference them, "lame."
"If Obama fails, and his policies fail, the nation's economy will fail..."
"So what if millions suffer in the process."
"I view the current economic crisis as tantamount to a financial 9/11".
Hope that helps.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
Mike...Thanks. That does
March 12, 2009 - 15:10 ET by JerMike...Thanks. That does help. I disagree with your list, however.
"Poor choice of words my A$$." I would have liked to have made an even stronger response. Pesky Dane makes a rather sly and obtuse accusation about my patriotism...my "brand" of patriotism--I'm really not sure what he means--but, you know Mike, I don't particularly care for anyone even indirectly questioning my patriotism [do you feel similarly?]. So, I asked PeskyDane very simply and directly "What brand of patriotism would that be?" He answers:
"You think you're being smarmy and clever. By all means indulge yourself. I stand by my observation."
I (shocked by the tone of his reply) respond: "I'm being neither smarmy nor clever. I'm asking a simple question. Explain your accusation. Am I not entitled to that?"
Pesky: "Entitled? Poor choice of words." [He then lectures me how a sense of entitlement hurt our economy and follows with a professorial-like quiz concerning Bush's foreign policy.
Jer: "....Poor choice of words my A$$."
[As I said earlier, I would have preferred to have responded with a more emphatic expletive.] What do you think?
Marking those with knowledge of Obama's country of birth, and those who reference them, "lame."
Huh? Are you serious?
puredmashie 23:11 ET "I think I just thought of an incredibly lame pun. Can you name the country where our president was born? Kenya?"
Jer 23:36 ET "How-ah-ya, puredmashie? Yeah, that was lame."
It was a joke, Mike. How-ah-ya...Hawaii. Get it? It's lame, I know. But it's just a joke.
[By the way, check out snopes.com for info on the place of birth controversy.] But my response was just good-natured banter.
"If Obama fails, and his policies fail, the nation's economy will fail..."
I think the statement is self-sustaining. Anyway, it accurately reflects my view. What in the world is wrong with that?
"So what if millions suffer in the process."
This is the core of my objection to Rush's comment. Obama's failure may result in eventual Republican electoral successes, but the more immediate consequence would be millions of Americans negatively impacted by a collapsed economy.
I view the current economic crisis as tantamouont to a financial 9/11.
Well, what can I say...I do! But maybe I've been listening to too many economists and financial analysts. I believe the current conditions are extremely serious, should be addressed co-operatively, and require a bi-partisan approach. The Democrats and Republicans have both failed in that regard. But Rush's words aren't helpful. Again, it's my opinion. Others are free to disagree.
Hope that helps.
Jer
A few things, Jer.
March 13, 2009 - 01:03 ET by Mike Bratton1) Perhaps I bore down too rigidly on banter. Apologies.
2) Snopes is not a be-all and end-all authority--unless, of course, you're Jon Kyl. In addition, it is not in possession of any authoritative documentation. Now, the state of Hawaii is, but it refuses to release anything definitive.
3) Obama's policy failure (and we should all hope it's a colossal failure) does not mean the failure of the American economy. Quite to the contrary, our Temp-Worker-in-Chief didn't even make it halfway through his first hundred days before the rumblings began that maybe, just maybe, he and his combination of neophytes and Clinton retreads ought to be less ham-fisted with tax dollars.
4) This isn't 1933. Unemployment hasn't even hit the ten percent that's forecast for later this year, much less the 24.9 percent Depression-era peak.
5) Using 9/11 analogies carelessly is tantamount to using Holocaust analogies carelessly. Both demean the innocent dead.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
Mike Bratton...
March 13, 2009 - 01:50 ET by Jer1.) Apology accepted.
1.a) There will be no further nudging to pit you against PD, and my final words on that subject are this: I fail to see how anyone can objectively read that series of exchanges and conclude I was out of line.
2.) Snopes indeed is not an end-all authority. But it is my understanding the state did release an authenticated copy of the certificate, and it was identical in form to the documents possessed by others of Hawaiian birth. There was also a copy of Obama's birth announcement that was originally published in the Honolulu newspaper. All the evidence that I've seen, and just plain common sense, point to a valid Hawaiian birth.
3.) Look Mike, I have concerns about the jaw-dropping amounts being thrown around. I don't know that anyone has the solution to the puzzle. Paulson and Bush set the bailout precedent last September when the former ran to Congress with his [remaining] hair on fire pleading for 700 billion. I think it created a domino effect of expectations in which various sectors felt that if the brokerage houses and financial institutions were going to be bailed out, then so should the automotive industry; and if Wall Street was going to get money, then distressed homeowners and consumers should get a slice of the money pie. Someone needs to really take charge and restore some order to the process. Obama does not deserve high marks--so far--in this regard.
4.) No, but there are some colossal seismic shocks being dealt to the very foundations of our capital markets, and it's immensely troubling. I don't anticipate 25% unemployment, but right now no one can predict how this will play out.
5.) Maybe I'm guilty of overstating the comparison. Oddly enough, after I first mentioned it here a couple of weeks ago, I heard an economic analyst make the identical association a few days later. I did explain on another thread last night the reasons I had drawn this analogy, and I specifically noted that it certainly wasn't my intent to diminish or trivialize the tragic events and deaths on 9/11. I try to think before I speak or post, and I make every effort not to casually or capriciously toss out statements that may be deemed insensitive or inappropriate. Consequently, I'll reconsider my usage of the 9/11 comparison.
Jer
Jer,
March 10, 2009 - 11:57 ET by ThisnThat"when the Democrats joined hands with the Republicans and sang God Bless America on the steps of the Capitol"
This happened before the left started blaming President Bush for deliberately attacking the trade towers and the Pentagon.
And as for the current economic conditions, Dims and Repubs will never join hands -- because Obama and everyone else in his administration constantly repeat the following mantra: We inherited this; this was caused by 8 years of failed policy; this was caused by the previous administration. This is done on a daily basis. The most recent being this morning on CNBC by someone named Kramer. And yesterday by Biden's so-called economic advisor. And in every damn speech and interview by Obama himself. Obama and his team are petty, vindictive, and adolescent. They are not problem solvers.
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
This happened before the
March 10, 2009 - 12:01 ET by JerThis happened before the left started blaming President Bush for deliberately attacking the trade towers and the Pentagon.
Oh, please. You're talking about the disgraced Cynthia McKinney nut crowd.
Jer
Ok, name me some prominent
March 10, 2009 - 12:09 ET by ThisnThatOk, name me some prominent Dims or the MSM who stood up and defended President Bush against "that crowd"? Perhaps all the dims on The View? Couric, maybe? Did Reid get in front of the Senate and denounce her -- or was he too busy attacking Rush Limbaugh at the time? Maybe Pelosi?
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
I don't know offhand,
March 11, 2009 - 03:21 ET by JerI don't know offhand, ThisnThat. I would have to do some research but my guess is there were critics. I know that McKinney was rebuked locally by Democrats who voted her out of Congress and replaced her with someone far more moderate and less controversial.
Jer
recalling
March 11, 2009 - 05:01 ET by AgnosticIIRC, Maher didn't exactly defend Pres. Bush but he did try to slap down some of the conspiracy theorist on the 9/11 issue.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Right, Agnostic... I
March 11, 2009 - 18:29 ET by JerRight, Agnostic...
I don't watch Maher or particularly care for him, but I did see a video replay of his administering a serious smack-down to a group of apparent 9/11 "truthers" in his studio audience.
Jer
"But Obama wasn't elected
March 10, 2009 - 11:49 ET by NL207"But Obama wasn't elected to enact the Rush Limbaugh legislative vision for "The Way America Ought To Be""
Just what was Obama elected to do? The vast majority of the electorate had no real concept of who he was, where he came from or what his agenda would be. All we heard was 'hope and change'. We have the MSM to thank fo that. So how could Obama possibly have any sort of mandate?
This clown has already proven to me he will be the worst President in American History. As more of his radical agenda rolls out, the mainstream of America will turn against him. Right now they are in the dark. Wait until the proverbial lights are turned on.
What was Obama elected to do?
March 10, 2009 - 11:57 ET by JerWell, given that your opinion has already galvanized a full month and a half into Obama's presidency, I doubt my opinion really matters.
Jer
Jer sez: I doubt my opinion really matters
March 10, 2009 - 12:41 ET by ThisnThatBingo! :-)
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
Finally...someone agrees
March 10, 2009 - 13:26 ET by JerFinally...someone agrees with me.
Jer
LOL ______________________
March 10, 2009 - 16:26 ET by ThisnThatLOL
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
→ Stupid Marrhews
March 9, 2009 - 18:10 ET by Cool ArrowSomewhere in Illinois, there's a church congregation praying for the man who murdered their pastor before their eyes.
The guy tried to commit suicide, but those Christians are hoping he fails.
Chris doesn't understand.
Obama is succeeding and it hurts
We saw this show
March 9, 2009 - 18:20 ET by bigtimerWe saw this show yesterday...except for the end, when he said it was about his adoring love for Kennedy.
Look, all Matthews is doing is pot calling kettle...and he doesn't quit with Rush.
Poor Chrissy...a legend in his own mind...
Whereas Rush really is a legend...with class...
Who the left fear.
I'd rather watch...
March 10, 2009 - 06:08 ET by ThisnThatYeah, BT. Unfortunately for Mathews, I'd rather watch Bond's vilians any day than Mathews and his insane comments.
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
RICHARD STENGEL, TIME
March 9, 2009 - 19:04 ET by MidAmericaRICHARD STENGEL, TIME MANAGING EDITOR:..... I'd say to Rush Limbaugh, and he says to his folks, how is capitalism working for you these days? Not very good?
Oh yeah right.... well let's see, capitalism has never touched North Korea. How does that look to you?
The truth is, capitalism is doing great in this country and around the world. What we are experiencing is a free capitalist economy correcting itself. Capitalism punishes bad businesses and rewards good ones. Socialism does just the opposite. If we continue on in our quest to prop up bad businesses we will be stuck with a sick economy forever. Socialistic economies always fail because of this.
Agree with posters
March 9, 2009 - 18:44 ET by slickwillie2001I believe that by now people like Matthews, Olbermann, etc, have simply started trolling for ratings, hoping that Rush Limbaugh will mention them on the air and perhaps improve their audience a point or two. They are envious of Rush's near-doubled ratings and incorrectly think that they can join in the fun. Instead they look like fools.
slick... Exactly
March 9, 2009 - 18:57 ET by bigtimerslick...
Exactly right...it is a very rare time when Rush mentions any of these leftists named here...he is far smarter than that...he isn't going to sink to their level either...goes without saying they are praying each time they mention Rush with the disdain they do that they and their show is mentioned.
They not only look like fools, they are fools.
Well, I suppose that makes
March 9, 2009 - 19:01 ET by fitzfongWell, I suppose that makes Chris Matthews "Tingles Galore".
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
I honestly have never seen
March 9, 2009 - 19:09 ET by dborschjr68I honestly have never seen a liberal so fixated on a Conservative the way Matthews is with Mr. Limbaugh. Is it jealousy, an unrequited homosexual crush, or is he just obsessed with Mr. Limbaugh? It's starting to get creepy, no joke.
F**K Socialism.
There's "stupid"; then there's Matthews...
March 9, 2009 - 19:22 ET by wnaegeleSigh!
Beyond stupid
March 9, 2009 - 20:29 ET by jdlybrandI can think of another word for Matthews. It starts with an A and ends with HOLE. Stupid is a great adjective though!
Sighing along with you and also shaking my head.
Who are these guys
March 9, 2009 - 19:59 ET by Joe CamelI read about Mathews, Olbermann and others out here. To be truthful, I had never heard of these folks till I started viewing this site. Reason, I don't watch those channels. If I see them on in the gym or somewhere I can change it, I flip it to Fox. If not, I just move away from the TV so I don't see it. To me, dead network news shows like these have no reason for me to view them. They just do what they are doing so people will come watch them and boost their ratings. To be sure, ask most people on the street who these dimwits are, and you will get a head shake, as no one knows them. Ask about Limbaugh, and you will find that most know him. Right, wrong or otherwise, they only wish they had Rush's popularity. Plain and simple, don't watch, don't tell..
Where have all the mirrors gone?
March 9, 2009 - 20:04 ET by KC MulvilleCalling someone a "vat of vitriol" ... in the act of criticizing Rush for vitriol, what does Matthews think he's doing himself? IT'S LIKE CRITICIZING PEOPLE FOR USING CAPITAL LETTERS!!!!! Pretty soon he'll have a panel of himself, Olbermann, and Maddow to discuss the evils of echo chambers.
Chrissy needs to call Obama,
March 9, 2009 - 20:05 ET by Dan DiegoChrissy needs to call Obama, Barack Obama (cheesy Bond reference) and tell him to have Gibbels along with Rahm's Breakfast Club group grope cease their attacks if he wants Rush out of the news. Rush is loving it.
Get the stick Chris!
March 9, 2009 - 21:26 ET by katainkentFETCH!
Of all the things Rush maybe
March 9, 2009 - 21:35 ET by ApplyCSChrissy needs to be a little more self focus for a girl and not so self absorbed.
What a...
March 9, 2009 - 21:44 ET by P. Aaron...bitter, angry, spiteful little man. A baby crying out for attention. Whassa matter Chris? No love in the Matthews household?
Old Folks Homes across America in some 15-18 years are going to sound a lot like loony bins or day care centers when all of these boomers get wheeled in there.
Chis Matthews ain't no happy child.
Where is one liberal with guts?
March 9, 2009 - 21:51 ET by pbthinkerIsn't there one liberal that would have the guts to challenge Rush Limbaugh to a debate on the merits of the socialist agenda Obama has brought forth? Where is the super-partisan left-wing hack, Rahm Emanuel? No one wants to debate the issues, all they want to do is play war.
My theory is they don't want to debate, just like Al Gore doesn't want to debate, because they can't possibly justify what Obama is proposing. Every bill the Congress has sent out, since he was inaugurated has been a spending feast. Obama knows it, Pelosi Knows it, Emanuel knows it, Axelrod knows it, and Harry Reid knows it. They know it because that's the plan, never let a crisis go to waste, and they're not going to do it.
However, they know it's pretty slimy and they're afraid to debate because they aren't sure they can sell it, if the right questions are asked. They know the media isn't going to ask them however, they do know Limbaugh will, hence no debate.
Election 2008-God's way of showing us that elections count.
Libs just can't imagine anyone NOT following Obama
March 9, 2009 - 22:33 ET by jefflebowskiThey are so out of touch with the average American that it would fry their little commie minds. I'm sure Matthews rides home every night in his limo wondering why conservatives aren't just in love with Obama. If they're not, they must be racists! Yeah, that's it. Couldn't be his politics!
Angry White Dude
www.angrywhitedude.c...
matthews
March 10, 2009 - 05:48 ET by jsanderssrJames S
We're supposed to pay close attention and accord respect to a slug who falls into uncontrolled wanking at the sight of obama?
Oftentimes Rush changes Leftist minds
March 10, 2009 - 07:45 ET by ekslibRush isn't merely preaching to the choir.
The other day a caller said Rush opened her eyes when she was 80 years old.
Scores of callers have thanked him for helping them to clear their fogged-up liberal minds. Many of them have apologized for previously holding beliefs that are detrimental to Americans.
Rush Limbaugh helps American minds the way that windshield wipers help American drivers.
He helps us see the road and the dangerous obstacles in our way.
Liberal Hate Speech
March 10, 2009 - 09:04 ET by The Smokin FrogIs any liberal noticing that the liberals are the only ones vitriolic? It is ludicrous to believe these are the good caring people that they want us to believe they are. They are filled with hatred and, it seems, nothing else. They have only lies and hate. And the American electorate, last November, said, "Hey this sounds good."
Why are these haters so concerned about Rush? If he is what they say, he loses. But everyone voted for the socialists. Have these numbskulls noticed that they won?
The arguments these liberals make is stupid. If the Republicans were doing Conservatism they wouldn't have been voted out. Capitalism and Conservatism has been compromised severely in recent years. The 'worn out policies of the past', as Obama is always saying, are liberal policies that our Republicans went with. We can't give the argument to them. Our guys sold out.
But, "It can be rebuilt."
It's All Dirty Politics
Also, notice
March 10, 2009 - 10:50 ET by Paul Atreidesthat when they come to a conservative site the first thing out of their mouths is the word "hate." If you don't agree with them you are a "hater." They don't know any other word.
If Rush is selling anger as a weapon...
March 10, 2009 - 09:27 ET by SickofLibs...MSNBC is selling BS as a weapon.
Anger can be righteous, but BS never can.
Chrissie
March 10, 2009 - 09:33 ET by NorthCoasterYou are projecting your own persona on Rush. Cease and desist!
Which is understandable
March 10, 2009 - 10:20 ET by Paul Atreidessince he's usually projecting spit onto his guests.
page & Stengel
March 10, 2009 - 09:54 ET by east tennessee johnPage is a moron."Since Reagan We've bee taxing lower income people and giving higher income people breaks" How is this possible in a "progressive" tax system you idiot? For the last time, since they'll be repealed after next year, The Bush tax cut everyone's, even yours, Clarence , by 10%. It cut 5 million from the rolls. It increased child care credit fom$500to $1000.It also reduce base rate from 15 to 10% Those are the facts . Don't let your prejudices get in the way of them, jerk.
It's hard to get too worked up
March 10, 2009 - 10:05 ET by Paul Atreidesover a guy who has leg-tingles and sprays saliva on everyone when speaking.
Stupid Chrissy Matthews
March 10, 2009 - 16:12 ET by gap2008I will take Rush and his honesty any day over Chrissy Matthews and his something tingling down his leg. I think Chrissy Matthews has it backwards. I see Rush as an honest hero and Matthews as an OBAMA villian.