Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh wrote an op-ed in Thursday's Wall Street Journal wherein he offered a bipartisan stimulus plan to get the economy going.
As not one Republican voted for President Obama's economic package in the House Wednesday despite his campaign promises to usher in a new era of bipartisanship, given the media's focus on Limbaugh of late one would expect his now-published plan to get oodles of press attention.
Will it, and if it does will Obama-loving media members seriously consider the details or quickly dismiss it because of its origin?
As you ponder, here are some of Limbaugh's suggestions:
Does this have a chance of getting serious coverage from the Obama-loving media?Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.
Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people's wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth. I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate -- at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations -- in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow.
P.S. The good folks at CNBC must be intrigued, for Limbaugh is about to be interviewed at 10:50 AM EST. Stay tuned.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Two thoughts
January 29, 2009 - 11:02 ET by KC MulvilleMuch as I enjoy listening to Rush, two thoughts come to mind.
The big questions is: Will Obama mention Rush's proposal at all? If he does, that means that the messiah president is worried about a lovable fuzzball ...
Obama would dismiss the
January 29, 2009 - 11:07 ET by fitzfongObama would dismiss the proposal on the grounds that he won
Then why have he and his minions been seeking "bipartisan" support? If it's such a great bill, why not employ that boast that he won and ram the bill through without Republican support?
"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
Good point abd Rush did
January 29, 2009 - 11:10 ET by red_dragon311Good point abd Rush did address this, he wants Rep's to take the fall when it fails. If no Reps voted for it (and according to Rush, 10 dem's voted with the Reps ) then only Dems can be blamed when it fails
FINALY A REAL CANDIATE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!
http://zod2008.com/index.htm
then only Dems can be blamed when it fails
January 29, 2009 - 11:38 ET by KC MulvilleHey. red_dragon ... not to be too cynical, but in six months, no one in the media will remember who voted for what. They'll have moved onto the next smear against conservatives.
That's the political problem here. It's the domestic economic version of an unconventional war - there won't be a final whistle when we separate the winners from the losers. Look at Iraq. The surge has now succeeded, spectacularly, but no one's paying attention because there's no ninth inning final out. It just sort of keeps going, with no "final" score. In the same way, no matter what effect the stimulus has, the media will have no final whistle by which to judge whether it was a success or failure. They won't have any "event" to report, and there won't be any pictures or soundbytes, so it'll just pass by, unnoticed.
The GOP won't get any credit, and the Dems won't get any blame. The media will just glide over the facts as they always do, and declare the Dems the winner, because ... you know ... they're the good guys, right?
The Republicans unanimously
January 29, 2009 - 12:02 ET by fitzfongThe Republicans unanimously stood in opposition in Clinton's first term...and despite the overwhelmingly biased media coverage, the Republicans were able to parlay their opposition into victory in 1994. It's about time the Republicans took the media coverage for granted and stood on principle. At that point, they may actually recoup some of the losses that they endured while giving a rat's a** what the media thought.
"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 really hope you're right
January 29, 2009 - 12:29 ET by KC MulvilleWhat would make me truly happy is if they did it because they thought it was the right thing to do, whether they get a political payoff from it or not.
That would be a genuine Profile in Courage.
Now that Republicans are in
January 29, 2009 - 12:39 ET by fitzfongNow that Republicans are in the vast minority in the Senate, it's the Democrat incumbents who are going to have to defend the majority of seats in upcoming elections. This means that if the Republicans hold firm against this Congress and Administration on important issues like this bill, they will generate a lot of grass roots support and pick up seats (especially if this bill turns out to be the disaster that so many predict). At that point, it's better to have been an "I told you so" Republican than a "me, too" Republican. Congressional Democrats are going to be a lot more vulnerable to principled Republicans than they are to wavering, "cross the aisle" Republicans in 2010.
"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
fitz
January 29, 2009 - 11:14 ET by larry on LIi like your new tag line
I just watched Rush on CNBC
January 29, 2009 - 11:04 ET by red_dragon311I just watched Rush on CNBC ( thanks for the heads up Noel I caught your PS at 9:49 cst)
I love it and somthing that made me sick was the women was going on and on about hw Does Rush support Milhaus because he is OUR President. I loved his answer I support him but not his policies. and they LAUGHED at him!!!
How long have we heard "I support the troop but not the war" and that was really deep.
well i love the Obama-Limbaugh stimulus package
FINALY A REAL CANDIATE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!
http://zod2008.com/index.htm
His bi-partisan plan, if
January 29, 2009 - 11:05 ET by wyogatorHis bi-partisan plan, if covered or mentioned at all, will be dismissed as PARTISAN bickering...
Learn about my daughter's Ugandan home for orphans with AIDS at
www.africaourownhome.org
LIMBAUGH vs OBAMA (Round 1)
January 29, 2009 - 11:09 ET by gopcongressRound One: Rush vs Barack
I will be following the contest throughout the administration on how many members of congress cross over party lines on votes for major bills. In addition, these are only bills that have a distinct democratic/socialist bias which would indicate a clear cut separation from conservative causes.
Recent House Vote on Economic Stimulus (Wealth Transfer)
Rush Limbaugh: Got 10 democrats to vote for him.
Barack Obama: Got ZERO republicans to vote for him.
ROUND ONE: Rush 10, Barack 0.
So far, a shutout.
How bout you give every
January 29, 2009 - 11:12 ET by TexasteacherHow bout you give every taxpayer that is an American citizen over 18 a nice large check and say "go pay off some bills". That sounds a hell of a lot better than spending it on contraceptives or new gubment cars. And it'll stimulate the economy faster than his plan of spending it a little now and more in 3 years.
obama's notion of bi-partisanship is telling conservatives to shut up and do what he wants.
Forget bills, give it to
January 29, 2009 - 11:15 ET by red_dragon311Forget bills, give it to homeowners to pay off mortages, killing 2 birds with one stone, you pay off your home housing crunch solved...no more forclosers, and it puts money in to the banks who are giving the loans...which is what they want in the first place.
FINALY A REAL CANDIATE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!
http://zod2008.com/index.htm
That's exactly what I'm
January 29, 2009 - 11:30 ET by TexasteacherThat's exactly what I'm talking about. But, alas, that would actually make sense. Nope, we want hope and change! We gotta pay for abortions worldwide! That's how we'll get out of this mess!
obama's notion of bi-partisanship is telling conservatives to shut up and do what he wants.
$2750 per citizen. $11,000,
January 29, 2009 - 11:32 ET by Red Jeep$2750 per citizen. $11,000, family of 4.
Why not both
January 29, 2009 - 11:39 ET by KateinCOMortgages, bills...I know the price tag to get Americans completely out of debt would be way less than this porker stimulus. Along with that take the tax/regulation government boot off of the neck of business. I don't know a lot about economics, but I think that would get the economy humming very quickly, and cost a lot less then what Obama & the dems are selling.
rush vs. sgt. schultz
January 29, 2009 - 11:49 ET by east tennessee johnWell the MSM is going to say same old conservative position tax cuts,which is nothing more than rewarmed Bush policy. Attatching it to Bush automatically negates its consideration as an idea. Then they'll bring out every pro Sgt. Schultz economist they can find, Krugman for example, laud his Nobel Prize and say this is only for the rich since to cut taxes you have to be paying some to begin with; if all else fails, they'll call it racist and move on.
There's one problem with that.....
January 29, 2009 - 11:50 ET by NavyBuckeyeif Congress and Obama just give money back to the American Taxpayer(us) then:
1. They lose control and power over us.
2. They can't manipulate words and sentence structure to give the money back to the people who got them elected. I mean tax exemptions go along way when you get them for your donors...hmm, hmmm Owl Gore.
3. They can't redistribute the money to those who don't pay taxes. The illegals and welfare hounds need thier extra free money. I mean they are the ones who will spend it on drugs, beer, alcohol, and all the while skipping over the free contraceptives. This way they can make more burdens on society.
“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter” - Thomas Jefferson
in answer to # 3 thats
January 29, 2009 - 15:11 ET by red_dragon311in answer to # 3
thats why you give it to homeowners, who pay property taxes, and have a stake in what goes on, and you make a stipulation that the money HAS to go to pay down you home loan. and it has to go to pay the home you occupy ...you need to have lived in this home for ...say 2 years is it unfiar ...no ...only homeowners know the total mess and hassle it is to buy a house
this is where The Obama-Limbaugh stimulus would work wonders
i am just dreaming here, but thats one thing i can still call my own
FINALY A REAL CANDIATE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!
http://zod2008.com/index.htm
Let's Just Try It in One State
January 29, 2009 - 12:22 ET by CaringwhiteguyHow about we just give the big tax cut (corporate, fica, and individual income) to the residents of one state? No other "handouts" to the governor for whatever pet projects. Let's see how the economy of that single state does, how the unemployment rate changes, how state tax receipts are affected, how businesses want to move there.
I'm tempted to say "give it to Alaska", but they'd never give Gov. Palin any help. For that matter no state with a Republican governor would be considered (except maybe Arnold Schwarzerino). So what? Give the tax cut to any Democrat state, and see what happens.
Given that Rush is neither
January 29, 2009 - 11:52 ET by JasonCGiven that Rush is neither a legislator nor an economics expert, I don't see why the media, mainstream or otherwise, should care any more about this than they do the typical letter-to-the-editor.
Using Jason C's "analysis"
January 29, 2009 - 11:56 ET by east tennessee johnUsing Jason C's "analysis" and given Sgt. Schultz's attendance , voting and educational record, Obama is neither an economics expert or legis;lator
Nope. But he was elected,
January 29, 2009 - 12:02 ET by JasonCNope. But he was elected, by an overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens, to make such decisions on our behalf.
Rush is free to write all the op/eds he wants. Dittoheads are free to fervently wish he was the president. But why should the media bestow attention on a person who, despite his popularity, has no credible background in the subject?
Obama is the one who made
January 29, 2009 - 12:08 ET by ScarletObama is the one who made Rush an issue when he told the GOP to stop listening to him.
But if he was elected by
January 29, 2009 - 12:16 ET by fitzfongBut if he was elected by such an overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens to make such decisions on our behalf, why doesn't he, with the help of his straight party-line Congress, make those decisions and be done with it? Why do he and the media require protection on the flanks from turncoat Republicans? If Rush Limbaugh doesn't pose a threat to passage of this "stimulus package", why have Obama and the media made him such an issue? If they had the courage of their convictions and believed that this thing would actually work, it seems to me that they would pass it without Republican involvement. Rush Limbaugh can't stand in their way...why the resistance to use the leverage they so clearly have?
"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
But he was elected, by an
January 29, 2009 - 12:18 ET by HelenSBut he was elected, by an overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens, to make such decisions on our behalf.
As was Bush. So where were the press in their fawning defense of the president then? The hypocracy of that is just plain nauseating and cries out about their collective 1-digit IQ.
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
Nope. But he was
January 29, 2009 - 12:27 ET by Jack Bauer52.7% of the vote is a majority. Clearly it's not an "overwhelming majority."
Even Reagan's 1984 59% vote isn't OVERWHELMING and he had a 20% spread.
90%/10% would seem to be more in the ballpark of overwhelming.
Interestingly enough, that is the overwhelming number of Democrats to Republicans with jobs in the NEWS MEDIA.
Jason C
January 29, 2009 - 12:25 ET by ahusserWhy the rush to pass this bill?
I didn't see much Bi-partisan discussion or any public discussion for that matter to what this stimulus package was going to accomplish. I haven't seen much from either side of the aisle try to find out exactly what is wrong and what it really is going to take to help the economy. If this economy has the flu I don't have much confidence in the Government's ability to even discern poison from a vaccine when it comes to curing the illness and IMO most Governmental action makes the problem worse or is the problem to begin with.
To me Rush is as qualified as much as any congress critter to make suggestions and reccomendations, Rush's doesn't cost anything either and we at least will start thinking about what it is going to take. From the bloggers here helping American families either through direct contributions (corporations call it declaring as special dividend) or tax cuts is what they need to help pay their bills.
This rushed legislation has been a Dem boondoggle from the git go. It seems to be either a reward for toeing the Dem line, or just throwing money at something so the Dems can be seen as "doing something" about the economy.
Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster
"But why should the media
January 29, 2009 - 13:52 ET by Texasteacher"But why should the media bestow attention on a person who, despite his popularity, has no credible background in the subject?"
You know, I'm wondering the SAME DAMN THING about your little petulant savior obama.
obama's notion of bi-partisanship is telling conservatives to shut up and do what he wants.
"Nope. But he was
January 29, 2009 - 14:31 ET by ckc1227"Nope. But he was elected, by an overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens, to make such decisions on our behalf. "
Since part of his message during the campaign was to label Bush as an incompetent failure for spending too much money, I'm sure they didn't elect him to increase spending by an additional trillion dollars his first 2 weeks in office.
Sure, he won, but I gurantee you the overwhelming majority did not elect him to do things that will ruin this country.
By the way, when did Obama get his economics degree, or any other degree that makes him an expert on the economy?
"Libs never let you down. You don't have to talk to one very long before the stupid comes out."
I agree. 53-47 percent is
January 29, 2009 - 14:37 ET by celatorI agree. 53-47 percent is not even close to an overwhelming majority. And when you factor in the 1-2 million (my guesstimate) fictional voters ACORN invented for Obama, it was much closer.
For liberal Democrats and the Old Media, everything is crisis, chaos, calamity and catastrophe. That justifies stealing your property and liberties.
Oh you have a
January 29, 2009 - 19:47 ET by JasonCOh you have a guesstimate?! La-dee-da. Based on what, pray tell? Oh, let me guess, something Rush said?
To everyone here, some of you make good points, but few of them address my fundamental point. The MSM/Obama have highlighted Rush in the past week regarding his remarks - which were, by his own admission, calculated to garner media attention - about hoping Obama fails. Rush's own economic plan may have some appeal or curiosity value to his listeners, but there is not reason why the MSM would or should pay it any mind.
JasonC - bum.bum.bum ---- MATHMASTER!
July 9, 2009 - 06:15 ET by JWFBut he was elected, by an overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens...
He got 69 Million votes. 53% of the vote*.
JasonC new math everybody! 53% is now OVER-FRIGGIN-WHELMING! BOOM! TAKE THAT! BAM! He got 3% over FRIGGIN HALF/HALF! 50% + 3% OVER-FRIGGIN-WHELMING! SNAP!
Now, come on guys, I know, I am not being fair. He did say CITIZENS, not voters. The population of the U.S is 305 million, and 69 million of that or 22% is INDEED considered OVER-FRIGGIN-WHELMING according to JasonC's new math people!
OK. OK. OK. Maybe he mispoke. Maybe he meant to say this...
But he was elected, by an overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens that were ill-informed, stupid, or card carrying socialists...
Now that statement is factually true. 65 million of the 69 million democrat voters are ill-informed, stupid, or card carrying socialists. The other 4 million are dead, homeless multiple voters, or completely fictitious. THANKS ACORN!
JasonC - opposer of war (boy scout honor badge - war opposer (13 Dec 2003***)) & now mathmaster!
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
* http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/
** http://www.census.gov/
*** coincidentally the same day Saddam was captured.
****UPDATE*****
JasonC now has the official nickname of binky braveheart. binky braveheart the war opposing mathmaster rarely responds to my posts.
You're right, Jason. But
January 29, 2009 - 12:24 ET by fitzfongYou're right, Jason. But the media do care. That suggests to me that the press is unsure that it will work, that it needs to give the President and Congressional Democrats cover in case it fails and that it looks at Limbaugh as an obstacle to attaching Republicans to this bill. If Obama and Congressional Democrats are so proud of this bill and so certain that it will work, they should be happy to take full credit for it. Why aren't they?
"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
Rush
January 29, 2009 - 12:25 ET by GothampcBecause Rush is eeeeeeeevvvvviiiiiilllllllll!!!!!!
Dupe
January 29, 2009 - 12:27 ET by GothampcDuplicate
The president is creating Rush
January 29, 2009 - 12:30 ET by StarAZBy throwing down on Rush, the president created this counter force. That and thinking "We won and that trumps you" is a bipartisan catchphrase. Also, plenty of people agree with the Republicans that the bill is a dusty old holdover from the Dem trunk that they thought a popular president could push through as a stimulus. How about one that actually creates and saves jobs and creates a somewhat better safety net in light of what the govt allowed to happen to this economy and people's lives, livelihoods, and futures? I don't know what Rush wrote--but my WSJ is here and I will read it. Plenty of people (check out the NYT threads) are not guzzling the hopeychangey on this bill.
Liberal Equine Excreta
January 29, 2009 - 13:36 ET by slickwillie2001Note the spin from the lefties. Obammy won by only 2% more than President Bush in 2004, and by FAR less than President Reagan or even President GHW Bush in 1988, but his slim victory is being morphed in to a massive landslide that has given him a mandate for change. It's all liberal BS.
When a Republican wins, it is because 'the voters threw a tantrum', and Republicans therefore have to 'move to the middle' and 'find consensus in our deeply divided nation'.
Ugh the stupidity....
January 29, 2009 - 17:34 ET by StumpieI just hate stupidity and blatant stupidity is worse. These 'people' as we shall call them, don't give a crap what Rush has to say...they want to make him look silly, stupid and meaningless.
All that is attempting to be done is to discredit one of the most powerful forces in the conservative movement. If you can do that, there will be a large crack in the conservative foundation and the rest will be scared, if that is the correct term.
Whether you want to admit it or not, Rush has a monster audience of conservatives, this is a rallying point. If you want to be a soft, mushy conservative, do us a favor and be a liberal. As for me, I'm conservative:
Small government, low taxes and hella less regulations. We are slaves in our own country and will always be unless we unite and fight together...figuratively speaking.
Limbaugh is an entertainer
January 29, 2009 - 23:38 ET by nwahsLimbaugh's goal is to draw and hold the largest audience possible. Those are *his* words. Why in the hell should I give ANY credence to his op-ed?
Who asked you to?
January 30, 2009 - 08:59 ET by fitzfongWho asked you to? Ignorance is bliss, after all.
"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
Nobody is asking you to
January 30, 2009 - 09:05 ET by general companyWhy in the hell should I give ANY credence to his op-ed?
Why give credence to any of them? Why not write your own? Why should I give you any credence to your comment? BTW name one other person other then Chissy Mat or Oberdude who doesnt try to increase their audience?
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Should they?
January 30, 2009 - 00:04 ET by nwahsThe question should be "Should they cover Limbaughs meaderings?"
They shouldn't cover his
January 30, 2009 - 09:05 ET by fitzfongThey shouldn't cover his "meanderings" (where he travels, who he's dating, the usual old garbage about oxycontin)...but that's all they're interested in. In this case, he's presenting a very solid, very interesting challenge to the Administration. He has a very good plan to solve the economic crisis, but the cowards out there won't address it on its merits...rather they ignorantly reduce it to "attacking the President" or "meanderings".
"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
MSM not 'covering' anything
February 3, 2009 - 08:11 ET by Sergeant ROCKBut rather they're engaging in propaganda, They're making a concerted effort to discredit Rush. Remember that Simpson's episode where they did a sloppy edit of Homer's interview about the sexual harrassment suit brought on by the babysitter? "... sweet,... can... @ss.. " That's what we're seeing today - selective editing.
Anyway, I'd bet that Rush's ratings surpass any of those outlets supposedly wrestling over whether or not to 'cover' Rush.
Bolton/KEYES 2012
Because
January 30, 2009 - 09:07 ET by general companyIt is better then following yours
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Not really, dunderhead
February 3, 2009 - 08:02 ET by Sergeant ROCKYou act like Rush is some obscure DJ in Dirtwater, U.S.A. that no one has ever heard of. As though he needs publicity? lol Give me a break already, What's your problem anyway? Why are you obsessed with Rush? Your constant b:tching is the reason I ask.
Bolton/KEYES 2012