Susan Estrich is worried. Very worried. She believes that the current coordinated Democrat strategy of attacking Rush Limbaugh is completely counterproductive. And she's right:
He talks for hours every day. He gets paid to talk. Just talk. Doing it well is no small thing; witness the number of people who have tried to be him, or be the NOT-him, and failed. But he doesn't have to build a coalition. He doesn't need the votes of the other side to earn his check. He doesn't have to write the legislation, convince Olympia Snowe, raise money to keep the lights on, put his name on the ballot. All the things he doesn't have to do give him the freedom to be as effective as he is at what he does.
Trying to beat him at his own game when your own game is played by a different set of rules is a losing proposition. He knows that.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓The Republican Party's chairman and even some of my Democratic friends need to remember that.
When I first started doing talk radio, I listened to Rush Limbaugh in the morning to figure out how to do it. I don't mean, obviously, that I studied Rush to figure out my positions on issues; I've been doing issues my whole life. I studied him to figure out how to do radio — how to talk about issues in a way that engages people, creates a community of the audience, makes them want to hear more, connect, join the club. Rush is wrong on almost everything, by my lights, but the lessons I took from him weren't about substance, but about craft. By my lights, no one is better at it.
To dismiss Rush as mere "entertainment," as Michael Steele, the Republican Party's chairman, did this weekend, understates his abilities and influence. To a very large extent, all of us who do television news or politics are in the business of entertainment. President Barack Obama's speech craft is a form of entertainment. Fox News (for whom I work) has mastered a sort of lively and engaging approach to delivering news that, regardless of the content or what you think of the perspective, is quite simply more fun to watch than many of its competitors. The best and most successful news-oriented Web sites are also, frankly, creative and engaging and, yes, entertaining.
Susan Estrich must be thinking of NewsBusters here. :-)
But he is not the leader of the Republican Party. He may be the guru; he is certainly a powerful voice. But his job is not to write the opposing bill, to decide when to compromise and when not to, to participate in the process of making the sausage. He doesn't need to reach out to the middle, the way politicians do. Calling him "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party," as Rahm Emanuel did, only gets him more attention and more power, and it makes it more difficult, not less, for the Republicans, whose votes the president ultimately needs, to defy his naysaying.
...But the fact that Steele felt the need to apologize to Rush attests to the fact that it was a mistake to attack him in the first place. The attention Rush is getting right now from the White House chief of staff and the chairman of the Republican Party will increase Rush's ratings, but it is far from clear to me that it will make it any easier for Republicans to cross the line and vote with the president. Harder, I would think. Rush wins this game, which is why those who play on a different field should stay away from his.
Echoing Estrich's views is Peter Daou, a Democrat political strategist who worked on the campaigns of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Daou posted his worries about the attack Rush strategy on his Huffington Post blog nervously titled, "Why on Earth Are Democrats Legitimizing and Empowering Rush Limbaugh?"
I don't buy into this 'brilliant' strategy of elevating Rush Limbaugh in the hopes that it will tarnish Republicans.
...There's precious little benefit in making Limbaugh more of a central player, in engaging him directly from the White House podium, in raising his stature, in stamping, sealing and approving the years he's spent bashing his political opponents. There was a moment, a brief moment, after Barack Obama was elected president, a moment long gone, where the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity could have become marginalized, bit players rather than media movers and shakers, the detritus of a sorry era. But instead, they have been granted more power -- out of some contrived political calculus. This, at a time when we don't need political calculus, we need single-minded determination to get us out of this economic calamity and to restore sanity to our government.
...Empowering Limbaugh in the hopes of a bank-shot against Republicans will yield the opposite result: Limbaugh will become more powerful, Republicans will relish his increased influence and allow him to do their dirty work.
...The idea that making him more powerful in the hopes that it somehow illustrates the weakness of GOP ideas is too Rube Golbergy for me.
Note to George Stephanopoulos: Please ignore all the above advice and continue to recite the attack Rush talking points on your Sunday show dictated to you at your morning conference calls with Rahm, James, and Paul.
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
First off, I am so greatful
March 4, 2009 - 11:11 ET by HelenSFirst off, I am so greatful that I have NO idea who this idiot skank is.
Second, what on earth is she doing on Fox? But, since I don't have cable and can't watch Fox news, it must be that I misunderstood when I thought they were more conservative trending than the hives-inducing MSM. My bad.
So, Rush is wrong about everything, news should be fun (and perky and breathless and...?), and this cow speaks for broadcast media AND the dem/libs?
Pretty much exhausts the imagination, don't it?
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."
Susan
March 4, 2009 - 11:28 ET by Gothampc"First off, I am so greatful that I have NO idea who this idiot skank is"
You don't know Susan Estrich? You are really missing out on something. She has the most annoying voice on the public airwaves today. It is literally like nails on a chalkboard. She makes Barney Frank's speech patterns sound like Shakespeare.
Fox employs people like Estrich to show how really horrible liberals are. When you look at Fox's liberals, they are all losers: Estrich, Alan Colmes, Geraldo, Bob "Fathead" Beckel, the oily white haired guy that always laughs because he can't think of anything intelligent to say
Estrich also tried to write a book that smacked down Ann Coulter and came away looking foolish.
But as liberal talking
March 4, 2009 - 11:39 ET by ApacheBut as liberal talking heads go, she is a likable personality. She has a humility to her that liberals often lack.
Susan
March 4, 2009 - 11:42 ET by GothampcIs this the humility you're talking about?
http://www.amazon.com/Soulless-Coulter-Right-Wing-Church-Hate/dp/B000QW7QCM/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236184548&sr=1-3
Ha, yes that's the one. No
March 4, 2009 - 11:48 ET by ApacheHa, yes that's the one. No I don't follow her close enough to even know she wrote a book. Just on Fox news its fun to watch her spin when you know she knows she stepped in it.
You are quite right,
March 4, 2009 - 11:47 ET by KarmaYou are quite right, Apache. It took several attempts, but she is one extreme liberal that I actually enjoy listening to now. Heck, I even like the sound of her voice now. Strange but true.
Healthcare...Food...Education...Housing... - What sprouted as free for some is maturing into a free-for-all.
i agree
March 4, 2009 - 11:49 ET by puredmashietoo bad for the libs that she won't be heeded. what am i saying? she was on fox news. they don't even know she said what she said.
begala, carville and emanuel will believe their push poll numbers because they want to believe them. when the economy doesn't turn around (and it won't), who do you think the public will blame?
swing hard in case you hit it.
Helen
March 4, 2009 - 11:34 ET by NorthCoasterSlow down, take a breath.............better now?
Susan Esterich is a Democrat strategist who has been on Fox to balance the more conservative voices on panels. One of the great things about Fox is that they are truly fair and balanced in their news reporting. An even greater attribute is that they have pundits from the Left like Susan Esterich, Juan Williams and Mara Liason on, so that discussions about issues are fully represented from the Left and the Right. Most Fox commentators are moderate right conservatives or libertarians but they do a fine job of gettingsomeone like Susan to participate in a real discussion of issues.
Occasionally Susan has an opinion that I agree with.
The voice
March 4, 2009 - 11:34 ET by doug1950She teaches something out in CA, I think Political Science or law but has been involved in politics for years.
She sounds like one of the old foosies from Mt. Pilot on the Old Andy Griffith show with Deputy Barney Fife. She was always sweet on Andy and would say "Hey, Doll" in a very raspy whiskey voice. Kind of like Brenda Vacaro but with more gravel and nasal resonance.
Such a turn on!
March 4, 2009 - 11:43 ET by mizflame98Here's Susan and her sexy voice. She needs to lay off the non-filtered smokes and the gin.
"Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." - Francois Guisot
She's a damn man with a sex change!!
March 4, 2009 - 14:45 ET by Lord ErondAnyone remember the girls coach from Scary Movie?
"What you can not enforce, do not command" -Sophocles-
Let me give you an example of her liberal compassion:
March 4, 2009 - 12:38 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltYears ago when Slick Willy's daliances were still fodder for the media, she was on some Fox News show as one of the two talking heads in the segment, and the subject was Bill Clinton (because she can always be counted on to defend BC). At the end of the segment, comments were made about his wandering appendage, and how most of the stories (Jennifer Flowers, Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Willey and at least half a dozen others) were not proven, and therefore meaningless and a distraction that should be ignored. Paula Jones was mentioned as having been the case that got his law license suspended.
In a parting shot, Ms. Estrich was laughing it up about Paula and said that at least Bill could have had better taste. Ha. Ha.
And yes, she does have the most irritating voice in broadcast media. Imagine Fran Drescher after about thirty years of cigarette smoking.
I've always thought she was
March 4, 2009 - 13:59 ET by HypocriteHaterI've always thought she was a Carol Channing sound-a-like.
Thanks P.J.
March 4, 2009 - 11:11 ET by legacyrepublicanYes, Rush does play on a different field. The field of ideas is his battlefield and he is a master at the game.
Sometimes, those who are against us do give us an insight we ought to wake up to.
Thank you for sharing this.
Estrich
March 4, 2009 - 11:30 ET by cvgbuckeyeSusan Estrich gets it. Philosophically, I could not agree with anyone less but she has always been civil about it. She is a throwback to the times when the 2 parties could agree to disagree, with some respect.
I hope that they don't take her advice. If you haven't noticed, lefties greatest fear is the influence of talk radio. Its the old story that for Marxism to suceed, you must put your foot on the neck of the truth and the truth tellers. Huge weakness for the lefties.
The lefties other weakness is their crudeness. Any criticism immediately riles their tempers and they have to gain revenge.
Example is when Carville and Begala repeat over and over again ON NATIONAL TELEVISION that "The leader of the Republican Party is a FAT DRUG ADDICT"!!! How nice. And these are the guys that conference call with THE PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES every morning; THE LEADER of the free world; God's man and defender of freedom throughout the world; the defender of The Constitution, The Commander-in Chief.
HOW DIGNIFIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cvgb - ha ha ha dignified & Carville in same post! hahaha ;-)
March 4, 2009 - 18:25 ET by Cape ConservativeIt is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. ~ Sam Adams
Diversion
March 4, 2009 - 11:16 ET by KC MulvilleLimbaugh is a diversion. It's a ham-handed effort from the ex-Clinton Gang to divert attention away from any analysis of their program. Theirs is a pure ad hominem attack; skipping over the details and attacking the person.
How to respond? It depends on your convictions. If you believe that truth will out, then keep pursuing the truth, as honestly as you can, despite these cowards. If you believe human beings fall for this nonsense, then try to play the media game against the media. Good luck with that.
The best thing about trying to tell the truth is that you don't have to calculate anything.
Of course it's a diversion
March 4, 2009 - 11:41 ET by BlondeAnd Rush knows it.
I'm really surprised Team Obama is being so blatant about it though. Even the dumbest liberal has got realize how chilling it is for the President's COS to openly be in bed with numerous media members and to BRAG about their daily phone calls.
I'm truly stunned at the blatant arrogance of it all...I am sitting here shaking my head as I reread my penultimate sentence.
I hope he fails, too.
This is Sol Alinsky strategy.......
March 4, 2009 - 12:49 ET by BEGRUNT"find a target, demonize it, isolate it, destroy it". The thing the gang that cant shoot straight dont get, is their playbook wont work on Rush.
"Blago got in touch with his inner dirt bag"
Dennis Miller
They don't care
March 4, 2009 - 12:55 ET by KC MulvilleThe media has Obama's back.
I think this is going to be
March 4, 2009 - 11:20 ET by nwahsI think this is going to be like something thats never played out before.
Rush in his email to politico states :
“They are expanding my profile, expanding my audience and expanding my
influence. An ever larger number of people are now being exposed to the
antidote to Obamaism: conservatism, as articulated by me. An ever
larger number of people are now exposed to substantive warnings,
analysis and criticism of Obama's policies and intentions, a ‘story’ I
own because the [mainstream media] is largely the Obama Press Office.”
I mean Rush is not worried.
And Carville states :
"The bigger, the better, agreed Carville. “It’s great for us, great for
him, great for the press,” he said of Limbaugh. “The only people he’s
not good for are the actual Republicans in Congress.”
He honestly doesn't seem worried.
This is where the rubber meets the road . I don't think either are going to back off. Its going to play out. At the end of this there will be no doubt how many people Rush's message resonates with.
Pass the popcorn.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
Rush
March 4, 2009 - 11:22 ET by GothampcSusan, remember when Democrats got a smack down because they sent Rush hate mail which he then turned into a $2.1 million charity donation? If the Dems wouldn't listen then, what makes you think they will listen now? Save your breath for old age.
Save your breath for old age?
March 4, 2009 - 11:26 ET by CaringwhiteguyHasn't she used most of hers up already? Little Susie Gravel-voice is no spring chicken.
Susie
March 4, 2009 - 11:32 ET by GothampcI had thought so too, but apparently she is like Helen Thomas and sucks the breath out of innocent bystanders.
Personally, whenever I hear Susan speak, she emits noxious fumes which make me dizzy.
→ Estrich
March 4, 2009 - 11:30 ET by Cool ArrowShe makes a heck of a lot more sense in print than on TV. (maybe because her voice grates so severely on the nerves)
She's exactly right here.
As I pointed out in the poll asking who's the Republican leader, Steele leads the Republicans while Rush leads the Conservative movement.
Republican and Conservative are not interchangeable terms.
We won the cold war! Why did we surrender?
Not that it matters
March 4, 2009 - 11:33 ET by nwahsOf course its a matter of opinion, but I like her voice. Its a little unusual but cute and down to earth.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
→ nwahs
March 4, 2009 - 13:13 ET by Cool ArrowShe sounds like Richard Simmons.
Is that why you think her voice is cute?
We won the cold war! Why did we surrender?
Oh you're insinuating I'm gay
March 4, 2009 - 13:51 ET by nwahsHow cute you are. I guess you'd debate Obama one on one if he'd agree to do it in your bedroom ( and not sit on your bed) and take your minivan to the debating spot.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
→ No nwahs
March 4, 2009 - 13:55 ET by Cool ArrowBut since that's the conclusion you jumped to, and since you entertain images of Obama in mens' bedrooms, I think you're insinuating your own proclivities very well without any help from me.
We won the cold war! Why did we surrender?
Yes, right
March 4, 2009 - 14:01 ET by nwahspffft - right.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
→ Wow
March 4, 2009 - 14:09 ET by Cool ArrowThat was a quick agreement.
We won the cold war! Why did we surrender?
From the politico article
March 4, 2009 - 11:39 ET by nwahsFrom the politico article, it seems the idea is to obfuscate any nuances having to do with Rush ( and lord knows , he nuances everything).They're going to loop him like Jeremiah Wright. How many people ( not Rush fans and young voters)do you think are going sit long enough to be schooled in the difference between the GOP and conservatism?
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
She sounds like she either
March 4, 2009 - 11:47 ET by marpelShe sounds like she either smokes or drinks too much, but for all the crazy lefty loons out there, I've always thought she was fairly reasonable. She comes up with some crazy stuff sometimes, but this time, she's on the mark.
I agree, she sounds better in print than in person...yikes.
A whiskey tenor
March 4, 2009 - 13:54 ET by nwahsA little like a whiskey tenor, but not as deep. I think its cute. Cool arrow thinks I'm homosexual because I do :)
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
→ Did I say that?
March 4, 2009 - 14:00 ET by Cool ArrowYou're the one who fantasizes about Obama visiting men in their bedroom.
If you've chosen to be gay, it's not likely to affect me much.
We won the cold war! Why did we surrender?
Let me explain that to you
March 4, 2009 - 14:10 ET by nwahsThat was a take off of Rush's "challenge " to Obama to take his jet and his SUV's to his radio station and debate him. When someone called in and asked Rush "Would you debate a prominate democrat on a prime time live debate?" Guess what the answer was?
He didn't refuse because he doesn't know how to debate, its because he doesn't want to make the networks any profits.
Yup. I used to know a great guitar player who'd never pick up a guitar. The only way he would show anyone how good he was , was if the Beatles came to jam in his garage.
That was behind the crack about Obama taking a minivan to your bedroom.
I have to remember, I drive too fast for some people.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
→ Sorry nwahs
March 4, 2009 - 14:12 ET by Cool ArrowI don't see anything in that post that would prompt a rational thinking man to fantasize about Obama visiting another man's bedroom.
I'll admit I'm not wired to think that way, so it isn't surprising I don't get what you see as a natural correlation.
We won the cold war! Why did we surrender?
Let me get out the chalk because
March 4, 2009 - 14:19 ET by nwahsI see you need a diagram. I'm a patient man. Your bedroom implies an adolescents safe spot, their domain. Rush sounded like a child when he offered up his challenge. "I'll debate you but you have to come to my house." You sounded like a child when you tried to insult me by insinuating I'm homosexual.
But I'm guessing this is ( man I almost said "greek to you") over your head.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
→ Now I get it
March 4, 2009 - 14:29 ET by Cool ArrowIn your world, a house is the same as a bedroom.
Sorry, I don't make the same equation. BTW, was that "greek" comment something you just pulled out of your . . .?
We won the cold war! Why did we surrender?
The Obsessive Devotion continues
March 4, 2009 - 15:56 ET by UnsaneHe didn't refuse because he doesn't know how to debate, Oh, obsessively devoted Leftist one, but he DOES.
If not, please explain his repeated visits to Meet the Depressed when the late Tim Russert was moderator.
You simply need to come clean, admit you are a Leftist, and admit that at the end of the day, you are DEMANDING Rush SHUT UP because you fear and hate him. What other explanation is there for you to constantly, endlessly post about how much you can't stand Rush (and how he is allegedly harming conservatism) the past 24-48 hours?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I would love to
March 4, 2009 - 16:21 ET by nwahsIf I could find anything on what the show was about and what, if anything, was debated. So far, I've managed to find a picture of him and Newt during a break. Got a link to a transcript or synopsis? I sure don't remember it.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
More of the OBSESSIVE DEVOTION
March 4, 2009 - 16:25 ET by UnsaneOne date I KNOW for a fact he made an appearance, and seeing how much your OBSESSIVE DEVOTION has taken over your life, this might occupy some of your time.
March 1996.
Not to mention repeated appearances on Russert's old CNBC program.
My, how deeply his very existence unnerves Leftists such as yourself. (I guess it is much easier to attack one guy on the radio than it is to stick up for His Majesty The Shahinshah these days.)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You need to give a quote
March 4, 2009 - 16:29 ET by nwahs"you are DEMANDING Rush SHUT UP because you fear and hate him."
Would you please point to a message or quote where I am demanding or even implying Rush should shut up? My wish is simple. The GOP divorces him. I actually like some of his humor. I don't want the GOP sanctioning it .
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
You need to stop being a coward and proclaim your Leftism
March 4, 2009 - 18:32 ET by UnsaneThe GOP divorces him. I don't want the GOP sanctioning it.
There it is. Having ONE Leftist party in the United States is not good enough for you. You want TWO Leftist parties. And in order to do that, you cry for a "divorce": Rush shutting up.
You clearly want Rush to shut up because you have a deep, intense, OBSESSIVE DEVOTION to vomiting talking points attacking him. What else am I to conclude?
And you keep WHINING and SCREAMING that Rush be "divorced" from the GOP in your bid to make damn sure the voters of the United States can ONLY vote for Leftists. Well, then, if he needs to be "divorced" from the GOP, explain:
1) Why did McCain win the primaries last year?
By the way, you got your Left-leaning moderate, AND THE GOP STILL LOST. More evidence that the very last person the GOP should take advice from is you.
2) Why did Rush say "I'm not a party man, I am an ideologue" in late January?
3) Why has Rush distanced himself from the party since 2006?
Well?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
By stating the GOP should divorce Rush
March 4, 2009 - 19:29 ET by nwahsStating the GOP should divorce Rush is not demanding that Rush shut up. I can't argue against that. There's no logic to follow or challenge. Claiming that by saying the GOP should divorce Rush is tantamount to demanding Rush shut up is an illogical conclusion.
You have soiled this board! :D
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
You make a great point.
March 4, 2009 - 21:49 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou make a great point. Your statements certainly follow no logic.
Wow man
March 4, 2009 - 22:08 ET by nwahsThat was one of those fancy turning my words against me speech things, huh. Boy, you really got me there! Egg on my face!
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
As you are accustomed to
March 5, 2009 - 08:36 ET by Roger the ShrubberAs you are accustomed to having egg-like material on your face, I am glad you handled it with your usual panache.
help me
March 4, 2009 - 23:33 ET by Unsanenwahs, help me out here. You constantly demand that the GOP "divorce" Rush (yet you have failed, and failed miserably to answer some very basic questions concerning that which I have posted at least two separate places). You rail against Mr. Limbaugh and throw everything possible at him constantly, and have been doing so for AT LEAST 48-72 hours now. In fact, I have yet to see you post ANYTHING where you aren't demanding Rush be "divorced" from the GOP or demanding conservatives like myself neuter our voices by leaving the GOP (please note I have never belonged to any political party) so taht you can liev your dream of having two Leftist parties in the United States to choose from.
Now, I'm just a guy who is actually reading your posts and paying attention to what you actually say. The summation of all of your posts is a demand that Rush STFU for good. What else am I to conclude here? You leave me with no other options.
You, sir, are soiling this board. I am only pulling out my bottle of Windex (TM) to try and clean it.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Keep Poking This Sleeping Giant....
March 4, 2009 - 11:51 ET by bobtheman... known as conservatism. Rush may be it's face... but their are legions of conservatives standing and shouting... "Bring It Onnn!"
http://politicsofdes...
Not to mention that for the
March 4, 2009 - 12:00 ET by UtherpendNot to mention that for the last 8 years we have been preached at to be civil and nice to the poor Dems. We are tired of it and are not going to take it any longer.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you."
Remember '94
March 4, 2009 - 11:55 ET by iBlogOne constant in modern American politics is Rush Limbaugh. In '92 the democrats declared him dead, yet 2 years later he was recognized as the driving force behind the republican house takeover. In 2000, democrats declared him dead b/c his success was only a result of being able to spar with Clinton. In 2006, the democrats declared him dead becase the election showed Americans no longer supported conservative ideas, yet here we are in 2009 and who remains at the center of the political debate? Yup- Rush Limbaugh.
Interest
March 4, 2009 - 11:56 ET by sevenI stopped listening to Rush 10 years ago. I just recently re started and wanted to know what the Dems greatest fear was about. It is just his general exposure of deceptions of the Donkeys. The more they bash him, the greater his audience grows.
I'm sorry - despite her
March 4, 2009 - 11:57 ET by Chris NormanI'm sorry - despite her liberalism and Carol Channing-like voice - I happen to like Susan Estrich. She is of good humor and doesn't try to dominate a discussion. She also frequently makes sense on matters of politics - just not political philosophy or policy.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Rush is not the IN government
March 4, 2009 - 12:01 ET by GRPruittThe democrats control the two elected branches of government. They really should focus their attention on governing. If the slow motion Obama train wreck continues how can they possibly blame Rush? They control everything, and Rush isn't running for re-election.
Do they expect us to believe that Rush actually has the power to make the economy fail? I realize since the media convinced a big chunk of the electorate the Obama was qualified to be President, anything is possible, but this seem completely unrealistic. It almost seems desperate.
Could they have realized the futility of their position late last year?
It helps remember where
March 4, 2009 - 12:22 ET by PeskyDaneIt helps remember where Rush's critics are coming from. In the pagan mythology that is liberalism, they actually believe that Rush is warlock, casting evil spells in an attempt to counter the Great One as he lowers the ocean levels and brings forth the bounty to the land.
Seriously - try to have a discussion with libtards regarding the most basic of economic activities such as the conversion of labor into captial, and you will get a vacant stare. Because to them, it really is magic.
Ask a libtard how a nation's currency requires a productive citizenry in the absence of the backing of precious metals, and you will get a "Huh?"
In the end, it's the good wizards against the evil wizards.
I like Susan Estrich
March 4, 2009 - 12:07 ET by R D HelmIt doesn't mean I agree with ther all that much, but as libs go, she at least can carry on a conversation without sounding like a total dolt, and she is fairly intelligent.
Had Sean Hannity decided not to change the format of his show after Colmes left, Susan would have been one of the people I would like to have seen replace him. I would have actually watched his show again.
And Susan is right about Rush, too. Attacking him has never turned out well for the left, as it always backfires on them.
Unlike most libs, I suspect that she is able to distinguish between republican and conservative.
Most can't, and that includes a lot of "conservatives."
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
And Camille Paglia too.
March 4, 2009 - 12:26 ET by Red JeepAnd Camille Paglia too.
Susan is Right
March 4, 2009 - 13:07 ET by sguild2Even Dems/Independents who have never listened to Rush and believe the stereotype put forth by the biased press have to be wondering why the Gov't is wasting time vilifying Rush. I mean, the economy is crumbling before our very eyes...people's retirement and pensions are in freefall...and Gibbs and the media is focusing on bashing Limbaugh. I gotta believe that people are going to see thru this.
Obammy Enemy List?
March 4, 2009 - 13:11 ET by slickwillie2001Another surprising article from Politico: Rush Job; Inside Dems' Limbaugh Plan: http://www.politico....
The article describes how the plan to attack Rush has been put together by the Obammy team starting in OCTOBER of last year! Does Obammy have a Nixonian ememies list? What other private citizens are on Obammy's hit list? Should Rush be X-raying any UPS packages he gets?
Re Estrich, yes hard to listen to but like Juan Williams and a few others, occasionally shows a flash of intellectual honesty.
Susan is a smart lady. The
March 4, 2009 - 13:14 ET by EugeniaSusan is a smart lady. The more Rush is attacked, the more fiercely loyal and defensive of him I become. Bad move, Dems.
I don't think they are trying to win over Rush fans
March 4, 2009 - 13:58 ET by nwahsI think they're trying to portray Rush as a Pat Robinson. Not religious, but bigoted and hypocritical. They did a pretty good job of marginalizing Pat Robinson and his followers. I don't know how many millions of viewers the 700 club had, but its pretty obscure now.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
You are rather transparent
March 4, 2009 - 14:29 ET by cvgbuckeyeshawn/backwards (how clever). You seem to enjoy some type of conclusion that you think is settled that Pat Robinson is bigoted and hypocritical and that religiousness is somehow not a virtuous thing. How cool of you.
Further, let me instruct you, son, about "his followers". If you are speaking of Christians, of which you obviously know little, they are followers of no one except Jesus Christ (of whom you are also obviously unfamiliar).
What unfortunate experience did you have that has filled you with such hate?
→ I think you're right
March 4, 2009 - 14:35 ET by Cool ArrowThey tried with Rush's drug problems, and failed.
Now their tack is to lift a completely qualified statement from its contextual trappings and feed it to the Public-School educated begging masses.
We won the cold war! Why did we surrender?
Even mentioning the
March 4, 2009 - 15:28 ET by JRJ08Even mentioning the corpulent one's name is a mistake, much less attacking him. The DNC needs to back off on this. Estrich is right. All it's doing it solidifying Limbaugh's pudgy-fingered grip on the Republican Party, which has the ultimate effect of generating even more strident partisanship and bad feelings between Americans who are all in this mess together. Eventually, even Limbaugh's most avid fans will realize that his kind of rhetoric will do nothing but assure that no Republican will win another national election. The majority of the country expressed its feelings on this last November. Right now, most of you folks are sitting in a big, boiling stew pot, and your knight in shining adipose is stirring it up. Rush is going to end up devouring the entire GOP. From the look of him, he's already swallowed a large portion of it.
What idiocy
March 4, 2009 - 16:04 ET by UnsaneWe really didn't need more proof on NB that being a true Leftist requires being FULL OF HATE. But, that being said, JRJ08 has come along and reminded us yet again just how hate-filled and angry a Leftist has to be.
which has the ultimate effect of generating even more strident partisanship and bad feelings between Americans who are all in this mess together Hmmm. Last I checked, at a meeting with the Republican leadership at the White House, which was done in the name of bipartisanship, His Majesty The Shahinshah immediately cut off the debate with "Oh yeah? I won, so there." Some bipartisanship!
Unfortunately for you, JRJ08, I have no interest in being a happy little Socialist with you and your fellow travelers. The bad feelings are being generated by the fact that whenever HMTS opens His mouth, I can count on the market to slide yet again, and can count down to the days where the budget deficit "crowds out" all private investment (the thing that WILL get us out of this economic malaise).
The majority of the country expressed its feelings on this last November. But, last I checked, this IS still a democracy, and thus, the minority reserves the right to bitch and moan and sit in opposition. Unless you or your God, HMTS, is going to round us up, send us to Gulags or have us all mowed down after being driven off to birch forests in Black Crows, you are going to have to deal with that fact. Incidentally, I'm willing to bet you weren't willing to accept the argument "the majority of the country expressed its feelings on this last November", in, say, March 2001, or March 2005.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Oh brother...
March 5, 2009 - 10:52 ET by JRJ08Like Limbaugh, you don't even have a clue what a "socialist" is, and you throw the word "hate" around because you're just projecting your own feelings on anyone who fails to agree with you. In fact, this website is built on strident anger based mostly on half-truths, half-baked ideology and a bushel of sour grapes. The one area where you're on the money is when you admit that you're all just bitching, moaning and opposing. How constructive. A real formula for "taking back the country".
As far as March 2001 is concerned I had just voted for Bush. You live and learn. At least, I did.
In keeping with your cogent
March 5, 2009 - 11:15 ET by Roger the ShrubberIn keeping with your cogent train of thought, I commend you on the half-assed attempt to have a point.
Riposte
March 5, 2009 - 11:59 ET by UnsaneLike Limbaugh, you don't even have a clue what a "socialist" is, actually I do. One is His Majesty The Shahinshah. The other, well, is you.
Care for an explanation on how I came to this conclusion? Ask, and ye shall receive.
and you throw the word "hate" around because you're just projecting your own feelings on anyone who fails to agree with you. Just like a Leftist: accuse me of what you routinely do. Reread your posts, laden with insults to Limbaugh and Rightists. Your total hatred and contempt for anyone like myself who does not view the government as the ultimate babysitter/charity of choice is all too evident.
In fact, this website is built on strident anger based mostly on half-truths, half-baked ideology and a bushel of sour grapes. Yet you sure like to hang around this website. No sour grapes here. We are doing what all minority positions in a democracy do: acting in opposition. Yeah, I know, you think we should all just SHUT UP and embrace a coddling, babying government, but unfortunately for you that offends my philosophy as an individual who can and does take care of himself just fine (something you look upon with the most extreme contempt).
Care to give us some examples of "half-truths" and "half-baked ideology"? Because there is NO more half-baked ideology than what you support: taxing our way to wealth (which for some reason has a zero success record in about 6000+ years of human civilization), for one example.
The one area where you're on the money is when you admit that you're all just bitching, moaning and opposing. How constructive. A real formula for "taking back the country". Well, hey, if it prevents from becoming serfs, waifs, wards of the Nanny State and peasants - all things to which you happily aspire to be - that's cool by me. THAT right there is "taking back the country".
As far as March 2001 is concerned I had just voted for Bush. You live and learn. At least, I did. Somehow I doubt that. I suspect that Gore wasn't Leftist enough for you.
Now, run along, and go bow to His Majesty The Shahinshah. He might burp you after feeding you in appreciation.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
This is classic. Here we are
March 5, 2009 - 12:56 ET by JRJ08This is classic. Here we are in an anonymous forum, where nobody knows anything about anybody else, and you've not only figured out my economic philosophy, but you also decided that I must be lying about my voting record. All because I've been critical of Rush Limbaugh. This, in a nutshell, is why the Republican Party is on the ropes. It's not rational.
As far as socialism is concerned, this country has had elements of it since its founding. In fact, any time someone uses their MediCare card or cashes a Social Security check, they're participating in a socialist program. Anything that is operated or funded by the government is a form of socialism. The FDIC is socialistic, as is the FDA, FTC, EPA, FAA, FEMA, HHS, FBI, CIA, OSHA, CDC, NIH, FHA, the Army, Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy. Pretty much, if you live in this country, you're getting government benefits. Now, if you're really that much of a capitalistic purist, start crossing services off that list that you don't think we need.
Progressive taxes, which you appear to equate with socialism, have been around for hundreds of years and the concept was written about extensively by Adam Smith. Most countries have some form of this taxation method and it enabled the Industrial Revolution and decades of tremendous growth. More specifically, it helped this country build an infrastructure and avoid the failures of the European aristocracies. If you really want to live in a culture where all of the wealth is concentrated in the top 2% of the country, move to Mexico or Saudi Arabia.
It has become abundantly clear that the Republican Party cares more about its obsolete ideology than it does about humanity. You and others here appear to fit right in.
Riposte II
March 5, 2009 - 14:01 ET by UnsaneThis is classic. Here we are in an anonymous forum, where nobody knows anything about anybody else, and you've not only figured out my economic philosophy, but you also decided that I must be lying about my voting record. All because I've been critical of Rush Limbaugh. This, in a nutshell, is why the Republican Party is on the ropes. It's not rational. You have been seen on here gushing endlessly about His Majesty The Shahinshah. That tells me a great deal here. Also, you are right. You haven't laid out your economic philosophy. To me, and only because of observations I have made of humanity since ever, this points to your Leftism. Leftists typicall are too embarrassed and ashamed to admit to their Leftism. I am not at all ashamed to admit to my Rightism. In fact, to fully grasp where I am coming from, you are cordially invited to read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
As far as socialism is concerned, this country has had elements of it since its founding. In fact, any time someone uses their MediCare card or cashes a Social Security check, they're participating in a socialist program. Anything that is operated or funded by the government is a form of socialism. The FDIC is socialistic, as is the FDA, FTC, EPA, FAA, FEMA, HHS, FBI, CIA, OSHA, CDC, NIH, FHA, the Army, Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy. Pretty much, if you live in this country, you're getting government benefits. Now, if you're really that much of a capitalistic purist, start crossing services off that list that you don't think we need. This entire paragraph demonstrates your stupidity. The military is not socialistic as it is an armed fore of the government used to impose its foriegn policy. NONE of those organizations - most dedicated to law enforcement or to administration that Congress either won't or can't do - you have cited are socialistic in the purest sense. Now, I dare you to point to me a specific organization in government that is evidence of Socialism. I know one I can immediately name. But let's see if you can do it first.
Progressive taxes, which you appear to equate with socialism, have been around for hundreds of years and the concept was written about extensively by Adam Smith. Most countries have some form of this taxation method and it enabled the Industrial Revolution and decades of tremendous growth. More specifically, it helped this country build an infrastructure and avoid the failures of the European aristocracies. If you really want to live in a culture where all of the wealth is concentrated in the top 2% of the country, move to Mexico or Saudi Arabia. The federal income taxes are NOT progressive. A progressive tax in fact is something I favor: Steve Forbes's flat tax from 1996 is a perfect example (and even then that tax is not 100% pure progressive). What we have in the United States, my government student (with me as prof), is called a graduated income tax. Meaning, different wage earners pay different rates of tax based entirely on what some bureaucrat thinks they should pay because they make X, Y, or Z. Now, to someone like you, you think it is GREAT that those evil bastards, like the top 60% of wage earners in this country, are paying 99.94% of taxes, while the bottom 40% get a whopping 0.06% of the taxes and thus a free ride. Furthermore, you seem to also think it is great that the bottom 40% will get more breaks while the upper 60% - the people who produce, succeed, and actually HIRE people -will continue to get soaked and stolen from because you don't think it's "fair" they make that money.
I would offer Mexico and Saudi Arabia face different sorts of constraints, not due to your simplistic analysis of "OH MY GOD, THEY HAVE EVIL RICH PEOPLE!!!" In Mexico's case, their infrastructure sucks, and their government is corrupt. In Saudi's case, I attribute their issues more to xenophobia. Stealing from others is seldom a solution. If that were the case, East Germany and the Soviet Union would be world-beaters right now. But...say, can you tell me where they are? For some strange reason I cannot find them on a map...
More specifically, it helped this country build an infrastructure and avoid the failures of the European aristocracies. As to this sentence, it is ever so clear you do not study history. Infrastructure for the most part may have been encouraged by government (like railroads) but the impetus for their development was private industry. In fact, when the rails were first being built in the United States, the federal government's two main sources of income were tariffs and the sale of public lands to settlers, not income taxes it was forbidden by the Supreme Court to levy (until the 16th Amendment in 1916). For another instance of infrastructural development, let's look at aviation: initially developed by two bicycle manufacturers, NOT the government.
Are you going to bring up roads? Surely you have not been to Asia, as I have, where virtually ALL divided highways are toll roads.
It has become abundantly clear that the Republican Party cares more about its obsolete ideology than it does about humanity. You and others here appear to fit right in. You seem to care about very utopian ideals which only succeed in the equal spreading of grief and misery, had led to the deaths of millions, and the destruction of millions more lives. Some humanist you are. If you want a government where the Big Nanny controls your entire existence in the name of equality, go to East Germany, or the Soviet Union. Hmmm, on second thought, go to Cuba or North Korea.
Winston Churchill once said "The vice of capitalism is that there is an unequal sharing of the blessings; the virtue of socialism is that there is an equal share of the misery." Seems to me you won't be HAPPY until everyone is as filled with envy and pure hate as you are. That's hardly humane. As is enervating people to the point of helplessness, as is done elsewhere in the world.
TRY and have a nice day.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yawn.
March 5, 2009 - 14:13 ET by Roger the ShrubberAnonymous forum, my ass. Most of us here know Unsane rather well, and appreciate his not-so-quiet points-of-view, as well as his love of Rush. And by Rush, I, of course, mean Geddy, Alex, and Neal.
Although this Shrubber is not too exicted about Unsane's fondness of bands like Blind Guardian....
That was a pretty harsh smack-dwn there, Un. Kudos for having the energy or will to bother with that Marxist douche.
A lot going on, and lacking patience
March 5, 2009 - 14:30 ET by UnsaneThanks as usual, Roger. It's less about my energy or will and more about the fact that for several reasons I have been in an evil mood the past week...
:-)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
"Limbaugh's most avid fans
March 4, 2009 - 16:20 ET by winston smith"Limbaugh's most avid fans will realize that his kind of rhetoric will
do nothing but assure that no Republican will win another national
election."
Yeah, that and all of Obama's illegal campaign funds, the media being nearly 100% behind him and hardly caring that they demontrated the most abhorent Democrat party partisanship during the '08 election, ACORN's shameless, flagrant felonies, the fact that H'wood and the music industry came out vociferously for Obama and either ridiculed or entirely ignored McCain and demonized Sarah Palin every day and yet, with all of that, Obama managed to win by only 6 or 7%. So, I wouldn't start writing off the GOP as D.O.A. just yet. We heard this silly claim issued by Democrats following Watergate, after Reagan, and after Clinton. Everytime Democrats make the claim, we're usually back a year or two later to make you guys miserable and save the republic from Democrat Party ruin. We've gotten used to the Democrats fumbling with total power in the past and this is no different. You may not like the fact that Rush is exposing the Democrats for the enemies of freedom that they are but it's vital to have at least one person who will inform the American public of the guillotining of our freedoms taking place daily in congress by men and women who call themselves liberals... or "progressives". (since few if any Republicans in congress or the new RNC chair will do so). After Americans realize how they've been taken to the cleaners by Obama, pop-up Pelosi, and Ried, after they become tired of seeing all their hard-earned money go to further the size of the nanny state and getting nothing in return except 13 dollars a week and really bad "health care", we'll have a new majority in '10.
winston - "pop-up Pelosi" Love it! ;-) and I agree re:2010!
March 4, 2009 - 18:28 ET by Cape ConservativeIt is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. ~ Sam Adams
The Republican Party is not
March 5, 2009 - 10:58 ET by JRJ08The Republican Party is not "DOA" yet, but it is most definitely on life support. And the more hateful and angry Republican rhetoric gets, the more that their ideology will be rejected by the mainstream, which it is no longer a part of. Even if the President's programs fail to rescue the economy, the GOP cannot win another national election by playing more attack politics. Unless it has some new ideas which aren't just the recycled ideology of the previous 8 years, then it will continue to be reviled by a majority of voters. Now, you can continue to scream "socialist" and make juvenile remarks about Obama if that makes you feel any better now, but it ain't gonna help you in '10 or '12, folks.
Ah,
March 5, 2009 - 12:02 ET by Unsane...but a DJIA at 4000, unemployment at 9% (in about 18 months at this rate), and His Majesty The Shahinshah spending money like there is no tomorrow, punishing and stealing from the successful and productive citizens of this country, and coddling, babying, and rewarding failures and deadbeats, WILL lead to the undoing of your Socialist God.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
The biggest problem I see
March 5, 2009 - 12:04 ET by doug1950The biggest problem I see with politics today is what is not being voiced by the GOP. Ronald Reagan said it almost 3 decades ago, he was right then and it is even more true today. "Government is NOT the solution to the problem....Government IS the problem." The GOP has to come to grips with the fact they played a major role in being where we are today by their lack of self discipline when they got into the majority and then failed to own up to it and instead went in exactly the opposite direction of where the conservative base wants it to be and tried to become Democrat Lite by going after moderates, fence sitters and even liberals. That is when they started losing elections and the more they moved to the left the further they alienated themselves from the people who put them into power. RR coupled an acute understanding of the American people and Spirit with sound economic, domestic and foreign policies. THAT is why he appealed to so many regardless of their political stripes. He put the country ahead of the party politics and the people responded to that and him. Today, we have too many politicians and very few Statesmen.
She makes good points...
March 4, 2009 - 15:38 ET by taocpaWell, I can't stand her voice either, but she makes good observations and I have to admit, when she is on, I do listen as she does do a good job of bring some perspective that other liberal commentators do not, like Carville, Begala and other partisan hacks.
I forgot who said it, but the observation was made that attacking Rush maybe wasn't a smart idea as McCarthy went after Murrow and other high profile politicians attacked media members and it backfired.
The Politico article points out that Rush polling numbers among younger voters are lower than Jeremiah Wright. I doubt younger voters actually know who Wright is at all so I think it's a smokescreen. It seems to me that the President and his henchmen should worry more about the failing economy than Rush.
Tom
tao... Heck, if you just
March 4, 2009 - 17:54 ET by bigtimertao...
Heck, if you just walk the streets in any community I bet the majority of the youth cannot even name who the VP is, let alone their own congress-critters are in the House or their State Senators.
Btw...if they don't know who Rush is...they should be learning from the BS they watch for so-called news...and of course he will spun as the evil enemy.
I can't stand her voice, but
March 4, 2009 - 17:39 ET by kevinm13Susan Estrich has a very annoying voice and she is generally wrong on just about everything. Despite that, she is smart enough to be right on Rush. The big question will be if the Dims listen to her and stop demonizing Rush, who will be the big bad boogie man to take his place? The Dims seem to need somebody to demonize and Rush is the flavor of the month.
It's backfiring already.
March 4, 2009 - 17:53 ET by farstar99It's backfiring already.
People at work have started listening to Rush and they used to be dyed-in-the-wool Dumbocrats.
As for Estrich, she's that old broad left over in the bar at closing time. Dressed like a French whore with the voice of a barfly.
Ah yes
March 5, 2009 - 16:42 ET by doug1950When I was a young swabbie, I knew her well, she was my ride back to the base.
Estrich and Limbaugh
March 4, 2009 - 18:02 ET by JerCalling him "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party," as Rahm Emanuel did, only gets him more attention and more power.
Uh, Ms. Estrich...I know you want to contiune with your ongoing campaign to curry favor with the Fox network audience, but Emanuel in only echoing the views which have been repeatedly expressed by Republican politicians for years.
Jer
unintended consequences
March 4, 2009 - 20:16 ET by traderjamesAs a 20 year listener of Rush Limbaugh, I can tell you, dear reader, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that he is playing the democrats (and especially the administration), like a fiddle. Do you really think "I want him to fail", was a slip of the toungue, or that he regrets it? Au contraire. He knew exactly what he was doing. Now he gets to sit back and watch the Dems fall over each other (even the press sec), as they proceed with this 'strategy' to put a wedge between him and the republicans. It is fascinating to watch as they 'protest too much'.
Lemme tell ya something. First and foremost, Rush is a business man. Do you think all this has increased his listenership? I do. Therefore, more potential audience for his sponsors, and therefore, more revenue for him.
Aside from that, think of this now...let's say 2 million additional people a day are listening to him, who had not before, just out of curiousity or to validate in their minds that he is an idiot. Let's now say that half of them (one million, for those who voted for Obama), actually listen to what he has to say, and start thinkin (gov. palin speak), "hey, this is starting to make sense. Maybe he's not so crazy after all. I'm going to take another look at this whole Obama thing. Maybe this is not the hope and change I signed up for. And why are they berating this man? He is not hateful in any way, and he cracks me up !!"
Result: bye-bye 70% approval ratings, hello to a 'mustard seed' (kudlow) re-emergence of the conservative movement.
How's that for 'unintended consequences', Mssrs. Obama, Gibbs, Steffie, Begala, bald-headed-guy i can't remember the name of, (ok got it, Carville) ???
Re unintended consequences
March 4, 2009 - 21:17 ET by slickwillie2001Well said. Re whether 'I want him to fail' was a slip of the tongue or not, we know now from the Politico story posting that the plan of attack on Rush Limbaugh started to go together last October. (see 'Rush Job; Inside Dem's Limbaugh Plan) The plan was waiting for a trigger and the democratics would have found one sooner or later. That it happened to be the 'I want him to fail' meme represents a coincidence of the need for a distraction and an opportunity to score points.
Maybe I missed it, but who
March 4, 2009 - 23:54 ET by JerMaybe I missed it, but who suggested it was a "slip of the tongue"? It should be abundantly clear to anyone who heard it or read the transcript that he said exactly what he intended to say.
I've heard Rush backpedal and spin explanations [or read the transcripts of his doing so], but he rarely apologizes.
Jer
No apologies necessary
March 11, 2009 - 18:59 ET by UnsaneHe won't apologize, nor should he. He didn't say anything wrong. And as he points out, things will only get worse were he to apologize.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I am completely baffled by the whole thing.
March 5, 2009 - 06:37 ET by JWFThis is not the first time Democrats have gone after Mr. Limbaugh.
It just reinforces the point that the Obama team is a bunch of amateurs.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.