"1600 Pennsylvania Avenue" host David Shuster on Tuesday repeatedly pestered Texas Congressman Ron Paul to publicly attack Rush Limbaugh and seemed frustrated when "even" the outspoken representative wouldn't give him what he wanted. After wondering "why it's so difficult" for Republicans to disagree with the talk show host's assertion that he wants Barack Obama's policies to fail, Shuster repeated the same question over and over. He complained, "How can we have that argument [about other issues], when even you, Ron Paul, are not willing to take this opportunity to say when Rush Limbaugh says that every Republican wants President Obama to fail, Rush Limbaugh is wrong?"
He continued, "How can we have the next conversation if you're not willing to have that first one?" Paul, refusing to allow Shuster to guide the debate, snapped back, "Because you want to control the semantics and the definitions." He added, "And, you know, in the media you like to personalize and then have a fight going on and that's the way politics works." The conversation didn't seem to be going the way Shuster had intended. Later, he derided, "It just seems, congressman, like so many Republicans are terrified of Rush Limbaugh. We're just trying to explore that."
Clearly, Shuster saw the unpredictable Paul as, perhaps, his best shot at finding a Republican willing to attack Limbaugh. He teased the segment in the show open by asking, "Is any Republican willing to criticize Limbaugh on anything? Perhaps Congressman Ron Paul. We'll talk to him live." He led off by challenging, "Congressman Paul, do you and every Republican want President Obama to fail?" And while Paul was more than willing to critique the talk show host for his support of the PATRIOT Act or for not hitting former President Bush hard enough on spending, he wasn't willing to be the Republican who would trash the radio star. At one point, Paul referred to Limbaugh as a "good conservative."
However, Shuster, with dogged determination, kept returning to the same question. After saying that he wanted to be "absolutely clear," Shuster interrogated, "So, when Rush Limbaugh says that every Republican wants President Obama to fail, are you willing to take this opportunity to say on that point, and even that very narrow point if you want, Rush Limbaugh is wrong?"
A transcript of the March 3 segment, which aired at 6:05pm, follows:
6pm tease
DAVID SHUSTER: Is any Republican willing to criticize Limbaugh on anything? Perhaps Congressman Ron Paul. We'll talk to him live.
6:05
DAVID SHUSTER: Texas congressman and former presidential candidate Ron Paul joins us now live from Washington. And congressman, let's get right to the heart of this. Rush Limbaugh said the following. Quote, "The dirty little secret is that every Republican in this country wants Obama to fail but none of them have the guts to say so." Congressman Paul, do you and every Republican want President Obama to fail?
CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL (R-TX): No, I don't even think of it in those terms. I want nobody to have credibility on bad ideas. If they are promoting socialism and welfarism and totalitarianism and foreign intervention, I don't want that to be successful. But, I want the message to be that liberty works, that free markets works, sound money works. And therefore, I take it out of the context of personalities. I think the personalities are irrelevant. It`s only the issues that count, it's only the ideas that count, it's our philosophy that counts. And I've been wanting to make the case-
SHUSTER: Fair point. Well, fair point. But let's just be absolutely clear. So, when Rush Limbaugh says that every Republican wants President Obama to fail, are you willing to take this opportunity to say on that point, and even that very narrow point if you want, Rush Limbaugh is wrong?
PAUL: No. But I would - I'd be quite willing to say when you hear Obama say what his goals are, I want him to be successful. But-
SHUSTER: Right. But, I'm asking about Rush Limbaugh.
PAUL: I don't even think about him. Because I don't- I don't-
SHUSTER: [laughs] Congressman, we're thinking about him right now. Everybody's thinking about him. Why is it so difficult- Why is it so difficult to say, hey, when Rush Limbaugh says, 'Look, we could all agree or disagree that maybe the President's policies are destined to fail.' That's a point of view. But when Rush Limbaugh says 'I want President Obama to fail,' why can't Republicans say, Rush Limbaugh is wrong when he says that?
PAUL: I think a few has. And I think it's a matter of semantics and I think we dwell too much on the semantics rather than dealing with the real issues. Why don't we ask questions like I'd like to. If I had a reasonable intellectual debate with Rush Limbaugh, I would ask him, why doesn't he stand up more for civil liberties? Why doesn't he explain why he has doesn't- why he has supported the PATRIOT Act?
SHUSTER: Congressman, that's such a great point. I think you would win that argument. But here's my point: How can we have that argument, when even you, Ron Paul, are not willing to take this opportunity to say when Rush Limbaugh says that every Republican wants President Obama to fail, Rush Limbaugh is wrong. How can we have the next conversation if you're not willing to have that first one?
PAUL: Because you want to control the semantics and the definitions. Yes, he's wrong. If he- he doesn't have the same understanding as somebody else. But he's absolutely wrong. And you can't put your definition on a particular word about failure. I want- I want those goals to be successful. Yet, I don't want his philosophy to be successful. So, it's two different things. And, you know, in the media you like to personalize and then have a fight going on and that's the way politics works. But, I would much rather talk about, you know, why Rush Limbaugh doesn't support my position on looking into the Federal Reserve and being able to audit the Federal Reserve. Now, that's an important issue. Not whether or not I can say something that is confrontational to Rush Limbaugh. I think philosophically I have confrontation. Because, I was disappointed with Rush because he is a good conservative, yet he hardly said hardly boo against George Bush. He supported all that big spending. Did he complain about George Bush? Did he complain about all those wars that were going on that caused us so much trouble? That's the kind of issues that I want to talk about. And I will be quite willing to challenge Rush Limbaugh on those issues. But just to pick out a word or two and say, he is wrong, I don't think that solves any problems.
SHUSTER: Here's the related issue. In terms of solving problems including these very important issues that you raise, is Rush Limbaugh the head of the Republican Party right now?
PAUL: No. No. I mean, I don't know who-
SHUSTER: He's not?
PAUL: How could he be a head of a party? I mean, he has a lot to say.
SHUSTER: When Republicans are so quick to apologize to him as Michael Steele has, when Senator Barrasso was on air last night, wasn't even willing to say Rush Limbaugh was wrong. Wouldn't go as far as you have. It just seems, congressman, like so many Republicans are terrified of Rush Limbaugh. We're just trying to explore that.
PAUL: He's very influential. But they shouldn't be terrified of him, you know. Why should they be? But they don't have any answers. They don't have an explanation on why the party is shrinking, and how you can reach out, how you can reach people who care about personal liberties. How we take our philosophy and translate it into real policy. We talk about personal liberties and balanced budgets. The Republican Party lost credibility because they didn't do any of that. It violated the privacy of individuals, it flaunted the spending and ran up these huge deficits. Got us into wars that are not winnable. And those are the real issues. That's why it's been translated into personality squabbles and who's running what because they're really not talking about why the Republican Party is a minority party and why they lost. And I think, as long as they do that, they're not going to solve their problem and we will continue to dwell on Steele versus Rush Limbaugh. And quite frankly, I don't think that's a relevant debate. I think the debate ought to be our foreign policy. Why don't we have a foreign policy of non-intervention and why don't we deal with the Federal Reserve?
SHUSTER: Congressman- Congressman- Congressman, you raise some very important issues. We always appreciate having you on. Good of you to join us tonight in the midst of all this. We appreciate it.
PAUL: Thank you.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It's official!
March 4, 2009 - 12:12 ET by mizflame98Rush Derrangement Syndrom (RDS) has become a full blown epidemic.
"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
Shyster you mean
March 4, 2009 - 12:14 ET by UtherpendShuster is such a POS. He needs to have more people tell him to shut his sanctimonious mouth. The best I have seen is when John Zeigler calls him a liar and makes him take back his rhetoric.
"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."
Quite so, Uther
March 4, 2009 - 12:18 ET by BlondeThat Zeigler bit was the absolute best, he just kept laughing at Shuster and throwing it all back in his face. Hmmm...he hasn't been back on with Shuster since, which says alot.
I hope he fails, too.
Shuster's a hack.
March 4, 2009 - 12:17 ET by BlondeIt just seems, congressman, like so many Republicans are terrified of Rush Limbaugh. We're just trying to explore that.
Ron Paul is not an idiot....and I wish people here wouldn't characterize him as such. Had he not had such a warped and isolationist foreign policy stance, I might have considered voting for him.
Back to the silly Shuster....hey idiot....everyone's on to your game. Steele's apology to Rush was necessary. Steele was "got" in a gotcha by the press, he should have known better, and that's the difference between being chair of the RNC and a talking head. He won't make this mistake again.
But the press is misconstruing (naturally) the reticence of republicans to criticize Rush. He's free to say what they can't say publicly (due to the jumping press).
I hope he fails, too.
I Don't Trust Steele Now
March 4, 2009 - 14:55 ET by stratmanSteele is not an illiterate. He was speaking extemporaneously which is when people are more likely to reveal their true thoughts. Steele has "mispoke" more than once now and on different occasions. He, therefore, had an opportunity to "steel" himself against further "misstatements" but did not.
Yes, Steele put himself into a situation with Liberal Media where a mistake was more likely. That is when a "gotcha" moment can occur. But he did not correct or challenge viscious statements against the GOP and Conservatives such as DL Hughley's comment about the GOP convention looking like Nazi Germany. Isn't this what we should expect from a "leader"... to stand up for the group? Are our standards and expectations of performance, skill and intellect that lowered?
The leader of the RNC should never allow these comments to pass unchallenged. The leader of the RNC should never divide the Party by agreeing to or heaping on further slanders of decent citizens from the opposition.
Michael Steele, who wants to make the GOP brand "HipHop" whatever that means, has shown he is a not-ready-for-primetime leader for the RNC by his comments and inaction. I wholeheartedly question the sincerity of his Conservative value system.
This isn't rocket science, Blonde. You and I would not comment the way Steele had in those same interviews. We may not respond to every inuendo or outright slander as would someone trained in verbal political combat (like Steele, a career politician), but we sure as heck would not bash a voice (Rush) for Conservatism who happens to be correct more often than not.
I hope you are correct that Steele won't do it again. I still am concerned that his values and vision is significantly different than yours and mine. Just because Steele may not make the same mistake of words again does not mean he won't undermine Conservatism by his future actions.
Plenty of indicators so far show Steele to not be all we thought him to be. The irony and parallelism to Obama not being what some of his supporters believed him to be (Brooks, Buckley, Cramer, etc) should put a relenting bright hot light to Steele's actions current and future.
If Steele plans on diluting Conservatism in order to curry new voters then I hope he fails. If, however, Steele plans on enunciating undiluted Conservative principles in a way that resounds with youth, blue dog Democrats and Independents, all the while helping to promote new Conservative/GOP candidates that embody these core principles, then I will support him completely.
You make some good points, strat
March 4, 2009 - 15:18 ET by BlondeI'm not ready to dismiss him yet, though.
First of all, nobody is perfect.
Secondly, I suspect Steele is still making the transition of media talking head (on Fox, where the be all and end all is to appear be fair and balanced) to being the chair of the RNC. I'm disappointed that he hasn't hit the ground running in this regard, and would make such a stupid blunder as to let anyone get away with baiting him into putting down Rush Limbaugh on the air. Live and learn (I hope).
What has been sorely lacking in the Republican party is the willingness to fight back at all. Remember all of McCain's pathetic apologizing and denouncing statements made by other Republicans? Michael Steele needs to grab this "wimpy response" bull by the horns, and lead by example. So I will absolutely agree with you in that regard. He needs to act like Tom Delay did yesterday in the segment on Hardball, wherein Delay disdainfully dismissed the liberal premise and wording of all questions, and then totally slammed home the point he wanted to make.
Finally, Steele needs to shed the Mr. Nice Guy personna. He doesn't need to go all Ann Coulter to the point of being offensive to non-conservatives, but he needs to attack the liberal ideology at every turn.
Remember, Steele is the chair of the Republican party, not the Conservative party, so as much as you and I don't like it, he is also the leader of the RINO faction in the party. But the only way for to succeed is to get back to our roots, a la Reagan, and to convince the squishy RINO's that dem lite doesn't work. He and we need to make it abundantly clear to the Snowe's, Collins', Specter's and McCain's....get with the program or change parties.
Time will tell....but so far it's not looking good.
I hope he fails, too.
Blonde, My question was,
March 4, 2009 - 15:29 ET by Chris NormanBlonde,
My question was, what in the hell possessed Steele into appearing on a show like that in the first place? Did he actually think he and the party he leads would get a fair hearing? Did he actually think he was going to out talk that host? I liked Steele and supported his election, but as Rush said, he had better get off the talk show circuit and start running the party. This whole series of blunders, "misunderstandings", and controversies is rapidly diminishing him.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Good question, Chris
March 4, 2009 - 15:34 ET by BlondeThat was a tactical blunder....why?
He needs to get to work, and fast. I hope he hires some really hard core staff.
As I said to strat, time will tell...but it's not looking good.
I hope he fails, too.
Blonde, I'm afraid Mr.
March 4, 2009 - 16:00 ET by Chris NormanBlonde,
I'm afraid Mr. Steele is addicted to television - that - or he using this gig as publicity to run for office soon. Maybe both. The RNC head doesn't get much publicity otherwise, I mean, who can name the last three chairmen? Mr. Steele, if he's ambitious, might not appreciate the value of leading the GOP out of the wilderness.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Agreed
March 4, 2009 - 17:16 ET by slickwillie2001Judging by results, the DNC has done outstanding work for their cause. How often did we see Howard Dean doing the talking-head route on the TV box?
Steele on Hannity
March 4, 2009 - 17:48 ET by bigtimerChris...
Speaking of Steele and his addiction to television...he's going on Hannity's show tonight. May be interesting...maybe not, but I know one thing, it would be wise if he stops all of this face time on television regarding this brouhaha and get to work with making sure conservatives get into office in the upcoming elections...he wasn't my choice, but we are stuck with what we've got, so I pray he/other big-wigs do not go with RINO candidates and back real conservatives...but I'm not holding my breath.
More than anything, I wished he would just heed Rush's advice and get busy behind the scenes...times a wasting...and at the moment people are not sending any $$$ for the support of the RNC...and they won't be if this keeps up...and I think he may have recieved that message...
Rush/Bolton '12
Blonde:I know my words
March 4, 2009 - 20:58 ET by stratmanBlonde:
I know my words betray an impatience with Steele and the GOP. Since we are all family, so to speak, I am able to move ahead and give Steele opportunity to show us what he can do. Maybe it was a case of the yips combined with your thought of a role transition stutter.
OK. Time to role up the shirtsleeves and get to work behind the scenery. Leader of the RNC is more like a farmer. I don't care to see much of the leader -- I want to see the fruits of his labor. There will be time to hail the leader. Just not before he's done anything of consequence.
I believe you and I are on the same page. I respect your observations. You have had the vantage point of leading people in business and earned your wisdom.
I must also give praise to Bigtimer who had the fortitude to go against the grain, IIRC, and speak out about her misgivings concerning Steele. BT took a very unpopular position, especially since she posted it during a PopTech link-o-rama and multiple posting seige against Steele supporters. Bigtimer saw trouble on the horizon and was cuffed a bit by Steele supporters (PopTech engendered his now customary flaming) for voicing her mind.
Both of you, Blonde and Bigtimer, are batting 1.000 on this Steele deal. With you two ladies performing so well this spring training, I have some renewed faith that there are many others like you helping to elect Conservatives in the 2010 and 2012 Bigs (elections).
*I love baseball but I must be a masochist - I'm forever a Tribe fan.
Evening Strat... Just
March 4, 2009 - 21:03 ET by bigtimerEvening Strat...
Just wanted to thank you kind sir.
Glad I caught this...as I am not sitting here all the time at the moment. ;-)
BT: As Jerry Reed sung:
March 4, 2009 - 23:29 ET by stratmanBT:
As Jerry Reed sung: When you're hot, you're hot.
Consider buying a lottery ticket!
:-)
strat... Now a double
March 5, 2009 - 00:54 ET by bigtimerstrat...
Now a double thank you...I loved, still love Reed and his talent!
I will have my husband by a lottery ticket tomorrow...and I'm not kidding either...let you know what happens...if we hit it big, you will get a cut of the pie!
Besides that it is my birthday today, wouldn't have even thought of it until I saw the date in post above that caught my eye...so maybe I will have some good luck for a change that you brought me...eh?
You just never know.... ;-)
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!! I
March 5, 2009 - 03:48 ET by stratmanI hope you win that lottery because I love pie. ;-)
Tomorrow I will bake a pie in your honor. OK. It is a Marie Callender pie I have in the freezer, but it still is a delicious pie and I will enjoy it in commemoration of your birth.***
Have a wonderful day. You deserve it!
***Not that I ever need a reason for eating pie. My motto - See pie, eat pie. lol
J,
March 4, 2009 - 15:38 ET by R D Helm"Had he not had such a warped and isolationist foreign policy stance, I might have considered voting for him."
I agree, his foreign policy is stuck squarely in the 1920's but domestic wise, he has about the best grip I have seen on the part of any politician.
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
True that, Dave
March 4, 2009 - 15:43 ET by BlondeThe other thing I really like about Ron Paul is he is absolutely honest. There's nothing disingenous about the man. He says what he means, and he means what he says. Plus, he had every opportunity to run as a 3rd party candidate, and he stuck to his word not to do it.
It really bothers me when people dismiss him out of hand as some sort of a nut case. For me, I just couldn't support him because his (IMO naive) foreign policy stance was just too important in my candidate heirarchy of needs.
I hope he fails, too.
How about firing back with the corollary
March 4, 2009 - 12:21 ET by legacyrepublicanBecause the dirty little secret is that every Democrat wants Republicans to fail.
That is the nature of politics, isn't it. One side wanting the other to lose.
If that isn't the case, then explain Rahm and Carville.
These guys are such teenage
March 4, 2009 - 12:20 ET by HelenSThese guys are such teenage girls! (and no respect intended, teenage girls who act this way. Really!)
This is such typical behavior between adolescents: "Hay, guess what Bimbo1 said about you!? you won't believe it! She said you're ugly!"
"No way! Well her hair really sucks!" shrieks TargetBimbo.
And the cat-fight is on.
Only these geniuses think the same tactic is so brilliant and unique that it will actually work on their war against Rush.
I think I just got a brain cramp.
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."
Helen
March 4, 2009 - 14:01 ET by NorthCoasterI can see the video of this scene playing out in my head.
Thanks!
"It just seems,
March 4, 2009 - 12:25 ET by Chris Norman"It just seems, congressman, like so many Republicans are terrified of Rush Limbaugh. We're just trying to explore that."
Translation: "We want you to be terrifed of Obama, the Democrats, and us in the media".
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Oh Yeah!!
March 4, 2009 - 12:26 ET by mizflame98Rush has just thrown down the gauntlet to Obama. He said that instead of having his hacks come out and attack him, he should come on his show and they will debate this one on one to give Obama the oppurtunity to get rid of Rush once and for all.
LMAO! How much do you want to bet that Obama will be a no show?
"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
Mizflame.. I heard that
March 4, 2009 - 14:24 ET by celatorMizflame.. I heard that too. Rush is at the top of his game, and is exposing the Obama gang for what they are. Fun to listen to. He loves this, you can tell.
The Government cannot give to anybody anything that which the government does not first take from somebody else.
Dr. Adrian Rogers
I think
March 4, 2009 - 14:31 ET by mizflame98he really thrives on this.
"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
→ Pay-per-View Rush
March 4, 2009 - 14:39 ET by Cool ArrowThis would be bigger than Clay-Liston
If Medvedev can so easily make a fool of Obama, think what Rush would do to him.
We won the cold war! Why did we surrender?
We heard the same thing during Bush presidency..
March 4, 2009 - 12:35 ET by Gary HallWe heard the same thing during Bush presidency..
(;~> Gary
What irritates me about Ron
March 4, 2009 - 12:36 ET by redmikeWhat irritates me about Ron Paul's response to the question about Rush being wrong is that he should have said something like:
I'm not going to say Rush is wrong because he is absolutely correct. All Republicans hope that Barak Obama fails. The reason that we hope he fails is that his success equals the failure of America. Republicans want our country and our people to prosper. Barak Obama is diametrically opposed to that right now. He wants the country in crisis in order to make Americans more dependant on centralized government.
Rush
March 4, 2009 - 12:43 ET by jessieHJessie R. Hamby Hey, Shuster, WE aren't afraid of Rush- WE agree with him. Don't be such an idiot.
schuster
March 4, 2009 - 16:08 ET by east tennessee johnyour Sgt. Schultz now owns the Afghan war and he can't just walk away from it either. This isn't Iraq. By the way since this is now Barry's war, is he the same type of murderer you called Bush when civilans are killed? If not, why not? Assh##e. Where was all your concern when the Dems wished and voted for Bush to fail? You have archival tapes, don't you? What about KO the jo and all his moronic utterances, were they in support of the President? Mr. Tingly, Whora and Cuntessa? You? Big bad Rush wants your inept President's policies to fail. That premise, put forth and practiced by you and your network,alone should get him a show on MSDNC. Unfortunately, he couldn't take the pay or audience cut .
I Love the Smell of Liberal Fear in the Morning!
March 4, 2009 - 13:17 ET by BondPlainBondGood for Ron Paul. Bravo! Shuster's fear was evident and he wanted confirmation from Ron Paul who wouldn't give it.
How the HELL did Rush Limbaugh become the media's newest demon (again)? Because he told the truth about Obama's Socialist Plans to lead us to wreck and ruin? Because he doesn't candy-coat the dismal future we'll have should Obama continue down this intentionally destructive path? Because he's explained, with factual evidence, the results of Obama's worst-laid plans?
Republicans/Conservatives been saying all the things Rush Limbaugh reiterated since before Rush broke onto the scene (again); earn your living, don't believe you're entitled to a hand-out at anothers expense and be responsible for yourself, be charitable to others. Why should Limbaugh be criticized? He shouldn't be. He's telling the truth. Not with a liberal twist of "as he knows it", no, it's the actual, verifiable, history-proven truth!
Since liberals don't listen to opposing viewpoints, they were caught completely unaware of these facts about Republicans/Conservatives until a person they actually do fear, Limbaugh, made his realistic viewpoints on the air to millions of listeners.
Rush is correct in pointing out, dramatically, that generations to come will be paying for the inexperienced audacity of Obama and his socialist agenda. Obama has spent more on his plans than all of the prior plans made by all prior Presidents combined and in less than six weeks.
Obama's deliberate use of fear and imminent calamity is a pathetic and cowardly display. And that he and no one else in his administration has explained to the public one of the items in the Porkulus Bill, the Mortgage Rescue, or the Omnibus Package is nowhere even close to openness or transparency Obama promised. Seems more accurate to say that Obama and his Administration (especially Gibbs) are all about obfuscation. Have you seen the idiocy Obama calls Recover.gov? What a joke! I can't tell where EVERY DIME is going as Obama promised the site would explain. Not even close. Liberals are happy with not knowing anything, as usual, but I am not satisfied; with Obama or that joke of an accounting of MY money at Recovery.gov.
Obama promised a line-by-line examination of all documents requiring his signature - never happened.
Obama promised no pork, but then conveniently changes the meaning of the word to suit his purposes. What idiot is falling for that bait and switch? The liberals LOVE this one. The weak and hobbled minds of the left now say, with Obama proving himself nothing more than an outright liar, that it's necessary for the well-being of the country. LYING is necessary for that?
How could any intelligent man that says he is a student of history, specifically of Roosevelt and the New Deal, hold up Roosevelt as an example of success, and ignore how the New Deal and Roosevelt took this Nation deeper into debt, poverty, joblessness, bread lines, soup lines, meat rationing, milk rationing, coffee rationing, gasoline rationing and unemployment.
Obama has followed Roosevelt's model to a "T".
Roosevelt's own Secretary of the Treasury said:
And Obama, a self-proclaimed student of this time period, chooses to ignore the devastatingly failed policies of the man he claims (today. It could be Lincoln tomorrow.) to emulate.
The liberal GANG mentality is so prevalent in this this, the bullying and badgering those that won't bend to their idea of Rush being a "bad guy".
Michael Steele, who had my full and complete support - and respect - lost every bit of my support and respect because he fell into the liberal trap so easily and castigated Rush with little prodding. Steele was weak and caved in less than sixty seconds. Sorry, Michael. *shrug*
/rant
Great rant!
March 4, 2009 - 13:26 ET by BlondeI hope he fails, too.
Blonde
March 4, 2009 - 13:56 ET by BondPlainBondHi, Blonde. Me, too.
At first I was about plan failure, now I'm all about Obama's complete failure as our *cringe* Commander-in-Chief. I'm afraid this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Today, Obama said this:
Then why is Obama pouring BILLIONS into the completely UNPROVEN field of green technology that has, in the past, PROVEN to be dismal failure, too expensive to maintain, and too expensive to implement.
Obama's a liar.
He's all about paying back the unions for electing him.
This is what Roosevelt did to Ford. Ford wouldn't play the socialist game with Roosevelt, so Roosevelt froze out Ford (and any other company not willing to be socialist in design) from any and all military contracts.
Chairman Obama is a joke.
Here is a rare respite for the standard pro-New Deal newsreels that usually can be found on YouTube. It is a sympathetic depiction of Fred Perkins, a battery manufacturer from York, Pennsylvania who chose to go to jail rather than obey the mandates of the National Recovery Administration (Roosevelt's New Deal).
Will the same be seen under Obama's New Deal? People going to jail because they refuse to surrender their principles to Socialism?
Yes
March 4, 2009 - 14:11 ET by mizflame98http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15255
Do you think that Obama will back down on this one? I don't think so.
"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
Mizflame.. hard to tell.
March 4, 2009 - 14:27 ET by celatorMizflame.. hard to tell. Obama is so thick headed and an abortion fanatic, he may just decide to take this one on.
Interesting little fact: one-third of US hospitals are Catholic. If FOCA passes, the Bishops have already put Obama on alert they will close their hospitals. Talk about a health care crisis!
The Government cannot give to anybody anything that which the government does not first take from somebody else.
Dr. Adrian Rogers
He doesn't care.
March 4, 2009 - 14:44 ET by mizflame98He'll be more than happy if those hospitals close. He has a backup.
"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
celator
March 4, 2009 - 14:44 ET by BondPlainBondGovernor Kathleen Sebelius, Obama's HHS Appointee, says she is a Roman Catholic but she supports abortion all the way up to term! That fits right in line with Obama's four-time-voting-commitment to infanticide.
I agree with the Bishops on this one.
Liberal society wants us to respect the 'religious rights' of Muslims, even going so far as to install foot washing facilities in public airports so they may fulfill their daily prayer requirements, but the religious rights of Christians mean absolutely nothing if they get in the way of that which liberals believe they should have complete and unfettered access from anyone they so desire (abortions).
Ron Paul
March 4, 2009 - 13:21 ET by slickwillie2001We need to open a flap of the tent wide enough to include Ron Paul. He is a little wacky, and I don't want him to ever be President, but he could be an important contributor in a future Republican administration. Let's just build a moat around him to keep him out of foreign policy. And now that we have an imcompetent asshat in the Presidency, Ron Paul suddenly looks a whole lot better.
slickwillie2001
March 4, 2009 - 13:44 ET by BondPlainBondI'm with you on this. Same-same. Ron Paul did have some impressive moments while on the campaign debate tour.
Slickwillie....I wouldn't
March 4, 2009 - 14:35 ET by celatorSlickwillie....I wouldn't have voted for Paul, but I was angry at how much effort was used by the D's, Rs and Old Media to shut him out. He had interesting things to say, and should have been able to say them without being minimized as a candidate.
The Government cannot give to anybody anything which the government does not first take from somebody else.
Dr. Adrian Rogers
David
March 4, 2009 - 14:07 ET by NorthCoasterQuit badgering the witness. You and the rest of the MSM want to frame the conversation to fit your own agendas........................That's not going to happen!
These media leftists
March 4, 2009 - 14:21 ET by SmartypantsThese media leftists inherently believe that conservatives are wrong so, in their minds, the only reason you have for not openly disparaging Rush Limbaugh is that you are afraid of him. They cannot for the life of them envision a "reasonable" person agreeing with Limaugh. This is the same philosophy that says the only reason you could possible have for disagreeing with Obama is that you're a racist.
"The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."
Smartypants
March 4, 2009 - 14:29 ET by BondPlainBondI agree with you, Smartypants. That kind of thinking, which is standard for a liberal, immediately shines a very bright light on the new Federalization plan Obama and Arne Duncan have for our schools.
The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America has been successful for so many years, it's now in full bloom.
Obama is simply taking advantage of what the 'system' has left for him. Obama knows very well how to work the 'system' to his advantage.
Shuster and Olbermann
March 4, 2009 - 14:36 ET by ArminiusWhen will David "Mr. Lispy" Shuster criticize Keith "Bathtub Boy" Olbermann?
I want Obama to FAIL!!! I
March 4, 2009 - 14:41 ET by liberal_bug_zapperI want Obama to FAIL!!!
I want America under Obama to FAIL!!!
The only way morons learn is when you smack 'em! So, the only way that Obama voters will learn is when America FAILS and the only one in power are Democrats.
America under Socialist rule must fail miserably or they won't learn. Even one little success and they'll declare the whole thing a success.
I WANT AMERICA UNDER DEMOCRAT RULE TO FAIL!!!
I want the Constitution to come back into fashion.
____________________________________________________
"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." ~ Ayn Rand
Squirrel Shuster...
March 4, 2009 - 14:55 ET by AgentAmericanEvery time I see him grimace like that, I suggest that it's an expression he learned at one of the Fetish Clubs in NYC from his dominatrix...not sure which sex...
2010: A GOP Hill
hmm
March 4, 2009 - 15:46 ET by candanceSo when Columbia professor Nicholas DeGenova wished for our soldiers in Iraq to suffer another Mogadishu, did Shuster ask him why he wanted Bush to fail? When Bill Maher said America would be better off had Dick Cheney gotten assassinated, did Shuster ask him why he wanted Cheney to fail? When Obama refused to vote for the surge because it he swore it wouldn't work, did Shuster ask him why he wanted us to lose the war?
Paul did a great job, he
March 4, 2009 - 16:33 ET by bigtimerPaul did a great job, he has never minced words about how he feels about any subject....what fools they are to keep this up non-stop...they are still going on and on at this moment to disparage the very man they fear...
Like I said long ago...they picked on the wrong man when they started in on Rush.
The pathetic fools....this is going to backfire big time.
Btw...anyone else listen to Rush today....he challenged O to come and debate him for as much time as he needs...he will televise it from his EIB studio...he really rammed it to the likes of Rahm, Begala and Carville.
Is David Shuster mentally
March 4, 2009 - 17:51 ET by marpelIs David Shuster mentally ill? Or, what's wrong with him? He's got serial killer eyes...
failure
March 4, 2009 - 19:46 ET by traderjamesshuster says multiple times that Rush said that "all Republicans want Obama to fail" Only one problem: HE NEVER SAID THAT ! Rush said (paraphrasing) "I want him to fail", MEANING, (my own interpretation I guess), if my president is a socailist, I want his policies to fail.