"1600 Pennsylvania Avenue" host David Shuster on Wednesday stepped up his attacks on Rush Limbaugh and suggested that if congressional Republicans "align themselves with Rush's statements about wanting the President to fail, they appear unpatriotic." For the second day in a row, Shuster berated a conservative guest about the radio talk show host. He repeatedly encouraged former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer to disagree with Limbaugh and complained, "And, Ari, first of all, when Rush says that all Republicans want the President to fail, Limbaugh's wrong, right?" [Audio available here.]
At one point, Shuster wondered why Republicans couldn't just denounce the "childish" comments by the radio host. He then seriously suggested that GOP members should say, "And we need to isolate Rush Limbaugh because we do have important issues to talk about." Later in the segment, the MSNBC anchor reiterated his assertion that Republicans might be unpatriotic. He challenged, "Ari, is it unpatriotic for somebody to say they hope the President fails?" After interrupting a responding Fleischer, he continued, "...Is it unpatriotic- since patriotism was such a crucial theme in the run-up to the Iraq war in the way the Bush White House defended it- is it unpatriotic to say that you hope the President fails?"
A calm Fleischer retorted, "David, I think it's the very nature of our system that people can believe that policies are not going to work. And you should stand on principles if you don't think the policies will work, you should say that."
On Tuesday's program, Shuster talked with Republican Congressman Ron Paul and repeatedly asked the same question: "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?"
A transcript of the March 4 segment, which aired at 6:05pm, follows:
DAVID SHUSTER: As Jonathan pointed out, the White House and its allies have been happy to crown the controversial Limbaugh as king of the Republican Party and quick to call attention to the GOP leaders who kowtow to him. Clearly, many congressional Republicans are now in a tough spot. If they align themselves with Rush's statements about wanting the President to fail, they appear unpatriotic. But, if they criticize Limbaugh, they may face the wrath of the conservative base that listens to Rush. Joining us now to talk about this is Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary to President Bush. And, Ari, first of all, when Rush says that all Republicans want the President to fail, Limbaugh's wrong, right?
ARI FLEISCHER: Well, David, I think this entire issue is nothing but ridiculous. You know, I'm reminded of a president who at his inaugural address said the follow: "We have come to proclaim an end to the recriminations that have strangled our politics." He cited scripture and he said the time has come to set aside childish things. Well, Barack Obama's chief of staff is acting childish and so is everybody else in the Democrat Party who is picking this ridiculous fight at a time when they should be worried about fixing the economy.
SHUSTER: What about Rush Limbaugh, Ari? I mean, But, isn't the easiest way for Republicans to move beyond this is to say-
FLEISCHER: Rush Limbaugh was not elected- Rush Limbaugh was not elected to anything. The President was. And it was the very President who said put aside the childishness. What I think is happening here-
SHUSTER: Then, why are so many Republicans already kowtowing to him? Why did the Republican Party chair feel the need to apologize after first criticizing- why do so many Republicans this week- they have not been able to bring themselves to say, of course, Rush Limbaugh is wrong when he says they want the President to fail. What is it so difficult?
FLEISCHER: It's not the issue and I don't think Republicans should take the bait and talk about whatever Rush Limbaugh has said. Rush Limbaugh is a conservative radio host, a very popular one and I like him. But the issue is the behavior of the President of the United States and his staff. Which Barack Obama is it? Is it the post-partisan Obama? Or the Obama who sends his chief of staff out to act childish? This is the problem Barack Obama has. And he is acting more as a petty partisan instead of a president. This is the issue. These are our leaders. The economy is melting. It's been two weeks and we haven't even gotten the specifics of his banking proposal. Instead, he's reliving the moments, the worst moments of the campaign when we dealt with lipstick on a pig. Is this what Barack Obama wants his presidency to be about?
SHUSTER: Ari, you know politics- Ari, you know politics. You- I mean, wouldn't you acknowledge from a pure political play, that this is the wise White House strategy because you're marginalizing Republicans, you're painting the entire Republican Party, your opposition, painting them as being like Rush limbaugh?
FLEISCHER: This is just as foolish as it was when everybody got into a fuss about lipstick on a pig during the campaign. America is sick of this type of petty politics, and it was started by Barack Obama That's what I cannot get over. He is so different now than the Barack Obama he promised in the inaugural.
SHUSTER: Wait a second, Ari- Ari, wasn't it started by the Bush administration? I mean, I seem to recall during the Bush administration when Republicans had legitimate concerns and complaints about the direction of the war, there was a straw man set up involving General Petraeus. And that straw man was MoveOn.org and you played a pretty crucial role about trying to portray all Democrats as being unpatriotic and against General Petraeus as opposed to being against the strategy.
FLEISCHER: Well, my point was it was the Barack Obama administration that began this whole nonsense about Rush Limbaugh, which is what I thought you wanted to talk about. But, there's always room for differ [sic] with people involved in politics. But, coming from the President? The President's chief of staff to allege a radio host is the leader of the Republican Party? This is the petty nonsense that I don't think anybody expected from a Barack Obama. This is childish.
SHUSTER: Fair point. But, Ari, if it's nonsense and if it's childish, wasn't it nonsense and childish started by Rush Limbaugh?
FLEISCHER: Well, Rush Limbaugh didn't give an inaugural address promising to be somebody different. Rush Limbaugh, like the liberal hosts-
SHUSTER: Aww, come on, Ari! He's got 20 million listeners a day. He's got more power of the conservative listeners than anybody in this country.
FLEISCHER: David- The wings of both parties are entirely entitled to have vociferous voices represent each. That's why they're called wings. And Rush does a great job at it. The President of the United States, though? He's the one in 2004 who said there's not a red America or a blue America, there's one America. But then he doesn't act like it. He is trying to stir up-
SHUSTER: Then, why can't Republicans, Ari, say the same thing? Why can't Republicans say, "You know what, this is childish, ridiculous, Rush Limbaugh is wrong when he says Republicans want the president to fail. And we need to isolate Rush Limbaugh because we do have important issues to talk about?"
FLEISCHER: Because, then, they would be chasing the same childish game that Rahm Emanuel started. And I think it's to Republicans' credit if they have the discipline not to take the question and not to chase the issue. This is about Barack Obama and the manner and style, the tactics he's choosing to govern. Because, he held himself out as something very different and he's being just like all the rest of the politicians in Washington of both parties who came before him. But, that's not what people expected. How can you give an inaugural address saying to move beyond the childish things and let his chief of staff engage in the very childish things?
SHUSTER: Ari, is it unpatriotic for somebody to say they hope the President fails?
FLEISCHER: Patriotic? You know, I think-
SHUSTER: Is it unpatriotic if they say- is it unpatriotic- since patriotism was such a crucial theme in the run-up to the Iraq war in the way the Bush White House defended it- is it unpatriotic to say that you hope the President fails?
FLEISCHER: David, I think it's the very nature of our system that people can believe that policies are not going to work. And you should stand on principles if you don't think the policies will work, you should say that.
SHUSTER: Right, but they can also believe whether it's patriotic or unpatriotic.
FLEISCHER: It doesn't have anything to do with patriotism to say that. I don't think raising taxes and going on a spending spree is going to help the economy.
SHUSTER: But, it was unpatriotic, therefore, to criticize the surge in Iraq and to somehow issue some criticism with the surge and take issue with General Petraeus. That was unpatriotic, but it's not unpatriotic for Rush Limbaugh to say that it's okay for the President to fail.
FLEISCHER: No, what I think you're confusing here is MoveOn.org- What I think you're trying to throw into a Rush Limbaugh/Barack Obama conversation is an ad that Moveon put on that called General Petraeus General Betray Us. Now, they took their lumps for that as they should have taken their lumps for that.
SHUSTER: Right. An ad that Democrats- Here's the difference, Ari. Democrats roundly criticized MoveOn for that ad. I don't think you can find more than one or two Republicans this week who have criticized Rush Limbaugh. I hope the Republicans hope President Obama fails. That's the difference.
FLEISCHER: Well, I think what you're misleading in the statement, Republicans in philosophy believe the president's policies are not going to succeed. But, I can tell you, I want my 201K to be a 401K again. I want the economy to get going.
SHUSTER: It's fine to argue, it's fine to argue- It's fine to argue you think the President's policies are going to fail. It's a different matter when you say you hope the President fails. In any case, Ari, always great sparring with you.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.





DAVID SHUSTER: As Jonathan pointed out, the White House and its allies have been happy to crown the controversial Limbaugh as king of the Republican Party and quick to call attention to the GOP leaders who kowtow to him. Clearly, many congressional Republicans are now in a tough spot. If they align themselves with Rush's statements about wanting the President to fail, they appear unpatriotic. But, if they criticize Limbaugh, they may face the wrath of the conservative base that listens to Rush. Joining us now to talk about this is Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary to President Bush. And, Ari, first of all, when Rush says that all Republicans want the President to fail, Limbaugh's wrong, right? 














Editor at Large
Comments Policy
No, it surely is not...
March 5, 2009 - 12:54 ET by dborschjr68It is not un-patriotic to hope THIS "president" fails. If he succeeds, we're all screwed.
(And I find it decidedly bad form that this liberal puppet would even use the word 'patriotic' at all. Like he knows anything about patriotism. Contemptible cuss.)
“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” -Winston Churchill.
F**K Socialism. -Me.
Dissent Is Patriotic!
March 6, 2009 - 14:33 ET by Wildcatter1980And, here, dummy me, thought to dissent WAS to be patriotic. Oy!
--
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price. - Ronald Reagan from his first inaugural address
Immelt's looking for a
March 5, 2009 - 12:55 ET by ApacheImmelt's looking for a bailout. Good dog Shuster, good dog.
denounce david shuster!
March 5, 2009 - 13:06 ET by TruthMongershuster's just an entertainer
is wonder - why won't any dems denounce him?
Hillary probably would like
March 5, 2009 - 13:10 ET by ApacheHillary probably would like to since this twit said Chelsea was being "pimped out" by her mom.
Is it wrong?
March 5, 2009 - 13:27 ET by dronetekEverytime this guys speaks, I want to kick his teeth in. Something about the way he moves his mouth and talks from his throat. It bothers me. Its like hes doing a bad Chris Mathews impression.
They're following Alinsky to the letter
March 5, 2009 - 12:57 ET by Defector01That's scary. Within most liberals I guess beats the heart of a fascist
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it - Voltaire
Defector01...
March 5, 2009 - 13:15 ET by dborschjr68You made a reference to Alinsky, which is more than appropriate. I am posting a link for those fellow NB posters who do not know about Alinsky. Enjoy. Knowledge is power, folks.
http://www.vcn.bc.ca...
“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” -Winston Churchill.
F**K Socialism. -Me.
How many Republicans is this idiot
March 5, 2009 - 12:58 ET by katiejanegoing to pester to try and get one to say what he wants? Ari did a good job of responding but I can still hope someone goes rabid on Shuster.
Republicans should slam
March 5, 2009 - 13:07 ET by ApacheRepublicans should slam this idiot down and ask "why the hell should we attack a private citizen? We are supposed to listen to the complaints of the citizens. We don't target them like you guys did with Joe Wurzelbacher. Sorry we don't call out everyone will a complaint like Gibbs does."
Just some variation of that would be great.
For the life of me, I can't
March 5, 2009 - 13:16 ET by SickofLibsFor the life of me, I can't see why any Republican would want to even go on this dumbass show. It's totally predictable, and the outcome is always the same... relentless badgering to try and get the guest to parrot back whatever libtard point he's trying to make.
And he thinks he was 'sparring' with Ari... like they are intellectual equals or something.
MSLSD
March 5, 2009 - 12:58 ET by adamsmithShuster is an irrelevant brainwashed fool bought and paid for by George Soros. Evertime I see him on TV(almost never) I feel I'd like to take a 2x4 and slap that stupid smirk off his stupid face. MSNBC is nothing more than a propaganda outlet...Everyone of these liars should get throat cancer. I know I'm sounding like a KosKid, but these a-holes really irritate me heavily when they twist truth for their Communist masters.........
So, Shuster, let me get ...
March 5, 2009 - 13:00 ET by SentryDanSo, Shuster, let me get this straight. If the republicans don't agree with "the one", or you for that matter, then they are unpatriotic? Is that correct? Does this apply to everyone who doesn't agree with "the one" or you or just the republicans?
Whatever happened to free speech in the country or are only the liberals allowed to have that? What is wrong with these people who don't think that "We the People" should be allowed to express ourselves?
Remember folks, Freedom isn't Free. It was bought with the blood and sacrifice of the men and women who are serving and who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces.
For those who fought for it, Freedom has a flavor that the protected will never know.
Also remember folks, that the way to SUPPORT THE TROOPS is to support their mission. Anyone who says that they support the troops but don't support their mission is lying about supporting the troops. And if you want to know, yes I do have a dog in the fight, he is a United States Marine.
Way to go Ari
March 5, 2009 - 13:02 ET by richb313Finally someone who knows how to deal with these idiots. You turn the argument back around to them. It is chidish and petty for the Obama Administration to constantly harp on this. The more they do and the more that people like Ari can stand up to them the more the American People will come to understand that they have been scammed.
Hush Rush
March 5, 2009 - 13:00 ET by soosanEvery time we waste a minute worrying about Rush we waste a minute of media coverage that should be spent covering what is happening to the country. Rush needs to back off and go back to analysis - we've still got freedom of speech so this Rush stuff is a red herring. I repeat myself; Rush should back off and not become the issue. This is a political distraction pure and simple, Rush is not helping. He is as sympathetic a character to most Americans as a CEO or the 5% richie riches. I like him but right now he needs to cool down - we've got to wrestle away the House in two years and he is way to polarizing.
Back Off
March 5, 2009 - 13:04 ET by allanfI think it is the Obama Administration that is making Rush an issue. Rush comments on politics. That's what he's been doing for twenty years. What's new is a President using his office to slam him.
He needs an enemy
March 5, 2009 - 13:31 ET by Defector01Someone to blame for things going bad, someone to use as a shield to distract from what is really going on. That's a trick as old as government itself - scapegoats have been used by hundreds of regimes. Only difference is unlike alot of other cases where it was just some poor group caught in the middle, this time he's blaming the group that is allowing his government to function.
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it - Voltaire
From what I read, that is
March 5, 2009 - 15:55 ET by TexasteacherFrom what I read, that is the whole crux of this situation. They've even came out and said that since they don't have Bush to blame everything on, they needed someone new so they picked Rush.
obama's notion of bi-partisanship is telling conservatives to shut up and do what he wants.
My thoughts as well
March 5, 2009 - 21:16 ET by CobraManThat's my thoughts as well. First, it was Pat Robertson and/or Regan, then Karl Rove and/or Bush, now Rush. I wonder who the next scapegoat will be? We all know it won't be a Democrat, unless it's Hillary and that ain't likely to happen now that she's "part of the team." They could go back to bashing Lieberman, he's another favorite target.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Just think, the Dems and MSM
March 6, 2009 - 07:46 ET by athoughtor2Just think, the Dems and MSM can go out and buy a ton of white-out and change the B in Bush to an R on their signs and talking point sheets,and you have Rush. It's fairly cost effective. Especially since they aren't changing their message. Could you imagine how much it would cost to make a change to Newt or Sean. but then again they would just raise taxes to pay for it.
Why
March 5, 2009 - 13:13 ET by richb313Why should he back down? Are you happy with the way things are going? Are you happy with the last Republican Candidate for President? I live in Louisiana and I had NO VOICE in selecting that candidate because of our primary system. Are you happy that this President and Staff already had a plan in place in November of last year to use Rush to distract and split the Republican party? I for one hopes that Rush actually ramps it up. The more that this Administration complains the more petty and venial they will look to the average person. Sure they might not agree with Rush, but they will wonder why so much time and effort is given to this. Grow up. Realise that Conservatives can never win if we play by thier rules. They OWN the Media. This tactic will backfire. Sure Rush has big negatives and the general public does not like him, but the American People know that for the Office of the President should not be used for a personal vendetta.
Yeah, let's just go the
March 5, 2009 - 13:15 ET by fitzfongYeah, let's just go the "soosan" route. Let's not offend the fragile sensitivities of moderates by listening to Rush Limbaugh. Let's let the Obamunists roll over Limbaugh with his Alinskyite opposition research. Let's lick our fingers to see which way the wind is blowing, a la David Brooks, then decide what we stand for. Let's nominate more limp "moderate" Republicans, govern by polls and stand for nothing. Let's keep electing abject failures like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charlie Crist because, they're not so "polarizing" (on this, we're united...everybody hates them). After all, it's the Party (the institution) that matters most...not what it stands for. Hey, it worked so well in 2008.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
Rush did do his analysis and
March 5, 2009 - 13:16 ET by athoughtor2Rush did do his analysis and that is why he hopes the President's policies fail.
It has nothing to do with
March 5, 2009 - 13:17 ET by ApacheIt has nothing to do with Rush. The press would gladly do the bidding of this administration and look for another story to occupy their attention away from Obama's screw ups. This has been planed by Rham since Obama was elected. If it wasn't Rush then it would be someone else considered to be speaking too loudly. Gibbs would find another citizen to call out. All hail Obama Chavez.
Every time we waste a
March 5, 2009 - 13:27 ET by Jack BauerWhat are you talking about? Seriously. Who are all these conservatives "worrying" about Rush?
I don't know any conservative who "worries" about Rush.
I know plenty who thank God we have such a champion of conservative principles, who is able, so eloquently, to expound on the philosophy that supports our movement. Capitalism. Freedom. Property. Free speech. Small government. Self-Reliance. Strong Defense.
Maybe you need to help me out by listing which aspects of Rush Limbaugh's conservatism which you find objectionable?
soosan...
March 5, 2009 - 13:36 ET by dborschjr68I respectfully must disagree with you on your words that Mr. Limbaugh needs to back off as he is too polarizing.
This kind of situation is exactly what we need right now, as it will serve to alert other Americans to the failure that is this current "president". You mentioned that this is, "..a political distraction pure and simple". But please let me ask you: Who started this "distraction", anyways? True enough, Mr. Limbaugh has spoken against liberalism for years, long before Obama was even on the scene. Mr. Limbaugh will continue to speak against liberalism for many years to come, I would hope. But was it not Obama who fired the first shot, in admonishing Republicans with this: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh
and get things done." He actually mentioned Mr. Limbaugh by name. Hm. In my reasoning, this was the first shot, done publically enough that it was even reported by the MSM.
If the Democrats and thir liberal puppet media wished it, this whole situation would be killed in a minute. But yet, they seem to be harping on about it. Of course Mr. Limbaugh talks of it on his show, why wouldn't he? He is a private citizen, and he can if he so chooses. The WH and the MSM are keeping this issue alive. It is a distraction of their own making. They brought this upon themselves, and upon the supposed "running of the nation".
Are there more important issues that should be dealt with? Yes, absolutely! I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point. Yet, please do not blame Mr. Limbaugh for the reaction of the WH and the MSM to his being who he is.
I will ne'er be a liberal, and I shall always endeavor to fight them tooth and nail. Liberals are the same way towards me. What difference does polarization actually make right now? If Conservatives "make peace" with the liberals, it is surely the Conservatives who would lose.
Mr. Limbaugh is not the distraction, for he doesn't NEED a distraction in his life. However, I believe this current administration desperately NEEDS a distraction right now, because they are slowly realizing that America isn't buying into their ideals anymore.
Just an observation, soosan. Thanks for reading this far!
“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” -Winston Churchill.
F**K Socialism. -Me.
there can be no peace with liberal agenda.
March 5, 2009 - 15:37 ET by soosanI don't think you are hearing what I am saying. Rush tends to go overboard - just like the new President seems to be doing on his spending. Conservatives get it, he's preaching to the choir. There is another world of people out there who don't. What we think of as Rush on a roll sends many running away.
Right now folks are checking in with El Rushbo and are a little bit interested in the ruckus. These are the folks who bought into the whole media enhanced Obama mystique. They are a bit curious. And what are they finding? The sky is falling (fairness doctrine,) the US is becoming Russia, your children are screwed. Rush seems to be intent on providing the media with soundbites that make him look shrill (Pelosi-ish).
In my liberal laced world Rush has always been a pariah. By going so far overboard in his response to the childish attacks on him by the President (he hit me first and now he must debate me!) he is making the Democrats case. He is acting like he thinks that he is the leader of the Republican party. He is not, he is an entertainer with conservative beliefs. People are listening.
It is not necessarily the substance of his beliefs that turns off the curious - it is the condescending way in which he communicates. There is a gap between the left and the right that needs to be won over in order for us to get this nation back to it's conservative roots. We've have a lot of work to do to bridge that gap. You may not believe me but many non conservative Americans find Rush's interpersonal skills offensive. I'm just saying that he should back off a little on the bombast. There is a politically correct world out there that shuts down at the sound of his voice and whether we like it or not they are in the majority. We see example after example on newsbusters about how the left overreacts to all things conservative. The debate has to be framed with the ideas, not the personalities.
I'd love for Rush to bring Steele on to his show and talk turkey about the future.
I'd love for Rush to continue to challenge the Aministration every step along this path to socialism that they are weaving. I just wish he could do it with a bit more grace and charm.
→ Good point soosan
March 5, 2009 - 15:45 ET by Cool ArrowThere are some people turned off by "clinging to guns and religion", "spread the wealth" "my Muslim Faith" "Black people suffer more than white people during recession"- (paraphrased, but accurate) that's just Obama.
I won't start on Biden.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
I am so sick and tired of
March 5, 2009 - 16:39 ET by fitzfongI am so sick and tired of the so-called "independents", "moderates", "undecideds", "ideological centrists", etc. dictating policy strategy for the Republican Party. I am sick of having to appease a bunch of intellectually challenged, principle-free, self-important moderates because they threaten to vote every two years. They whore out their votes to the highest bidder because they are treated like the most important voting block...they need to have their precious egos stroked so that people see that their lives have meaning. Both parties cater to this market segment using phony populist rhetoric to attract their temporary devotion. And while the Republicans will govern from the center after running to the center, the Democrats will simply govern the way they want to after running to the center. At this point, I don't give a rat's a** who is "offended" by Rush Limbaugh. If "independents" find his program and his personality objectionable, fine. Who cares? The Marxists are in power now, and they're shoving every part of their wish list down our throats. If your squishy centrist friends are so turned off by Rush Limbaugh's "pomposity" that they'll flock to some Alinskyite empty suit who'll destroy their financial futures instead, then they deserve all the misery that inevitably awaits us all. Perhaps a spell of government-caused economic depression will be the medicine they need to grow up and straighten their heads out.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
boom fitz
March 5, 2009 - 16:55 ET by candanceI agree with you all the way.
soosan, a reply for you...
March 5, 2009 - 21:12 ET by dborschjr68"I'd love for Rush to bring Steele on to his show and talk turkey about the future.
I'd love for Rush to continue to challenge the Aministration every step
along this path to socialism that they are weaving. I just wish
he could do it with a bit more grace and charm."
--------------------------------------------------
Ahhh, okay, now I get what you were saying. It is true, to me at least, that yes, at times Mr. Limbaugh can be a bit difficult to get-along with. He does have a tendency to shamelessly self-promote, speak way too highly of hisself, and say things like that his talent is on loan from God. I completely understand what you are saying now.
So, I would propose this: In the coming weeks, let's see how many articles, either online or in print, that the MSM puts out that directly speaks of Mr. Limbaugh. (I am also counting MSNBC, CNN, and all those kinda shows as well.)
I think it will become very obvious that Mr. Limbaugh isn't actually the aggressor in this issue. He's just one man. He cannot be everywhere at once. The MSM is huge, and they can be a heckuva lot more places at once than Mr. Limbaugh.
As I stated earlier, I believe the WH started this. I also have come to believe it has been their plan all along to start this. It is a distraction, to be sure. But, soosan, I must ask, why would they need to create this distraction at all? ("They" being the WH, of course.) I think you know the answer. Yeah, it's because they are scared. They are scared of what one man can say that will galvanize millions.
Thanks, soosan, for this brief back and forth. I appreciated it.
“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” -Winston Churchill.
F**K Socialism. -Me.
With all do respect
March 5, 2009 - 14:26 ET by nwahsIt as much as Michael Steele's fault. Michael Steele could have cemented his status as head of the Republican party by going eyebrow to eyebrow with El Rush Bo and saying something on the order of
" I am the elected leader of the Republican party. You are a talk show host. You do your job and don't instruct me on how to do my job."
Thats all he had to do, and he would be considered more of a leader than he is today. Nobody wants a weak leader or a leader who kisses the ring of some narcissistic antipope.
Sometimes the biggest disservice you can to your country is agree with your friend simply because they are your friend.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
~He'd look more like a leader
March 5, 2009 - 14:30 ET by choselife3xIf he simply acted like one. I think proclaiming "I am the leader" would make him look defensive and weak.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
But isn't that something Democrats understand?
March 5, 2009 - 14:49 ET by katiejaneStamping their feet like poorly raised brats? No you'e not - yes I am.
agreed CL- sort of
March 5, 2009 - 16:23 ET by JAJTagreed CL- sort of similiar to Obama's "I Won" it was a petty comment and at all not leader like.
~Ezzzackly
March 5, 2009 - 16:27 ET by choselife3xReal winners, like real leaders, don't have to talk about it.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
Actually, if Michael Steele
March 5, 2009 - 15:14 ET by fitzfongActually, if Michael Steele was a real leader, he would focus on raising funds for the Republican Party to defeat the Marxists in the 2010 Congressional Election...not show up hat-in-hand to some has-been comedian on CNN whose only reason to have him on the show in the first place is to find 10 different ways to portray him as an "Uncle Tom". Republicans are not interested in Michael Steele "standing up" to Rush Limbaugh. They are interested in Steele standing up to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama...that's his job.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
principles or party
March 5, 2009 - 14:31 ET by katainkentchoose.
okay soosan
March 5, 2009 - 14:54 ET by candanceSo the White House singles out an individual for daily persecution, and your solution is to tell him to suck it up and go away.
That'll be great. Then they'll attack Michelle Malkin and we'll ask that "distraction" to back off too. Then they'll attack Fox News and we will tell them not to defend themselves because it's too distracting.
Soon we'll have no one left but NBC and CNN.
soosan, When has Rush ever...
March 5, 2009 - 15:26 ET by jawebster1backed down from a fight? Answer: Never! Rush did not start this fight. The Dims started it when they mischaracterized his "I hope he fails" statement. (and they continue to do so even though they know better) Anybody with half a brain knows what Rush meant. Rush and I and millions of other Americans hope Obama fails in turning America into a "socialist" country with the government owning everything except for the toothbrushes we use. Jim Webster
Where to begin....
March 5, 2009 - 13:05 ET by athoughtor2First off...Rush did not say "all Republican's" He said "I" hope his policies fail.
Secondly...The Bush administration never called any one un-patriotic...that was spin generated from the dems and MSM.
Here's a novel idea for the MSM, i'm still including MSNBC here, is instead of looking at what Rush said. Why don't they actually analyze the words and deeds of this adminstration and what they have put forward....Some of these people are still worried about some memo written in late 2001 and that was never implemented as it was written.
Shyster is a human hemmoroid
March 5, 2009 - 13:10 ET by SickofLibsAri applied copious amounts of Preparation H to this human hemmoroid, but that still didn't deter him.
Except for Olbermann, Shyster is the most condescending, arrogant, patronizing asshole in broadcasting today.
When I see that alien carnival clown smirk, I just want to... ahh, nevermind.
I simply cannot believe that ANYONE of ANY political persuasion finds this tool even slightly entertaining, likable to any extent, or intelligent.
OK David, when GWB was President...
March 5, 2009 - 13:14 ET by Red JeepDid it 'Appear Unpatriotic,' that the Democrats didn't slam Olbermann for his anti-Bush views?
Did Democrat politicians and Olbermann want Bush to fail? Did they want the US military to fail in Iraq? Hmmmm? How unpatriotic was that?
I hope someone in the media ask Shuster and his fellow morons those questions directly.
Olbermann didn't just want
March 5, 2009 - 13:19 ET by SickofLibsOlbermann didn't just want Bush to fail, he wanted him to die.
Right. An ad that
March 5, 2009 - 13:14 ET by Jack BauerYet another Flat out LIE from Shuster
Same thing caught my eye JB
March 5, 2009 - 13:40 ET by PA ConservativeI don't remember a SINGLE Democrat denouncing the pathetic MoveOn.org ad. For Shitster to say that "Democrats roundly criticized" that ad is a total lie. Of course, the low IQ morons that typically watch MSNBC won't even pick up on that fabrication. Dems have truly lost all contact with the reality of this deteriorating situation their Messiah is presiding over. For this nitwit to be grilling Republicans over Rush-stinking-Limbaugh is laughable. How about taking a look at what our Dear Leader is trying to do to our country? Shitster is a total syncophant, blinded to anything that Obama is doing. Complete embarrassment.
PAC
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends,
it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new government...
PA -- yep. Rush is the most
March 5, 2009 - 13:55 ET by Jack BauerPA -- yep. Rush is the most important issue to the current administration and its media shills like Shuster. The absurdity is hard to parody.
Obama Lies. The Dow Dies.
What kills me is Rush never
March 5, 2009 - 13:23 ET by AcrosWhat kills me is Rush never said he wanted the President to fail he said "I want his socialist policies to fail" which is a big difference then what they keep reporting.....!!!!!
"It's fine to argue, it's
March 5, 2009 - 13:27 ET by Chris Norman"It's fine to argue, it's fine to argue- "
No Shuster. According to you and your censorship cohorts in the media it's not and if one does they will be pilloried by you. it's time these Republicans start firing back with the censorship argument.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
The problem, Chris, is that
March 5, 2009 - 14:31 ET by LiberalliesThe problem, Chris, is that we have whimpy Republicans who are terrified to fight back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To this day, I have never understood why President Bush never stood up to the Democrats and their attacks on him. I know he believed he was acting like a gentleman, but my goodness, he allowed the Republican party and the Conservative cause to take many steps back!!!!
It is time for Republicans to stand up!!! I am sick and tired of our weak, terrified, Republican leadership not standing up for Republicans and Conservatism.
I believe the problem is that you have a bunch of elites Republicans who despite being the minority are MORE than comfortable in the position that they are in. They do not care about you or me. They only care about staying in power, even if it means that the Conservative cause is hurting big.
When will the Republican party realize that Obama is not about oppossing the minority party and Conservatism. He and his butt-boys are out to destroy Conservatism and the Republican party.
We are seeing our nation being flushed down the toilet infront of our eyes and retards like Shuster are more worried about what Limbaugh is saying, instead of being worried of where our nation is heading.
WOW!!!!
I see the USA where Venezuela was in the 1990s, not economically, but politically.
Liberallies, Politics and economics are...
March 5, 2009 - 15:36 ET by jawebster1entertwined. If we become a "Socialist" country and that is where we are headed right now under Obama, all property will be owned by the state to distribute as it sees fit. Remember your 401 that is now a 104? Under Socialism it will be a 0! Jim Webster
Squirrel Shuster...!
March 5, 2009 - 13:29 ET by AgentAmericanYou squirrel.
2010: A GOP Hill
Heck Shuster was simply
March 5, 2009 - 13:47 ET by bigtimerHeck Shuster was simply made a fool of yesterday by Paul and Ari...they both were great, they both had Shuster ending up with both feet in that mile-wide mouth of his...and he was simply to stupid to realize it.
I loved it..it was great enteretainment...plus Ari's replies were pure class.
Hillary
March 5, 2009 - 14:01 ET by FOXFANDidn't Hillary scream at us(in her rising exwife's voice) that it wasn't unpatriotc to disagree with the president? Shuster is an unimportant dolt, what a useless jakass.
POLL TME...
March 5, 2009 - 14:07 ET by danybhoyWHO IS THE BIGGEST TOOL IN CABLENEWS?
David Shuster...
Rick Sanchez...
ChrisMathews...
Keith Olbermann...
Jack Cafferty...
Rachel Maddow...
Mika Brzezinski...
Mike Barnicle...
Joe Scarsborough...
Willie Geist...
Jim Cramer...
Erin Burnett...
Cambell Brown...
Anderson Cooper...
Keep in mind, some of these people are tools, some are idiots, some are leading the charge, others are just following with their head down, & some have no clue.
"The Fairness Doctrine = Jim Crow laws for Conservatives". Jim Quinn from "Quinn & Rose"
It's a tie
March 5, 2009 - 14:50 ET by UpNorththey all win, or lose, take your pick. They're all tools.
Why does the MSM not see the danger in the feds attempting to silence, yet again, a private citizen? They tried with JTP, now it's Rush. Who's next? Or what's next? The bloggers? Letters to the editor of a paper? Or, will they encourage children to turn in their parents, ala Germany in the 30's and 40's?
I don't know about Scarborough...
March 5, 2009 - 15:14 ET by jawebster1because I don't watch his channel. Erin Burnett has made me cringe at times with some of the things she has said on Fox. I don't watch Cramer either but from what I have heard, he is changing his mind about Obama and IMHO does not belong on this list. Don't know who Willie Geist is. As for the rest you named, they are all equally bad with the possible exception of Anderson Cooper 180. Jim Webster
FLEISCHER: Because, then,
March 5, 2009 - 14:25 ET by LiberalliesFLEISCHER: Because, then, they would be chasing the same childish game that Rahm Emanuel started. And I think it's to Republicans' credit if they have the discipline not to take the question and not to chase the issue. This is about Barack Obama and the manner and style, the tactics he's choosing to govern. Because, he held himself out as something very different and he's being just like all the rest of the politicians in Washington of both parties who came before him. But, that's not what people expected. How can you give an inaugural address saying to move beyond the childish things and let his chief of staff engage in the very childish things?
SHUSTER: Ari, is it unpatriotic for somebody to say they hope the President fails?
______________________________________________________
Ari Flescher swept the floor with Shuster. Notice how after Ari shows that the childish game has come from Rahm Emanuel and the White House, Shuster immediatly changes the subject!
Mr. David Shuster, you are a propaganda fool for the Obama administration!
and Shuster, of course, misses the other side of the argument that Liberals used. We were told for the past 8 years that it was patriotic to disagree with the President. Now he has the f.....king balls to say that to disagree with the President is unpatriotic? While Shuster is trying to call Republicans hypocrites, he misses the fact that the hypocrites are the Liberals.
Crazy, foaming at the mouth Liberals. For 8 years the demanded that President Bush, as a man, as our commander-in-chief and his policies fail. Now when the table is turned on them they cry?
Ugly things are coming people. Very ugly things are coming our way and idiots like Shuster are more interested in attacking Republicans and Limbaugh. Liberals are such sad creatures.
What part of...
March 5, 2009 - 14:28 ET by JPR1..."We know socialism is going to suck" does this guy not get?
Does he look like he's about to encounter five feet of two by four, or it just me?
LOL! Classic. Well-done, JPR1!
March 5, 2009 - 14:45 ET by dborschjr68“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” -Winston Churchill.
F**K Socialism. -Me.
Thank you db ;-)
March 5, 2009 - 15:39 ET by JPR1Something very cartoonish about this guy. Be fun to see a good animator do a Three Stooges kind of thing with him, Olby and Matthews.
If Obama does not fail...
March 5, 2009 - 15:43 ET by jawebster1it is obvious to anyone not blinded by partisanship that America will no longer be America. It will be Amerika! Let us all pray that America survives this "socialist" regime that is unfortunately in power at this time. Think about this: Where would we be today if we Republicans could have picked our own candidate and Romney had won? Jim Webster
Hey shyster, dissent is
March 5, 2009 - 15:27 ET by TexasteacherHey shyster, dissent is patriotic a**hole!
obama's notion of bi-partisanship is telling conservatives to shut up and do what he wants.
wow
March 5, 2009 - 15:34 ET by traderjamesI wish i had seen that ! This guy got his clock cleaned ! Great job Ari !
Note to David: LET IT
March 5, 2009 - 15:41 ET by JAJTNote to David: LET IT GO!!!!
next time the republicans should say, "that thing again, that's boring, lets talk about Obama socialist agenda".
just like they did when Blago was first arrested, they went on spin mode by saying "that's old stuff no one is interested, lets move on"...
i think the what needs to happen is whenever the MSM brings up Rush again, they should say "why don't you go on his show and ask him this.... let's talk about the real issue, like the fact that the stock market doesn't like Obama" and keep pointing out examples of the vagueness we are hearing from the WH on their resolution, people want examples. if they keep redirecting back to the real issues at hands, the MSM will be forced to talk about it.
Exactly!
March 5, 2009 - 16:00 ET by NortonalecWhy don't the conservative talking heads boycott that foolish network? Just let Schuster talk to other like-minded fools. Is Ari pushing a book?
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever."~David St. Hubbins
When the time comes for the Obamanista regime...
March 5, 2009 - 16:02 ET by R D Helm...to begin rounding up dissenters (after all, the messiah has to save the economy, right?), I bet the boy Shyster will be leading the charge.
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.