Tag: limbaugh

Change in Great Lakes Region elected Republicans – less conservative!

chasdarwinLeave a comment

The ACU, a conservative organization – is giving lower (less conservative) ratings to elected officials from the Great Lakes region.  

Muriel Kane, Rawstory: ” The American Conservative Union recently released its Congressional ratings for 2008 — and the figures suggest the possibility of a significant division between hardcore conservatives in the Republican Party and those who might be more open to voting with the Democrats, particularly on economic issues…In New York, for example, a number of Republican members of Congress appear to have grown more moderate — either that or the ACU’s standards have become more extreme. For example, Rep. Peter King came in at only 50% in 2008, down from 68% the previous year and a lifetime record of 75%. Rep. John McHugh was at 40%, compared with a lifetime figure of 72%.
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan are other states where a number of Republican members of Congress drew ACU scores between the 40’s and the 70’s. These figures are in many cases 10, 15, or even 30 points lower than their lifetime ACU records. 

Most of these Republicans remain clearly conservative according to their own standards — but the ACU figures suggest … a different path from Limbaugh conservatism. ” 

see: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Conservative_rankings_suggest_Rust_Belt_GOP_0329.html

The ideologies that failed

chasdarwinLeave a comment

Frank Schaeffer – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Schaeffer – a former religious right Republican, addresses his former party:  “You Republicans are the arsonists who burned down our national home. You combined the failed ideologies of the Religious Right, so-called free market deregulation and the Neoconservative love of war to light a fire that has consumed America. Now you have thenerve to criticize the “architect” America just hired — President Obama — to rebuild from the ashes. You do nothing constructive, just try to hinder the one person willing and able to fix the mess you created.

I used to be one of you…. Today no actual conservative can be a Republican. Reagan would despise today’s wholly negative Republican Party. And can you picture the gentlemanly and always polite Ronald Reagan, endorsing a radio hate-jock slob who crudely mocked a man with Parkinson’s and who now says he wants an American president to fail?!

With people like Limbaugh as the loudmouth image of the Republican Party — you need no enemies. But something far more serious has happened than an image problem: the Republican Party has become the party of obstruction at just the time when all Americans should be pulling together for the good of our country. Instead, Republicans are today’s fifth column sabotaging American renewal.

President Obama has been in office barely 45 days and the Republican Party has the nerve to blame him for the economic and military cataclysm he inherited.” 

Thank you Mr. Schaeffer, and here we hope the  GOP ignores you & continues its current path…

see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/open-letter-to-the-republ_b_172822.html

Brooks says: “Spending freeze ‘Insane'”

chasdarwinLeave a comment

That would be David Brooks, not Mel, and he was speaking during an appearance on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”.    “New York Times columnist David Brooks said on Sunday that it was “insane” for Republicans in Congress, including every GOP member of the House, to support a spending freeze in the middle of a recession.  “Tying such proposals to an intellectual simplicity exhibited by Rush Limbaugh, the conservative scribe also said the party was too obsessed with pursuing the legacy of Ronald Reagan in a drastically different time.  The problem with them and the problem with Limbaugh in terms of intellectual philosophy is they are stuck with Reagan,” … They are stuck with the idea that government is always the problem. A lot of Republicans up in Capitol Hill right now are calling for a spending freeze in a middle of a recession/depression. That is insane. But they are thinking the way they thought in 1982, if we can only think that way again, that is just insane. And there are a lot of Republicans like David Frum … who are trying to say Reagan was right for his era, but it is time to move on. And there are just not a lot of them on Capitol Hill right now, and I think the party is looking for that kind of Republican.”

Well said Mr. Brooks, even though I abhor seeing limp bough’s name in the same sentence with the word ‘intellectual’ –  although ‘simplicty’ did rescue the statement.  Also, having read Stockman’s “The triumph of Politics, How the Reagan Revolution Failed” (he was budget director during the early scenes of that B movie). I also cringe when I see the actor’s named linked with policy. 

Before jumping on the good ship Reagan, one must ask if  ‘Reagonomics’ worked? It certainly did: 

  o It redistributed wealth from the lower and  middle classes to the very wealthiest.

  o Increased our national debt nearly ten fold.

  o Allowed our infrastructure and education systems to deteriorate.

  o Left us unprepared for the post cold war world: enter Japan, then Korea, then China, et all.

N.B.: I am including Bush 41 & 43 with Ronald I, under supply-side slumdogs. 

see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/08/brooks-gop-spending-freez_n_172838.html

New ideas are dangerous?

chasdarwinLeave a comment

Some say that progressives ‘hate’ Mr. Limbaugh – aka limp bough.  I don’t hate any life forms, but I can and do at times hate what some may say or do.  I find the limp one offensive, dangerous, and a non-contributor to the progress of our species.

Joe Conason writes in TruthDig: “Once upon a time, conservatives liked to say that “ideas matter.” They attributed this pithy slogan to Ayn Rand, venerated author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Virtue of Selfishness,” and tried to live by it, generating books, papers and legislative proposals by the dozen. Although many of their theories later proved flimsy, they at least attempted to address real problems with fresh thinking.

But ideas no longer matter—and in fact they’re dangerous, according to the maximum leader of the right.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington last week, Rush Limbaugh declared that new ideas ought to be shunned by every right-thinking American. The radio kingpin savaged those in his movement who have dared to suggest that the right needs policy alternatives to compete with Democratic plans for economic revival, universal health care, environmental stewardship and educational improvement. Ranting on for more than an hour, he warned against any reconsideration of the sacred platitudes of Reaganism.”

He continues: “The image of a radio demagogue, dressed entirely in black, roaring against dissenters from the official line, provoked comparison with Fidel Castro or Mao Zedong. Here was the harbinger of an ideology in decline, exhibiting pathological aversion to intellectual activity and unfettered debate, an aversion that is always the surest evidence of political decay.

The irony, of course, is that Reaganism was, at its zenith, a vehicle for policy ideas as well as a personality cult. What began with the founding of National Review and the Barry Goldwater campaign as a rump protest against stale Republican moderation became the dominant current—with a vision of its own and a series of policy schemes, from supply-side economics to workfare, faith-based social spending, school vouchers and Social Security privatization. But although the world has changed radically since those ideas entered the political mainstream a quarter-century ago, Limbaugh and his millions of followers evidently feel that any attempt to cope with change is heretical.

Some Republicans clearly understand that their party and their ideology are exhausted, even if they still can’t come up with anything more creative than capital gains tax cuts. (That means you, Newt Gingrich.) They also know that as a public spokesman and symbol, Limbaugh, whose utterances over the years have been larded with obnoxious racism and sexism, leaves much to be desired… For Democrats, these clown shows are amusing and encouraging. As long as the Republicans kowtow to Limbaugh, they won’t be able to muster substantive opposition to President Obama and the congressional majority. That may be just as well for now. But every nation needs a competitive marketplace of ideas—and conservatism today offers only retreads. ”

Mr. Conason does well here, and, if one asks if I tire of the limp bough controversy, I recall that at the time of the Abu Grahib prison revelations, a conservative colleague said: “I wish they would stop talking about it.” I’m sure she did, and I am happy to see the Mindless One as the Icon of the GOP.

 

see: http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/20090304_rushing_toward_irrelevance/

N.B.: Speaking of Ayn Rand, it might be noted that genes have been discovered which favor intra species cooperation…

What we have here is a failure to communicate…

chasdarwinLeave a comment

There is currently a great deal of  attention being given to Rush Limbaugh, although in Cleveland the current top story is over another unsavory topic -multiple murder and suicide. 

Questions:

0: Who is Rush Limbaugh?

1: What is this talk radio format, of which he is a participant?

2:  Is this talk radio format an acceptable form of communications?

3: Is it factual, that is, does it seek after the truth, and after multiple sides of the story?

4: If not, what can be done?

5. Is Rush Limbaugh ‘good’ for America?

6. Is He good for the GOP?

7: Is he as highly approved as some of his advocates think?

0: Rush Limbaugh was born in 1951, and dropped out of  Southeast Missouri State University  after two semesters and one summer, with a very undistinguished record.  He became a disk jockey, and then moved into talk radio.  With ” the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine — which had required that stations provide free air time for responses to any controversial opinions that were broadcast — by the FCC in 1987 meant stations could broadcast editorial commentary without having to present opposing views”, and this launched conservative talk radio.  (From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh).  He uses the term “Excellence in Broadcasting” network, but that is a fiction – there is no such entity.

1. The format of this type of programming has two characteristics:

 o Opinion and editiorial content are stated as fact.

 o The dialog is controlled, e.g., if a caller got through and challenged what was being said, the host can hang up, and then reword statements to their advantage.

2.  The result is illusion, not reality: no, it is not a form of broadcasting the truth, and not an acceptable form of communications. 

3. As an example of this show’s disconnect from reality, consider: “During the February 14(2006) broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh invented a racial component to explain Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett‘s departure from the Ohio Democratic Senate primary race. While reporting on Hackett’s decision to withdraw from the Democratic primary race against Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) for the seat currently held by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), Limbaugh asserted: “And don’t forget, Sherrod Brown is black. There’s a racial component here, too,” adding that “the newspaper that I’m reading all this from is The New York Times, and they, of course, don’t mention that.” In fact, Brown is Caucasian — a point on which Limbaugh was corrected later in the program.” (From: http://mediamatters.org/items/200602160001), and in fact Sherrod won the seat.  This is an example of ignorant,  irresponsibe journalism, and even a miniscule knowledge or research of the facts would have avoided it.  Give him an ‘F ‘ on this – a grade familiar from his college career.   Also see mediamatters, or “Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat liar” by Al Franken for a nearly endless list of other such examples.

4. We can restore the Fairness Doctrine, and move on from there.

5. He appears to be racist, and anti-female, among other unsavory characteristics: hard for to find much good there.

6. Politico’s Jonathan Martin had the scoop: “Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold bydepicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House.

The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans, especially younger voters. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise.
Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh…”  see: 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/weekend-opinionator-the-party-of-limbaugh-a-conservative-debate/

This dialog then, is of benefit to Democrats.

7: Apparently not – see: http://zdrake.blogspot.com/2009/03/rush-limbaugh-polling-hes-not-popular.html

“..a failure to communicate The Truth”.

Who speaks for Them?

chasdarwinLeave a comment

I once worked with a very intelligent young woman, who grew up as a have not, and worked her way through college, which made it difficult for me to comprehend why she listened to the factually challenged fat boy. 

I very seldom purposefully listen to him, as his statements such as “You don’t have to think, we will do the thinking for you” are offensive and, as one who works hard for everything that he knows, is contradictary to me.   Having heard many accomplished speakers in my life – E. O. Wilson – most recently, RL’s self-proclaimed knowledge rings both hollow and disinenuous.  

In the early 1960’s, it was fashionable among some to say (speaking of the Luce empire): “Life is for those who can’t read; Time for those who can’t think”.   Today: “Rush Limbaugh is for those who can’t think; Fox Noise for those who don’t”. 

Bob Cesca, in HuffPost writes:

“The Democrats are going about the business of cleaning up the mess of three decades of Reaganomics, while the GOP is duct-taping themselves to the ample bosom of the most self-satirical political sideshow geek in American media history.”

see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-dittohead-party-how-t_b_171979.html

11% of GOP voters say Limbaugh is their leader!

chasdarwinLeave a comment

Rasmussen reports that only 11% of Republicans think he is their leader: ” …just 11% of GOP voters say the conservative radio commentator is the party’s leader.  Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republican voters disagree and 8% are undecided in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.”

N.B.: Should ‘fuhrer’ be the operative word for leader in this case?

see:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/just_11_of_republicans_say_limbaugh_is_their_party_s_leader

Earmark my pork!

chasdarwinLeave a comment

What are earmarks?  What is pork?

Earmarks, about 2% – that’s TWO percent – of the budget, are projects inserted into the budget by legislators to address needs back home, which is one reason why they were elected.

Pork is what conservatives label projects that spend  money to solve a social or community problem.

When I hear ‘pork’ , I think of the factually challenged fat boy!

The intellectual of the Grand Old party

chasdarwinLeave a comment

While it is difficult to address the question of what an intellectual is and simultaneously appear modest, I have to verify that I am still living in the same galaxy whenever I hear That word associated with Rush Limbaugh.  Having conversed with Harvard, Yale, and Case PH D’s , and some  Oxford grads, I have an established idea of what’s ‘ín’ and what’s not, and he is certainly ‘not’!  Shrewd, perhaps, but not practicing the in depth analysis required to reach the depths of an issue.

Perhaps the answer is that in a collection of room-temperature IQ’s, a 3 digit score seems lofty, but rather than appear to be an effete snob on this matter, I won’t say that, but rather, as a loyal Democrat, hope that the GOP listens to him, and no one else.

More on the GOP threat to our Recovery

chasdarwinLeave a comment

“The Ecstasy and the Agony”

Frank was really Rich today, and, amongst his words of celebration, was a warning.  Samples:

“The good news for Obama is that he needn’t worry about the Republicans. They’re committing suicide.”

“…the party is trying to lock down its white country-club blowhards.”

“G.O.P. pseudopopulism ran riot last week as right-wing troops rallied around their latest Joe the Plumber: Rick Santelli, the ranting CNBC foe of Obama’s mortgage rescue program….The Santelli revolution’s flameout was just another confirmation that hard-core Republican radicals are now the G.O.P.’s problem, not the president’s. Rahm Emanuel has it right when he says the administration must try bipartisanship, but it doesn’t have to succeed. Voters give Obama credit for trying, and he can even claim success with many Republican governors, from Schwarzenegger to Crist. Now he can move on and let his childish adversaries fight among themselves, with Rush Limbaugh as the arbitrating babysitter. (Last week he gave Jindal a thumb’s up.)”

Mr Rich goes on to warn us on potential problems.

see: “http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/opinion/01rich.html?ref=opinion”

The author sees the current GOP media situation as being caused by, among other facts:

o  They are so used to being able to run all over Democrats, minorities, the under-privileged,  and ‘Liberals’,that they do not yet realize may people are living in hard times, and wish a different message.

o They don’t yet realize the impact of the opposition having control of the executive and legislative branches.

Does the GOP stumbling mean we can go on auto-pilot and win the next three elections?  No, we must work hard, but we will take all of the help we can get!