For good or for ill, there is lots of talk regarding Rush Limbaugh and the Republican Party these days.
Therein lies a challenge. Limbaugh represents a notable voice in the conservative movement, particularly from a populist perspective. That's all well and good, such populist resonance is an essential component of any majority coalition.
That said, while Limbaugh can and should be a relevant voice in the conservative movement, he SHOULD NOT be the voice of the GOP. The conservative movement and the Republican party are not the same thing. The former's purpose is advancing conservative ideals. The latter's is achieving and maintaining elected office (where we hope such officials will advance as many conservative policies as prudently possible). The fact the two often have similar goals and end desires doesn't change the fact they're not one and the same.
The Limbaugh example drives this home. He can give a rousing speech at CPAC (full clips of speech here) and use his regular show to enunciate conservative ideas, regardless of whether not everyone in the GOP agrees (see McCain, John). That works.
What doesn't work is Limbaugh = GOP. Democrats would l-o-v-e for that to be the case, with even people as senior as Rahm Emmanuel gleefully trying to make the case. What that does is attempt to paint the GOP as "conservatives only" in a world where neither party can survive without a broad coalition.
Just as Democrats couldn't retake Congress without running socially conservative Democrats in key red districts, the GOP can't win back either Congress or the Presidency without swaths of voters who consider themselves to be "moderate" or "independent," not "conservative" or "Republican."
That's why you get both Michael Steele...
...and Eric Cantor rejecting some of Limbaugh's recent language.
Those two gentlemen have a job to do for the GOP. Limbaugh has a job to do for conservatives. By definition, they can't be exactly the same thing, even if both succeed wildly in their respective missions - which I hope they do.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 01, 2009 07:07 PM | Email ThisWe need to explain our beliefs and make our case. Not pander to moderates.
We have a great opportunity. I hope we don't blow it.
It's a fine line, but it is necessary.
Posted by: Easycure on March 1, 2009 07:22 PMThe Republican leadership needs to get ahead of the curve and be everywhere with their message. They should be polite and firm, but they should be assertive. Too many times in the past, they were unarmed in the lion's den saying, "nice kitty, kitty", and the Dems had them for lunch.
One of the reasons conservatives appreciate Rush's message is that he points out things, or says thing that the Republican leadership has become too gutless to admit any longer. There are many in the Republican party that want the republicans to become more progressive, more liberal, more moderate. They seem to spend more time looking for these changes than they do demanding the Democrats become more conservative, more moderate.
This is political war and the Democrats are playing not only to win, but to annihilate. The Republicans are just playing to be liked. They need to get a clue.
Right now, the voters appear to be looking for the candiate/party that will give them the most goodies from the public treasury. If that is the only thing they want, the Democrats will win every time because no one can out promise or out spend the Democrat politician. As long as the democrats are allowed to frame the debate as one of, "you just need more funding", the Republicans are lost and eventually, the People.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 1, 2009 07:22 PMReagan said it, "we need bold colors, not pale pastels". He knew what he was talking about.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 1, 2009 07:30 PMDemocrats promise government will do all kinds of magical things for everyone. Not to be outdone Republicans say, "oh, yeah! we're going to give you lots of stuff too!"
We've lost our way. We let the left dictate the agenda. Bush was terrified to veto a spending bill because he was afraid Democrats would say that he "hates children". Bush never stood up and explained that Democrats have been throwing billions at children since 1965 and nothing has improved. That's the difference we need in new Republican leadership.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 1, 2009 07:46 PMLet's be careful out there.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 1, 2009 08:24 PMAfter all, this is the same jerk who screamed "Dead! Dead! Dead!" when discussing his political opponents. Rahmbo probably snickered, "He had it coming" when Sean Connery's character got killed off in "The Untouchables."
Posted by: MarkJ on March 1, 2009 08:53 PMI don't doubt for a second that ABC hyped the GOP v. Limbaugh angle here. Yet, if you listen to Cantor's comments, he actually is rather explicitly rejecting the notion that the GOP hopes Obama fails. Indeed, he spends some notable time on that point.
Sure, it's not Cantor v. Limbaugh because they're both backing conservative ideals. But Cantor is also pointedly not going down the same path as Limbaugh in rhetoric. That difference is fair and understandable, which was part of my ultimate point.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 1, 2009 09:06 PMAnd therein lies the rub for the GOP- it no longer knows it's base.
Let me illustrate. I have a friend who was raised by liberal parents, spent 20 years of her life living the vida loca as an espresso sipping, non-profit employed lesbian. But now, she has held a job in "corporate america" for 10 years applying her IT skills and making the big bucks.
She told me at dinner tonite that all the lefty liberal schtick that she was exposed to as a kid and lived by thru her young adult years doesnt hold water in corporate america. And she is starving for substance about how to apply the brilliance in corporate america, the thousands of people she knows who want to break out of this "i dont want to not be seen as hip because i wont buy the liberal lie anymore".
That is a wealthy class of people. And they number in the millions. But to whom should they turn. Right now. Sean Hannity? Rush Limbaugh? Mike Savage? Mike Steele?
Hell no. Us. Those of us who are walking the same road. We need to be as grassrootsy as the Dems. Use the same networking tools and get to it quickly.
People are hungry for meaning. And the semi-Baby Boomers like my friend who are in the 50-55 age range are a potentially explosive cohort of money, ideas, and most of all PASSION.
Limbaugh used PASSION how many times in his speech?
The conservative movement needs new blood. And it needs new blood on the ground.
Count me in.
Bear1909 out.
Posted by: Bear1909 on March 1, 2009 09:26 PMWhat DOES NOT work are Republicans running as conservatives and ruling as liberals. Down that road lies failure and ruin.
There's nothing new about Reagan's core ideals and ability to communicate them. What was new about Reagan was that he stuck to them.
Michael Steele's new is going to wear off too. Sorry, he was the wrong choice.
Posted by: RinaseaofDs on March 1, 2009 10:32 PMThat you have essentially zero experience in the process, that you've never held elective office, that you're apparently ignorant of Rush's impact in 94 and that, as pointed out @15, the GOP cannot say it is one thing to get elected, and then become like Eric once they're in office, DOES give me pause to wonder what the hell makes you think you've got a clue.
Rush does far more FOR the GOP than TO the GOP. And, as a message bearer, as long as he stays away from loser suburban crescent messages, he'll do.
And, as always, out-democrating democrats will get us no where.
Posted by: Hinton on March 2, 2009 03:58 AMThe type of Republican Earling wants is one that is the equivalent of the high school nerd who with a pocket protector who always gets the "kick me" sign slapped on his back and doesn't even know it.
Do you do the doobie too Earling? Good lapdog Earling, just sit there now.
Posted by: LapDog Earling on March 2, 2009 05:59 AMA more appropriate headline would be "Whither Eric Earling". Seriously, what the hell does Earling stand for? He is merely the janitor of a web site that used to be run by a conservative.
Posted by: Whither Earling on March 2, 2009 06:10 AMWhere have our Republican leaders been to call out the Constitution-shredding moves of the Obama campaign? No press conferences, no faces on TV in a big way...nothing.
Where are the Republicans willing to at least vocally support the Tea Party movement? Few and far between, if any.
Rush said exactly what needed to be said about Democrats and Republicans on Saturday night....he shouldn't apologize and he shouldn't be marginalized by the Republican Party.
Posted by: sharprightturn on March 2, 2009 06:49 AMBut here's a little secret for all you folks that think Limbaugh is some sort of fountain of political wisdom: He is not. He is an entertainer, and a self promoter. He knows it, and regularly says so himself.
He has an audience of 20 million people because the find him provocative and amusing, not because they agree with him or want him in charge of anything. Most would find his over bearing persona, his grotesque obesity, his hyper indulgent lifestyle and his personal demeanor disgusting and repulsive.
But we are happy to tune in each morning to hear his weeping, and wailing and gnashing of teeth about the liberals and there latest scheme to destroy the world, but only if it's on the radio. Remember he bombed on TV.
And when Rush signs off, we can flip over to Sean Hannity and hear a real crybaby go at it for three hours.
No, Rush wants CONSERVATIVES in office.
No fine line.
Rush filled a huge void.
If Michael Steele and other GOP representatives are willing to step up and article a consistent Conservative message...great.
Bush & McCain are not true Conseratives.
I am a Conservative...not a Republican.
The R's must article the consistent Conservative message to earn my support, my money and my vote.
A lot of folks feel the same way I do.
No more Arlen Specters, Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe.
The pendulum will soon swing hard to Conservatives...especially with the ridiculous overspending & Pork by the lying bastard President. Stick to your Conservative guns.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 2, 2009 07:44 AMIn Washington State, we are starting to see Republicans be more like DeBolt...thank God!
Even in the minority, there are sadly Eric Earling Republicans who stammer & stumble...standing for little and falling for everything.
Eric, you may think the middle is intellectually the place to be. You are wrong.
Grow up and Wise up.
It's never too late.
Getting inside the inside baseball mind of a guy like Eric reveals the blue state mental gymnastics that produce the nuanced and yet totally bland, confusing and useless GOP message to the average voter. And it's what produced, RINOs, values voters, faith based initiatives, Neocons, the Iraq War, Billions in new GOP spending, and GWB and John McCain.
Getting a bunch of tattoos and participating in some Hope and Change rallies because all of your friends are going it, doesn't constitute real political direction. Very soon, this same group is going to grapple with all of the same daily issues of their older more conservative peers: How do I start my new business idea in a climate of regulation and taxation. What's the best education for my kids. Where can I get a place with enough space for my kids. Will I be able to provide for myself in retirement. Where do I get more bang for my buck, etc.
And that's why older people start to swing to some less than far left position. Once you've got some skin in the game, you start to realize that doing the same thing in Olympia over and over is what produces $8 Billion deficits, traffic gridlock, an angry lower class that expects TV converter boxes for free, etc.
There will be political swings lefties. Get used to it.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 2, 2009 08:21 AM1) Yes, I have actually held elected office as a Snohomish County Charter Review Commissioner (where I served as Vice Chair), elected in 2005 in a County Council District the size of a legislative district. The two other Commissioners serving with me from that district were former state legislators Mike Cooper and Renee Radcliff Sinclair, who shortly thereafter ran against each other for the County Council seat in the same jurisdiction.
2) Yes, I have worked on numerous campaigns ranging from local to statewide office. That includes a lengthy stint on Slade Gorton's 2000 campaign where I witnessed the political incompetence of our dear friend "Hinton" (aka Kelly Hinton) in full force during the disastrous tenure of Don Benton as state party chair. I've also given my time voluntarily advising a number of other campaigns, again ranging from local to statewide office.
3) Anyone who actually thinks I'm of similar mind as Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, etc. either doesn't read my posts much (forgivable), is willfully blind (problematic), or isn't playing with a full deck (take your pills).
4) I respectfully disagree with anyone who actually believes Rush Limbaugh should be the voice of the GOP. I think Rush is a great presence in the American political scene and a profoundly help voice in most circumstances for conservatives. Yet, again, the conservative movement and the GOP are not one and the same (a topic Jonah Goldberg for example as written about at length in the past). Thus, they shouldn't have the same leaders and the same spokespeople.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 2, 2009 08:35 AMI'm not going to read to much in this other than to say that it is clear that many Americans are not sure of the extreme leftward lurch. And even die hard lefty commenters know that this whole game is predicated on some economic success. That may happen, and it may be simply the economy turning on its own. And if Obama gets lucky on that, he might survive. But then again, the overreach is extreme, and our economy has seen darker days, where recovery took a lot longer, and it was under the same conditions of drastic leftward overreach. So we shall see.
But it is amusing to see reality set in for those gleeful Hope And Changers from last summer who really believed that electing Obama would bring Camelot on Nov. 5th.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 2, 2009 08:35 AMLBJ won with a huge majority, and yet he resigned rather than face certain defeat just 4-years later. Bush 1 enjoyed huge popularity and destroyed it by reneging on a promise to raise taxes. Another 1-term President.
Obama now owns this economy, which is spiraling downwards out of control while he is proposing spending increase after spending increase, and using fear to get what he wants.
If I were you lefties I'd be concentrating on how to stop the bleeding.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 2, 2009 08:44 AMThe left wins by having a concrete and diligent strategy. The were firing on a cylinders last year, and did a fantastic job of energizing, I mean indoctrinating, their youthful elements with text messaging, etc. Meanwhile, aided the media, conservatives couldnt; figure out which lame horse to run? McCain, Palin, Huckabee? Yeah, those are winners right.
Contrary to what some of the more ridiculous trolls here would have you think, the message is simple, and it is much more centrist. The GOP has been lost on either trying to play catch-up with the Democrats, or advancing ridiculous Neocon and/or single issue politics. If the right wants to win, all it needs is a sensible, articulate, charismatic leader, much like Obama, and the simple contrasting message of more freedom and fiscal restraint. The left will do their part to overreach so that the contrasting message get plenty of amplification. It's not hard to point out that a little more federal caution is probably a good thing when the economy is taking hits from all sides.
The dirty secret is that the successful lefties actually live their lives very conservatively. They might vote for all the social programs in the world, but in their own lives, they do their damnedest to make sure their kids are getting the best education. And if they are successful in business, it's because they are using conservative ideas of fiscal restraint, and expecting themselves, their employees, etc. to adhere to some level of self imposed responsibility.
When the dust settles, any voter will see that overreach on the left, didn't get us anywhere closer than overreach on the right. That's why the system is setup to be in perpetual conflict. The center, and slightly to the right is the place to be.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 2, 2009 08:55 AMThe Porkulous Package and Pork-filled Budget are going to trap us into Socialism.
Wake up.
Don't try to intellectualize with Socialist true believers Eric.
It won't work.
I am glad you are such a skilled political mind in your own mind Eric....but I have seen folks who think they can outsmart the Left by pandering to folks who would never vote for them.
We need to give America a united true Conservative choice...NOW!
Take a look at ivan weiss...
http://www.34dems.org/Photos2006/Aug06-Weiss-Hannigan.jpg
Do you really care what an overfed, union dues sucking loser like ivan weiss thinks?
Posted by: dude on March 2, 2009 09:04 AMAnd your pompous conclusions that people only listen to Limbaugh for entertainment make it clear that you have no capacity to look at anything objectively.
Limbaugh hasn't been at this for 20 years for entertainment....we have Hollywood and Chris Matthews for that.
Limbaugh has loyal supporters who listen because he's right, he's Constitutional in his thinking, and because he is consistent in his views despite the effort of the Leftists in this country to discredit him at every turn.
Oh, and contrast Limbaugh's clear truthful views and his espousing EXACTLY what he believes versus the Democrats in power who are doing everything they can to move this country to Socialism and one-party rule...but NEVER state that is their aim.
Funny that...
It's the Obama Admiminstration that has been pushing the notion that Rush Limbaugh is the head of the Republican Party.
Leftists constantly say Limbaugh is a liar because he tells the truth. About them.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 2, 2009 09:32 AMHe won by standing on conservative principles.By advocating tax cuts,smaller government,strong national defense,and by not wavering on being pro-life,that's how Ronald Reagan won.
He never had to moderate his views to get elected,he just had to communicate them.He never apologized for being conservative,he just explained what conservatism means.Reagan was never afraid of the liberal media,he wore their disdain as a badge of honor.He never stopped championing conservatism.
But the GOP,except for some brief moments,hardly ever espouse conservatism.That why Rush's speech resonates among us,we hardly ever hear it from the GOP.
Posted by: RUSH IS RIGHT on March 2, 2009 09:34 AM" He is merely the janitor of a web site that used to be run by a conservative. "
If by 'used to be run by a conservative' you are referring to Stefan Sharkansky, you are confusing 'conservative' with fascist.
Conservatives want less control over their lives, whatever the form of the control, and do not give up their rights simply because it is representatives of 'their' political agenda that are exerting the control.
Fascism is fascism, whether it is on the left or on the right, as it is not about ideology, it is about methodology. The methodology of control.
Anyone who attended the recent King County and Washington State Republican Party Conventions could plainly see that. And if you were anything other than a McCain supporter, experienced it.
Stefan Sharkansky is, at best, a Leftist 'Republican' and has been and continues to be an ardent supporter of the Leftist regimes of Michael Young / Lori Sotelo / Ross Marzolf / Luke Esser and the fascist wing of the King County and Washington State Republican Party.
As an example, his, and Mrs. Sharkansky's, support of David Irons whose stated management style has little underlaying Republican ideology, much less Conservative values, and is simply dictatorial.
Posted by: Brian Thomas on March 2, 2009 09:44 AMWhat the GOP need are Statesmen not, Politicians. We have enough Politicians who hold hands and compromise continually thus, watering down any principles and values that should be upheld fully. Politics is synonymous to Corruption. Again, what the GOP need are Statesmen who will uphold the Truth and manage Wisely.
Daniel - Rush Limbaugh could care less about the truth - he's an Entertainer first and partisan hack second. In his speech at CPAC Saturday he screwed up his references to this Constitution.
Talk radio has turned conservatism into a freak show.
I'd like to see Rush Limbaugh run for office and lay it on the line rather just being the #1 big mouth Monday Morning Quarterback in the country.
Posted by: Robert on March 2, 2009 10:04 AMStand firm and be CONSERVATIVES. All government is bad. All taxes are bad. All unions are bad. Obama is bad and we hope he fails. All poor people have only themselves to blame.
Bush wasn't conservative enough. Earling is a wimp. Rush is right. Bring it on.
You might give some examples of Limbaugh's lies Robert. Be specific.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
You may wish to have lunch first Bill.
Robert's going to be working for awhile. (-:
Every one is documented - in Limbaugh's own words.
That was easy.
Posted by: Robert on March 2, 2009 10:30 AMNow there is a reliable source.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 2, 2009 10:39 AMMaybe I don't agree with Eric Earling on everything either (although I certainly agree with a lot of the stuff he posts).
But regardless of that:
REALITY CHECK, people:
Those that seem to want to expel Eric and other people like him from the (R) party (along with people like former Governor's Christy Whitman and Tom Ridge) are proposing an end-game where the result is that (R)s will end up being at least a semi-permanent 25-percent-or-so minority; both nationally and in WA. That is the same as accepting the (D)s in power for the foreseeable future, which is and would be an unmitigated disaster I am not ready or willing to accept.
Anyway: I fully agree with Eric @ #36 - 4), where he said:
''I respectfully disagree with anyone who actually believes Rush Limbaugh should be the voice of the GOP. I think Rush is a great presence in the American political scene .....''
Right now Rush occupies a fairly unique position on the right, and it's good that someone is there. But see again my above prescription on becoming a semi-permanent 25-%-or-so miniority.
Also: I continue to be more than a little perplexed as to why some people who call themselves conservatives seem to be so down on Michael Steele: Given the list of candidates this time around for RNC Chair, IMO it would have been certifiably dumb to pick anybody else. That doesn't mean that all of the other people were necessarily bad, but come on.....
SIDEBAR: I also agree with Jeff B. @ #30; i.e.:
''What's going to pull us out of the wilderness is not so much what we do, but what the left does. The fantastic trillion dollar economy tanking overreach will be the hallmark of this second Carter Presidency.''
I would add that what we're potentially looking at now could be much worse than even the ''lost'' Carter years: Carter was a disaster as Pres in a lot of ways, but the cliff we fell off of then was not NEARLY as high as it could be going forward.
Finally: While I agree with a lot of stuff that Jeff B. sez, IMO @ #32 and #39 he dumps on John McCain much more than justified. I remind y'all that while Obama had a big win in the EC, even with the financial meltdown starting in September and accelerating thru election day it was not a ''blow out'' in several important states:
IN and NC were within ONE percent;
FL was 2%; OH 4%; VA 6%.
Without the Wall Street meltdown I would argue that it is quite possible McCain would have won all 5 of the above state. That would have made the final EC #s Obama 279, McCain 259.
O.K.: Obama still had the edge; and McCain would have had to win BOTH CO and IA (both 9% wins for Obama) to win the election. Even so, it would have been MUCH closer.
FOOTNOTE: Yeah: I lied: I was not brief. I will live with the guilt.......
Posted by: Methow Ken on March 2, 2009 11:11 AMI hope you are correct, I sincerely hope the right gets a leader like Obama. An intellectual who excelled in school, passed up the opportunity to earn wheelbarrows full of money to enter public service early on. And has risen quickly through the ranks to brush aside the calcified power structure of the party.
Then, perhaps we could have an honest exchange of ideas from both sides of the ideological debate as to what is truly best for our nation and the planet.
Until then, we're stuck with Neanderthals like Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham and Coulter bellowing ideological tripe.
It says a lot about your party when you idolize whackos like Palin and Joe the Plumber.
Rush Limbaugh does not influence me. I influence him. He is a member of my audience. He agrees with me.
And THAT dirty little secret is what scares the saggy pants off our liberals pierced little belly buttons: Rush is a reflection of US.
You forgot to mention that you don't actually know that (perhapes you "hope") as the same guy refused to release his grades from ANY school.
Until he does we can assume he was as he is now: an affirmative action beneficiary.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 2, 2009 01:04 PMJanuary 19, 2009: 8281.22
March 2, 2009: 6763.29
Something is imploding under bambi's watch. It ain't the GOP.
Hope!
Change!
Bankruptcy!
ZERO demand
bambistruction
dimogovernment
Mt Rush-it-through
How's that "hope" and "change" thing going?
a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people ; especially often capitalized : a member of a United States political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies
2: a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people A populist espouses ideas that are deemed to be popular with the masses at a point in time.
His principles don't change over time. He wasn't one to harp on the number one populist Republican topic "illegal immigration".
For populist, you should look under Lou Dobbs, Pat Buca Michael Savage or Glenn Beck or Pat Buchanan.
Posted by: jack-be-nimble on March 2, 2009 01:45 PMPerhaps they also want Obama to fail, as long as they can exploit the economic situation to put in place as much socialism as possible.
At this point it doesn't look like Democrats are that concerned about all the people that are going to lose their jobs and their retirements. They're too busy making war on capitalism, and the people who provide the jobs in this country. Instead of doing something sensible such as cutting capital gains taxes,(or eliminating them), look for more fear mongering from Obama.
The left has finally unmasked themselves for the socialists they always deny that they are. They may have made their final, fatal error.
We need to have principled, conservative leadership that doesn't worry about what the left thinks of them. Ronald Reagan dealt with the left with good humor, he acknowledged their points of view, he explained why they were wrong and conservative principles were right. It isn't more complicated than that.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 2, 2009 01:48 PMMaybe he should have studied his economics a little harder. Market down 4000 points since Barry O's plans started taking effect. And we're at $2 Trillion and counting to try to save the economy, and it's NOT working.
BHO is making Bush look like a friggin genius.
Keep up the smugness Dems, although I can't quite understand what you're so smug about... unless wrecking the free world's economy in prep for installing world socialism is your plan.
Hope & Change...... yeah baby! LOL
I heard on the news, another Obama person has tax problems.
What is with dem's and paying taxes. Jezzzz
Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 2, 2009 01:58 PMHope the windows go well. I did a huge insulation project last year for the same reason.
It's not that I am dumping n McCain so much as just seeing him for what he was, which is not really that effective. He certainly doesn't have the chops to stand next to an Obama like candidate and doesn't articulate a vision that makes him appeal to a large segment of the electorate. There has to be both the right message, and the right delivery of the message. Frankly, McCain is also a lot like Obama in terms of progressive policy. He most likely would have passed big, but not as big as Obama's spending plans.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19517.html
Posted by: Steve Beren on March 2, 2009 03:48 PMThis is clearly a strategy, and we can expect the media to take up the cry. I've already heard that MSNBC described Limbaugh's CPAC speech as "angry and bullying". Funny, I didn't notice any of that.
I feel bad for Michael Steele. The media is going to try to make him imply that Limbaugh speaks for the Republican Party. He should have known it too and been more prepared.
The good thing is Steele has apologized. An even better thing may be that Steele now probably has a deeper understanding of how the left and their media play.
They play dirty. Socialist always have throughout their history. Why should it be any different with American socialists?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 2, 2009 04:22 PMSorry, Bill, we don't need the media to do a number on you lot. You poor deluded tards are doing it to yourselves.
The whole country knows Rush Rules the Right. Steele just confirmed it.
Posted by: ivan on March 2, 2009 05:29 PMhttp://www.34dems.org/Photos2006/Aug06-Weiss-Hannigan.jpg
You ought to be ashamed of hogging down all those union dues.
Posted by: eddie on March 2, 2009 05:49 PMIvan doesn't get a lot of things.
He will soon.
Obama and his fellow socialists are drunk with power and Americans are already seeing the result.
They've made a big, big mistake.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 2, 2009 06:01 PMNo- you don't have to kiss the feet of Limbaugh, but you don't go spitting on them either.
Steele should go. What an idiot.
Posted by: Andy on March 2, 2009 09:44 PMBy now I trust you are coming to realize the SP audience is not a particularly thoughtful or polite crowd, but rather an angry mob who is perfectly happy to let a obscene blowhard like Limbaugh do their thinking for them.
The Republican tent is just not large enough to allow any voices of reason. They only want blood.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 3, 2009 07:39 AMJuan Williams, the liberal NPR commentator, noted last night that he's discovered that people on the left are far more intolerant of those who disagree with their views, than those on the right.
He's beginning to understand what the modern left is like. A lot of people will be understanding it very soon.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 3, 2009 08:10 AM1. CONSERVATIVE Boss
2. You clearly don't listen or you have a typical liberal lack of humor if you fail to recognize satire.
On the other hand we have YOUR media pals with such kind tolerant gems such as these:
Letterman: 'Bonehead' Limbaugh Looks Like 'Eastern European Gangster'
Newsweek Mocks CPAC: Huckabee, Boehner as Jonas Brothers?
Matthews: Will Sebelius Survive 'Terrorism of the Anti-Abortion People?'
CNN Host D. L. Hughley: Republicans 'Literally Look Like Nazi Germany'
CNN Contributor: 'Listening to Obama Give a Speech is Like Sex'
No Class: 'Wonkette' Blogger Rips Paul Harvey In Death I might take a moment her to remind you of similar crass behaviour at the deaths of Pope John II, President Ronald Reagan, President Gerald Ford, Terry Schiavo and Tony Snow (class acts, you liberals, yessirree).
Lib Blogger Pulls a Ted Turner, Mocks Ash Wednesday
Olbermann & Garofalo See 'Self-Loathing' 'Black Guy' Michael Steele, Limbaugh Compared to Hitler
MSNBC's David Shuster Touts Jindal as Beavis and Butt-head Insult
Lib Prof in WaPo: Southerners are Slavery-Loving Racists
WaPo Gossip's Low Blow on Jindal: 'I Found His Manson Eyes Disturbing'
So how about it Michelle ...er, "Robert" are you "finally proud" of your oh so tolerant and smugly above the fray liberal jerks ...er, friends who like to swim in the cesspool of hate?
Attention Mr Black Pot, please meet Mr Black Kettle.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 3, 2009 04:03 PM20090302030448.jpg){kind=link}
