Over the weekend, Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele called Rush Limbaugh's rhetoric "incendiary" and "ugly" and insisted that he, not Limbaugh, is in charge of the GOP.While listening to the absurd, unAmerican, hateful things that people like Limbaugh were saying at last weekend's CPAC makes me angry, the thought that Limbaugh has become the leader of the Republican party can only be a good thing. With someone that detestable in charge, the party will be marginalized for decades.But that was two days ago. Monday, after a blistering response from the conservative talk-radio kingpin, Steele told the online journal Politico that he "was maybe a little bit inarticulate."
"There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership," Steele said. He added, "There are those out there who want to look at what he's saying as incendiary and divisive and ugly. That's what I was trying to say. It didn't come out that way."
Monday, March 02, 2009
King Idiot
Right wing nutjob Rush Limbaugh seems to have the GOP in his pocket. Mostly because he speaks for the doofuses who don't understand a thing about reality but who represent the base of far-right conservatism, aka the type of people who were recently thrown out of power and are bitter about it. When he's not there, GOP leaders are quick to say that they disagree with Limbaugh but then quickly run to beg his forgiveness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I have to disagree with you. What Rush said was not unAmerican. In fact, it's very American to voice your displeasure with what's going on. There's a difference between unAmerican and antiAmerican. I hope Obama succeeds, but, if it is his intent to destroy the American system, then I hope he fails too. If Rush is becoming the de facto leader of the GOP then I agree with you that that is a bad thing. We do not need a demagogue leading us away from darkness. Further, if he IS becoming that leader, then there is a serious vacuum of leadership in the Republican party. Surely, you can't argue that having only one party in control of everything is a good thing. Wouldn't that be Venezuela?
I listen to-and am entertained by-Limbaugh but I'm not a ditto-head. I'm also not a Republican, either. That party is full of weasels just as bad as the Democrats. What concerns me is that there are a significant amount of people who are very angry. Can you honestly tell me it's okay to share your wealth with someone who can, but chooses not to, take care of themselves (I'll give someone who's struggling the shirt off my back)? Or to send $900 million overseas to pay for damage this country did not cause? Or to throw trillions of dollars we don't have to fix what billions of dollars couldn't? Does any of that make sense?
Bush started the ball rolling on this train to disaster-I don't see an end to it, though.
Great post, though. Keep 'em coming!
Let me clarify. I don't think he's being unAmerican for speaking out. What I think is "unAmerican" is the purposeful distortion of reality in order to perpetuate a class of disaffected, angry, conservatives who aren't interested in the success of all America and Americans, but only their narrow interests and class. Rather than reaching out in the spirit of cooperation and being part of the solution, they'd rather bring down the entire country.
Your comment is a good example of the kind of "assassination by implication" that's going on. Why would you think for an instant that "it is his [Obama's] intent to destroy the American system,"? What would give you any indication that he wants to destroy the American system?
Given strong majorities in both houses of Congress and the Presidency, the Democrats don't need to heed a single idea from the Republicans but the President has gone out of his way to bring them under the tent. What did he get for doing that? Scorn.
A more apt example of having one party in control would be the Bush years and we know how well that worked out. In any event, the Republicans have been hypocritical, corrupt and disastrous so I'm perfectly fine with the Democrats holding all the cards for a few years.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with the $900 million overseas comment or the share the wealth comment. All I know is that we're in deep economic trouble and spending some money within the country on infrastructure, education, science, healthcare and other long-overdue projects will help both in the short run by creating jobs and in the long run by widening the economic base. Tax cuts aren't the answer nor is cutting back on government.
I don't have any idea if this is going to work, but I'd rather they try this then do nothing.
Hillary Clinton is proposing that the United States pony up $900 million of American money to pay for the rebuilding of Gaza brought on by Israeli attacks in response to rocket fire from Hamas. You haven't read this? Califormia is sending IOUs to its taxpayers because it doesn't have the money yet it's okay to give away money for damage that wasn't caused by the US in an effort to curry favor with an extremist element (yes, I agree this last part has not been stated in the press; I am inferring the intent. Why else would we do it?).
As far as throwing good money after bad, I don't want my kids and grandkids being saddled with this incredible debt. By spreading the wealth, I mean the use of punitive taxation and fiscal policies that will redistribute what successful people have earned to those that have not earned it. I will absolutely take care of those that cannot take care of themselves but I have a real problem with my money going to illegal aliens, people that didn't have enough sense to not take out a loan for things that could not afford, or nutjobs that have 14 kids and expect the government to take care of them.
As far as using class to distort reality, Democrats use a "gouge the evil rich" tactic to distort reality. What sense does it make to take away any incentive to succeed? How many jobs come from a poor man? I will readily admit that Bush was a disaster from an economic standpoint and I ceased supporting that man years ago. But, the Democrats had control of Congress since 2006 and I don't see all that much improvement. But, that's really neither here nor there because I'm tired of the whole Democrat/Republican thing, anyway. The cynic in me thinks the Republicans may be grandstanding (i.e., resisting the President for the sake of saying they are resisting). I hope not, but if they get back in power, I fear not much will change. I agree with you that we could spend some money on infrastructure, alternative energy, healthcare reform (NOT nationalized health care) and the like. But, what about the thousands of earmarks?
In any case, THANKS VERY MUCH for responding. I enjoy this give and take a great deal!
When Rush talks about destroying the American system, the system he's talking about is that which allows guys like Madoff to keep their penthouses and millions of dollars while not going to jail as they so richly deserve. It's the system where both parents can work full time and not be able to pay all their bills, while AIG spends their bailout money on vacations. I say let's destroy it.
Al, while we're all appalled at the situation we're in, we have to do practical things to revive the economy. It would be very satisfying to let all the banks go bankrupt and say screw the automakers, and all those who lost their home, but that response will costs us thousands of jobs and only deepen the problem. As far as earmarks, if they're spending money, creating jobs, I don't care if they are earmarks. But I'm highly skeptical that they are what the Republicans brand them. Apparently to the Republicans, monitoring active volcanoes is an outrageous earmark.
As far as Palestine goes, if a $900 million payment leads to peace in the region (I'm not saying it will) then that's a huge bargain.
I'll never buy that "take away my incentive to work" line. Take a look at historical income tax rates. As recently as 1963, the marginal tax rate for a married couple making over $400,000 was . . . 91% Yes, they were taxed at a rate of 91% and they still managed to work and work hard to earn more money. Because unless you're taxed 100%, you always have an incentive to earn more, even if you aren't bringing back your entire paycheck. We've got it easy by comparison.
We are the richest nation in the world and yet lag far behind other industrialized countries in providing basic healthcare to our citizens. I think that's a tragedy. It will certainly cost something, but it will also save money in the long run. I'm willing to pay for that.
Post a Comment