don’t listen to rush?

Terrific post and great choice of quotes from Murrow. Thank you much. I also never ever listened to Rush and happened to catch his interview with Hannity. I think this shows, once again, that deleting Obama’s “context” from the past year in order to “go forward” is a big mistake. It’s great to keep bringing up Edward Murrow. This mob that just claimed Washington, D.C. would much rather “redefine” Murrow or consign his voice to irrelevance. Wouldn’t that make things a lot easier? I don’t want to make it so easy. I want to continue to challenge the Obama Doctrine whenever it recommends censorship over free speech and a rubber stamp approval over a healthy debate.

Here!Here! I too never listened to Rush Limbaugh until during the elections and did not find him all that outrageous as the liberal media wanted to portray him. I also did not like Fox network before, but they seemed to be the only ones willing to let the people see the other side of issues. Now I don’t watch CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS. I go straight to NoQuarter if I want to know the issues of the day and look at headlines when I open yahoo (which by its headlining alone, one can tell their orientation). Thanks NoQuarter/

Is not Rush the guy that has the many wives? Isn’t he the guy that used his house keeper to shop his drugs? I listened to him a few programs when he first started. After a while I found him bombastic an boring.

Not a bastion of Intellect. So let us be careful before putting him on a pedestal

Let’s be careful of putting ANYONE on a pedestal. I think the point of the article is … and I admit I might be wrong … be careful of ignoring the voice of one individual just because one group of individuals is telling you that he (or she) cannot be trusted to tell you the truth ….

Great article. Obviously, Obama fears Rush for a reason. That explains “do not listen to Rush” comment.

I listen to Rush, started to when he was defending Hillary Clinton during the primaries. I have to say…Rush’s thought and opinions on the economy makes a lot of sense to me.

Obama didn’t say “Don’t listen to Rush”. He said you can’t JUST listen to Rush. Republicans should not get their marching orders from a talk-show host. Nor should Democrats just listen to Keith Olbermann and expect to be taken seriously. Don’t start calling this “censorship”. It’s insulting to all the people who have had to endure actual censorship.

Rush Limbaugh is most definitely not Edward R. Murrow. He’s his antithesis.

Murrow strove to reveal truth with clarity.

Limbaugh is a demagogue.

I don’t think anyone here is putting Rush, who has many, many warts, on a pedestal. But since when does a POTUS feel confident enough to tell other members of the government in a democracy whom they can or cannot listen to/watch on t.v.? The only person on a pedestal at the moment is our POTUS and he seems to have climbed up there on his own. Free speech means free speech and the right to listen to anyone, even a horse’s ass, we choose. Any POTUS with respect for the constitution (didn’t he promise to defend that document less than a week ago?) … any POTUS with respect for the constitution and the people of the land should know better, especially if he bills himself as a “constitutional lawyer.”

Obama’s father had many wives. Lot’s of people have been divorced. Obama is an admitted past drug user. Lots of people are. Clinton had affairs, and smoked a doobie. My dad has had more than a couple of wives. I have lots of friends who have participated in recreational drug use in their lifetime, and some addicted to pharmaceuticals.

I am not putting him on a pedestal. I am providing his videos, and asking for discussion about the content of the videos, not a list of his personal character flaws.

“Not a bastion of Intellect.” – perhaps you can discuss this statement? Is he truly an idiot, or do you just disagree with him?

right on! i allowed the left MSM to tell me for YEARS that the right was corrupt and evil… I learned my lesson.

The problem with radical liberalism is their view on Freedom of Speech…. They will defend it as long as you agree with their views.
Obama just added more listeners to Rush by his thoughtless comment. This man intends to be a UNITER?
Think again.

After watching a unified mainstream media for the better part of a year fawn unquestioningly over the man who was recently sworn in as POTUS, and not once challenging him in a serious way, do you still believe we are not enduring “actual censorship”? This censorship is very sophisticated … we don’t need strong arm thugs busting down our doors and smashing our short wave radios as we listen to the Voice of America. Instead, we have a corporate media that now determines the news we hear and, yes indeed, our very leadership. Call it virtual censorship, actual censorship or anything you want, but it is censorship. It will be strengthened even more by something oddly named the “Fairness Doctrine” which is coming down the pike. Those campaign promises must be kept at all costs. A newly elected POTUS immediately begins to run for a second term the moment he (sigh, yes “he” again) is elected. This is why so many of us skip the mainstream media and run to NQ every day to check out stories that are not getting a play in the news. Pathetic, isn’t it? Hats off to NQ every day. And do remember that censorship continues to creep in.

did i call this censorship?

I have a hard time listening to Rush. I think he’s basically a windbag. Does he make a few decent points? Yeah, even windbags can do that in the course of their commentary. But for me, he’s just a right-wing, ultra-conservative mouthpiece in the same way the people on MSBNC are the mouthpieces of the far-left agenda. It’s their specific political prism through which everything gets filtered.

However, do I think any of these people should be silenced, shut down? Absolutely not. That idea is far scarier to me. Once we’re listening to a single voice [whether it be Left or Right] is the day we toss any notion of liberty in the crapper.

BTW, I loved the Murrow quotes, AGI. Good stuff!

Oh, I believe it is very much the beginning of censorship. It is very scary when the POTUS references a single a talk show host.

I consider Hillary a bastion of intellect and can listen to her any time.

Rush might have moments of intellect. Years ago I heard him acknowledge how Bill Clinton leveraged the market place to implement his programs.

Generally speaking he used to spend a lot of time calling people names etc. I am just to old for that.

So your question is fair, on quick thought, I would say he is 90% entertainer and 10% a person that would have a point. I have no problem with people disagreeing with that assessment. That is what makes this blog fun

Limbaugh is ACCURATE PERIOD.

it is certainly looking that way, wrt the efforts to do away with talk radio.

He said the same thing about listening to Rush/conservative radio on the campaign trial.

I find it creepy that he is using that same theme on Republican elected officials.

If representing their district lines up with Rush’s views, then essentially Obama is telling them to dishonor their constituents.

Totally agree.

Good God! This is NOT a free speech issue. Obama did not tell anyone to not listen to Rush. He said, as quoted in the article, “You can’t just listen to Rush and get things done.” In other words, don’t govern based only on the words of a talk-show host.

The only time that I listened to Rush, he was talking about how oil spills were no big deal.
The example that he gave was that the Titanic’s oil tanks had been leaking huge amounts of oil for years and that hadn’t caused problems. That’s when I thought “What a f*cking idiot, the Titanic had coal fired boilers”, he just makes sh*t up to support his agenda.

“Admittedly, I am one of those who always despised Rush Limbaugh, but actually never really listened to him”

Well, I did not despised him, but wasn’t interested on what he has to say either. Then I read a New York Times profile about him and decided to tune in. I’m hook now, the guy is really fun in the way he presents his views, very different from the always angry liberals.

By the way, I liked the quotes at the end of your post, but the last one (“A Nation Of Sheep Will Beget A Government Of Wolves”) is not by Edward R. Murrow, is by French philosopher and political theorist Bertrand de Jouvenal.

Interesting take on Rush, AGII…my enemies’ enemy is now my friend?

It does bring up an interesting point. Rush rose to fame and prominence by smearing, bashing, and slandering Bill and Hillary Clinton for 8 years. So should we all now re-examine our views of the Clintons based on Rush’s opinion?

After all, how could Rush be on the money about President Obama, yet all wrong about Bill and Hillary?

Rush Limbaugh is a racist (Barack the Magic Negro; Donovan McNabb) and a sexist (he coined the term “feminazis” to describe women like Hillary to had the “audacity” to want to be treated equally in the workplace).

He is also a homophobe and a demagogue of the first order, with a drug problem to boot.

I don’t much like Rush but I would rather turn off the Big O. It seems the media coverage is so adoring and extensive that the man couldn’t even blow his nose in private. I couldn’t turn him off fast enough.

no doubt he is an entertainer. I used to always dismiss him as a right wing looney gas bag… but actually listening to him, he made, I though, solid points, about both sides. and now i know the left is full of left wing gas bags. haha

I would have to listen to him a lot more, I guess, but, from what I heard, sounded pretty reasonable, and knowledgable.

This is just upside down, remember “feminazis?”

Good heavens!

Shouldn’t Obama be more concerned with important matters of our Country right now then concerning himself with Republicans listening to Rush ?
Careful Obama , your fears are showing.

The only way to really know what is going on in our country and in the news and to come up with an objective opinion is to listen to both sides. Read both sides.

I have made the effort for years to do just that to help me determine then on my own where I stand and why.

I admit it can be difficult to have to sit and listen or read the opposing side many times but important none the less so as to be well informed.

But blogs like this also play an important role now which we didn’t have in the past. Which to my way of thinking means someone else can waste their time watching CNN MSNBC FOX ( yes even them for the most part ) and local national news as well since anything of importance will be disected on these blogs. And the rest of us no longer need to give these mouthpiesces ratings when all they do is try to TELL US WHAT TO THINK .

For me AG, the reason I can’t stand Rush is not his drug use, but the fact that he advocated harsh treatment of drug addicts and opposed government funded drug rehab programs, advocated death sentences for drug dealers, blah, blah, blah and then turned around and became a drug addict but used his money and influence to stay out of jail. If he had an ounce of integrity, he would have taken the punishment he thought appropriate for everyone else.

“Feminazi,” good lord, maybe these ladies dont remember, but feminism as an issue was made taboo for a while due to the remarks of people like Rush, he USED his bully pulpit to degrade feminism, liberals, federal programs we all find now so necessary…

Call out Jay-Z, but you better call out Rush, too.

AHHHHHH……….

You can’t compare Rush to Hate-America AMESSNBC.

Rush, Coulter and Hannity are the media darlings of the right. The ones who helped spread the story that Hillary is a murderer.

Quite simply if you are going to get to understand the Obama administration you should not be listening to them for policy explanations. It is however up to Republicans as to what they want to do.

Unlike Rush, I do not however believe, after commuting back and forth to the US that the Republicans lost because McCain/Palin were too Liberal.

What efforts to do away with talk radio?? I don’t know of any prominent people on the left who are talking about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. The right is once again creating a straw bogeyman.

I was referring to a comment about censorship, not the article. Sorry. Should have been more specific.

That would make it two uniters in a row.
Hope we survive.

“…But since when does a POTUS feel confident enough to tell other members of the government in a democracy whom they can or cannot listen to/watch on t.v.?”

This is part of comment about this same issue on hotair.com, talking about Obama:
“Didn’t he “listen” to Reverend Wright for 20 years?”

This censorship is very sophisticated

subliminal and insidious
That’s why I like it here-people willing to question.

“Unlike Rush, I do not however believe, after commuting back and forth to the US that the Republicans lost because McCain/Palin were too Liberal.”

Why do you think the repub turnout was so low? what kept them from voting McCain? I considered the idea that he was not conservative enough. Also, my conservative friends thought he was not conservative enough for them. (McCain, not Palin) I do think she could have been a factor, too? So, were Repbs more comfortable with Obama, than Mccain, and Palin in the number 2 post?

You can’t make this what it isn’t. It clearly is “FRAUD” Obama trying to censor free speech.

AGI – I concede that to often we categorize people and do not pick up relevant points. It’s just that we are really in a bind as a country and world with the mess that George Bush left us in. Rush thought Bush had a lot of virtues.

So – do the the good folks of Italy have any opinion of Fiat becoming involved with Chrysler. Pretty smart of them to not pay any money to get access to the USA dealer network. I wonder how that will affect the USA sentiment for continued bailout support. It is my understanding that Fiat has a small car base which might be more relevant to lower wage Americans, potentially taking market share away from American Automotive workers. Yet – UAW here in Detroit seem to support it.

What is the population’s view of Fiat when it comes to quality and economics of their product line

Just to bring up the name of a talk show host is gooffy! For a President to bring it up is DUMB.

What really were is Harvard grades?

Sure, I can Juan. I find them both repugnant because I don’t like foaming-at-the-mouth extremists from any direction. Doesn’t mean they can’t make an occasional good point along the way.

But I’m not about to get in bed with the far-lefties or the righties.

I am just asking for discussion on the videos, and their content.

Id

Some how for the Republicans I know, the Obots and media were able to portray Palin as not qualified and it stuck.

I wonder what Edward R Murrow would say about the current state of the media?

Agreed.

You can never dismiss any talk show host. There is some truth in what they say. You just need to read between the line sometimes.

Be skeptical when a talk show host say something like “Everytime Obama talks, I feel tingling in my legs”

Rush starts out quite introspective and seems to have a level-headed view of society. But he quickly reverts to the ideologue of talking points. Having the misfortune to tuned into previous sermons, I’m hearing nothing new now. Its not that Rush is wrong 100% of the time, only that he is primarily an entertainer, and although he may be a good one, will not be for me be a source of information or enlightenment.

Imagine George W. Bush saying:

“Don’t listen to Randi Rhodes.”

You just can’t buy advertising like that. High-fives all around the Limbaugh studio!

Obama stated early on in his campaign that he thought some people ‘watched the wrong television programs and listened to the wrong radio shows’. Shouldn’t be long before Obama outlaws the ‘wrong’ media outlets.

Hi American Girl,
You may want to listen to Rush’s radio show and compare to the video. Sometimes when traveling by car I can only get AM and I listen. He can make good points, and concerning Obama, he makes points the other media refuse to make. However he can also go the route of all talk show hosts and rant, rave, yell, and cut off people who disagree with him. That’s where he loses me. As in the video, he is able to be rational, but on his show he can kick in the entertainment or sensationalist factor and its too much. Especially when, as again all talk show hosts do, he espouses his opinions as facts.

Senators Diane Feinstein of California and John Kerry of Massachusetts and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of New York are pushing for passage of a new Fairness Doctrine. Their aim, of course, is to end conservative dominance of the American airways and the Internet.

http://www.valleynewsonline.com/viewnews.php?newsid=84541&id=2

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/broadcasterfreedomactof20091he.html

i was in no way trying to imply that Rush is Murrow.

The thing we have to respect about Rush is he has a successfull media network reaching a large silent audience. The liberals are not even close to matching him.

So when the Obama mistakes start happening, Rush can be counted on to amplify them to the countryside.

He seems to be pretty tough on both liberals and conservatives.

Please. This is exactly the garbage that Limbaugh, Hannity, et al want everyone to believe, but one disparaging comment about conservatives doesn’t make you fair and balanced. The ratio of bad things said about liberals versus bad things said about conservatives is probably something close to 100:1, and the number of times they’ve backed someone running against a republican is probably something like 1000:1 (unless it’s between 2 conservative republicans).

excellent point.

To me, he is trash, I don’t give him a second thought, a minor Cheney apologist, mouthpiece for those on the right who would harm America in the way many here think Obama will, not intelligent AT.ALL.

But really, would we be discussing the value of Jay-Z at some future date?

No, we wouldn’t, his reputation built on specious emotionalism, same as Rush, who is no more than Morton Downey.

Same way we castigate Obama for not walking out of Wright’s church, that’s how I feel about Rush — hate speech, pure and simple.

He is simply not on my radar, period, nothing to offer, whatsoever.

Whereas Pat Buchanan can still cough up the relevant point, (even though I disagree with his politics) Rush just gives that certain group of people what they want ~~.

He’s boring.

One thing Rush said that I have also said for some time is there is not a point where people will “get it” about BO and stop worshiping him. I think people so want him for reasons that aren’t necessarily intellectual that BO will remain “good” no matter what. There will be high schools named for this guy – no matter what.

I think it likely that people wanting to look at BO critically will always be swimming upstream. If we’re lucky, all we’ll hear is “yes, but. . .” At least the “yes” will mean they agree before blowing off into but-world.

I agree. It is the beginning of censorship. The way I see it is simple Marxism working through the following formula. Obama proposes that he will listen to all sides of an argument. No problem with that, no? Actually benign intellectualism. But then he proposes that anyone that disagrees with his decisions is to be censored. Why? Because he has the power. Now when and where will we see him exercise his concept? I believe we will see him exercise that concept on a general basis, with Congress, all government administrators, the press and with us. But it will not work with world leaders and world affairs. Using it with them will backfire on him. It will backfire with us too but up to a point.

Rush is an entertainer, first and foremost. He hosts the most popular show on talk radio and virtually invented the format. I don’t always agree with Rush, but I do respect his intellect and point of view. Why should we be afraid to discuss ideas different that our own?

The fact that Obama is talking down this one man means he is afraid of Rush’s ideas. I’m more concerned that deep down, he’s afraid of hanging onto his own power and celebrity, and that it will lead to a personality cult and abuse of the presidency.

That’s what (left) people have always said about Rush, and why I always *despised* him, without listening to him. But, I guess the only way to know, is to listen for ones self.

so, i guess the right was more comfortable with obama in the drivers seat? well, like i said to bush voters, you wanted him, you got him, deal with it. hahha

I’m sure Murrow is spinning.

Good point.

Your articles are the straw bogeyman that I’m referring to. They are all about “powerful Democrats” pushing to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. It’s a non-issue outside of the far right’s fear-mongering press releases. When the Democratic leadership actually tries to put this forward (as opposed to far-right talk-show hosts and Republican congressmen) then you can blast them. But it ain’t gonna happen.

For what it’s worth, R. Limbaugh responds in “The Corner”:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

FIAT – Fix it again, Tony.

The new 500 is very cute. It would be a great economy car, very cute. The Bravo is a nice looking sporty car. The other cars are economical. I am not sure what the average Italian thinks about it. :OS

When did he say ANYONE should be censored????

That is wrong for the President to ask anyone not listen to Rush

Agree, Agree. Olby & legs have become the left’s answer to Rush & O’reilly

I do not know, but I think the right stayed home.

ahahah

And what does it possibly have to do with “simple Marxism”?

Agree, Agree. Olby & legs have become the left’s response to Rush & O’reilly. it’s a pendulum & we’re stuck in between

Rush does define conservatism and conservatives: passive-aggressive (as in ‘Democrat Party’), vicious, and hateful – and completely oblivious to their own mental sickness.

And the “kooks” on the left are very much like the kooks on the right.

I am discussing the content of these videos. I am trying to get a discussion going over the content of THESE videos.

Nothing wrong

However we would hope the POTUS would be looking at a bigger picture. I suspect this was one of those moments when he was caught without a prompter or talking cards.

It makes sense to listen to both sides. While some things Rush had to say made sense, i.e., the fawning media did not do their job in vetting Obama, some other things he said, i.e., Reagan/Hoover=good, FDR=bad. I also did not appreciate the far rights incessant attacks on the Clintons. It was way over the top. But this is why, it is important to keep both views available to people. There is some truth in what both sides express, and in a thriving democracy, both need to be heard.

Rush Limbaugh is a media Putz!
What goes around comes around. I hold Rush responsible for not allowing President Clinton to be the Great FDR style president he could have been. In fact back in the day I viewed Rush as a traitor to this country.I could just imagine if Hillary were President what he would dig up and try to have investigated.
Had president Clinton been able to enact the programs and ideas that he wished maybe we wouldn’t be in this mess today.
I hold Rush responsible for alienating the republican party and sending them down the road irrelevance.
I do listen to right wing talk but not Rush..He will always be the pig that compromised a great democratic president.

Obama didn’t ask anyone to not listen to Rush. He said to the GOP leaders in Congress “You can’t just listen to Rush and get things done”. The writer of this article has framed that in her headline as “Don’t listen to Rush”. You really can’t see the difference in that paraphrase?

I didn’t see anything that resonated with me. Rush has the same problem as Obama. It’s the pot calling the kettle black. Reaganism solve the problems facing the country? Bwaaahaaahaaa! Reaganism CAUSED the problems facing the country.

Really, it’s hard to fathom why anyone with a conscience would sign on to the Neocon agenda.

AIG

I do not think we have any journalist today any where near the stature of Edward R Morrow, or a network that would give him the time to take on a Joe McCarthy (George Bush)ideologue.

Some might quarrel with my labeling George Bush, as a ideologue however he was manipulated by the neocons and the result is the same

In just a few days of his presidency, Obama has two very revealing commens about his inner self: “I won.” and ” if … . . don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh.” I wonder if this is his shout out to the obots to go after Rush.

Just the other day Rush was ranting about health care and that he doesn’t care if people don’t want or have health care, as long as they’re not taking it from his pocket. And I thought, but we are paying for it in terms of people without ins. going to ERs, and defaulting to hospitals, all which comes back to us in the form of higher bills & premiums. However, on talk radio and one most blogs & TV, there is no room for that discussion. I do not believe Rush would have had a rational conversation with me had I called in. He has a great business, making money and talking to those who agree with him. It works for what it is, but I don’t think it is intelligent. NQ, on the other hand, allows these kind of discussions. For example, what if Hillary’s idea of universal health care is correct, but her plan not the best. Are there not ways that we can find a middle ground, free-market system for health care, etc. (like geico?:) ) I think this is an interesting issue, but it is too reasonable for many hosts on either side who need to keep their audience worked up by being outraged at something.

Rush Limbaugh has a successful media network because the Republicans have poured so much money into it and targeted a low-information audience.

How could anyone dislike Obama and like Rush Limbaugh? He is the equivalent of Chris Matthews and that dittohead on MSNBC. A propagandist is a propagandist. But it you want to listen to the guy who lead the charge to destroy the country for corporate profit, Rush is your man.

I am waiting to see if Obama takes steps to rein in punditry and insist on having fairness and objectivity in the media. If not, then he’s no real Democrat.

I wonder if this is his shout out to the obots to go after Rush.

O I hope so! The siege of Fort Limbaugh would be wildly amusing!

Why do you think the repub turnout was so low? what kept them from voting McCain?

Bush was so bad. They wanted to punish the Party that has given the US the worst deficit in history, led the World to the brink of economic collapse, destroyed the reputation of America in the World.

I think there were many reasons. However Republicans did kick back. There was a giant vote for Obama, 69 million. More than any other Presidential Candidate.

Palin helped save the Republican vote. The Republicans secured nearly as many votes in 2008 as they did in 2000. Just far more came out to ensure Obama won.

LIMBAUGH RESPONDS TO OBAMA:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTU5MjE3MmQ0NWU1Zjc1YzYyMDE1NzNmZmM2MzYxMmI=

The RWNM (Right Wing Noise Machine) has seen the writing on the wall for some time now. They know they have to play it a bit tighter to the vest with the Dems in “power”. (A forget the Fairness Doctrine, it’s about oxycotin, and voting registration issues…it’s PR type issues.)

I can’t stand NPR anymore because of their fawning over Obama. And honestly, there are times when I turn off RW radio for the very same reason.

Medved and Prager don’t touch issues like Jay-Z, the B.C., and other blog favorite topics. They used to hammer away at those type of things. Not anymore. Bill O’Reilly’s radio show is now about as milk toast as when Jerry Springer was on Air America. Everytime I switch over to him, he’s defending Obama over something a caller wants to talk about. Someone either paid Bill a lot of money to tone it down and play nice with the new guy, or he’s scared.

Rush, on the other hand, has always been entertainment. And will always be entertainment. If he’s putting on an aire of authority, it’s because RW Radio knows there are a lot of us moderates leaving the D party and they want new blood (revenue). These guys have to tone it down, because there’s a new prez who “doesn’t look like them” and they will get crucified, or worse sued, for making more LBJ comments.

Forget Rush. He’s so 80s. I’m more interested in whether or not Helen Thomas or David Gregory will ask hard questions of P.BO. But I’m afraid that it will be up to the Juan Williams of the corp. media world to ask the real questions.

Censorship here means closing up the discussion.

interesting, thanks for the link. So, it seems it is not the one and only time he has commented on Rush. (I seem to recall others during the primary)

No one here is stating the obvious. This is an open attempt to silence opposition through his influence. This is so openly against the constitution. Now you know why he retook the oath of office with swearing on the bible.

American Girl in Italy,

One of the things I’ve noticed is this: Any time someone is nervous about agreeing with a person they’ve been told is not to believe, that person goes into an ad hominem attack: too afraid to address the issues.

It is very interesting to me how my tolerance for the Republican/conservative (but not neocon) people has increased since this election. I can now actually listen to two sides.

Rush’s listeners will greatly increase because OBummer shot himself in the foot this time.

I hope “the FRAUD” keeps doing things like this.

I think the problem some are having AG, is that Rush has a history, just like Obama. Rush knows to dial it down when he goes to a broader audience & he cranks it up when on his own show. So similar to the fact that many cannot rejoice in the one pro-woman stance of Obama, knowing that he has a history of knocking women down, many cannot embrace Rush when he is correct, because of all the times he is not. No one is perfect, but there are those who try to be decent, and although we can disagree we can still respect, and there are those who do some indecent things, and so even when they get it right, its hard to respect (eg, Bush, Rush, Obama, Matthews (aka Legs)

excellent point!

Yep, by signalling him out, O has given Rush a gift, and now Limbaugh will play it for all it’s worth (which is a lot).

No one considers Rush worth listening to, that’s the point.

If there was a specific issue you wanted to discuss, perhaps another source would have been indicated.

But Rush?

He’s a moron, no one listens to a racist, intolerant, misogynist kook.

Was he the one who referred to liberalism as mental illness?

He has no credibilty.

If someone referred to you as a feminazi, you’d still promote him as capable of astute, intellectual analysis?

I’d just as soon listen to Jay -Z — and I’ve read his interviews — none too bright.

Excellent post. And I agree with it as well.

All you need to know about Rush Limbaugh is that, late in the campaign, he said Barack Obama isn’t black… “he’s Arab.”

The man is a shameless smear artist.

Don’t forget that he hammered Hillary Clinton as a “socialist” back when she was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination.

AmericanGirl, the Fairness Doctrine would NOT “do away with talk radio”. What it WOULD do is ensure that one-sided, BIASED people wouldn’t be enabled to get away with their one-sided talk.
The OLD Fairness Doctrine mandated that anyone entrusted with the PUBLIC AIRWAVES (TV stations AND radio stations) were obliged to provide ON-AIR TIME to people with opposing viewpoints whenever the station offered an editorial stance. Prior to the Reagan Administration, it should be noted that virtually EVERY SINGLE LOCAL NEWS broadcast had someone in charge of offering an on-air editorial that dealt with HARD news issues (nowadays, most of these on-air editorials are little more than pleas to help the Salvation Army or other local charities during the holidays or offering support for local police efforts to stop drunk drivers–hardly the type of opinions that anyone is going to oppose without being deemed a “kook”) and all of these were followed by ON-AIR disclaimers that anyone with an opposing viewpoint could contact the station for FREE airtime to respond (typically with the same format in which the original opinion was aired–whether a 30-second quick editorial or a 30 minute “special broadcast”).
Where is that type of thing now? There’ve been plenty of incidents where these “bastions of freethinking” (O’Reilly and Limbaugh) have CUT OFF people trying to respond with an opposing viewpoint or where the opponents’ comments are then belittled BY THE HOST who then has the ability to SCREEN incoming callers and prevent anyone who might offer support for the opposing comment. How is that “fair”? It isn’t. It’s no better than bullying tactics.
Sure, Rush and BillyO get sponsors for their programs (essentially buying their airtime) but why should that offer the TV or radio stations some sort of “immunity” from having to allow opposing viewpoints access to responding to these men? Why should Rush or BillyO think they should be allowed to CONTROL what their listeners hear?
The problem is that “talk radio”, in the days of the Fairness Doctrine, when it only attracted hard-news junkies, really did offer a wide range of opinions. Once the Fairness Doctrine was lifted, suddenly the radio stations in the “news/talk” format found themselves freed up from having to carry low-rated talk show hosts and could allow the likes of the right-wingers (bearing in mind that Congress was, at this time, still in Democratic hands) who could tap into the “working man’s hostility to/frustration with Congress” mentality (but more often than not, the “angry white man’s hostility to/frustration with a Congress that wanted to give away their jobs” and considering many of these hosts’ attacks on minorities and minority rights as well as LEGAL immigration, that’s not too far from the truth).
If YOU want to tune into Rush, fine. Go for it. But always remember that it was Rush who decided to deride the feminist movement as “Feminazi”. This man has ZERO credibility with me on ANY issue. Remember that RUSH was the one who went ON AIR, publicly attacking Chelsea Clinton on her appearance. For that alone, Limbaugh is an unredeemable piece of slime. I don’t care how much “support” he gave Hillary. I saw that as nothing more than his glee at the potential of having another solid 4 years of trashing Hillary AND Bill–and nothing would’ve given Rush a “tingle up his leg” than the prospect of being able to trash Hillary and Bill for EIGHT more years. ANY supporter of Hillary who would willingly listen to that fat, bloviating bag of sh-t is NO supporter of Hillary Clinton. I don’t like Barack Obama, but I certainly won’t waste my time listening to Rush, no matter what his take is on Obama.
Rush is slime. Always has been. Always will be. This is a man who had no problem deriding the ACLU at every opportunity, and even when the ACLU went to bat for him on the drug charge issue (based on invasion of medical privacy), it didn’t temper his barrage of criticism of the ACLU. Someone with half an ounce of decorum or decency would have recanted his outlandish, unwarranted attacks, but then again, Rush doesn’t even have half an ounce of either. You’re giving Rush more consideration than he would ever give to you.

He has a lot of nerve presuming what anybody listens to. He doesn’t know and it’s none of his business how anyone tailors their listening habits. Did anyone suggest he remove Jay-Z from his Ipod? I am sick of his arrogance!

It’s like Jesse Jackson was heard saying when he didn’t like what O was saying to AA men: O is speaking down to the people he addressed.

It’s clearly a message something like this: I know you’ve been stupid enough to do this in the past, but now you need to quit governing based on what Rush says. He made an assumption about those people he had no right to make: that they have done their jobs simply by listening to Rush.

It’s the main thing I dislike about the so-called progressives. They think their “intellectual” nature makes them superior and they think based on stereotypes about people they’ve never had to interact with. That’s why they hated Palin so much. She was an anti-intellectual in the sense that she didn’t come from one of their “accepted” colleges and from the East Coast or a BIG CITY. She just HAD to be white trailer trash as far as they were concerned because they never really have done much with true middle class, small town white women.

Perceptive & thoughtful, Diana. You woke up some of my brain cells!

Rush has said many hateful things about Hillary. I don’t listen to him and never have. But I’m aware of him and occasionally check in to see what he’s saying. In this case, he has a few points. But that doesn’t mean I’ll trust him or think his opinion is typically useful.

i think that is an excellent point – Obama is assuming, basically saying, that Republicans are going to allow Rush to control their thinking, and thus, their ability to govern.

Or his comment about Chelsea Clinton?

As to the feminazi deal, that is REALLY old for Rush.
I found this article from Mother Jones’ May/June 1995 issue, written by the late (but still great and powerful) Molly Ivins.
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/1995/05/ivins.html

The kind of humor Limbaugh uses troubles me deeply, because I have spent much of my professional life making fun of politicians. I believe it is a great American tradition and should be encouraged. We should all laugh more at our elected officials–it’s good for us and good for them. So what right do I have to object because Limbaugh makes fun of different pols than I do?

When viewers objected, he claimed, in typical Limbaugh fashion, that the gag was an accident and that without his permission some technician had put up the picture of Chelsea–which I found as disgusting as his original attempt at humor.

And this

Sure, it takes your breath away when he spreads some false and vicious rumor, such as the story that Vincent Foster’s body was actually discovered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton. Or when he destroys an important lobby-control bill by falsely claiming that it would make the average citizen subject to lobbying laws. Yes, that’s sick and perverse.

But it’s important to show people that there is much more wrong with Limbaugh’s thinking than just his facts. Limbaugh specializes in ad hominem arguments, which are themselves ridiculously easy to expose. Ted Kennedy says, “America needs health care reform.” Limbaugh replies, “Ted Kennedy is fat.”

THIS is the type of stuff you want to validate, AmericanGirl?
I loathe Barack Obama, but there is NO WAY that I’m going to start giving Rush Limbaugh any validity simply because he’s targetting Obama. Let’s not forget that, in a roundabout way, Bill Clinton won his second term because of Rush Limbaugh. (Limbaugh would never have found much to complain about in a Dole administration, and, it’s worth noting that Limbaugh’s been a bit overshadowed in the past five years thanks to the rise of even more outrageous airbag/blowhards like Michael “Savage”. Then, too, HIS “party” was in charge of the White House AND Congress until 2007, so it was a bit hard for him to do his usual hatchet jobs on top officials. Somehow, attacking the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader isn’t quite the same as attacking the President, Vice-President or Cabinet.)

“So what about conservative talk-radio titan Rush Limbaugh’s audience? Surely the ditto-heads are dumb, right? Actually, according to a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, Rush’s listeners are better educated and “more knowledgeable about politics and social issues” than the average voter.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090502666.html

exactly! they’re frenemies!

part of what Rush said in response to Obama’s demand.

To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing “eternal” power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.

Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn’t Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn’t they have to buy the new furnishings? What’s the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet’s office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs. Are we really at the point where the bad PR of Merrill getting a redecorated office in the process is reason to smear them? How much money will the Obamas spend redecorating the White House residence? Whose money will be spent? I have no problem with the Obamas redoing the place. It is tradition. 600 private jets flown by rich Democrats flew into the Inauguration. That’s fine but the auto execs using theirs is a crime? In both instances, the people on those jets arrived in Washington wanting something from Washington, not just good will.

If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of the trillion dollar debacle.

One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama’s ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals:

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

…which is the tactic Obama uses in his “community organizing” …ie , ACORN…and his presidential run,most notably the primary.

I’m just trying to discuss the content of the videos…

full response and link
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTU5MjE3MmQ0NWU1Zjc1YzYyMDE1NzNmZmM2MzYxMmI=

“I am waiting to see if Obama takes steps to rein in punditry and insist on having fairness and objectivity in the media. If not, then he’s no real Democrat.”

Don’t hold your breath.

Thanks for the article.
I never listened to Rush until these elections. While I disagree with much of what he says, every now and then he gets right to the core of issues, as illustrated in some of your examples.

During the primaries he observed that Obama demonstrated a “pathological need to insert himself into history” (I probably didn’t get the exact quote…) in response to O’s comments about Selma and his uncle’s liberation of a concentration camp. That’s when I started to listen with some regularity and to assign some credibility to his thinking.

Prior to these elections I listened to PBS, Pacifica, and Air America. I’ve learned to now be open to a wider range of perspectives. In my opinion, the right and the left have both squeezed themselves into tiny, myopic boxes. We all lose out when our political dialogue is so rigidly and narrowly defined.

I don’t know that I’ve grown more conservative with age; perhaps I’ve developed a greater capacity for discernment!

I think alot of republicans DID vote for McCain/Palin…only,they had quit the republican party and registered Independant.First time voter myself,yet while I knew I would vote republican,I still registered Independant.We gave it our best shot..and I believe had it not been for the shady things done by 0bama’s camp(acorn,double voting etc.),McCain/Palin would have easily won..there were alot of sad folks when 0bama was announced the winner.

Rush Limbaugh can be a complete A-hole, but it wasn’t Rush Limbaugh who invited the Rev J Lowery to give the inaugural benediction so he could ask God to help “WHITE EMBRACE WHAT IS RIGHT”. I don’t exactly like Rush Limbaugh, but he has never called me a racist or accused me of “clinging to my religion and guns”. He (Limbaugh)has accused me of voting for socialists, but not this time around, because I voted for J. McCain. But just who the hell does Obama think he is to tell the AMERICAN people who they should NOT listen to when he himself sat for 20 years listening to that screaming maniac and anti-American preacher called Rev Wright?

Someone said that *no one cares what Rush says*, but that doesn’t appear to be true.

Talk-radio pundit Rush Limbaugh agreed yesterday to stay on the air for at least eight more years, signing a deal with his syndication company that Limbaugh said is worth more than $400 million, including a $100 million signing bonus.

The lucrative agreement between Limbaugh and Clear Channel-owned Premiere Radio Networks of Los Angeles is the second-largest ever for a radio personality.

After almost 20 years in national syndication, Limbaugh, 57, remains the most popular personality on talk radio, as well as an influential voice among conservatives. His program — heard weekday afternoons in Washington on WMAL (630 AM) — commands a weekly audience of nearly 20 million listeners on 600 stations, according to Premiere, which markets his program to stations and advertisers.

Exactly, how would Obama feel if Pres Bush had said to him.

‘You just can’t listen to Jay-Z and expect to get things done.’

There are a lot of assumptions from Obama in that one sentence. Flip it around….and they become more clear.

“AmericanGirl, the Fairness Doctrine would NOT “do away with talk radio”. What it WOULD do is ensure that one-sided, BIASED people wouldn’t be enabled to get away with their one-sided talk.”

This is America. One sided, biased people do get to talk about politics – and they do, all the time. Just pick up a Washington Post sometime.

This doesn’t mean you are required to agree with what you read and hear. There is no law that will protect the stupid from believing lies.

“You’re giving Rush more consideration than he would ever give to you.”

AG is the better person then, good on her! Lets all start giving each other more consideration than we feel we have received and maybe the world will become a better place.

Yes, self censorship by the media is scary.

Since getting Sirius in my car a few years back I have been able to find some interesting listening.
My favorite is Mark Levin.. Sirius Patriot 144
He is amazing in his analysis and is quite funny.
A strong defender of the constitution and unabashed supporter of American power in the world.
I have learned much about protecting business and some of my posts reflect a view of a real world we must live in and not simply a world we wish we had.

http://www.marklevinshow.com/

Except the type dittohead-speak of:

-”fringe kook left”,
-”Democrat” vs Democratic party,
-the drumbeat about taxes,
-death of America over national health care,
-and Republicans being bastions of Liberty (NSA, FISA, wiretapping, Quan. Bay)….

…will turn off people pretty fast, too.

Rush is a blow-hard who tried to be nice and considerate at the beginning of that interview, but it didn’t take very long for him to return to his normal blather about the same ol’ tired Republican talking points.

He speaks of drive-by media. He’s no better. It’s radio. He has to use sound bites and jingo-lingo to hammer home the message. Ditto this. Ditto that. He’s not offering analysis or thoughtful consideration. Rush repeats doctrine mantras.

It’s ironic that Rush talks of the cult-like following of Obama. Rush and Hannity preach to the choir, telling “them” what “they” want to hear, not what is always correct or factual. It makes a “conservative” feel good to listen to Rush. Just like any politician or pundit, Rush can con you (if you let him) into taking a position that is against your own “self-interest”.

Exactly, Johnny S. and Bob H. Memory is short but it shouldn’t be this short. Now, I have to admit, Rush was pretty well behaved in these Hannity clips [although you'll notice even here he found it necessary to take a swipe at Bill Clinton].

But I’ve listened to Rush’s radio show. No holding back there, all the over-the-top ugliness is exposed. And the guy has a great time doing it. Makes big bucks, too. So, excuse me if I don’t think being a “ditto head” is a worthy goal for anyone.

It’s scary how easily an opponent can occupy real estate in Barky’s mind. Rush, Hannity. And man, Sarah Palin got deep into his melon…as did Hillary. Not a good sign for the leader of the free world.

What’s he so worried about? Rush and Hannity are all the sudden going to copy him and study community organizing and neuro-lingusitic techniques to mount a cultural counter-attack?

Human nature, like all of nature, prefers balance and equilibrium. After Bush, the country has swung far in the opposite direction. But we will settle in the middle soon enough. Never mind worrying about Rush, Barky. Worry about yourself, Pelosi and Reid pushing so hard you force the pendulum to move just as rapidly to the right again in 2010 or 2012.

insist on having fairness and objectivity in the media

There you go tek. Controls. And of course Obama knows how to get that done, no?. Will you be happy when Obama dismiss Congress and gives to himself the absolute legislative power? After all he said he would listen to all sides and he won the right to make the final decision. He is the Decider in Chief, isn’t he; fair and objective?

Only trouble is that just as he said that he will listen to all sides, immediately he dismissed Rush and the conservative Christian thinking. Obama simply shows the pathological liar he is.

“One sided, biased people do get to talk about politics – and they do, all the time. Just pick up a Washington Post sometime.” or tune into msnbc.. haha That’s what I was thinking. Without FOX, and (conservative) talk radio, all we would get is liberal media. As far as one sided radio – if you have a show, filled with your listeners, it seems that you should be able to have a show with whatever format you want… Is Air America balanced? (I have no idea).

All I know is, you can’t get the truth by listening to only one sides views. I listen to Hannity and O’Reilly now, and there are lots of things I disagree with, but some I agree. But, I have to get a balance.

And, it seems to me, that IF the liberals DO want to enact the fairness doctorine, it would, in a sense, be ending conservative talk radio. It would need to be balanced, and the amount of conservative voices in the media would be that much smaller. It seems like a step to control the message, i.e. censorship.

rush’s intellectualism surpasses rev. wrights’ & olbermann’s — hands-down.

and i am an ivy-educated, PhD, former clinton supporter — no right-winger here!

i discovered rush during the primaries, as a sane voice who clearly was NOT not drinking the kool-aid.

This kind of talk is just irresponsible. We have the exact situation now that Bush had in 2000. Try as he did, he could not assume absolute power and Obama won’t either. I don’t like the guy, get real. In the first place, he’s just a figurehead.

That’s what people forget. We have gas expellers on both extremes but no one in the center. I dislike Keith and Bildo as well Rush and Matthews because they contribute little to the topic at hand except heat.

have you ever listened to Rush?

I live in Michigan now, but used to live upstate NY. While visiting, driving from Buffalo to the Adirondacks, one could not escape Rush on the AM stations starting about 10 AM to about 6 PM. Powerful signal stations carried him. Despite that, Hillary carried the state. In listening to him I find him appealing to my poorer self. So – I continue to be amazed at his draw, however one must wonder how significant he is. Listening to Air American, Schultz and Stephanie Miller also just gets boring and to some extent nastier.

great post AGI and excellent point. It’s not about whether you like Rush or not. It’s about someone who is supposed to be a leader referencing not listening to a talk show host. That’s pretty sad that BO is afraid of Rush Limbaugh influencing Republicans. He’s gonna have a heyday w that next week on his show. Oh geez…LOL…Rush is conservative and Republicans are too. There are two parties for a reason. So everyone is represented. Apparently BO doesn’t want to represent everyone.

Never watched Hannity or listened to Rush before this election. I watch Hannity regularly and sometimes hear his radio show in the car. Rush is only recent. Thanks, DNC.

I think you have to hear both sides; MSM is so over the top biased for Bama. You have to fight against their brainwashing. I’m continually amazed at how much my family and friends miss in the news they watch.

Limbaugh’s shtick is nothing more than this:

- He’s the greatest thing he’s ever seen.
- Republicans must always be praised.
- Democrats must always be attacked.

“I’m a thinker.” Yeah, right. That blow-hard hasn’t had a new thought in 15 years.

As a current HRC supporter and a former WJC supporter, I have always considered Rush to be an entertainer and nothing more. He spent an entire 8-year period living off the Clintons, getting rich all the while. He could have at least thanked them.

I only listened to him at the time so I could stay abreast of the latest spin from the far right and for no other reason. About 90% of his claptrap could be disproved with a little research.

I intend to do the same with That One and his media mouthpieces, who are the mirro-image of Rush. It just means I now have to do twice as much work keeping up with the spin from both sides.

I think ACORN helped with that and dead people and Mickey Mouse and his friend Goofy. I disagree, Obama didn’t win, he was selected.

I think you are stretching your point. Obama in his third day in office met with Republicans and deliberately attacked them as legislators by attacking their source of power, free speech. That is not the act of a figurehead. It was day three and Obama is trying to exercise control through intimidation. Mild as it may be, it was intimidation non-the-less. It is the beginning of censorship on his part. Remember his attack was not against Rush but against ‘people like Rush.’ He attacked the people of the country and their ability through free speech to discuss the negative consequences of his legislative agenda.

Obama is simply ahead of schedule.

Obama wants his legislative agenda pushed forward regardless of the consequences. Hardly the act of a figurehead.

Rush can be amusing. He can be cruel. He definitely has a mystique of sorts. I can enjoy listening to him if he’s raging against a common enemy (hint, hint), but I haven’t quite gotten over the way he incited people against the Clintons, and has continued to do so.

He has most certainly never been a friend to the causes of women, gays, immigrants, ethnic groups, or anyone else not like him.

He’s not even an original. There have always been blowhard confrontational critics promoting their xenophobias and biases.

But he is funny sometimes, and I have to agree with some of his statements. I put him in the save category as Bill O’Reilly.

Thanks … well written and every point you made it TRUE.

Rush is a hate filled psychopath who has done nothing but add to the political destruction
of people who USE to be “moderate Republicans”.

His pathological hatred of Hillary until recently is unforgivable. He now has a new target. I too have been listening much closer to “the other side” but listening to Rush is no different then listening to David Duke or Pat Robinson in my opinion.

For me, it it unconscionable to even THINK of listening to Rush.

Well, I did find his comments about McCain interesting–the reason he lost was because of his moderation, his willingness to seek bipartisan solutions. So, the wingnuts refused to support McCain [while 3+ million Dems did] and now he’s carping about Obama’s election.

Whose fault is that?

On the other hand, all this money that the Dems are preparing to throw at the financial problem? I agree with Rush. I’m not so sure this is the way to go [I heard this morning that the total bailout–hustling down the road over the next 4 years–may end up at the 2-4 trillion dollar mark.

If that doesn’t make people blink and gulp, I don’t know what will.

So, yes. Rush had a couple good points. But I still think he’s a windbag with a mission.

And in your world, whatever you have an opinion on is the gospel truth, even if it is only from one of the many voices in your head.

LMAO. Touche, oowawa.

My comment was in agreement with “by JozefAL”

sorry … didn’t come up at the right place.

Certain things that he says/has said, about liberals, I can understand to a point.

Think about what we, as Obama supporters, have been fighting in the media. OK, think about the bias we saw between Obama and Hillary.

NOW, imagine you are a conservative, and have been going through that for 20 years?

Honestly, I can understand some of Rush’s outbursts towards *liberals*. WE witnessed the hypocrisy that he talks about. NOW, I do not agree with things like the attacks on Chelsea, or the Vince Foster crap. BUT, I can understand conservatives, and their utter frustration with a liberal media controlled world. THAT i GET!

And I don’t know about all he did to bring down the Clintons, so I can’t address it.

But, again, I have to stop and think, and yes, I can say that I understand the outbursts by people like a Limbaugh or a Hannity, against liberal leaders and media.

As for attacking *liberals* – liberals attack conservatives just as equally, IMHO. We fight over policies, values, abortion, gay rights, religion, guns, etc. So – that seems like a fair fight.

But, again, I can understand someone lashing out at the hypocrisy of the liberal leaders, and media.

We will always have value arguments. For example, the Gag order on abortion. Left wanted it reversed, but I can see the point of the right objecting to it, as they passionately oppose abortion. And it is their taxes that are funding abortions. But, i can see the liberal side, that it is protection of women in poorer countries, etc. So, those arguements will always be there.

But, does this make sense? Does anyone see WHY someone like Rush may feel outraged at liberal bias? And doesn’t it make sense to HAVE that alternative voice? Not that we have to agree with all, or any of it, but it is at least important to have a balance, no?

Well, I’m happy for your degree, have you met the Viet Nam vet?

He thinks his service qualifies him as an expert, too.

Anyway, I can’t say Rush is smarter than Wright, I think Wright has the edge, there, so I disagree.

Um, no, this is America and we can still verbally “blast” any politician any time we like. Well, except The Obama. That still makes people nervous. Such a pity.

Yes, my parents embraced him early on, though now they reject him.

Do you think it’s hypocritical to, on the one hand, criticize Obama for his relationship with Jay -Z, yet quote Rush, who refers to feminists as “feminazis?”

And the “kooks” on the left are very much like the kooks on the right.

And that is the crux of the matter. Extremism in any form cannot be said to be virtuous-it is only extreme.

Frankly, I’m tired of the chicken-littles on both fringes of the political spectrum with their emphasis on wedge issues (abortion or “wars on Christmas” or “surrender to the enemy” bs) and ignorance about the real issues. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that these bilious bozos never tackle the difficult problems, since having answers would kill off their shows.

“Not a bastion of Intellect. So let us be careful before putting him on a pedestal”

I agree with the second part of that statement, we should be careful with whom we idolize. But there’s now way that you can judge Limbaugh as not being “a bastion of intellect” if you don’t regularly listen to his program. You can grasp that he is obviously well read, knows his history and always cites his sources or even better, provides sound bites for reference.

I’ll give you an example: The other day he was pointing out how the MSM was covering up for Tim Geitner, who we now know didn’t pay his taxes for four years. He offered about eight different sound bites from CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, etc, all of them saying basically the same thing, that Geitner not paying his taxes was “a common mistake”.

By the way, from the New York Times Rush Limbaugh profile:”He has no writers or script, just notes and a producer on the line from New York with occasional bits of information. That day, and every day, he produced 10,000 words of fluent, often clever political talk.”

Now compare him to The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert: As soon as the writers went on strike on 2007, they both went off the air. I mean, considering the format of both shows (half-hour, four days a week, mostly making fun at politicians), couldn’t they come on with something without the writers?

I still remember Reagan stating that the “problem was government”, when in reality, the problem was bureaucrats, a group which is made up of shills from both the right and left. He certainly did us no favors with that silly-ass statement.

Obama was selected by the democrat machine in the primary. He won the general election.

I agree with UK, the all encompassing hatred of Bush worked in favor of the dems hugely.

Remember, Americans show up in vast numbers to vote AGAINST things. High turnout usually means people are angry. People were very angry at Bush and showed up to vote against his party.

I thought McCain/Palin did pretty well considering how the field was stacked against them.

And the Obama campaign and MSM pretended Hillary talking about RFK…meant something else.

That is pretty shameless smearing, as well as, the racist bs about a former Pres and sitting Senator.

I don’t listen to Rush but clearly MSM and the Obama campaign can smear just as effectively.

Great article, AGII.

One can like Rush or hate him or anything in between. The point for me — and what I certainly learned last year — is not to demonize anyone just because I am told to do so. Labels are useless. And something akin to contempt prior to investigation. While I will never like Rush Limbaugh, he has said certain things that made and make sense.

Rush Limbaugh notwithstanding, we would all do better in this country to be more open minded, period. Listen to the ideas of the person first before condemning the source out of hand. That is the only way we truly educate ourselves and find common ground.

Demonizing others only benefits politicians and special interest groups trying to fill their coffers and rally the party faithful.

Kind of funny, though, how the vacuous yackers on the left have taken a cue from Rush and have become his mirror image.

And they believed that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster….’cause Rush told them so.

Admire him if you must, but for conservative analysis I’ll take Pat Buchanan, David Brooks, George Will.

If you only listen to Rush you will be very ill-informed.

Most here are acknowledging Rush’s success. But Obama was successful, Jay Z and Ludicrous are successful. It does not mean we approve of the way they became successful.

Are we debating the message or Rush? You seem to be defending Rush the man vs the message on these videos. Rush the man is hard to stomach for many Clintonites.

American Girl, Have you ever listened to Rush’s program? Or are you working from these videos? If you have not listened to the program, you should. He has dialed it down for that interview.

Anyway, I can’t say Rush is smarter than Wright, I think Wright has the edge, there, so I disagree.

Both seem to enjoy shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, so I would disagree. As for smart, LMAO. A dogmatic buffoon is a dogmatic buffoon. Nothing very intelligent there.

I don’t know, I think Wright, by virture of his minority status, may be a bit more culturally aware, or less obtuse –outside looking in, and I don’t think Wright is stupid.

But he’s a hate merchant, too, no doubt about it, and Obama should have walked.

But honestly, what’s the difference between referring to women as “feminazis’,” on the radio, and white bashing from the pulpit?

Rush was brutal to the Clintons, too, remember?

Ah. Absolutely right.

I agree with UK, the all encompassing hatred of Bush worked in favor of the dems hugely.

I agree, too. What is troubling is that it was the much the same people who gave us Bush in the first place. And the sheople go from one extreme to the other, listening to the crack of the whip rather than looking at the powers wielding it.

That is who I am interested in as well…..Helen Thomas.

Will this admin also run scared from her?

yes I hear ya….well said. I too demonized the right because the media does not accurately report things. I listen to Rush occasionally, he’s not my favorite person by far. I am not a Republican or a Democrat, I am an American with common sense. Whoever is making it, gets my attention.

Lib’s want equal air time on the radio but then are we going to have equal representation in newspapers and magazines too?

Have I criticized Obama and his relationship to Jay-Z?

What does that have to do with asking for discussion on videos by Rush?

“Limbaugh originally stated that the word “feminazi” refers to unspecified women whose goal is to allow as many abortions as possible, saying at one point that there were fewer than twenty-five true feminazis in the U.S.”

According to Limbaugh, the term denotes a woman who makes radical feminism her lifestyle; it is not a term to be applied to feminists in general, but is rather a title to be earned through extremely excessive activism.

This is Rush on the women’s movement:

I believe the women’s movement started out as a genuine and sincere effort to improve conditions. The original concerns of feminists, such as equal pay for equal work, were laudable and justifiable. People had a right to be upset at the treatment some women received, and some of their activism and protests were understandable.

From what I understand, he is not calling all feminists feminazi’s, he is calling extreme radical feminists, feminazis.

He made an assumption about those people he had no right to make

Note To Obots: This is what’s called being an elitist. And being an elitist is also being an asshole.

I was and still am what I consider a feminist; but I do have to admit that at one point, I saw some feminists as feminazis myself. They were the ones screaming, burning bras, and basically hating all men. They, and not just Rush, caused it to be hard to say “I am a feminist.”

And just to be clear, Obama is the elitist here. Sometimes this point goes over their heads. Note too how there’s no money involved!

Exactly agree with you, tarma.

I appreciate your well-considered post, AGiI, as I would most likely never have sought Rush’s opinion. And while I didn’t need to hear Rush’s comments, many of us for months have been saying the same thing. For all we know Rush came over to NQ and stole some of the critical thinking here, ha, ha. But Rush is wrong when he forgets how Obama praised Reagan, and how Obama said the Republican Party is the party of ideas, in interviews with the Nevada media before that state’s caucus, when he refers to the pandering of the Republican Party because Democrats don’t do that. Rush is way wrong about many things, including his point that America is best when individual self-interest prevails, wrong, wrong, wrong — look at the Wall Street mess, the greed, the disregard for investers, etc.! And Rush is wrong about the direction our country needs to take on affordable health care for all Americans.

pass the popcorn!!!!!!!!!!!!

This point of view is also part of a British editorial. Go to:

http://www.johntreed.com/DailyMail.html
This is the article

“Below is quote without comment by me (John T. Reed)

Obama’s Victory
A victory for the hysterical Oprah Winfrey, the mad racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, the mainstream media who abandoned any sense of objectivity long ago, Europeans who despise America largely because they depend on her, comics who claim to be dangerous and fearless but would not dare attack genuinely powerful special interest groups. A victory for Obama-worshippers everywhere. A victory for the cult of the cult. A man who has done little with his life but has written about his achievements as if he had found the cure for cancer in between winning a marathon and building a nuclear reactor with his teeth. Victory for style over substance, hyperbole over history, rabble-raising over reality. A victory for Hollywood, the most dysfunctional community in the world. Victory for Streisand, Spielberg, Soros and Sarandon. Victory for those who prefer welfare to will and interference to independence. For those who settle for group think and herd mentality rather than those who fight for individual initiative and the right to be out of step with meagre political fashion. Victory for a man who is no friend of freedom. He and his people have already stated that media has to be controlled so as to be balanced, without realizing the extraordinary irony within that statement. Like most liberal zealots, the Obama worshippers constantly speak of Fox and Limbaugh, when the vast bulk of television stations and newspapers are drastically liberal and anti-conservative. Senior Democrat Chuck Schumer said that just as pornography should be censored, so should talk radio. In other words, one of the few free and open means of popular expression may well be cornered and beaten by bullies who even in triumph cannot tolerate any criticism and opposition. A victory for those who believe the state is better qualified to raise children than the family, for those who prefer teachers’ unions to teaching and for those who are naively convinced that if the West is sufficiently weak towards its enemies, war and terror will dissolve as quickly as the tears on the face of a leftist celebrity. A victory for social democracy even after most of Europe has come to the painful conclusion that social democracy leads to mediocrity, failure, unemployment, inflation, higher taxes and economic stagnation. A victory for intrusive lawyers, banal sentimentalists, social extremists and urban snobs.”

he was great murrow..

cynic, does Olberman still use Murrow’s sign off? I haven’t watched him in a very long time, but I used to think Ed must be rolling around in his grave after that despicable a## began pretending to be his reincarnation.

wright is a reverened, granted *moral authority* by his title, preaching from the pulpit, spreading racial hatred, and flat out lies. And he has been historically inaccurate more than once.

Rush is an overpaid entertainer on the radio.

in my opinion, as a majority, like minds seek rush. wright converts minds.

i consider wright much more dangerous. and rush comes across more intelligent.

The other thing that every voter should do is understand the issues; understand how our government works; understand how bills are made, passed, and signed into law; and undestand how the Constitution can be amended.

I saw so much ignorance on the part of voters, that I have come to the opinion that some sort of test must be a prerequisite to voting. If a person cannot name the candidates, their party affiliation, and their positions on topics of concern, then they have no business voting, imo. Democracy within the context of a Representative form of government only works for the citizens when those citizens are politically aware. To discern the truth in this statement, just peruse this blog and others. The ignorance is breathtaking. I ultimately place the responsibility for our current troubles on a lazy electorate that doesn’t understand the concept of voting in their self-interest, and not the interest of the pandering politician.

“Well, if we will not listen, how will we be persuaded?” Plato, The Republic

Even Camille Paglia said years ago that she enjoyed listening to Rush because he has some very compelling arguments. Bravo to anyone who decides to actually give listening a try. You do not have to like his personality, but the points stand on their own. I have been tuning in now and then for years, and while I don’t agree with his stances on most social issues (he is not for true liberty, imo), he is almost always spot on in the economics area. We need his voice more than ever.

I was replying to a comment that someone made upthread (i couldn’t find it again when I posted this) that said *no one cares what Rush says*.

I sadi, that does not appear to be true, if he has a weekly viewership of 20 million people, and was paid $400M to stay on. It appears that SOMEONE cares what he has to say.

I have been TRYING to have discussions over the content, but no one seems to want to. I state in my post that I never really listened to him, and my comments are on these videos only.

Nor is it the act of somebody who cares about his country.

Minortiy status, schminority status. That is not what I base my positions on. And you’ll notice that I called Rush dogmatic and stated on another comment on this thread that Rush made his fortune by castigating the Clintons at every available opportunity. I only listen to him occassionally to get an idea of what the reactionary right is up to. I also listen to the mirror image, the looney-left to also see what sort of nonsense they are up to.

I stand by my statement. Dogma is dogma.

that’s a great commentary!

Preciously.

The Democrats have become everything they despised about the Republicans.

It’s why I have left the big D, and remain unswayed by the big R. Healthy skepticism of both sides is good.

My “must listen” show was the Diane Rhem Show on NPR. NPR lost me as a listener and a member when even she couldn’t look at Obama critically.

The Right had W, who could do no wrong. [as in W.T.F.]
The Left has O, who is anointed. [O. Sh|t!]

Me? I’d be happy with bike lanes and light rail.

It always amazes me that liberals or Democrats or people who support Hillary DON’T listen to Rush Limbaugh–at least every once in a while.

Why would ANYONE just take it on face value that you don’t want to read_listen_watch someone you think you won’t agree with?

Personally, if you think you will despise some pundit/talking head/propagandist, the best thing you can do is listen/read/watch them.

Never–repeat, never–take anyone’s direction at face value. Find out for yourself; use your own independent, individual, critical thinking skills. Do your own research; find your own center of gravity, whatever you want to call it. But, never, and I mean, never, just take someone else’s advice on what to read, listen to, or watch.

Are you not smart enough to think for yourself? Of course you are! So start doing it.

The left has Randi Rhodes (who called Hillary Clinton & Ferraro vile names at an Obama fund raiser) — and other loud mouth/foul mouthed yell show hosts.

IF the right wing talk show hosts need to be fair — then also Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy and Air America – etc. will have to bring in opposing views.

Both radical left and right love to demonize the other side.

It is far better for more Americans to become Independents or PUMA even — and start to listen to BOTH sides. AND watch the actions.

For instance pulling a random bit of nasty GOP legislation — written by the Drug companies — Medicare part D — if there is an example of a bit of law written to screw the older folks this is exhibit A.

So the Dems were in charge — did they rewrite this to be consumer friendly and FAIR? NOPE the dems couldn’t be bothered.

Now that the Dems control THREE branches — will they correct the vile Medicare part D? Probably not — because BOTH parties are being paid off by the drug companies.

(Thanks to Insight Analytical for that example of non action — by the all talk and do nothing Dems.)

Neither party seems to be working for the people — that means US.

Randi Rhodes is a drunken, loud mouth, hateful bi*ch. And she belongs to the left.

“how Obama praised Reagan, and how Obama said the Republican Party is the party of ideas, in interviews with the Nevada”

Rush may end up much more in favor of Obama than his supporters on the left…

“Rush is way wrong about many things, including his point that America is best when individual self-interest prevails”

this tends to be a big argument between left and right -

I concur with everyting you just said. I, too, left the party after many years. I will not associate with scam artists and con men.

Me? I’d be happy with bike lanes and light rail.

So would I. Will I hold my breath waiting for the light to go on in some politician’s brain? Nope.

UK, in the 1972 election, Richard Nixon won by a 23% margin over Mcgovern. He also won 49 states to Mcgovern’s 1 state. Obama won by less than 7% even though he spent record amts of money and was facing a 72yr old man from an extremely unpopular party most held responsible for the current economic recession. I don’t think that’s a mandate and BTW, Limbaugh isn’t the first conservative Obama has tried to diss. He and his campaign mentioned Sean Hannity many times and FOX news and anyone else not already in the tank.

Follow up to above advice. I listen to Rush Limbaugh–alot. I also listen to Sean Hannity, if I’m in my car doing errands. Once, I even listened to Mark Levin. He was AWFUL. PATHETIC. The WORST. Yet Sean Hannity thinks he’s the best thing since sliced bread. Ha! Funny how a man can be so small, so insignificant, and so pathetic, yet be called “the best” by some talking head.

I watch Chris Matthews on occasion, Keith–you are not Murrow, Keith–Olbermann, and others, as well, if I hear from anyone that I shouldn’t watch/read/listen, I do it.

And, so should you.

Why? Because you’re an independent thinker with the ability to discern between information, and propaganda. But, how do you know? Because you’ve listened/watched/read and you have decided. That’s how.

What Obama is saying is that Republicans can’t _just_ listen to Rush do nothing but criticize Obama and take his strategy of “no, no, NO” as a viable model for governance.

Conservatives also got to come up with creative alternatives, persuade the American people they are right and not dig in their heels to be the party of intrangience.

i don’t believe i said I admired him, or that am I only listening to him. I have never really listened to him before, and am discussing the content of these videos. And I am linking to a report that Rush listeners were more informed voters.

People think that Bush caused 9/11, too, because people on the left told them so.

I personally think that conservatives ought to get a hard shot to the nuts on the anniversary of George Bush announcing his candidacy for president for at last the next fifty years or until the last of the fringe right that stuck by him no matter what he did gets planted.

I can stomach Matthews maybe once a week. I can not even dare to hear KO’s voice. I flip between FOX, and msnbc. Morning jOe every morning! But I have to draw the line at KO.

but you are right, better to get a wide range of info.

Not that it excuses Rush using the term, but even he distinguished between feminists and what he called “feminazis”. Didn’t he say there were a total of 25 of these “feminazis” at one time?

I consider myself a non-socialist feminist. I too have friends who use feminism to justify man-hating which to me is a shame. They would most likely insist that American Girl in Italy is a sexist name – girl is not an accepable term for women over 18 – using the term denigrates all womankind etc etc.

American Girl was not nominating Rush for humanitarian of the year, she was saying that she was surprised he had some reasonable points to make. And he does, now and again.

I do know a few independents, who have been independent a long time, who were leaning toward McCain, but went against him because of Palin.

So there were just lots of factors involved in McCain’s loss, and the financial situation at the end did him in the most. I was surprised he did as well as he did, myself.

funny, my screen leaped to your last sentence and i thought you were talking about obama! ha

demagogue? yup!
homophobe? yup!

I am astounded at the amount of psychological manipulation being used by camp Obama.

My degrees are in Behavioral Science — group dynamics — Sociology etc. I’m trained as a group facilitator — although I no longer work in this field.

When I started to listen to what Obama was saying and HOW he was speaking — red flags started to go up. He is using classic psychological manipulation.

And then the caucus in Feb. last year — I saw manipulative psychological techniques being used by trained Obama agitators.

As the primary season progressed I observed more psychological manipulation — unified messages from the media.

I don’t know how many people are involved in the psychological manipulation — it is more intense than the advertising industries uses — it is almost black op psy warfare intense.

Others here at NQ have mentioned the est and “human potential”

Obama is a very controlling personality type — he is one of the most extreme Narcissistic to reach this level. And he is being back by unknowns — professional psychological manipulation.

Everything I’ve seen requires intensive experimental knowledge of MASS psychological manipulative techniques. Obama himself is far too lazy to do this sort of research — and it is at least graduate level competence to even understand the research and know the literature.

I suspect that Rush and others are well aware of what is happening — or they can guess — because they are using crude tools to manipulate the masses. But if they call Obama out on what they are really seeing — perhaps they will expose the techniques they themselves have been using???

There’s a book called SNAPPING — which explains some of the indoctrination methods used by cults — which is helpful for laypersons to understand what and how camp Obama operates.

Snapping: America’s Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change by Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman

Available through Amazon.com — good used prices!!

The best way to beat the psy ops techniques being used — IS to listen to both sides and QUESTION AND VERIFY — do NOT just believe.

Thank you American Girl in Italy. We do need to listen to BOTH sides.

And perhaps his femnazi remark wasn’t that far off — the way we’ve seen some so called feminist trash Sarah Palin & her children
— and then MS Mag puts the ONE on their cover and calls him a (sic) feminist????? YECK!

Spammy ate my comment.

I suggested that obama is using psy ops of some sort — plus I gave a book reference –

Snapping — which might help to explain some of the cult like techniques that PEBO is using..

I pulled it out!

Good God almighty, you people jump to the damnedest conclusions. He didn’t tell the AMERICAN people who they should NOT listen to! He was talking to the GOP leaders in Congress. And, contrary to what the article claims, he wasn’t telling THEM who they should or should not listen to! He was saying that you can’t JUST listen to Rush and govern based on that.

The problem isn’t government or bureaucrats. The problem is freedom. While the word sounds good rolling off the tongue it gets a lot of resistance during the implementation. The rise of the conservative wave of hysteria was preceded by the exercise of a number of freedoms that conservatives took serious issue with: the freedom of speech exercised across college campuses opposing the Vietnam war, sexual freedoms allowed by the pill and roe v wade, personal and civil freedoms granted to our “permanent” AA underclass. These are the things that laid the foundation for the conservative movement. Their entire political reason for being was to undo those freedoms. Government of the people, being the primary defender of freedom in America, became their primary target. They did their best to starve it, ridicule it and generally hate it into submission.

Luckily for freedom and for freedoms children… they failed

I’ve been away from a computer for a few weeks, but I see that you PUMAs are still up to no good. The Fairness doctrine is simply a bogus talking point used by the haters by right-wing agitators to scare the listeners. This past election proved that the legislature is not needed because Rushbo and Hamnity, along with the rest of the agitators, are doing a bang up job of making themselves irrelevant.

I don’t care about the Fairness doctrine. I hope that it’s not enacted because I love to hear Hamnity and Rushbo whine for 4 hours everyday. We have television, the print media and the internet. The right wingers can have radio. That seems like a a more than fair trade off to me.

Are you sure this isn’t Obama? Are you on your new Blackberry?

You sure are getting in a tizzy over the word *just*.

Do you reside inside Obama’s mind? Do you know that his emphasis was on the word *just* and not just a way of saying he thinks the right only listens to Rush?

Do you think it is insulting that Obama assumes that the Republican leaders govern based on what Rush tells them, as is assumed by Obama, by that statement?

Are you paid to come here and quell this story? haha Because you sure are stressed out about it! Google Obama don’t listen to Rush, or Obama quit listening to rush and you will get a heck of a lot of stories. Obama made this mess…

He also said, “If we don’t get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can’t let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That’s how things don’t get done in this town.”

And he has made other statements against Hannity and Rush, in the past.

Sounds to me like he was saying, “you can’t listen to rush…” but, you are hanging on to that *just* for dear life. Sounds to me like he used *just* like you would say, *you just can’t go running around town naked*.

Thank you!!

Please return to the cave — do the world a favor.

if anything I am glad that a voice like Rush, who have no respect for, exists to demonstrate the spectrum of thought in America. It is precisely because I find him to be a pompous blowbag that I defend his right to be that pompous blowbag.

I grew tired of Keith Olbermann for the same reason i grew tired of Rush and O’Reilly, but each has something to offer if we drop our biases and listen to them for a moment. Take in what is useful and throw out what is best.

These guys can be canaries in a coal mine.

Obama didn’t make this mess. (And by the way, it’s hardly a mess. It’s a right-wing tempest in a teapot). Shoddy reporting and taking the statement completely out of context is making the “mess”. In the context of the statement (as I understand it. Obviously nobody writing here was actually there), it sounds to me like he was saying “You can’t insist on a far-right agenda (as epitomized by Rush and Hannity) and get anything done.” At least not anymore, now that Bush is out. And, based on the last 8 years of GOP rule, I do not think it is insulting that Obama assumes that they govern based on what Rush says. I don’t think they directly answer to Rush but he is the voice (or one of the main voices) of the modern Republican party.
But do you honestly think Obama was trying to mandate to them who they can listen to??? You have taken his statement out of context, rephrased it, and then taken your paraphrase literally! A dangerous combination for a journalist.

renn- it’s the presumptiveness. this is not the only commment he has made about what people “should” listen or watch. we understand the quote is “you can’t just listen to Rush and get things done.” its arrogant. to be fair, then liberals therefore should stop watching msnbc & reading the NYT.

It is reasonable to be concerned about censorship, but I disagree that the comment was leading to a call for censorship.

It was a call to discount what BO thinks of as extreme voices. If he believes he is looking for cooperative relationships, and RL is saying, “i want him to fail”, then BO might be wanting to say, “don’t go to the extremes”.

I will say that BObama is too caught up in celebrity politics and pop culture politics from time to time. Giving Hannity a criticism only makes Hannity more valid to his base. The same was witnessed when Keith Olbermann came along with his anti-bush rants, it drew in a crowd of disgruntled citizens who felt locked out of the Bush vision.

When KO then started picking sides on Clinton/Obama, I suddenly found myself watching FoxNews. My friends thought I went nuts. I pointed out that I had often paid attention to Fox, but from a cynical view. And now they were about the only option of criticism regarding Obama. Strange how that wave of enthusiasm washes over us like and makes day to night.

I do not want to simply watch people who agree with me. It becomes creepy. I don’t like groupthink.

I don’t think this is exclusive to the ‘radical left’ in the slightest. Both sides love to limit the freedom of speech so long it agrees with their views.

But to lend agreement to your overall point, I believe, the radical left seems to think it isn’t doing this.

Bush was a Uniter…I’m more united with people who want to put him in prison than ever.
Obama is a uniter, I’m united with his critics to make sure he isn’t a god-king and given a double standard.

Once in a while I find that Ann Coulter says something sane & compelling. Before I share it, I say “I know Coulter is loony bin crazy, but she just said something sane & reasonable & it was…” Then I don’t have to have a whole arguement about Coulter. Same situation here. Because of Rush’s past assholery, the message gets lost. I’m sorry your post has been hijacked, but for those of us who have listened to Rush, it is hard to find him credible. I agree with him sometimes, but still don’t respect him much.

I heard parts of the Hannity interview too. This whole experience of my political affilation being turned on its head has made me think more, discriminate more in accepting ideas, regardless of who is offering them, and really examine positions with my conscience than rather along party lines. He had some interesting things to say, some that I do find that I agree with. But remember he is also the author of Operation Chaos, which aimed to have Hillary suffer defeat in the GE.

So, if anything, for me, the “party” of my choice isn’t going to be any party down the line.

Just to be clear the article states:

“more knowledgeable about politics and social issues” than the average voter

(emphasis mine)

Not a very hearty recommendation on anyone’s calender.

Another survey from the Pew institute can be found here:

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1356

I can cut and paste the political knowledge chart but of note is this (based on answers to 3 questions):

Regular readers of magazines such as The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and Harper’s Magazine stand out for their political knowledge (48%)…
NPR listeners rank closely behind, with 44% of regular listeners registering a high knowledge score. More than four-in-ten regular Hardball (43%) and Hannity & Colmes (42%) viewers also score relatively high for political knowledge.

and more pertinent to the topic:

Just a third of regular Rush Limbaugh listeners are college graduates, but this audience scored as well on political knowledge as did regular business magazine readers. Similarly, only about three-in-ten (31%) regular Hannity & Colmes listeners are college graduates, but a relatively large proportion (42%) answered all three questions correctly.

So while Rush listeners are less educated, they score high in knowledge of politics (36%). Aside, Daily Show listeners are also less educated, and score around 30% for political knowledge, somewhat below the score of dittoheads (sorry).

Of course the question becomes how much of this knowledge comes from listening to a single source and how much is attributable to other sources listeners are using (i.e. news media or blogs). My suggestion is that if the want a conservative viewpoint, the go to NRO or The Weekly Standard or Hot Air and spend your time there and link to information from those sites.

i was just thinking of joe as a 1 stop place for sensible coverage, vs the flipping between extremes as it seems we all here do.

Obama engaging Rush in a verbal battle is, yes, Obama’s mess.

He brought Rush into a discussion, a guy that has 20 million weekly viewers, on the other side of the aisle, by insinuating that Republicans are incapable of getting anything done, if they listen to Rush…I’d say that is a mess. A biggie.

Obama is trying to sell his trillion dollar bailout, and Rush is a huge opponent. He was telling the Repubs to stop listening to Rush, and vote for his bailout.

In my opinion, Obama should have never brought Rush into that discussion – he was giving weight to Rush, at a very high level. Rush can influence policy, at a governing level?

Obama can lose his vote to the bailout, because Republicans listen to Rush? That is a big mistake on his part, I think.

Rush has more influence than Obama?

And it is insulting, too, I believe, because it sounds like repubs can’t decide whether a trillion dollar bailout is a good thing or not, unless Rush tells them what to think.

And I know Obama knows it was a mistake, hence the WORM cleanup afterwards.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/prez_zings_gop_foe_in_a_timulating_talk_151572.htm

You are right on the money. The trick is getting people to understand it is in their best interests to take an interest. Too many don’t get that and are waiting for somebody else to figure it out for them. This is not only true of politics, but in all walks of life.

agreed. This is the reality of media. There need be nobody in government saying, “don’t say that” because self-censorship is more powerful, more insidious than outside coercion.

For instance, when the Obama supporters blamed Hillary Clinton for the Somali garb photo coming out, I immediately hit the web to find out about this article. And just a little research revealed that it was impossible for Matt Drudge to have gotten something first from Clinton because it was being covered by the freepers just a few days before Drudge posted it. the freeper who posed it hates Clinton and said, get this to Matt Drudge. The freeper wasn’t looking to frame Clinton at all. He just hated Obama and wanted this image out.

But when the MSM picked it up, they don’t know who the damn freerepublic people are. So they ran the story as a Matt Drudge posted it. Matt Drudge is so sloppy it is unbelievable that anyone would source him.

So I went to a lot of trouble to contact dozens of folks I’ve known for years through my radio reporting channels and send them the evidence that this couldn’t not have been Clinton’s doing. Some heard me but were overruled by their editors as, “its yesterdays news now” and others were drinking the Obama bottles. Nobody corrected the story.

Then the hospital story in Ohio broke. I scooped the truth on that story which was published here at NQ:
“http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/07/the-real-trina-bachtel-story/”

Only two major papers overturned their story, Ann Kornblut and the New York times printed updates.

It is inconvenient for the MSM to correct itself.
It is inconvenient for them to double check their facts, and it is a degradation of our public understanding that is the result.

Damn, no wonder people thought there were WMD, the statements of Scott Ritter to the UN were already yesterday’s news and who wants to bring that up.

i like Joe! and he has a balanced cast every day.

after joe, i flip to FOX. then sometimes back. depends on what is on. I usually catch vids from OReilly and hannity.

Good Lord, that’s all I have to say after reading this thread.

excellent points! dang, I forgot about that hospital story. those rat bastards!

American Girl, thanks for another great post! It is amazing that Obama is so weak that he has to tell people not to listen to his detractors, instead of having the strength to address legitimate criticisms. What a baby. WAAH WAAAH don’t listen to Rush, listen to ME. He’ll say or do anything to avoid accountability and promote thought control. God forbid he should actually DO anything to establish his credibility, that is just way too much to ask of the boy in the empty suit.

If you really want to get a feel for what Rush is all about you must commit to listening to him for at least a couple of weeks (preferably more). He has a wit about him that comes off as pretentiousness if you listen to him once, but if you listen to him long enough, you know he is having fun with himself and his audience. He’s very sharp, very observant. He’s not all about bashing Dems. That’s nonsense.

how come?

Folks … Obama is following the script right out of the Saul Alinsky Playbook:

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

Oh … and another quote -

“I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.” – HRC

As Bush had his Osama, Rush has his Obama. Does this mean war?

“Giving Hannity a criticism only makes Hannity more valid to his base. ”

Kind of like having a sit down with Ajmadinijad?

(it took me three tries to get this in the right place!)

Ah, AGII, that’s a different point you make there. “He was telling the Repubs to stop listening to Rush [in this instance, about this particular topic], and vote for his bailout.” That I agree with you on. But don’t you see that is not at all the same as saying “Obama tells us not to listen to Rush”, as though he meant EVER? Very different emphasis and, judging by the comments, not what the average reader got from your article.
I don’t agree with Rush’s viewpoints in the least, but my bigger problem with him (and Hannity and O’Reilly) is their arrogance and (much worse) their incredible leaps of illogic when arguing their points. I do agree with the viewpoints of Randi Rhodes but I can’t stand her for the same reason (her questionable reasoning skills). On the few times I’ve heard her she has been rude, cutting people off, and leaping to the craziest conclusions on the scantiest evidence. Unfortunately that type of far-right/far-left ranting is what sells. It’s bread and circuses and should not be the basis for governing. From either side.

hillary is so wise. thanks for the reminder.

Lynn,
I don’t know what other comments you are referring to, but in this instance I don’t think it is meant to tell anyone what they “should” listen to. More that, if that’s where you’re coming from (Rush’s far-right agenda) we (meaning the elected reps)won’t get far. I don’t think it was arrogant of John Lennon to write “If you go carrying picture of Chairman Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow”. Not that you “should” or “shouldn’t”. Just don’t be surprised if you are marginalized.
But that’s just what I got out of it. Maybe I’m wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time. Wouldn’t be the last.

“He’s not all about bashing Dems”
yes, he’ll bash others…but can you demonstrate a time where he says, “the democrats got this right?” and stood up for them? Because I’ve seen him miss this opportunity many times. He’ll use it as a lauch sometimes, but then let them drop when he’s near completion.

just askin.

hey ces and Ferd, I’m on that same bike lane. I keep my eyes on the path and don’t swerve too hard right or left.

well, that was the point of the NY post article. I assumed everyone had read the article. I guess I should have linked to it, but that wasn’t my emphasis of my post. My intent was to start a discussion on the topics discussed in the videos. That never really happened. It became a discussion over Rush, and Obama, but some good discussion about media coverage, and information.

You kind of led the charge in making Obama’s comments the focus of the thread.

regardless of Obama’s intentions, as I stated above, he made his mess, by bringing a guy with a microphone, and an audience of 20 Millions, into this discussion. Also, for assuming that Repubs only oppose his bailout because Rush tells them to. He broadcast this from Rush’s audience of 20 million to 200 million.

thank you . . . been gone for awhile and came back thinking FreeRepublic had bought the domain . . . sorry Larry and friends, I find Rush and his “Golden Mike” central to the problem of re-enforcing populist retro politics MINUS critical thinking . . .

I like Joe but wish he would dump Mika……..she is annoying.

How about paying attention to Pres Obams’s actual statement “you can’t JUST listen to Limbaugh” He didn’t say don’t listen to him – do take in other opinions. I can’t believe conservatives read that badly – they are intentionally wanting to appear as victims – their favorate pose!

Well, again I would argue this isn’t really much of a mess for Obama. Not when you consider all the real messes he has to clean up. Sorry if I took the thread in a different direction than you intended.

Wow . . . I heard you!!! And judging from the reply to you to head back to the “cave” seemed to vindicate your point . . .

Larry – I’m telling you not to jump off a bridge – what do you do?

If we can elect a former crack smoker to be President, then I certainly don’t think you can automatically discount the opinion of someone that had an addiction to painkillers/legal drugs.

Kinda like comparing Mario Lanza’s Pagliacci with Bozo . . . . “good” but different worlds . . . and even at THAT cannot be considered “compared” . . . .

Rubber-side Down!!

Juan – I “think” you are reading more into this than actually said . . Obama implied that Rush Rants offered no solutions and listening to him wil not move us forward, it takes ACTION and PARTICIPATION . . . NO censorship was mentioned.

Listening to Rush REQUIRES a lot of suspension of reality and facts . . . “road enterainemt”

thank you lynn . . . I was hoping for SOMEONE to have clarity and history . . . Rush is an accomplished con-man quite adapt and wealthy being able to keep the listeners looking for the pony in the huge pile he puts out . . .

So

Hillary is not alone.in being Wise…So .are you Girl in Italy ..and many Millions of other women..who have fought for thier right to be Respected..treated as an Equal..and free from the Slavery of subservitude to male ego and dominance…and going from the Kitchen to the White House..Equal to Males..but generally with more Heart and Balance in My Opinion….

what is any house without a Woman..??

A Woman is the Heart and Soul That Make make a House a Home..that Includes the White House..or Congresss..and any society that disrespects it Women is Only Half Complete..and Crude…

I learned this lesson at Pat Buchanan’s blog. While John Edwards was ‘apologizing’ and attacking Hillary for voting the same way he did on Iraq, he was calling for pre-emptive war against Iran at the Israeli Security Summit at Herzliya. Did Daily Kos call him on his horseshit? No, it was Pat Buchanan. I lost a lot of respect for the anti-Hillary left that let Edwards pass himself off as a ‘peace candidate.’ Both sides tell lies — liberals and conservatives.

Yes, Pat’s anti-gay and anti-choice. But, really, except for gay marriage, he’s lost those battles. He still calls the shots on anti-immigration policy. But on foreign policy, he’s the sharpest, most honest commentator we’ve got.

I too was programmed (repeat after me: “Pat Buchanan is the devil. Pat Buchanan is the devil.”) I’ve learned to ward off liberal mind control.

You should keep in mind when interpreting these results that only about 28% of the U.S. population is college educated.

Um, the reason I loathe Rush is BECAUSE of the way he treated the Clintons, day in and day out. I did listen to him once in a while back then. I also remember him saying liberal females were all ugly, Birkenstock wearing and overweight (that’s not how the rest of the world sees Anjolina). As far as I’m concerned he helped bring about some of the female bashing we see today. At least, he helped plant the seeds of hate against strong, educated women.

The MSM has become so shamelessly biased, that I had to resort to FOX news this election cycle just to get ANY variation of opinion. That led me to Hannity and then…to my shock, Rush. I was a typical Liberal, and used to blast ALL Republicans, and was disgusted by Rush. Now, I listen to him in the car on route to work, but here’s the thing: I am not suddenly a Republican, and there are many things he says that I do not agree with. He blames Dems & Liberals for everything, for one, and rarely takes responsibility for Republican failures. Sound familiar? This year taught me that the Left can be just as bigoted and blind as the Right. Now, when I listen to him, I can listen with discrimination, and ask questions about the different perspectives available. I can also dismiss what is biased and inflammatory. At least he is not intoxicated with the latest trend. His message is consistent–even if I disagree with him. I do hate the way he smears the Clintons, but I also have learned about different ways of thinking regarding economics. He’s also dead on about the bias of the “Drive-by media” as he calls it. They are hypocrites and whores. He is right about Obama’s motives too. He is trying to isolate and diminish dissenting voices. At least Rush has the courage of his convictions, unlike Obama.

No one considers Rush worth listening to, that’s the point.

Except for what, 15 million listeners a week?

Was he the one who referred to liberalism as mental illness?

No, that was actually a psychiatrist that wrote a book about it. It said that liberals want to be taken care of by the government (government as permanent parent). Republicans typically believe in taking care of themselves.

If someone referred to you as a feminazi, you’d still promote him as capable of astute, intellectual analysis?

There is really a difference between a feminist and a feminazi. I am a feminist and I don’t enjoy feminazis myself. They give feminists a bad name. I do listen to Rush on occasion and find him very insightful.

But they are pushing the Fairness Doctrine aren’t they? Why do you think that is? What happened to the Constitutional scholar and freedom of speech? Why are they only giving the press images THEY want released, and not allowing candids? Why are they only choosing certain journalists to ask questions at press conferences a la Bush? Obama is every bit as controlling and secretive as Bush/Rove, and if you can’t see that, then you are denying blatant propaganda.

It’s sad, but there really is no leadership in the Republican party right now. Rush and Hannity are pretty much the only Republican voices that can be heard and are therefore the default “leaders” it seems. They didn’t ask for the job.

Or you’re racist. That’s what they said about the Clintons, and now, Hillary is being honored with the Martin Luther King Society award. Hypocrisy anyone? That silenced most liberal critics, because they are terrified of being called racist. You have to know who you are to withstand those false accusations and speak the truth.

It is being reported everywhere, in major headlines, like this: LIMBAUGH WANTS OBAMA TO FAIL!

It isn’t conservatives who misread/understood Limbaugh–it’s the mainstream media, as usual, protecting their savior.

He also lived off stimulating more division that may have been there by creating the “dittohead” mantras about “liberals” we get to read over and over again. I remember when there was nothing particularly pejorative or smear like in “liberal”. But then came Rush and he spawned a movement solely dedicated to calling people “liberals” in an unthinking smear campaign. “Tha Liberals”…(insert something vile that he thinks Conservatives don’t do equally).

“Tha Liberals, Tha Liberals”.
Without fostering this division, he’d have had to have some talent. It isn’t hard to appeal to the lowest in people. It is an art to try and appeal to their better side. If he did that, people who disagree might learn to cooperate, then he’d be out of a job.

Just like MSNBC has to keep pounding on the Bush Admin to keep its audience, Rush has to pound on all things “liberal”. And worse, is that isn’t true most of the time. The GOP have been all that efficient with government. They love to build up their pet projects too.

Rush is way wrong about many things, including his point that America is best when individual self-interest prevails, wrong, wrong, wrong — look at the Wall Street mess, the greed, the disregard for investers, etc.!

I heard this show, and Rush couldn’t be more right on this. Self interest leads to the most productivity. Simple fact. Why be innovative if you get nothing out of it? Humans are lazy whenever possible. That is why socialist countries are stagnant. He did not mean self interest as in fraud and taking advantage of people.

Republicans victims? No Dem’s are the ones who like welfare and no accountability hence victimology.

I listen to Rush almost every day, and, I would not describe him as a pompous blowbag. I would describe Olbermann that way though. I do however agree with the rest of what you said in terms of being courageous enough to drop our biases and actually tune in and listen to those voices that cause us anxiety. We might be very surprised. I used to think Rush Limbaugh was the antichrist until I actually listened to his whole show one day. And then another day. And then another day….He’s thought provoking for sure, and much more fair and analytical than I ever imagined he could be. If I want to think of myself as open minded then I need to open my ears and eyes to all kinds of voices and writings.

I like your line: “These guys can be canaries in a coal mine”. Exactly…….

I have another apt expression: “Wise men learn many things from their enemies.” Aristophanes

Is not Rush the guy that has the many wives? Isn’t he the guy that used his house keeper to shop his drugs?

Wow.

You can’t successfully dispute Rush’s points about Obama and the Democrat party, so you resort to attacking Rush personally.

Typical behavior of a person that’s been proven WRONG.

JozefAl, now you’ve made me cry. I subscribed to the Texas Monthly just to have the privilege of reading Molly Ivens She was a wonderful woman and I miss her humor. When she and Ann Richards got together they never failed to entertain and inform. Thank you!

EXCELLENT COUNTERPOINT, Northwest Rain. I who came of age during the Feminist Movement was aghast this past election cycle at the degree of misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin by WOMEN!!!! (not to mention creeps like Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews). Women of all ages, even those who espoused feminism, were either silent during the attacks of those two women or took part in the attacks as well. It was shocking and very depressing. We are in deevolution I fear.

I was never a fan of Rush until the 2008 presidential primary. His commentary is funny, brutal, and honest. He explains the dynamics of Obama mania, the drive-by media, the Dems, and even faults the Republican party for being wimps.

If you want to understand American politics, listen to Rush.

I don’t think anyone here is putting Rush, who has many, many warts, on a pedestal. But since when does a POTUS feel confident enough to tell other members of the government in a democracy whom they can or cannot listen to/watch on t.v.? The only person on a pedestal at the moment is our POTUS and he seems to have climbed up there on his own. Free speech means free speech and the right to listen to anyone, even a horse’s ass, we choose. Any POTUS with respect for the constitution (didn’t he promise to defend that document less than a week ago?) … any POTUS with respect for the constitution and the people of the land should know better, especially if he bills himself as a “constitutional lawyer.”

This is my point, because Lord knows I cannot STAND Rush Limbaugh. But who in the hell are Barack Obama or the “progressive” lunatic left to tell ANYBODY what to listen to & who to watch? THAT’S what burns me up!

Newly Ind,
I think Obama is learning from history and has decided to fire first.
We all know what Rush does. He starts the chip by chip character assassination of whoever the democrat is in power. Look what he did to Bill Clinton and later Hillary.
This time around Obama has made it clear that he won’t deal with those that subscribe to Rush’s kind of thinking.
Maybe a smart move!

The problem with radical liberalism is their view on Freedom of Speech…. They will defend it as long as you agree with their views.

Yep – this is the bottom line.

“…as long as you agree with their views.

To be fair, there are definitely Republicans that think the same way. But I’ve seen ALOT more Democrats with that mentality. That will come apart at the seams if you don’t validate any of their viewpoints.

I was never a fan of Rush until the 2008 campaign. He provides the best analysis of our political culture with wit and brutal honesty.

Kudos to Rush!

Did you just pull those ratios out of thin air? Were you watching or listening to MSM this past election cycle? Were you visiting liberal blogs this past election cycle? Did you not see the hatred toward Sarah Palin this past elections cycle? Did you not see hatred toward all the Republican candidates this past election cycle? Open your eyes and ears, FGS!!

Limbaugh is an opportunist commentator who found a niche in which to make millions as a conservative talkshow host. When you give a man 400 million dollars to spew garbage on a daily basis on single issue ideas, and rigged elections (2000 and 2004), it does not take a rocket scientist to know that the charade of neocon talk radio is to deceive, mislead and use every ignoble device to get a Republican selected at the polls. All for the selfish desire of a man earning 400 million that does not want to pay taxes. Even if Limbaugh wanted to become a progressive talkshow host, he could not just because of the money involved in being a neocon talkshow host. Only a machiavellian illiterate like Sean Hannity, would become a neocon talk show host. The only impact Limbaugh has had in American politics is to create the illusion that Republican neocon ideas were the majority ideal of Americans. This is the classic dictatorship of the media (remember dictatorship of the proletariat). Americans have been propagandized against their own interests since Limbaugh started this genre 20 years ago. If we want to continue to loose our homes, our jobs, our liberties, our happiness and our lives, continue to vote Republican and listen to Limbaugh. After all that is what democracy is about. The right to do yourself in, if you want. Only a fool, with his two eyes open, walks into a ditch, but that is your right. To defend democracy, the people must be eternally vigilant. We should be thankful, that in the end, Bush was too cowardly to stage a military coup d’etat, suspend the constitution, declare a national security emergency, and declare himself absolute dictator until he had won the war on terror. Then he would have mandated that we all listen to Limbaugh a la 1984 and no other.

I absolutely agree with Limbaugh on his BO analysis. Rush, Hannity and O’Reilly, as well as FoxNews, are very aware that they now have liberal democrats who listen/watch them and they are quite proud of that. They are not being the crazies they had always seemed to be. I recognize my attitude has something to do with it as well.

However, when my right-wing honey starts acting all smug that I have finally seen the light, I have to remind him that I am very selective as to what I agree with them on and there is no need for him to feel I am a convert because I am not.

In fact, just a couple of weeks ago I had had enough of Hannity carping on the Clintons and continuously bringing up Monica Lewinsky. I emailed him acknowledging how his audience has increased thanks to Clinton supporters who had no where else to go. But, I told him if he did not stop the Clinton bashing, he was going to lose them – me for sure. I also wrote FoxNews the same thing since some of the others were doing it as well, like they used to do.

Rush coining (I assume original with him) the word “feminazi” is about the most offensive thing he’s ever said in my mind. But it was sort of comical how he tried to get republicans to vote for Hillary in the primaries when he finally became concerned Obama may win. I was never quite sure if that was reverse psychology or what.

He convinced his listeners, I was informed, that he had had an effect on the primary elections with that. I actually do know republicans who agreed with his logic and voted for her. Regardless of that, I have no doubts that if Hillary had been the nominee, he along with Hannity and O’Reilly would have ripped her to shreds.

quoting Murrow was a reminder to me, not in any way meaning to compare or have anything to do with Rush.

I would also point out that, if Rush listeners are a bunch of uneducated ditto heads, then WHY is Obama assuming that the Republican leaders are his listeners? That is ever more offensive, isn’t it? ahaha

excellent point my friend!

People just put a man who said our constitution was fundmentally flawed and you want to bash Limbaugh? I’ve been listening to Rush since October, and in all honesty i have not heard him or spew hatred. And to be very honest since we are broke, and deficit spending will hurt the economy more than hurt it then in all honesty yes people do need to listen to conservatives ideas. Peoples marrriages have broken up for the type of bullshit obama and friends are trying to pass now. DUMBASSES. WE OWE FRACKING CHINA MONEY. and just because bush helped to create majoirty of this mess. It’s made. You can’t cry over spilled milk. You have to get a mop. You don’t poor more on the floor and try to ge it in another glass. And placing someone who does know his a$$ from his head is not a good idea. Personally i’m sick of people from both sides of the isle who run here and there and and do not have one single solitary thought that is their own. I can listen to conservative talk show host, for the same reason i don’t can not and will not support obama, because i know bullshit when i hear it, and i can turn it off anytime i want. My parents raised me to think for myself. And in all honesty, with hall the cheating that went on this year, everyone should know, we are going to have to keep close eye on obama, and our democratic brotheren, and FOX and conservative talk show host are the only ones who are even remotely trying to see what these people are up to. Just like the dems didn’t listen to the 18 million people who voted for Clinton, and just like no one looked into the massive voter fraud. If the last eight years have taught you nothing else it should be don’t trust you leaders not to lie to you or to screw you. And right now Rush and friends have a whole lot more to gain by telling the truth about obama than MSM who practically force feed him to us do.

not sure why you are addressing this to Larry, but if someone told me not to, I would go bungee!

Mess = media problem. Most defintely he has more important matters at hand. But, he created this media mess by bringing up Rush.

And, it’s cool. You can post what you want. It is just unfortunate that you chose to WORM for Obama, instead of discussing something more substantive. ;O)

So, when I read that Obama told Republicans that if they wanted “to get along with Democrats and the new administration” they had to turn off Rush Limbaugh.

_____________________________________________________
With all respect, WORMing for Obama, eh ? What it is about the statement “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done” that implies “they have to turn off Rush Limbaugh” ??

Congresspeople can’t listen to his show with a critical ear, one of a myriad of sources that get their ear every day, and still keep an open, flexible mind to achieve creative solutions with a Democratic president ? Republicans would have every right to take it as a grievance if that was the interpretation they were receiving. It simply makes no sense as a reading of the original wording.

I cannot listen to a man who helped cheerlead the previous administration while they pretty much brought my country to its knees.

Rush practically crucified Hillary throughout her public life.

Now I’m to listen to a man who wants this President to fail? Might as well tune in to al Queda.

So Fran, by writing to Fox news in an effort to get them to back off the “Clinton bashing”, aren’t you attempting to influence the media in a similar manner as Obama?

Writing to media outlets about your complaints or issues is a good thing, it helps to keep them honest. My mother recently cancelled her subscription to “The Seattle Times”, and explained to them that she was fed up with the constant “Bush bashing”.

As a citizen, Obama has the same right to carp about anything or anyone that he wishes. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it is smart for him to do so, it makes him look petty and thin skinned. Most here at NQ already knew this about him, a Narcissistic person cannot easily brush off or ignore criticism, and he cannot resist tossing catty digs or shabby insults (middle digit cheek scratching) at his detractors. Obama truly IS hurt by any criticism, confrontational question, or anything else that may damage his fragile ego. As always happens with Narcissistic charismatic leaders, when their followers finally snap out of their trance and see the leader as a deeply flawed and dangerous individual, the shit will hit the fan. Let’s all hope that the Obamabot epiphany happens sooner rather than later, before our commitments and actions become irreversable. Pelosi and Reid will try to prevent that however, they consider Obama a useful tool to achieve their radically socialist agenda. They’re too stupid to see the dangers that Obama and his fanatics pose for them, and they will eventually be given tickets for an under the bus ride.

So we have a lot of individual entities, including Rush and Keith and Chris and CNN and Fox, ad nauseum, spouting off and talking with guests but no real debate or intense focus among them on the issues of importance to us, such as invading Iraq, meddling in god knows how many countries, socialized stock markets and banks, and other interesting topics. Meanwhile, all the big money interests make more money through advertising on the same media which mislead us, and if they lose money, we pay them compensation. Nice racket they have going. 98% opinion and innuendo and 2% fact and in-depth investigative reporting, in my opinion. All this blogging and talking back and forth is of some value, no doubt, but the real inequities and cheating and outright buying of our supposed representatives is not changing. Two worlds apart. Thanks for reading.