Wednesday, March 04, 2009

HUffie: Democrats Are Empowering Rush Limbaugh

Peter Daou of the HUffington Post has had the jobs that political player wannabee William Rivers Pitt could only dream about. Daou has been an integral part of both the Hillary Clinton and John Kerry campaigns among many other things. Therefore, when Daou warns the Democrats that they are making a big mistake by focusing on and attacking Rush Limbaugh, smart folks should pay attention to the warning he posted in this HUffington Post THREAD, "Why on Earth Are Democrats Legitimizing and Empowering Rush Limbaugh?" Yeah, by focusing on Rush Limbaugh, Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats are making more people who never listened to him before tune in thus generating yet more dittoheads. Great move...NOT! However, many HUffies disagree with Daou and want to continue with the ultimately self-defeating attacks on Rush. So let us now watch the HUffies inadvertently call for the elevation of Rush Limbaugh in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, about to put out an APB on Randi Rhodes, is in the [barackets]:

I don't buy into this 'brilliant' strategy of elevating Rush Limbaugh in the hopes that it will tarnish Republicans.

[But...but William Rivers Pitt thinks that strategy is absolutely brilliant. Stand by now as Peter lists his Democrat bonafides to establish leftwing credibility...]

Focus relentlessly on the disastrous Bush presidency to tarnish Republicans, yes.

[BUSH'S FAULT!]

Overturn every single illegal and unconstitutional Bush-era policy and show the country and the world that we're reclaiming the moral high ground, yes.

[BUSH'S FAULT!]

Implement bold strategies and use soaring rhetoric to inspire Americans, yes.

[Uh, um, like, uh, ok.]

Hew fiercely to Democratic principles, reassert the greatness of our American identity, demonstrate the true meaning of liberalism, of progressivism, providing opportunity, seeking justice and fairness, helping those in need, yes.

[We got it. You're a liberal!]

Spend our resources healing the sick, feeding the hungry, lifting the poor, cleaning the planet, rather than on war and more war, yes.

[You left out the walking on water part.]

But expand Rush Limbaugh's profile and platform? No.

[Yes.]

It's bad for the country and it's bad politics. Limbaugh and his cohorts (Coulter, Hannity, Beck, Savage, and so on), are largely responsible for our toxic political environment. Given major media platforms to launch crude and brutal political and cultural attacks, to demonize liberals, and to use rage as a means of lining their own pockets, these 'entertainers' have poisoned our national discourse.

[Return of the "Fairness Doctrine?"]

There's precious little benefit in making Limbaugh more of a central player, in engaging him directly from the White House podium, in raising his stature, in stamping, sealing and approving the years he's spent bashing his political opponents. There was a moment, a brief moment, after Barack Obama was elected president, a moment long gone, where the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity could have become marginalized, bit players rather than media movers and shakers, the detritus of a sorry era. But instead, they have been granted more power -- out of some contrived political calculus. This, at a time when we don't need political calculus, we need single-minded determination to get us out of this economic calamity and to restore sanity to our government.

[Contrived political calculus hatched at early morning conference calls between Rahm Emanuel, James Carville, The Forehead, and George Stephanopoulus.]

I know it's hard for Democrats to appreciate how quickly political fortunes turn -- the glow of victory, the high of electoral success gives a sense of inevitability and invincibility, of permanence. But there's nothing permanent about power. The tide will turn again, and the engine that will drive it is the fury stirred by the likes of Limbaugh. Feeding that machine, expanding and enhancing it is a mistake. A serious one.

[Keep on feeding the Rush machine!]

It's a truism that victory makes every decision seem genius, defeat, the reverse. Democrats, now in power, have a sense of triumph that makes every decision feel smart, every chess move a checkmate. Thus the "Rush strategy" foisted on those of us who have spent the past decade trying to point out how noxious and pernicious Limbaugh and his ilk have been (and continue to be), and how detrimental the anger they've stoked.

[Hmmm... Does anybody know if President Eisenhower was completely obsessed with Gabriel Heater?]

Empowering Limbaugh in the hopes of a bank-shot against Republicans will yield the opposite result: Limbaugh will become more powerful, Republicans will relish his increased influence and allow him to do their dirty work.

[I'm hearing the "Getting Stronger" Rocky theme song in the background. And now to hear from the HUffies determined to empower Rush...]

I think it is a good strategy. Limbaugh is an odious and self evidently wrong character that brands his party unfavorably. People are angry and they should be. Limbaugh did not create or inspire this anger, he misdirected it. His spell is broken for most people. Make him the face of conservatism and leave them the votes only of the most wealthy and the 17% or so of unreachable, finding Cheney favorable, reality denying true believers.

[Declared the suicidal HUffie.]

There's precious little benefit in making Limbaugh more of a central player, in engaging him directly from the White House podium, in raising his stature, in stamping, sealing and approving the years he's spent bashing his political opponents. I AGREE WITH YOU, PETER. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WHY WHY THE DEMOCRATS -MSNBC, ETC. ARE GIVING HIM EVEN ONE OF THEIR PRECIOUS BREATHS!!!

[Shhh! Please continue to allow them to take the WRONG path.]

This idea of him being unpopular is sadly not true...his radio audience just doesn't consist of diehard right kooks...the data on listeners shows that repeatedly...some Dems like Emanuel would like to perpetuate this sorry myth.

[The Dittohead army grows stronger every day thanks in large part to Rahm drawing attention to Rush.]

I agree. It's a cynical move that might backfire. Less cynicism please.

[Shhhhh!]

It's the beginning of the end for Limbaugh and his hate mongering ilk.

[I've been hearing that since about 1990. And does anybody remember how many media types were writing Rush off as "irrelevant" just a year ago?]

Limbaugh is such an easy target. I would absolutely crush him if I had a lot of media support. He would have to go for years of therapy after the humiliation I would deliver.

["Humiliation" delivered by a long, inarticulate screech.]

I would not have heard about Rush's latest actions had it not been for the commentators that were critical of him. I share some of the concerns of this article

[The Democrat PR just makes El Rushbo's audience bigger.]

The threat Rush poses is that people will start listening to him once they become disillusioned with the present policy, and then the listener begins to question the ideologies they have been force fed. That is why this attempt is to destroy him. Law 43 in the Play book.

[This is why the Rahmbo plan will FAIL. Most liberals who are attacking Rush never actually listen to him. Once more people start listening to Rush due to the publicity generated by the attacks on him, the more his ideas will permeate the land. So those Democrats plotting the demise of Rush by focusing attention on him are too cute by half and should be thanked for causing a huge BACKFIRE. Peter Daou is right but please continue to NOT take his advice. However, I will now allow Daou the last word...]

The idea that making him more powerful in the hopes that it somehow illustrates the weakness of GOP ideas is too Rube Golbergy for me.

46 Comments:

Anonymous Anon 1:50 said...

Well! This is an interesting turn for DUmmieland!

I would have expected calls for hemp rope, torches, pitchforks, and, following the failure of all that, a troop to the courts to make mean ol' Mr. Limbaugh shut up and play nice.

Can it be that they are beginning to understand the play of opinion that makes up American Politics? That theirs is not the unassailable, omnipotent, and all-perfect position?

Nah. They're probably just high.

10:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obambi and his policies are doing a fine job of turning the herd.

Rush is just funnin with the loony libs while looking forward to Obambi's failure... (can't wait for that...)

2:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Democrats have attempted to strike Rush down, only for him to become more powerful than they could possibly imagine.

2:33 PM  
Anonymous Anon 1:50 said...

Obi-wan Limbaugh?

Funneeeee!

3:51 PM  
Anonymous Shambhala said...

Spend our resources healing the sick, feeding the hungry, lifting the poor, cleaning the planet, rather than on war and more war, yes.

Forgetting, of course, that Dems were responsible for Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis.

Incompetent as well as stupid.

Personally, I cant stand Rush. He's a blowhard. But by pushing him, theyre pushing all my buttons too.

Again: Incompetent as well as stupid.

5:39 PM  
Anonymous elrond hubbard said...

I've not a Rush fan, too much egoism and blather. But I love how he makes liberal heads explode.

7:52 PM  
Anonymous Smitty said...

Focus relentlessly on the disastrous Bush presidency to tarnish Republicans. Yes.

Good idea, that way the MSM can ignore the disastrous Obama presidency.

Obama, a man too busy to pay attention to the "gyrations" of the Stock Market. A man too ignorant to understand the P/E ratio.

8:10 PM  
Anonymous Kirk Johnson said...

I'll admit, despite my neolibertarian learnings, I find Rush to be absolutely delightful. Even when I disagree with him, he presents his POV in a unique and entertaining manner. (Plus, I've listened long enough to instinctively know when he's being facetious- something by which leftards and casual listeners alike seem to get confused.)

Just the other day, he was talking about gender reassignment surgery, using the terms "addadictomy" and "chopadicoffamy". Pure hilarity!

1:43 AM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"Why on Earth Are Democrats Legitimizing and Empowering Rush Limbaugh?" PJ

They're not. This is an illuminating position for PJ to take. There's no doubt the DUmmies are pointing their finger at Rush as the idealogical leader of what's left of the RepuliDUms. Why? Because to anyone outside his audience, he's seen as a big fat gasbag. A joke. PJ chooses to see this as "Legitimizing and Empowering" because, as he's said, the more DUmmies listen to Pills, the more they will fall under his spell.

The DUmmies don't see it that way. In fact, it's a 'give a guy enough rope' strategy. Listen to Rush let him hang his fat ass.

I, troglaman, have a good feeling about this one.

Wagers anyone? I have a PayPal account.

*Update*

Rush has challenged Obama to "a debate" on his show.

Took the bait. Here we go.

1:52 AM  
Anonymous DumbAss Tanker said...

troglaman said...

"Wagers anyone? I have a PayPal account."


Sorry. I don't think any of us are rash enough to expect a Democrat to actually pay off a debt with his own money.

7:40 AM  
Blogger PJ-Comix said...

PJ chooses to see this as "Legitimizing and Empowering"

Exept it wasn't me, Trog, who made this claim. It was a HUffie. And if you check NewsBusters, Susan Estrich is also making the same claim.

8:07 AM  
Anonymous Classic Liberal said...

...demonstrate the true meaning of liberalism... -Daou

[We got it. You're a liberal!] -PJ

Both wrong. So-called "liberals" have perverted the meaning of the word to re-name their collectivist fascist philosophy.

So-called "conservatives" have perverted the meaning of that word as well to disguise their neo-liberal fascist philosophy.

Both "liberals" and "conservatives" favor government control and power contrary to the philosophy of both the Enlightenment and our Constitution. They both represent Leviathan: one secular, one religious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)

Democrats and Republicans: Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweedledee_and_Tweedledum#Anonymous_nursery_rhyme

11:04 AM  
Anonymous Classic Liberal said...

Forgetting, of course, that Dems were responsible for Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis. - sham

Your accuracy is 33.33%, sham. You get an "F" for your retention of history lessons and an "I" for your research effort.

Both Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs were Eisenhower mistakes.

11:09 AM  
Anonymous Classic Liberal said...

On second thought, your accuracy is 0.0%, sham...

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a Kruschev (sp?) mistake and JFK rightly took us to the brink of war to remove that existential threat.

11:17 AM  
Anonymous Shambhala said...

CL

Your batting avg. is 0.0

Kennedy went from having advisors (Eisenhower) to sending combat troops. Johnson escalated it multiple times.

Bay of Pigs took place in April of 1961. Again, Kennedy. Youre just not very good with history, are you?

Cuban Missile Crisis _ Kennedy again. The Ruskkies responded to Thor missiles being placed in Turkey. One of the outcomes of the Crisis is that these Thor missiles were REMOVED.

I nominate Classical for the Blutarsky Award for Creative History.

12:40 PM  
Anonymous Corona said...

Classic Liberalism died in the 60s. So basically you speak for the dead. Bravo. clap.....clap.....clap.....



-Corona

12:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I AGREE WITH YOU, PETER. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WHY WHY THE DEMOCRATS -MSNBC, ETC. ARE GIVING HIM EVEN ONE OF THEIR PRECIOUS BREATHS!!! " -DUmmie


MSNBC? But... They're unbiasd. Right?

2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Rush has challenged Obama to "a debate" on his show.

Took the bait. Here we go." -troglaman

Right you are troglaman. Nothing to worry about anymore. Obama can take on anyone, off the cuff, no script, no teleprompter. Uh, uh, uh, Right?

2:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obama can take on anyone, off the cuff, no script, no teleprompter. Uh, uh, uh, Right?"

The Wizard of Uhs.

2:23 PM  
Anonymous libertarian said...

USA supported the French financially under Truman and then under Eisenhower. The French pulled out and the rest is history...

4:25 PM  
Anonymous Classic Liberal said...

Sham, what date is on the medals the Republic of Vietnam bestowed on US servicemen who served there? Who are the first two names on The Wall and what date is given for their death? How long were the Cuban troops trained in Alabama for the BoP invasion? When were the Thors placed in Turkey?

You wrote: "...Dems were responsible for Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis...." That statement is wrong, and your response to my calling you on it only reinforces that fact.

5:15 PM  
Anonymous Classic Liberal said...

Classic Liberalism died in the 60s. So basically you speak for the dead. Bravo. clap.....clap.....clap..... -corona

Not sure if that is an accolade or sarcasm. I prefer to think it's an approval.

You're wrong about when Classic Liberalism "died" though, corona. It's death started with the Progressive movement after the Civil War and the coup de gras was delivered by Theodore Rex, Roosevelt I.

The Founding Fathers died in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, yet many "conservatives" including Rush continually claim to speak for them. Such speakers avoid or distort the fact founding philosophy of this nation is Liberalism born of the Enlightenment. I hope to resurrect that philosophy.

5:24 PM  
Anonymous Classic Liberal said...

er, change "hope" to "work" in the sentence above.

5:25 PM  
Anonymous Classic Liberal said...

BTW, if you're wondering what medals I referred to above, you may have seen one in the HBO movie "Taking Chance" a couple of weeks ago. Chance's father laid his along with his US Vietnam service medal on Chance's coffin at the grave site.

5:32 PM  
Anonymous DumbAss Tanker said...

Damn that Eisenhower and his skulduggery against the Diem regime, and that Gulf of Tonkin Resolution he manipulated out of Congress! He LIED to us!!! /manbearpig mode

Yeah, the rest of your history is just as FUBAR, as is your belief that Conservatives must necessarily all be scary Bible-thumpers to boot. But you've demonstrated a certain immunity to facts, and are obviously mired in your own dogma. Therefore, not worth wasting the keystrokes to argue with about any of it.

9:33 PM  
Anonymous Classic Liberal said...

LOL! You certainly wasted a lot of keystrokes to tell me that dumbass!

US military involvement started in Eisenhower's administration, thus the first two American servicemen killed there in 1957 were Major Dale Richard Buis and MSG Chester Ovnand. The Gulf of Tonkin thing was Johnson's doing. His Secretary of State, Henry Cabot Lodge was rumored to have encouraged the coup against Diem.

Whose history is FUBAR?

Who said "conservatives" must necessarily be scary Bible-thumpers other than you dumbass? Come up with one FACT to prove anything I've written is wrong, rather than adopting troglaman's mode of attack. Otherwise you really are just a dumb ass.

10:53 PM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"Exept it wasn't me, Trog, who made this claim." PJ

I must've been drunk when I read this:

"So let us now watch the HUffies inadvertently call for the elevation of Rush Limbaugh." PJ

And (it could be the booze talkin), but I seem to remember a recent post where someone speculated that increased media attention could get more libs to listen to Pills, and finally understand his message.

I, troglaman, bravely countered by offering a terrifying, point by point description of the universal self-mutilation, disease, and death suffered by libs if they, or anyone else, were somehow seduced into actually listening MORE. For example:

"On the January 24 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Rush Limbaugh referred to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and actress Halle Berry as "Halfrican American[s]," stating that "Barack Obama has picked up another endorsement: Halfrican American actress Halle Berry."

I chewed my right pinkie off while getting this quote.

2:06 AM  
Anonymous DumbAss Tanker said...

"Military involvement" does not equal "Full scale war," CL, you pathetic logically-challenged Liberal (Yes, I know, a bit redundant there). As far as wasted keystrokes go, you're hardly in a position to be critical of anyone else...except possibly Trogsie, are you his clean-mouthed doppelganger?

Like an Obama speech, your comments are purely rhetorical but false in substance; basically you're arguing that red and green are very much alike because neither one is black or white...and wondering why nobody wants to get in the car if you're driving.

7:47 AM  
Anonymous Classic Liberal said...

Once again, a lack of facts and a ad hominem from the tanker...

Vietnam was not a "full scale war" at any time from a legalistic and Constitutional perspective (NOTE THAT QUALIFIER), as Congress never actually declared war. At the time it was referred to as a "police action" or simply "the Vietnam Conflict."

Of course, the US can indeed go to war these days without a formal declaration of war by Congress simply because of the mutual defense treaties we are wound up in. For example, we would have been committed to war with the USSR had they simply lobbed a few artillery shells into West Germany. That is still the case WRT NATO. An attack on any NATO member (including by another NATO member) would obligate us to commit our blood and treasure regardless of our national self-interest. That's idiotic!

I do not employ rhetorical methods. I employ FACTS and REASON to make my arguments unlike yourself or troglaman or Obama. If you've been following my postings you know I'm especially critical of troglaman, "liberals," anybody who obfuscates or ignores FACTS, and pretty much any politician for that matter.

Here's a good book for you to check out sometime, tanker... you'd probably agree with much of what Garrett says:

http://mises.org/books/pottage.pdf

9:18 AM  
Anonymous Classic Liberal said...

From the introduction to the first chapter of that book:

There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the
road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.


Short and excellent book. I highly recommend it to all readers here.

9:23 AM  
Anonymous Ray said...

"That's idiotic!"

No, it's not. There's noting idiotic about saving hundreds of millions of people from despotism, to safeguard their liberties.

I served in Germany during the cold war and I can tell you that, had the USSR tried to invade, millions of people would have died in the ensuing battles. There were THOUSANDS of tanks positioned to roll across the Fulda Gap into West Germany. The only reason they didn't was because of the NATO bases positioned to stop them. I was willing to fight and die for our Allies, because I understood that Liberty, even Liberty for our allies, is worth the sacrifice.

10:01 AM  
Anonymous Ray said...

"Of course, the US can indeed go to war these days without a formal declaration of war by Congress"

"These days?" What do you mean "these days?" That's always been true! You do understand that Congress has the power to "Define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations," right? This means that Congress can authorize the military to "punish" another government for "Offenses against the Law of Nations" like invading or attacking an allied country. Since that's been a part of the Constitution since it was first signed, I would say that wars can be fought without a formal deceleration by Congress, wouldn't you?

10:11 AM  
Anonymous Classic Liberal said...

Congress has the power to declare war, but treaties are negotiated by the President and approved by Congress. Those treaties commit us to war without formal declarations by Congress and in response to actions between third-parties rather than in response to actions against us.

I would disagree that saving thousands or even millions of non-citizens, allies or not, is a legitimate use of our military. The military is for the common defense of US Citizens and defense of US national interest. Punishing piracy was/is in our national interest, as piracy endangers both our citizens lives in many cases and certainly endangers our commerce with other nations.

10:32 AM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"Vietnam was not a "full scale war" at any time from a legalistic and Constitutional perspective (NOTE THAT QUALIFIER), as Congress never actually declared war. At the time it was referred to as a "police action" or simply "the Vietnam Conflict." classic

He's right. There was never a clear objective in Viet Nam. No one ever knew what we were doing there. Ditto Iraq. Why are we killing the Iraqis and why are they killing us? What IS the fucking point?

It couldn't have anything to do with all the people who make all the guns and shit, could it? Or is it all about freedom and democracy?

There is a right answer to this question and I, troglaman, think we all know what it is.

2:31 AM  
Anonymous elrond hubbard said...

There is a right answer to this question...

Unfortunately, no, there isn't, there are just left and right answers.

2:48 PM  
Anonymous Shambhala said...

"There is a right answer to this question and I, troglaman, think we all know what it is."

Enlighten me.

7:18 PM  
Anonymous elrond hubbard said...

t-bird,

Qualifier or not, Vietnam was a "full scale war". Perhaps you had to be there to appreciate the subtle difference between a declared and an undeclared war.

11:22 PM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"Perhaps you had to be there to appreciate the subtle difference between a declared and an undeclared war." elrond

Explain, elrond. What is the subtle difference between a declared war and undeclared war?

12:22 AM  
Anonymous elrond hubbard said...

t-man, not big on irony are you?. If you're a grunt, there is no difference, subtle or otherwise.

2:41 PM  
Anonymous DumbAss Tanker said...

It's fairly clear that troggie and CL, even if different in fact, have the same understanding about war...a limited sort of college-sophomore-poly-sci-major scholastic and political understanding, unenlightened by any actual experience of anything as plebian as 'Military service.' They simply lack the referents for any rational explanation to make sense to them. It's a waste of time, gents.

6:50 PM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"t-man, not big on irony are you?. If you're a grunt, there is no difference, subtle or otherwise." elrond

Well then, grunts don't think. They're chimps.

You're such a dipwad.

First you say, "Perhaps you had to be there to appreciate the subtle difference between a declared and an undeclared war." And then go on to say "there is no difference, subtle or otherwise."

You do realize what you're saying here, right ray? To tell you the truth, I think you got it right.

1:46 AM  
Anonymous Classic Liberal said...

My approach to war is purely individualistic and egoistic. The fact is all war is a pure wasting of capital and lives. It is only justifiable as defense of a nation's citizens and self-interest.

BTW, I went through ROTC and grew up in a Marine family. I am by no means anti-military, just anti-war. My Marine brothers (note that plural) share my attitude, or I share theirs if you will.

12:13 PM  
Anonymous Classic Liberal said...

I posted this one on the wrong thread earlier, tanker...

When such military "punishment" Ray refers to in his postings on another thread are called for, my opinion is it is best done as the Marines did with the Barbary pirates as memorialized in the Marine Corps Anthem: send in a small group and utilize locals to carry out the fighting. There were what, 8 Marines who went ashore and brought down the Barbary pirates?

We started that way in Afghanistan -- a few guys with radios and binoculars calling in air strikes and missiles. Then altruism and "Just War Theory" kicked in and it became an exercise in "nation building" resulting in the cluster-fuck we're mired in now.

Iraq? Well there's no good explanation for that one.

12:42 PM  
Anonymous elrond hubbard said...

T-man,

Just how dense are you? You seem to be incapable of understanding what I'm saying.

When I said "Perhaps you had to be there to appreciate the subtle difference between a declared and undeclared war." I was being ironic, you know what irony is, don't you?

If you were a grunt in Vietnam it didn't matter that the war was undeclared, you still could get just as dead as in a declared war.

BTW, asswipe, a "grunt" was Army slang for infantryman. They weren't monkeys, apes, chimps or any other simian.

3:40 PM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"BTW, asswipe, a "grunt" was Army slang for infantryman. They weren't monkeys, apes, chimps or any other simian." elrond

What the fuck's wrong with you, elrond? I. Was. Being. IRONIC.

3:49 AM  
Anonymous elrond hubbard said...

T-man,

You weren't being IRONIC. You've confused snottiness for irony.

3:48 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home