Finally, a clear reason to support Congressional health care reform:
LIMBAUGH: ...I'll just tell you this, if this passes and it's five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented - I am leaving the country. I'll go to Costa Rica.
The fellas as The Corner are p*ssed off! What's this witch hunt against poor old Rush Limbaugh? The "race baiters" are out after him, lobbying against his ownership of the St. Louis Rams! Take it away, Andy McCarthy! Those liberal do-gooders are leveling "phony attacks" against Rush Limbaugh! Plus, Andy had ethnic friends! He knows Rush's racist jabs are just folks having fun! And Mark Steyn, that guardian of truth! Those claims against Rush are faked!
Oh, and Mark's column yesterday totally, one-hundred-percent proved that Rush is noway, nohow, never-ever said anything offensive, like ever!
What's the theory here? He said these things on the air in 2006 and nobody noticed? 2001? Maybe 1995, back when Clinton was blaming him for Oklahoma City? Hey, let's not get hung up on details. Just because nobody can find any evidence anywhere of Rush saying these "quotes" doesn't mean he didn't say 'em.
Yeah, because we all know the traditional media is the penultimate champion of virtue.
But...er..."Barack the Magic Negro" happened. And then there were those comments on McNabb when Limbaugh had his gig on ESPN. That's just two incidents I can think of off the top of my head. Weren't those alone enough to for y'all to want to keep Limbaugh away from your kids, let alone, you know, a major sports franchise? And Andy? Since you were friends with the ethnics and all, and you kids used to crack the racist jokes with one another - how would your friends feel about you cracking those same jokes to a room full of white men? I'd imagine they wouldn't find it so funny. You know, because that's exactly Limbaugh's audience.
Not sure why these folks want to circle the wagons around someone like that. But, trust me, it's not too flattering to be running point for a (former?) dope-addled racist demagogue.
Our Congressman is apparently parroting Rush Limbaugh's talking points and repeating at least one straight-out lie while discussing the recovery act.
In a story in this morning's Gazette, Rehberg is quoted saying the following:
"Two years down the road, I'm not sure we'll see much improvement in the economy," he told members of The Billings Gazette editorial board Monday. He warned people to watch for interest rates creeping up, triggering inflation, because Congress is "piling debt upon debt."
Nevermind that there are indications that we're witnessing deflation or that interest rates are hella low right now. This is economic gobbledy-gook, but it's not nearly as bad as this:
Finally, he said Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada inserted a provision in the stimulus bill to spend $8 billion building a high-speed rail from Las Vegas to Los Angeles.
That's a lie. The provisions for high speed rail were inserted by the White House, not the Majority Leader. And there is no line from Las Vegas to LA. Check out real facts here.
I have to say, though, nice catch by Jan Falstad on this one:
"I fall in the category of 'throw the bums in jail,'" Rehberg said, but he added that the country can never eliminate greed through legislation.
That said, in January Rehberg voted against a bill to impose some retroactive accountability into TARP, including limiting pay to top banking officers.
I look forward to seeing the bill introduced by Rep. Rehberg to "throw the bums in jail."
For a sane take on this bill, look to this article with our Senators' views. Perfect bill? No. Better than not acting? Yes. Better than Rehberg's alternative? Fo sho.
What gives these assholes the right to even think about taking our hard earned money from us. They call it Income and Wealth Redistribution. I call it theft, pure and simple. What's really scary about this is the legions of Obama fanatics that will think this is a wonderful thing to do. God help us all from what is coming.
The LA Times on Limbaugh and Hannity "holding on to their anger":
...radio's Biggest Big Man also assures us that the Democrat welcomes "economic chaos" because it gives him "greater opportunity for expanded government." In a time when the nation calls out for cool leadership and rational discussion, Limbaugh stirs the caldron, a tendency he proved in a particularly grotesque way last week when he accused Obama's party of plotting a government takeover of 401(k) retirement plans.
"They're going to take your 401(k), put it in the Social Security trust fund, whatever the hell that is," Limbaugh woofed. "Trust fund, my rear end."
A slight problem with Limbaugh's report: Obama and the Democrats have proposed no such thing.
The proposal, in fact, emanated from a single economist, one of many experts testifying to a congressional committee.
The president-elect has thus far shown as much interest in taking over your 401(k) as he has in moving the capital to Nairobi. (If you look hard, you might find that one somewhere out there in the blogosphere, too.)
To broadcast such a report -- so drained of context as to constitute a lie -- would be a shameless act at any time. But Limbaugh needlessly stirred the fears of the millions he holds in his thrall -- making the 401(k) thievery sound like nearly a done deal. Shameless.
The election was a pretty clear rejection of this kind of fear mongering. In a sense, almost overnight it made Hannity and Limbaugh dinosaurs, outsiders, pariahs. That the LA Times would go after them is a clear signal something's shifted; in the old days, the radio hacks were coddled, even feared.
It also appears these folks think they can stay relevant by stoking the fire of hate. And there do appear to be folks ready to assume the worst from a Democratic administration, even before the president-elect takes his office.
Instead, I'm wondering why Hammond's little project has been prominently featured in Montana's newspapers. Now I do realize that journalists think that publishing these kinds of reports actually does more good than harm. That is, expose the creature to the light, and he'll wither and crawl back into his hole. But do you really think a marginalized Limbaughian fanboy's anti-social rant is really news?
Hey, we're all on pins and needles waiting for Lee Newspaper's coverage of Andy's next "project":
Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.
He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.
"Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don't elect Democrats," Limbaugh said during Wednesday's radio broadcast. He then went on to say that's the best thing that could happen to the country.
"Operation Bricks and Bullets"! Maybe your reports will get a few folks down to Denver with pipe bombs in their suitcases!
I am genuinely curious about the ethics of airing marginalized views like Hammonds. IMHO, the column space could have been dedicated to worthier issues...
(Steve Benen posted an interesting argument today: the attacks on McCain from the far right actually help his campaign. They make him look more moderate than he really is. Is Coulter's/Limbaugh's sudden Clinton crush genuine? Or trickery? - promoted by Jay Stevens)
If we needed any more evidence that the Repubs really don't want to run against Obama, this hits the blogosphere and the airwaves today. Rush has joined Ann Coulter in the ploy of supporting Hillary instead of McCain. If you look at the three main contenders for President, two are talking about reaching across the isle, and one is polarizing.
We keep hearing over and over again that HRC can't beat McCain in the general election but that Obama would. Here's why I think it's true. The argument is that McCain has lost his base and needs to have the independents and moderates to even have a shot. Hillary has the base, but the independents don't like her and the far right will rally against her. Obama is the only candidate who will rally his base and the fringe.
I found out yesterday that several moderate Republicans I know in PA are reregistering as Democrats so that they can vote for Obama. This is not a small phenomenon and I really hope our party leadership is listening. The last time around we gave the nomination to a candidate who financed his own campaign and look what happened. Four more years of Captain Underpants. We should all donate at least $10 to Obama before Saturday.
That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh? What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years - trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it - the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently.
Besides being "borrowed," Stossel's observations are annoying. Me, last year:
By this same logic, then, the lesson of Jamestown and the Virginia colony was that indentured servitude and slavery works and should be hailed today.
This view of Thanksgiving exploits the holiday for partisan politics, of course, where the original event was a harbinger of Reaganite and Bushian ideology of unfettered corporatism. It's the story, not of giving thanks to God or to the ether or a simple moment to meditate on your fortune and family, it's an ueber-patriotic call to conservative arms and an American Capitalist Empire!
Ugh.
Go read the original accounts of Thanksgiving, I dare you. Dig out the quotes about capitalism. What? You can't find any? But you will find this from Edward Winslow:
And although it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.
Winslow recognized his heavily bedecked table was the result of chance - or God, if you wish. He was lucky this year, and wanted to share his overabundance with others. Considering their success on the continent - and that of other European settlers - had more to do with disease than hard work or the free market, Winslow's attitude and humility on his holidy was totally appropriate.
Unlike Stossel, I don't think this is the holiday for arrogant self congratulation. Instead we should take inspiration from the Pilgrims, who were cut off from home, freezing, starving, dying of disease, and living in an alien land, farming unfamiliar crops and surrounded by a (to them) strange people. They knew how tenuous their hold on life was: they knew enough to be thankful for what they had. They knew that a time of plenty is a time of humility.
Today's Missoulian has an interesting opinion piece by Tim Rutten reprinted from the LA Times over the current debate regarding the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" and the recent squawking about the "General Betray Us" and "Phony Soldiers" business. The great lede points our that we all love free speech when it applies to us, but not others. What he says afterward I find very frightening.
The scary part of Rutten's piece is his reminder that deregulation of the airwaves led not only to the ascension of conservative talk-radio but also an immediate buy-out of local radio stations by large corporations. This also affected television and certainly makes the Conservative anthem of the "liberal media" largely suspect. Maybe it's yet another indication of why, after the abuses by the Robber Barons in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, anti-trust legislation was enacted in the first place.
Rutten states that in actuality this fight isn't about free speech, it's about what kind of speech is right, but I think the Dems are the good guys by fighting for reregulation. If I'm the richest man in the world, I shouldn't be able to buy out the media, just because the market is free and open. That goes for both sides. Conservatives argue that the media leans to the left. That might have been true at one time, and maybe, just maybe, that's because the media actually represented the views of the people, not the CEOs.
Wulfgar! pointed out Rush Limbaugh's little "bon mot," in which he called any member of the US military opposed to the Iraq war a "phony soldier."
House Democrats are bringing the issue up on the floor - including veterans - asking their Republican colleagues to join them in denouncing Limbaugh with the same fervor they censured MoveOn.
That's the right thing to do. For the record, I'm not a fan of this "gotcha" type of politics in Congress. (Leave it to the blogs!) But if conservatives are going to drag a liberal activist group through the political mud over a free speech issue, Democrats have every right to point out their hypocrisy.
