If I had the ability to read just one person’s mind, I’d tap into the infamous mind of Rush Limbaugh. Why use such an amazing power on such a dubious character? Limbaugh is influential to a significant portion of our country. Those who care for the plight of Americans must aid President Obama in keeping the motives of his “enemies closer” than the plethora of his yes-men.
On January 16th of this year, Limbaugh said he was asked by a "major American print publication" to commemorate Barack Obama's Inauguration by joining a select group of prominent politicians, educators, and pundits each writing 400 words on their hopes for the Obama presidency. Limbaugh just couldn't do it. "...I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed," Limbaugh said.
Grasping Limbaugh’s reasoning will help develop a dialogue Limbaugh (and his constituents) can understand as to why witnessing President Obama’s policies (namely economic) fail would be the worst possible scenario for Americans and eventually the rest of the world. If failure ensues, sure Obama will have egg on his face, but more importantly the American people will suffer the brunt of the downfall. If Obama’s policies fail, he still has a job and will still get a paycheck. However, it’s likely that the sporadic shanty Tentvilles (similar to 1930s era Hoovervilles) that are springing up all across America will be more a constant.
Is it really as bad as all that? Mustn't we commend Limbaugh for having the courage to speak against an administration that he truly thinks is riddled with problems? Should he be expected to be encouraging? Isn’t it his prerogative to mar an American tradition with nationally syndicated cynicism? It would be nice to hear encouraging words from Limbaugh, the countries most popular, highest paid ($38 million contract, and $100 million in bonuses) conservative radio host with over 20 million listeners weekly. It would have been appropriate, but he couldn’t bear to put his feelings aside to enrich an honored American ceremony.
The issue doesn’t lie with Limbaugh's total disapproval of Obama and his administration. Instead, dismay is with his lack of respect for the country, which is the people. You can wave the American flag around all day (as he does on his website), but when you proudly state your hope and desire that the policies aimed at pulling the majority of Americans out of a record high recession fails, (before it's even put in place to have opportunity to demonstrate capacity to turn the tides) you are not concerned or in touch with the core of the country, its people.
Limbaugh told Barbara Walters that he feels Barack Obama is a sincere and genuine person. He very well could have said that instead of "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." His true attitude was expressed when Walters asked if he thought his work is worth $138 million dollars a year especially during a foreboding recession. Without hesitation Limbaugh said he is very much worth the millions. "What recession?... I choose not to participate," he claimed. Must be nice. It’s apparent that he's in a position to hope the economic plan and other Obama policies fail, because unlike the vast majority of the country (and world) Rush is party to an elite group that will remain above water no matter how the economy ebbs and flows, or perhaps, droughts and floods.
Expectations for President Obama are high, and his choices will make or break millions of people. It’s important that we view him with a critical, yet encouraging and hopeful eye.
If Barack Obama's motives were simply about restoring the economy then I would want him to succeed.
But his policies go way beyond that objective and whether they succeed OR NOT, if they are passed into law they will fundamentally alter our country. I want nothing to do with his socialized medicine and I want even less to do with his cap and trade energy tax and job destruction plans.
So long as he intertwines these separate political objectives with his economic recovery program and shamelessly uses the distress of the American people to push these agendas that have nothing to do with economic recovery, then I want him to fail. I think that if these policies are passed into law, our economy may never recover.
You are right. I don't think anybody want's Obama's policies fail to help the country in the short and long term future, but they are destined too. Limbaugh is probably hoping that his desire for transforming the U.S. into a socialist nation fails. I do too. When will the mentally impaired individuals that are in love with Obama realize that the honeymoon is over and he is going to be the worst president ever. It's as if the sight of the guy puts people into a trance. Americans are stupid and, for the most part, are unwilling or unable to think about the past and the future rather than just the present. Obama is only president because of people's inability to realize that socialism never has, and never will, work for a free society. The only reason America has done so well is because of capitalism. But, at least his first three goals as president are noble. He's going to close down a military prison holding dangerous, murderous, and ruthless terrorists out of concern for their rights. He's going to push for a "Cap and Trade" law in order to make the government even bigger and cripple struggling businesses with "Carbon credits" as well as continuing to give credit to a bogus theory of global warming. And perhaps the most noble is his restoration of taxpayer dollars to fund baby killing across the earth, among other unconstitutional spending.
His true attitude was expressed when Walters asked if he thought his work is worth $138 million dollars a year especially during a foreboding recession. Without hesitation Limbaugh said he is very much worth the millions. "What recession?... I choose not to participate," he claimed. Must be nice..
EXACTLY! Rush will be fine no matter what happens. If Obama "fails" and people can't get work or the economy never recovers, it's all good business for Rush, it creates more angry people who will serve as his audience. If Obama is successful it will as, Jack said change the country, and even if it works the way he/we hope, that means all the conservative philosophy will be under attack. Think Ronald Regan in reverse, for those of us living in a certain income or with a certain skin color Regan's one of the worst Presidents of all time and his 8 years are a terrible chapter in our country's history. However, for those Americans making a certain amount of money and have a certain racial category Regan is one of the all time greats. So if Obama succeeds (as he has thus far) Limbaugh gets to play the voice of the underdog(like he's doing now) and keep dissing Obama and getting press and money from it. (Liberals did it for the last 8 years, W made alot of money for alot of entertainers these last years-- Look at Oliver Stone or will Ferrell) Rush Limbaugh's no different, he will capitalize off this time.
I never want a President to fail, because as you said we pay the bill when they do. If Obama's healthcare, energy reform, and economy plans succeed it means that the Economy, Energy, Jobs, and Healthcare will be better for it. If jobs are crushed, if the economy never recovers, if healthcare becomes worse then and only then has he failed.
His success is not judged by him getting what he wants, but us getting what we want. I mean Bush got everything he asked for and he failed. He got the war he wanted, He ran the economy how we wanted, and he ran the War on Terror how he wanted, and he failed. Now he's doing sold out speaking engagements at 3grand a ticket and we have dead brothers and sisters, tortured suspects, a trillion dollar deficit, a new great depression, and the worst reputation in the last 20 years.
I can understand you hoping Obama doesn't get to make the changes he wants to make(though I disagree) but i can't fathom why if hi success means fixing the economy how anyone thinks they can say "I hope he fails" and think they are not saying "I hope the economy doesn't get fixed".
Love-Health-Awareness-Wealth
Mjh
It makes me sad that people actually takes actors like Rush seriously.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
...before judging it.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
You are either misunderstanding him on purpose, or by getting the info second hand. It is not as if you could not listen or read for yourself.
My synopsis:
The premise Rush is operating under is that Obama is a socialist. He provides MANY specific examples. Rush also believes that free markets, not government programs, are of the most benefit to the largest number of people. Therefore most Americans will suffer if Obama succeeds.
You may disagree with him on any or all of the points he actually has made himself. That would be your right, and only time will tell which of you is correct. What you are doing in this blog is perpetrating a lie. Maybe you are just repeating that lie, but it is your own fault if you do so while the truth is so easy to read or listen to.
Are you afraid you might agree with Rush?
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
- William Shakespeare
I think that any position of relevance that Mr. Limbaugh might hold is lost in the vitriol that is his signature attitude. I used to listen to his show (with the attitude that its good to know what your enemies are up to, granted) and while I occasionally agreed with some of his more Libertarian rants, I just couldn't get past the sheer hypocrisy and dishonesty which pervaded his show. A good example would be his position on drug users, which he consistently denigrated...except for himself, of course.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
It seems to me pretty darn strange for a libertarian to be such an ardent supporter of a big government socialist like Obama.
...but I can't recall having expressed any particular support of Obama's policies regarding either the size of government or his propensity towards more socialistic models, excepting a cautious support for certain aspects of the idea of "universal healthcare" (which is a term that few people working outside of the healthcare industry even remotely understand). What I DO support is telling the TRUTH about people and their positions. HONESTY doesn't have a political affiliation, and I feel obligated to repsond to DISHONEST attacks, regardless of the target's political party. I similarly don't like HYPOCRITES, who (like Rush) say one thing in public but act very differently in private (until they get caught out, at least, as he was).
When I compare the principles of Libertarianism to the policies espoused by the two big parties, I find I in recent years my party has more in common with the Democrats than we do with the Republicans. The Democrats at least have a basic respect for the equality of all citizens. It is unfortunate that they are not also fiscally responsible, but if the TRUTH be told, neither are the Republicans. If I can't get fiscal responsibility from either party, and until a TRULY Libertarian candidate manages to put himself (or herself) in a position where they might actually have a chance to take the Presidency, I'll settle for a little social justice from Left in the meantime.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I agree that the Republicans have not been fiscally responsible, but what the Democrats have done in the last two years and what they have in store for us for the next 4 years makes the Republicans look like spending pikers.
It does not matter that you have not explicitly supported Obama's socialistic tendencies. When you vote to put a politician in power you get the WHOLE package and your support gives them the right to claim a mandate and implicit support from you for ALL of their policies. In Obama's case that includes a strong bent towards socialism and big government solutions that are fundamentally opposed to anything remotely compatible with the small government maximum freedom ideals of libertarianism.
But I'm not at all sure that you are as Libertarian as you espouse. For example at various times in various threads I have suggested that we resolve the gay marriage issue by a) leaving it to the various states in accordance with the principles of Federalism or B) get the government entirely out of the marriage business and only have the government recognize civil unions. But you have rejected both of these small government freedom maximizing solutions in favor of having a tyranical Federal government IMPOSE your favored solution on an unwilling majority.
When you vote to put a politician in power you get the WHOLE package and your support gives them the right to claim a mandate and implicit support from you for ALL of their policies.
From the Democratic Party, I get SOME of the things that I want. From the Republican Party, I get NONE of the things that I want. And considering that our current system pretty much dictates that the candidates of the two major parties are the only ones with a realistic chance of taking the White House, the choice of who gets my vote seems rather obvious to me.
In Obama's case that includes a strong bent towards socialism and big government solutions that are fundamentally opposed to anything remotely compatible with the small government maximum freedom ideals of libertarianism.
But I'm not at all sure that you are as Libertarian as you espouse.
Like many folks, you seem to forget that there is more to being a libertarian than wanting a smaller, less expensive government, and I would suggest that the Republican Party's policies are FAR more intrusive into the personal lives of Americans than those of the Democrats. Libertarians (or the Libertarian Party, at least) are (is) pro-choice, pro-marriage equality for gay people, anti-drug war, pro-privacy, pro-environment, anti-monopoly, anti-bigotry (including specific support for including LGBT people in that principle), and pro-separation of church and state. Call me crazy, but I don't see any of those things at work in the Repubican Party. I see most of those as being expressed by Mr. Obama (in greater measure than his party as a whole, granted).
When one lets go of the image of what the Republican Party USED to stand for, and look at what they did during the recent years when they had control of not only the White House but both Houses of Congress, I find them by-and-large less palatable than I do their Democratic counterparts. Give me a truly viable Libertarian candidate for President and I'll vote for him (or her). Until that happens, the SMART thing to do is to vote for the candidate that aligns with my philosophy on the most issues. Between Barak Obama and John McCain, Obama's views were closer to what I (and most Libertarians) wanted.
Based on this, I would suggest that in fact I am more closely aligned with the typical Libertarian philosophy than you suggest. Libertarians tend to be "fiscally conservative and socially liberal." The Republicans are neither. Even The Cato Institute recognized the abandoment of the Republican Party by America's Libertarians prior to the last election...
For example at various times in various threads I have suggested that we resolve the gay marriage issue by a) leaving it to the various states in accordance with the principles of Federalism or B) get the government entirely out of the marriage business and only have the government recognize civil unions. But you have rejected both of these small government freedom maximizing solutions in favor of having a tyranical Federal government IMPOSE your favored solution on an unwilling majority.
Well, maybe you haven't ever actually read the Constitution, but the last time I checked individual States were prohibited from passing laws that violated the basic civil rights of groups of citizens. One can still be an anti-federalist and realize that even Thomas Jefferson (my hero) believed that there were certain issues that the it was appropriate to legislate, and basic rights which should be protected at the federal level. I oppose your first position on the grounds that reality dictates that the freedom to marry has been plainly and consistently upheld by our Supreme Court as a fundamental freedom that cannot be infringed upon by the various States. That tactic, furthermore, is more often than not just an attempt to hide behind the concept of State's Rights as a means to empower religiously-motivated bigotry (which would violate the very Libertarian Principles to which you disingenously appeal). As for your second proposition, I have stated a principled agreement with that idea but ultimately opposed it on the grounds that it completely unrealistic, and has no real chance at all of becoming a viable solution to the current situation, which frankly is ONLY controversial because of those who (again) have forgotten that their religious views are a personal matter that have no place at all the Laws of our Great Nation.
So, thanks for your attempt to insightfully analyze my political leanings, but no thanks. And, let's not forget that the subject of this blog is Rush Limbaugh, who IS a hypocrite and a liar, which would make him a distasteful son of a bitch regardless of which lever he might be pulling in the election booth.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"there is more to being a libertarian than wanting a smaller, less expensive government, and I would suggest that the Republican Party's policies are FAR more intrusive into the personal lives of Americans than those of the Democrats. Libertarians (or the Libertarian Party, at least) are (is) *pro-choice, pro-marriage equality for gay people, anti-drug war, pro-privacy, pro-environment, anti-monopoly, anti-bigotry (including specific support for including LGBT people in that principle), and pro-separation of church and state.* Call me crazy, but I don't see any of those things at work in the Repubican Party. I see most of those as being expressed by Mr. Obama (in greater measure than his party as a whole, granted)."
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
He does toe the GOP line with a bit too much loyalty for my taste as well.
The satirical irony of his humor is designed to infuriate 'liberals' that take themselves too seriously. Some repeat items are aimed squarely at atheists.
As an entertainer, which is all that he is, his job is to attract listeners. Advertisers pay the same for Liberal listeners as they do for conservatives. The Obama administration calling him out by name is like money in the bank for him.
I'm sure his rationalization for pain killer addiction was a classic, I missed it, but I'm sure legal drugs vs illegal was invoked somehow. I did listen to some hilarious ripping of 'Slick Willie' for not inhaling. I guess he should have popped some pills instead.
I have come to the conclusion several years ago that a TRULY Libertarian candidate would be too philosophically handicapped to do what it takes to win high office under our system.
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
- William Shakespeare
Most true libertarians also believe in things like open borders. It is hard to get too enthusiastic about a political philosophy that sews the seeds of its own destruction.
If a libertarian did manage to get elected President along with enough like-minded members of Congress to implement their version of a libertarian utopia, complete with open borders, the resulting flood of poverty stricken immigrants would quickly cause the libertarians to be thrown from office as the freshly minted new voters started voting for free stuff for themselves from the Treasury.
Libertarianism would only last one election cycle.
The Democrats want the voters, the Republicans want the cheap labor. It seems painfully obvious that neither wants to stop illegal immigration.
"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."
- George Bernard Shaw