To the GOP: why are some still licking the boots of Rush Limbaugh?

Squink · March 4, 2009, 10:53pm

DCCC uncovers* Secret Republican Apology Form Letter:

*not really, the form letter is a fake, put together by Democrat.

MovieMogul · March 5, 2009, 12:43am

Well, except that it’s not quite a debate either, is it? It’s just a litany of pet peeves Rush has that he wants to corner Obama on–on his turf and with his rules. Any chance Rush would agree to a formal, moderated debate on issues that aren’t just on the GOP hit list? Not a chance.

There’s not one iota of reason to think this offer is being made in good faith. Rush is a bully and enough of an egoist that he think he can bully the POTUS.

And of course, because Obama is flying high in the opinion polls, has a few thousand better things to do, and is not a complete and total idiot, he won’t do it and Rush can continue to disparage his courage or integrity or what not.

That quote from Frum was classic and right on the money.

elucidator · March 5, 2009, 1:06am

Oh, yes. Yes! Oh, God, yes, yes, YES!

Anybody got a cigarette?

Linty_Fresh · March 5, 2009, 1:35am

I don’t mean to steer this discussion too off topic, but I can’t help asking.

I never heard of Frum, but this post made me curious enough to look at his Wikipedia article and NRO blog. He’s definitely conservative, but what I read of his writings looked reasoned and thought out enough for me, and he strikes me as pretty intelligent and well-spoken. Why is he an asshole? It’s not a rhetorical question; like I said, I never heard of him before this post, and I certainly could have missed a lot.

On edit: Just wanted to add that Obama would wipe the floor with Rush in any fair debate, but Rush will never go for that, because he–like most bullies–is a petty little coward at heart. And I say that as a conservative who voted for McCain.

Squink · March 5, 2009, 2:49am

REDSTATE says Dems are Doomed:

Dems attacking Rush - trying to rob gun stores Not used to return fire, are you?

GIGObuster · March 5, 2009, 3:27am

I noticed that the first responder references Bush’s “Bring it on”, the knucklehead (and the rest of the posters missed that) does not realize that he is blowing the point of the original poster. Bush did indeed fight back, the trouble was that he did so in the wrong country.

RedState is now going the way of the Freepers.

Merijeek · March 5, 2009, 3:30am

Indoctrinated, anyway.

-Joe

Captain_Carrot · March 5, 2009, 3:55am

That happened long ago.

Equipoise · March 5, 2009, 4:01am

The cognitive dissonance can’t end well for them.

Fear_Itself · March 5, 2009, 4:54am

Heh. They misspelled ass toot.

elucidator · March 5, 2009, 4:57am

It never does. And that’s why we in the Mother’s March Against Cognitive Dissonance are always…hey, quit shoving…are always alert…stop that!..

Ocean_Annie · March 5, 2009, 8:09am

Damn, I originally posted this in the wrong thread, so I am reposting.

This is from Rush’s wiki bio.

Not even James Carville could make up something better than avoiding the draft because of a Pilonidal Cyst.

I can’t vouch for the credibility, but Snopes says it’s true.

tagos · March 5, 2009, 10:05am

Time to work on your reading comprehension but if willfully misinterpreting stuff floats your boat you go ahead and knock yourself out.

Just because most Christians weren’t actual Crusaders or inquisitors didn’t make christianity a religion of peace.

I would repost the same old polls showing widespread support for fundamentalism, sharia etc but as you say this thread isn’t about Islam and it makes no difference to those too blind to see anyway.

Points for thinking oppression of half the human race qualifies as peaceful too.

Peanut_Gallery · March 5, 2009, 5:03pm

WARNING: graphic photo in your face.

ElvisL1ves · March 5, 2009, 5:14pm

Read more about it in Senator-elect Al Franken’s “Operation Chickenhawk” in Lying Liars.

One of the classics.

SteveG1 · March 5, 2009, 5:26pm

I guess that means Redstate are a bunch of idiots then. I have a “new theory”. The theory is as follows:
Limbaugh is a “classic” bully and coward, who would never ever EVER take part in a fair debate or a fair fight. he wants it on his turf, his rules, his deck of cards. Further, I propose he doesn’t reallty even care who he attacks, so long as he can attack somebody. I have no cite, but I seem to have something stuck in my head somewhere that he is also capable of “conveniently forgetting” or “rewriting the past” whenever is suitable for him - and changing “the rules”.

It’s old, it’s tired, but it shows the true nature of his character that he “campaigned” to crush all drug offenders, no matter what the circumstances, UNTIL he himself was busted. That tells me he is a no character, spineless, double standard, double talking talking worm. He needs to pop a few more pills, mellow out, and STFU.

SteveG1 · March 5, 2009, 5:28pm

Wasn’t that the “I can’t go because I have a pimple on my ass” defense? Or something similar?

Ocean_Annie · March 6, 2009, 4:24pm

It is pretty vulgar. I should have warned the curious and faint.

gaffa · March 8, 2009, 1:56am

I can’t find a video of it, but in one of his rare appearances NOT on friendly turf, Limbaugh got his ass handed to him by David Letterman back in 1993. Letterman memorably asked him: Do you ever wake up in the middle of the night and just think to yourself, “I am just full of hot gas?” Do you know what I mean?

Equipoise · March 8, 2009, 3:33am

Huh, I had this open in another tab for the past few days but didn’t feel like bumping the thread. Since someone else did, I’ll go ahead and post it even though several of the things on it are days old. I added a couple of recent bits.

Got some more tidbits here. Maybe I should have started a different thread for this stuff.

Oh those wacky Missouri folks:

Missouri Republicans push birth certificate questions to oppose ‘tyranny’

Fifteen Republican members of the Missouri General Assembly have signed on to a state constitutional amendment that appears aimed at advancing the claims of the fringe movement that doubts President Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president.

The language is contained in a proposed “voter’s bill of rights,” which would serve “as a defense against corruption, fraud, and tyranny.”

The proposed amendment states:

For candidates who are required by the Constitution of the United States to be natural born citizens, the secretary of state shall request an official copy of the candidate’s birth certificate. Other certifications, such as a certificate of live birth,
shall not be accepted. Should any candidate fail to provide an official birth certificate within thirty days of the request by the secretary of state, his or her name shall not be placed on the ballot.*

The Birthers, as they’re known, have focused on the State of Hawaii’s refusal to release the original of Obama’s birth certificate, as opposed to official copies; Hawaii state law bars the release of the original.

More birthers bullshit, one of the people who have been at the forefront of this crap, name of Donofrio (the other main ones are Philip Berg and Orly Taitz, they keep recycling cases among themselves) filed yet another one. I have no frickin’ clue what this one’s about, but [mock fear]oooh[/mock fear], it sounds serious:

QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF: part 1. It must be important because his blog is in dramatic colors, and all the Comments are supportive.

But, on the other hand, Judge James Robertson, United States District Judge, in Civil Action No. 08-2254 (Hollister v “Soetoro”), has dismissed the case that came before him, and wasn’t afraid to call it a dumbass suit (only using fancier and legallyer words). As the person I stole this info from says, the Memorandum is a work of art.

"This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end.

The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven – to the colonel’s satisfaction – that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be President. The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.

The real plaintiff is probably Philip J. Berg, a lawyer who lives in Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania, and who has pursued his crusade elsewhere, see Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Pa. 2008), invoking the civil rights statutes, the Federal Election Campaign Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the law of promissory estoppel. That case was the subject of a scholarly opinion by a judge who took Mr. Berg’s claims seriously –- and dismissed them. Mr. Hollister is apparently Mr. Berg’s fallback brainstorm, essentially a straw plaintiff, one who could tee Mr. Berg’s native-born issue up for decision on a new theory: If some “value” could be assigned to the “duties” the plaintiff thinks he might someday be called upon to fulfill under the Commander-in- Chief, then those “duties” could be deposited in the registry of this Court as the res whose distribution is to be decided by a suit in interpleader!"

…

More at the link, concluding with a delightful threat to make one of these idiot lawyers pay fees.

“Mr. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce, an attorney who lives in Tucson, Arizona, signed the complaint in this case. (They have been filing electronically although they have not been admitted pro hac vice, see <#10>.) They are agents provocateurs –- and any attempt to sanction them for misuse of the public and private resources that have had to be devoted to this case would only give them a forum to continue their provocation. John D. Hemenway, on the other hand, is a member of the Bar of this Court. He may have been enlisted by Messrs. Berg and Joyce as a foot soldier in their crusade, but he is nevertheless directly responsible to this Court for the pleadings that have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Because it appears that the complaint in this case may have been presented for an improper purpose such as to harass; and that the interpleader claims and other legal contentions of plaintiff are not warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous arguments for extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law, the accompanying order of dismissal requires Mr. Hemenway to show cause why he has not violated Rules 11(b)(1) and 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and why he should not be required to pay reasonable attorneys fees and other expenses to counsel for the defendants.”

Here’s Salon’s take on it: Obama “Birthers” slapped around by federal judge

Poor Bobby Jindal, this has to hurt: Bobby Jindal’s Favorable Rating Only 15%
Poor freepers, this has to hurt.

Obama Preferred Over Reagan – In Fox News Poll

Speaking of freepers,

Their head honcho must have received a visit from the Secret Service.

Unfortunately, we are saddled with a communist sympathizer in the White House. I don’t know whether or not he’s an actual card carrying commie, but he’s definitely an America-hating, anti-capitalist Marxist leftist who thinks communism is the way to go.
…

At any rate, the oath is to defend our constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I can imagine that this places an enormous strain on our Secret Service agents. It’s obvious to anyone with a brain that Obama is an enemy of the constitution. So should the SS defend the constitution or defend the anti-constitution commie?

So now comes the problem. If you feel it’s your duty to call Obama a traitor and use salty language in your proposed resolution, ie, suggest the commie be keelhauled, walked off the plank, run up the yardarm, tarred and feathered and run out of Dodge, etc, etc, etc, you may be facing a visit from your friendly Secret Service. **And even though your visiting agent may agree politically, and may take his oath to the constitution seriously, he’s still sworn to protect the officeholder and it’s his duty to take all threats seriously. And that may include serving me with a subpoena to turn over your IP address. **Now I’m duty bound to protect your privacy to the best of my ability, but I cannot defend against stupidity.

…

Keep your powder dry.

God bless our Secret Service. I can’t imagine how busy they are.

Dumbass Rep from Tennessee says dumbass things.

President Obama is set to convene a summit on reforming healthcare Thursday, and some Republicans are already taking shots. Rep. Zach Wamp (Rep-Tenn) told MSNBC’s Tamron Hall that Obama’s proposed healthcare plans would be a “fast march to socialism”, and that he believes that healthcare is not a right because many choose not to have insurance.

“This is almost class warfare in order for him to be able to say everyone now has health care. Listen, healthcare is a privilege,” said Wamp.

The MSNBC anchor was almost taken aback by the “privilege” remark and asked Wamp to explain. “If you have cancer right now do you see it as a privilege to get some treatment?”

“I was just about to say, for some people it’s a right but for everyone frankly it’s not necessarily a right,” he said. “Half the people uninsured today choose to remain uninsured. Half of them don’t have any choice, but half of them choose to what’s called ‘go naked’ and take the risk of getting sick. They end up in the emergency room costing you and me a whole lot more money.”

…

Aw, red-faced Republicans don’t want investigation. I wonder why not.
Steele Countdown

Republicans Increasingly Unhappy With Steele’s Leadership

Represent, Rove!
Karl Rove Agrees To Testify

A deal has been reached whereby Karl Rove will finally testify, under oath, before the House Judiciary Committee, according to chairman John Conyers’ office.

Rove has long avoided and ignored subpoenas in the past by claiming executive privilege – his deference now comes as a big victory for many Bush administration critics.

Here is the press release:

*In an agreement reached today between the former Bush Administration and Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Karl Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers will testify before the House Judiciary Committee in transcribed depositions under penalty of perjury. The Committee has also reserved the right to have public testimony from Rove and Miers. It was agreed that invocations of official privileges would be significantly limited.

In addition, if the Committee uncovers information necessitating his testimony, the Committee will also have the right to depose William Kelley, a former White House lawyer who played a role in the U.S. Attorney firings.

The Committee will also receive Bush White House documents relevant to this inquiry. Under the agreement, the landmark ruling by Judge John Bates rejecting key Bush White House claims of executive immunity and privilege will be preserved. If the agreement is breached, the Committee can resume the litigation.*

Chairman Conyers issued the following statement:

"I have long said that I would see this matter through to the end and am encouraged that we have finally broken through the Bush Administration's claims of absolute immunity. This is a victory for the separation of powers and congressional oversight. It is also a vindication of the search for truth. I am determined to have it known whether U.S. Attorneys in the Department of Justice were fired for political reasons, and if so, by whom."

Harriet Meirs will testify too.

More from RINO David Frum. It seems some conservatives weren’t too happy with what he wrote (posted by 'luci a couple of days ago):

[Why Rush is Wrong

The party of Buckley and Reagan is now bereft and dominated by the politics of Limbaugh. A conservative’s lament.](Why Rush is Wrong)
My favorite blog about this whole Rush business. Worth reading in its entierty:

The Dittohead Party: Why the GOP is Screwing Itself

This is an important one from a couple of weeks ago that I forgot to put in my original post. I had posted about it in MPSIMS but no one responded. It was never picked up anywhere else either. Man, if a Democrat had said something like this while Bush was in office, the moon would have trembled at the collective raised voices of outrage by the right, in editorials, blogs, on ALL the MSM shows, over and over and over, 24/7 for who knows how long. Why are Democrats so wussy when it comes to standing up against something like this? :

GOP Rep: We Need Might A Taliban-Like “Insurgency”

Ok, enough is enough! Now the Democrats are starting to apologise to Rush!

I went back to check a post to see if one of the above items had already been posted, and saw this:

Ha, I couldn’t possibly keep up. I’m already way behind even with the above. There’s just something new every day.

Topic		Replies	Views
So, is Rush the leader of the GOP? Great Debates	122	7700	March 10, 2009
Obama is choosing his enemies (Obama v. Limbaugh.) Great Debates	140	11199	March 10, 2009
Are Republicans That Afraid of Limbaugh? Politics & Elections	70	17039	March 17, 2012
Explain Rush Limbaugh to this foreigner Cafe Society	164	20330	May 14, 2010
Do Republicans want a one-party state? Great Debates	35	1241	December 12, 2000

To the GOP: why are some still licking the boots of Rush Limbaugh?

Related topics