Mr. Limbaugh calls Senator Obama the messiah but I believe that Rush is the real messiah of whom he speaks. I believe everyone should be calling Rush the messiah then those damn libruls will understand the truth. And when the messiah says McCain is a bum, the dittoheads must listen to their god-like idol and vote as this leader tells them to vote, not for McCain.

Mr. Limbaugh is new P.T. Barnum of our age. Like someone once said, "There's a sucker born every minute"..if that is true, how many hours did it take to create Rushs' audience? Maybe Rove can use his math and get the answer.

Mr. Limbaugh is new P.T. Barnum of our age.

Good comparison...for reasons too numerous to list.

Allow me to make a prediction...IMO Rush Limbaugh will likely self-destruct in two or three years. I doubt seriously if he will fulfill the extraordinarily lucrative contract he just signed. Why? Primarily because he has reached a point of success where his overblown ego no longer has any restraints. He's the man...he can do or say what he wants, and that's going to be his downfall. He'll be involved in some sort of scandal, perhaps drugs again, and the conservative movement won't be as powerful as it once was to justify his continuing presence. An ugly man who has done nothing more than caused hurtful divisiveness in this country... What a legacy?

No he won't. He should have been run out of town back when he returned from the Dominican Republic with his drugs. But he gets rewarded for it.

Here's the deal about the NYT article-- younger people-- meaning under 40-- have no idea how bad these guys are. They take them as a given. It's normal  to them, because they have no sense of the possibility of things, either cultural or intellectual.

Anyone who knows anyhting knows how offensive L. and his ilk are, how irrational, how full of hate. But that takes knowledge and a sense of how things can be, and this poisoned generation isn't going to be the ones who say anything.

The problem really is intractable, and historically, will only be solved by things getting so bad that Reaction must occur. We're not anywhere near that yet. But just wait. Things will get much worse.

I'm a little more optimistic, Carl... I think the so-called conservative movement in this country, in its latest iteration, has pretty much shot its wad, regardless of the outcome of this election. If Obama wins and is successful in unifying and mobilizing this country then this latest conservative movement, as we know it, is definitely gone...and the stock of it's cheerleaders will eventually be gone too.

"Here's the deal about the NYT article-- younger people-- meaning under 40-- have no idea how bad these guys are. They take them as a given. It's normal to them, because they have no sense of the possibility of things, either cultural or intellectual."

Nice. Nothing is more endearing than calling your future leaders a legion of dunces. Bitter much?

To recap: Limbaugh's a "funny," "public intellectual" who produces "fluent, often clever political talk" and who also "instructs" and "teaches."

I almost lost my lunch at "teaches."  I'll never forget the exact moment that I lost all respect for Limbaugh.  (I was a fan at one point, before I started thinking for myself and got over my childhood hero-worship of Ronald Reagan.)

He got a call from an 11 (I think) year old kid.  The kid admitted to being a liberal and asked Rush about two or three issues that were relavent at the the time.  (This was like... 1993 IIRC.)  I don't remeber the issues, but I do remember that rather than take the time to educate (OK, from his POV) this impressionable youth, who at least was taking the inititive to read the paper and get involved in politics (pretty impressive for 'kids these days') and engage him in any kind of reasonable discourse, he went on a rampage making fun of the kid, insulting him, insulting liberals and not making a SINGLE relavent point about ANY of the points the kid brought up.

He not only used his bully polpit to publicly humiliate and 11 years old, but he couldn't even handle his questions!

 Can you believe the A-Rod sized contract he just signed?  Apalling.

I almost lost my lunch at "teaches." NGEddy

That's one of the reasons I try to catch bits of Rush's show when I can (drive time, usually), to hear the dittoheads thank the Fat One for all of the "instruction" and "teaching" he gives them. It's a little scary, but fascinating.

Rush deals in sleight-of-hand (or sleight-of-mouth, I guess), his rants are all strawmen and misleadingly paraphrased quotes and mind-reading ("what they're really saying is..."), but like any good unscrupulous preacher or salesman, he knows how to throw in a couple of 2 dollar words here and there, hit the emotional triggers, and his audience can be convinced they're getting facts.

I realize he's a nothing in the big scheme of things, his core audience is the lunatic fringe, but Rush's ideas are transmitted like herpes to more normal people. Some of those people , the ones who don't really keep up with the news, can be influenced to vote by the BS that starts with Rush. It's sad, but I think a reason why MMFA points out articles like the NY Times fluff piece. It gives a little bit of credibility to a blowhard party shill who should be laughed out of a job by an educated population.

John McEnroe writes:

"The lengthy Times profile took that trend to a whole new level, because unlike most previous half-hearted attempts to outline, in very general ways, what Limbaugh says and explain why he's controversial,"

What he really means is that INSTEAD of lying and distorting what Limbaugh says like every other article, this piece was actually an honest one.

  

 

"What he really means is that INSTEAD of lying and distorting what Limbaugh says like every other article, this piece was actually an honest one."

I think if he meant that, he would have said something to that effect.

Indeed. And I, for one, missed the portion of McEnroe's Wimbledon coverage where he made either of those completely different statements...

Har! I thought there was actually a quote from McEnroe in one of the links. I'm sure that was just a typo.

"Har! I thought there was actually a quote from McEnroe in one of the links. I'm sure that was just a typo."

Just proof that a liberal has ABSOLUTELY NO sense of humor. 

So you intentionally wrote John McEnroe? Can you explain the joke, please?

Apparently NLT thinks Mr. Boehlert looks like John McEnroe and assumes everyone should automatically "get it". Obviously he/she is not too bright what with the defending of Rush and all.

Colonel, NLT was just blaming you for his lack of comedic talent.  You see it is our fault he isn't funny.

I'm sorry Mr. No Lefty, but every strand of hair on my amply coiffed liberal head has a greater sense of humor than the entirety of right-wing America. The only reason I'm not even funnier -- and don't laugh and enjoy life even more -- is that millions of my moronic countrymen (among whom I will GLADLY include you) listen to Mr. Limbaugh and actually voted for GW Bush in 2000 and 2004, two stains that have done incredible harm to our democratic republic and to the world.

Funny you should say that 

I'm a Trinitarian Patriot myself, by I'm completely in agreement.  Despite the frequent assertion to the contrary, liberals absolutely dominate the field of humor.  If we don't think that Limbaugh is funny, it's because we have taste.

Looking back, here are some of the things that I have thought of when it comes to humor:  P.G. Wodehouse novels, Mad Magazine, the music of Tom Lehrer, Weird Al Yankovic and the Capital Steps; also Rocky & Bullwinkle, the sitcom Night Court and the British political comedy Yes, Minister.  I have laughed loud and long at things both crude and juvenile (the 3 Stooges and the Benny Hill Show) to the subtle and sophisticated ("Cannibals in the Cafeteria" by Stephen Pile), to the macabre and bizarre (Charles Addams and Gary Larson cartoons).  There's even humor in the Bible if you look hard enough (Chapter 6 of Esther is a favorite).

What's more, I enjoy making others laugh.  I did a five minute stand-up routine at my own baptism, for goodness sakes.  Similarly, I had them rolling in the aisles at a funeral luncheon recently.  It's truly a blessing to be able to make people laugh.

There's lots of humor in these boards as well, and again it's utterly dominated by the liberals.  My favorite is Easy to Refute Wingnuts.  The funniest man I've ever personally known has written in a few times with the nick FilkerTom, who introduced me to The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Mystery Science Theatre 3000 (Kevin Murphy, the voice of Servo, is a dedicated liberal and took several shots at Limbaugh therein).

Well, this was a short list of what I think is funny; each of us has his own, and we can always have friendly chats about the relative merits of each.  But it surely is tiresome when someone who thinks Limbaugh or Coulter or some other hate-filled screed is funny and chastises us for daring to disagree.  When such people do it, the irony of it is funny in a way... and that's probably all the humor they're capable of dredging up.

Noleft, can you give us an example of one of those articles that lies about what Rush says? Should be easy, since it's every other one.

Here's one:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010?f=s_search

Right from this LIE MACHINE of a web site.  Pick any other one for distortion of Limbaugh.  He was talking about Phony Soldiers who falsified their service records.

How dense are you? Did your messiah fool you again?

Please read the mmfa article or are you using the messiahs' web version.

"CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

 

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country."

Really?

That's no fair...Media Matters uses direct quotations, and ....and....there's tape delays, and the air pressure was rising, and he was talking to a caller...er...

Nolefturns is right. This is another Media Matters lie just like the Limbaugh chocolate chip story.

And he was talking that same day -- or the day before -- about a phony soldier who falsified and lied about his service and who was sent to jail and about a story where about 8 of these PHONY SOLDIERS were being prosecuted.  THAT is what he was talking about. 

Oh Brother.  We've been all over this.  He was talking to a lady caller who was criticising vets who were speaking out against the war.  This isn't really in dispute, except for you diehard dittoheads who can't admit a fact even if it bites you.

That was the excuse he used.

Do you EVER listen.  I'm sure not.  You take media reports and believe them without actually investigating for yourself  Now who exactly is the mind-numbed robot being programmed?  That would be you!

Yeah Prince, how dare you read an MMFA article that includes full transcripts and audio of the actual incident and draw your own conclusions from the direct evidence.  You mindless robot!

Jawill, I HAVE heard what  you  are telling  me. I  I  will now  go go to change   my registration   to Robotlican.  Thank You  Thank You ....

I am bacck   from   the office   and  will turn  on The messiah  Rush....He sounds   so angelic   please,   everyone   join  me   here  in  Rushland.  It is  blissful  and  I know   longer   have  to  think.

To quote Batman:

Must....ignore....facts.....must....toe....party...line...

"And he was talking that same day -- or the day before -- about a phony soldier..."

You could be right, but at the time, in the particular call which was quoted, he was calling soldiers who disagreed with Limbaugh's opinions on the war, phony soldiers.

It always amazes me when you cons come to the defense of a guy who, when faced with the opportunity to put his support for war into more than words, chose to evade risking his own rather elephantine ass.

That's funny because there isn't a single democrat or leftist that supports this war or any other war since WWII.  Defending this country is not important enough to them.

Could it be because there has not been a war waged by this country since WWII that had anything to do with our defense?  The only possible exception is Afghanistan, which pretty much every liberal supported.  How is that war going, by the way?  Why don't you get on the case of this administration for not wanting to defend this country by letting Afghanistan fall into ruin and by letting bin Laden get off scott free?  

Oh, that's right.  It's because you have no clue what you are talking about and are merely an unthinking sponge absorbing any and all BS flung at you by lying bloviaters like Limbaugh. 

"That's funny because there isn't a single democrat or leftist that supports this war or any other war since WWII.  Defending this country is not important enough to them."

And that's really funny because the Korean and Vietnam wars were started during a Democratic administration.

And for the record, I wanted Osama Bin Laden's head on a platter, and just for good measure, taking out the Taliban was a good idea too.  Hell, invading Pakistan would have been better than going to Iraq...at least they have WMD's and are on the verge of radical Islamic fundamentalists taking over the country.

You're an ass.

Democrats, along with Republicans, have been fighting and dying serving this country in every war going back to the Civil War.

Anytime, anyone, makes a blanket statement like yours about the patriotism of any political party, it only proves that the person making the claim knows nothing about this country's history.

Repeating "talking points" doesn't make them true and defending and supporting a coward like Limbaugh doesn't make him any less so.

Possibly, but I know of one on the right who was too damn scared to serve his country in Vietnam. Those cysts on his big butt could have been easily fixed, treated, etc if he really was this patriotic american he professes to be. He sure as hell has you fooled. You bow at the feet of a hypocrite and coward. How does that feel?

"That's funny because there isn't a single democrat or leftist that supports this war or any other war since WWII. Defending this country is not important enough to them."

History lesson for Republican Liar No Left Turns:

1. The Vietnam War was started by DEMOCRATIC President Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Next, Drugbaugh is a chickenhawk who avoided going to Vietnam by using the anal cyst on his butt as a ticket out.

Third, the dis-likes of Liar Bush and THE BUSH CABAL are STILL longtime friends and business associates of The Bin Ladens and their Saudi backers.  Liar Bush and Osama are rumored to be best friends since childhood.  Osama likely possesses a lot of incriminating evidence against Bush and the rest of THE BUSH CABAL, which is the PRIMARY reason W. Bush doesn't want to catch him.

"That's funny because there isn't a single democrat or leftist that supports this war..."--Noleftturns

Actually, no intelligent and well-informed person supports this war--unless they are making money from it (and I sincerely doubt that you are making money from this war)

This may be the dumbest post I have ever read. First, have you personally spoken to "every single democrat"? Second, I and many other democrats fully support military efforts in Afghanistan, as well as previous efforts in Bosnia and in the first Iraq war. That's because I am a sentient human being who can make value judgments based on what I know to be fact, rather than a parrot who just screeches back what the words that I hear.

And did you, by any chance, previously call youself Columbus or Colombo or scientist or some other little nickname?

NoCredibilityLeft, forgive for not searching through the items you linked to. Am I supposed to guess what the lie is? Why don't you provide some actual quotes from these lying articles, and explain how they're lies.

This isn't the Rush Limbaugh show, you don't get to make up things that tennis players or hobbits said and then argue with those figments of your imagination. You baseless accusations will meet requests for evidence. Rush has you conditioned to swallow BS and thank him, but this is the real world.

A quote from the recent past,kernel.   "Thankyou so much for the suggestion ,Tommy. Sometimes I forget that I should drop whatever I'm doing to compose a lengthy, heavily-sourced and respectful response to every wing-nut who listens to Rush and then comes here to post "Libs suck! Get r done!"       That quote is from Col Harlan Sanders  Wed 7/2/08 @ 6:01 pm  EDT.                                               

What's your point, EC? That NLT shouldn't back up his lies because I don't honor every lie with a civil conversation? Or do you just like saving my quotes for your own enjoyment?

ECM,

I think if you are going to go with a controversial opinion for this site, you best be able to back it up.  I provided GAO reports, news articles, etc. the last two times you and I have debated and have received nothing in return from you beyond your own opinions and rhetoric.  While valid, your opinions are just that, your opinions.  You claimed I was detached from reality on the last thread, but provided no back up to why you thought my opinions and informational links were false.  If we are going to have civil debate, rhetoric must be supported by factual evidence, if possible.  Thanks!

Why don;t you try READING that stuff.  As ACM points out it's a tactic of the LEFT to ignore criticism an d simply not argue.  Happens here all time. It's called intellctual laziness.  A SYNONYM for LIBERALISM.

NoLeftTurns sez:

"...He was talking about Phony Soldiers who falsified their service records."

Isn't it a little early to start re-writing that chapter of history?  I mean, the dittoheads spent somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 weeks trying to parse that one in the oxymorons favor without much luck.

Maybe a little more time for it to become even more irrelevant before you wax nostalgic about it as a great victory, eh?

Neon, it's funny NLT would reference that item as an exapmle of lies against El Rushbo. I have fond memories of the phony soldiers issue as an example of right wing lies that couldn't be excused by interpretation, where the dittobots were really held to supporting their position.

In fact, it was at some of the threads on that very topic where the complete surrender of the ditto army was accepted.

Well, you know how it goes Col. Lefty.  Island hopping in the South Pathetic Ocean, one often comes across these righties who were intellectually stranded on their little island and somehow missed the news that the war was over.

Another:  The Michelle Obama 'Whitey" video was first mentioned by Bob Beckel to pe-empt it:

 http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hNiz4P0du8Ns7bKLYjDX8rss1GBgD918SIP81

 

Now you are using something that no on has ever heard and no one has a copy. Rush is the messiah. He can get people believe in something that doesn't exist. C'mon ZeroLeftTurns, call you alter ego Phillib and get him going. What the hell does a nonexistent video/tape have to do with anything?

Why didn't Zevie, ask about the Jeff Christie arrest in Pittsburgh?

What's the lie about Rush? Remember, you're trying to send sober people to your links, and expecting them to see what you see.

Thankfully, NoLeftTurns is only driving a golf cart in a small circle.

Maybe he just hates NASCAR.  All NASCAR drivers do is turn left.

John McEnroe?  The ex-tennis player said that?  Anyway, the Eric Boelert article you apparently didn't read very well included direct quotations which actually give the tenor of his immature ravings:

"That's why there was no mention in the very long profile about the fact that Limbaugh has called Sen. John Kerry a "gigolo," mocked Democratic Party chief Howard Dean as "a very sick man," agreed that liberal philanthropist George Soros is a "self-hating Jew," denounced then-Sen. Tom Daschle as an Al Qaeda sympathizer, mocked anti-war crusader Cindy Sheehan, whose son was slain in Iraq, by teasing, " 'Oh, she lost her son' -- well, yes. Yes. Yes. But you know, this is [sigh] -- aaah. We all lose things."

Or that Limbaugh has claimed Democrats "hate this country" (i.e. "What's good for Al Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party in this country today"); denigrated members of the U.S. Armed Forces, calling military men and women who criticized the war in Iraq and advocated withdrawal "phony soldiers"; toasted photos of the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib as "good old American pornography"; suggested actor Michael J. Fox faked symptoms of his life-threatening illness while taping a pro-stem-cell-research commercial; called Sen. Barack Obama a "Halfrican American"; and announced Obama and Osama bin Laden are "on the same page."

I don't care for, or listen to, Limbaugh, but my impression from the mmfa article is that he's no worse than Obama's press secretary (Olbermann), only speaking from the far side of the other aisle.

Maybe you should listen or just read what he has said...A Hate Monger..See above.

They're equivalent in your mind because they both express opinions.  The problem is that Rush's opinions aren't based upon anything but what he pulls out of his nether regions.  To opine, it's best to have factual information and that's where Obermann actually does the homework.

Quoting the words of Clifford Kelley of Chicago's black talk radio station WVON-AM 1690 http://www.wvon.com "Rush Limbaugh's a dope fiend!"

Ambrose I. Lane Senior http://www.weourselves.org correctly labeled Limbaugh "...a right wing criminal."  Limbaugh has a long history of hatred, dissembly, and telling one lie after another.  The sorry excuses for people who listen to him are just as big or BIGGER liars and hate-mongers than he is.

Thanks, another radio station to listen to...

Anytime.

Thomp,

For argument's sake, does KO repeat debunked smears (like the Vince Foster thing) about Republicans?  Does he inject race whenever he can?  I don't get home many nights to watch him.

The libs have a very tough time with the TRUTH

Less trouble with differentiating between MM staff and ex tennis greats.  How's that new crack pipe working out for ya?

Maybe Liar No Left Turns uses the same oxycotin that Liar Limbaugh still uses.

Especially with those TRUTHFOOL SwiftBoat guys..who you msut believe were misquoted.

Oh really? what TRUTH do we have a problem with? That the surge is working, despite the fact that none of the goals of the surge have been met?

That President Bush has said "When the Iraqis ask us to leave, we'll leave," and the Iraqis have asked us to leave?

That because of the war in Iraq, and our subsequent dealings with the "democracy" of Pakistan, Al-Qaeda is stronger than ever and now has a safe haven full of nukes that's on the brink of societal collapse?  That truth?

Really, I would like to know what "TRUTH" you speak of...

Oh really? what TRUTH do we have a problem with? That the surge is working, despite the fact that none of the goals of the surge have been met?

 

 

• - dbeden4153 / Tuesday July 8, 2008 2:05:54 PM EDT
• - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment

 

 

I guess he isn't aware of the GAO report.

Rush never told him

uh..uh...it's the LEFT that's brainwashed pal..and takes marching orders from politicians, the media, environmentalists, college professors and any other idiot who can promise them government-induced utopia.

I admit:  I have trouble with the truth.

I've tried again and again to get the truth into a conservative, but it just won't go.  I've grabbed it with both hands and pushed and pushed.  I've used a plumbers helper.  I've sat with my back against a wall and used my feet to try to force it in.  I've tried every orifice and nook and cranny, but it simply does not fit.  The only way it seems to go is if it's distorted completely out of shape into something that bears no resemblance to it's original form, and then the righties willingly eat it up with frightening voracity.

Yes, that is the singular big problem I have with the truth.

 

I don't know. "W" makes it look pretty easy to catapult the propaganda into Conservatives.

Neon obviously doesn't want to catapult the propaganda like Bush and Rush do.  He finds it distasteful and unappetizing.  Julia, wow!  Great pic--how did you convince Bush to pose for it? ;-)

That's the pose Bush always uses when he's "catapulting the propaganda". The propaganda has to go there first before it gets disseminated into RNC talking points.

Bush always uses this pose

After swallowing some rotten old prose

Catapulting the lies

With his head-butt disguise

He has waste sewage treatment that blows.

See?  This is the kind of lies that NoLeftTurns was talking about.  You both have taken that picture completely out of context.  You purposely left out whether that was during a speech or between speeches, leaving the observer to only guess whether or not the head is going in or coming out.

No wonder Rush never gets an even break here.

Beautiful!!!

and any other idiot who can promise them government-induced utopia.

It's the competence, stupid!  We don't need more government, but government that works FOR the people, instead of just for the very rich and/or politically connected.

Are you better off than you were 7 years ago?

Truth, from the limborgh? That's a laugh!!

Whenever limbaugh says anything, or orielly, or coulter, or hannity, or ingraham, or beck, or bruce, or savage(WEINER),ETC, turn to the person next to you, and ask them, do you really want the children in charge?

Philibs Bud, You are correct, Rush Limbaugh is a paragon of virtue, truth and the American way. This man has been spouting only truth and justice. Never did he expouse any hatred through name-calling or anything of that nature. But it is about time that he emerge from behind the curtain and be interviewed. Now since it is in the open, people should have the right to discuss every single word of this interview. every single nuance concerning this interview just as the messiah of radio does...or his staff does...Agreed?

Now, since the drapes are open, I am sure this truthful, trusting man...wait  let me disgress...Anyone remember the advertising spots done by this man concerning buying drugs illegally contributes to terrorist activity, while he was using his help to obtain illegal drugs for him? If that was the other 99% of Americans, they'd be in Gitmo.

0 leftturns, Rush is a personality, if he can't take the heat, why should YOU have to air condition the kitchen for him. Let him be a man and come out. He'd be a welcomed guest here.

Eric Boehlert writes: "The lengthy Times profile took that trend to a whole new level, because unlike most previous half-hearted attempts to outline, in very general ways, what Limbaugh says and explain why he's controversial,"

"What he really means is that INSTEAD of lying and distorting what Limbaugh says like every other article, this piece was actually an honest one."

Actually, the distorting and lying is coming from Liar Zev Cleafest, since he is a lying right wing conservative Republican who is writing a pro-Limbaugh media script play, since this is NOT an interview in my opinion, when the so-called "interviewer" is not only a right wing Republican, but also likely one of the members of the Liar Limbaugh fan club.

Next, the New York Times showed themselves once again to be a right wing conservative Republican Party controlled newspaper by running this pro-Limbaugh whitewash in their paper, and allowing a partisan Republican like Zev Cleafats/Clevats to do this "interview".  I guess since they "fired" their previous Republican hackette Liar Judith Miller they needed to grab a partisan Republican from somewhere.

This is NOT an article, this is a lying pro-Republican whitewash, that was done by a lying Republican Limbaugh lover.

I'd like to see a real free for all tag team debate, Zev and his hero versis Ms. Maddow and Ms. Rhodes. You can't know the values are of much wieght unless your willing to debate for real. Something that Rush has never done.

An honest report, how does one differentiate that from a syncopant's gush. 

Ed Schultz and Randi Rhodes and Thom Hartmann all take phone calls without qualifying them first. But Rush is a coward. He won't take phone calls that aren't qualified for his ease.

Hey, forget about Rush. Dallas has a new progressive radio station after 2 years of being without. That makes me very happy. In fact, gotta go, Thom Hartmann is on now. :-0) I've been in the desert for too long.

KMNY am 1360

Well for those of you who don't have access through local radio to Thom Hartmann (like me,) just google AM 620 wkpoj.  It's free to listen to on-line, but it's based out of Oregon so you may not be able to listen to him at the right time.

I have listened to him online, but it's very inconvenient. I have trouble sitting still for long. Now I can listen to him in the car and take my radio with me where ever I go. I'm excited to get progessive talk again.

lucky, NC doesn't have one progressive talk radio station.  NPR is about as close as it gets.

True, for the most part. Actually, I just moved to Asheville, NC and there is a very highly progressive radio station out here, but it's only local.

"I'd like to see a real free for all tag team debate, Zev and his hero versis Ms. Maddow and Ms. Rhodes. You can't know the values are of much wieght unless your willing to debate for real. Something that Rush has never done."

Let's expand this debate, have Liar Zev, Liar Limbaugh, and his 2 fellow right wing liars Liar No Left Turns and Liar Philib have an eight person debate against Rahcel Maddow, Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, and "The Black Eagle" Joe Madison.  All 4 of these lying right wing maggots wouldn't last 2 seconds against any one of them.

I know for a FACT that Limbaugh's most terrified of Mike Malloy http://www.mikemalloy.com.  Methinks No Left Turns is even MORE terrified of him, much like other cons are.

(Sigh.)

I hope Chafets was well compensated when he sold his capacity for critical thought before undertaking this piece. Based on this exchange with Bob Garfield on NPR's "On The Media", it seems that Chafets is suffering from a big fact-shaped blindspot:

---

BOB GARFIELD: Your piece on Limbaugh was very generous, I would say even flattering. You seem to give him a pass for his excesses. And when I'm talking about excesses, I'm talking about ad hominum attacks, truly mean-spirited stuff that goes way beyond satire and into the politics of vilification, and also playing fast and loose with the truth, seizing on some news item and grossly misrepresenting it and creating a lot of hubbub, using as the kernel of his satire something that is just fundamentally untrue.

ZEV CHAFETS: Well, do you have an example of that? I'm not an apologist for Rush Limbaugh, but I'm a little bit defensive because I think that the liberal media takes such an unfair view of him.

---

Uh-huh...

( http://onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/07/04/05 )

Does every Limbaugh profile need to be a hit piece? Of course not. Should every serious Limbaugh profile at least try to convey to readers what's so controversial about the host and what he says on his radio program? Of course. And that's where the Times, rather obliviously, took the pratfall with its Limbaugh article.

I read the Times article on line several days ago. Fluff? Sure. But my beef was it didn't really get too deep beyond the surface of what most of us already know about Limbaugh...unless a critique of his home furnishings counts for anything ;-)

One thing I didn't see mentioned here in this article by Boehlert was something I got a chuckle from, & something I think most here would have enjoyed as well...Limbaugh described Bill O'Reilly as a Ted Baxter.

Gotta give Rush props for that :-)

I expect that if the right wing talkers were able to totally eliminate all "liberals" from the air waves, they'd soon start attacking each other big time. 

I give Rush "props" for failing so gloriously at getting Romney v. Clinton to occur.

GOv, Rush can't be Foxy when he does his ______!!! Answer is softshoe.

Ted Baxter -- that's pretty funny.  I've read somewhere that Hannity and Oreilly don't get along all that well either

Well if you actually bothered to read the Times article that you're commenting on, then you would have read it there.

I was commenting on mmfa's description of limbaugh, not the Times article.  Sorry to confuse you.

Hey J,

My guess would be that Limbaugh had some sort of control over the final editing of the piece, otherwise he probably wouldn't have consented to do it, so that probably explains its content.

That aside, nobody gives the left fits or pushes their buttons quite like Limbaugh.  They say his listeners are nothing but "herpes stricken" bobbleheaded idiots who can't think for themselves, probably can't even feed themselves.....forget the fact that many probably listen for sheer entertainment and to get a laugh or two.  

Fact is he gets under liberal's skin and he relishes that.  If they would be indifferent to him instead of reactionary, that is what would give him fits.

Someday the left will learn how to ignore Limbaugh.....maybe. 

I didn't know that they were herpes stricken.

Tommy, I think the days of Rush getting under the libs skin is over. Does anyone notice that he is the one who combats his detractors more and more in an escalating manner? (Not necessary any longer, he got the MONEY, congrats to him)

People have caught on to the CON. The threads about him here usually point out his distortions and then the fun begins. I say insensitive things about Rush the messiah but I also understand that he has a SHOW and is in SHOW BUSINESS...Concerning his political knowledge, he is on par with everyone else, except Hartmann.

"but Rush's ideas are transmitted like herpes to more normal people....." - Col. Harlan Sanders / Tuesday July 8, 2008 1:43:16 PM

Heard it somewhere....... 

Bad Colonel

I'll try to be more sensitive to the simile-intolerant.

Sorry, Tommy, I forgot to set my posting brain to "concrete".  ;0)

Now Tommy is picturing a disembodied "posting brain" made of cement, aggregate and water that sits next to your computer.

I didn't know you knew the Colonel.

Don't try to be funny. You're hopelessly lost in the stony aggregate of your own brain.

And I will wait for another of your personal attacks.....

Then I recommend Skittles and Fresca -  They go great together if you're in a rush, OR if you've got time to kill.

And I will wait for another of your personal attacks.....- tommy

Poor St. Tommy, martyr of the Westside.Will his suffering ever end?

Col, If you knew what you were responding too, you wouldn't look foolish.....my "personal attack" complaint was in response to Clams whining about my attacking him last week, so it was sarcasm. 

Perhaps you should stick to your cute little schtick as usual... 

Sorry Tommy. I'll be sure to ask you what I'm responding to next time. I was confused, and thought I was responding to yet another of your victim-mentality whines about personal attacks, when, unbeknownst to me, I was responding to something I didn't even know about.

Keep up the good work. Vigilance !  ;0)

I know Colonel, I am always complaining here about getting beaten up and whine about personal attacks, I am a masochist.  You nailed it again!

Thanks, Tommy. Admitting your problems is really the first step.

So you were sarcastically referencing the thread where you did nothing but call me names? And you think that this somehow makes you look good? Brilliant.

 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807030001?f=s_search 

do you sit in front of your computer waiting on Tommy to post so you can start some kind of long drawn argument where you get to shwo everyone your sarcasm skills? Jesus man! Let it go. Your Tommy fixation is disturbing. I hope your boyfriend doesn't know.

Chris,

I gave Clams the same talking to as you just did eons ago, but as you can clearly see his obsession with Tommy knows no bounds & borders on sick. I think Clams is a tad psycho.

It's really strange that's for sure. I can only imagine the serial killer shrine he has of Tommy given that he has no clue what Tommy looks like. Do you sense any sexual frustration in his fixation with Tommy?

Really? We're back to the "obsession" defense of Tommy again? The guy who has a hundred posts in every thread? These tired projection-by-proxy attacks might hold a little more weight in a thread where I didn't come in halfway through an in-progress discussion, and where Tommy didn't respond to everything I posted with some inane seafood joke. It also might help your case a bit if you two weren't obsessively batting bon mots about me back and forth, and recalling things you said to me years ago. Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

You are hopeless. There are plenty of threads here and the majority of the time you only post in response to Tommy. You ostensibly try to  start sh!t. So what if Tommy posts hundred of times? How does that in any way affect the FACT that you troll for his posts just like you did on this thread and do nothing more than then start a sophomoric argument. There was a poster here who thrived on that type of behavior. He could do nothing more than troll for others who had different point of view and then proceed to name call. I don't know what ever happenned to him but perhaps you should go the same way or start contributing something other than blah blah Tommy, blah blah Tommy. Got it?

Tommy makes invalid arguments.  Anyone has the right to point it out.  You yourself said his opinion was "beyond a stretch" or some such just today.  So your problem is just with people who recognize how incredibly often Tommy does that and hold him accountable for his behavior.

For a brief moment today I had some hope for your objectivity, but now you're back to your knee-jerk flaming of anyone who dares to insult your buddy. 

That's hilarious, considering that our last exchange consisted of me asking you simple and direct questions while you responded with nothing but ad hominem attacks ("delusional...dense...ridiculous...dishonest"). It's called projection. Look it up.

Poor boy, always playing the victim, you have that down pat.  Whiner.

This is just brilliant. You've figured out a way where you never have to address any questions put to you. If someone corners you with some inescapable truth, you just call them names, and then when they point out that you've failed to explain or answer anything of substance, you get to call that person a "whiner." And when it's pointed out to you that you're still avoiding the topic by namecalling, you simply call that person a whiner and a victim some more.

And then the real kicker is when somebody calls you a name--let's just say for instance, idiot--then suddenly you're above such behavior and you get to scold that person for name-calling.

Keep up the good work. I'm sure that whoever writes your paycheck is proud.

He can't help it, Clams.  It's the conservative, authoritarian, "do as I say, not as I do" attitude that Tommy has.  It's an illness.  Let's just hope that one day, he seeks treatment.

Good colonel. And he wears superman undies too.

Fact is he gets under liberal's skin and he relishes that.  If they would be indifferent to him instead of reactionary, that is what would give him fits.

Tommy, most honest folks would admit that loud Liberal outrage over Rush Limbaugh's very existence has played a huge part in his visibility...and has boosted his phenomenal popularity with the Right.

I don't know if the guy can be ignored completely, but when the Left carps too often about Rush they only help make him larger than life. And yeah I agree, Limbaugh would shrivel a tad if the Libs ignored him. But of course they never will. They give him relevance whenever they mention him.

Rush would tell his minnions that he defeated the libs and they would adore him even more. Rush is becoming less important in the electoral process...see November 2006

Oh come on!  The problem is that within the rules of his self contained radio universe into which the outside reality cannot intrude Rush makes all the rules.  If he tells a blatant lie and nobody protests he will loudly proclaim the silence as proof of his continuing streak of 100% correctness.  If there is a protest he will proclaim that those oppose him are telling lies because they fear the truth he is delivering to the special ones in his audience who know the real score.  He "debates" using caricatures of an imaginary opposition and purely emotional, fact-free arguments and constantly flatters his audience to maintain their idolatry of him.  This is why Rush fails in situations he doesn't control and why he would never run for office, his schtick only works under his rules and with an audience willing to buy into those rules.

This also is how Hannity and Savage work, though they are not quite as good as Rush at it.  Probably because Hannity seems to actually believe his own hype and Savage has no agenda other than fame and fortune.

"I don't know if the guy can be ignored completely, but when the Left carps too often about Rush they only help make him larger than life. And yeah I agree, Limbaugh would shrivel a tad if the Libs ignored him. But of course they never will. They give him relevance whenever they mention him."

It sure sounds like you think he doesn't deserve that relevance.

"I simply said I would opt for more interesting guests were I  in charge of booking appearances. I'd book Limbaugh in a hot minute! Or Coulter!"

So it's wrong for liberals to complain about Limbaugh's behavior because that gives him undue relevance, but it's just fine to give him airtime because he's interesting.

How does that work? 

It sure sounds like you think he doesn't deserve that relevance.

Does it? Mind reading again Brab? It doesn't matter if I think he deserves relevance or not...you Libs give it to him every time you carp & moan over something he says.

And of course I'd book him, you guys have helped make him famous...and relevant.

So it's wrong for liberals to complain about Limbaugh's behavior because that gives him undue relevance, but it's just fine to give him airtime because he's interesting.

I don't care if you complain, though it doesn't get you anywhere--does it? But in a word...yes, I'd give him air time. The way that works Brab is that when folks are famous or interesting or relevant...then they are likely to get air-time. It's a ratings thing.

I'm not sure why that needed to be explained.