Michael Moore must have had a fun time writing this piece about how Republican demonization of him led to even more success. It helps that Moore isn’t making jokes about Senators dying.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
There Is No Democratic Limbaugh
March 6th, 2009
128 Comments
No, Moore just makes a bunch of money making “documentaries” filled with lies and half-truths.
Name one lie.
Michael Moore: The Iraq Invasion was an immoral war sold on a bunch of lies.
Rush Limbaugh: Michael J. Fox is faking it! Feminazis! Magic Negro Halfrican! Dems are fags! Stalin!
See? Exactly the same!
“Name one lie.”
Prepare for an onslaught of right-wing talking points from a man who can’t think for himself.
I’m surprised it’s taking him this long to google some right wing talking points.
It helps that Moore isn’t making jokes about Senators dying.
You are no doubt referring to Limbaugh’s statement (Brian Wolff, executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, called the remark outrageous and reprehensible) that President Barack Obama’s proposed health care revisions will be championed by “the liberal lion Teddy Kennedy.”
“Before it’s all over, it’ll be called the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care bill,” Limbaugh said.
Here is a story from January that you may want to read.
Yes, Oliver, you (and the DCCC) really ARE that stupid.
You know the difference between naming something after someone living and the definition of the word “memorial” right?
Name one lie.
Here are 59 in Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11.
Here are 10 in Moore’s Bowling for Columbine.
That’s 69 lies so far. You’re welcome.
You know the difference between naming something after someone living and the definition of the word “memorial” right?
So your complaint is what, that technically, Rush shouldn’t have used the word “memorial” unless he knows for sure that Kennedy will no longer be living by the time the legislation passes?
You’re right, that faux pas truly is “outrageous and reprehensible”.
Rush’s remarks were made out of a deep seated desire within him to see Ted Kennedy dead. Limbaugh’s never been shy about that. To equate it with someone who actually loves and likes and respects Senator Kennedy’s work is the kind of bullshit we’ve come to expect from the right in America.
Look! I can google too!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/18/173312/462
I’ll make it simple for you.
If Bill Simmons wants to rename Gillette Stadium, Bill Belechick Memorial Stadium, it’s a lot different than say, Oliver wanting Gillette Stadium to be renamed Bill Belechick Memorial Stadium.
Look! I can google too!
Here’s one example of the awesome “debunking” you linked to:
Lie: Moore points out the distressingly close relationship between Saudi Arabia’s ambassador, Prince Bandar, and the Bush family. But Moore does not explain that Bandar has been a bipartisan Washington power broker for decades, and that Bill Clinton repeatedly relied on Bandar to advance Clinton’s own Middle East agenda. (Elsa Walsh, “The Prince. How the Saudi Ambassador became Washington’s indispensable operator,” The New Yorker, Mar. 24, 2003.)
Debunk: And the Clinton family nickname for Bandar was…? Oh.
Oh I see, the fact that the Clintons didn’t have a family nickname for Bandar, well that totally disproves and negates the claim being made. No need to address anything else. Case closed. On to the next non-existent lie!
Rush’s remarks were made out of a deep seated desire within him to see Ted Kennedy dead.
Thank God we have you here to read Rush’s mind for us.
Oliver Willis, Armchair Psychologist
And if Rush has “never been shy” about wanting Kennedy dead, then you should have no problem finding several direct quotes where he explicitly states this.
Sorry, but quotes immediately followed by “but what Limbaugh REALLY meant was…” don’t count.
So Moore not mentioning that the Saudi Prince worked with Clinton is a lie? It does seem that the relationship with Bush was much chummier than it was with Clinton.
It helps that Moore isn’t making jokes about Senators dying.
How about Moore’s statement in 2004 that the Iraqi’s killing US troops are “not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.”?
Oh you’re referring to this article:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-14
Where Moore speaks specifically about Blackwater’s (you know that company so popular that it changed it’s name to Xe) mercenaries abusing their position in Iraq. It also criticizes Bush for shutting down newspapers therefore giving revolutionary credence to those we’re fighting.
Where Moore speaks specifically about Blackwater’s (you know that company so popular that it changed it’s name to Xe) mercenaries abusing their position in Iraq. It also criticizes Bush for shutting down newspapers therefore giving revolutionary credence to those we’re fighting.
And that changes what he said (and I quoted) exactly how?
Or is this a case of “What Moore Really Meant…”?
It’s really a remarkable piece of writing. I’m not a huge fan of his movies, but you can’t deny Moore’s essential point — being anti-Iraq occupation, pro-nationalized health-care, and for the increase of taxes on Americans such as Paris Hilton and George Soros were unpopular views in 2001. After eight years of failed, atrocious Republican rulership, these are mainstream views supported by the majority of Americans.
America has shifted to the left under Bush II. There’s no denying it. And it took horrid Republican policies to make this happen.
Delicious.
It changes what it means, in that article Moore isn’t happy that Bush’s Iraq policies were so bad that it created a group of people that had the propaganda of revolution behind them. Don’t make me get my friend Reading Comprehension in here to have a talk with you Dave.
Man, I’d forgotten about _An American Carol_. Did anybody other than Hugh Hewitt see that stinking pile of shit?
“That’s 69 lies so far. You’re welcome.”
Wow. 69 talking points!
“Here’s one example of the awesome “debunking” you linked to:
Lie: Moore points out the distressingly close relationship between Saudi Arabia’s ambassador, Prince Bandar, and the Bush family. But Moore does not explain that Bandar has been a bipartisan Washington power broker for decades…”
So pointing out Bush has a close relationship to the Saudi Royal family is a lie because Clinton took some advice from him…
Do you even know what a lie is?
Clinton dealt with powerful Saudis, so that makes the almost universally understood fact that Bush has close personal friendships with the Saudis (did you know Bandar’s wife funded the 9/11 attacks?) not a fact at all, but a lie?
If you think this, you are stupid. You should leave the internet to smarter people.
The biggest difference, of course, is that Democrats don’t Kowtow to Moore.
The thing about the conservative noise machine is that once these lies like “69 deceits” get out into the mainstream, there IS NO debunking them. I refuse to get into a pissing contest with dave or any other piece of con garbage about it because the debunking was done years ago. No sense rehashing it now. Con propaganda (and sadly, many cons) are like that nugget that just won’t flush.
Geez, cons are still arguing the New Deal, do you really think they are accept that Moore’s film was basically spot on (as proved by events since)?
The biggest difference, of course, is that Democrats don’t Kowtow to Moore. Boraonx
This thread pretty much proves that you do. Maybe not as much as you do Barack Obama, but not that far behind.
The biggest difference, of course, is that Democrats don’t Kowtow to Moore.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/24/movies/24film.html?ex=1236574800&en=abf8d1189bdc8691&ei=5070
WASHINGTON, June 23 – Michael Moore brought his movie “Fahrenheit 9/11,” and his crusade to unseat President Bush, to a movie theater just a couple of miles from the White House on Wednesday night.
With full Hollywood trappings – a red carpet, klieg lights and dozens of photographers – nearly 800 members of the capital’s Democratic leadership turned out for the official premiere of the film, which opened on Wednesday here and in New York.
J.
I remember that well, Jay Tea. Liberals thought that movie was going to blow Bush and his chances for reelection right out of the water. Absurd statement to claim they don’t kowtow to this freak.
There’s also no liberal equivalent to
Ann “Jews need to be perfected”, “If only he’d blown up the New York Times” Coulter
Michael “I hope you get AIDS and die!” Savage
Bill “Black people have restaurants!” O’Reilly
and what have you. I wonder why.
OK Wingnutzz, list Moore’s five (5) most egregious offenses here. Pick five (5) from other liberal icons if you wish. We Reality Based will endeavor to try to dig up five (5) from Limbaugh. And Coulter. And Savage. I wonder which ones will be the most offensive? Please be specific and show your work. Thanks in advance.
ed, would that be considered “raising the bar” or “moving the goalposts?”
Moore’s movie was clearly labeled as an attempt to get Bush defeated in 2004, and its DC premiere brought out the leading Democrats in the hundreds — and they sang its praises.
I could also have mentioned Moore’s being invited to address the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
Moore’s main shortcomings in being analogous to Limbaugh are his lack of commercial success and mainstream appeal.
J.
Congressional Dems don’t wet themselves when Michael Moore tells them they shouldn’t criticize him.
Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, is the leader of the Republican party. Or if you prefer, he wields more power than Michael Steele, head of the RNC.
But please, continue to think that holding Rush up as your party’s leader is something that is beneficial to the Republican Party. Aside from the reddest of red states, Republicans can’t get elected without moderate and independent voters. Lauding a racist drug addict like Rush as your man ensures that Republicans are going to be out of power for a very long time.
Moore’s main shortcomings in being analogous to Limbaugh are his lack of commercial success and mainstream appeal.
Lets see, he’s written like 3 best sellers and one of his documentaries was the highest grossing of all time.
So… what do you mean by commercial success and mainstream appeal exactly?
Limbaugh are his lack of commercial success and mainstream appeal.
Well to be fair, he’s only directed three of the top ten grossing documentaries of all time. Including the top one, which is about 30% than No. 2, ‘March of the Penguins.’
JT, what exactly do you mean by this? Even excluding the highly dubious assertion that Rush Limbaugh has greater mainstream appeal.
‘30% higher than’
Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, is the leader of the Republican party. –Jaim
You keep repeating that like you think it burns conservatives to read it, Jaims. You repeat everything you say, for that matter. But not even Democrats believe that according to polls. So you’re in the minority even among your own party.
Except that you don’t actually believe it either.
Moore’s main shortcomings in being analogous to Limbaugh are his lack of commercial success and mainstream appeal.
That, and he’s not on the radio every day for 4 hours.
You keep repeating that like you think it burns conservatives to read it, Jaims. You repeat everything you say, for that matter.
Learned it from watching you, big guy.
Oh, and Michael Moore is fat.
Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, is the leader of the Republican party. Or if you prefer, he wields more power than Michael Steele, head of the RNC.
Fine, Denny, you wanna fine tune it? The first sentence isn’t true. The second sentence is.
Happy now?
So who is the leader of the wing-nut army Dennis? Inquiring minds want to know.
Boehner? Palin? Jindal?
What’s so awesome about all of this is that every option is a disaster.
Thanks for playing and failing once again.
Duros-
I have fine tuned that before. We’ve been over it an over it. You guys think talking about Limbaugh is a winner and an effective distraction from Obama’s woes right now. Evidently when Obama quoted scripture in his inauguration address by saying “The time has come to set aside childish things.”, evidently he wasn’t being serious, because this is about as childish as it gets. You guys love to say ‘look, over there’. That’s exactly what this is. Obamateur apparently knew his liberal blog soldiers wouldn’t take heed either.
It just sounded good reading it off his telePrompter. Like we talked about last week, even the devil may quote scripture to serve his needs.
So who is the leader of the wing-nut army Dennis? Inquiring minds want to know. Jaims
Jaims- You just said Limbaugh was. You said it definitively. Now you are asking me who is the leader. Are you doubting yourself already? Not comfortable being in the minority after I reminded you that polling indicated even Democrats don’t really believe that? Or is that a confession that you are an insincere bullshitter?
So if Rush is amazing, why does it bother you that we’re merely stating the obvious re: Rush = head of the Republican party? You sound pretty upset for a guy who’s got the awesomest political leader evar.
The irony of this discussion is that it’s making Rush a lot of money, so he has every incentive to keep it alive, as do the Democrats. And that’s a WIN-WIN, because Obama gets to make the GOP own Limbaugh, and Limbaugh shakes the
controverseyGOP like a dog with a rat in its mouth.Everybody’s happy.
And Dennis, it’s not like Limbaugh requires a lot of the president’s attention. His people just have to keep asking who runs the GOP, a legitimate question, until they get an answer from someone who seems to have the authority to provide that answer. It doesn’t cost a lot of money or take a lot of time to work this strategy, which they learned from the master himself, Karl Rove.
Imagine. Asking who is the boss is a low-down, insulting and unfair question, because the GOP would like political discussion to be elevated.
Or something.
Not upset at all, Jaim. Rush is what he is. The fact of the matter is, he makes a lot of money and pays a lot of taxes. He also donates a large amount of money to charity. Both of those things far outweigh what you do for this country working overseas. It’s not even close.
And people who are offended by what Rush says, choose to be offended, pure and simple.
choose to be offended
Yes, sort of like how Blacks, Jews, and Catholics choose to be offended by the Klan.
It doesn’t matter who believes that Limbaugh is the “de fatso” leader of the Obstructionist Party because perception is what matters. The GOP now has a new, putrid face that only a wingnut could love…and they do.
Limbaugh is now perceived as the “intellectual” (excuse me for using “intellectual” in refering to this maggot)leader of the party.
Keep your pants down Dennis and Dave, now that the rethugs got their shot, it’s El Rushbo’s turn to screw you. You guys are such losers!
In reference to Michael Moore, the substance in any of his documentaries has ever been discredited by reliable sources. So DaveinSoCal, you’re not just wrong but are promoting long decredited talking points. I doubt if you have seen any of his films and if you have, I doubt you understood them.
And I guess I should take your non-answer to my questioning your being an insincere bullshitter as an admission to the affirmative.
Dennis, do you even have the merest trace of some guts to tell us, here and now, who leads the Republican party?
No?
Didn’t think so.
Why are you so ashamed of your own political party?
Why do you hate America?
Oh touche, Oliver. The man who screams moral equivalence as often as Strowbridge screams Southern Strategy.
Why does Mister ed go digging for quotes from Rush Limbaugh, half of them completely unsourced? Because he chooses to.
While Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh are both bloviating gasbags who readily entertain those on their side of the partisan divide and annoy those on the the other, they really can’t be compared. Porkulus has three hours a day to come up with venomous and absurd comments, so naturally he will outdo Moore in volume of outrage, and has been pointed out, Democrats aren’t tripping over themselves to apologize to Moore on a regular basis.
I love how the Teabags find themselves embracing Rush as the voice of what’s left of the conservative movement, while resisting the idea that he is its leader.
“Attend Movie” == “Forced retraction and apology” in a wing nut mind. I remember when it was big news not so long ago that prominent Dem, 4 Star general Wesley Clarke *defended* Moore.
You guys are beyond lame.
Oliver- I’m Catholic, and you chose to put up a picture of a man who had just received ashes on his forehead, along with the caption, ‘Religion is Weird’. I could choose to be offended, but I don’t. I don’t really spend much time thinking about what other people think of someone else’s religion. The guy at Newsbusters that chose to write about your post, I thought to myself “Why would you care what he wrote?’
I just recently finished reading both Christopher Hitchens’ ‘God is not Great’, and Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion’, both which I enjoyed and found each fascinating. I could’ve chosen to be offended, but I didn’t. I could choose to be offended by the idiotic names some of your commenters here are so enamored with using, but I don’t. Rush Limbaugh isn’t the Klan. Poor analogy aside, I see what your point is, but the fact of the matter is, many people go out of their way to act offended by the guy. A good portion of the people here who talk about him incessantly are definitely in that category.
You guys think talking about Limbaugh is a winner and an effective distraction from Obama
It just sounded good reading it off his telePrompter.
Wow. Admonish us for talking about distractions and then whip that out.
Careful, Denny, you’re gonna pull a hammi.
Goddammit, that is fucking irritating. I’m copying and pasting all my comments from now on.
Jaims- You just said Limbaugh was. You said it definitively. Now you are asking me who is the leader. Are you doubting yourself already?
Oh, don’t be coy. Jaim said he is. You said he isn’t. If he isn’t, who is?
Duros, it’s still up in the air. A few can make claims, if they like, but there’s no clear single leader. For example, both Steele and McCain could make debatable claims.
If the Republicans decide to cede the power to choose their leader to the Democrats and the nutroots, who think they have an advantage to gain by making it Limbaugh (by repeating it over and over… gee, where have I heard that strategy before), then they’re screwed. Not necessarily because of it being Limbaugh, but because they will have allowed the opposition to dictate the results.
J.
Got a chuckle out of this:
>Do you even know what a lie is?
Long-ish time commenters will recognize the irony of that statement coming from Southern Strategy Strowbridge, for whom anything he disagrees with is a ‘lie’. Thanks SSS!
Rush Limbaugh isn’t the Klan.
Well yeah, the Klan has the guts to admit that they are racist knuckle draggers.
Well yeah, the Klan has the guts to admit that they are racist knuckle draggers.– Oliver Willis
Rush just challenged the smartest man in the world to a debate and offered to pay all the expenses. I think he has guts enough, Oliver.
Do Joe Biden and Hillary not have the guts to admit they’re racists?
The man who screams moral equivalence as often as Strowbridge screams Southern Strategy.
Did the Republican Party suddenly abandon the Southern Strategy? When? I must have missed that news conference.
Why does ed go digging for quotes from Rush Limbaugh, half of them completely unsourced?
Such as? Examples? Which paled in comparison to the worst things that Michael Moore ever said?
Tell us Dennis, who is the liberal Ann Coulter? Michael Savage? Bill O’Reilly? How are they equivalent?
Do Joe Biden and Hillary not have the guts to admit they’re racists?
What did Biden and Hillary say which was as bad or worse than the worst of Limbaugh (et al)? Please be specific and show your work. And did they apologize? Did Rush? The answers may not surprise anyone Reality Based.
Hey Dennis, which is funnier: a Sarah Palin rally or Free Republic comments?
Tell us Dennis, who is the liberal Ann Coulter? Michael Savage? Bill O’Reilly? How are they equivalent?
I understand if you haven’t heard of them — lord knows I wish I hadn’t — but I’d toss out names like Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, Stephanie Miller (who called for Limbaugh’s execution for treason this week on Larry King), Bill Maher, Randi Rhodes, Rachel Maddow, Mike Malloy… if there’s one thing we’re NOT lacking, it’s liberal commentators.
I understand if you don’t think it’s fair to compare them to Limbaugh. I should have said it more clearly earlier — neither Michael Moore nor any one else (or any three or five else) has had Limbaugh’s absolutely phenomenal success and popularity. One doesn’t have to agree with him, listen to him, or even like him to recognize that — I think his last contract was for almost half a billion dollars. It’s hardly his fault that he’s so much more successful than the rest.
J.
Michael Moore has been married to Kathleen Glynn since 1990. None of Rush Limbaugh’s three marriages have lasted as long.
Michael Moore has never had a drug problem.
So, yeah, they’re just alike! And Rush is obviously the one who respects virtue and ethics, like all good Republicans!
You know what? Let’s take the “fatso” thing off the table, while we’re at it.
They’re both fat. I dislike Rush with a passion, but I still wish he would lose weight for his own sake. I don’t hate him – or anyone else – enough to wish them the painful, humiliating death that obesity can present.
That being said, I know that people have taken Moore to taken on blogs he reads about his weight. Back when I voted Republican, I tried to get people to attack him on his weight expressly with the hope we could irritate him enough to lose weight (and in the process, save his life).
I’d cheerfully do the same thing to Rush. Do you honestly think he’d listen? That he reads blogs about him? Hell, he doesn’t even listen to the Republican party – if he did, he’d do the smart thing and go on vacation for a week.
I’d toss out names like Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, Stephanie Miller (who called for Limbaugh’s execution for treason this week on Larry King), Bill Maher, Randi Rhodes, Rachel Maddow, Mike Malloy… …I understand if you don’t think it’s fair to compare them to Limbaugh.
But what, specifically, did these people say or do which is on par with the worst of Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter. Please show your work. We’re gonna need some examples. Otherwise, this is yet another example of wingnutzz spewing false equivalence. Thanks in advance.
Rachel Maddow? Really? Did she say anything like “I hope you get AIDS and die!” as did Michael Savage. Did she ever mock someone with a crippling disease, as Limbaugh did to Michael J. Fox? Did she ever come close to saying that she wishes Timothy McVeigh had blown up Fox News, as Coulter said of the New York Times? Same for the others. I’ll cite any of these if you really wish, but a simple Googling should do it for you. But you know what they said. You got something as bad or worse from liberals (Maher isn’t liberal, by the way)? I didn’t think so. But please, keep defending the shitheads of the right wing and the modern Republican party. It suits you.
“But please, keep defending the shitheads of the right wing and the modern Republican party. It suits you.”
But remember, he doesn’t care about party politics.
Comparing Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow to Rush Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter… It’s proof the man is worthless.
I was just listing some of the more popular liberal commentators. But if you want egregious conduct, last week Stephanie Miller went on Larry King and said Limbaugh should be executed for treason. Randi Rhodes got into hot water for bitching about Bush and playing gunshots in the background. Olbermann has a Hitler fixation. And Franken has a history of threatening his detractors with violence — in person.
But back to the topic at hand… Moore was feted by the Democratic powers that be in 2004, and given the chance to address the Democratic National Convention. Nationally, Democrats rallied around Franken to put him in the US Senate. Limbaugh… well, Limbaugh gets invited to speak to a conference. And not a Republican conference, but a conservative one.
You know, maybe the Limbaugh/Moore comparison isn’t fair after all… to Limbaugh.
J.
Rush just challenged the smartest man in the world to a debate and offered to pay all the expenses. I think he has guts enough, Oliver.
Oh bullshit. Rush is betting he won’t take him up on it.
Olbermann has a Hitler fixation.
Wha..?
J.G.Thayer: “Olbermann has a Hitler fixation.”
Duros: “Wha..?”
O’Reilly accused American troops of committing war crimes when it was the Nazis that did so. Olbermann smacked him around because of that, and when O’Reilly responded, he made it worse. So Olbermann for weeks after Olbermann kept bringing up Hilter when talking about O’Reilly.
That means Olbermann has a Hilter obsession. At least in the diseased mind of J.G.Thayer.
You see, it’s like when I bring up the Southern Strategy when the GOP has one of their many racist outbursts. It happened so often, than J.G.Thayer started attacking me for bringing it up.
It’s amazing, you commit the same sin over and over again, you then get to attack the people who point it out for having an obsession about it.
Who’s Stephanie Miller?
A prominent Dem talking head she is not if I haven’t heard of her.
J.G.Thayer: “ed, would that be considered “raising the bar” or “moving the goalposts?”
Moore’s movie was clearly labeled as an attempt to get Bush defeated in 2004, and its DC premiere brought out the leading Democrats in the hundreds — and they sang its praises.”
Has any Democrat insulted Moore than was forced to apologize?
No?
Then shut the fuck up, you whiny little turd.
I was just listing some of the more popular liberal commentators. But if you want egregious conduct, last week Stephanie Miller went on Larry King and said Limbaugh should be executed for treason. Randi Rhodes got into hot water for bitching about Bush and playing gunshots in the background. Olbermann has a Hitler fixation. And Franken has a history of threatening his detractors with violence — in person.
Citations, please. Thanks in advance.
Back to the topic at hand…
Are the liberals in question worse than Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter, etc.? Why or why not? Team Reality Based has made its case, time for you to make yours.
Olbermann has a Hitler fixation.
In particular, could you please explain this one? Are you serious? Stay classy, Team Southern Strategy.
Rush just challenged the smartest man in the world to a debate and offered to pay all the expenses.
I officially throw down the challenge. I call out Rush Limbaugh to debate me on any topic. I’ll pay his airfare to anywhere he chooses to meet me to debate.
Pretty ballsy, right?
ed, you want sources? No problem.
Miller on Limbaugh: hotair.com/archives/2009/03/06/video-stephanie-miller-wants-rush-executed-larry-king-shrugs/
Randi Rhodes on shooting Bush: radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2005/04/gunshot-warning-has-secret-service.html
Olbermann: images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Olbermann+Nazi+Salute&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2
Franken: /sayanythingblog.com/entry/al_franken_attacks_heckler/
hotair.com/archives/2008/10/17/franken-gets-nasty-again/
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016736.php
J.
fafaroo, there’s a slight problem of standing. You’re a nobody.
No insult intended; we’re all nobodies.
But Obama has raised Limbaugh to roughly equal standing: he and his surrogates are pushing Limbaugh as the head of the Republican party. Well, Obama — as sitting president — is the de facto head of the Democratic party. It would be a match of equals.
Yes, the RNC has a chairman, and it ain’t Limbaugh. But the DNC has a chairman, too, and it ain’t Obama.
J.
No, Obama is not “the head of the Democratic Party”. That’s Governor Tim Kaine, the current head of the DNC.
Obama is the President of the United States of America.
“It would be a match of equals.”
Umm, no. That’s the whole reason why Rahm Emmanuel pushed this.
The Democrats are lead by a charismatic, thoughtful leader.
The Republican party is led by a drug-addled racist.
But I’ll ask you the same question I asked Dennis — why aren’t you embracing Rush as your party’s leader? Shouldn’t that be a great honor?
Or could it be — gasp! — that the Republican Party is so bereft of decent leadership that they must choose either to embrace a bigot like Rush or renounce their party?
You’ve been played.
And unlike the RNC, the DNC actually respect their chairman. Why, it’s almost as if he knows how to do the job properly…
Obama is the Republican’s president, too. It’s not as if (as Rush has suggested) that there’s a Democratic and Republican section of the country, with separate economic policies for each. He’s not a “de facto”, ad hoc leader, either, come to think of it: as I recall, there was an official ceremony of some kind.
In short, Rush, big as he is, is by no means anywhere near in stature to Obama. A casual comment by Obama and the bloviations of several talking heads doth not confer royalty.
And that’s the kicker: Rush isn’t the head of the Republicans. No one elected him, no one appointed him. A few Democrats opined that it was so. It’s in the Republican’s best interest to deny it, loudly and firmly. Clinton understood that it’s important to shuck unpopular radicals in your own party: remember Sister Souljah? The first Repulbican who showed some cojones and rejected Rush had the potential to gain a whole lot of moderate votes.
But none of them will, because none of them think in those terms anymore. It’s all about appeasing a dwindling base, which guarantees them irrelevance. Rush’s listening audience, vast as it is, is fundamentally incapable of electing anyone; they’re outnumbered by the sane people in every state. But there you are.
Democratic Party Leader Keith Olbermann Is a Lying Resume-Padding Liar
Weekly Standard? Bill Kristol’s rag?
Dennis you are honestly one of the dumbest people I’ve ever had the pleasure of dealing with.
But please — I’d love to hear about the Democratic politician who retracted his statement after coming under attack from Olbermann.
Matthew, please — read my entire comment. Kaine is the head of the DNC, like Steele is the head of the RNC. But Obama is the highest elected Democrat, and traditionally the president is the head of his party — who often gets to name the party chairman.
Obama and his surrogates have chosen to try to make Limbaugh Obama’s counterpart on the GOP side. Limbaugh is taking them up on it, and issuing a challenge based on that perceived equal status.
If nothing else, it’s good entertainment — and that is Limbuagh’s stock in trade.
J.
No, they haven’t. They’ve named Rush the head of the GOP; Head of the minority party<President of the United States.
I will confess, however, that my post immediately following the one you cite makes a tad more sense. The first one was crafted without benefit of coffee.
Matthew, Obama has multiple hats. He’s the president AND he’s the de facto party head. It’s in that latter role that he is being challenged by Limbaugh — and it’s a challenge brought about by Obama’s own machinations in trying to cast Limbaugh as the de facto Republican leader. Limbaugh is just taking Obama’s plan to its next logical progression — a development Obama and his minions didn’t think through well enough.
Has directly attacking Limbaugh EVER done any real harm to him?
J.
But please — I’d love to hear about the Democratic politician who retracted his statement after coming under attack from Olbermann. Ex-pat Jaims
Good God, Jaims, you’re like the people with bad breath at a party who keep jabbering to you making the same mundane point over and over. You think Carville and Forehead Begala’s ploy is such a wonderful strategy that you insist on repeating it over and over to people on a blog. To people who know all about it already. It’s kind of pathetic.
What can I say — when it comes to hardball/tactical politics, the Dems are playing you guys like fiddles.
But Dennis, you remain the fat guy at the Sizzler buffet. The food here at oliverwillis.com is so terrible! And the portions are so small! You actively troll a liberal/Dem weblog, and then bitch when liberal/Dem types congratulate themselves on a victory.
Kind of strange behavior, no?
btw, Jaim is kind of my nickname, and James is my given name. Jaims doesn’t really make sense.
But again, as always, I appreciate you reading my blog. Your attention to me is a little creepy, I’ll admit, but hey — no worries.
And I’d still love to hear just who is the head of the GOP these days. Obviously not Steele, since Limbaugh controls him. Boehner at 15% approval? Jindal, a national laughingstock? Palin, an even bigger one?
Please enlighten me with your mad smarts!
Jaim, there isn’t a clear Repbublican party leader at the moment. Like I told Duros above:
it’s still up in the air. A few can make claims, if they like, but there’s no clear single leader. For example, both Steele and McCain could make debatable claims.
Obama and his minions are seeing this void, and rushing (if you’ll pardon the expression) to fill it with Limbaugh, because they think that they can set him up, then knock him down — and take down the Republican party with him.
Ain’t gonna work. Limbaugh is just too damned good at taking attacks and turning them back on the attackers. Remember that whole “phony soldiers” bullshit Media Matters tried to hit him with? It ended up a huge net plus for Limbaugh, and left the Senate Democrats looking like asses. Admittedly, that’s not that much of a challenge, but it still happened.
The Democrats are much better at getting in line and pledging fealty to their leaders. Republicans are a bit more ornery and individualistic and contrarian. It takes them a while to work these things out.
J.
“Republicans are a bit more ornery and individualistic and contrarian.”
Like when Michael Steel dutifully apologized for his thought crimes against Comrade Limbaugh? What an utterly ridiculous statement. If anything, historically, it’s the Dems who can’t shoot straight when it comes to presenting a message and sticking to it. Republicans? The party of boot-lickers and power-worshippers. They shall never slur the all-powerful name of Comrade Rush, lest they suffer the punishment of Michael Steele — the head of the Repulican freakin’ National Committee!
The point isn’t to knock Rush down. Far from it. The point is to shine a light on his bigotry and moral failings in order to alienate moderates and independents from ever voting Republican again. He is your leader and your spiritual guru — and beyond the hardcore wing-nuts, he will never expand the party beyond the absolutely paltry state it’s in today.
I’ve admitted as much — this is tactical, short-term stuff. And it’s working like a charm. As a side-benefit, it also demonstrates just how destitute the GOP is now — Boehner? Palin? Jindal? A has-been like GINGRICH?
The GOP may not be doomed, but it definitely won’t matter for a good ten years or so, possibly longer.
Remember that whole “phony soldiers” bullshit Media Matters tried to hit him with? It ended up a huge net plus for Limbaugh, and left the Senate Democrats looking like asses.
I guess that explains how the Democrats lost the Senate.
Jay, you’re missing the point. Obama could care less about Rush Limbaugh. The point is not to weaken him; the point is to weaken the Republican party. Attacking him most certainly does not injure him; it may indeed elevate him.
That’s precisely the result the Democrats want. They want the focus on Rush Limbaugh, Face of the Republican party. Because that face is repulsive to the majority of American voters.
And there’s no way on earth that debate would happen. Get real. What’s the benefit to Obama or the Democrats?
The point isn’t to knock Rush down. Far from it. The point is to shine a light on his bigotry and moral failings in order to alienate moderates and independents… –Jaims
Laughable, Jaims. But then again, coming from someone in such a superior vantage point as yours, blogging from some Korean sidewalk cafe, nibbling on a nice piece of roasted puppy dog and some fried chicken feet, I guess I should pay attention to you more.
You’ve far exceeded your expectations of not knocking him down. In fact, you built him up to where his ratings are through the roof. He can’t be losing moderates and independents when his ratings are exploding. You base your observation of working like a charm on what? The fact you guys can’t keep talking about it? You’ve been trying to highlight his bigotry unsuccessfully for close to twenty years, yet somehow you, reporting from Korea, pretend to inform us that it’s working like a charm. Good one.
You’re still just a clueless kid, Jaims. An impressionable, idealistic, immature child with no responsibilities save for how to pay for your entertainment expenses. Someone who chose to leave this country and run away from its problems rather than stay and help make them better. And now you get off on childish games like trying to paint a radio commentator as the face of the party you blame all of your life’s problems for.
Keep running, Jaims.
LOL Dennis actually thinks that a) Limbaugh’s ratings are going up and b) he’s influencing moderates. LOL! You probably also believe he has an audience of 20 million when its really a (respectable) 2.5 million or so, right? LOL.
Dennis, you’re indeed an idiot but fun to watch as you get punched out over and over and over….
Dennis writes “roasted puppy dog and some fried chicken feet”
Wut?
“You’ve far exceeded your expectations of not knocking him down.”
Matthew Hooper said it better than I did. Nobody on the left is trying to destroy Rush. Far from it. We want him to remain the poster-boy and intellectual leader (LOL!) of the Republican party. And we have succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. I mean, just look at yourself — why not proudly embrace Rush as your leader? A bigot, a drug addict, and possibly a pedophile? He is your party. Not sure why you’re so touchy about us Dems pointing out the obvious.
“You’re still just a clueless kid, Jaims. An impressionable, idealistic, immature child with no responsibilities save for how to pay for your entertainment expenses.”
Actually, since you’ve got a great big crush on me and my blog, you should know that I work 50+ hours a week. But I do love me some entertainment, when I have the time. And I moved abroad to make more money, simple as that. The new experiences and adventures are just kind of icing on the cake.
Dennis, you are obviously a very angry person. In addition, I ask this question:
Why do you hate America?
And please stop posting drunk. Have you considered AA?
That means Olbermann has a Hitler obsession.
Seems more of an O’RLY obsession. But I knew that.
Obama and his surrogates have chosen to try to make Limbaugh Obama’s counterpart on the GOP side. Limbaugh is taking them up on it, and issuing a challenge based on that perceived equal status.
And hilarity ensues.
Absolutely, Duros. It’s grand entertainment.
J.
Republicans are a bit more ornery and individualistic and contrarian. It takes them a while to work these things out.
I saw that Pelosi film on HBO last week, and one McCain supporter pretty much summed up the GOP
“We all hate the same things.”
Absolutely, Duros. It’s grand entertainment.
FINALLY, something we agree on.
Dennis, you are obviously a very angry person. In addition, I ask this question:
Why do you hate America? Jaim
Gee, Jaims, I’m not the one who left America for a few extra dollars.
You did.
Why do you hate America? Evidently a certain price would make you love it again.
ed, you want sources? No problem.
Ooh. Wow, that’s so not worse than the 50 worst racist/sexist/homopathic/etc. from the Team Right Wing. But nice try.
So why Rachel Maddow? What’s Olbermann’s Hiter Fixation? Why can’t you back up what you write?
Maddow, as I said, was just lumped in as a popular commentator. I don’t know a thing about her except Olbermann likes her and pushed her to get her MSNBC slot.
Olbermann… well, apart from his fetish for throwing Nazi salutes, is just an asshole — and an incredibly dumb one. The one thing I remember him was the time he compared John Kerry to Senator Sumner — and he had that one so absolutely backwards, I could almost feel my brain cells dying listening to him go at it. He’s a vainglorious, pompous, arrogant, and condescending prick. His using an O’Reilly mask and giving Nazi salutes… that’s just plain stupid.
J.
He’s a vainglorious, pompous, arrogant, and condescending prick. His using an O’Reilly mask and giving Nazi salutes… that’s just plain stupid.
Sometimes he is, I’ll spot you that. And, yes, I think the mask and Nazi salute didn’t help him much, but he was making fun of O’Reilly, not indulging in some “Hitler obsession” as you put it.
I still think he’s more humble than Limbaugh and O’Reilly put together.
I still think he’s more humble than Limbaugh and O’Reilly put together. Duros
He’s not, Duros.
If you’re a fan of The Office, this is hilarious.
Cornell Men: Keith Olbermann & Andy Bernard
I don’t know a thing about her except Olbermann likes her and pushed her to get her MSNBC slot.
Then why would you suggest that she’s as bad or worse than the Right Wing Jagoffs? Jeezus you are a dildo.
His using an O’Reilly mask and giving Nazi salutes… that’s just plain stupid.
??? Examples? Are you somehow suggesting that Olbermann, however stilted he may be is somehow less intelligent, self-aware, or douchey than O’Reilly? The O’Reilly of “motherfucking ice tea” and Andrea Mackris fame? That one? Really? Holy fuck, Penguin.
He’s not, Duros.
Ooh, stinging rebuke from the master. Good one! Zing!
There Is No Democratic Limbaugh
Indeed. But that’s obvious to the Reality Based. Also: There is no jungle in Baltimore. Look it up, man.
He’s not, Duros.
Oh. Well, if you say so. glad we cleared that one up.
J.G.Thayer: “His using an O’Reilly mask and giving Nazi salutes… that’s just plain stupid.”
Yeah, O’Reilly accuses American troops of committing war crimes when it was the Nazis that did so, and it’s Olbermann who is at fault.
Wow. You are simply too stupid to function in the real world.
Dennis: “Good God, Jaims, you’re like the people with bad breath at a party who keep jabbering to you making the same mundane point over and over.”
That’s cause you haven’t come up with a good response yet.
And it’s pissing you off.
You’re mad that Jaim’s come up with a question you can’t answer, so you are attacking him for asking it.
Duros said about Olbermann: I still think he’s more humble than Limbaugh and O’Reilly put together.
I think you’re starting to stretch the limits of quantum physics here, Duros… the egos of all three men come close to being off the charts. In Limbaugh’s case, it’s part of his schtick, and with O’Reilly it’s more of a pompous windbag thing. Olbermann just comes across as a smarmy “I’m so much smarter than everyone else” prick. I find all three of them irritating, with Olbermann just a smidgen more so than the others.
J.
“I think you’re starting to stretch the limits of quantum physics here, Duros… the egos of all three men come close to being off the charts. In Limbaugh’s case, it’s part of his schtick, and with O’Reilly it’s more of a pompous windbag thing. Olbermann just comes across as a smarmy ‘I’m so much smarter than everyone else’ prick. I find all three of them irritating, with Olbermann just a smidgen more so than the others.”
Olbermann has declared himself the “Worst Person in the World” on at least two occasions. That doesn’t sound like the person you described. That sounds like someone who can laugh at himself.
Can you list examples of the other two doing the same?
Not really, Strowbridge. As I said, I don’t care much for either of them. And since I don’t work for Media Matters, nobody’s paying me to watch them.
And all your point shows is that Olbermann is not a complete, utter, self-obsessed prick, who is — on one or two occasions — not totally beyond self-awareness.
Maybe it’s all part of the Great Southern Strategy ™ conspiracy or something…
J.
Me: “Can you list examples of the other two doing the same?”
J.G.Thayer: “Not really, Strowbridge. As I said, I don’t care much for either of them. And since I don’t work for Media Matters, nobody’s paying me to watch them.”
Translation: ‘I have no evidence either way, but by god I have made up my mind and nothing will change it!’
“And all your point shows is that Olbermann is not a complete, utter, self-obsessed prick, who is — on one or two occasions — not totally beyond self-awareness.”
And that’s more evidence than you’ve given, so I guess you admit I’m right and you are wrong.
“Maybe it’s all part of the Great Southern Strategy ™ conspiracy or something… ”
Strangely enough, you are more obsessed with the Southern Strategy than I am. You’ve brought it up more often than I have in the past week or so.
Actually, the whole point of this thread was that Olbermann or Michael Moore can’t be analogized with Rush, because Rush in fact has actual, proven powers to make Republican politicians and party leaders change their statements when they dare to criticize Great Comrade Rush. Are there Dem politicians who _like_ Michael Moore? Probably. Do they pee themselves when they dare to criticize Michael Moore? No, because people like Howard Dean and Harry Reid have never felt the need to do so. And if they did, so what? People in the reality-based community disagree and argue all the time. Conservatives? Not so much. We musn’t offend Great Comrade Rush, ever.
All you and Dennis have done, Jay, is spew verbiage about Dem talking heads, none of whom has ever shown the actual, awesome power to make a Democratic politician change his or her words for fear of incurring Rush’s anger at not following his dictatorial reign.
I mean, it’s cute how you and Dennis try and converse like adults, but it just ends up showing how infantile and asinine you truly are. And further, why not just embrace it? If Rush is such a great asset, and his belief that he and the other cons must a) hope Obama, and therefore America fails and b) avoid trying to grow the “Big Tent” of the GOP since it’s a waste of time, despite the fact that demographic trends show that without some black, hispanic, or female votes changing to “R,” the party is literally doomed, why not just come out and say to Obama’s face “Damn right he’s my leader! My porcine, drug-addicted, possibly pedophilic, thrice-divorced leader! Hurrah!” Stick it to the man, Jay and Dennis!
Just face the facts. A sweaty drug-addict who enjoys sex tourism is your spiritual and intellectual leader. Amen.
David Duke / Sarah Palin 2012!!!
Thing about KO, he is much smarter than almost everyone else on TV. I mean unless Hannity and co. are hiding some supersecret vigorous intellectual life for fear it will scare off their viewership.
Speaking as someone who often agrees with KO, I can’t stand watching him. His voice is grating, and I’d rather have my opinion plain than larded with self-aggrandizement.
But compared to Tucker Carlson or Falafel O’Reilly, he’s a regular Socrates.
Maybe it’s all part of the Great Southern Strategy ™ conspiracy or something…
Yes, that’s it Jay, pretend there’s no such thing as the Southern Strategy. Checked out a Palin rally video lately?
Jaim says: “Speaking as someone who often agrees with KO, I can’t stand watching him. His voice is grating, and I’d rather have my opinion plain than larded with self-aggrandizement.”
I like him being smarmy. Too often liberals are too willing to be polite to opposing views, even the ones that are powerfully retarded.
Like the recent talk of a spending freeze.
“Yes, that’s it Jay, pretend there’s no such thing as the Southern Strategy. Checked out a Palin rally video lately?”
Here’s a quote from Lee Atwater that J.G.Thayer will never address directly…
“You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”
See that last part? The Republican economic policy is rooted in the Southern Strategy. as described by Lee Atwater himself.
But go ahead, Mr.Thayer, and pretend the problem doesn’t exist. That will certainly help the GOP remain a minority for a long, long time.
“And all your point shows is that Olbermann is not a complete, utter, self-obsessed prick, who is — on one or two occasions — not totally beyond self-awareness.”
The defense rests. Thank you for making my point, Jay.
Jaim says: “Speaking as someone who often agrees with KO, I can’t stand watching him. His voice is grating, and I’d rather have my opinion plain than larded with self-aggrandizement.”
CSS says:
I like him being smarmy. Too often liberals are too willing to be polite to opposing views, even the ones that are powerfully retarded.
Yeah but do you remember the “Number ! story on the Countdown” was his appearance on The Simpsons?
We get it, Keith.
Oh, and I’d pay money never to see or hear Michael Musto ever again.
Sheesh. Strowbridge is easier than Pavlov’s dog.
Address it? Yeah, sure. Atwater was an asshole. I didn’t like him when he was alive, I didn’t like him when he had his deathbed come-to-Jesus moment almost 20 years ago, and I don’t like him now.
Atwater’s analysis was also wrong. He was coupling racism with policies that are not innately racial. There are compelling arguments to be made on the issues he raised — busing, state’s rights, taxes. Race is not the be-all and end-all of everything.
It’s much like the stock liberal answer on gun control. It’s blaming the tool for the way it is used. If racists support lower taxes, then the only reason someone would support lower taxes is because they’re racist. If parents don’t want their kids bused to another school, it’s not because they don’t want their kids to spend an hour or more each way on a bus, it’s because they want their kids protected from those people. And people who would much rather have power in the hands of their state government, with officials they can more readily contact and influence, and not in Washington, DC, then they must be segregationists at heart.
It’s simplistic, it’s stupid, and it’s quintessentially Strowbridge.
Here’s a quote from Lee Atwater that J.G.Thayer will never address directly…
Guess that makes you a lying liar… by your own standards (such as they are), of course.
J.
I didn’t like him when he was alive, I didn’t like him when he had his deathbed come-to-Jesus moment almost 20 years ago, and I don’t like him now.
Right. You should keep on pretending that the modern Republican party isn’t the party of Lee Atwater, straw boy.
J.G.Thayer: “Address it? Yeah, sure. Atwater was an asshole.”
Which is why you support the GOP Policies he helped form.
Because you are a racist asshole.
“Atwater’s analysis was also wrong. He was coupling racism with policies that are not innately racial.”
Except he’s the one who designed these policies. So who knows more about their origins than he does?
Certainly not you.
Me: “Here’s a quote from Lee Atwater that J.G.Thayer will never address directly…”
J.G.Thayer: “Guess that makes you a lying liar… by your own standards (such as they are), of course.”
Except you didn’t address it. You dismissed it.
The quote shows that racism is at the core of the GOP position on nearly every topic. They use racism at the basis of their tax policy. Lee Atwater admitted as much, and he’s the one who helped create it.
You didn’t address that issue, you instead choose to claim the person who was at the heart of the matter was wrong.
That’s not addressing the quote. That’s burying your head in the sand.
The GOP uses racism as a guide in everything from states rights to taxes. So says the man who helped create these policies 20 odd years ago. You saying he is wrong about his motives is not addressing the issue, it’s running away.
Do I have to say it in another way? Or will you be late for a Klan meeting and unable to respond?
Strowbridge, I addressed the quote, in detail. I discussed every aspect of it. And then I dismissed it. But apparently to you, “address” means “agree with you.”
And then you go off on a bunch of ad hominem attacks. That’s not a complaint, mind you — I’ve come to use you as a negative touchstone. The more you disapprove of me, the more confident I am that I’m on the right track.
Which is why you support the GOP Policies he helped form.
No, you moron. By your own description, Atwater didn’t “form” anything. Your argument is that he took a bunch of pre-existing positions and beliefs and consolidated them into the infamous “Southern Strategy.” There were plenty of people, for plenty of reasons, who believed in each element that you cited. Atwater added NOTHING. He created nothing.
Except he’s the one who designed these policies. So who knows more about their origins than he does?
As you yourself noted, the specifics were already long-standing before Atwater came up with his “Southern Strategy.” And he’s been dead a long time.
And since when did Atwater get canonized? At what point did his every word become Gospel? When did he acquire infallibility?
Because you are a racist asshole.
Or will you be late for a Klan meeting and unable to respond?
Oh, just fuck off and die. I don’t know why I even pretend to take you seriously. I have more respect for the dog shit I scraped off my shoe last night. At least it doesn’t have pretensions of integrity. It’s perfectly honest about what it is.
J.
J.G.Thayer: “Strowbridge, I addressed the quote…”
No you didn’t. You claimed the person who came up with the GOP policy was less knowledgeable about HIS OWN MOTIVES than you are. That’s not addressing the quote, that’s pretending it doesn’t exist.
This was the guy at the heart of the GOP political machine for a decade. You are some loser with a Blog. Or some loser who used to have a Blog.
“No, you moron. By your own description, Atwater didn’t ‘form’ anything. Your argument is that he took a bunch of pre-existing positions and beliefs and consolidated them into the infamous ‘Southern Strategy.’”
No. He took the old “Southern Strategy”, which he described as, ‘Nigger, Nigger, Nigger!’ and changed it into its current form. He changed it. It helped create it in its current form.
He knows why it did the thinks he did more than you do.
“There were plenty of people, for plenty of reasons, who believed in each element that you cited.”
It doesn’t matter. The heart of the GOP strategy is racist. It doesn’t matter that you can want lower taxes and not be racist. (Well, you can’t. Because you are racist.) What matters is the GOP decided to be the party of smaller taxes to appeal to racist people.
And they haven’t changed. Attacking illegal immigration is the perfect example now. If the problem was illegal immigration, they wouldn’t complain about have a Spanish language debate. You wouldn’t have Bill O’Reilly claiming Democrats are trying to use immigration to tear down the ‘White, Christian, power base.’
“And since when did Atwater get canonized? At what point did his every word become Gospel? When did he acquire infallibility?”
When talking about what he did and why, his word is gospel. Who else should we trust on the matter? You?
Me: “Because you are a racist asshole.”
“Or will you be late for a Klan meeting and unable to respond?”
Oh, just fuck off and die.
Face it, Mr. Thayer. The reason you work so hard to minimize the Southern Strategy is because it is racist, and it reminds you that you are racist.
Admit it, when you think of a welfare recipient, you think of a black woman with ‘too many kids’. Am I right?