Fatman the opportunist is put in his place by Carville

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Feb 2, 2009.

  1. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/01/carville.rush.limbaugh/index.html

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On Thursday, Rush Limbaugh, the moral and intellectual leader and most influential person in the Republican Party in the United States, wrote in the august op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal, the acknowledged epicenter of right-wing thought, that President Obama should adopt a bipartisan solution to address the president's economic stimulus plan -- or as Limbaugh refers to it, "porkulus."

    Limbaugh proposes that because the Democrats got roughly 54 percent of the votes to the Republicans' 46 percent, the stimulus package should be allocated along his definition of ideological lines, i.e. 54 percent towards infrastructure improvement and 46 percent toward tax breaks for Limbaugh and his friends.

    He writes, "Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%.

    "As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me."

    And he is serious. However much one may disagree with the current "daddy" of all Republicans (Beg to differ? See Rep. Phil Gingrey, who apologized last week for doubting Rush), you have to admire El Rushbo's principled stance and his well-known consistent ideology.

    Why surely it seems like just yesterday that Al Gore won the national popular vote in 2000 (and arguably won the popular vote in Florida too).

    Limbaugh must have called for the incoming Bush administration to allocate ideas based on the proportion of election returns. I'm sure President Bush and the Republicans in Congress graciously accepted their 49.5 percent share of everything. (Note: We would be much better off right now had this actually happened.)

    With 50 percent of the federal government during President Bush's term, Democrats might have reduced the deficit (a truly Clintonista idea). Wall Street might have been more heavily regulated and K Street's lobbyists might not have been running the Capitol. Democrats might have invested money into infrastructure improvements so that bridges didn't collapse or entire cities flood.

    We wouldn't have spent $350 million per day in Iraq. Heck, had Democrats been able to control 50 percent of the government from 2000 to 2004, we wouldn't have even gone into Iraq in the first place. There might have been more spending on education and a fully funded No Child Left Behind Act.

    It is a remarkable time in American politics when a respected ideologue like Limbaugh can take to a hyperpartisan place like the pages of The Wall Street Journal, and deliver such a consistent message. We Democrats should congratulate Rush on the purity, intellectual integrity, and consistency of his positions.
  2. Arnie


    If there wasn't some merit to Mr Limbaugh's ideas, Mr Carville wouldn't have bothered to respond.
  3. I do believe that Mr. Carville was pointing to Mr. Limbaugh's hypocrisy.
  4. fhl


    As the democratically controlled congress proceeds to gin up a budget that will produce a trillion dollar deficit, this guy Carville tells us that democrats would have decreased the deficit under Bush. (if they just would have had the chance, hardee har har!)

    Of course he also adds that education isn't getting enough funding. (another joke)

    Is it any wonder that Rush makes millions and Carville makes peanuts and can only be heard on a second place (and class) network?
  5. Oh, so truth is determined by monetary compensation and ratings?

  6. I don't know whose obsession is worse, Carville's with the 2000 election or ZZZ with Rush and Ann coulter. Since Z is beyond help, let's address Carville.

    How cna you take a man seriously who is still reliving the 2000 election like it was yesterday? Even the NY Times has moved on, but Carville just cannot accept the fact that Gore lost, despite the best efforts of Carville and his thugs to steal it. Can't they at least take solace in stealing the minnesota senate seat?

    As for Rush, he is merely taking Obama at his word that he wants to move beyond partisanship. What could be more non-partisan than Rush's proposal? Obama has a choice. Join hands across the aisle to solve our problems or go for politics as usual, as produced by Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Murtha and the rest of the charming crew of democrats.
  7. The Plum LineGreg Sargent's blog
    James Carville To Conservative Bloggers: My Secret Strategy Sessions With White House Don’t Exist

    Conservative bloggers have managed to create a big stink over this Politico story reporting that White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel privately talks with media figures James Carville, Paul Begala, and George Stephanopoulos on a regular basis.

    The bloggers are charging that these calls amount to “secret strategy sessions” that prove liberal media collusion with the Obama administration.

    There’s only one problem: These secret strategy sessions don’t appear to exist.

    Because of these calls — which seem to be just bull sessions between longtime Washington power players, some of whom have crossed from politics into media — CNN is being called on to fire Carville and Begala, and ABC is being pressured to do the same to Stephanopoulos.

    The argument is that the calls show that the networks are supposedly allowing their employees to be “co-opted by the White House,” as the right-wing Red State put it.

    “[T]he networks should tell their employees to cease and desist with these secret planning sessions with the White House and issue apologies to the viewers for not informing them of this secret pipeline to power,” one Red State blogger argued.

    But there don’t appear to be any secret planning sessions.

    That’s what Carville just argued to me moments ago. “They’re not conference calls,” Carville said, denying that any planning or scheming of any kind goes on. He said the conversations were casual banter among friends, and that they weren’t organized: “Since 1992, the four of us have all kind of talked to each other at some point on an almost daily basis.” He dismissed the conservatives’ argument as “absurd” and “humorous.”

    “I’ve spoken to George this morning. Later today Rahm will probably call me. I should be fired because I talk to people who have been my friends for 16 years?” Carville continued, adding that all he can do is “laugh at” the criticism.

    It should be noted that the original Politico story doesn’t even say that there are secret strategy sessions. It just said that these guys call each other to shoot the bull on a regular basis. And ABC is denying, on Stephanopoulos’ behalf, that there are any secret strategy sessions, too, as is the original author of the Politico piece.

    What’s more, Carville and Begala aren’t even reporters. They’re in the opinion biz, and are open Democratic partisans.

    Nonetheless, the networks’ switchboards are apparently getting deluged by complaints about this.

    To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.
  8. Limfat, the fattest and most partisan hack on the radio arguing for non partisanship?

    More than a hypocrite, Fatman is an opportunist of the highest and lowest order all in one...

  9. Indeed. Limbaugh is about as non-partisan as you can get, eh?

    Meanwhile Obama has election promises to keep. Promises that, by all accounts, he plans his best to keep. So I suspect that this might somewhat cramp the wiggle room that Republicans would normally drive their trucks through if they had their way. And so, Obama's election promises may put a bit of a crimp on some of the "flexibility" that Republicans might expect of him.
  10. Yes, we have seen how serious Obama is about his election promises. They seem to have an expiration date. Most expired January 20. Like the one about appointing only people of the highest ethics and not allowing lobbyists to serve in his administration. Most of us would have been satisfied with a pledge not to appoint tax cheats, but as it turned out, that wouldn't have worked either.

    His supporters must be so proud. A cabinet of Clinton retreads, Bush holdovers and tax cheats. That's what I call change you can believe in.
    #10     Feb 2, 2009