The Limbaugh Aversion and America's Apathy

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by NeoRio1, Mar 5, 2009.

  1. There are in my opinion two main factors contributing towards this entirely artificial importance-lacking controversy about Limbaugh. The first factor is what I would like to call the aversion from truth and the ambition of Limbaugh. In order to understand the controversy one needs to understand the motives behind why such a controversy is happening in the first place. The second factor artificially exploding this controversy is the fact that the American people do not want to turn on their cable news and be reminded of financial doom. That in turn persuades the media to display topics that are both irrelevant and truth distracting.

    The Obama administration and Washington pushing for further spending want further spending. In order to gain further spending they must avoid any skeptical moderate movement against further spending. The best way to stop such a movement from happening would be to create controversies that distract the average American moderate from grasping the actual spending going on within Washington. All the Obama Administration had to do was create an explosive controversy and also distract the masses from the real dealings of Washington. Rush was the prime candidate seeing that he loves controversies with him in the middle.

    The media knows the personality traits of America. America has a deep attraction towards the superficial while the media has a deep need for higher ratings that highly out value any pursuit of real knowledge. The entertainment Americans value (reality shows, celebrity gossip) more than prove that argument. If I was wrong and America was actually attracted towards honest debate, cold statistics and the overall truth then C-SPAN would be number one in the ratings.

    If you disagree with my analysis of the argument your only illogical argument against mine is that the American people are truth seeking geniuses and they truly do want to be informed about the broken republican party. The only problem with that argument is that whether truth seeker or not people knew the republican party was broken after the election and many knew it was broken before with the nation building and big government.

    The success of this controversy only further proves that Washington will continue to spend recklessly and that America has no care or respect for the truth and therefore itself. Things will only change once people have a personal need for the truth and by that time their need for the truth is irrelevant. An apathetic country at it's finest.
     
  2. Limbaugh is not a true conservative, and certainly doesn't warrant the sort of respect that a George Will, a David Brooks, and certainly not a Ron Paul warrant.

    He is a populist, venom spewing DJ, had noo real intellectual heft behind any of his rants that offer any credible alternative to the problems most conservatives are complaining about, and he's a big part of the reason the Republicans just got their asses handed to them, and will continue to have, because the Dem Machine has now figured out how to portray Limbaugh as the figurehead of the GOP...an Limbaugh is disliked by an overwhelming majority of the American People.

    If you actually think the Limbaughs and Coulters of the world actually help the GOP cause, you're just ignorant of demographics and modern political trends.
     
  3. Limbaugh is a "defend the republican party" guy at all costs. He is a partisan who is convinced that the worst republican administration is better than the best democratic administration. Of course there is a similar percentage of partisan hacks on both sides it's just Limbaugh gets all the attention instead of Franken and Olbermann.

    Besides that I know people either like or dislike Limbaugh and so does everyone else. No surprise there. I am not questioning Limbaughs popularity or political beliefs. I am questioning the true motives as to why the Obama administration not only continues but adds gasoline to the fire of the Limbaugh controversy. The only reasoning I can come up with is the fact that the Obama administration wants to distract the American public from the dealings and massive spending of Washington.

    What do you think?
     
  4. I think that the GOP is becoming a regional, southern, white-only party in a country that is one of disparate segments in terms of ethnicity, race, religion and creed.

    Look at Franken beating Norm Coleman in Minnesota, or the fact that GEORGIA'S Saxby Chambliss had to have a run-off election in the deep south (granted, there was an Obama effect on election day, but still).

    Look at Virginia, where first Allen and then Warner crushed their opponents.

    Look at Colorado, New Mexico and even Arizona, which the GOP has to compete in now for the first time ever.

    The GOP is bereft of ideas or alternatives. They are the opposition party, and will remain neutered until a true leader with real substance emerges, and that's not Rush Limbaugh.

    You guys sit around and rightly or wrongly complain about Obama. Guess what? The people that hang out here are far different than the American Populace as a whole.

    Do you want to regain power by winning elections with favorable personalities that have good and new ideas, or do you want to be stuck in a rut as the dogmatic, stubborn party of no?
     
  5. Both David Brook and Christopher Buckley have admitted they misjudged Obama. This is what Limbaugh has been saying.....its not policy that makes you a conservative it is the principles. Once you have your core principles set policy is fairly easy to lay down.
    If one has conservatives principles it is hard to be a so called moderate conservative.

    ________________________________
    Brooks:
    Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/opinion/03brooks.html?_r=1
    __________________________
    Buckley:
    He tells us that all this is going to work because the economy is going to be growing by 3.2 percent a year from now. Do you believe that? Would you take out a loan based on that? And in the three years following, he predicts that our economy will grow by 4 percent a year.

    This is nothing if not audacious hope. If he’s right, then looking back, March 2009 will be the dawn of the Age of Stimulation, or whatever elegant phrase Niall Ferguson comes up with. If he turns out to be wrong, then it will look very different, the entrance ramp to the Road to Serfdom, perhaps, and he will reap the whirlwind that follows, along with the rest of us.


    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-01/the-audacity-of-nope/full/
     
  6. I know that you think the GOP is in the gutter.

    I was asking what you think about the Obama administration adding fuel to the fire of the Limbaugh controversy almost daily. There has to be a motive other than informing people that the republican party lost the election four months ago?

    I think the reason the Obama administration keeps hyping up the controversy is because they want to distract the country from the massive spending.

    If you disagree then at least provide me with a logical reason as to why the Obama administration hypes up the Limbaugh controversy all the time....
     
  7. wjk

    wjk

    It's a dem trick that is really getting old, but still effective. It doesn't look like the republicans have figured out how to respond or defend against it. Rush will take the place of Bush as the object of hate to keep support for the Republican Party from returning. Even Dick Morris admitted that they intentionally made Newt the evil face back in the 90's to help get Clinton re-elected.

    Perhaps it's all about the 2010 election and preventing an unpopular spending spree from having a big impact on that election in a way that would benefit republicans.
     
  8. Neo, I'm not one to 'lazy out' of a question, but I also rarely see an op/ed piece that so perfectly conforms to my own thoughts, so I'll post it, and you can read it if you want, and see if you think the author has legitimate points as to why Limbaugh hurts, rather than helps, the GOP, and whether it's intelligent strategy for the Dems to successfully paint Limbaugh as the new face of the GOP (not just an entertainer anymore, as Steele would prefer):

    http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/fears-of-a-clown/?hp

    I personally dislike Limbaugh because he does a disservice to the cause of winning elections, IMO.

    If the GOP is to succeed, they need good ideas, fresh ideas, intellectual integrity, and all of that won't be enough if they can't win elections.

    They need my vote and people like me, and they can only hope for indifference from me, at best, now.

    The need people like me because I'm truly independent, but am socially moderate and lean to the right fiscally, but I see oh what a mess the GOP has made during W's tenure, and I won't be fooled anymore.

    The dems don't need my vote. They only need me to not cast my vote or buy into the GOP, and they will win every time because of the new trends in demographics and urbanization in the U.S.
     
  9. Yes I believe radicals on both sides hurt their own parties but the overall majority of voters aren't basing their votes on which party has more crazies.

    I think we both agree that the so called conservative republicans of the last eight years were not principled republicans. Besides the massive stimulus spending going on within Washington right now and the foreign policy they were no different than big government politicians on the left.

    The difference between us is that you consider the republican party to be in shambles needing CPR and a shock to the heart while I consider it to be just another natural cycle of politics and democracy. They lost the election quite deservingly so. All parties lose elections deservingly. I have no doubt because of the last 8 years and because of the next four years that republicans will again learn their principles and great leaders will arise. No one man right now can remind people how sparkly and amazing conservatism is. Liberalism will remind people.

    It goes in cycles.

    Limbaugh may turn moderates off but it will be Obama's spending and the money coming out of people's pockets which will revive the conservative movement. Look at the last 50 years.
     
  10. Thursday, March 05, 2009

    Larry Elder

    It's Not the Economy, Stupid -- It's Limbaugh

    "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," the newly installed President Obama told Capitol Hill Republicans.

    Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, just days ago, called the popular conservative radio talk show host "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party." Then Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele appeared on a CNN show hosted by comedian-turned-pundit D.L. Hughley. When Hughley called Limbaugh "the de facto leader of the Republican Party," Steele stepped right on top of the trap. "No," said Steele, "I'm the de facto leader of the Republican Party," and called Limbaugh an "entertainer" whose show can be "incendiary" and "ugly." Steele later apologized to Limbaugh. Game, set and match.

    As the tax-and-spend policies of the Obama administration extend and deepen the recession, the new administration's strategy to deal with the fallout becomes clearer and clearer.

    Blame Rush Limbaugh.

    The Democrats, according to Politico.com, took a poll and discovered that Limbaugh polled higher "negatives" than those of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and radical "reform educator" William Ayers. Given the departure of their reliable pinatas -- former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney -- Democrats believe they've found a new Darth Vader.

    Blame Rush Limbaugh.

    In the waning, pre-TARP days of the Bush administration, the national deficit stood at about $500 billion. A panicked Bush and Congress then voted for the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program to "bail out" the banks. Obama signed a $789 billion economic "stimulus" package, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced a $2.5 trillion "rescue plan" for the financial system. Even CNBC's Jim Cramer, a former Obama supporter, called the administration's approach the "greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a president."

    Blame Rush Limbaugh.

    Obama, as part of his $3.6 billion budget, intends to spend -- strike that -- "invest" on things such as creating "green jobs," combating the effects of "climate change," health care and enabling "homeowners" to remain in their unaffordable homes. How does the President intend to pay for all these things? He wants to tax "the rich" -- those earning $250,000 or more. He also promises to close "tax loopholes" taken advantage of by the wealthy. What to do when this European-style redistribution of wealth fails to achieve its desired objectives?

    Blame Rush Limbaugh.

    The U.S. government already controls nearly 50 percent of health care spending. The Obama administration, through regulation and mandates, intends for government to control the rest. What happens when -- as in Canada, France and elsewhere -- this fails to achieve its stated goal of accessibility, affordability and accountability?

    Blame Rush Limbaugh.

    The 20 banks that received the most of the original TARP money actually reduced, not increased, their lending. And some used the money to buy other institutions. So how does the administration explain the failure of the "bailout" money to "unfreeze" lending?

    Blame Rush Limbaugh.

    The government now holds equity positions in several institutions, including, but not limited to, the giant insurer AIG. Since taking these positions, the government's market value has dropped, placing the taxpayers deeper and deeper in the hole. General Motors, one of the Small Three, received -- so far -- some $13.4 billion in federal loans. But its losses continue, and GM now says it needs an additional $16.6 billion.

    Blame Rush Limbaugh.

    The president promised to eliminate pork, earmarks and/or special projects designed to please constituents. The $789 billion spending spree plan he recently signed is larded with pork-barrel projects. How does he square this legislation with his promise to end pork spending?

    Blame Rush Limbaugh.

    Republicans deserve harsh criticism for failing to rein in non-defense, non-homeland security spending when they controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress. Republicans helped gut the Freedom to Farm Act (designed to wean farmers from subsidies); OK'd pork-riddled energy and highway bills; expanded the federal government's role in education through, among other things, the No Child Left Behind Act; passed -- with the prescription benefits bill for seniors -- the largest expansion of Medicare in decades; and increased government regulation as much as or more than under Democratic administrations.

    But the Obama administration now puts spending on steroids, and all but three Republicans voted against the latest legislation. How does the Obama administration explain its failure to achieve its vaunted "bipartisanship"?

    Blame Rush Limbaugh.

    RNC Chairman Steele needs to focus on the merits of the Republican approach -- lower taxes, less government domestic spending, and fewer regulations. Punishing high achievers by taxing them destroys incentive and thus destroys jobs. Transferring money from one pocket to another destroys the initiative of the giver and the given. Private capital knows best whether, how and when to "invest." The private sector "creates or saves" jobs, not government. When Obama's "new New Deal" fails to achieve the desired objectives, we already know what happens next.

    Blame Rush Limbaugh, who, by the way, is not just laughing all the way to the bank. At today's bargain-basement prices, he probably owns several.
     
    #10     Mar 5, 2009