Libaral group attacking Rush

Lord, that means I'll have to listen to this partisan tripe, which is clearly based on fallacy as the stimulus passed by the House of Representatives will not create 4 million jobs. Too bad they can't be charged for lying.

Are you with Obama or Rush?
By: Jonathan Martin
January 30, 2009 09:47 AM EST

President Obama and a key outside ally are stepping up efforts to ensure passage of the massive economic stimulus package, reaching out to Congress with both carrots and sticks.

While the president and his top aides are using all the trappings of the office, courting members through phone calls, cocktail parties, West Wing sit-downs and even a politically mixed Super Bowl party, liberal groups are dispensing with the niceties and seeking to drive a wedge between Republicans and one of the right’s most influential leaders.

Politico has learned that tomorrow Americans United for Change, a liberal group, will begin airing radio ads in three states Obama won — Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada — with a tough question aimed at the GOP senators there: Will you side with Obama or Rush Limbaugh?

“Every Republican member of the House chose to take Rush Limbaugh’s advice,” says the narrator after playing the conservative talk radio giant’s declaration that he hopes Obama “fails.”

Every Republican voted with Limbaugh — and against creating 4 million new American jobs. We can understand why a extreme partisan like Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama’s Jobs program to fail — but the members of Congress elected to represent the citizens in their districts? That’s another matter. Now the Obama plan goes to the Senate, and the question is: Will our Senator"—here the ad is tailored by state to name George Voinovich in Ohio, Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, and John Ensign in Nevada—"side with Rush Limbaugh too?”

Asked to respond, Limbaugh had a message for his party.

“Senate Republicans need to understand this is not about me,” he wrote in an email. “It is about them, about intimidating them, especially after the show of unity in House. It is about the 2010 and 2012 elections. This is an opportunity for Republicans to redefine themselves after a few years of wandering aimlessly looking for a ‘brand’ and identity.”

source

How many listeners does Rush Limbaugh have?

How many listeners does Air America have?

Why exactly should the Republicans listen to unsuccessful Air America and shun successful Rush Limbaugh?

SheikBen wrote:How many listeners does Rush Limbaugh have?

How many listeners does Air America have?

Why exactly should the Republicans listen to unsuccessful Air America and shun successful Rush Limbaugh?

Driving back from Cincinnati yesterday, there was a lot of talk of Reid/Pelosi/Obama bringing back the Fairness Doctrine to silence their opposition and hopefully prevent 1994 repeating itself in 2010.

It's sad to think that in this day and age, our government is willing to silence free speech based solely on the fact that they are criticizing Democrats but I do believe that’s exactly what that bunch is going to attempt to do.

We shall see.

SheikBen wrote:How many listeners does Rush Limbaugh have?

How many listeners does Air America have?

Why exactly should the Republicans listen to unsuccessful Air America and shun successful Rush Limbaugh?

Wasn't it you, Sheik, who was telling us not very long ago that truth is not measured accurately by the numbers of professed believers?

Yes, Zig, but you are missing the point. Rush is being blamed for Republican electoral defeats, and the numbers of listeners that he has shows that such is bilge.

That is, I do not expect leftists to approve of Rush, and I do not agree with the man all of the time. However, to suggest that such a popular host is the reason that the Republicans have lost is incorrect, in my opinion, and I offered up as evidence the comparative electoral success of Reagan and Bush II, who ran as conservatives, as opposed to Dole and McCain, who ran as a moderate and a "maverick."

Even if you do not like what the Limbaughs of the world have to say, it does not mean that they are electorally damaging. The Republicans impotently handled the housing crisis by allowing very socialist activity and by refusing to confront a very real part of it, which was irresponsible loans being given out with governmental encouragement.
They refused to stand up for conservative principles. Now you may not like conservative principles. I'm sure that the Democrats and 80% of journalists (I'm being kind, I think) don't like conservative principles. And sure enough, the Republicans, likely afraid of the names they would have been called, refused to condemn those policies that encouraged the bad loans and call to account those who took out loans that should not have gotten them or asked for them.

So they did NOT pay attention to the Rushes of the world, and they got trounced in 2008. I did not vote for them. I voted for the Constitution candidate in Illinois. Among other reasons, I wanted to send a message to the McCains and the country club Republicans that there are those of us on the right who are willing NOT to support the Republican if they do not stand up for their ideals.

If the Republicans take from 2008 the "lesson" of not listening to the conservatives, then they will get destroyed in 2010 like they should.

If, however, the Republicans finally figure out that their principles are often worth standing up for, they might find success again. Like or hate the Republican Contract with America (and many hated it), it worked. Like or hate the message of social conservatives, it carries.

I don't think the Republicans should chase out social or economic moderates or liberals from the party, but the Democrats and the media make it sound like to keep them the Republicans must stop standing up for human life or low taxes.

So, as long winded as this is (I'm trying to avoid working, which I really should be doing), my point Zig is that it's fine for you and Sherm to say that you don't like the policies of the Reagans and the Bushes. And that is well and good. However, to suggest that conservatism was why the Republicans lost in 2008 is incorrect. Rush Limbaugh and the right did not lose the election for the Republicans in 2008. The Republicans' pompous yet wishy washy betrayal of their own principles, with a bad economic period and an unpopular war unwisely waged, all combined to doom them. Limbaugh had nothing to do with it, and if they try to pin it on him, they are idiots and will further drive me and others like me toward the Libertarians or the Constitution Parties.

ziggy wrote:
Wasn't it you, Sheik, who was telling us not very long ago that truth is not measured accurately by the numbers of professed believers?

Then why is Reid/Pelosi/Obama getting their bloomers all in a wad?