Hello:

Snicker, snicker. Ha, ha ha. BWA HA HA HA. Yoweee!

Seriously, now. LMFAO!

excon

Limbaugh gives the GOP a bad name. Does he ever think before he talks?

Michael Steele really stepped into doo-doo. "Steele had insisted that he - and not Limbaugh - was at the helm of the party.

"Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer," Steele said on CNN. "Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it's incendiary, yes, it's ugly." GOP Chairman Michael Steele and Pundit Rush Limbaugh in War of Words - US News and World Report (http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2009/03/03/gop-chairman-michael-steele-and-pundit-rush-limbaugh-in-war-of-words.html)

It gets better: "I would be embarrassed to say that I'm in charge of the Republican Party in the sad-sack state that it's in," railed Limbaugh yesterday, adding he "might get out the hari-kari knife" if he had Steele's job."

Certainly the new administration thinks Rush is a problem for them or they wouldn't be so focused on marginalizing him. Same with the MSM, and both continue to twist what he's actually said about wanting Obama to fail. Press Sec Gibbs actually had the chutzpah to wonder what might have happened had someone on the left hoped Bush failed...


I can only imagine what might have been said a few years ago if somebody might have said that on the other side relating to what was going on in this country or our endeavors overseas

HELLO! What Democrat, liberal pundit, leftist Hollywood actor that could fog up a mirror for the last 8 years DIDN'T hope Bush failed? Now they all hope Rush fails, because he has tremendous influence whether any of us like it or not.

But this is less about Rush than it is about the left trying to define the GOP. Ever since the election the left has been in full campaign mode trying to tell us what the GOP needs to do (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/03/03/cbs-discusses-future-gop-liberal-journalists) to be relevant again. Rush is a threat to them because he is unabashedly conservative, has a huge audience and he doesn't pull any punches.

But you guys laugh all you want and talk about how outrageous and divisive he is... then go home and get your daily dose of Olbermann, Maher and Garafalo.

Actually Rush is not a Republican, he is a Liberaterian Party, here in Atlanta, although he did not like their president canidate this last time. For those in Atlanta he is very activie in the party.

But as for as his radio show, he is a radio talk show host, comments are made to make people mad, that is what raises their ratings, and makes them rich.

So one could say he is in to the "money" party his money.

Hello again:

Padre, surly you jest... In fact, back in '89 when he started, I LOVED the Limp one. I thought he was a libertarian too.

Then I heard him spout the party line about drugs, and how dealers should spend the rest of their life in the slam... That killed it. He's NO libertarian..

Then he got into trouble with drugs, and STILL thinks it's fine to put people away who do exactly what he himself does.

So, not only is he NO libertarian. He's a raging hypocrite.

excon

Steele may not have said it well ,but he was absolutely correct in saying Limbaugh is limited by the fact that he is an entertainer 1st . Limbaugh does not hold elected position and never will. It would even be a stretch to say that he is the philosophical voice of the Republican party . The Republicans to me frankly look like a bunch of sniping war-lords right now with no individual that you could point to as being their leader.

Leadership will emerge from one of two camps . There are those who think to create a big tent the Republicans need to moderate their views to accommodate different constituencies and abandon core principles... sorta the GW Bush approach in his last year ( I have abandoned free market principles he said. ) This was the approach tried by McCain .Yeah that worked out well.

There are others who think you stick to principles and clearly articulate them . Then the vast pool of moderates will be persuaded to support the party on principles. That was Reagan's approach ( remember the Reagan Democrats ?) and I think it is the correct one to take. Clearly the Democrats did not moderate their leftist message. Instead they persuaded enough moderates that the conservative brand was corrupted... and they had a point to a degree as Republicans took liberal actions in an attempt to expand their base.

Limbaugh may articulate this position better than most . But that does not make him the party leader .
He is more like the symbolic piñata that the Dems. Use because they must have a Bush ,a Rove to point at to deflect the fact that they have already blown their chance in a little over a month to responsibly lead the country .

He is more like the symbolic piñata that the Dems. Use because they must have a Bush ,a Rove to point at to deflect the fact that they have already blown their chance in a little over a month to responsibly lead the country .

Yep... and to raise money. Got this from Gov. Kaine today.


That's a far cry from what Republicans leaders have been up to.

Nearly every Republican in Congress voted against the Recovery plan. Instead, they're following Rush Limbaugh, who last week reiterated his hope that President Obama fails.

And yesterday, after doing the right thing and denouncing Limbaugh's comments, the chairman of the Republican National Committee called Limbaugh to apologize.

Following Rush Limbaugh and the failed attack politics of the past -- as Republicans are doing -- is not the kind of leadership that's going to get America back on a path to strength and prosperity. So it's going to be up to us to lead the way.

Make a donation now so that we can continue showing what real leadership can do for America:

I never went along with Rush being the leader of the Repubs. That was until Steele had to basically apologize for stating his honest opinion about the man. But it's all good now ;)

I never went along with Rush being the leader of the Repubs. That was until Steele had to basically apologize for stating his honest opinion about the man. But it's all good now ;)

Steele exposed what I hope is just his inexperience: 1) Steele is not the 'leader' of the Republican Party; he is the 'leader' (hate that word) of the RNC. And 2) he attempted to elevate his position in an inappropriate manner in answer a legitimate question.

"The Republican National Committee (RNC) provides national leadership for the Republican Party of the United States. It is responsible for developing and promoting the Republican political platform, as well as coordinating fundraising and election strategy." Republican National Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_National_Committee)

Simply put, Steele mis-spoke and he has apologized, as he should.

Hello again:

I just find the public fawning over the limp dude soooo delicious. It's better than Top Chef.

excon

But if Rush is Nobody why even apologize to him? He obviously has some type of Standing in the party if the leader of the RNC has to apologize because he mis-spoke about a voice on the radio.

It is amusing and Rush is playing it for all it's worth. What is amusing is the administrations obsession with him. They would do better to try and marginalize him.

But if Rush is Nobody why even apologize to him? He obviously has some type of Standing in the party if the leader of the RNC has to apologize because he mis-spoke about a voice on the radio.
__________________



This is what happened . Rush fed off the slight snub and the ditto-heads began calling and emailing the RNC . Steele just nipped the bud by his public "I mispoke" .

The Dems do that move all the time and it isn't considered a big deal. But the MSM still drives the message to the general populace more effectively than talk radio ,and the MSM has been keeping that story alive to try to marginalize Steele.

I, too, am greatly amused, as Limbaugh becomes Obama's 'tar baby', "Tar-Baby was a doll made of tar and turpentine, used to entrap Br'er Rabbit in the second of the Uncle Remus stories... "tar baby" refers to any "sticky situation" that is only aggravated by additional contact. The only way to solve such a situation is by separation.[1]" Tar baby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby)

Rush reminds of another great American, Thomas Paine: "Throughout most of his life, his writings inspired passion, but also brought him great criticism." Thomas Paine (http://www.ushistory.org/PAINE/)

This tack by Robert Gibbs and Obama (Carville, Begalla, & 'opoulos) indicates an early sense of desperation in the White House. They know that time is very short.

Democrats have elevated politics in this country to new heights of maturity (http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry).

Democrats have elevated politics in this country to new heights of maturity (http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry).

I was on that site this morning. It is very unnecessary. But it is good for a laugh. But if I learned anything in the last 8 years if you say something enough it must be true. Perception is reality for a lot of people.

But if I learned anything in the last 8 years if you say something enough it must be true. Perception is reality for a lot of people.

Exactly, and the left has perfected that.

As the old anti-drug commercials use to say. We learned it from watching you.

So, the Obot-apparatchiks want this fight: "Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House." Rush Job: Inside Dems' Limbaugh plan - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19596.html)

As the old anti-drug commercials use to say. We learned it from watching you.

But we haven't managed to perfect the hypocrisy of it (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/democrat-culture-corruption-continues-318010.html) as well as the Dems. :D

I understand your party started it we just perfected it. Don't tell me you guys are a bunch of sore losers. But Burris has nothing to do with Rush being your leader.

Rush consistently says he is a conservative, not a Republican.
But phooh! Rush would probably have a better chance of getting elected to Pres than McCain did. Or at least as good.
The Dems always try to demonize anyone that they think may be or become a threat to them. Look at the vicious and continuing attacks on Palin, and now they are starting on Jindal.
Just pre emptive politics, I guess.

But President Hopenchange promised to "change the tone" of politics, that this was the principal problem of politics today.


But challenging as they are, it's not the magnitude of our problems that concerns me the most - it's the smallness of our politics. America's faced big problems before, but today our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, commonsense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first. We have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans.

Instead, Obama is on a course to do all he can to crush the GOP and annihilate conservatism, and as we all know now with the help of his friends in the media through their daily phone strategy sessions.

But President Hopenchange promised to "change the tone" of politics, that this was the principal problem of politics today.



Instead, Obama is on a course to do all he can to crush the GOP and annihilate conservatism, and as we all know now with the help of his friends in the media through their daily phone strategy sessions.

It becomes more evident, day by day, that President Hopenchange is not in charge of his White House, and that he has little control over those who are. His job is to look pretty and say nice things; however, the rubber will meet the road.

I understand your party started it we just perfected it. Don't tell me you guys are a bunch of sore losers. But Burris has nothing to do with Rush being your leader.

It's not about being sore losers, we just remember Obama's promises (just words) and we do care about him trying to rebuild the country in his image, we liked her the way she was intended to be. But read the thread, Spit. Burris was just the tip of the iceberg of how the Dems are perfecting the hypocrisy.

How presidential of Obama to go after a private citizen!? :eek: And some people have their panties in a wad because Bush might have been listening on their conversations :confused::rolleyes:


Maybe Obama and the Dems are getting back for the whole "magic negro" schtick.













G&P

How presidential of Obama to go after a private citizen !?! :eek: And some people have their panties in a wad because Bush might have been listening on their conversations :confused::rolleyes:


Maybe Obama and the Dems are getting back for the whole "magic negro" schtick.

Nope, it's a carefully planned and orchestrated effort (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19596.html) by the White House and their media minions (as George mentioned). That whole "magic negro" thing was the creation of a liberal (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center). It was too good for Rush not to offer up a parody, and the left was apparently clueless as to the parody they made of themselves during the campaign.

The Dems announced today the 5 finalists for their silly message to Rush billboard. But before I get to that let’s revisit what he actually said:


I got a request here from a major American print publication. “Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal.” Now, we’re caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your “hope.” My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, “Well, I hope he succeeds. We’ve got to give him a chance.” Why? They didn’t give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I’m not talking about search-and-destroy, but I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.

Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.

Now, the finalists for the billboard:


"Americans didn't vote for a Rush to failure"
"Hope and change cannot be Rush'd"
"Failure is not an option for America's future"
"We can fix America, just don't Rush it"
"Rush: Say yes to America"


Now tell me – seriously – who is disconnected from reality here? “Americans didn’t vote for a Rush to failure,” “Hope and change cannot be Rush’d” and "We can fix America, just don't Rush it." What are we getting now but a rush to failure? Obama let Congress write the stimulus package they didn’t even read and rushed it into law with all its pork and massive new government programs – exactly what Rush was talking about.

"Failure is not an option for America's future" and "Rush: Say yes to America." And Rush said what about the country and its future? “We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism?”

Clueless, classless, childish idiots are running the show now, with “Obama’s (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/us/politics/09axelrod.html?_r=2&ref=us) brains (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-favreau-speechwritermar08%2C0%2C5016893.story)” pulling the strings (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2009/03/04/democrats_and_rush_limbaugh.html).

Same old book, new chapter: "Democrats' new villain: Eric Cantor... Forget Rush Limbaugh....For all the focus on the king of conservative talk, Democrats may have found a more important villain in House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, a telegenic young Republican trying to bring life to his party on Capitol Hill." By PATRICK O'CONNOR
Democrats' new villain: Eric Cantor - Patrick O'Connor - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19817.html)

That whole "magic negro" thing was the creation of a liberal (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center). I read that article and do not see where it mentions a liberal having starting using the term or having created the term. It simply explains the term and its past usage.

Yawn . This whole issue is boring . I turned off Matthews yesterday because he seems obsessed with Rush .He likes to bring in "conservatives" like David Frum to encourage a Republican circular firing squad.

Minority parties who get thumped in elections always have a leadership void. Who was the Dem leader in 2004 ? Yeah Dean the screem... or was it Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehad... maybe the Dixie Chicks ?

They have picked a demon to put on their dart boards ,and all they are really doing is increasing Rush's listenership (20 million at last count) . Rush of course is playing along with it . Why wouldn't he ?

This demonizing of Rush is right out of the Alinsky playbook... pure Chicago politics . So natually Rhambo and Axelrod with the help from their cronies in the media [Stephanopoulos and Carville ]stoked the fire. In the end it's a whole lot of much ado about nothing . But it does act to deflect attention from the President's dismal performace to date.

I read that article and do not see where it mentions a liberal having starting using the term or having created the term. it simply explains the term and its past usage.

David Ehrenstein IS the liberal and he IS the one who used the term in reference to Obama.

Obama the 'Magic Negro'

"But it's clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the "Magic Negro."

"Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes."

Rush merely made a parody of Ehrenstein who is in fact the creator of Obama as the "Magic Negro." I stand by my comment.

Rush will continue to define all the things more and more American's hate about the Republican party. He will continue to marginalize the Republican party.

Of course he will have his supporters, those already firmly in his camp; but he's preaching to the choir, he's not going to bring the new young American's of diverse backgrounds into the fold.

For the Republican's to have a chance, they need a new voice. One who stays true to conservative principles but can package it in a manner that is more moderate.

What's funny Tex, is his audience is growing even more now, as has been mentioned already, and those who think he's too radical and divisive have probably never listened. He's a cupcake compared to Olbermann, Maher and Garafalo... and a heck of a lot funnier.

According to media matters (whoever they are) Rush hasn't seen his own numbers and doesn't know if his ratings doubled.

Media Matters - Why don't we just pretend Rush Limbaugh has 50 million listeners? (http://mediamatters.org/columns/200903090031)

What's funny Tex, is his audience is growing even more now, as has been mentioned already, and those who think he's too radical and divisive have probably never listened. He's a cupcake compared to Olbermann, Maher and Garafalo ... and a heck of a lot funnier.

I do listen to him to a point; but I can't stand his hate (lack of civility), name calling and complete exaggeration of almost any issue. We've talked about that previously and I'm a civility guy and I think most American's are too; or want to a return to a more civil dialogue. I personally I am more compelled to listen to the conservative message from like Bill O'Reilly, he's really quite civil in my view.

I gotcha Tex, but the point is the real Rush and the one that’s been created by his critics are two vastly different things, and his critics tend to be miles more divisive and radical.

I gotcha Tex, but the point is the real Rush and the one that’s been created by his critics are two vastly different things, and his critics tend to be miles more divisive and radical.

How about: 'divisive, radical, and narrow-minded'.

How about: 'divisive, radical, and narrow-minded'.

Funny, I view Rush the same way. However to be honest, I don't listen to the liberals you speak of as I rarely watch TV. If they were on the radio down here in south Texas I would be able to comment on your perspective of them, but I know nothing of them unfortunately.

The ones I hate the most are Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity; Savage and Hannity more than Rush if you can believe it. Those two will twist anything to their agenda.

I can tolerate Medved, O'Reilly.

There's a couple of others, and I generally don't have much time for them either.

Speaking of Rush, I do think he's responsible in part for Obama winning the primary. If the Stop Hillary Express hadn't mobilized Republican's like my father in-law to vote for Obama in the primary, you wouldn't have what the right considers the more left of the two candidates.

In fact, it was sweat irony that Obama won the Presidency because I believe like my father in-law did that if they stopped Hillary, the Republican ticket could beat any black man.

So thanks Rush, for creating one of the unintended consequences you talk about so often... lol.

I gotcha Tex, but the point is the real Rush and the one that's been created by his critics are two vastly different things, and his critics tend to be miles more divisive and radical.Hello Steve:

I'm a critic of him, and I'll cop to being divisive and radical too... But, I'm not a hypocrite. The Limp one is...

He'd put people in jail for doing exactly what he did, and he makes no bones about it... I don't need to know anything more about an individuals character than that.

Let's take Mark Furman as an example... He appears regularly on FOX as their legal expert. Mark Furman is a liar. HIS lies ARE the reason OJ Simpson got away with murder. He is SOLELY responsible for that... Nobody but HIM!

I have no use for people like him or the Limprod. I wonder why FOX does.

excon

http://patriotpost.us/images/broadcasts/humor/images/cb0306j.jpg (http://patriotpost.us/images/broadcasts/humor/images/cb0306j.jpg)

There's a couple of others, and I generally don't have much time for them either.

Savage is a Froot Loop.

Looks like the White House (that being Rahmbo-Axelrod and not the president) thinks they've gotten enough mileage out of Operation El Rushbo. Their new villian seems to be Eric Cantor (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19817.html). Alinsky would be proud. Meanwhile the country crumbles.

"President Obama -- in whom I still have great hope and confidence -- has been ill-served by his advisors and staff. Yes, they have all been blindsided and overwhelmed by the crushing demands of the presidency. But I continue to believe in citizen presidents, who must learn by doing, even in a perilous age of terrorism. Though every novice administration makes blunders and bloopers, its modus operandi should not be a conspiratorial reflex cynicism.

"Case in point: The orchestrated attack on radio host Rush Limbaugh, which has made the White House look like an oafish bunch of drunken frat boys. I returned from carnival in Brazil (more on that shortly) to find the Limbaugh affair in full flower. Has the administration gone mad? This entire fracas was set off by the president himself, who lowered his office by targeting a private citizen by name. Limbaugh had every right to counterattack, which he did with gusto. Why have so many Democrats abandoned the hallowed principle of free speech? Limbaugh, like our own liberal culture hero Lenny Bruce, is a professional commentator who can be as rude and crude as he wants."
Camille Paglia on Obama, Rush and Daniela Mercury | Salon (http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/03/11/mercury/)

Another good point - which will be entirely ignored by the MSM and dismissed (or ignored) by the critics here, is the very people responsible for the attack on Rush wanted Bush to fail. Bill Sammon notes (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/):


On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.

Carville and Greenberg are the ones who came up with the poll and plan to attack Rush, "explicitly endorsed" by Obama senior adviser David Axelrod. Pardon me if I don't buy into their outrage over Rush wanting Obama's policies to fail.

Carville and Greenberg speak with sneering arrogance; and their alleged complaint with Limbaugh is, what?

It is all simply a ploy, to take the attention off all of Obama's real
Problems.

He would much rather we all be talking about this instead of the
Real issues and how much positive effect he has had on the situation
With our economy and the stock market.

Yep, and all that confidence we've gotten from him not worrying about the "day to day gyrations" of the market and having "more than enough to do without having to worry the financial system" has gotten us where exactly?

Rush "Pub" Limbaugh is to be heard from for pure entertainment purposes only. Just a quick listen to the fat windbag of $h!t and you know he's that's paid to stir havoc among the faithfully bored disciples of the uneducated. He's not the only one as the Dems have their idiot politico mamzer evangelists also. There are throngs of people listening to propaganda crackpot types on the radio (and cable outlets) and they are due for more failure in their own lives. Hell most of them voted for Dubya twice and some of them spend hours everyday on forums such as this one.

It is sad that Rush Limbaugh has become such a joke. I remember reading his book "the way things ought to be" which came out in the early 90s and it was filled with intelligent opinions and discussion. Now he is just relying on insults and juvenile put-downs to be heard. He really could have been an asset to the GOP if he had taken the high road but now he is nearly as bad as Ann Coulter.

Just a quick listen to the fat windbag of $h!t and you know he's that's paid to stir havoc

Just like Carville (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/rush-limbaugh-head-republican-party-324649-5.html#post1598695), Begala, Axelrod and Emanuel - "Obama's brains."

Amazing how many libs listen to and repeat the talking points put out by Carvill and the rest of the Clinton smear machine. Guess Nobama learned one thing from Clinton. That was when you are in trouble, spread vicious rumors about conservatives and lie through your teeth about it!

... Guess Nobama learned one thing from Clinton....

Worse than that; he surrounded himself with Clintonoids!

Just like Carville (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/rush-limbaugh-head-republican-party-324649-5.html#post1598695), Begala, Axelrod and Emanuel - "Obama's brains."

No. Carville and Begala was "Hillary's brains." They spent most of the Democratic primary campaign trying to bash in Axelrod's (Obama's) brain. Emanuel for all practical purposes was reserved atop Obama's spinal column, called upon in lesser frequency.



Amazing how many libs listen to and repeat the talking points put out by Carvill and the rest of the Clinton smear machine. Guess Nobama learned one thing from Clinton. That was when you are in trouble, spread vicious rumors about conservatives and lie through your teeth about it!


I tune him out and listen to music. However I can only imagine that being invited over for Thanksgiving dinner at the Carville's house is so civilized being that James, a hardened Dem, and his wife is a Pub. But hey! They seem to make it work.

BTW, Limbaugh, for all his media skills, lacks the same communication fortitude to make a relationship work. Apparently Rush is not so pleasant to be around even when he's not broadcasting propaganda.


The Marriages of Rush Limbaugh (http://marriage.about.com/od/entertainmen1/p/rushlimbaugh.htm)

THe winning billboard was announced today...

http://www.democrats.org/page/-/images/content/billboard_landingpage_alt.jpg

Congratulations to the winner of the t-shirt, and let's celebrate this new era of hope and change.

The Marriages of Rush LimbaughHello Bobby:

Yeah. Conservative family values is what he's all about. In fact, he believes in the sanctity of marriage SOOOO much, he tried it THREE times.

Snicker... Guffaww... Bwa, ha ha ha... LAMAO even more...

excon

Hello Bobby:

Yeah. Conservative family values is what he's all about. In fact, he believes in the sanctity of marriage SOOOO much, he tried it THREE times.

Snicker... Guffaww... Bwa, ha ha ha.... LAMAO even more....

excon

What has that got to do with anything?

I remember when the Dems weren't concerned about the shenanagans going on in the oval office, and Bill's extramarital affairs were defended as "normal".

What has that got to do with anything? I remember when the Dems weren't concerned about the shenanagans going on in the oval office, and Bill's extramarital affairs were defended as "normal".Hello again, gal:

You miss the point. The Dem's don't parade themselves around as the party of what's moral and what's not like Republicans do. It's just kind of hypocritical, doncha think?

Here's the deal, gal. I don't have anything against somebody who gets into trouble using drugs. Then again, I don't get into trouble with drugs, and get on the radio and tell the world that people who get into trouble with drugs should go to prison - except me.

I also don't have anything against anybody who fails at marriage three times. Then again, I don't proclaim marriage to be the bedrock of our society, and it can't be defiled by gays.

Nope. I don't do any of those things. Why?? Because I ain't no hypocrite!

excon

Hotair inspired this billboard response (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/12/the-lame-anti-rush-billboard-and-a-response/) to the DNC's lame effort.

http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2009-03/Obama_Rush.jpg