Congressional Democrats have a new sense of urgency behind the pending healthcare reform legislation. Rush Limbaugh has promised to leave the United States if the bill passes.
In the interest of the country, I urge Congress to pass the bill immediately!
Showing posts with label rush limbaugh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rush limbaugh. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Friday, June 26, 2009
Rush Limbaugh: Obama Caused Sanford's Affair With His "Concubine"
I usually do not keep up with or make hay out of the Rush Limbaugh's numerous ludicrous antics. I even defended Limbaugh earlier this year when, instead of focusing on the economy, Democrats and the media began a campaign to make him the symbolic face of the Republican Party.
Limbaugh's latest madness, however, proves that his show exists somewhere in a dark corner of the Twilight Zone. Commenting on South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's recent disappearance and sordid affair, Limbaugh said that upon hearing the news, he immediately thought that Sanford's behavior resulted from his frustration over the stimulus package and other policies of the Obama administration. Limbaugh said that Sanford's excursion to visit his "concubine" proves that he had decided to "enjoy life" because the "Democrats are destroying the country." Kudos to Media Matters for uncovering the story.
Question: Because Sanford's affair apparently began nearly a year ago, does this mean that it is really President Bush's fault?
Limbaugh's latest madness, however, proves that his show exists somewhere in a dark corner of the Twilight Zone. Commenting on South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's recent disappearance and sordid affair, Limbaugh said that upon hearing the news, he immediately thought that Sanford's behavior resulted from his frustration over the stimulus package and other policies of the Obama administration. Limbaugh said that Sanford's excursion to visit his "concubine" proves that he had decided to "enjoy life" because the "Democrats are destroying the country." Kudos to Media Matters for uncovering the story.
Question: Because Sanford's affair apparently began nearly a year ago, does this mean that it is really President Bush's fault?
Thursday, March 12, 2009
A Liberal Democrat's Take on Steele's Apologies: Imploding GOP Looks Like Democrats of the Past
Michael Steele's recent public apologies to social conservatives suggest that the Republican Party is deeply divided and that Steele is walking a perilous tightrope. Steele's need to apologize for relatively innocuous statements also indicates the Republicans, like Democrats of the past, are willing to cannibalize each other in order to remain utterly powerless.
Steele Was Right: Limbaugh Is Obnoxious (If Not "Incendiary")
Steele first apologized for stating during a CNN interview that he (the RNC Chair), not Rush Limbaugh (an popular radio personality), is the de facto leader of the Republican Party. Steele also accepted the interviewer's statement that Rush engages in "ugly" and "incendiary" rhetoric. Although Steele apologized, both of these statements are fairly accurate.
While chairing the RNC does not necessarily make Steele the party's leader, he has a greater claim to that role than Rush Limbaugh. I suspect that most people would agree that Howard Dean had a good argument that he, not Michael Moore, was the leader of Democratic Party.
And while one can debate whether Limbaugh's stances are "ugly" and "incendiary," it is indisputable that he is an obnoxious radio host. Limbaugh is a proud "shock jock" with a political agenda. People do not flock to Limbaugh expecting to get the warm and careful temperament of Diane Rehm. [Note: Despite the fact that I believe Limbaugh is obnoxious, I still believe that my fellow Democrats' concerted effort to go after him was imprudent.]
Abortion Tap Dance
Steele's latest apology comes after he stated during an interview that abortion is a "choice." A seemingly anxious Steele attempted to dance around the explosive abortion issue. Although he said abortion is a "choice," Steele also reiterated that he is pro-life and that he believes Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided.
But the word "choice" is a hand grenade to the pro-life community, which is now up in flames over Steele's comments. Not wanting more fire on his heels, Steele has apologized -- sorry, "clarified his words" -- once again. Steele was in a definite box during the interview (trying to sound accommodating and rigid at the same time), but as a neutral observer (as a pro-choice Democrat, I do not care too much about Republican infighting), his words do not strike me as loathsome.
Current GOP = Democrats of the Past
As a result of his efforts to appear accommodating to the rightwing, commentators use words like "embattled" to describe Steele, even though other Republicans are doing the party more harm than good. And breaking news reports suggest that Republicans are planning to hold a "no confidence" vote on Steele -- which would be a political disaster for the GOP. I am not sure whether Steele is actually a moderate or not, but Republicans will continue to lack influence if they cave into the extreme right and become agitated over mere words.
Democrats used to get crazy over issues like these, but recently, they have been uncharacteristically unified. In a strange "Freaky Friday" kind of way, the Democrats and Republicans have switched roles, leaving the latter far more impotent than in recent years.
Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:
More on the Man of Steele: Can the Unexpected Hip-Hopster Bring People of Color to the GOP?
Man of Steele: RNC Chair Serves Major "Swagger" During Recent Interview
From the "Post-Racial" Vault: Slate Magazine Asks Whether Michael Steele Is Barack Obama's "Evil Twin"
A Black Progressive Law Professor Responds to News That Michael Steele Will Lead the GOP
Steele Was Right: Limbaugh Is Obnoxious (If Not "Incendiary")
Steele first apologized for stating during a CNN interview that he (the RNC Chair), not Rush Limbaugh (an popular radio personality), is the de facto leader of the Republican Party. Steele also accepted the interviewer's statement that Rush engages in "ugly" and "incendiary" rhetoric. Although Steele apologized, both of these statements are fairly accurate.
While chairing the RNC does not necessarily make Steele the party's leader, he has a greater claim to that role than Rush Limbaugh. I suspect that most people would agree that Howard Dean had a good argument that he, not Michael Moore, was the leader of Democratic Party.
And while one can debate whether Limbaugh's stances are "ugly" and "incendiary," it is indisputable that he is an obnoxious radio host. Limbaugh is a proud "shock jock" with a political agenda. People do not flock to Limbaugh expecting to get the warm and careful temperament of Diane Rehm. [Note: Despite the fact that I believe Limbaugh is obnoxious, I still believe that my fellow Democrats' concerted effort to go after him was imprudent.]
Abortion Tap Dance
Steele's latest apology comes after he stated during an interview that abortion is a "choice." A seemingly anxious Steele attempted to dance around the explosive abortion issue. Although he said abortion is a "choice," Steele also reiterated that he is pro-life and that he believes Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided.
But the word "choice" is a hand grenade to the pro-life community, which is now up in flames over Steele's comments. Not wanting more fire on his heels, Steele has apologized -- sorry, "clarified his words" -- once again. Steele was in a definite box during the interview (trying to sound accommodating and rigid at the same time), but as a neutral observer (as a pro-choice Democrat, I do not care too much about Republican infighting), his words do not strike me as loathsome.
Current GOP = Democrats of the Past
As a result of his efforts to appear accommodating to the rightwing, commentators use words like "embattled" to describe Steele, even though other Republicans are doing the party more harm than good. And breaking news reports suggest that Republicans are planning to hold a "no confidence" vote on Steele -- which would be a political disaster for the GOP. I am not sure whether Steele is actually a moderate or not, but Republicans will continue to lack influence if they cave into the extreme right and become agitated over mere words.
Democrats used to get crazy over issues like these, but recently, they have been uncharacteristically unified. In a strange "Freaky Friday" kind of way, the Democrats and Republicans have switched roles, leaving the latter far more impotent than in recent years.
Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:
More on the Man of Steele: Can the Unexpected Hip-Hopster Bring People of Color to the GOP?
Man of Steele: RNC Chair Serves Major "Swagger" During Recent Interview
From the "Post-Racial" Vault: Slate Magazine Asks Whether Michael Steele Is Barack Obama's "Evil Twin"
A Black Progressive Law Professor Responds to News That Michael Steele Will Lead the GOP
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Rush: The New Bush
It didn't take long for the White House to begin distancing itself from the Democrats' effort to smear the GOP by attacking Rush Limbaugh. Yesterday, Politico.Com -- indisputably an Obama-friendly zone -- published a very persuasive article that links the recent flurry of discourse surrounding Limbaugh to a strategy orchestrated by Democratic Party operatives, including Paul Begala, James Carville and Stanley Greenberg.
White House: Part of the Limbaugh Strategy
The Politico article also concludes that the White House embraced the Limbaugh strategy. Specifically, White House senior adviser David Axelrod, Deputy Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs agreed to utilize it.
On Sunday, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel described Limbaugh as "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party." Tuesday, Gibbs snidely commented on Michael Steele's "apology" to Limbaugh (which Steele only offered after taking the Democrats' bait and condemning Limbaugh during a CNN interview). And yesterday, the Washington Post published a 2-page op-ed by David Plouffe, Obama's presidential campaign manager, which describes Limbaugh as the "Minority Leader."
By the end of the day, however, the White House attempted to distance itself from the flap it helped to create. Gibbs for example, stated at a press conference that his criticism of Limbaugh and other media personalities was "counterproductive."
Why Beat Up Limbaugh?
Limbaugh is not a politician, but he is an influential voice among the rightwing. The GOP needs conservative voters, but it also needs to make its image more moderate in order to win national and state elections. The Democrats want to complicate this task by portraying the party as extremely conservative and "out of touch" with Americans.
During the last eight years, Bush -- and Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove/Rice -- served as the poster child for Democratic anger. Disappointment with Bush helped Obama and other Democrats win their respective elections. The Democrats realize that creating a political "enemy" can allow them to energize and organize voters to support the party and its candidates.
Why I Do Not Like This Strategy
There's a greater likelihood that Obama will invite me to the White House to "live-blog" his daily activities than there is a chance that Limbaugh and I will agree on any important social issue. I find Limbaugh and his views distasteful, hypocritical, and [insert many other negative adjectives]. But I vehemently disagree with this strategy, despite its potential effectiveness in helping Democrats. Here's why.
Distraction
First, this strategy fuels sensationalism and detracts from very important social issues. Rather than discussing deep social problems, the Democrats are creating a new poster child of evil to bash and demonize. Meanwhile, unemployment is soaring (especially in communities of color), people still lack health care, the stock market is plunging, the country is fighting two costly and deadly wars, and Osama bin Laden is somewhere tiptoeing through the tulips.
Despite this terrible reality, Rush Limbaugh, rather than complex social issues, captivates the Democrats and media. That is absolutely indefensible, and it betrays voters who thought they were getting change, rather than "more of the same."
Party versus Policy
Second, this strategy elevates the Democratic Party, not liberal policy. One could argue (as some readers have) that beating up Limbaugh empowers Democrats, which will lead to the passage of liberal reform. I disagree with this idea. Instead, I believe that beating up Limbaugh empowers Democrats, which will lead to the reelection of Democratic politicians, which will allow them to increase their own political and economic power.
Electing Democrats does not guarantee that liberal reform will take place. This is particularly true when party officials convince voters to treat politics as a battle of personalities rather than a battle over policies and principles. Both sides are guilty of this (think, "slimy neocon rightwinger" versus "looney tree-hugging liberal"). With many liberal voters and social movements fixated upon beating up Republicans and cheering for Democrats, Democratic politicians can avoid implementing true liberal reform and can even get away with continuing practices that progressives condemned during the Bush administration (such as rendition).
Democrats will only "support" enough liberal issues to secure their reelection. If they can improve their party's "brand" and their own election prospects by bashing Limbaugh and other Republicans, then this is an easier and less-expensive route to political success. It is certainly easier than planning and implementing strategies that address entrenched social problems.
Makes the Other Party Look Good
Finally, the Democrats' demonization of Limbaugh risks making the GOP look better in the eyes of voters. At a minimum, it allows Republicans to claim a higher moral ground and, perhaps, to mend their image.
Today, the Washington Post contains an op-ed written by Representative John Boehner, the House Minority Leader. Although I highly doubt that Boehner and I agree on many social issues, I prefer his analysis much more than the anti-Limbaugh lunacy emerging from my own party. The Democrats' foray into dirt allows Boehner to take the moral high ground, which he does when he offers the following sober analysis:
White House: Part of the Limbaugh Strategy
The Politico article also concludes that the White House embraced the Limbaugh strategy. Specifically, White House senior adviser David Axelrod, Deputy Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs agreed to utilize it.
On Sunday, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel described Limbaugh as "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party." Tuesday, Gibbs snidely commented on Michael Steele's "apology" to Limbaugh (which Steele only offered after taking the Democrats' bait and condemning Limbaugh during a CNN interview). And yesterday, the Washington Post published a 2-page op-ed by David Plouffe, Obama's presidential campaign manager, which describes Limbaugh as the "Minority Leader."
By the end of the day, however, the White House attempted to distance itself from the flap it helped to create. Gibbs for example, stated at a press conference that his criticism of Limbaugh and other media personalities was "counterproductive."
Why Beat Up Limbaugh?
Limbaugh is not a politician, but he is an influential voice among the rightwing. The GOP needs conservative voters, but it also needs to make its image more moderate in order to win national and state elections. The Democrats want to complicate this task by portraying the party as extremely conservative and "out of touch" with Americans.
During the last eight years, Bush -- and Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove/Rice -- served as the poster child for Democratic anger. Disappointment with Bush helped Obama and other Democrats win their respective elections. The Democrats realize that creating a political "enemy" can allow them to energize and organize voters to support the party and its candidates.
Why I Do Not Like This Strategy
There's a greater likelihood that Obama will invite me to the White House to "live-blog" his daily activities than there is a chance that Limbaugh and I will agree on any important social issue. I find Limbaugh and his views distasteful, hypocritical, and [insert many other negative adjectives]. But I vehemently disagree with this strategy, despite its potential effectiveness in helping Democrats. Here's why.
Distraction
First, this strategy fuels sensationalism and detracts from very important social issues. Rather than discussing deep social problems, the Democrats are creating a new poster child of evil to bash and demonize. Meanwhile, unemployment is soaring (especially in communities of color), people still lack health care, the stock market is plunging, the country is fighting two costly and deadly wars, and Osama bin Laden is somewhere tiptoeing through the tulips.
Despite this terrible reality, Rush Limbaugh, rather than complex social issues, captivates the Democrats and media. That is absolutely indefensible, and it betrays voters who thought they were getting change, rather than "more of the same."
Party versus Policy
Second, this strategy elevates the Democratic Party, not liberal policy. One could argue (as some readers have) that beating up Limbaugh empowers Democrats, which will lead to the passage of liberal reform. I disagree with this idea. Instead, I believe that beating up Limbaugh empowers Democrats, which will lead to the reelection of Democratic politicians, which will allow them to increase their own political and economic power.
Electing Democrats does not guarantee that liberal reform will take place. This is particularly true when party officials convince voters to treat politics as a battle of personalities rather than a battle over policies and principles. Both sides are guilty of this (think, "slimy neocon rightwinger" versus "looney tree-hugging liberal"). With many liberal voters and social movements fixated upon beating up Republicans and cheering for Democrats, Democratic politicians can avoid implementing true liberal reform and can even get away with continuing practices that progressives condemned during the Bush administration (such as rendition).
Democrats will only "support" enough liberal issues to secure their reelection. If they can improve their party's "brand" and their own election prospects by bashing Limbaugh and other Republicans, then this is an easier and less-expensive route to political success. It is certainly easier than planning and implementing strategies that address entrenched social problems.
Makes the Other Party Look Good
Finally, the Democrats' demonization of Limbaugh risks making the GOP look better in the eyes of voters. At a minimum, it allows Republicans to claim a higher moral ground and, perhaps, to mend their image.
Today, the Washington Post contains an op-ed written by Representative John Boehner, the House Minority Leader. Although I highly doubt that Boehner and I agree on many social issues, I prefer his analysis much more than the anti-Limbaugh lunacy emerging from my own party. The Democrats' foray into dirt allows Boehner to take the moral high ground, which he does when he offers the following sober analysis:
In the first two months of 2009, the Democratic Congress and the White House have spent more money than the combined cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the response to Hurricane Katrina. After they doled out taxpayer dollars at such a blistering pace, the instinct of many inside the Beltway is to do what's most convenient: desperately try to change the subject by creating straw men -- called "the party of no" -- to rally against.Boehner, a politician, contends that Republicans offer better solutions for today's problems. I disagree with this assertion, but I certainly prefer his analysis over Limbaughmania.
And in a carefully calculated campaign, operatives and allies of the Obama administration are seeking to divert attention toward radio host Rush Limbaugh, and away from a debate about our alternative solutions on the economy and the irresponsible spending binge they are presiding over. This diversionary tactic will not create a single job or help a single family struggling in today's economic crisis. And that is where our focus should be.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Bitter Sarcasm Alert: Flap Over Rush Limbaugh Proves That the Media Continues to Cover Extremely Compelling News Items!
In this era of dramatic change, I am happy to see that the media has not stopped covering the most important issues facing the nation. While shoddy mortgage lending and outlandish activity among homebuyers were setting the stage for the current economic crisis, the media correctly decided not to obsess over such irrelevant matters. Instead, it provided extensive and exciting coverage of Janet Jackson's partially uncovered breast, Britney Spears' implosion, Paris Hilton's shenanigans, Ashlee Simpson's lipsyncing, and Ben and Jen, Jen and Brad, and Brad and Angelina.
Today, while the economy sits in the toilet, media outlets are again refusing to allow mundane stories to distract them. Instead, they are extensively covering the relationship between radio and television personality Rush Limbaugh and the Republican Party. Earlier this week, the media's intense investigative reporting revealed that RNC Chair Michael Steele "dissed" Rush Limbaugh but then later apologized. Continuing coverage of the situation now proves that Steele's apology indicates that Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP. This same argument led Steele to diss Limbaugh in the first place.
Today, the Washington Post published a lengthy (2 pages) campaign essay -- also known as an op-ed -- written by President Obama's former campaign manager David Plouffe. Plouffe refers to Rush as the "Minority Leader." As of 11:00am (3/4, Eastern Time) Plouffe's essay is listed as the most popular item on the newspaper's website. The second most popular article is yet another opinion piece on Limbaugh. Surprisingly, readers are flocking to the day's most complicated and compelling news items.
A Non-Sarcastic Ending
Before Republicans readers begin condemning the "liberal" media, consider the following issues. A truly liberal media would focus attention on issues like soaring unemployment, which is twice the national average among blacks. The Detroit school system is so cash-strapped that one elementary school has asked parents to donate toilet paper and light bulbs, but Plouffe and other Democrats find Limbaugh a more pressing national concern.
The stock market is utterly unstimulated by the stimulus, and the future looks pretty bearish. 17,000 additional troops are moving into Afghanistan, with perhaps 13,000 more joining them before the end of the year -- a move that will undoubtedly escalate the financial and human costs of the war.
Analyzing these issues could actually demonstrate a legitimate concern for liberal values. Beating up Rush Limbaugh, by contrast, is simply an opportunistic display of partisan buffoonery, which has the same social value as stories related to Britney, Paris and Ashlee. Please do not embarrass liberalism by associating it with bankrupt sensationalism.
Today, while the economy sits in the toilet, media outlets are again refusing to allow mundane stories to distract them. Instead, they are extensively covering the relationship between radio and television personality Rush Limbaugh and the Republican Party. Earlier this week, the media's intense investigative reporting revealed that RNC Chair Michael Steele "dissed" Rush Limbaugh but then later apologized. Continuing coverage of the situation now proves that Steele's apology indicates that Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP. This same argument led Steele to diss Limbaugh in the first place.
Today, the Washington Post published a lengthy (2 pages) campaign essay -- also known as an op-ed -- written by President Obama's former campaign manager David Plouffe. Plouffe refers to Rush as the "Minority Leader." As of 11:00am (3/4, Eastern Time) Plouffe's essay is listed as the most popular item on the newspaper's website. The second most popular article is yet another opinion piece on Limbaugh. Surprisingly, readers are flocking to the day's most complicated and compelling news items.
A Non-Sarcastic Ending
Before Republicans readers begin condemning the "liberal" media, consider the following issues. A truly liberal media would focus attention on issues like soaring unemployment, which is twice the national average among blacks. The Detroit school system is so cash-strapped that one elementary school has asked parents to donate toilet paper and light bulbs, but Plouffe and other Democrats find Limbaugh a more pressing national concern.
The stock market is utterly unstimulated by the stimulus, and the future looks pretty bearish. 17,000 additional troops are moving into Afghanistan, with perhaps 13,000 more joining them before the end of the year -- a move that will undoubtedly escalate the financial and human costs of the war.
Analyzing these issues could actually demonstrate a legitimate concern for liberal values. Beating up Rush Limbaugh, by contrast, is simply an opportunistic display of partisan buffoonery, which has the same social value as stories related to Britney, Paris and Ashlee. Please do not embarrass liberalism by associating it with bankrupt sensationalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)