Rush gets 2nd Republican official apology -is he a gift to the Dems?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2009 5:02 PM GMT
    For a while after the election that took the RNC out of power in Washington, it began to look like the moderate republicans like C Powell were actually going to affect a change toward moderating their policies, and their base. But Rush, at the conservative causcus meeting this past weekend, re-iterated his wish for Obama to fail to an applauding audience. A second Republican head, this time the head of the RNC claimed his comments were "incindiary", and 'ugly" only to apologise later. The first one was a senator from the south who ended up going as far as calling into Rush's show to apologise because he got so many calls demanding he do so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Due to all this it appears to me that the Rush base is taking over influence, and digging the Republicans into a deeper hole. The RNC inablitity to "GET IT" is just amasing !!! (GET IT =their need to take blame for the failure of their party's policies, and to be more moderate and inclusive to more than just their Rush type base) >>>>>>>>>>>looks like this turning toward Rush as the RNC spokesperson is working very well for the Democrats. What do you think?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2009 6:01 PM GMT
    I agree. The Republican Party needs to be careful that it does not become irrelevant like the Liberals did in the United Kingdom. The young voters today are more liberal and tolerant than earlier generations. They are the future voting block. And since they are the baby boom echo, there are a lot of them. The politics of divison practiced by Mr. Limbaugh appeals to a minority of voters, perhaps even a minority of Republicans.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2009 6:31 PM GMT
    I agree. The Reps are on their way out unless they disavow their extreme right wing and ditch the "christian" right. Their hypocrisy is breath taking not to mention the mean spirited odor of their positions on everything from health care to education. A party of rich fat old white guys on their way to irrelevance
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2009 7:08 PM GMT
    What amazes me is that anyone would flat out want Obama to fail. If he fails, it will mean disaster for our country, republicans and democrats alike. So by wishing that he fails would in part be wishing that America fails as well. That's downright unpatriotic. I don't know how any party could support or applaud that.

    The republicans may not like Obama, but who would outright want him to fail, just to prove their point? That's immaturity and selfishness at it's worst.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2009 7:15 PM GMT
    It's amazing. I never wanted our former President to fail during his tenre but you know he did. Like Rhythm said. If our president fail then the country fails.

    This is INSANE! It makes me wondewr do you want Obama to fail because of his political party or because of his Race or is a a combo of both.

    CRAZY!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2009 7:19 PM GMT
    I think Rush's call for Obama to fail will be heard by people as a call for the recovery to fail. I dont think people are going to be parsing the method to recovery as long as it works. Rush may be whipping up the Repubs base, but alienating them from the whole rest of America.

    ...and let us not even raise the issue of patriotism ... icon_lol.gif
  • EricLA

    Posts: 3461

    Mar 04, 2009 7:27 PM GMT
    I left the Republican party in the early 90s when most of the moderates started to flee or were displaced by more and more religious conservatives. Of course my coming out of the closet had a big influence, too.

    The Republican party, as it exists now, looks to be in its death throes. The party is contracting more and more to that religious base, which I think will be its undoing. Many are saying this contraction puts it further and further out of step with a generation of voters who don't identify with the social agenda the Republicans still cling to, including their policies on gay rights, choice, and climate change.

    If Rush, and Anne Coulter, and other ugly examples of the party want to be their mouthpiece, so much the better. I once thought the talk of Republicans becoming a "regional" party was a pipe dream, but I can see it happening. Though, I know tides can always change under the right circumstances.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2009 8:21 PM GMT
    In ten years we will have the Democrats and Greens comprising our two-party system. Republicans will become a fringe party, and Dems might slide right a bit (streamlining gov't, pandering to religion).

    The GOP has driven their own party into the ground. Too bad. There was things to like...until they became hateful and greedy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2009 8:35 PM GMT
    Ducky45 saidIt's amazing. I never wanted our former President to fail during his tenre but you know he did. Like Rhythm said. If our president fail then the country fails.

    This is INSANE! It makes me wondewr do you want Obama to fail because of his political party or because of his Race or is a a combo of both.

    CRAZY!


    That's good you didn't want Bush to fail, I wouldn't want any leader to fail, because then the country fails. However Bush failed in some things, in others he didn't, and as for the rest history will be the judge of that. And there were many who wanted Bush to fail in Iraq (having been there from the start of the war, to seeing/knowing how things are there now, he didn't fail in Iraq, did he make mistakes with Iraq? HELLZ YEAH, but there are no signs of failure)

    I want Obama to do well, like every other fair minded person out there. However I think people got it all mixed up by what Rush said about him wanting to fail. He basically meant if Obama is going to implement some big government, socialistic far left policies, then he wants that to fail, and its not a matter of him, or Republicans, or Conservatives wanting that to fail, it WOULD fail, and it would hurt us greatly in the end.

    He did say if Obama was going to govern from the center, and not try to appease the far left Democrats, like Pelosi, and Reid, then he'll do well.

    I don't agree with everything Rush says, but he made some pretty good points, and its very easy to see that people took what he said out of context, and no surprise at all
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Mar 04, 2009 8:36 PM GMT
    The more it's about Rush, the less it's about Middle America. I love it! icon_biggrin.gif
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Mar 04, 2009 8:43 PM GMT
    Rad_d81 said, "...he didn't fail in Iraq, did he make mistakes with Iraq? HELLZ YEAH, but there are no signs of failure)"

    How about the failed intelligence that got us into that war with no one getting fired or investigated for it? The answer is that he knowingly manipulated this whole mess to get us in there. When 9/11 strikes, and all you hear in the President's council is, "What about Saddam!? We need hard targets! Don't come back until you give us what we need!" then you have to give a icon_eek.gif and wonder what is really failing here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2009 8:48 PM GMT
    I think both parties are a mess, and need some new changes, and leadership. Obama talked a lot about change change change in his campaign, but so far his administration, and the way he's going about with things, the way they are, all reminds me of Clinton/Carter stuff, I was never sold on the change stuff coming from him, because I knew it was just all talk, and campaign slogans.

    Obama like Bush is going to have a pretty tough presidency. Obama's got to face this economic crisis, and some don't like the way he's going about with it, calling it socialism, and experts talk about how it will hurt us in the long run, and how what he's doing is no different from what FDR did, and what the Japanese did, and it didn't work. If it doesn't work then Obama, and the Democrats are finished.

    Then Obama's got to deal with the threats to the country, the crap going down in Mexico (I blame Bush for that, he didn't do what he should have) , that can spill, well is starting to spill out here in our country. Making sure we are never attacked again, because if we are even in the slightest way, Obama and the Democrats are finished.

    And then finally Obama's also got to stand strong against the far left in his party, who want him to do this that and this. If he tries to appease them, and govern more from the left, when the country is more in the center, he's going to fail.

    The Republicans need to stop fighting with each other, get themselves a strong leader, do away with some silly conservatives/conservative policies like abortion for example. I'm against abortion personally, however such a thing is only between the girl, her family, and god (if she believes in god), not the government, and there are many women out there who aren't strong enough to give birth, and then you have to deal with, what happens if she is raped by her father, uncle, or brother?

    The whole gay marriage thing as well. Personally I'm against gay marriage, however if I were president, or whatever I'd never deny anyone else that. They also need to stop with the whole god thing, and some of them trying to make themselves look all pure and upstanding, and then months later their in some kind of sexual scandal, or whatever haha.

    The Republicans lost their way later on during Bush's time, and I think people are going to start losing faith in the Democrats as well, as I said, both parties need some work.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2009 8:56 PM GMT
    coolarmydude saidRad_d81 said, "...he didn't fail in Iraq, did he make mistakes with Iraq? HELLZ YEAH, but there are no signs of failure)"

    How about the failed intelligence that got us into that war with no one getting fired or investigated for it? The answer is that he knowingly manipulated this whole mess to get us in there. When 9/11 strikes, and all you hear in the President's council is, "What about Saddam!? We need hard targets! Don't come back until you give us what we need!" then you have to give a icon_eek.gif and wonder what is really failing here.




    Oh without a doubt intelligence was pathetic, but going on trying to say he manipulated things to get us into war, I don't buy that, again that's garbage that is constantly thrown around by the loonie left. It served Bush no great purpose to have gone to war in Iraq, and it hurt him greatly as it was unpopular. As for the war itself I was not one bit surprised at all, when I heard we were going on into Iraq, because I heard talk about us invading Iraq, before Bush was president. I remember being in history class back in 96, and my history teacher who was in the military, talking about how when we were all in our 20's, that area of the world would be a major problem.

    The world pretty much agreed Saddam was a threat, and had to go. That wasn't something Bush just cooked up by himself, he just went out there cowboy style and moved him on out, again that's something I constantly heard even while Clinton was president, but nobody knew how to go about doing it. I'm not saying Bush's way was right, but what's done is done.

    History will tell if the war itself was the right thing to do, so I will not be so foolish as to sit here and judge him so harshly for it prematurely, however I can agree with anyone 150% that the war was started and managed very poorly which gave birth to many mistakes, that didn't need to be, and he was slow to react with solutions to these problems, because he listened too long to people, who didn't know what the hell they were doing. But with the things I've seen and done over there, and the people I've met over there, some who I keep in contact with, I can't sit here and say "Oh it never should have been done".

    And anyone who thinks Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 needs to be slapped in the face.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Mar 04, 2009 9:26 PM GMT
    Rad_d81 said, "Oh without a doubt intelligence was pathetic, but going on trying to say he manipulated things to get us into war, I don't buy that, again that's garbage that is constantly thrown around by the loonie left."


    Then call me the looney left because I was calling it before we invaded. How's that for foresight? In fact, I knew we were going to an eventual war with Iraq the moment Bush got elected. It was no secret. He was going to war however he could spin it!!! You may not like my garbage, but at least it doesn't "stank"!
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Mar 04, 2009 9:29 PM GMT
    Rad_d81 said, "And anyone who thinks Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 needs to be slapped in the face."


    Hold your bitch slap until you show proof.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Mar 04, 2009 9:31 PM GMT
    Now I just realized who I'm talking to. It's Rad, the talks-his-way-out-of-a-disproven-argument guy.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Mar 04, 2009 9:35 PM GMT
    Rad_d81 said, "Then Obama's got to deal with the threats to the country, the crap going down in Mexico (I blame Bush for that, he didn't do what he should have) , that can spill, well is starting to spill out here in our country. Making sure we are never attacked again, because if we are even in the slightest way, Obama and the Democrats are finished."


    Laughable! If we get attacked during Obama's administration, Obama and the Democrats are finished, but an attack happens during Bush's Administration and he gets re-elected! Who's looney now?
  • Tiller66

    Posts: 380

    Mar 04, 2009 9:38 PM GMT
    Well myself I just think that the Pres. should not directly engage Limburger at all and by doing so only gives the right more energy.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Mar 04, 2009 9:43 PM GMT
    jprichva, meet Rad.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 04, 2009 9:47 PM GMT
    Rad said:
    Bush failed in some things, in others he didn't, and as for the rest history will be the judge of that. And there were many who wanted Bush to fail in Iraq he didn't fail in Iraq, did he make mistakes with Iraq? HELLZ YEAH, but there are no signs of failure)

    I don't agree with everything Rush says, but he made some pretty good points, and its very easy to see that people took what he said out of context, and no surprise at all

    I'm sorry Rad but George W Bush has failed at everything that he has done in his entire life
    He was a washed up alcoholic coke head who would have been nameless and likely homeless if it wasn't for his father and his connections
    His oil career? ... a failure
    Harken energy
    Arbusto oil
    ENRON his political backer and money launderer
    his ties to Bechtel and Haliburton
    MCI/Worldcom
    As he did to his unsuccessful businesses, George W. Bush has done to the country -- leading it down a path of failure:

    * huge federal deficits
    * mismanagement
    * deception
    * cronyism.
    Iraq not a failure ....?
    That's a first ... so tell me how many Iraqi's are worth what we got out of that fiasco? 'cause we're well past the one hundred thousand mark
    How many BILLIONS of spent and yet to be spent dollars will have been enough? Billions your not "quite" a failure failure kept off the books
    How much more F**ked up can the political landscape be before you'd say maybe it wasn't worth it? Is Afghanistan F**ked up enough for you now?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2009 9:50 PM GMT
    [
    QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HEREQUOTE GOES HERE
    Bush didn't fail in Iraq, did he make mistakes with Iraq? HELLZ YEAH, but there are no signs of failure)

    Rad_d81 = d-e-l-u-s-i-o-n-a-l
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Mar 04, 2009 10:01 PM GMT
    Using Rush Limbaugh's Superbowl analogy towards the success of Iraq, if the game score represents the amount of WMDs found in Iraq and my team didn't score a touchdown in the Superbowl, then we lost, right?

    Supposedly there were enough WMDs in Iraq to provide an "emminent threat to the United States" and that we didn't need to wait to "see a mushroom cloud" to do something about it. But there were 0. zero. nil.

    How do you spell Iraq War success? z-e-r-o


    (Now here comes the schools, hospitals and the kids bit because that's surely why we're there.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 2:56 PM GMT
    sixxfive said[
    QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HEREQUOTE GOES HERE
    Bush didn't fail in Iraq, did he make mistakes with Iraq? HELLZ YEAH, but there are no signs of failure)

    Rad_d81 = d-e-l-u-s-i-o-n-a-l



    Actually you're the one who is delusional, and brainwashed. Don't talk to me about what's going on in Iraq unless ya been there, and obviously ya haven't. So spare the the brainwashed liberal crap, thank you bye bye icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 3:13 PM GMT
    coolarmydude saidRad_d81 said, "Then Obama's got to deal with the threats to the country, the crap going down in Mexico (I blame Bush for that, he didn't do what he should have) , that can spill, well is starting to spill out here in our country. Making sure we are never attacked again, because if we are even in the slightest way, Obama and the Democrats are finished."


    Laughable! If we get attacked during Obama's administration, Obama and the Democrats are finished, but an attack happens during Bush's Administration and he gets re-elected! Who's looney now?


    School time for you buddy.

    First of all, we were attacked way before 9/11 happened, and with the way the country was at the time, even when Bush became president I wasn't one bit surprised 9/11 happened. Should Bush have taken the warnings more serious? He sure should have, but the mindset of the country was unfortunately different back then, NO ONE took any of it seriously. 9/11 had to happen before people got serious about it.

    After 9/11 happaned that pretty much changed the country, and the world, yeah there are still some morons walking about (many of which I'm sure are in here judging by the post) who have the pre-9/11 mentality, which is dangerous, but ultimately policies were implemented to keep the country safe.

    What I'm saying, which you fail to see because you are so blind, and brainwashed, is that if Obama tampers with anything greatly, or makes a move, that kinda puts us back to pre-9/11 mentality, and we are attacked again, he's finished plain and simple. People were skeptical of his toughness on terrorism, thinking he wouldn't be strong enough to handle it, John McCain had/has a much stronger stance in that department, but in the end the economy scared, and became more important to people, and Obama looked like he had a better grasp on it, and McCain wasn't selling that too well.

    So if the Democrats dismantle anything, because of that touchy feely liberal bullshit about us being "liked more" or just to do away with everything Bush since they dislike him so, and something happens, then we have a problem. Because people would turn around and be like "Hey we weren't attacked for 7 years, you guys do this and that, and then we're hit again" That wouldn't look good for the Democrats, and especially Obama at all.

    As for Bush being re-elected, again no surprise. During the Kerry VS Bush election, people weren't sold on what Kerry wanted to do, and the war and keeping us safe was more important to people at the time, and well most didn't trust the Democrats in that department, so Bush was re-elected.

    Things in Iraq are a lot better, and have changed a lot, still dangerous not as dangerous, and it could all go to hell if we get stupid over there, but for the most part things are moving in the right direction, not to mention the economy as I said became more important.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 3:15 PM GMT
    GQjock saidRad said:
    Bush failed in some things, in others he didn't, and as for the rest history will be the judge of that. And there were many who wanted Bush to fail in Iraq he didn't fail in Iraq, did he make mistakes with Iraq? HELLZ YEAH, but there are no signs of failure)

    I don't agree with everything Rush says, but he made some pretty good points, and its very easy to see that people took what he said out of context, and no surprise at all

    I'm sorry Rad but George W Bush has failed at everything that he has done in his entire life
    He was a washed up alcoholic coke head who would have been nameless and likely homeless if it wasn't for his father and his connections
    His oil career? ... a failure
    Harken energy
    Arbusto oil
    ENRON his political backer and money launderer
    his ties to Bechtel and Haliburton
    MCI/Worldcom
    As he did to his unsuccessful businesses, George W. Bush has done to the country -- leading it down a path of failure:

    * huge federal deficits
    * mismanagement
    * deception
    * cronyism.
    Iraq not a failure ....?
    That's a first ... so tell me how many Iraqi's are worth what we got out of that fiasco? 'cause we're well past the one hundred thousand mark
    How many BILLIONS of spent and yet to be spent dollars will have been enough? Billions your not "quite" a failure failure kept off the books
    How much more F**ked up can the political landscape be before you'd say maybe it wasn't worth it? Is Afghanistan F**ked up enough for you now?


    Someone sounds like an angry liberal hahaha

    Dude as I've said before, there are things I strongly disagreed with Bush on, and know he made some pretty stupid mistakes, that turned into bigger problems. However I greatly respect the fact he actually stood up against the terrorism, whereas Clinton whenever we were attacked by the radical Islamist, did nothing.

    Don't try to sit up there thinking I agree with everything Bush did, that's your mistake and why I find you hilarious because you're being very typical. I'm just not being a nut bag hateful liberal with the BDS like you, and some of the other freaks in here. I'm being fair, yes he made stupid mistakes, no I do not agree with everything he's done, but I don't hate him, and I give credit where it is due. I strongly disagree with many of Obama's policies, and philosophies but I'm going to be fair with him as well.

    Telling me Bush was an alcoholic and all that other crap, which I'm sure everyone knows, is irrelevant.