Some of the comments over at Katie Allison Granju’s blog defending Rush against the evil “We Want Rush Limbaugh to Fail” Facebook group are priceless:

Isn’t that very group divisive and hate-filled? It seems that tolerance only goes for what the left believe in. They are allowed to speak out against something they disagree with and try to get rid of it, but Rush can’t speak out against what he disagrees with? He isn’t even pushing to get rid of the groups he talks about.

and

come on, the democratic party has been screaming bloody murder for bush to fail for 8 years. Whats different about Rush doing it back. We are a divided America, get used to it cause there is no bridging the middle ground, it will only get worse.

Number one, the very existence of Limbaugh’s show is to get rid “of the groups he talks about,” and two, please show me one instance of a high-profile Democratic mouthpiece or elected representative saying he wants President Bush to fail.

  • Share/Bookmark

The Rush and Rudy Show

Ex-mayor of New York and Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani defends his golf buddy:

“Other people [besides Rush] are going to have to be included in the party,” he says. “They’ll have to be allowed to speak to moderates,” he says. “The Republican Party is not one voice, it’s not Rush Limbaugh,” he says.

Unfortunately for America’s mayor, the Republican party is only big enough for Rush and his ego. Just ask Rush. Or better yet, ask the Governor, the Congressman, and that wack loose cannon.

  • Share/Bookmark
Tagged with:
 
We're goin' down, down, down...

We're goin' down, down, down...

Every ten years or so of the last two thousand, we hear of the fulfillment of prophecy that proves the “end is nigh,” a.k.a. “end of days” or “OH MY GOD THE SKY IS FALLING!” Remember when Jesus himself kicked off the recurring doomsday theme by saying that the world would end in his lifetime (Mark 13:30)? Good times, but not the end of times. Because, yoohoo, it’s 2009 and we’re still here.

Yet, people continue to stick their fingers in their minds, ignore history, and apply failed prophecies to current events. Some are funny. Others are just sad. Scratch that, they’re all funny.

And it’s not only religious fundamentalists who whip out unwarranted and inaccurate accusations sans historical context to further their agenda. Our elected officials and political pundits do it, too.

Take the frantic and unrestrained declaration that our brand-spankin’ new President is a socialist and/or communist and is taking “cues from Lenin.” Been there, done that, with not one [pdf], but two, Roosevelts, a King, and a Clinton.

Oh and yesterday, despite evidence to the contrary, Tennessee’s own Congressman Marsha Blackburn joined the chorus of voices blaming the stock market slide on Mr. Obama’s candidacy, his election, and his whole 6 weeks in office. Little does she care – because I’m positive she knows – that her one-trick pony hopped on a ship that’s been launched to sail over and over again and over again.

Democrats have also ignored historical context. While attacking the leading voice of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, for saying that he wants President Obama, and by proxy the country, to fail, they neglected to mention all the times during the last eight years that high-profile Democratic mouthpieces have said they wanted President Bush to fail.

Let’s go to the videotape. Oh wait. We can’t? There is no videotape of a high-profile Democratic mouthpiece or elected representative saying he wants President Bush to fail?

What if we accept (for the length of this sentence) Limbaugh’s excuse – that he only wants President Obama’s policies to fail – and modify the request?

Still no?

  • Share/Bookmark

I’m sorry, Rush

And so can you.

The DCCC has uncovered a double super secret background Apology Machine that makes it easy for cowering and sycophantic Republicans to beg for forgiveness from the leader of their party.

First a Governor, then a Congressman, and now a loose cannon.

Does anyone know why they keep apologizing?

  • Share/Bookmark

It’s a tremendous leap from “[t]he national coordinator for health information technology shall undertake the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care” to “Barack Obama wants old people to die,” but leave it to Tennessee’s own Steve Gill to make the jump. And he’s been making that same jump for over a week now, ever since Rush Limbaugh picked up former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey false claim that provisions in the economic recovery act would allow the federal government to determine what is and is not “unnecessary care”:

But the bill goes much further on page 442. It explicitly says that the government will be delivering information to your doctor at bedside, quote, “to guide decisions at the time and place of care”—at the time and place of care. So, in fact, this is going be a two-way system. Your medical treatments will be stored in the medical database but the government will also be communicating with your doctor at the time and place of care.

Freddie and I talked about what a load of hooey this was on the show this morning – McCaughey left out one tiny, but crucial, word and oh, by the way, she gets paid by the very people who want to stop healthcare reform at any cost:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

But our Aunt B. (can we call you “our Aunt B.?) of the Tiny Cat Pants wrote in with another salient point:

I was listening to you on the way into work talking about the weirdness with the Republican talking point about the Dems wanting there to be some kind of live-chat between your doctor and Obama during your appointment in order to determine what kind of medical treatment you should get. And I loved it! But I just wanted to say that you missed, I think, the most obvious weird thing–the Republicans really do want half of us to have to okay our medical procedures with the government. You’re going to tell me that they wouldn’t love some system whereby when a woman wanted an abortion, the doctor had to text Rush Limbaugh and discuss her case with him to see how to procede? So, how come what’s good for the gander isn’t good for the goose?

Shhhhhh, Aunt B! Don’t give them any ideas! Come to think of it, maybe that’s what they’re afraid of? Monitored medical records might mean a whole mess of skeletons tumbling out of the closets of the “No Uterus” crowd, which would undoubtedly mess up their very deft use of abortion as a political football.

So, Rush, Steve, et. al, which is it? Medical privacy for everyone – including women – or not?

UPDATE: Another email from a loyal listener:

This is the dumbest argumnent I’ve ever heard. Evidence-based medicine is one of the most basic changes that we can make to fix the healthcare system. This isn’t: we’re going to tell you how to treat your patient. This is: we’re going to see what actually works and what doesnt’ and give you the results so that you can have the most effective information possible. Are they against the CDC?? This is so dumb. I want this opposition engraved on their tombstone so that for all of eternity they will be remembered as dumb.

Have the heard the one about the birth certificate?

UPDATE: Don’t forget to read about my Aunt B.’s powerful female bits. How powerful, you ask? So powerful that elected officials feel the need to regulate them.

  • Share/Bookmark

I was going to start this post by saying that I can understand economic policy differences between Republicans and Democrats but, well, actually, no I can’t, considering where we’ve found ourselves after the last eight years of tax cuts and non-existent regulation of financial services.

And, as if the last eight years were a figment of our collective imagination, House and Senate Republicans have created, with the help of flacks Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Tennessee’s own Steve Gill, an echo chamber of misinformation criticizing President Obama’s economic recovery plan. Most egregiously, is that the misinformation in this particular echo chamber is getting bounced around to a mainstream media that refuses to fact check instead choosing only to regurgitate talking points :

During the Senate debate, between Feb. 2 and Feb. 5, Republican lawmakers outnumbered Democratic lawmakers 75 to 41 in interviews. During the House debate the week earlier, cable outlets hosted a 2 to 1 ratio of GOP to Democratic lawmakers.

Media Matters is on the case, however, offering red meat to those of us in the reality-based community:

CLAIM: Recovery package is “spending,” not “stimulus”

REALITY: The notion that “spending” is distinct from “stimulus” and the claim that the bill is not “stimulus” have been challenged by economists. CBO director Douglas Elmendorf stated in congressional testimony that the House legislation, H.R. 1, “would provide massive fiscal stimulus” and that the CBO, along with “most economists,” believes that all of the spending in the bill “provides some stimulative effect.” Additionally, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, has said, “[S]pending is stimulus. Any spending will generate jobs. It is that simple.”

CLAIM: Spending after beginning of recovery is ineffective stimulus

REALITY: In his January 27 written testimony, CBO’s Elmendorf said: “Because most periods of economic weakness are fairly short-lived, it is generally preferable that stimulus policies be short-lived. Currently, however, CBO projects that economic output will remain significantly below its potential for several more years, so policies that provide stimulus for an extended period of time may be appropriate. Indeed, a fiscal stimulus that ends before the economy has started to regain its footing runs the risk of exacerbating economic weakness when the stimulus ends.”

CLAIM: Illegal immigrants receive tax credits under stimulus plan

REALITY: A January 29 Associated Press article cited a single anonymous “top Republican congressional official” in reporting that the stimulus bill “could steer government checks to illegal immigrants,” as it “would allow people who don’t have Social Security numbers to be eligible for” tax credits. The claim, however, is false. In fact, the recovery bill specifically precludes from eligibility for the Making Work Pay tax credit of $500 per individual and $1,000 per family “any individual unless the requirements of section 32(c)(1)(E) are met with respect to such individual.” Section 32(c)(1)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code specifies requirements for individuals to qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit which include having a social security number issued by the Social Security Administration. The AP later revised its January 29 article to make that clear.

CLAIM: The New Deal failed, prolonged Great Depression

REALITY: Such claims have been flatly rejected by prominent economists, including Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, who has said that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not go far enough to end the crisis and that it was actually Roosevelt’s reversal of New Deal policies — in an attempt to balance the budget — that hindered recovery.

CLAIM: Fiscal stimulus in Japan failed during the “lost decade” of the 1990s

REALITY: Prominent economists have stated that economic conditions did improve when Japan undertook fiscal stimulus policies but that reversals of those policies hindered Japan’s recovery. On February 6, for example, Krugman said: “[I]t’s clear. The Japanese — when they were really pushing hard, when they had strong programs, when they spent a lot on trying to buck-up their economy — it actually did grow. What happened was they chickened out very early in the process, said, ‘OK, let’s cut back, let’s raise interest rates, let’s raise taxes, let’s cut back on those public works.’ And they lost momentum, and they never got it back.”

CLAIM: Economic recovery bill amounts to spending more than $200K per job created

REALITY: By calculating the per-job cost by dividing the estimated total cost of the recovery bill by the estimated number of jobs created or saved — and thus suggesting that the sole purpose of that package is to create jobs — Hannity and Limbaugh joined other media figures in ignoring other tangible benefits stemming from the package, such as infrastructure improvements and investments in education, health, and public safety.

In a January 24 post on The American Prospect’s Beat the Press blog, Baker wrote: “The Republicans have become fond of saying that President Obama’s stimulus package will cost $275,000 for every job created. The media have been typically derelict in simply reporting this number without making any assessment to evaluate it — as though readers in their spare time are supposed to determine whether it is accurate or not.” So Baker did their work for them:

“First, where do the Republicans get this number? They divide the the $825 billion cost of the stimulus by 3 million jobs that President Obama had originally pledged. Their arithmetic is right but both numbers are wrong. First, the projections from the Obama team is that their package will create 4 million jobs, not 3 million. Furthermore, it is important to note that this over 2 years, not one year. The cost is also wrong, or at least misleading. If we assume that the stimulus will work as planned, then it will boost GDP by approximately 1.5 times the amount of spending or $620 billion a year. If GDP rises by this amount, then it will translate into roughly $155 billion a year in higher taxes/lower spending than if we didn’t do the stimulus. This is money that should be subtracted from the cost to the taxpayers. So, if net out the increased revenue from the growth generated by the stimulus we end up with a 2-year cost of $515 billion which will generate roughly 8 million job-years. That comes to about $65k per job year, less than one-fourth of the Republicans’ number.

CLAIM: $4 billion for ACORN

REALITY: The bill does not mention ACORN or otherwise single it out for funding, and it requires that the $4.19 billion it allocates for “neighborhood stabilization activities” be distributed through competitive processes. Moreover, ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis wrote on The Huffington Post that “ACORN isn’t getting any of this money” because “we aren’t eligible for it in the first place.”

CLAIM: Corporate tax rate cuts and capital gains tax rate cuts would provide substantial stimulus

REALITY: Many economists do not view corporate tax rate cuts and capital gains tax rate cuts as particularly effective methods for stimulating the economy. Mark Zandi — the chief economist and co-founder of Moody’s Economy.com, who was reportedly a McCain campaign economic adviser — included in 2008 written congressional testimony a table stating that every dollar spent through a “Cut in [the] Corporate Tax Rate” produces a GDP increase of only $0.30 — the third least-efficient provision of the 13 he studied. A 2003 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report stated that a “capital gains tax cut appears the least likely of any permanent tax cut to stimulate the economy in the short run; a temporary capital gains tax cut is unlikely to provide any stimulus.”

CLAIM: Bloomberg’s Betsy McCaughey, falsely claimed that under provisions in the economic recovery bill passed by House Democrats, “[o]ne new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and ‘guide’ your doctor’s decisions.”

REALITY: The language in the House bill that McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York, referenced does not establish authority to “monitor treatments” or restrict what “your doctor is doing” with regard to patient care, but rather addresses establishing an electronic records system such that doctors would have complete, accurate information about their patients “to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care.”

And then there’s my personal favorite:

CLAIM: On this morning’s Steve Gill show, Steve and a listener had a grand old time comparing President Obama to Hitler because, like Hitler, President Obama and his economic stimulus plan want to kill old people.

REALITY: It’s beyond time for us to stop comparing our elected officials to Hitler. That, and both the House and Senate versions of the bill have kept in $87 billion to help states with Medicaid, the joint federal/state program that covers medical services for the elderly and the needy.

Additional misinformation that’s being spouted by national media is also of a more general kind: that the President is “losing [the] stimulus message war.” They get that from the wishful thinking of El Rushbo. The reality is much different.

As a Gallup poll released yesterday noted, “The American public gives President Barack Obama a strong 67% approval rating for the way in which he is handling the government’s efforts to pass an economic stimulus bill.” Despite conservatives’ vocal opposition to the recovery bill, 52 percent favor a roughly $800 billion package, while 38 percent are opposed. Independent voters favor the progressive priorities set forth by Obama: 50 percent independents favor “increased government funding of projects” in the recovery package, compared to only 36 percent who favor “tax cuts for individuals/businesses” promulgated by conservatives. Congressional Republicans, who see political gain from their “party of no” status, have a “staggeringly high” disapproval of 58 percent. Their approval rating is at 44 percent compared to 60 percent for Democrats.

  • Share/Bookmark

Rattled by the Rush Fans

I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you that, according to a recent Gallup poll, 60% of Republicans nationwide view Conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh favorably. Seriously, I am flabbergasted that the number is that high.

But if we use the Republican “guilt-by-association” blueprint – they sit in their cars or offices or homes listening to him for hours everyday for years! – that means 60% of Republicans think it’s OK to lie, misrepresent themselves, commit fraud, be a hypocrite, make fun of those with debilitating and life-threatening diseases, be on welfare, and hope that the United States weakens and continues its economic decline.

(H/T: Post Politics)

“All Rush wants it for the Republican Party to return to core principles, and the core principle that Rush follows is: follow Rush.” -Stephen Colbert

  • Share/Bookmark
Tagged with:
 

Happy Birthday, Ayn Rand. We Got You a Real Life Toohey.

While channel surfing several nights ago, I landed on The Passion of Ayn Rand, a made for TV movie based on a book that I read while going through my “OMG The Fountainhead is the BEST BOOK EVER!” stage. I wanted to know a bit more about the woman whose book I loved and whose philosophy intrigued me.

What I discovered while reading The Passion is that Rand, although brilliant, was also a psychologically-scarred bully with hypocritical tendencies and a severe lack of empathy. Still loved the book, but her practical application of Objectivism? No so much.

Yet, even to this day, my internal dialogue often labels people in her terms (I use character’s names as shorthand) – Oh, he’s a Howard Roark, or, she’s a Dominique Francon. In my mind, Rush Limbaugh has always been an Ellsworth Toohey.

It made sense to me – the Toohey character is a media figure (a newspaper columnist) who uses his medium to grab power by shaping – through lies and manipulation – public opinion. He courts influential associates and destroys anyone who 1) doesn’t recognize his authority and 2) tries to maintain their integrity. He also represents what Rand hated most – socialism.

So is Rush a socialist?

Well, we know that he doesn’t believe in the collective ownership of anything, so maybe not.

But if we look at Rand’s background – Russian-born, twelve in 1917, her father’s business was confiscated during the Russian Revolution – we get a good sense of her frame of reference. While the Toohey character may represent socialist ideology in general, it also represents the Lenin/Stalin brand specifically. All of Stalins’ least attractive elements are embodied in that one character – the development of a cult of personality, absolute control of the message, the acceptance of bombastic titles, the absolute allegiance of your followers, the destruction of enemies, and an ego the size of a small Midwestern state. It’s these elements that make Rush a Toohey.

This week, in just one incident, we saw Rush in all his Stalinist Toohey glory.* After revealing that he hopes the Obama administration fails in its attempt to revive the country’s economy (this statement alone has it’s own implications), Rush (of the gold-accented tribute to his “Excellence in Broadcasting,”) was called out by the president as well as Republican Congressman Phil Gingrey. Rush’s “Dittoheads,” who worship his words instead of articulating their own, fell in line and vilified Gingrey for daring to express opposition. Gingrey, it should be known, fell in line as well:

As long as I am in the Congress, I will continue to fight for and defend our sacred values. I have actively opposed every bailout, every rebate check, every so called “stimulus.” And on so many of these things, I see eye-to-eye with Rush Limbaugh. Regardless of what yesterday’s headline may have read, I never told Rush to back off. I regret and apologize for the fact that my comments have offended and upset my fellow conservatives—that was not my intent….

Now more than ever, we need to articulate a clear conservative message that distinguishes our values and our approach from those of liberal Democrats who are seeking to move our nation in the wrong direction. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and other conservative giants are the voices of the conservative movement’s conscience. Everyday, millions and millions of Americans—myself included—turn on their radios and televisions to listen to what they have to say, and we are inspired by their words and by their determination. At the end of the day, every member of the conservative movement, from our political commentators and thinkers to our elected officials, share an important and common purpose in advancing the cause of liberty, reining in a bloated federal government, and defending our traditional family values.

Did anyone else just feel a chill up their spine?

*If this angers you, feel free to re-read it while imagining George Bush is still the president and Rush is Michael Moore.

  • Share/Bookmark

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!

Visit our friends!

A few highly recommended friends...