Rush Limbaugh is...

[kami]

Here in Sweden we don't call tree-huggers and animal rights activists liberals, we call them environmentalists. Just for the record, the environmentalists cooperate with the commies and the socialists here. I'm considered to be pretty right-wing, being a liberal.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Liberals are left wing here, Conservatives are right wing.  And, in general, environmental issues are considered liberal issues (even if we believe in conservation).  The titles have about as little to do with the actual stance as Republican and Democrat do.  It's not like the Democrats want to change the government into a real democracy instead of a republic (which is a represented democracy).

[EUR_Zaitsev]

The only way to beat GWB is on an anti-war pro-economy ticket. The fear of war will most likely bring more liberals to the polls in 2004 and the promise of a better economy for ALL (not like Bush's plan) will bring in some fence sitters. I am not as Liberal as Rush is conservative because I admit the Democratic party has huge flaw. If all left wing parties could agree we'd be much stronger but the Rupublicans have a unified political stance of that french word which I cant spell lazaffaire(sp?) and Democrats dont. They didnt capitalize on the fialing economy in the past election and now thier paying for it.

[Mr. Lothario]

     I've often wondered, as I idly mused over the prospect of going into politics, how the U.S. voters would respond to a presidential candidate who did his level best to tell the truth and to think his positions through. I envision a candidate behind the podium, taking questions from reporters; a question is asked that he hasn't given much thought to, and he nods to an aide who notes the question down verbatim. The next day, the candidate's website has a considered response to that question. A web forum where the candidate posts? A publicly-available e-mail address? Running on a platform of truth and reason, in an effort to make aspects of the country (economy, welfare, etc.) better in a measurable way.

     My cynicism says that it would be very unpopular and unsuccessful, but I like to think that the people would respond to that sort of an effort on the part of a politician.

[alaric]

If I agreed with the guy I'd probably vote for him, but I don't think the majority of voters would. They're too used to not thinking.

Although Minnesota's last governor (Jesse "the bastard" Ventura) tried something similar. Claimed to be a man of the people. Claimed that he would really listen to the people. Claimed that he would really help out college students if he got elected. So, of course, all the idealistic college students voted him into office and he turned out to be a real creep. He started screwing over the college students only a year into his 4 year term. Real mafia style, thanks Jesse!

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Actually Loth, except for the obvious mud slinging by opponants saying he has to go look up what lie to tell, or that he's a puppet that can't think for himself (none of which would be valid in your example, but I'd bet some asshole would still say it), I think it would be very popular.

I do see a fatal flaw though.

When you talk about public forums, etc, there would be no way for him to keep up and still do his job.  Finding that balance is tricky (and the reason that congressmen have such big staffs, even if that's not what they use them for).  

I think if someone could pull it off, it would be great, and well accepted.  I just don't see how they could pull it off successfully.  The more people they have to answer to, the more time they'd spend answering.  But, when could they actually do the rest of their job?  Figure that out and you get my vote.

[Mr. Lothario]

     Well, if you're talking about a Congressman or Senator, then their job, technically speaking, is being the people's mouthpiece. They are supposed to stand for the opinions of some thousands of people. In that case, listening closely to the people would be an asset, not simply detracting from their job. If you're talking about a President, then the intense schedule of listening to the people would be most important during the campaign, so that people could get to know the individual and see his positions for themselves. After he was elected (assuming he was) then his job is to do what he said that he would. Which, running on a truth-and-reason platform, would be comparatively easy, since you wouldn't have made the outlandish promises that most candidates do.

[cookie]

If a pro-war democrat gets nominated I can tell you right now that the party is going to lose even more votes than they already have.

Nay, he can bring in the liberal base while winning republican votes. so nyah

What's wrong with my buddy Mondale?

omg. need i even answer this? he's an old, antiquated, backwards man. he's exactly the type of person the democratic party doesn't need right now.

now back to tastys post

I see Howard Dean as the savior of the Democratic party for 2004. He is the only candidate that can win mass appeal while bringing back the traditional liberal base that defected to the Green Party (which is only 4%, but we are the most politically active 4% you're gonna find).

3 good reasons why Kerry is what will save the democrats:
1)he has served in the war and is thus more appealing to the republican party
2)he can bring in the base in that he isn't ultra liberal and can make comprimises while sticking by traditional democratic issues
3)he has TONS of foreign policy experience.

[alaric]

What's wrong with my buddy Mondale?

omg. need i even answer this? he's an old, antiquated, backwards man. he's exactly the type of person the democratic party doesn't need right now.

At the risk of sounding like bondo and bucc, you didn't answer my question. You just called him names without providing any evidence, not even hearsay or conjecture as to why he's bad.

Shame, cookie, shame. And you call yourself a debater...

[|MP|Buccaneer]

At the risk of sounding like bondo and bucc, you didn't answer my question.

Actually, I'd say Cookie sounded like Bondo and you sounded like me Alaric.

Cookie did expand on her opinion, just without any meat as to why she thinks that way.  Cookie gave you three more words on it  .  Just no examples on how he shows it.  Very Bondo like.  No offense meant Cookie.

Loth,

The only problem with spending all that time responding to the people, if you are talking the federal level, is they are supposed to be experts, not just mouthpieces.  It's the one logical argument on why we still have a republic (well, the only one I've heard).  They are supposed to spend the time we can't, learning all sides of all the issues, not just the ones I care about.  They are also supposed to take part one those peskey little hearings or oversights or blah blah zzzzz.  

Seriously, when congress was in secession, I wouldn't expect them to have as much time (they should be in their seat listening to each other, not having me looking at all those empty seats on CSPAN) to communicate or interact.  But when it's not in, I would think they could.  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

A quick update.

As some of you should know, I hate uninformed opinions.  I hate when people don't know what they are talking about, but talk anyway.

In that spirit, I decided that I hadn't heard Rush in a long time, and while I didn't think he had changed at all, it wasn't right for me to spout off without checking.  So, on the way back from a meeting a little bit ago, I decided to tune it (I haven't eaten yet, so I figured it was safe).

Well, I have to say it feels good to be a moderate.

While most of the liberals here have been arguing against war, and that we should pull back, wind down, etc, our buddy Rush was spouting off that we have to attack, no matter what Iraq does.  That we can't back down now that we have prepared, it would send the wrong message.  What would Saddam think he could get away with if we don't show him!

He went on, about how France is pushing dates to make us find a diplomatic solution (as if a diplomatic solution is the worst thing in the world).  

Without giving a transcript, let me just say, he, is a war monger.  He wants the war, for some valid and many not so valid reasons.  He also gave one reason that struck me funny.  That the political climate in America may not let him attack this fall if we were to wait that long, so we should attack now.  That reminded me of some of the liberal arguments, just taken from the other side.

Now, some of the liberals may say that sounds like my postion.  Well, let me contrast it for you.  I don't want war if it can be avoided, but not avoided at all costs.  I think that our stance (words and actions) is called for, and accomplishing the desired goal so far (if things keep moving in the right direction).  I think that the UN needs to give a solid deadline to Iraq, and it must be enforced, with war if necessary.  

Most of the (vocal) liberals here started with no cause, burden of proof, murdering of innocents, and peace at any price arguments.  Some have come around a bit.  Some haven't.

But peace at any price is just as much folly as war at all costs.  At least in my opinion.

Sometimes it feels all warm and good to be a moderate.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

One thing I don't like is how conservatives have a tendancy to write off the massive disapproval for war in Europe as anti-American.  They should consider that Europe has just as much risk of terrorist attacks (they are constantly foiling plots such as the Rison gas thing in both Paris and London).  There are threats to the populations of the countries protesting the war, they just don't react the same way as we are.  To write off the pretty much worldwide anti-war feeling by the public and the partial anti-war feeling of national leaders as merely being peace at any price or anti-american is to not understand.  That is why I advocate great caution in going to war.

I've never been closed to the idea of war...I just think there are more peaceful solutions to attempt.  Bucc, you've said you agreed about sending peacekeepers in (with the threat of war if they aren't accepted).  With the way Iraq has started cooperating the past month or two and with talk of Saddam potentially going into exile, I really think now more than ever Bush needs to take a step back and realize that more time needs to be given to peace.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

One thing I don't like is how conservatives have a tendancy to write off the massive disapproval for war in Europe as anti-American.  

Maybe those american flags with the swastica painted on them have something to do with it.  Or maybe those over-generalized statements about Americans being war-mongering, fat, fast food eating, godless, yadda yadda yadda.

Some of us moderates even, chose not to ignore the fact that many of the europeans protesting lump all us Americans into one big bucket.  That goes back to my sarcasim about would it be right for Americans to charactorize all German/Austrians as goose stepping nazi's a while back.  

I find it more insulting, and funny, because these are the people telling me they are more enlightened then Americans.  If they (the protesters I'm speaking of) were so enlightened, they wouldn't stereotype us like that.

Bucc, you've said you agreed about sending peacekeepers in (with the threat of war if they aren't accepted).  With the way Iraq has started cooperating the past month or two and with talk of Saddam potentially going into exile, I really think now more than ever Bush needs to take a step back and realize that more time needs to be given to peace.

Here's what I disagree with.  Since we aren't at war.  Not going to war isn't stepping back.  It's just not stepping forward.  And I don't think the time has come to step back yet.  I think that the pressure being applied is working, and until these changes happen (not just speculation) I don't think the pressure should be removed.  Pressure is working.  I say let it continue to do it's work.  (Sending in Peacekeepers would be adding more pressure).

[tasty]

You can say what you want about Rush's arguments on any particular day, but the same sad facts remain. He is a racist, a misogynist, and an unabashed classist. I read the FAIR book pointing out the inaccuracies in the "facts" he reports and was apalled. And to be fair, I have also read Rush's response (he responded to each individual argument trying to defend his intentions). And his responses were bullshit, they hardly even addressed what FAIR said and many boiled down to irrelevant attacks on liberals and a liberal press.

the good folks at Take Back the Media! have gone to the trouble to organize a boycott against companies that sponsor his show. If you don't like Rush, go there and help them out in the boycott.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Tasty, at first glance, I'm not liking TBTM.

Thanks for the link.  But I just read the O'Reilly talkback article and they are spinning things as much as they accuse others of.

It's not that I don't like half of what they are saying so far.  I don't like how they are saying it.  Stooping down to his level.  The only thing I really disagreed with was this:

O'Reilly on silencing Rush: "Isn't trying  to silence Rush Limbaugh un-American in itself? Doesn't he have the right to say what he wants to say?"

TBTM Response: Of course Rush has the right to say what he wants to say. But does he have the right to say what the Boston Globe calls "Political Pornography" on government subsidized airwaves that belong to the American people?

Why, yes.  Yes he does.  Just as much as anyone else.  Nobody forces anyone to listen, and I'm all for boycotting as they do.  But they imply without saying that it would be right to get him off the air.  I think that's so very wrong.  When you hide the assholes, they only grow stronger.  Shit and mold grow in the damp and dark.  Keep them out there in the light, so we can make fun of them.

Will some people agree.  Sure.  But some agree with Randi Rhodes (same name but not spelling of one of the key makers of the A-Bomb, how can we forget her).  She shouldn't be taken off the air either.  Just like any neo-nazi that can afford it, or find backing, shouldn't have his show yanked either.  Anyone that thinks otherwise has to burn his ACLU membership card right now.