We just want to get this out there...Rush Limbaugh is a tool. And so is Newt Gingrich. Some of our die-hard conservative readers - who are always welcome at MEvBLOG parties no matter what (they bring the best booze, of course) - will probably want to tear our heads off for this.
However...let's examine the cases against them collectively, shall we?
EXHIBIT A - Gingrich recently spent the whole of a Republican fundraiser calling President Obama and his administration a failure because he currently holds the Office of Nothing, which represents Political Has-Beens in every corner of the Nation of Irrelevance and/or His Imagination. Meanwhile, in the United States, many economists say Obama's policies have helped the current recession level off.
EXHIBIT B - Rush recently ridiculed Supreme court nominee Sonia Sotomayor after she broke her ankle trying to catch a plane. He said, "I hope she can find a wise Latina doctor to set that ankle as opposed to an average white doctor..." And then he went to his own average white doctor to beg for another fake prescription to pain killers.
SIDEBAR - Actually the white doctor wouldn't write him a script, so he went to his Indian doctor. His Indian doctor told him to lose some weight and lay off the drugs, which he didn't care for. Then he went to his black doctor who he asked him to leave when Rush greeted him with "What's happening, Dr. Affirmative Action?!" Finally, he visited the multi-racial "Dr. Feelgood" who promptly supplied him with his "meds."
VERDICT - In the case of MEvBLOG v. Rush/Newt, we the court here at MEvBLOG Central find both Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh to be Tools of the Highest Order.
SENTENCE - The two must live under Democratic rule for seven and a half more years.
Court is now adjourned.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Rush to Newt
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
Really?!
I'm so tired of all the republican vs democrat nonsense.
Are Newt and Rush idiots? - quite possibly
AND...the Dems have some on their side that I shake my head @...however I've not seen much written about them. The bias of the press/media is so blatant.
Time will tell if Obama and his administration's policies "helped" the economy - which in my opinion is laughable. An economic problem that none in my generation or my parents have EVER seen, yet we are going to lay the solution on one man and his administration - utter lunacy.
I agree with jmck. Where are the articles about Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, Jimmy Carter, David Lettermen (called Palin a slut last night) and Cindy Sheehan (I heard she protested in front of Bush house in Dallas yesterday, I guess she didn't get the memo that Obama is now running the war). The media in the country is so in the tank for Obama, it laughable.
RE: jmck
My problem is with two men hellbent on taking the opposite position of whatever the person in charge thinks.
Is it really "blatant" bias to point out the stupidity and irrelevance of their comments?
If being biased means being tired of not hearing intelligent and productively debate then I'm fine with that.
Meanwhile...if you only knew how many phone calls and e-mails we (the media) get from people on the left who accuse us of being right-wing nut jobs. For many people, "bias" is just another word for "the reality I chose not to believe."
Matthew, I can understand how it seems like you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, but when the media tends to lean to one side more than the other, that's a media bias. It's not specifically "you" that's perpetuating it, it's the vast majority of "you's".
What Rush said was not really that bad in considertion for what Sonia had said against the fire department ruling. His racial bias was used to show the insanity of using race when chosing someone who is supposed to be a professional(like a supreme court justice).
I personally don't like either party and the country has been going down the hole since the 1970's. Divisiveness will only make the problems worse.
RE: MC
There are many tools in this world and the MEvBLOG court can only hear so many cases at a time. Many on your list are just as deserving of the swift (fake) justice handed to Newt and Rush.
Sit tight...I'll get to them too.
(I have, on several occasions, skewered Michael Moore, by the way.)
RE: Benny Scrap
Fair point. And well-articulated. I understand the "you" was plural but still argue that it applies to more of the media than people realize.
I'll admit that many in the media had a crush on Obama during the election, but that ship has sailed.
Also, I find Rush to be mean-spirited. He's taken the entire "race" argument and twisted it. If Bush had appointed Sotomayor he probably would never have mentioned any of this.
Another left wing looney with a pen and pad that actually thinks the world cares about their meaningless opinion.
I think one of the main problems is that many people in the media see government as black and white. Republican or Democrat. Once we get past a two-party system and open the door for more voices to be heard, things will improve. The USA is so diverse that it should not be separated by red and blue, but by all the colors in the rainbow. Republicans and Democrats will try like hell to never allow that to happen. There's too much under the table money to be made to let others into the money pit. Greed...
Oh please! Obama has spent more money in his first 6 months as president than all the other president's from George Washington to George Bush combined! I think he missed Econ 101 in college - because you cannot spend your way out of a recession. Unemployment is soaring, and this so called economic stimulus plan is a bust. Now they are going to monkey with healthcare and bring the US healthcare DOWN to the same standards of the socialists countries. Need an MRI - come back in 6 months. Need breast cancer drugs - forget it - it's too expensive - just die. Need some surgery - come back in 9-12 months. WHO is going to pay for all this "FREE" stuff? Nothing is free - those of us who work hard are going to pay for this. We LESS government at the Federal level, not more. I have a budget (that is shrinking) that I live with - so should they. If my income decreases, then my budget decreases. I can't "spend" my way out of it - DUH!
RE: Anonymous
Another "anonymous" commenter who talks nonsense. Check your grammar..."his" should replace "their" to agree with your singular subject, "another."
RE: BennyScrap
I'm actually OK with the two party system. I just think people need to learn to debate in a better way.
The fact is that they system works well with each side arguing until a compromise is reached. Historically, both parties can look back and claim an equal number of victories, which is how it should be.
What's lacking now is the ability to have those arguments in an intelligent way.
That's for sure. Intelligent debate is lost in this society. If you don't agree with someone's view, it's easier to call someone stupid than to actually make them feel stupid by having an intelligent rebutal.
However, I disagree with you on the two-party system. If we had a four-party system, it wouldn't be so cut and dry "liberal/conservative". Debates would HAVE to be on a more intelligent plain. Minds and laws could be swayed rather than just by party ideology. Instead, created laws and amendments to established laws wouldn't be able to be molded strictly republican and democrat. By labeling them this way(which everyone does), it only creates more divisiveness.
A multiple party system would insist that more than one party take the blame for law making. And as long as parties didn't team up and band together and stayed true to their political platforms(i.e. libertarians being socially liberal and fiscally conservative), the lines would skewed to where the hatred for opposing parties would be lessened.
At least, that sounds good to me.
I think we should get rid of the 2 party system and expand it. I "lean" right on most issues as I am a fiscal conservative. I grew up in a lower middle class home, worked hard in school and went on to graduate from college. I've held a job since I graduated from high school in 1979. All I want is to enjoy the fruits of MY labor, not be forced to give it away to others who DO NOT work. The Democrats want to spend and increase the size of our government. The Republican's have abandoned their "roots" and did some spending of their own. But I definitely can't identify with either party - so I guess that makes me an Independent - but only by default. I'd like to see us go back to having "regular" people in office. Term limits would basically "force" that issue. Someone being in office for 20+ years is ridiculous. A "regular" Joe/Jane can't afford to run for office because the Politico's are so powerful and rich that you can't get a foot in the door. We should have 4 year limits and at least 3 parties. Give us a variety of options. Those in Congress now are only interested in power and their next election. If you only had one shot at getting in and making a difference, then maybe our congress would focus on the issues and not their own career/power grabs.
I'm a conservative and I feel very strong about my beliefs. I have no interest in making compromises. Does that make me the problem? If so, I don't care. I want liberal ideas to be eliminated because I believe they are wrong. When did comprising become so noble?
MC, I'd say when we stepped outside of our box and realized that there were others in this world also. And when we realized that we can't FORCE our opinions onto others. Isn't that what the constitution is about? Isn't that why our forefathers came to this great land in the first place? So we could have intellectual debates about issues that mattered and make informed decisions.
I lean conservative on more issues than not, but I will always listen to a well formed opinion that opposses mine. To not do so will only hurt the country more.
Conservative shouldn't mean closed-minded and stubborn.
RE: MC
"When did comprising become so noble?"
When the Constitution was signed. The only reason our system of government exists is because of compromise.
When Sotomayer was nominated, the "big news' in all the media was how Rush and Gingrich called her racist. No actual debate of her creditials, just media pandering to the vocal right-wing minority, including looping 30-second sound bites, as usual. Only after those two were quoted retracting their statements did we get intelligent coverage of her record. The media has swung the other way now, with a decided bias toward the RIGHT. Bias, by definition, is highly subjective and difficult to prove.
When Judge Sotomaor was confirmed for the Appeals Court, no one in the entire Senate had anything bad to say about her and ALL of them except (I believe) two members voted for her, Republicans and Democrats alike. To take one sentence out of a speech that she has used in several venues as a marker for her entire career is dumb and grasping. So her career is to be vilified by drunken addicts and vitriolic right wingers pushing their new books is now O.K. but wasn't even an issue before the same people who gave her her current job?
The Republican Party has decided to make Rush and Faux News the de facto leaders of their party. So, Party down, dudes! The circular firing squad forms here!
Anne, you silly person. It's not just about one phrase that she had said. Her court record also shows that she has racial bias on her mind.
New Haven, Connecticut threw out fire fighter test scores because whites had scored better than blacks and hispanics on a completely level playing field. Sotomayor approved of their actions. I would prefer not to have a racist bigot in the highest court system.
Now tell me, if her record shows such an ugly blemish, why should she take the position of Supreme Court Justice? I prefer justice and fairness over bias and emotions.
RE: BennyScrap
It's my understanding that in the Connecticut fire fighter case Sotomayor had to decide whether or not racial discrimination occurred in the EXACT way the defense was arguing.
The white fire fighters used a specific argument that was legally flawed. From what I can tell, that's why they lost the first time and why Sotomayor voted to uphold the decision.
It's funny that people are saying she wasn't acting like a judge in that instance...She went by the facts as they were presented and not by the spirit of the argument.
And that's supremely judge-like behavior.
Newts comments are not valid because he currently is not an elected offical and some economists diagree with him? With that logic your comments and all those made by hollywood actors are also invalid.
lol!! that's great
RE: Anonymous 3:56 and Catherine
There's quite a bit of a difference in the influential capabilities of Newt Gingrich and those of a blogger.
Were my blog in the national spotlight, you might be right.
But it's not, so you aren't.
Post a Comment