Poll is here.
Options:
The market plunging every time Obama announces higher taxes
Keeping 50,000 troops in Iraq and expanding the war in Afghanistan
Breaking his promise to end earmarks
Working with Republicans to expand government
Economic research showing Obama’s spending plan prolongs the recession and eliminates jobs
Results at the time of this posting:
The market plunging every time Obama announces higher taxes
26% (596 votes)
Keeping 50,000 troops in Iraq and expanding the war in Afghanistan
5% (116 votes)
Breaking his promise to end earmarks
15% (334 votes)
Working with Republicans to expand government
8% (180 votes)
Economic research showing Obama’s spending plan prolongs the recession and eliminates jobs
46% (1062 votes)
Total votes: 2288
The poll is also accompanied by a press release:
Libertarian poll: What is Obama trying to distract us from?
Party needles White House over attacks on radio host Limbaugh
WASHINGTON – America’s third largest party is asking Americans to vote on what they think the White House’s ongoing war with conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh is intended to distract attention from, Libertarian National Committee (LNC) Communications Director Donny Ferguson announced Wednesday.
The LNC has posted a poll at www.lp.org asking Americans to cast their vote for one of five harmful Obama policies the White House hopes their spat with Limbaugh will distract attention from.
“Every time Obama announces higher taxes on unemployment, the market tanks. Economic research shows his spending plan causes long-term economic damage. He’s keeping 50,000 troops in Iraq and breaking his promise to end earmarks,” said Ferguson. “Now, with polls showing more and more Americans oppose his agenda, Barack Obama needs a distraction. He gets it by having his operatives pick a fight with a colorful radio personality.”
“Instead of solving our economic problems by reducing spending during a recession and granting tax relief to job creators, Obama has instead chosen to kick mud at a radio entertainer,” said Ferguson. “That’s not change or hope. It’s a tired old political trick pulled out when you’re making problems worse.”
“Libertarians may not always agree with Limbaugh, but you don’t have to agree with him to see the White House is latching onto his celebrity hoping Americans will pay attention to that and not the economic damage Obama is causing,” said Ferguson.
“While the White House is busy whining about an entertainer and Republicans are busy inserting their wasteful earmarks into the budget, Libertarians are busy cutting spending and creating jobs in their private businesses. It’s clear the Libertarian Party is the only party with an agenda for renewal, not waste or petty spats,” said Ferguson.
For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Libertarian Party, please call Director of Communications Donny Ferguson at 202-333-0008, x. 225, or email [email protected].
Posted to IPR by Paulie.
The only one I can think of right now.
There’s not much left of the shell of the Natural Law party, but I like the name, so maybe we can take that over.
Is Michigan the only state where the Natural Law Party retains ballot access?
hmm, I’d suggest Obama should be ENCOURAGED when he leans L. When he doesn’t — often — he should be QUESTIONED…is it peaceful?
@ 51 paulie writes: “But let’s not praise Obama just so we don’t seem negative. When concrete action, rather than proposals and rhetoric, takes place, that’s one thing. But on most of the issues you mention here, so far all we have is empty promises.”
It is not my intentions to praise him. I’m just pointing out that not everything he says or has done is so bad. That he sometimes leans our way. Besides he has only been in office 7 weeks. That’s not much time to do anything.
However, I have just finished a letter to a number of this state’s legislators and it is not going to help my cause if we are seen as being so negative about everything.
This fairly constant Obama bashing reminds me of a school boy who is piling it on when two bigger boys are fighting it out.
We need to focus on our message and let the big boys hurt each other.
While many folks from our end of the political spectrum are criticizing Obama there have been things that he has done that are moves in our direction.
He has taken action to get the troops out of Iraq, Gitmo is being closed, the war on medical marijuana is being shut down, he’s for charter schools and he has mentioned personal savings accounts for retirement which if properly developed will help do away with social security.
What we need to do is to emphasize what we are for and how those things will help society. Just going negative all the time is not productive.
I agree that going negative all the time is not productive. Some of the things you proposed with transportation, etc., are good examples of positive proposals.
But let’s not praise Obama just so we don’t seem negative. When concrete action, rather than proposals and rhetoric, takes place, that’s one thing. But on most of the issues you mention here, so far all we have is empty promises.
the “All hail Sheriff Joe Arpaio” group. The group brags that ole’ Joe can feed the prisoners at 20 cents per meal.
Arpaio is a fascist scumbag.
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2006/12/26/scumbag-arpaio/
Obama isn’t worried about the economy. Things are going pretty much as planned for him. Since he has no particular worries he has time for other things. They make Rush the symbol of the Conservative party, demonize Rush, therefore demonize all opposition to Obama. Obama reigns.
Not so much. The economy is tanking with no daylight on the horizon, and Obama’s poll numbers are coming down to earth – already below W’s at the same point in his presidency. The war isn’t ending either in Iraq or Afghanistan. Obama has nothing to worry about? Hubris comes before the fall.
While many folks from our end of the political spectrum are criticizing Obama there have been things that he has done that are moves in our direction.
He has taken action to get the troops out of Iraq, Gitmo is being closed, the war on medical marijuana is being shut down, he’s for charter schools and he has mentioned personal savings accounts for retirement which if properly developed will help do away with social security.
What we need to do is to emphasize what we are for and how those things will help society. Just going negative all the time is not productive.
….and on facebook our “director of communications” joined the “All hail Sheriff Joe Arpaio” group. The group brags that ole’ Joe can feed the prisoners at 20 cents per meal. Is there anybody at national who even has an inkling of the left side of the Nolan chart?
7: Obama isn’t worried about the economy. Things are going pretty much as planned for him.
me: wow, quite a statement. Obama “planned” for the market meltdown and recession?
some Ls are prone to this sort of speculation, but I’d suggest that it’s conspiracy-theory-lite. Maybe Obama is just, well, a progressive, acting on his biases, redressing what he perceives to be injustices, as best he can.
questioning his MOTIVES vs. questioning his ACTIONS and UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS are 2 very different kettles of fish.
it’s not to say that some pols don’t have hidden agendas. for ex., some in the incoming W administration were itching to start a war in Iraq, and manipulated the aftermath of 9/11 to “justify” the Iraq War. perhaps this includes W himself, perhaps not.
similarly, Obama wanted to do cap and trade, and he does seem to be using the current conditions to ram it through.
opportunities present themselves. only fools don’t take advantage of them. but, of course, one prefers to promote virtuous action when the opportunity arises, not more violence.
Inquiry –
Not sure what you meant.
In NY, there is a Conservative Party. And, they have an automatic ballot line.
Some Libertarians register “Conservative”, because the Libertarians are simply an “independent body” in NY, which is not as powerful as a party.
oops.. Republican party.. I wish there was a conservative party
Obama isn’t worried about the economy. Things are going pretty much as planned for him. Since he has no particular worries he has time for other things. They make Rush the symbol of the Conservative party, demonize Rush, therefore demonize all opposition to Obama. Obama reigns.
Story on Stephen Gordon brouh-ha-ha inspired by this thread is now up at Libertarian Republican blog. Click on link above.
Pauli and Phillies are both quoted.
“I would be curious how Nader and McKinney are NOT neo-fascists, but I am. Seems like they stood for a LOT of unpeaceful things, and I stand for peace in all things, but perhaps you’ve cracked the code.”
I haven’t cracked the code and you’re probably right about Nader/McKinney. I’ve had an intense dislike of Bob Barr for many years, and Wayne Root is just another smooth-talking Reagan wannabee (I think he named one of his kids Reagan).
Nader is, if nothing else, consistent in his beliefs and represents the conscience of the democratic party. I think McKinney has also been consistent, especially when it comes to standing up against the Zionist lobby.
I guess there is fascism on the right and fascism on the left, so if I have a choice I’ll take the left over the right.
I don’t think of myself as an “appartchik” or a “prostitute,” but — who knows — perhaps I am those things.
I don’t know about you, but I’m a whore and a glory hole slut politically.
😛
(My little attempt at election humor. Enjoy…)
Leymann Feldenstein wrote:
Um…wow. Wow.
lf: Unfortunately, there are too many LP apparatchiks willing to prostitute themselves to the likes of Barr/Root, and other neo-fascist troglodytes, because they think it will get them more publicity.
me: thanks for the feedback, Leymann. I don’t think of myself as an “appartchik” or a “prostitute,” but — who knows — perhaps I am those things. I’m as certain as I can be that I’m not a “neo-fascist troglodyte.” I would be curious how Nader and McKinney are NOT neo-fascists, but I am. Seems like they stood for a LOT of unpeaceful things, and I stand for peace in all things, but perhaps you’ve cracked the code.
Namaste.
“Why, are they going to win? It sounds like your real beef with the LP is not that it loses elections, but that you don’t agree with libertarians on some issues.”
You’re right. I certainly do not like the candidates they’ve put up, that’s for sure. At least if Mary Ruwart had been the nominee I’d have alot more respect for the LP as an organization. Unfortunately, there are too many LP apparatchiks willing to prostitute themselves to the likes of Barr/Root, and other neo-fascist troglodytes, because they think it will get them more publicity. I agree with George Phillies that the LP is too quick to embrace Reagan wannabees who can’t make it in the “party of bigots, dimwits, crooks, hatemongers .”
“Hey, I got an idea. I’m not sure if Leymann is a male or female name, although I’m guessing male, in which case you will need a surgical procedure. Then you can be the VP candidate Milnes is looking for, but never seems to be able to find.”
Wouldn’t work. I’m too old and even if I shaved my beard I’d still have a five o’clock shadow.
pc, good point. it does seem that if leymann likes nader, mckinney, or milnes, he’s (?) ok with lost causes, so long as it’s HIS lost cause.
and that’s cool. i voted barr/root knowing they wouldn’t win, too. and i disagreed with them on some things. heck, i’d probably disagree with ME if i ran.
such is the human condition.
Because the LP sucks up time and resources that could be put to better use than making up silly press releases that nobody outside this website and a few others pay any attention to.
Go ahead and start your PAC. If it is very successful, many people may be drawn to put their energy there rather than the LP. If they don’t, it must be because they still find value in the LP, regardless of what you think. Resources that do not belong to you, are not for you to tell people what to do with. If you show them a better way, they might follow you.
And I can’t think of any better colossal waste of time and resources than the LP National Convention and the Barr/Root campaign. You might just as well have taken two million dollars and use it for toilet paper.
Other people felt differently, so I don’t know why you should be preaching to them. Everyone has their own conception of what their time is best used for. Do your thing, and let us do ours.
I simply made a suggestion to those already active in the LP to consider alternative uses of their time and energy, i.e. the opportunity cost of supporting a political party structure as opposed to other means of activism.
Suggestions are a dime a dozen. Lots of other means of activism already exist, and people are free to pursue them if they wish. If something doesn’t exist yet, you can try to start it. Otherwise, I doubt anyone will listen to you.
As for 2012, I’ll vote for Ralph Nader and/or Cynthia McKinney, especially if they run as independents on the same ticket.
Why, are they going to win? It sounds like your real beef with the LP is not that it loses elections, but that you don’t agree with libertarians on some issues.
If they don’t run I’ll vote for Robert Milnes and whoever he chooses to run with on a progressive/libertarian fusion ticket.
I’ll just leave that there and let it speak for itself.
Hey, I got an idea. I’m not sure if Leymann is a male or female name, although I’m guessing male, in which case you will need a surgical procedure. Then you can be the VP candidate Milnes is looking for, but never seems to be able to find.
LF: Because the LP sucks up time and resources that could be put to better use…
me: Can we stipulate that that’s YOUR opinion, not a fact? Whether other LP members are swayed by your opinion, I’ll share that I am not. I consider the cause of a viable 3rd party ambitious, but righteous. Giving small amounts to the very few Rs and Ds I can stomach strikes me as profoundly futile, and not especially righteous. Tipping the balance in some elections for a handful of seats leads nowhere that I can see. A few legislative malcontents and mavericks does not a movement make.
IMO.
“Why does your PAC idea require the LP to disband?”
Because the LP sucks up time and resources that could be put to better use than making up silly press releases that nobody outside this website and a few others pay any attention to.
And I can’t think of any better colossal waste of time and resources than the LP National Convention and the Barr/Root campaign. You might just as well have taken two million dollars and use it for toilet paper.
“If you believe that such a PAC would be the best path, why not start it and see if LPers salute?”
I simply made a suggestion to those already active in the LP to consider alternative uses of their time and energy, i.e. the opportunity cost of supporting a political party structure as opposed to other means of activism. If they don’t want to be bothered about changing their overall strategy, and prefer to stay on the same path of holding conventions, losing elections and writing press releases that nobody reads, so be it.
For my part I support issue advocacy groups that are anti-war pro-liberty that support candidates regardless of their party affiliation, and that lobby effectively for change. For example, while the local LP was busy promoting its losing candidates, the Drug Policy Alliance recently passed a medical marijuana law in the New Jersey State Senate working with Senators from both parties and getting bipartisan support and sponsorship.
As for 2012, I’ll vote for Ralph Nader and/or Cynthia McKinney, especially if they run as independents on the same ticket. If they don’t run I’ll vote for Robert Milnes and whoever he chooses to run with on a progressive/libertarian fusion ticket.
Everything, Leymann? Have you read all the posts? Because several of them suggest that “GOP-lite” or “GOP-heavy” are not ways to go.
Why does your PAC idea require the LP to disband? If you believe that such a PAC would be the best path, why not start it and see if LPers salute?
Eric Dondero said: “Until the LP moves full force to the Rightside of the Libertarian spectrum, there will always be a market for the Republican Liberty Caucus.”
The fact the LNC has nothing better to do than send out these stupid statements shilling for the Republicans and Rush Limbaugh is proof positive the LP has become GOP-lite and is engaged in fraudulant misrepresentation by posing as some kind of “alternative” to rightwing extremism. The RLC is just a recruiting arm of the GOP to sucker in disgruntled LPers because they don’t want to lose close votes in the general election. They simply want to eliminate the competition so that their rightwing fascist candidates can get elected.
Everything I read here convinces me more the LP needs to disband and reorganize as a PAC which would support anti-war pro-liberty candidates regardless of their party affiliation.
Eric,
Email sent. Gordon gets a lot of emails so you may want to call him also.
kimberly, I have at times advocated the LP SHORTEN it’s name to Liberty Party, so I think you’re onto something.
There are some — especially among the “radicals” — who seem to think that “libertarian” has a very specific meaning. The short version is: To oppose all government always, even when that means most theoretical and obscure issues, like personal secession and private nukes. Generally, this view involves Rothbard’s NAP, or some derivative notion.
A “Liberty Party” could be an excellent vehicle for small government centrism. Admittedly, I’m biased, as that’s my perspective, but I do think “left” and “right” Ls who are interested in actual social change toward less government could actually begin to challenge the Rs an Ds.
I’ve not pushed this issue, mostly because the LP’s bylaws have a number of procedural traps that were set in the 70s. But one can dream.
I like your thinking, though.
BTW Cannoli, I used to think you were an extreme asshole. But you’re starting to make more and more sense these days. You’re starting to sound like a reasonable representative of Left Libertarian views, kind of like Angela, and at times Knapp, (on those few occasions when he agrees with me, of course – LOL).
Paulie, could you do me a favor? Have Stephen drop me a quick email confirming that. For I plan to run a story over at Libertarian Reublican this evening on this whole “Stephen Gordon joins the RLC brouh-ha-ha.”
Thanks dude.
[email protected]
Just talked to Steve Gordon yesterday.
He has not joined the Republican party. He attended a meeting. That is all.
I’ve also attended meetings of Democrats, Republicans, Greens, etc. This does not mean I have joined their parties.
The Libertarian Party may have “swung to the Right,” but nearly far enough for us Right Libertarians.
While we on the rightwing of the Libertarian movement, thoroughly applaud the LP leadership for recognizing that Leftists and virtually all Liberals are at their hearts Big Government Fascists, they still have not been nearly vicious enough on the enemies of Liberty.
Until the LP moves full force to the Rightside of the Libertarian spectrum, there will always be a market for the Republican Liberty Caucus.
As founder of the RLC, I almost hope that the LP doesn’t go that far. And I seriously doubt it will. So, rest assured you Lefty (Fascist-loving) Libertarians. You’ll still find a home in the Stupid wing of the LP for years to come.
Wow. What a surprise that Stephen Gordon would join the RLC there Phillies. Thanks for bringing us that utterly stunning revelation.
You mean a Libertarian Party person could actually be a Republican at the same time? I’m shocked.
Kind of like all 11 past elected Libertarian Party state legislators who all served in office in the “Republican Caucus.”
Or, 8 out of 9 past LP Presidential candidates who all came from the Republican Party, at least 4 of whom returned after their stint in the LP.
Oh, and let’s not forget that illustrious Founder of the Libertarian Party: Davie Nolan.
His job before he formed the Party?
COLORADO STATE CHAIRMAN OF THE YOUNG REPUBLICANS.
Geez, that Georgie Pooh always enlightening us with stunning comments, like Libertarians might actually be Republicans.
Kimberly,
You might find Libertarian Centralism and Liberty for America attractive. We are not precisely a party, at this time, but the sort of sensible positions you are describing are the sorts of positions we take.
http:libertyforamerica.com
George Phillies
[email protected]
So, since the Libertarian Party has swung to the right, is there anyone who wants to reinvent a Liberty Party of some folks with the old principles and some new coalitions?
I think the Boston Tea Party is an attempt to do something like that. But in practice so far it has been marred by very vicious infighting, almost to the exclusion of any other activity. Its founder just left the party yesterday, and many others have also quit.
I am sure there is some common ground for some of the idealists who are disenchanted with the Libertarian Party now and some of the idealists who are disenchanted with the Green Party (and/or its antics) now.
I have heard many strands of people talking about Green/Libertarian collaborations. And, as I think I noted recently, we have even done that in NY. Maybe with the national Libertarian Party and national Green Party experiences membership losses and financial problems, it is a good time to build some bridge party between them?
That might be an interesting experiment. I would love to see a party that works towards Green goals through Libertarian means. There’s not much left of the shell of the Natural Law party, but I like the name, so maybe we can take that over.
I’m afraid, though, that it will fall prey to infighting. The smaller the pond, the nastier the ooze.
So, since the Libertarian Party has swung to the right, is there anyone who wants to reinvent a Liberty Party of some folks with the old principles and some new coalitions?
I will be entirely selfish.
I used to be a Libertarian. And, I just left the Green Party.
If someone could create a Liberty Party, with a lot of Libertarian values, where: the party could be more accepting of the civil rights movement and helping oppressed people; the party would be kind to immigrants; the party would be pro-choice (or admit that the government should in no way legislate reproductive rights; the party acknowledged that the government can influence environmental policy (even if it was in the Buckminster Fuller way of finding ways to literally account for air pollution, so that people acknowledge it as a cost, and people who make pollution have to pay for cleaning it up); and then have candidates that do not accept corporate contributions…then I would love to join.
Okay, maybe there will never be a party fit exactly to me.
But…
I am sure there is some common ground for some of the idealists who are disenchanted with the Libertarian Party now and some of the idealists who are disenchanted with the Green Party (and/or its antics) now.
I have heard many strands of people talking about Green/Libertarian collaborations. And, as I think I noted recently, we have even done that in NY. Maybe with the national Libertarian Party and national Green Party experiences membership losses and financial problems, it is a good time to build some bridge party between them?
Wouldn’t that be neat…
@ 19 Jim I wasn’t counting those in Iraq & Afghanistan and I figured low. Last number I saw for those not included in the war actions suggested the numbers were more likely to be 270,000 and you’re correct the base count is over 800, but apparently no one knows the actually numbers. I also have to learn how to spell. 😉
Thanks,
MW
@9 Ron Paul wrote a letter recently saying it was 160 countries, and I read elsewhere it is 805 military installations around the world. No idea what the troop numbers are like, but a quarter million seems low. (Germany, Korea, Japan, Iraq, and Afghanistan probably account for more than that.)
Ditto to what Thomas Knapp said. The (former) “Libertarian” Party ( and former “party of principle”), which ought to be renamed for what it is now, the Paleoconservative Party, is just breaking wind against a fan with its indirect defense of Theopublican druggie Limbaugh.
The old windbag only gained clout because the Republicans were in control, so overall, there was political support and political money flowing for a right wing message and media.
Others might follow this closer than me, wasn’t Limbaugh’s heyday in the early Clinton years?
The whole thing seems like a tantrum from a party that’s been out of power for a long time and has too many axes to grind to think before it speaks. The Republicans are suffering as a headless party and Obama found the need to give them a spokesperson, and worse for him, one he can’t credibly shift any portion of blame to, as he could with a prominent officeholder.
Ken wrote:
“I don’t understand this whole “Obama is trying to distract us from these things that are being mentioned all over the place.” meme.”
It’s a Republican lying point. They are trying to distract the American people from the lack of quality of the dodos they have running their party.
I don’t understand this whole “Obama is trying to distract us from these things that are being mentioned all over the place.” meme.
I think the more likely explanation is that Obama is keeping the GOP off their game by encouraging them to fight amongst themselves. If it’s distracting to the public, that is only because the public wants to watch the GOP feed on itself.
Also, Obama never promised to end earmarks. John McCain promised to end earmarks. It is not reasonable to expect Obama to fulfill McCain’ scampaign promises.
@ # 9 I wrote: “Maybe I’ll make a list this weekend. ”
I’ve pulled a list of ten issues from my file and will send them over to Mr. Ferguson this weekend.
MW
Regarding the RLC, Steve told me that his involvement was limited to attending a meeting.
Bring home the 250,000 troops we have delpoyed to some 750 bases in 130 countries around the world and save $100 billion, or more annually. Of course we keep 11,000 troops in Italy to keep Hannibal out.
End corporate welfare save another $100 billion annually.
End the drug war; saving $50 billion annually.
Good point! How can we afford these kinds of wasteful programs at a time like this?
😛
RLC members recently chartered their affiliate in Alabama.
In Alabama, the new affiliate includes former Birmingham City Council member Dr. Jimmy Blake, homeschooling mom Shana Kluck, and longtime libertarian activist Steve Gordon. The Chair of the affiliate is attorney Scott Boykin.
Excellent news. This is a great group of folks. I know them all, although I don’t know all well, and recommend their company.
I’m a long way from being a Republican, but I’m glad to see the libertarian movement being active in the larger parties, in addition to having our own party.
I vote “All of the Above” and then some.
As would I. Unfortunately, there’s no All of the Above option in the poll. I picked the war issue, to do my small part to encourage the LP to keep talking about peace and not just economic issues only.
It would help our cause if more effort was put into explaining what we stand for.
Bring home the 250,000 troops we have delpoyed to some 750 bases in 130 countries around the world and save $100 billion, or more annually. Of course we keep 11,000 troops in Italy to keep Hannibal out.
End corporate welfare save another $100 billion annually.
End the drug war; saving $50 billion annually.
Working to get states to open the urban transit market may reduce Green houses gas emmissions, improve job opportunites for low income workers, thus reducing crime and welfare.
Maybe I’ll make a list this weekend. Anyone wish to help?
MW
I vote “All of the Above” and then some.
By the way, Steve Gordon, who was instrumental in getting Barr the nomination, has recently shown his true colors.
To quote the Republican Liberty creeps web pages
“RLC members recently chartered their affiliate in Alabama.
In Alabama, the new affiliate includes former Birmingham City Council member Dr. Jimmy Blake, homeschooling mom Shana Kluck, and longtime libertarian activist Steve Gordon. The Chair of the affiliate is attorney Scott Boykin. The Alabama affiliate plans to set up a web presence shortly. According to Gordon, the group is extremely energetic and ready to recruit more members.”
Tom,
I was expecting that someone would have that reaction 🙂
New poll:
The LNC keeps picking really lame ways to try to start a media war with the Obama administration. What does the LNC hope to distract attention from?
a) Its falling membership numbers;
b) Its dire financial situation;
c) Its continued and increasingly brazen attempt to position the LP as the conservative movement’s bitch?
More Republican nonsense from the folks in the Watergate.
Options like Obama hopes to distract attention from…..Keeping 50,000 troops in Iraq and expanding the war in Afghanistan; Working with Republicans to expand government …don’t reveal a Republican mindset. Unfortunately, these are the less popular options.
What the Democrats are perhaps doing is pointing out that the Republicans are the party of bigots, dimwits, crooks, hatemongers –and that’s among their good points. The Democrats gain by persuading the younger generation that supporting Republicanism is opposing equality under the law, opportunity fro Americans whose skin is not quite the right color, et tedious cetera.
True. Additionally, Libertarians also gain by pointing out that Democrats are lacking on a variety of fronts, as they did here.
Hey, the Democrats owe Limbaugh a huge debt of gratitude! It was Limbaugh and the other partisan talking hacks who proclaimed Obama the “peace” candidate – without any evidence whatsoever to back up such a claim. Then the liberal/progressive antiwar movement picked up Limbaugh’s mantra and drove Obama into the White House.
More Republican nonsense from the folks in the Watergate.
What the Democrats are perhaps doing is pointing out that the Republicans are the party of bigots, dimwits, crooks, hatemongers –and that’s among their good points. The Democrats gain by persuading the younger generation that supporting Republicanism is opposing equality under the law, opportunity fro Americans whose skin is not quite the right color, et tedious cetera.
I think “What is Obama trying to distract us from?” is the more operative part of the question.
Mentioning Limbaugh may be an attempt to get it more press hits.
I suppose if the Libertarian/Rush Limbaugh press release was mostly a way to say nothing, but have a “sexy” gimmick to write about, maybe it makes sense.
But, I do hope that the Libertarians did not join this fray to in any way prop up Rush Limbaugh. What a nasty man. And, yes, his hate, rhetoric and foolishness has a negative impact on the world. Because, there are many foolish people who believe him. He does have power, because messaging is power.
I believe that trying to clamp down on Limbaugh is just the logical thing. The old windbag only gained clout because the Republicans were in control, so overall, there was political support and political money flowing for a right wing message and media. And, the zeitgeist was pro-Republican, pro-right.
I don’t love the Democrats. Though, whatever Rush is, he is the opposite of the morsel of goodness the Democrats have left in them. And, there is a strand of diversity that is in the Democrats, that Rush and the Republican media oppress.
So, I see the move to cut Limbaugh down a few notches, the same as the move to bocycott the NY Post. Obama and the Demorats won. It is time to take some of their spoils, and vanquish some of their enemies from the territories they controlled when it was their turn in power.
As for Obama and distraction. Sure. He is a propaganda king. But, I would like him to be more, and not less, forceful about the idiocy of Limbaugh and Murdoch. Wipe the slate clean. Let’s start at least in the quasi-tolerant middle of the road where the Democrats are, and try to pull something a tiny bit towards tolerance and community values. Let’s take a deep breath and wish Limbaugh, Coulter, and Murdoch to crawl back under the rocks from whence they came.
(Don’t the Libertarians have any positive, media personalities of their own to support? Why should they bat an eye over Limbaugh?)