http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21120728/

"Domenici would be the fifth Republican senator to decline to seek a new term, giving Democrats an opportunity to expand their majority in the 2008 elections."

Rumor has it, Bill Richardson is interested in this Senate seat. He's not going to get the nomination for President, but I'd love to see him take a Senate seat away from the GOP.

2008 = GOP Bloodbath!!!

I don't think it will be a bloodbath, just a sound beating, with many GOP'ers whimpering on their way out of DC and state capitals...

They will shrink by another third. We will again get to say, "took it in the sack!"

That will leave roughly half, and ideally a potent incentive to start serving the people, on a representative basis.

There are days I think the only reason the GOP exists is to create chaos and prevent we the people from actually leveraging our self-governance for our own good.

IMHO, all comes down to control issues and serious insecurity. The control issues are all about teaching others a lesson, and the insecurity comes from needing to be led, so they can just be who they are with little accountability.

Finally, there is greed. Every last one of them, that managed to get ahead, is scared to death of losing that, or worse, seeing somebody else get it easier than they did.

Those 'ol wrinkly sack kicks are gonna hurt bad, and we'll enjoy watching every damn one of them go down.

Bring in the new sacks!

That made me think of prosthetic testicles!

(some of those wrinkly old GOP members might not even notice!)

Bring on the Neuticles™!

Hurry GOP'ers, get yours before the extra-small size is sold out!

http://www.neuticles.com

Boy, are there going to be a lot of suprised Demo/libs, when the republicans retain the presidency and at least one house goes back to teh republicans.

You're in dreamland. The Senate has a very good chance of becoming a filibuster-proof majority for the Democrats. The House is a lot harder to predict, but I can't see the GOP gaining seats in either house. The presidency? Well, all the Democrat has to do is win the same states Kerry won, plus Ohio.

And with Hillary or Obama running, thats a very difficult, if not impossible situatioj.

"Boy, are there going to be a lot of suprised Demo/libs, when the republicans retain the presidency and at least one house goes back to teh republicans."

I'm keeping that one handy.

I'm not calling the presidency or the House for the Dems in 2008 just yet. Things can change pretty fast in the political world, and it's not like the Dems are all that popular right now either even if the Republicans are doing worse. But, the Senate looks pretty secure for the Dems in 2008, given that 2/3 of the open seats that year are Republican seats. They could pick up a few seats but should at least keep control.

Andrew

You libs act like this is a sporting event. Have you stopped to ask yourself if it's really good for America for the Democrats to take over all of the government with nobody to question what they do?

It is best for America that the GOP be stripped of all power because they have failed miserably. That means a filibuster proof Senate, the Presidency, and a nice healthy majority in the House. And I truly think we are moving in that direction.

Vitalogy, as I pointed out in another thread regarding CJ, you may be another example of why the world has never looked to the young for wisdom.

I'm old enough to be your president.

If you want to win the presidency, you better find someone that is electable, fast. Because your front runner, sure isn't.

>>>"I'm old enough to be your president."

Then how about acting like it?

"If you want to win the presidency, you better find someone that is electable, fast. Because your front runner, sure isn't."

You mean Clinton?

Nwokie writes:
If you want to win the presidency, you better find someone that is electable, fast. Because your front runner, sure isn't.

As pointed out repeatedly, that entirely depends on who the Republicans nominate. If Hillary can win all the states Kerry won in 2004 plus Ohio, she's got the presidency, without a single southern state (even Florida). In that regard, Fred Thompson should be Hillary's favorite Republican to run against (assuming Hillary is nominated - she hasn't won a single vote yet). If Romney is nominated, she might have trouble winning Massachusetts (though it's not out of the question Hillary could win it). Otherwise, I think Hillary can win all the other states Kerry won in 2004, probably even Ohio.

Andrew

Actually, Hillary is probably the most capable Democratic candidate in the race. I think her electability is one of biggest mysteries of this entire election season.

I am wondering if she can hold up through a long campaign after getting the nomination. I suspect her chain will be pulled enough that she will get angry and start making deadly mistakes. In other words, I predict she blows it.

Someone define " Electability " for me. I get the gist - but maybe some examples of what makes a person one way or another could be given?

I hate assuming too much.

CJ, it's still up in the air whether more people will like her or will hate her. Not too many our neutral.

Right now, the radical left likes her. But neither the radical left nor the radical right elects Presidents. It's the mushy middle, which can wallow in either direction rather easily.

But just in general, I always thought the term " electability " was tossed around to imply baggage of some sort. Skeletons, if you will. Not likability or competency. I'm beginning to think I just had that plain wrong.

But considering the new idea that my pea brain finally picked up, it becomes even LESS clear as to what makes a person uniformly unelectable. Is it just a general " gut " feeling that people won't vote for a person? Or is a character trait? Or something else less tangible?

People say " They are unelectable " as if there is some kind of glaring, obvious thing a canddate has or doesn't have. Does " unelectable " mean " They won't win."?

Well if that's all it takes to be labeled " unelectable " then you realize that everyone except the ultimate winner can be called that?

What does it even mean?

Or is it just some lazy way to express an opinion and hope nobody asks for any thought past a single-word label?

Deane writes:
I am wondering if she can hold up through a long campaign after getting the nomination. I suspect her chain will be pulled enough that she will get angry and start making deadly mistakes. In other words, I predict she blows it.

Then I think you greatly underestimate Hillary and her long, long experience in campaigns. She was deeply involved in all of Bill Clinton's races and certainly knows campaign pressure far better than anyone else running on either side. She was not just an aide to the campaign - she held high authority, almost as high as her husband's. Anyone working on one of Bill Clinton's races knew they had better not make any important decisions without consulting her.

Just because she's the one in the spotlight now and not her husband doesn't mean she's somehow a stranger to campaign pressure. I think quite the opposite of what you believe is true. Few viable political candidates today are as qualified to withstand a campaign as she is now.

Andrew

Electable, is someone that can withen reasonable circmstances receive a majority of the vote. As long as over 50% of the people say they won't vote for Hillary, she is considered unelectable.

>>>"Does " unelectable " mean " They won't win."?"

Probably.

>>>"Well if that's all it takes to be labeled " unelectable " then you realize that everyone except the ultimate winner can be called that?"

I would think it more a measure of the possibility of their being elected, for whatever reason.

Unelectable:

Gingrich
Kucinich

Different reasons, but both not electable.

Nwokie writes:
Electable, is someone that can withen reasonable circmstances receive a majority of the vote. As long as over 50% of the people say they won't vote for Hillary, she is considered unelectable.

Perhaps you need a refresher course in how the Electoral College works. Al Gore got 500,000 more national popular votes than Bush in 2000 and that didn't help him win in the EC, now, did it? Hillary could lose by huge majorities in the South (probably not as huge as you estimate, though) and still win with the "Kerry states" plus Ohio. Show me polling that says Hillary can't win Ohio and we can talk.

Andrew

So someone being labeled unelectable is purely a relative term. There's no real truth to it. It's just another opinion. And someone who is unelectable today, may become electable tomorrow.

Yeah, I don't like that term. It's a misnomer and inaccurate on just about any level.

?

This just arrived in the e-mail box. It's from my Mom -- enjoy.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/4/145252/385

Ain't that the funniest damn thing? And the comments take the silly even further. I'd be surprised if even the righties on the list don't get a smirk out of this.

"(T)he radical left likes her."

Who exactly IS this "radical left" that DJ seems to know personally? It certainly isn't any of us here, or any of my friends or people I know. Who are they?

DJ said>>>
You libs act like this is a sporting event. Have you stopped to ask yourself if it's really good for America for the Democrats to take over all of the government with nobody to question what they do?

But when it's the other way and it's tipped in the GOP's favor then your happy...? I don't think it's good for America either way. Too much of one thing is not good for anyone or anything. Equal parts is good but it seems that when the EXTREME comes out on both sides it NEVER good.
I try to stick with the GOP as much as possible because I believe in what TRUE Republicans stand for but NOT the EXTREME RIGHT WINGED Bible thumpers! And on the other hand the EXTREME LEFT MoveOn.org crowd.
Acting like it's a sporting event would be BOTH sides that take it to the EXTREME.

nwokie sez: "Boy, are there going to be a lot of suprised Demo/libs, when the republicans retain the presidency and at least one house goes back to teh republicans."

The troll said the same thing during the summer of 2006 and is still eating crow.

teh hee hee hee!

Since the troll and Okie are so sure of themselves, I'd love it if they made a promise to leave here permanently if they're wrong.

>>>"Since the troll and Okie are so sure of themselves, I'd love it if they made a promise to leave here permanently if they're wrong."

That's right, just like a radical liberal. Get the opposition silenced anyway you can. Liberalism can't stand the truth being exposed.

This is so not true Deane.

Really, all any rational person asks is for others to recognize when they have not met their burden, then act accordingly.

Most rational people also prefer people to do what they say and say what they do as well.

Me?

A "radical liberal"?

Now that's totally F'in hysterical! (and wrong)

I don't want you three "silenced", I just wish you into a cornfield. Somewhere else.

Maybe the one were the "Children" are.....get it...children of the corn....HAHAHA

Merkie sez: "I'd love it if they made a promise to leave here"

Troll Herb DID say he would leave if we asked him to. So, for the fourth or fifth time, Herb, leave.

Skeptical, I hope you don't mean that. Why would you and Mrs. Merkin want those who don't toe the liberal line to leave? Is that so there would be nothing posted except the chanting before the alter of the left.

It's the Blah Blah Blah factor I do believe! Get some new material guy's, it's wearing a little thin of late!

After Wayne, I can handle anything.

Most days.

Even though I don't always act like it.

Leave, why would you want us to leave, if you believe in your ideas. Are you so insecure of your ideas, your afraid we will convience you to change?

NWokie, I didn't say for YOU or anyone else to leave, its just that the troll offered to leave so I took him up on it. The troll has since pulled a Craig and is still here.

OKie, you're views are always welcome here, so are DJ's (although some days I wonder if he bangs his head on something when he gets up in the morning).

DJ, the absence of a troll might attract other conservatives having better critical thinking skills.

>>>"(although some days I wonder if he bangs his head on something when he gets up in the morning)."

Skep, you have a way with words.

I would say that instead of "leave" one could use the term "leave it alone" with better results.

While I may disagree politically with folks in these parts, I value everyone. America is really damn dull with only one point of view. After beginning this century with one set of singular and imperfect ideas, I'd love to see what other people might come up with cooperatively in the future.

Deane has a great story about the Mamas & Papas in a thread on the other side. Nwokie shared a magic moment of radio when he was a youngster over there too. Herb is a thoughtful and dedicated P1 for a tiny independent station in his neck of the woods. If we cannot be civil discussing politics over here, then we shouldn't even try.

Radio binds us together, so we cannot be all bad. How about it folks? Can we get along having discussions rather than arguments? After all, the bickering and the solid discussions are being eavesdropped on by many lurkers who deserve our very best.

Just a thought.

LS, you bring some reason to the discussion.

There is a basic problem with the left leaning posters on the forum that incites all of the conservatives. That's the constant rude hammering of the President personally and the position that anything conservative is garbage, worthless and should be eliminated at any cost.

We had it under some control for awhile, then when a new liberal posters shows up, this time Vitalogy, it starts all over again.

I was not aware that this was the internet discussion counterpart to Air America. I was not aware that it was solely for the liberal viewpoint. Is that the case?

If you want civil discussion, it has to start somewhere. I think if you will look back through the threads and posts, you'll see that there is an abundance of thrashing of the right side.

I have already posted repeatedly that I am unhappy with the President's actions during his term, that I think the Republican members of Congress who were voted out deserved to be and that the Republicans deserved to lose the control they had. Is that being uncivil?

Another thing, have you noticed if Herb signs off for a few days, for whatever reason, the taunting of Herb begins.

More civil discourse would be good, and we have it from time to time, but it takes two to tango.

Deane, if my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions.

The only thing that frightens me about your answers is that you are to out of touch with reality.

No Deane, I'm right in the mainstream of reality. Ask me any opinion on any subject, I'll tell you what it is, and then we'll do the research to see if I'm out of touch with reality.

You make some valid points Deane. You and I have both made great hay out of zingers meant to incite a riot. I imagine you react to my more sarcastic jabs like I do when I see yours. Even if it hurts, I do laugh. In fact, most folks bring some really high quality funny to the table.

What I do not like is the idea that any of us should be attacking anyone else on a personal level. Again, I will take responsibility for anyone who has felt attacked by any post I have made. Levity and civility is much easier face to face, while restraint can be an effort in a forum.

Do I dislike the current regime? Yes. Is that just my opinion as a tree-hugging centrist? Yes. Am I alone? No. This forum has folks on all sides of the political spectrum who believe we are on the wrong course. Unfortunately, we are often left exploiting our differences rather than our similarities.

Sometimes I wish I'd have sent you a demo when you owned KLYC. You and I would probably have been at loggerheads from the start. After all, in my early 20s I had long hair and a big mouth. What might have made it work was acknowledging our shared passion for the medium. Building our relationship from that point may have made much of the rest irrelevant.

I will be droll, sardonic and sometimes even bitter, but I will remember that behind every word here is a person sharing something of themselves.

Okay, enough mushy crap. :0)

>>>"After all, in my early 20s I had long hair and a big mouth."

Probably neither would have been a problem. We had a couple of big guys stop by the station on request and hold guys like you down while we gave them a quick burr cut. So far as the big mouth is concerned, we actually gave people considerable freedom to say what was on their mind.

LMAO! Funny thing, I always use the clippers these days. Salons are for womenfolk -- tongue firmly in cheek. Some of my favorite people have spent time at 1260, and it would have been fun -- and very beneficial -- to be the wide-eyed rookie with that level of raw talent around. If I lasted through George the first, you would have loved my Bill Clinton jokes.

Add: Do you miss the old candle? They are streaming a high school football game tonight:

http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/spotlight/index.ssf?/prepfootball/radio-affiliates.html

DJ said>>>
Then how about acting like it?

You first

DJ said >>>>
That's right, just like a radical liberal. Get the opposition silenced anyway you can. Liberalism can't stand the truth being exposed.

As can YOU neo-CONers. Your EXTREMEISM will be your downfall. Work with the other side instead of kicking them in the teeth 24/7! Plush and Insannity along with Rocky Rhodes need to stop YOUR EXTREME bullshit and work together. Neither one of your EXTREME sides is going to work unless you want to work together. If not America is fucking doomed. And BOTH OF YOU ARE TO BLAME!!!!!!

Trixter, I've asked it many times on this forum and I never get an answer. Give me one thing either Hannity or Rush have said that is untrue.

Deane sez: "That's the constant rude hammering of the President personally..."

,and

Little sez: "Personally attacking."

I'm gonna take them backwards:

@Little: Totally agreed!

I personally have been working hard on keeping labels to a minimum and personal slams, but for the occasional dig that's just too good to pass on. We all are gonna do that, from time to time, and it's just gotta be ok, or it's not real here.

(C'mon, we've all done it, it feels good and we are all big kids here. Just don't abuse it and all is good.)

I don't know about you guys, but I do get the occasional e-mail from lurkers. We have an audience and I think that's special. It says something about all of us that's really a pretty high compliment.

I've had lurkers mail me about lots of things. I've also been hammered in e-mail for too much poor behavior. (That hurt, and I am better for that. You know who you are --thank you!)

Too bad we couldn't do a radio show together! Would that not just be a kick? Bet we could make millions...

Do a format like "The VIEW". News of the day, some discussion, humor, and contrasting opinion. I know it will never happen, but I would stand with any of you in any venue. We are great, and I mean that.

I also would support any of you, despite any disagreement we might have.

None of us here are bad people. In fact, I think we are a group of pretty fine people! Everybody here is worth spending time with. If that were not the case, we simply would not be here.

Little makes a great point, and I second it!

Deane, I just deleted a rather long bit. Some times it's therapeutic to type it up, then wait, then delete it. This is a better post.

Let's just say a judgement of ones performance is different than a judgement of ones person.

Let's also say, he works for us!

Finally, if hearing that is troublesome, either reconsider those expressions that imply otherwise, post up your case and meet the burden otherwise, or deal and work on some acceptance and what that means.

I find it just as difficult to read things that are not supportable, given the facts and reasoning at hand.

Finally, we need the social pressure for change in place, or the system does not work. This means hearing the bad and the good. Honor the office, not the office holder, unless warranted.

Tell me this, why does a really poor leader deserve any deference?

My son and I just went through this. For two years, his baseball coach really was doing more harm than good. Finally, last year, my son finally spoke up in the team circle and just laid it out.

No name calling, just a rational judgement of the leadership seen to date (and yes the word sucks) was a part of that.

I met with the guy, who asked for an apology. He claimed some entitlement, so we explored that. Essentially, I asked where my sons judgement was wrong.

The guy had nothing, so he didn't get the apology, and is now working somewhere else also.

My point is this: Without that expression, nothing would have changed! This year is a completely different experience. The "office holder" is honoring the office and has earned his deference.

It works the same way with the President.

That coach took it personally. He tried to smear me as a bad parent, put pressure on my son to make statements that would mitigate the whole affair, claimed some impunity because of his education, past record, etc...

Now, this coach was likable! Not a bad guy, but doing a lot of harm to the kids, and unwilling to reconsider any of his actions, because of some "entitlement" he feels is warranted because he "holds an office".

The norm is to meet one on one, keep it low profile, give the benefit of the doubt. We did all of that. None of it mattered.

What did matter was simple social pressure.

DJ said>>>
Give me one thing either Hannity or Rush have said that is untrue.

Where did I say they said something untrue???

But just for shits and giggles here ya go......

In Chapter 16 of "The Way Things Ought To Be" Rush talked about how Willie Horton brutally raped a woman after he was allowed out of a Massachusetts prison on a furlough program while Michael Dukakis was governor. Rush, of course, refers to this as the "Dukakis furlough program" and blames Dukakis for the whole affair.

What Rush failed to mention was that the furlough law he is talking about was passed when Dukakis was not even governor of Massachusetts. It was signed into law by the REPUBLICAN governor who preceded Dukakis. Dukakis' biggest involvement with that law was that he repealed it. But you would never hear Rush mention this. He doesn't want you to hear the whole truth.

Trixter, wasn't Dukakis preceded as Governor of Massachusetts by Edward J. King, a Democrat? Wasn't it a much earlier Republican governor who signed it into law? Didn't Dukakis actually release Horton and fight to keep the law in place, even vetoing legislation to abolish the practice.

Isn't the following how it actually went:

"Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis was the governor of Massachusetts at the time, and while he did not start the furlough program, he had supported it as a method of criminal rehabilitation. The State inmate furlough program was actually signed into law by Republican Governor Francis W. Sargent in 1972. After the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that this right extended to first-degree murderers, the Massachusetts legislature quickly passed a bill prohibiting furloughs for such inmates. However, in 1976, Governor Dukakis vetoed this bill. The program remained in effect through the intervening term of governor Edward J. King and was abolished during Dukakis's final term of office on April 28, 1988. This abolition only occurred after the Lawrence Eagle Tribune had run 175 stories about the furlough program and won a Pulitzer Prize. Dukakis continued to argue that the program was 99% effective; yet, as the Lawrence Eagle Tribune pointed out, no state outside of Massachusetts, nor any federal program, would grant a furlough to a prisoner serving life without parole, as Horton was."

Nice try Trixter. You lose once again. Got any others?

Here's a few to chew on:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502180006

What got Dukakis in trouble, was his statements right after Horton raped the woman, basically he said, that's tough, I am not changing a good program.

He showed absolutly no sympathy for the victem, he acted like it was Horton that had been victomized!

LOL!!!

Gotta love Media Matters, right Deane?

Remember, Rush is necessary. That means entertainment and affirmation are his primary purposes in the national debate.

Being authoritative, and fulfilling those goals are mutually exclusive things! Rush is gonna make some people feel better about their views. That's all fine and good --free country and all of that.

However, none of that has anything to do with his credence, generally speaking.

Seriously, how can it be any different? I'm really interested in hearing some defensible arguments that support the idea of Rush having credence?

Why not just reach acceptance on that and be rational from there?

I'm not implying anything about anybody, but here is where I am going with that:

Let's say Weyland is a bigot, racist, or something not so pretty. If Weyland is surrounded by people, who are not those things, he's going to feel some social pressure regarding his character.

This is what Rush does! Those people, who harbor these kinds of things in their character, need affirmation. They need to know they are not alone and that others are like them.

Now, flip it around. Say Weyland is some liberal bleeding heart, tree hugging, vegan, surrounded by meat and potatoes, hunting regularly, gun on the kitchen table, loaded, just in case, rural good old boys.

He might listen to Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, or somebody for the same reason, namely: Affirmation!!

This need has nothing to do with credence and everything to do with filling a vacuum. It's entertainment only, therapy at the best, laughable at worst. Food for thought in any case.

Why else do we call them Talk Show hosts?

At the end of the day, nobody should be supporting their position with a talk show host of any kind. Sadly, that means really great ones get lumped in with the gas bags, but that's just how it is.

This is also why I do listen to Lars & Limbaugh from time to time! Entertainment and therapy baby! I can listen to these shows and just laugh my ass off, just like I can listen to Thom Hartmann or Rhodes to get motivated.

All of them are good food for thought, regardless.

From here, one then gets a nice sampling of AM radio politics that can serve as fodder for real arguments, supported by facts and sound reasoning.

Anybody that says they support something because Rush does, is a tool. Same for any of these people.

However, saying they support something they heard Thom talk about, followed by an expression of why and how it matters is only a good thing. The good hosts will link you to their supporting materials, encourage you to do your own thinking and use their show as a spring board for your own thoughts and ideas.

The poor ones don't do this.

One big differentiator is how willing they are to air contrasting opinions, have guests from other camps, etc... on their show.

Thom is the king of this. Sets the best example there is. Rush... well, let's just say he doesn't.

Rush is employed to make dumb people feel smart. His audience is the dregs of society who are incapable of thinking for themselves (and they prove their worth when the dittoheads vote AGAINST their own economic well being!!)

Quick, try to kill the messenger.

Oh no. It's just not that easy.

Rush delivers lots of stuff. That's not at issue really.

Trying to claim he is authoritative, when he clearly is not, is the issue!

In fact, your claim here is a big part of why so many people get sucked in to that crap in the first place! Better to recognize a TALK SHOW HOST for what they are and think accordingly.

Maybe, we might get more common sense votes and less crap to deal with.

You did express frustration with this administratoin right? You've also express frustration with the process in general too.

Trying to establish Rush as some authority only makes those matters worse. Seems to me, as an educated broadcast professional, you would understand this dynamic better than most.

Clearly you've got some incentive to get this right. What's the big deal?

Need the affirmation more than the fix to the problems above maybe?

Rush doest a great service, as he gets people to actually think and talk about the issues. He has a large audience, and discuses a variety of issues. His listeners cover the spectrum.

Which is why the demo leaders are obsessed with attacking him. Libs didnt say one work about baghdad Jim or Patty attacking US troops, but they pieced together several sentences by Rush, to try and make it look like he attacked the troops.

The dems should replace their national symbol of a donkey with a picture of hanoi Jane.

The number of points made, that are not in Rush Limbaughs favor, are directly proportionate to the amount of misinformation he chooses to distribute.

It's really just that simple.

Ever wonder why there are not that many people all over Thom Hartmann, for example?

He rarely distributes misinformation, cites his research sources, encourages other points of view for comparison / contrast / vetting of his own, and works hard to differentiate his personal opinion from known facts.

Rush does none of these things well, and some, not at all. This is why he gets the attention he does, not because of any real credence.

When you've got a very loud source of misinformation, it makes perfect sense to get after it. If this is not done, then the misinformation will do harm. It's foolish to think otherwise.

Call it checks and balances.

At the end of the day, Rush makes a lot of people feel better about themselves, when they really shouldn't.

Rush makes a ton of money because he is willing to distribute misinformation and combine it with affirmation for people, who lack the strength of character, to fully consider the impact of their beliefs.

That controversy gets ears from all sides. Those needing affirmation, and those amazed that such bull shit could actually be on air, and morbid interest about the state of mind of those who actually buy into it.

And there is another point of comparison. Again Thom Hartmann does not do the same things. He also does not get anywhere near the attention Rush does. Why? Because Thom actually makes a lot of sense. Those people, who listen to his show, are highly likely to consider acting in ways that are in their best interests and that's a direct conflict with big business, generally speaking.

That takes a lot of potential money off the table, and that does have an impact on who gets aired when and where.

There is a lot of money to be had, airing a wind bag like Rush. There is also a lot of money to be made, when foolish people buy into his BS and vote against their own self-interest.

Without Limbaugh, the GOP would be a fraction of it's current size. He is necessary --not because he is right. He is necessary because the current power structure depends on misinformation in order to do what it does.

Anybody interested in reducing the amount of misinformation being distributed, has an interest in making sure Rush feels the heat. This is not a partisan thing. Bull shit is bull shit and Rush Limbaugh distributes more than his share of it, every single day.

What is the misinformation he distributes?

Is it ok not to like him because he's kind of a dick?

Absolutely!

Also, one who has worked through the basics (bigotry, racism, envy, class) is highly likely to not be a dick! See how that works?

Deane, did you look at the link Vitalogy posted?

It's a decent start.

Damn, this is giving me a headache. I need some Oxycontin™ pronto! Where can I get 500 of them if I don't have a illegal alien maid?

Oh, and some Viagra for my research trip, too!

>>>"Deane, did you look at the link Vitalogy posted?"

So, Vitalogy links to a radical liberal web site and I'm supposed to click on it and become enlightened, right?

DJ said>>>
Nice try Trixter. You lose once again. Got any others?

And because YOU say it's right then it's right??? JHC on a popsicle stick... Just like an EXTREME RIGHT WINGER.. MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!
Then when given facts about anything YOU disagree with it's RADICAL!!!! It's LIBERAL.... That's why AMERICA is moving away from YOUR kind of thinking.
Your the one that's losing.....
I will never believe another thing that Plush Bimbo says about anything after his drug incident. He is just a hypocrite!

Trixter, face it, radical libs like you hate everything Republican.

You didn't even read what I posted.

Well, it does list the top mis-information being distributed by Rush. At the very least, it's a nice sampling of the kinds of things he does. I didn't know half of those things!

And that's another discussion. I'm not sure it makes any sense to characterize Media Matters as "radical", given they spend most of their time fact checking. That's anal, if anything. Not radical at all.

They do have a specific focus, and that makes them liberal, but that's no crime, right?

Finally, you still think Rush Limbaugh is solid?

Do a google search on the following:

"Rush Limbaugh Lies" & "Thom Hartmann Lies"

The differences are stark, my friend.

You've got F.A.I.R. , Media Matters, Mother Jones, ... heck, LIES.COM all publishing lots of stuff on Rush.

(Who thought of lies.com --sweet!)

Now, contrast that with what you find on Thom. We get a lot of groups, that resonate with Thom, and Thom himself listed.

It's a whole different scene.

There is enough doubt cast in the first 10 Rush Limbaugh links to easily defeat the idea he's a solid participant in the national debate. In fact, he's highly likely to be a net loss!

My primary point is easily supported right there; namely, Rush Limbaugh is not regularly attacked / challenged because he has some special command of the truth, but because he's spreading bull shit big time.

DJ said>>>
Trixter, face it, radical libs like you hate everything Republican.

With a statement like that it just shows that your UNDER Edubacated and can ONLY see YOUR narrow view of America.
Your a sad human being...
I'm sorry your that way....
Been a TRUE Republican since 86' don't believe it...?? TO GD BAD!

DJ said>>>
You didn't even read what I posted.

YOU NEVER READ WHEN ANYONE POSTS..... You pass it off because they don't believe in YOUR NARROW MINDED ways.
Your a sad person. I guess Chris Taylor doesn't know you anymore. He said you were a good guy....

>>>"Been a TRUE Republican since 86' don't believe it...?? TO GD BAD!"

You post nothing but dislike and hate against anything Republican. You've never posted one positive word about the conservative viewpoint. That pretty makes you one of "them". So, I guess your statement above is a "lie" to put it in your limited terminology.


>>>"UNDER Edubacated"

Must be.

Deane, I challenge you to go to Media Matters and factually dispute any of their claims. While I acknowledge that Media Matters has a left wing bias, the bottom line is that they do expose an ugly truth about conservative air bags.

As I've said before, my parents were life-long hard-core Republicans. Until Bush. There's plenty of fed-up "R" people like Trix and my parents who don't swallow the Kool-aid.

As the polls show, the majority of Americans, regardless of party, believe the same way. Time for change.

OK then, I don't like Rush Limbaugh because he's a dick. Despite him always telling the truth.

How do you account for that? I don't like people who tell the truth? No.

I don't like dicks.

Too perfect!

(glad you are here CJ --love stuff like that.)

Mrs M --hey, remember to cut me in on the happy pills, if you get a deal!

And to show that I support the notion of equal time;

Bill Mahar has toned down the smarmy factor to within reasonable limits for me. His show, I find ( as opposed to Limbaugh ) relatively informative. He doesn't let some slipped-in one liner go unchecked by a guest. Even ones he agrees with.

Al Franken is a blowhard. But he does make me laugh at his presentation.

Keith Olbermann has got many axes to grind. He has very strong communication skills and I appreciate his writing AND delivery.

Who does that leave? Let's see...uh...oh yeah.

Stewart/Colbert in '08.

>>>>"Deane, I challenge you to go to Media Matters and factually dispute any of their claims. While I acknowledge that Media Matters has a left wing bias, the bottom line is that they do expose an ugly truth about conservative air bags."


Vitalogy, Media Matters is an attack organization for George Soros and Hillary Clinton. If you were to actually believe that I would waste my time responding to any of their distorted propaganda, you are even slower to catch on that has been recently apparent.

Yes Deane, you would be wasting your time responding to their "propoganda" because you will be UNABLE to refute it, including your claim that Media Matters is an "attack organization" for George Soros and Hillary Clinton. Where do you get such wild ideas??

DJ said>>>
You've never posted one positive word about the conservative viewpoint. That pretty makes you one of "them". So, I guess your statement above is a "lie" to put it in your limited terminology.

Here is something that you'll understand in YOUR NARROW MINDED SIMPLISTIC LIMITED terminology.

BULLSHIT! I have said TONS of things on here that have backed up Republicans views. YOUR too GD stubborn to read them. I've RAILED on Hillary and Gore and ALWAYS put down Clinton by calling him Slick Willy. It's just NOT enough for your NARROW MINDED view of America. It's really sad that people like you have such an outlet to spew forth your crap just like the RADICAL left does. It's pure 100% VENOM and it erodes America from the inside out.
I hope to God above that you didn't PD in a radio station like you view politics. That station would be a CLUSTER FUCK!

Dj also said>>>>>>
"UNDER Edubacated"

Must be.

That's for pointing that out about yourself...

Geeze, we get asked to show you where Rush has lied, you get shown, but refuse to even LOOK at it?

Weak.

Weak??
That's an EXTREMEIE for ya....
Just as bad as EXTREME RADICAL Libs.

It's the number one dodge CJ.

What somebody believes, who they are working for, and who they are have little to do with factual information. Media Matters has published where Rush is full of crap, cited their sources and that's all pretty simple to evaluate.

Either Media Matters has it wrong, or they don't.

Saying, "It takes too long", "distorted propaganda", or any other simple thing doesn't cut it. If Media Matters has it clearly wrong, there are a TON of PRO RUSH LISTENERS more than willing to refute it.

They would be subject to law suits as well. Given strong corporate backing for Rush Limbaugh, I'm sure Media Matters would have it's hands full with plenty of litigation, should they have lied, or even significantly misrepresented the material facts they have put up for consideration.

Bottom line here: Deane is drinking the kool-aid pretty big right now, enjoys the taste and just doesn't want to know what it's really made of.

No big deal. It is what it is.

The Official Soft Drink of Nebraska

"Kool-Aid® got its start right here in Hastings, Nebraska. This internationally known soft-drink mix, now owned by Kraft Foods, actually started out as a liquid concentrate called Fruit Smack.

Edwin Perkins was always fascinated by chemistry and enjoyed inventing things. When his family moved to southwest Nebraska at the turn of the century, young Perkins experimented with home-made concoctions in his mother's kitchen. Edwin's father opened up a General Store in Hendley, Nebraska. It was in the store that Edwin became entranced with a new dessert mix introduced by a childhood friend (and future wife) Kitty Shoemaker. The powdered dessert came in six delicious flavors and was called Jell-O®. Edwin convinced his father to carry the dessert line in his store. It was at this same time Edwin sent away for a kit called "How to Become a Manufacturer." During the following years, Perkins graduated from high school, published a weekly newspaper, did job printing, served as postmaster and set up a mail order business called "Perkins Products Co" to market the numerous products he had invented.

In 1918, Perkins married his childhood sweetheart, Kitty, and developed a remedy to kick the tobacco habit called "Nix-O-Tine." By 1920, the demand for this and other products was so great, Perkins and his wife moved to Hastings, which had better rail service for shipping purposes. Another product that was proving to be popular was a concentrated drink mix called Fruit Smack. Fruit Smack, like Jell-O®, came in six delicious flavors. The four-ounce bottle made enough for a family to enjoy at an affordable price. However, shipping the bottles proved to be costly and breakage was becoming a problem as well. In 1927, Perkins developed a method of removing the liquid from Fruit Smack so the remaining powder could be re-packaged in envelopes (which Perkins designed and printed) under a new name to be called Kool-Ade. (He later changed the spelling to Kool-Aid.)

The product, which sold for 10¢ a packet, was first sold to wholesale grocery, candy and other suitable markets by mail order in six flavors; strawberry, cherry, lemon-lime, grape, orange and raspberry. In 1929, Kool-Aid® was distributed nation-wide to grocery stores by food brokers. It was a family project to package and ship the popular soft drink mix around the country.

By 1931, the demand for Kool-Aid® was so strong, other items were dropped so Perkins could concentrate solely on Kool-Aid®. He moved the entire production to Chicago for more efficient distribution, to be closer to supplies and to be able to expand even further if necessary.

During the Great Depression, Perkins cut the price in half to just 5¢ a packet, a "luxury" most families could afford. Young entrepreneurs sprung up across the country setting up Kool-Aid® stands. While most of the profits were consumed by the youngsters, it was something most children enjoyed. Perkins introduced off-shoots of Kool-Aid® including pie fillings and ice cream mixes. These products never really took off with the public. During World War II, fruit acid and dextrose rationing prevented any expansion. After the war, the demand for Kool-Aid® was so great that Perkins had to expand the factory and by 1950, 300 production workers produced nearly a million packets of Kool-Aid® each day.

In 1953, Perkins announced to his staff that he was selling Kool-Aid® to General Foods. Within a year, the popular Smiling Face Pitcher was introduced in print advertisements. Root Beer and Lemonade flavors were added to the original six flavors in 1955 and pre-sweetened Kool-Aid® was developed in 1964 and redeveloped in 1970. Kraft Foods acquired General Foods and became the new owners of Kool-Aid®. They refined the Kool-Aid® pitcher into Kool-Aid® Man and introduced new Kool-Pumps and Kool Bursts to the market. Kool-Aid® continues to be a popular product with roots in Hastings. It is the official soft drink of Nebraska."

http://www.hastingsmuseum.org/koolaid/kahistory.htm

When I think Kool-Aid, I think this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBeUGqeYsQg

I still can't get this song out of my head...

Deane_johnson:
You libs act like this is a sporting event. Have you stopped to ask yourself if it's really good for America for the Democrats to take over all of the government with nobody to question what they do?

How does that differ from what's been happening in recent years with Republicans in full charge? Someday you are going to have to explain why it's wrong for the dems to do something and then turn around and defend the republicans for doing the exact same thing. You do that here constantly.

At this point, absolutely it's good for the nation.

We've seen significant damage to the nation and it's politics. Let's just say the GOP has lowered the bar a bit too much.

I harbor serious concerns about the politics reaching a more healthy, less divisive state. We might really have to hit bottom long and hard for that to occur. Hope it does not come to that.

At the end of the day, if we must be divisive, and we are going to concentrate power in the President that does not need to be there, then I would prefer the GOP not be in charge. What I've seen is pretty bad actually. Very hard to get worse.

It's a lot like a sporting event these days. Guess how we got here?

That's right, GOP lowering the bar for political reasons. Since we are here, we have to deal. Any of us who want / need to see better, really need to be expressing that regularly.

Americans, in general, prefer a more progressive / liberal approach to a lot of things. Our founders planted the flag and crafted this nation with that in mind.

If we really must fight over it, I'll go with the more permissive, people oriented approach every time. It a simple matter of self interest and how well that aligns with others self interest.

"Americans, in general, prefer a more progressive / liberal approach to a lot of things. Our founders planted the flag and crafted this nation with that in mind"

Oh, they did, thats why women wern't allowed to vote? slavery was allowed? real progressive bunch of guy.

>>>"Our founders planted the flag and crafted this nation with that in mind."


Nothing like rewriting a bit of history.

And your take on it Deane?

The documents are there for all of us to read.

The framework is very radical (for the time) and quite liberal (again for the time). As time has passed, and people have worked within it, we've seen some really great gains.

The next on the list is gay issues. The idea of self-governance, and most importantly, the idea that government comes from the CONSENT of the governed, were very progressive ideas, easily characterized as both radical and liberal.

Compared to the idea of nobility being somehow entitled to rule, it's a step right out of the dark ages.

At heart, we are a progressive and innovative people. Sure, 20 some percent of us, would have us believe otherwise, but hey, that's not bad! Could easily be worse.

You don't get the kind of growth, innovation and leadership we achieved by resisting change. Conservative is good. Some people, who identify as conservative are not so good. The trouble we are in right now is a manifestation of that.

The same can be said of liberal too. Too liberal about too many things can bring just as much trouble.

That's why we have the framework we do. We want progress, we want change and growth, but we don't want it doing any more harm than it has to.

Our checks and balances are there for good, solid reasons. Putting too much power in one place, breeds corruption. Distributing it too much means nothing gets done. If we lack flexibility, we constrain our society, dooming it to irrelevance over time, etc....

These are dynamic things! As we learn and grow, our government can do the same. If it gets out of check, we hold the keys to the kingdom.

Our founding is filled with progressive and liberal ideas. There is also a lot of conflict and a lot not known. These things remain true today, of course.

The idea that this nation is aligned with one religion in particular, or that it's conservative is laughable. The only reason this meme continues on is through a LOT of effort to cloud the meaning and history of things.

In no case does our founding values align even remotely close to those embodied in the GOP today. Both parties have their issues, but where going astray of what American means, the GOP has the lead and is gaining ground rapidly.

Lets see, the founding fathers prefered only people owning land be able to vote, even Jefferson wrote, "fear the masses'. Most of the first congress had large land holdings, including slaves, or owned business.

By the time of the constitution, Britan had been working towards a constitutional monarchy for a hundred years. King George had to get the consent of parliment to send troops to the colonies.

The constitution, even for the time, is a fairly conservative document. A good part of deals with the protection of private property, and the probitionn of a direct tax.

The guys that signed the decleration of independence were a little radicle, but it was nearly an entirely seperate group that wrote the constitution.

>>>"the idea that government comes from the CONSENT of the governed,"

OK, have it your way, but how about me giving the consent instead of you.

The consent of some of the people, white males, that owned property.

Which was remarkably similar to who was ruling England at the time.

DJ said>>>
The only thing that frightens me about your answers is that you are to out of touch with reality.

Ever read any of your OWN posts????

>>>"The only thing that frightens me about your answers is that you are to out of touch with reality."

How would you possibly know?

We all read the crap YOU post here everyday....

Ding!

We have a winner!

Congrats, Trix!

Union goon congratulating Trixter. Now that's a pair.

EXTREME RIGHT idiot agree with Herb on EVERYTHING!
You 2 married??
At least Herb wears the pants in the family with his barefoot and preggo stance. Does he stay away from you DJ when your on your period??? Being an EXTREME RIGHT Bible thumpin' wacko. You 2 are a pair made in heaven.....

Trixter, the depth of your posts is overwhelming. I can't imagine such a deep thinker as you wasting time on a forum like this.

I was wondering the same thing about you myself the other day.
The depth of your post above mine is unbefuckinglieveable! Did you work on that for a couple hours or what????
Christ your a laugh riot!

Trixter, your religious bigotry is only getting more and more obvious. It's precisely this kind of vitriol that Bill O'Reilly has accurately described as coming from the far left lunatic fringe.

You've drifted from attacks that are standard ad hominem, to scatological vicious ones directed exclusively against Bible-believing Christians. What's next? Are you going to work yourself up into such a lather that it'll next be OK to feed Bible-believing Christians to lions?

If you have an argument to make, let's hear it. Otherwise, mocking people of faith only makes you appear a lot less sophisticated than you could ever realize. It shows you can't discuss, dialogue, debate or refute. In other words, it shows you have nothing. And if you're mad at God, take it up with Him. He'll listen and can actually do something about such mindless rage.

Herb

"And if you're mad at God, take it up with Him. He'll listen and can actually do something about such mindless rage."

Perhaps you ought to do the same. You're venting your anger on the planet and its people for not seeing things 'the way you think it ought to be'.

Contact God and let Him handle us. He doesn't want or need your help.

Herb, your bigotry against liberals is only getting more and more obvious. It's precisely this kind of vitriol that Bill O'Reilly spews every night on his right wing lunatic fringe show.

You've drifted from attacks that are standard ad hominem, to scatological vicious ones directed exclusively against liberals. What's next? Are you going to work yourself up into such a lather that it'll next be OK to feed liberals to lions?

If you have an argument to make, let's hear it. Otherwise, mocking people that believe different than you only makes you appear a lot less sophisticated than you could ever realize. It shows you can't discuss, dialogue, debate or refute. In other words, it shows you have nothing. And if you're mad at people that are smarter than you, take it up with yourself. Maybe you'll figure out something about such mindless rage.

Ed "the ingrate" Ved

"Otherwise, mocking people of faith only makes you appear a lot less sophisticated than you could ever realize."

The exact same can be said for anyone ... ANYONE ... who uses their faith to justify hatred, bigotry and intolerance. You, my friend, have been known to do exactly that.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't be tossing stones around.

Herb says>>>
Trixter, your religious bigotry is only getting more and more obvious.

And your fascist intolerable EXTREME RIGHT thinking is getting more and more obvious to EVERYONE here.