Rush Is Right

Sorry to be off-point, Lee, but is there any way that Blog Talk Radio can “find” the podcast of your last show with Bob? I’ve been unable to access it.

the bad new is that BTR was offline most of that night and the show seems to be gone…It was a good one, too,

So you’re arguing that Limbaugh loves the country and thats why he wants Obama’s plan to fail?I read your article twice, and I cannot picture how you come to this conclusion.”conservatives like Limbaugh love America just as much as liberals do”No, conservatives like Limbaugh love the sound of their own voice and love the money they rake in by ranting like an asshole to the ignorant people that tune in every day.Your opinion, from my view, is what has been wrong with the democratic party for the last decade or more. A complete lack of righteousness. These people, like Limbaugh, thrive in a cesspool of ignorance and hate-mongering, and now we should defend their opinion and give them a pass just for the sake of being objectional? Two Words: Fuck That.If Limbaugh can’t stand the idea of government actually working for the people, then he does not love american, he loves himself and what america can give him.You can go on ahead apologizing for him if you want to though. Its very lapdog-esque.

It seems to me that Rush loves his imagined concept of “America” but has no love (or tolerance) for the people who populate such a place.

right or wrong, your tone in this article is extremely condescending. And I’m gonna agree with Ashby: we’re fucking right, and they’re fucking wrong, and I’m tired of saying that there’s many viewpoints, or that they love the country anyway.

Ok, you convinced..There AREN’T many viewpoints! And if we say they hate the country, they do! And we can change the world by acting JUST EXACTLY like the people we hate!Whee! That was easy! More KoolAid, please!

ok leei am not sure i can agree with you, i think i have to go with ashby and fe on this onei see your point, however, i do think that when we protested vs anything the previous administration did, we were called unpatrioticand “we are in a time of war and that will hrm our troops”no, i cannot abide by thatwe never said we hoped bush would fail, we hoped he wouldntand i wish we were wrong, but we werentthey need to be shunned by all of us, not embraced until they stop acting like 3 year olds throwing a tantrum

I didn’t embrace Limbaugh anywhere.I said – he’s our opponent. His ideas are wrong. But ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ is a simple truth and I don’t see any reason to go further than ‘he’s wrong…and a hypocrite.”If we embrace the same tactics, then WE are hypocrites. I don’t want to be like Rush Limbaugh and I’m not sure why you’d want to, either.

I’ve agreed with many of your posts Lee but this article is off. While I disagreed with the Iraq invasion I hoped GWB might know something I didn’t so I hoped he was right. Sadly he didn’t know more than I nor was he right. I still didn’t wish for an absolute failure but lowered my expectations for sure and increased my opposition to staying.Your absolving Rush for being a complete partisan ass-hat as well as his supporting policies that clearly failed is odd to say the least.

It’s a sign of the times that an article that obviously disagrees with both Limbaugh’s policy positions AND explicitly rejects his tactics is seen as absolving him simply because I didn’t say “…..AND he REALLY secretly hates America!!!!”

lee said—If we embrace the same tactics, then WE are hypocrites. I don’t want to be like Rush Limbaugh and I’m not sure why you’d want to, either.my point lee is that for you to give him any absolution is not being like him, it is being true to who we are. he is just wrong and has been wrong for eight years. he is a hypocrite and by disagreeing with you, i am a hypocrite? no i have always said he is wrong….how is that being like him? his views change with the wind.mine have stayed the pretty much the same for a while now.i agree we should all live by the golden rule as you seem to be suggesting. however, calling the wrong wing out on their hypocrisy is the right thing to do. i am not saying we should adopt their language the way they did with us. i am saying when you are wrong, you are wrong, that is it. no hypocrisy to that

so, your method of not being like Rush is to accuse those of us who disagreed with you of drinking the koolaid and of being like Rush Limbaugh?

First of all – the podcast was retrieved by lurkette – I’ll ask her permission to include a link here (or maybe she’ll do it). It was great.Second, I’m reposting an expanded version of my remarks from HuffPost here:I disagree fundamentally with your premise.Bush’s philosophy was that we would go to Iraq and be treated as liberators – that we would be freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny, and that they, given the opportunity of self-expression, would express a desire for freedom and democracy.Even if you thought that was a bunch of hooey, once we were engaged, I can’t begin to understand how anyone would want that to not turn out to be true. Had the Neocon fallacy turned out to be true, the world, and the United States would have been better off.Yes – I think it’s detestable to have wished for failure once we were engaged. Once engaged, the best we could hope for is – that after all, we were wrong and the neocon philosophy was right.Put another way – on a smaller scale – if my partner cashes out all of our savings and invests in goji berry juice as the newest health food craze – I may have told said partner not to do it. I may have thought the premise was idiotic. I may be hot as hell under the collar that despite my rejection of the plan, my partner sunk our fortunes entirely into this one basket -I’m forced… FORCED… to hope that after all, goji juice will be wildly successful.Loyal opposition requires more. It requires providing alternatives along the way – but it does not include disloyal wishing for failure.I’m reminded of a principle of my faith. Baha’is practice something called consultation. Consultation is a form of decision making that works like this: everyone contributes their thoughts and ideas – vigorously providing their opinions. However, once the opinion is offered – it is no longer the “property” of the person arguing it – rather, it is the “property” of the entire group – everyone has to consider the pros and cons of the idea as if they themselves had advanced it. And this is true of every idea. Eventually – consensus emerges around one particular idea – it may be an idea that is utterly in opposition to my personal preference – but once the decision is made, the decision is made. I am then obliged to give my full, wholehearted support to the idea, with no reservation at all. Why? Because if the idea fails – it needs to fail because it was flawed, not because I was working to make it fail. The sooner it fails, the sooner we can choose a new direction – but if anyone claims that it failed because someone was disloyally working against its success – we unnecessarily prolong the idea’s lifespan.I offer that as another way to think about questions like this.QT

QT, I typically disagree with you (in a loyally opposing way!), but your comment is lovely; thanks for sharing it.

Lee -I have an MP3 of the Wednesday night radio show. I downloaded it around midnight the night of the show when I couldn’t get the streamed version to play.If this file is needed perhaps we can arrange a place for me to upload to.Reply here if you need it.

Thank you, fe.QT

QT…If a German opposed Hitler during WWII, were they against the troops? Were they anti-German?No, I didn’t want us to be greeted as liberators after we invaded a country under false premises with plans to set up a base there forever. I didn’t want us to be admired by the world for such acts and I didn’t want the Bush Doctrine to be a success. If it HAD worked and gone just awesome, Iraq was next and then North Korea or whoever else we felt like. If Bush had succeeded, McCain would be President now. Rumsfeld would be still in power. The GOP would be firmly in charge of the country – THAT is what Bush success means.If that’s what you wanted, okay. Not me, not by a long shot.

CycloCynic -I can email the MP3 to you if you want, but it is 23 MB so not all email accounts will handle it.I have your email address, so reply here if you want me to email it.If you didn’t hear the show, you will want to. Lee is correct in describing it as a very good show.

Thanks QT, for the thoughts. You are truly an amazing person. To me, you are often an island of peace & calm when things get stormy.Silly Git– I would love to hear the last podcast! Please let me know if it can be placed somewhere for listening/loading.

I understand what you’re saying, Lee, but there’s a flaw in your logic.The big difference between us and Rush is that we’re not using “my opponents must hate America or they’d agree with me” as a stock answer the way Rush et al. do.We’re willing to engage in honest debate on the issues, because we’ve got well-thought-out reasons behind the liberal point of view. Meanwhile, Rush uses “they hate America” as the first, last, and only response to people disagreeing with him. That’s a big difference.Not many liberals are actually saying Rush hates America. We think he’s responsible for a lot that’s wrong with it, that he lowers the level of political discourse, that he lies, that he really honestly wants the President to fail. And an objective observer might conclude from all that that we’re talking about a person who hates what America stands for. But we’re not replying to his hate of us by declaring that he’s a traitor and forcing him to bend over backwards to defend himself the way the right-wing media personalities have been doing to liberals for the last decade. So that there is what’s wrong with your argument, Lee.On a personal note, Rush is a traitor and will have to bend over backward to prove his patriotism.

Somebody said this was the place I could get a goji juice cocktail…?

Just Google ‘limbaugh treason’ – it was a common accusation and just as silly as when he made it himself so often.He doesn’t hate what America stands for. He has a different view of what it stands for – one I diagree with, but that in fact his view has just as much a basis in our nation’s history as the progressive view does.

FYI ya’allHere is the result of a poll on AOL on 2-28-09 The question and the results. 42,270 people, obviously not scientific, but still…….Poll ResultsWill you vote Republican in 2012?Yes 56% 23,594No 30% 12,643Don’t know yet 14% 6,033Note on Poll ResultsTotal Votes: 42,270 Poll results are not scientific and reflect the opinions of only those users who chose to participate. Poll results are not reflected in real time.

Lee: His view has just as much a what-sis?The promotion of inequality? The joining of church and state? Organizing political movements based on lies, not reason? Isn’t his “every man for himself, the alternative is socialism and that’s evil” the exact opposite of “e pluribus unum”?Now, I’m not saying I DON’T think he’s anti-American. And I’m not condemning the “common accusations” of other – I agree with them. But one of my points here is that we can back it up. We can tell you WHY he hates America, and I’m comparing that with Rush’s using “why do you hate America?” as a stand-alone response to his opponents. I don’t know why you don’t think that’s different.

Except that if the Limbaugh’s notion of our nation was in place in 1776, we’d still be paying taxes to the United Kingdom.The Limbaugh’s of the 1770s moved to Canada and have socialized medicine now.

MZ – I’m saying America is a duality. I’ll quote the Descendents…

I come from the land of Ben FranklinTwain and Poe and Walt WhitmanOtis Redding, Ellington,The country that I loveBut it’s a land of the slaves and the ku klux klanHaymarket riot and the great depressionJoe McCarthy, VietnamThe sickest joke I knowI’m proud and ashamedEvery fourth of julyYou got to know the truthBefore you say that you got pride

You’re implying the REAL America is the parts you like. Bullshit. It’s ALL America. Duke Ellington and the Klan. That’s just the truth.

I oppose the war in Iraq because the reasons that necessitated it and the methods we employed to enact and further it are against my principles. Not just a little against; they’re a lot against. They abridge a lot of rights that I view as integral. Therefore I’m not going to give any good wishes to it. I don’t want it to succeed because if it were to succeed, it would give credence to an ideological standpoint that I’m morally opposed to, and any credence given to that strengthens the possibility that it will change the nation I live in towards that ideology.Rush wants Obama’s economic policies to fail because he views them as ‘socialist’ and so if they succeed then they will further the causes of ‘socialists’ everywhere. Or he hates America. Go ahead and tell me how you know he hates America.

For your further consideration while you all chattering away…. it’s only two years untill the next chance to get those lost Republican seats back and you all know what that means, so while everybody’s all backslapping each other it appears there is somthing measurable going on that somebody better be paying attention to.From the Rassmussen Reports”Saturday, February 28, 2009The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 39% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Twenty-nine percent (29%) Strongly Disapprove to give Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of +10 (see trends).That’s a new high for the number who Strongly Disapprove. Since release of the President’s budget, the number of Republicans who Strongly Disapprove has grown to 52%; up nine percentage points since Thursday morning. Only 8% of Democrats share such a negative assessment.Here is the link:http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Lee said===You’re implying the REAL America is the parts you like. Bullshit. It’s ALL America. Duke Ellington and the Klan. That’s just the truthwe know that! that is my point, WE know that, they dont see that. they see America in the 40′s and 50′sand after 8 years of that, i will still defend their right to say what they want, but i do not have to agree with them, that is also America

Lee, look – I’m not implying anything of the sort. You’re right that there is good and bad in America, and I’m not saying that there’s no room for dissent with my view. Bob and PPP get along here just fine.But there are two points that you’re missing:1 – When debating someone who disagrees with you, saying “you hate America” cannot be your only counterargument. It’s not for us (see my posts above), but it frequently is for Rush. So when liberals say Rush hates America, it’s NOT the same as when Rush says that about liberals, because we can provide support, like:2 – America was founded on certain well-defined principles. They’re in the Constitution, they’re in the Bill of Rights. Sure, slavery was an important part of US history, as was (is) the Klan. But that’s not what America stands for. Democracy means not stealing elections. Separation of church and state means not basing medical policies and school curricula on purely religious grounds. The equality of “all men” means the rule of law is supreme and applied equally. Rush is on the wrong side of all of these principles – should we conclude that he actually agrees with them, he just expresses himself differently?You sound like the battered wife who says “he beats me because he loves me”. No. He doesn’t. Leave him. There is an objective right and wrong here, and appeasing the wrong makes us less right.

@ Cody: @ Lee: GODWIN! More 2morrow, but for now, apples and oranges.QT

So, I’m appeasing Limbaugh by saying his ideas are wrong, his tactics are wrong and he’s a hypocrite?I think you’re appeasing him by buying into the same concept of ‘objective’ right and wrong – but you think it’s okay, since you have a direct path to this correct knowledge that people with different ideas obviously do NOT, since they are objectively wrong.I know, I know – but YOU are right and THEY are wrong. Period, the end, and anyone doesn’t buy into the black and white view is an appeaser. It’s so obvious.Except – they think THEY are right and YOU are wrong and it’s just as obvious to them as it is to you.See, America was founded on certain well-defined principles. They are in the Constitution – gun ownership. The Creator is clearly mentioned in Declaration of Independence as the basis of all our rights and the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ doesn’t appear anywhere. The country was FOUNDED on wanting lower taxes…So, here’s the deal – you guys can go place this game all day. “The Constitution proves MY point!” “No, it proves MINE!”What I know for sure is that the conflict is built in and the way to better policy is not the play the ‘RIGHT / WRONG” game you seem to want to play…

MZ – Word.BobAR – Thanks, no surprises there considering what the budget is attempting.Lee – Perfect timing for licking the golden if not somewhat enormous and pimply ass of Rush.Love it.

the first amendment states:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.>>the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ doesn’t appear anywhereyou are correct Lee, it doesn’t say that exact phraseand MZ? very nicely stated

As some have pointed out, Limbaugh’s vision of America is one where he’s free to make tons of money by making hateful comments on a daily basis, where blacks and mexicans cannot thrive(the man is a full blooded racist, no 2 ways about it), where we kill and torture and sacrifice as many people as possible to protect this vision of his perfect America. I agree, he loves that. But that’s not a virtue to protect. Hitler loved his Germany too, doesn’t mean he was right about it.Obama’s view of America is that when average people are getting screwed by obscenely rich executives, government has to step in and help level the playing field. Obama is right, Rush is wrong. Don’t make excuses for him.Now I have many republican friends who are good people. They were raised to believe democrats are lazy and will take their money and guns, but other than that are perfectly rational. I believe they love their country and don’t really want the type of America that Rush advocates.

Actually, you’re the one making excuses for Limbaugh’s tactic of attacking a person’s patriotism, not their ideas.The position I’m taking is opposed to that tactic and seems right in line with President Obama. You’re getting caught up in the sideshow that happens when criticizing the ideas doesn’t seem to be enough.

Sigh. You’re still not getting it, Lee.YOU’RE the only one supporting Rush’s case with facts and arguments. You’re also equating the suggestion of liberals that Rush hates America with Rush’s claim that liberals hate America.I’m not saying that my arguments are airtight, or that they can’t be rebutted. I think I’m right, Rush thinks he’s right, I get it.But you need to acknowledge that when I say that Rush hates America, I’m backing it up, and I’m inviting counterarguments and then countering those. Feel free to disagree with me, because I’m engaging in debate. Rush does not do this. The right-wing kooks that he speaks for use “you hate America!” as a stand-alone argument, which I do not. Rush’s tactic (up to now, pretty successful) is to declare that his opponents hate America, which makes them instantly go on the defensive, making all sorts of concessions to prove their patriotism. I am not doing this, however much I’d like to.So you’re wrong, Lee. Unless you’re Rush’s official spokesman, unless you have some inside information about his inner thought processes, don’t put your reasonable arguments into Rush’s mouth. Don’t claim that because you can think of reasons why YOU’D be justified in saying what Rush says, therefore HE is justified. He wants the President to fail, he wants our government’s policies to fail. That, to me and to many, leads to a conclusion that he hates America. That is in NO WAY the same, and is in no way as easily dismissed, as when Rush tells liberals that they hate America. I’ll wait till he defends himself in a way that’s reasonable.As for your last point, you want to talk about a “way to better policy”? Do you really think that Rush is interested in finding a way to better policy? Do you really think that listening to Rush will lead to better policy? Honestly?

BobAR -Ailing G.O.P. Risks Losing a Generationhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/weekinreview/01connelly.html?_r=1&hpGood luck with that.

MZ,”They” have fuller arguments than just ‘you hate America’, actually. It’s not a stand alone argument, as you call it. It’s all based on a different worldview.But you keep saying things about me – like I’m justifying anything Rush said. Okay, prove it. Where did I do that?I’m saying respectfully – YOU don’t get it. My article clearly opposed Rush’s ideas and tactics. But you want to pretend I appeased him because I don’t agree with your idea that it’s obvious, objective fact that he ‘hates America’.This way lies madness..

Lee, we all know you oppose Rush’s ideas. We know you’re on our side. I think you’re just giving him way too much credit. He is a horrible human being.

Perhaps “appeaser” isn’t the term I want. “Apologist” is probably it.And I’ve said already that it’s not my “idea that it’s obvious, objective fact that he hates America.” It’s my argument that he does, it’s the conclusion that I draw based on, I feel, well-defined observations. Which means that it’s not remotely in the same league as Rush’s assertions.I understand that you disagree with him. I understand that you think that he’s basing his crazy ideas on a crazy worldview in which craziness is what’s needed, and so non-craziness is anti-American, therefore craziness is PRO-American, therefore wanting non-craziness to fail is pro-American too. I’m paraphrasing, but am I far wrong?The problem is that he’s not supporting his craziness. He’s not welcoming honest debate, he’s making assertions. Rush is not presenting his craziness half as well as you are. Meanwhile, you’re saying that those of us who reply to him using similar language to what he uses are somehow bigger jerks than Rush himself, even though you and I, ostensibly on the same side, are having a debate that will never be heard on Rush’s show. You’re putting your words in his mouth, and attacking me for telling you that he’s perfectly capable of defending himself. Which he hasn’t done.Finally (for the night, hopefully someone else has followed me out onto this limb and can keep it up), when I talked about there actually BEING an objective right and wrong, and provided some evidence for this, you mocked me. But the only counterarguments you made were that the Constitution agrees with the kooks that guns are OK, and that the words “separation of church and state” are not verbatim in the Constitution (which has already been dealt with).People can indeed believe whatever they want about Objective Good, but if you really, honestly, believe that killing kittens is what America stands for, does everyone have to accept that? Or should we be worried that the kitten-killers just have to sic Lee Stranahan on us to do their dirty work for them?

@SillyGit: You can use a service like MailBigFile to send a file the size of the radio show to individuals. Kind of slow (maybe up to a half hour transfer for something like this), but it gets the job done.Free MailBigFile

Jeff,Blacks and Mexicans cannot thrive? We have a black president, black attorney general, hispanic and black senators, mayors, police chiefs, teachers, Doctors, etc, etc, etc,.Are you telling me that we haven’t made one bit of difference for minorities? All the programs, all the effort, all the advances and all for nothing? We’re failures, we haven’t helped blacks or Hispanics in this country at all? That despite all that’s been done they “cannot thrive.”I’m left with the thought that you’ve actually agreed in principle with what Rush claims “that liberals have good intentions”, but that their programs don’t produce results. Because I’m sure you’re not implying some sort of inferiority of blacks or Hispanics, that we need some special help, that we just need the playing field leveled to succeed, cause we just can’t compete and win with the way it is now, on our own. So what exactly do you think?

Hi Lee…and all of you other libards doomed for extinction…We fucking won in Iraq. Yup, as much as you cannot stand it we won and there is an emerging democracy in the Middle East!And yup, BO will fail , with the loss of the US. No libtard society has ever thrived. Europe…yadda yadda…Sweden…blah blah….France yip yap…all of these quasi socialist nations would either be under rule of Nazi Germany or eventually in a Soviet Union (that would have never collapsed) if it were not for the conservative United States.

“Lee Stranahan is a freelance writer, an award winning photographer, independent digital filmmaker, graphic artist and he’s taught thousands of people around the world how to make money making art through his personal consultation, seminars and articles “Wow Lee….charging fees for “making money making art”. What a great contribution to our society. Do you teach street art, Dude? You know…spray painting on walls 101?Hope you don’t starve when the Obamanation comes crashing down.

Hi Lee,Did a few internet searches and for the life of me cannot find you on record of you opposing the war in Iraq BEFORE no WMD’s were found. Your position is as weak as your spine and you are as loathesome and dishonest as the KKKriminals in Congress who also voted for the war yet somehow are able to wash the blood from their hands by later opposing it. Murtha, Biden, Clinton are all guilty. I bet your gerbil farm that had OBama been a senator at the time he too would have voted for the war.

“Blacks and Mexicans cannot thrive? We have a black president, black attorney general, hispanic and black senators, mayors, police chiefs, teachers, Doctors, etc, etc, etc,. “Yup Jose….all propped up by whitey. Is there wasn’t affirmative action how many black doctors would there really be? Average MCAT score on accpeted applicants at a state medical school is 25% lower than for white and Asian males.Why is Latin America and more so Africa, such a shithole? How long do we blame colnialism, racism, and Bush?Why do Vietnamese, who were at war for 50 years, colonized, bombed, starved, and “floated” here in rafts become Valedictorians in 1 generation?

Hey there GDABers, I tried to post this over at Huffpo- hence the edited cursewords and the reference to Bob’s blog- but apparently it’s too long. So here it is, please skip ahead if you bore easily ; )Lee,I do see where you’re coming from. And yes, this kind of thinking is precisely the flipside of the Rushbo coin. I won’t go as far as QT and call it detestable, though it is certainly a myopic and destructive position to take.If Bush had succeeded in Iraq, sure the Neocons would be crowing, ‘torture worked!’ and, ‘sacrificing or our freedoms was and is still necessary!’ And we all know that the establishment media would fall in line and tout a victory for NeoCon philosophy. *Wow, I can’t believe I just called this conservative nonsense a philosophy. It’s definitely more akin to a dogma* But would success in Iraq prove them correct? NO! They would still be dead wrong! They were dead wrong for starting the war, and they are dead wrong for the tactics they’ve used (unless their goal was to create an unwinnable but profitable quagmire).The fact that Bush did bungle everything certainly makes out arguments for change much easier. He was clearly wrong on nearly everything. But with our future in his hands, I hoped against hope that, despite his criminal incompetence, things might have gone better for all of us. This is not fatuous optimism- I knew darn well that our welcome as liberators would wear out real quickly. But, I can honestly say that, the world would be a much better place (and I would be a much happier person) if the harebrained scheme of democratizing the Middle East would have proved a success. Political (told-you-so) capital be derned. I would take an uphill battle, fighting to restore our tattered bill of rights, any day of the week. The mess we have is a thousand times worse.All that said, Rush is a politician, and a detestable one at that. Not to mention he leads a highly insulated life, and is filthy rich. So it comes as no surprise that he would hope for a little political gain at our expense. But you, Lee, why would you hope for the affirmation of your beliefs, and a little political capital that comes at the expense of thousand of our soldiers, countless innocent Iraqis, and a huge blow to our economy, not to mention the decimation of the standard of living in Iraq?Even knowing your opinion at the time didn’t matter to anyone, that’s beside the point, how can you be so short-sighted? You live in the real world, not in a bubble where politics is an end in and of itself.You might suggest that my viewpoint is the myopic one, that, actually you are taking the long view. You’ve argued over at Bob’s site that success in Iraq would have led to more regime change and more violence. This is a reasonable hypothetical assumption. But it stands in 180° opposition to what you’re saying here. You’re assigning altruistic motives to our opponents. In fact, you insist here that even the worst of the wingnut fringe deserves as much respect. And I agree with that principally, though I find it absurd to extend that respect to a hateful egomaniac like Limbaugh. Still, if you believe that Bush had the best (albeit misguided) intentions in Iraq, then you will have to concede that victory there would have meant a mutually positive outcome, and it would have become a model for successful, peaceful regime change.

I just wanted to pop in here and offer my two cents. We debated this whole thing before, and Lee’s heart is in the right place, but I very much disagree with Lee on this one — both his assumptions and how he presented them.1) Maybe a few fringe people here and there are accusing Limbaugh of treason. But no one with any real influence.2) Thanks for making it possible for RANDOM WINGNUT X to be able to counterpoint with: “well, Huffington Post’s Lee Stranahan hoped the Iraq war would fail, so…” This isn’t helping.Regardless of the point you were making, there has to be a larger consideration in what we write on Huffington: politics — the discourse — the chess match. I’ll explain.You could’ve written a book-length thesis explaining the logic behind your “damn right I wanted Iraq to fail” declaration (both times) and it wouldn’t matter. If Limbaugh or anyone else picks up on this, it’ll diminish our collective “Limbaugh is Crazy” position, and elevate their “Liberals Hate the Troops” position.And what do we (liberals) get in exchange? What do liberals win by conceding as you did? Nothing.Limbaugh’s “fail” remark is a gift. It’s a gateway to a winning argument — an argument that, because Limbaugh said what he said, we have a stronger chance of passing the president’s massive legislative agenda. I’m not sure why you would want to give that up. Did you see the new “NO!” ad? Again, what we write on the Huffington Post, whether we’re columnists or commenters, is read and circulated by the far-right. So it matters.There’s nothing to be gained by conceding ground to the Limbaughs of the world, and there’s A LOT to lose.Adding: I think you’ll find, too, that you’re in the extreme minority when it comes to literally hoping the war in Iraq would fail. As we’ve debated here, there’s a difference between knowing that it’s a failed policy and hoping for failure. The former is based on fact and analysis, the latter skews into the realms of being misanthropic.

limbaugh spent an hour and 1/2 talking about how devious and rotten liberals are.about how the president is in the process of dismantling all thats right and true about our country.about how the 30 percent of the country who arent happy with pres.obamas performance so far are really the only ones who matter.the only ones who get it.he talked about john kerrys vericose veins.he boohoo-ed about the “liberal media”.but after nearly 90 minutes i didnt hear one single policy idea(other than of course,”cut taxes!”).as a matter of fact,he went out of his way to say that policy doesnt matter.they dont need any new ideas because theyre right.theyre always right,and all the black and hispanic and under 35 voters will come around eventually because…well,shit we’re conservatives and we’re right.so lets just hope and pray that this greasy maniac really is the person wingnuts are looking to for direction.

Lee wrote:>>>>The position I’m taking is opposed to that tactic and seems right in line with President Obama.I don’t think this is true. Is Obama calling for AFSCME to take down their “NO!” ad? Also, during the campaign, the president went after a wide variety of stupid McCain/Republican remarks. Now, he’s certainly not sinking to Limbaugh’s level, but he’s not shying away from a fight — nor the amunition provided by crazies like Limbaugh.

If we embrace the same tactics, then WE are hypocrites. I don’t want to be like Rush Limbaugh and I’m not sure why you’d want to, either.

My arrgument is that we are not embracing the same tactics. When someone Limbaugh HOPES Obama will fail, causing economic collapse, how is Rush showing his love for the country? He should explicitly state that he THINKS the country, he HOPES it doesn’t, just as you should have stated you THINK the Iraq policy is going to fail, but for the sake of the country and those in harm’s way, you HOPE it doesn’t.On another note, Rush is all about Rush. Do you think he’d be expressing this position if there were no money in it? If the situation was reversed and liberal talk radio was raking in cash and right wing radio was on life support, corporate media would really have a liberal bias because profit is the bottom line and Rush would be front and center calling Obama the grestest visionary ever.

So, according to your logic:Creationists LOVE truth as much as scientists. They just have very different ideas on how to get there.Holocaust deniers LOVE history as much as academic historians, they just have honest differences of opinions and to say that they are wrong or maybe even evil is to be (magically!) JUST THE SAME AS THEY ARE! (since they say you’re wrong, you saying they are PROVES YOU FAIL!)Lee, you’re addicted to being “right” by at once agreeing with one side while telling the side that you agree with that they’re really just as bad as the other. Seemingly to put you into the catbird seat of being the one calm voice of steady reason.But it is an artificial construction. We’re talking about a drug-addict draft dodger who hates poor people, black people and people who believe in the Bill or Rights.To put forth that he loves the country as much as ANYONE does does not make you enlightened. It makes you (in this instance) absurd.

Josenewmexico, I have to say I’m shocked I even have to defend myself. Read it again below, I think I made it extremely clear that I was saying “Rush’s vision of America is one where blacks and mexicans cannot thrive.” It was part of a list. Take out the first item on the list, the part where he makes money by spewing hate, and you get the exact sentence as I quoted above. Some of my best friends are blacks AND mexicans, some successful, some not. And I’m not just saying I have a few acquaintances. These are very close friends of mine who I go out to eat with, we go to each other’s houses, play basketball and football, drink with, our kids play together. Really, did you seriously think that right after we elected, and I campaigned for and contributed to Obama, that I would make a statement that blacks cannot thrive?my original post:

Excerpt from my original post above:”As some have pointed out, Limbaugh’s vision of America is one where he’s free to make tons of money by making hateful comments on a daily basis, where blacks and mexicans cannot thrive(the man is a full blooded racist, no 2 ways about it), where we kill and torture and sacrifice as many people as possible to protect this vision of his perfect America.”

Lee, Bob made a great point about just the fact that you said that is fodder for the other side. You tried to explain yourself but it doesn’t matter. It was irresponsible. As far as hoping Bush failed, I know what you mean though. I wanted the policy to fail and I was hoping there would be some magical way, like you said maybe a genie, who would make the policy fail without anyone getting hurt. I held out an extremely irrational hope that Bush would pull the troops back and say, you know what, I can’t do this. We’re frauds. We know there’s no WMDs, my conscience has gotten the best of me. I resign.”Obviously I knew that would never happen. But that’s how I saw things. I was sure the war was a disaster and I didn’t want to be proven right. Rush hopes to be proven right. There’s no nuance. He sure as hell isn’t hoping there’s a magic genie who will make Obama’s policies fail without our economy tanking even further. His grand hope at this point, and I don’t think I’m putting words in his mouth, is that we actually get a depression.Obviously this doesn’t affect him and his hundreds of millions of dollars, not in the slightest bit. But his hope is that we all suffer through such starvation and misery that we blame the democrats and go crawling back to the republicans, so that they’re free to cut taxes even further on the rich. That’s completely 100% what this is about.

Wow.What a great debate. I guess I’ll chime in.What I see ocurring in my nation is reactionary politics from both sides. Let me explain.Somehow, over the last fifteen years or so, it has become vogue to be “offended”. It is in style to have been victimized by racial slurs, hate speech, lies, and treasonous language. Both sides, liberals and conservatives, play the “I’m outraged and offended” card as often as they can. Whether they are actually offended or not is not the question. What is at stake here is the opinion of the nation, and how dastardly one side can make the other look is the weapon is choice.Liberals claim that “wingnuts” hate minorities, women, gays, unions, the poor, and science. Conservatives believe that “socialists” hate success, freedom of speech, self-defense, god and anyone who believes, babies, children, and individual responsibility.We aren’t solving problems in this country nearly as efficiently as we could, because the two parties are constantly engaged in a game of onedownsmanship. It’s pathetic to watch supposedly educated people spend most of their time crafting soundbites about how offended they are.The game of partisan politics is destroying this country. Elected officials are elected based on how bad they can make their opponents look, not on what they actually bring to the table. We are thus forced to vote for the lesser of two evils.What else would you expect to be occurring in this country right now under such a fucked up political system?Why is anyone surprised or hurt that Lee would have wished for failure in Iraq? Why is anyone outraged that Rush Limbaugh hopes for Obama’s failure?Liberals ask why conservatives hate peace so much. Conservatives ask liberals why they hate the Iraqi people so much as to deny them freedom. Who’s right? Neither position is defensible, and that is by design. The moment you accuse someone of being a hater, they are hopelessly lost in a self-defense that will fail.That is why the two sides play the “I’m outraged and offended” card. That is also why both sides are further “outraged and offended” that anyone would be outraged and offended by what they said.I think of all the posters I’ve read in this thread, Lee is being the most honest, and the rest of you are punishing him for telling the truth, because in politics, bullshit sells, and honest people are broken by the nazis who control both parties. Anyone who gives an inch of understanding to the “enemy” is a traitor to party.

Fuck that, I had to drive the military equivalent of a shoebox around Baghdad for a year.No intellectual debate for the intellectually violent. Statistics and logic do nothing against a person who isn’t even trying to have an honest debate with you.False equivalency is at best a cop out.

Pooper:That sounds highminded as the “pox on BOTH your houses!” comments always do. That is also by design.But in this instance, we’re talking about a guy who has been objectively pro-torture, calling Abu-Ghreb a “frat prank,” refers to Barney Frank as a “queen” and, by the by, was a degenerate junkie while demeaning other addicts and saying they deserved no pity.Sometimes your enemy is wrong because he’s wrong and you’re right. Just because you both share that conviction does not make your positions interchangable, but for some trivia.

PPP wrote:>>>What I see ocurring in my nation is reactionary politics from both sides.You’re so hip and above it all. Can you teach me to be a cool guy like you? And can I call you Tyler Durden while you’re doing it?

PPP,Nazi’s in control of both of the parties, eh? Just what is it that you intend contribute to this discussion?

Thank you for that link dy

PPP, so are you saying that outrage is just a put on? Are you saying that you’ve never been offended by something that either side has said? That it’s all for show?Sorry, but if someone e-mails me a picture of the White House with a watermelon patch in the Rose Garden, I’m offended. If someone says, “I hope Obama fails” and damn the financial crisis of the country if we can “win” in 2010, I’m outraged. If someone says “Damn right I hoped the Iraq war would fail,” I’m disappointed.There’s no ulterior motive, it’s not about the gamesmanship of two political factions. It’s about what we think is right and wrong.

Liberals claim that “wingnuts” hate minorities, women, gays, unions, the poor, and science. Conservatives believe that “socialists” hate success, freedom of speech, self-defense, god and anyone who believes, babies, children, and individual responsibility.

I find it very interesting in your post that liberals “claim” and conservatives “believe.” If the Republican party is anti-union, anti-welfare, opposed to gay marriage, wants intelligent design to be taught in schools with the same validity as science and votes against equal pay for women, then it’s not a “claim.”By the same token, conservatives who “believe” liberals hate freedom of speech are just wrong. You post here often enough to know that nothing could be further from the truth, especially in light of the fight for Constitutional rights we’ve had these last few years. Same goes for believing that liberasl hate children because we believe in the individual’s right to privacy (that would also be considered individual responsibility), and myriad other issues you say conservatives “believe.”If that’s your premise, then you’re as lost as Lee is.

Bob,I do not consider myself hip, or above anything. I live in the same country you do. I’m trying to make my way in it just like everyone here. I say it like I see it, and I’m not alone. What is it about the truth that you are so afraid of, Bob? Why do you feel the need to attempt some sarcasm instead of actually addressing what I said?

Carl,Are you focused on words? Fine. Liberals believe all conservatives hate gays, women, minorities, etc., etc, etc. Conservatives fantasize that liberals hate the religious, children, etc., etc., etc.Better?I’m not defending what conservatives say. I know better. Freedom of speech is nothing to joke about. Do not confuse me as a conservative. I’m just telling you the way it is.

PPP – you’re telling the way you believe it is. I believe differently.

PPP – you still didn’t answer my initial questions. Do you really think that outrage and offense is just a tactic?

PPP wrote:>>>Why do you feel the need to attempt some sarcasm instead of actually addressing what I said?Because I don’t have much respect for the flippant contrarian view that “both sides are equally wrong.” I think it’s a crutch, and it’s too often held by thoughtless hipsters who think it’s awesome to just sit on the sidelines and snipe, rather than to actually engage.Both sides aren’t the same. Not in terms of approach or policy.

So, explain to me again why Rush is right? How is hoping your ideology wins the day for better or worse, right? You are not making any sence here.

Hello. I’ve never commented but I saw that someone had an mp3 of the last podcast. I’ve been hungering for it since the night it played (I was at work, unfortunately), and if someone could email it to me I would be REALLY appreciative!