KansasWatchdogTV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLCeUkg5b94

Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2011, President Barack Obama called for a renewal of the "New Nationalism" at the core of the Progressive agenda outlined by former president Theodore Roosevelt in 1910. Obama, like Roosevelt, gave the speech in the small town of Osawatomie, Kansas.

President Obama Calls for Renewal of New Nationalism - Part One

By KansasWatchdogTV

06 December 11

Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2011, President Barack Obama called for a renewal of the "New Nationalism" at the core of the Progressive agenda outlined by former President Theodore Roosevelt in 1910. Obama, like Roosevelt, gave the speech in the small town of Osawatomie, Kansas. This is the first half of the President's hour-long speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY5ehI6GxVc

President Obama Calls for Renewal of New Nationalism - Part Two

By KansasWatchdogTV

06 December 11

This is the second half of the President�s hour-long speech.

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

+87 # davidr 2012-03-11 17:56

If Limbaugh and/or Clear Channel have made false ratings representations to their advertisers and participating stations, Cenk Uygur's $10,000 bet will be the least of their problems.

+148 # Willman 2012-03-11 18:06

My feeling is that the closer we get to the actual election the right wing blowhards will be putting the pedal to the metal. Let em crash NASCAR style.

+67 # ER444 2012-03-12 04:32

Let's hope that Sarah Palin will soon be added to he list of ex-right-wing-s uper-stars. She floored it last week in the direction of the next brick wall as she tried to defend Limaugh's abhorent behaviour. She even left "the door open" to being a candidate at the Republican convention in case Romney and co. finally manage to completely derail (they are doing their best). This circus keeps getting better. Are the democrats sitting this out on purpose watching and waiting before the Conservatives commit suicide? Is this a tactic? I hope so, although if I were a Democrat running for office I would be reving my engines to take back all of Washington so that a new Democratic party with the will to fight for what is right can take the next four years, stop compromising with uncomromising dogmatic forces and ram through history breaking legislation that would bring the USA back to the fold of modern nations.

+7 # James38 2012-03-14 01:00

Excellent, ER444, we all need to work to reelect Obama and especially give him a Congress he can work with. Enough of the lies and obstruction and greed of the Republican Far Right Wingnuts.

We can hope that some action can be taken to oust Clarence Thomas, and to select a Supreme Court Justice with some intelligence and integrity.

We need to fight back on all of the attempts being made to restrict voting rights and to gerrymander honesty and fairness out of so many states. That is a real danger.

+11 # PGreen 2012-03-12 11:29

Unfortunately, I suspect that the right wing establishment will call on Limbaugh or Beck, or their replacements, when the need arises. Look for someone of similar vitriol to be unleashed during the elections proper, probably against Obama, just to keep the public believing what a left-wing radical he is (HA!). Hacks like those two are a dime a dozen, and someone can always be found to do the dirty work of the 1%, which is distracting the working public. Whether B&L stay around or not is almost meaningless, tho I'm sure the entertainment media will take notice-- since that is what these guys do.
Murdoch is a bit different in that he is in the business of hiring those guys and managing the distraction. He will always hire a new cast as necessary, probably sooner than later, but he may keep his name in the back row. I don't expect charges against him to amount to much because so much of the media plays the role, in part, that he fills. He is replaceable too, but I expect to see his company around for a while.

-186 # coffeewriter 2012-03-11 18:10

What a poorly written article. Besides the clumsy, jerky sentence structure, it is riddled with typos (?) and spelling mistakes.

-165 # ejf3 2012-03-11 22:21

Good call. The dude also doesn't seem to have heard of the use of commas. Very sloppy. Don't they edit, or at least review an article before they publish it? Your negative vote here seems to suggest that readers don't like you dis-ing their beloved news source, or they themselves don't recognize the problem.

+61 # Holmes 2012-03-11 22:56

Criticism of the container of the message and not of the message, simply suggests that we are adept at shooting the messenger and will not/cannot deal with the issues involved. Is there sufficient intellectual capacity left in the USA to do so? That power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely has been demonstrated yet again.

Up the 99% we have nothing left to loose, we are broke now.

Where is the accountability to the people?

+41 # Erdajean 2012-03-11 23:10

So Johnny runs in from the playground and hollers to his teacher, who is at her desk studiously red-penciling in missed commas.
"Teacher! Teacher!" he cries -- "the schoolhouse be on fire!"
Teacher glares at the little boy over her glasses. "Johnny," she says. "Go to your desk and write 500 times, 'The choolhouse IS on fire.'"

+36 # Phlippinout 2012-03-11 23:12

I had no problem comprehending it at all! Love that we are all different

+34 # Stephanie Remington 2012-03-12 01:34

+38 # rockieball 2012-03-12 09:01

I find it amazing that when people have not real argument or counter argument to support their position they criticize the spelling and punctuation. Well at least they admit to be able to read, but do not admit to being able to understand what they are reading

+4 # Glen 2012-03-12 17:09

Rockieball, it's true. I posted a response to the criticism of the punctuation that did not get a space, so I will repeat it:

Oh nooooooo! RUN! There are grammar Nazis on board!

+38 # pbbrodie 2012-03-12 09:38

There are a boatload full of commas used in this article and there are only a very few places where any more would be appropriate. There are also what appear to be a whopping 2 typos and the only spelling mistake I found was actually a typo where the author wrote "women," instead of woman.
As for the "clumsy, jerky sentence structure, that is simply your opinion.
Finally, perhaps all the negative votes were given because all of the criticism was directed at the way the article was written and none of it was directed at the content of the article. I feel sure that those of us who gave negative votes did so on this basis.

+23 # rockieball 2012-03-12 10:02

Yes but who cares. It is what was said that matters and I agree with the author.

0 # Capn Canard 2012-03-13 09:44

ejf3, I disagree... coffeewriter is being very anal, to the point of being beyond ridiculous. And that reminds me of when Jon Stewart made both Tucker Carlson and Paul Begalia look like complete amateurs on their own show, "Crossfire". Erdajean beautifully explains it all below.

+50 # lincolnimp 2012-03-11 23:39

Quoting coffeewriter:

What a poorly written article. Besides the clumsy, jerky sentence structure, it is riddled with typos (?) and spelling mistakes.

Yes, proofreading is a valuable tool in journalism, especially if the errors get in the way of comprehension. As it turns out, the content of this piece is so riveting that I had no trouble following the gist of it...no proofreader necessary here. I'm glowing from Boehlert's conclusion that these court jesters have self-destructed . Don't want nobody to rain on my parade right now.

+6 # redjelly39 2012-03-12 19:36

I have been told by editors to send my articles and they would take care of the editing. Two times my articles have been published with no corrections which embarrassed the hell out of me, so I edit before submitting now.
As for this piece, I had no trouble reading & understanding it.

+44 # myungbluth 2012-03-12 05:32

I'm with you, coffeewriter. When they hit you with undeniable unpleasant truth, your best bet is to go after sentence structure and punctuation. Nice work!

+33 # OldRedleg 2012-03-12 07:57

Yes, there are too many grammatical and structural errors for a supposedly professionally written article, but it is still readable and quite understandable. Don't you think it would have been more appropriate to first comment on the subject and substance of what was written before bringing out your grammar red marking pen?

+19 # Lolanne 2012-03-12 09:09

Quoting coffeewriter:

What a poorly written article. Besides the clumsy, jerky sentence structure, it is riddled with typos (?) and spelling mistakes.

I'm not sure why you and ejf3 below are getting all the negatives, coffeewriter. You didn't comment at all on the content of the article, just on how poorly it is written. And you're absolutely right -- the typos and poor writing grated on me as I read the piece.

But the content is still there, and I do celebrate the fact that these egomaniacs are beginning to reap what they have sown. The faster they all self-destruct, the better!

+30 # rockieball 2012-03-12 10:06

Rush has been insulting women or anyone with a grain of Intel in their heads ever since his programs began. I am happy that people are finally waking up to his blither as they did to Beck's. Happy also that they are waking up to the actions of Fox and Murdoch. Sad that it has taken so long.

+9 # rabbitty 2012-03-12 14:28

As a person who has had mild dyslexia, I resent people who critisize people who don't have this problem. For people like me spelling is a real problem. It takes several tries to get something right and then still miss some.
Critizing grammar and spelling is beside the point. whether or not you agree is.If you can make out what someone says, then I wish that you don't be so quick to point out every little error.
As far as on the topic, these guys only have themselves to blame.

+3 # Capn Canard 2012-03-13 09:39

lol...coffeewri ter, yes there are mistakes but the content is clear. Hell, you need not even read the whole article to understand it all. It is just commentary, but strangely it fits since Limbaugh, Beck and Murdock all have self inflicted wounds, they bear all responsibility for their incompetence!

+124 # Tippitc 2012-03-11 19:43

There is some sense of justice in watching these "bad boys" self-destruct!! What goes around, comes around!

+75 # susienoodle 2012-03-11 22:21

but usually not fast enough

+105 # MainStreetMentor 2012-03-11 20:25

-7 # ejf3 2012-03-11 22:24

-181 # MidwestTom 2012-03-11 22:02

I am not supporting Limbaugh, but do some research on Flute, she is not 23, she is 40, she inquired about Georgetown's policies before even enrolling, and she has a long history of activism. This doe not excuse Limbaugh, but it does change the image of Flute that the press initially sent out.

+78 # BobbyLip 2012-03-11 22:30

So what? What does her age, her activism, or her inquiry into policies that might affect her have to do with anything? You're not supporting Limbaugh, Tom? What end do your insinuations and obfuscations serve?
And it's Fluke (pronounced Flook).

+162 # GeeRob 2012-03-11 22:38

Her last name is Fluke, not Flute. She is not 40, she's 30. She spent 5 years working for a non-profit that helped victims of domestic violence.
You can say that you don't support Limbaugh but your post tells me differently.

+46 # alice44 2012-03-11 23:04

I am not sure this article mentions Ms Fluke's age and I even less sure that it is relevant -- but to the extent that you want people to be accurate you might aim for the same goal. She is closer to 32 than to 40.
And as to activism, what on earth is wrong with being an activist?

+33 # Erdajean 2012-03-11 23:14

And being an "activist" -- and 40 -- is a slutty thing to be?
Ms. Fluke's age in all I have read has been 30. Thanks for this clarification.

+40 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-11 23:58

+37 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-12 00:18

+36 # cm wilson 2012-03-12 07:38

"Not supporting Limbaugh, but...." "inquired about Georgetown's policies before even enrolling, ....long history of activism." And if Fluke was 50 yrs. old, that means what? And how bad is it that she inquired about her school's policies before enrolling? And crikey, a history of activism??? Oh no, this DOES make her a prostitute. Sir, not supporting Limbaugh? You even THINK like Limbaugh.

+25 # lcarrier 2012-03-12 09:57

Her name is 'Fluke' and she's a 30-year-old law student. What's activism got to do with it? Limbaugh impugned the character of a young woman, and I'm betting he did it knowing that her politics were different from his.

+31 # lcarrier 2012-03-12 10:01

Al Franken got it right when he said that Rush Limbaugh was a big fat liar. The British press got it right when they labeled Rupert Murdoch as "the dirty digger." And the American public got it right when they recognized Glenn Beck as a shameless showman who cries crocodile tears.

+93 # DaveM 2012-03-11 22:14

I believe Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh, "Talk Radio", etc. are all fads which are perhaps running their course. There have been similar efforts and personalities before--Father Charles Coughlin and the Hearst Newspapers come to mind--and they too had their day in the sun, then faded away.

It will take far longer, however, for the damaged wrought by decades of attacks on civil society carried out by these entities to heal. With a significant segment of the populace now believing they can ignore any idea by accusing its possessor of "drinking the Kool-Aid", mocking his/her name, or saying the likes of "only a stupid person would think that....", some serious changes are in order. What we need now more than anything else is a short course in proper behavior. After all, if we can't talk to each other, we will never get far as a nation. And if our nation is to be represented by the sort of thinking one commonly finds offered from a barstool, well....that hasn't taken us far either, has it?

There have always been those who see no need to mature beyond the level of the playground. But just now, it's time for them to go back there and let grown-ups be in charge.

+22 # vitobonespur 2012-03-12 01:11

Fads? Fads that have been around for quite a long time. Back in the 80's Rush Limbaugh used to broadcast here in Sacramento, CA. I used to listen too him at work and would occasionally get quite a chuckle out of his antics.

Then he went national. At first I thought "good for him," but the first time I heard his national broadcast I realized something had changed. Maybe it was me.

Limbaugh was no longer the occasionally-am using "showman," but had become increasingly vitriolic in his commentary. I've never listened to him since.

That was approximately 1988 or '89. Long time fad.

+2 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-12 11:21

So here is a guy who has significantly damaged the US by his rhetoric and propaganda -- much like Awlaki, who was simply rubbed out for his rhetoric and propaganda -- and Holder says that was OK.

What does Holder say about Limbaugh, etc.? Should not Limbaugh be watching the skies? (Should not we all?)

We got slopes so slippery here it's to even stand up.

+112 # Gnome de Pluehm 2012-03-11 22:46

@Midwest Tom.

What do you mean by "a long history of activism?" I thought we were always encouraged to participate in the political process. Please don't use this as a code word to indicate that someone is doing evil. Anyone who attempts to have influence in the political process is an activist, including Rush Limbaugh and Chris Hedges.

+16 # kitster 2012-03-11 23:30

we recoiled at the sewing. we rejoice at the reaping. this pack of hoisters-on-the ir-own-petards are finally meeting their just, lonesome roads rewards.

bullshit always eventually walks.

+49 # JayMagoo 2012-03-11 23:40

Limbaugh's obscene personal attacks against Ms. Fluke are bad enough, but now we learn that Limbaugh, while searching for ways to smear President Obama seized upon African marauding band of outlaws called the "Lords Resistance Army." This group has been engaged in murder, kidnapping, and rape, systematically for 20 years. Limbaugh favored them because Obama recently sent some American advisers to Uganda to help the local government deal with this menace. In his typical fashion, Limbaugh praised them and slandered Obama without checking the facts. Limbaugh was wrong; the LRA are very bad people, outlaws of the worst kind. This is important because Limbaugh's daily show is carried by the Armed Forces Radio network, which is supported by American tax dollars. Limbaugh has been on Armed Forces Radio smearing Obama and trying to convince his listeners that the LRA are the good guys. Why is Limbaugh on Armed Forces Radio in the first place? He consistently lies about Obama in broadcasts that are available to American service men and women, and are paid for with our tax dollars. If a serviceman or woman said the things publicly about their commander in chief that Limbaugh says daily, he or she could be brought up on charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Yet Limbaugh is paid by us to broadcast his lies. Why?

-63 # hurlco 2012-03-12 00:03

Rush is the greatest!

+30 # lexx 2012-03-12 09:14

Quoting hurlco:

Rush is the greatest!

You must mean the band, Rush.

+8 # Stephanie Remington 2012-03-12 13:46

Back in the '80s I got in a political conversation with a guy with whom I had exactly 0% common ground, so I was surprised when (thinking he had changed the subject) he asked me how I felt about Rush. I said, "they're great!

"At that point in my life I was blissfully ignorant of the existence of Mr. Limbaugh.

+12 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-12 11:23

The greatest what?

+5 # Cassandra2012 2012-03-13 00:34

Quoting hurlco:

Rush is the greatest!

The greatest what? liar, blowhard, fake, misogynist, fool, slave to the rightwing extremists?

+4 # RMDC 2012-03-13 07:27

Hurlco -- greatest what????

Greatest asshole, I'd say.

+24 # wrdpntr 2012-03-12 00:58

I have had an image of the Big Three becoming so over-inflated with their own self-importance and self-righteousn ess that they pop---like party balloons.

+22 # Ralph Averill 2012-03-12 02:14

I have been more fascinated by the parallels between Limbaugh and Don Imus, both of whom crashed and burned because of their callous denigration of women on the radio. (In the case of Imus, there was the addition of racism in his referring to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "a bunch of nappy-headed ho's.")

+3 # rayb-baby 2012-03-12 13:46

I'm not a supporter of Don Imus, but to put him in the same cesspool as Jabba the Fuck is torally disingenuous. Watch this vedio and see what I mean.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/don-imus-on-rush-limbaugh-hes-a-fat-gutless-pill-popping-loser/

+7 # Ralph Averill 2012-03-12 17:11

I agree Don Imus is at heart a good human being, as evidenced by his ranch for sick children. Limbaugh is a beast to the core of his wrinkled soul. I also think that Imus was truly sorry for what he said. Not so Rush. I just think it is interesting that two very different radio entertainers, two very different people, destroyed their own very successful careers in almost the exact same fashion; by denigrating women who, in both cases, by any measure, are shining examples of the best you can do in this world.
I think Don Imus came away from his crisis a better man. If he is not at peace with himself, he should be. I think the opposite is true for Limbaugh.
p.s. Jabba the Fuck. Very good!

0 # rayb-baby 2012-03-12 21:03

I agree that they were similar fashions, but far from the exact same. Everything else you said is right on point. I appologise for my typos in my last comment, and the link I posted wasn't even the best one. Here's the clip I meant to send.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/don-imus-rush-limbaugh-sandra-fluke_n_1321016.html

-26 # terrison 2012-03-12 02:40

While I agree with the substance of this article, I have to say that the author's credibility was diminished quite a bit due to his poor writing. I tripped over his sentence structure, poor word choice and typos in 12 places, though I know someone with a better command of grammar rules would have seen more. Did the rough draft get published by accident?

+14 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-12 11:27

It wasn't that bad at all. A lot of stuff on the web (or even in print) is put out quickly without proof reading. Much of it is more like speaking than formal writing, and the cost of proof readers is often foregone in the current economy. (If you want Media Matters to hire some, donate money!)

There is much worse writing around.

+15 # ABen 2012-03-12 05:05

These three have strutted and fretted their time upon the stage and it is time for them to go!

+20 # Inspired Citizen 2012-03-12 06:23

I write extensively about Beck's smears, false claims, lies, hypocrisies, etc. Although he has been marginalized and rendered useless, his followers are out there repeating the nonsense he spewed on Fox and continues to spew on his morning zoo radio show with the three stooges.

What is most interesting is that they think Beck tells the truth. Beck, of course, repeats this all the time; so they are programmed to hear his nonsense and believe that it's true.

The war against lies and smears will not end any time soon, if ever. It's going to require that liberals and progressives remain vigilant about these right-wing blowhards and, when necessary (in church, online, on the street, etc.) take a stand. Fight back against these liars. I recently called out an old man in a restaurant for spewing Beckerisms about Obama at his table (next to mine).

-84 # Robt Eagle 2012-03-12 06:27

Isn't it interesting that Obama called Fluke personally to give her support in her drama? What's up with that? Our Presdident calling someone who is promoting free everything just because they exist. In Fluke's case she is on a freebie to Georgetown Law School at the taxpayers' expense, and getting supported by the taxpayer, and now she is promoting sexual promiscuity at the taxpayers' expense. Weird, what happened to sex being a personal matter and responsibility, not the public's domain?

+25 # Billy Bob 2012-03-12 08:46

Georgetown is a private Catholic university.

+10 # Ken Hall 2012-03-12 21:36

RE: Please tell us how she is "...promoting sexual promiscuity..." .

+3 # Pickwicky 2012-03-13 16:04

Robt Eagle--Fluke protested insurance companies withholding payment for contraceptives because contraceptives are also prescribed to cure or reduce illnesses in women--such as unusual and dangerous bleeding of the uterine lining. She never promoted sexual promiscuity. Tell us Mr. Eagle, how can you in good conscience comment on the matter without knowing the facts? May we ask where you got your information? I think we already know.

+21 # Travlinlight 2012-03-12 07:47

People like Limbaugh, Beck and Murdoch are the last gasp of an egocentrism that has reached its pathological extremity. They are self-destructiv e because that is how an uncured pathology ends. Somewhere within these men is an aching, abused child that knows only how to strike out in a rage of spite and self-loathing, projected onto anybody or anything that looks emancipated, healthy and positive.

Their followers suffer from the same pathology of self-loathing and hatred for any person or organization that stands for human decency, common sense and compassionate empathy for others.

From what has been heard from those who support these men, it is clear that most of them are beyond any attempt to save them from themselves. They are just as self-destructiv e as their icons. All folks of good will and sane impulses can do is try to limit the damage to society these people are capable of. How is that done? By remaining sober and constant examples of honesty, decency and justice and by exposing fully the sound and fury that signifies nothing but lunacy on the loose.

+12 # Billy Bob 2012-03-12 08:45

i disagree with the presumption of this article that the downfall of the three lunatics mentioned was "sef-destruction".

This is part of a tidal shift in political thinking. These same guys would have, and did, get away with other displays of poor taste or criminal behavior before, that were at least as bad. The difference is that the public levels of tolerance for their garbage has gone down hill in the past few years.

They didn't suddenly step over an imaginary line. They're just starting to realize the affects of the demographic tide that's going against them. This is only the beginning. In 10 years right-wing hate media will be taken about as seriously as the National Enquirer is today, and probably less seriously than the Onion.

In the meantime, you can expect the repug party to become less conservative or go the way of the Whigs.

+5 # bluepilgrim 2012-03-12 11:32

Now that you mention it, I think you are right!

Rush is not his own worst enemy while people like me are around.. LOL

+2 # Pickwicky 2012-03-13 16:24

Billy Bob--I agree. I'll go a step further and claim that President Obama may have turned this tide. It's been a long time since we've had such a morally fine person in the Oval Office. People like Limbaugh who ruthlessly insult the President begin to look dirty. Nothing like your neighbor's shiny clean car to motivate you on Saturday morning to get out that chamois.

+11 # wfalco 2012-03-12 09:02

The article suggests liberal wishful thinking. My hopes and dreams lie with the writer, however, I would never count out the strength, resilience, and durability of right wing news blowhards.
They entertain the least common denominator.The y know their audience like no one else. These extremists are well aware of the risks they take with the truth (when did accuracy ever matter to them or their listeners?)
The right wing populists are esentially apolitical.Apol itical because their beliefs and philosophies are not a result of reality, therefore, making them mere followers of a cult of media personality.
Rush is a fool but he is nobody's fool with regards to his political power and ability to make a ton of cash. Never count this fellow (and his like) out. They will all rebound-too many admirers of this "fast food" media empire. Non-thinkers rejoice!

+14 # Todd Williams 2012-03-12 09:56

Yes, these three are the purveyors of anti-intellectu alism. And they are getting rich peddling their brand of reactionary populism.

+8 # noodles 2012-03-12 10:16

If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are."
Zen koan

+15 # dick 2012-03-12 10:39

Bigoted demagoguery is not a fad. I saw no uprising among Limbaugh's looney cult followers against his libel of this courageous lady, slandering her as a slut. I have heard "Rush" zombies quote HIM by grumbling, "Well, perhaps he could have chosen slightly different words." "Whore"? "Sex sleaze"? THESE are the people who must be called out! Otherwise, they just keep reinforcing each other's belief that most people quietly agree with them. Are WE in a "comma"? Will WE stand up among associates & family? Silence enables, reinforces.

+5 # smilodon1 2012-03-12 10:43

Imperial Hubris.

+11 # lilpat126 2012-03-12 10:52

I must speak up in defense of Don Imus. I was watching him the day he said "a bunch of nappy headed hos". The next day he apologized. He was fired from MSNBC. He went to RFD TV. He is now on Fox Business and the other day I was channel surfing and heard him say it was the best thing that ever happened to him. He realized how low he had gotten and has made an effort to change into a better person. I am sure Deidre has much to do with it. Beck, Murdock, and Limbaugh all have a warped mind and are set on dissing anyone who does not agree with them.

0 # wolf8888 2012-03-13 10:25

All the above,appeal ONLY to their OWN kind, they are slimy despicable vermin that should crawl back under their rock,back to the hell hole that spawned them

+1 # E-Mon 2012-03-14 01:18

There's actually one thing I commend Mr. Limbaugh for and that is that I've never ever heard him say (on the very rare occasions that I tune in just to get a glimpse of where the far right mindset is at) ..... ahhh, or uhhh in the middle of sentences. He is actually a very talented talk show host. It's a pity really.... He could be using that talent to unite people and find common ground among all people. Instead he seems to be deliberately driving a wedge by spewing hate and lies. Oh well.... What goes around comes around. Good luck with Rush. How can some one so intelligent be so stupid?

+1 # Travlinlight 2012-03-17 10:02

E-Mon, Linbaugh is intelligent and a narcissistic manipulator of people who are ignorant, fearful and filled with hatred. He has made a fortune out of stoking up the worst devils of ourselves. I suspect that he doesn't truly believe anything he says. His job is to keep people pissed off, confused and disempowered, and he gets well-paid to do it.

The whole basis of conservative philosophy, if you can call it a philosphy, is a belief that human beings are essentially nasty, selfish rotters who will usually do the wrong thing, if left to their own devices. There are certainly enough people like that to make it possible to sell the conservative line. Interesting thing is that many of the nastiest and most indecent folks among us are the same characters selling that way of thinking. No concidence there, I guess.

Their solution to most problems is to fall back on what they consider stern srength in the form of tough talking militarists and fiscal Scrooges. Any resemblance between such individuals and the Old Testament Jehovah--who is almost always pissed at his human creation--is completely UN-coincidental .

So, Limbaugh is not stupid at all. He knows how to massage the minds of those mired in negativity and loss of faith in human nature. Hey, pandering pays!