Liberals Rush To Judgment On Limbaugh

The liberal weenies over on the left are very good at using half truths and taking things out of context. We saw this during the campaign when the liberals from the subservient Daily Kos to the so called leaders of the party continually stated that John McCain said we would be fighting a war in Iraq for a hundred years. McCain said that he saw no problem with us having forces in Iraq for 50 or 100 years as long as the violence had ended and they were not being shot at. He then said that we have troops all over the world in much the same fashion. The left turned that all around and that is not an isolated incident. They used McCain and Limbaugh completely out of context in order to paint McCain as anti immigrant when he is anything but.

The Obama administration has picked up where they left off during the campaign this time by taking the words of Rush Limbaugh out of context. Liberals can stop reading here because you will not agree and you will not believe anything other than what you have been told to believe by King Hussein and his people.

Rush Limbaugh has been the object of scorn lately and has been taken to task because he said he wanted Obama to fail. That is all you will hear of this from everyone on the left, as well as some on the right. They will not tell you that Limbaugh said he wanted the policies that Obama is pushing to fail and they will not tell you that Limbaugh said that he supported the president but not his policies. That is, after all, no different than saying you support the troops but not the war.

Limbaugh spoke at the CPAC on Saturday and he reiterated the idea that he wanted Obama to fail because the failure of what Obama wants to do will be good for America. One of the first responses came from RNC chair Michael Steele who told an interviewer who had asked about Limbaugh’s comment (of course by leaving out everything but fail). Steele said that Limbaugh was an entertainer and; “Yes, it’s incendiary, yes, it’s ugly.”

This drew a scathing response from Limbaugh who laid on the line exactly what the Republican party needed to do and what Steele in particular needed to do to get things back on track. This eventually led to an apology from Steele who had to explain what he meant.

This drama might provide a little entertainment for the left who are so perplexed by Limbaugh that they are trying even harder to demonize him. Obama has mentioned him directly in an effort to minimize him and the influence he has over conservatives. Limbaugh is a smart man who understands business and he understands what will and what will not work. He also understands politics and he knows what makes this country great. If Obama had any sense he would listen.

Instead, his Press Secretary Robert Gibbs took a shot at Limbaugh and, once again, told a half truth with regard to the “Obama fail” theme.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, who last month blasted CNBC host Rick Santelli from the podium in the briefing room, challenged reporters on Monday to ask Republicans if they agree with Limbaugh’s desire.

“Do they want to see the president’s economic agenda fail? You know, I bet there are a number of guests on television throughout the day and maybe into tomorrow who could let America know whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said this weekend.”

Gibbs said he thought “it would be charitable to say he doubled down on what he said in January in wishing and hoping for economic failure in this country.”

“I can only imagine what might have been said a few years ago if somebody might have said that on the other side relating to what was going on in this country or our endeavors overseas,” Gibbs said. The Hill

I know Gibbs was trying to reduce the impact of Limbaugh’s speech and that he needed to paint the people who were listening to it as out of touch or radical. He wants to divide Republicans which is why he wants them asked if they agree with Limbaugh (want Obama to fail). Gibbs, of course, lied and said that Limbaugh was hoping for economic failure. This is a blatant lie and a gross mischaracterization of what Limbaugh said. In fact, Limbaugh has maintained that Obama’s actions will CAUSE economic collapse and that he [Limbaugh] did not want that to happen. Gibbs concluded by saying how the other side might have reacted if the left had made similar statements about Bush and what was going on here and overseas.

Here is a little newsflash for this pasty twit, the left did say a number of things dealing with failure. The left WANTED our troops to fail and they wanted us to lose the war. They proclaimed the war was lost on a number of occasions and Obama and Biden both opposed the surge and said it would not work. The left took every opportunity to oppose Bush and to throw obstacles in his way. They wasted time on the Plame Game, they continually opposed funding for the troops, and they worked hard to ensure judicial nominees were denied confirmation.

In total, the left opposed Bush and attempted to cause him failure. They opposed the war (after it was no longer politically good to support it) and they did not support the troops.

So Mr. Gibbs, before you open that yap of yours perhaps you should do a little research and know what you are talking about.

Yes, Limbaugh opposes Obama and wants him to fail because Obama’s plans will be an economic and financial disaster. If Obama fails at what he wants to do, it will be good for the country.

On the other hand, if your liberal buddies had succeeded in causing failure for our troops we really would have lost the war and many more of them would have died.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

35 Responses to “Liberals Rush To Judgment On Limbaugh”

  1. Schatzee says:

    I know this will bring all the loonies out to the site to rant and I apologize ahead of time BD but let me put this in no uncertain terms. I DO want BO and his administration to FAIL and fail miserably. I want everyone in this country to see once and for all that this is not the way things work and that the Constitution is not a piece of paper decorating a wall in a museum.

    I want personal responsibility brought back and family values recognized and appreciated and finally I want one nation united by a common goal and not divided by old lame BS (be it race or economic status or political party). I hope that people realize we need new blood in government but not just for the sake of new blood or the sake of having a typical “type” of person there but because we need people to get back to basics (basically the Constitution, limited government, and personal freedoms) and let this country once again be great as a world leader and not as a bleeding heart enabler.

    There libs, whine away. I said it and I believe it and I don’t care who knows it.

  2. Barbara says:

    Yeah Schatzee, I am with you. I also hope his plans fail. He is totally destroying this country and people are silently standing by and letting him do it. One consolation is that when you put rash judgments on someone, they eventually come back to you, and oh my, what a slap in the face that will be.

  3. The Liberal Left is unable to “listen.” They “hear,” and usually, they hear what they want to hear. Unfortunately, then, since they, the Liberal Loons, populate the mainstream media, they pass their faulty information on to the people of this country that watch their tripe on television, and the people become convinced that folks like Rush Limbaugh said things they never said, or never recognize when personalities like Rush are taken out of context – – – and these potential voters do this without ever actually going to the source and learning the truth for themselves.

  4. Victoria says:

    Here is an article written by Barry Farber about his theory regarding why CNN aired Rush’s speech in its entirety considering we all know that they are in the tank for Obama and it makes sense and I would certainly believe it. I am glad they did and anyone with any brains can understand what Rush is saying, so then you know the liberals are going to ratchet up all their screaming and attacks.

  5. Randy says:

    I hardly ever listen to talk radio, and I really do wish that people wouldn’t kick up so much of a fuss over Rush. I personally believe that he has mastered the art of capitalizing on controversy, and every time Media Matters or the Huffington Post complain about him, it’s good for his ratings. He loves it.

    That being said, he doesn’t hold much credibility with me. Perhaps he would if he would appear in more forums that weren’t moderated solely by him. Anyone can talk, but I have never seen him actually debate. It makes me very suspicious of him that he doesn’t do that, and I know I am not the only one.

    On a different note. I never heard anyone say “I hope they fail” when referring to the troops invading Iraq. The comparison doesn’t work.

  6. Bunny Colvin says:

    “The left WANTED our troops to fail and they wanted us to lose the war.”

    Oh yeah. We all got together and celebrated the bloodshed. You cry about derisiveness and then drop a turd like this. What a clown you are, Dog.

    Potsy- How can you be for “family values” and “personal freedoms” simultaneously? And again, what are your feelings on the Reagan/Wyman divorce and the children of the marriage?

  7. Victoria says:

    Hey bunny, here is our new slogan,”Obama lied and the economy died,” and instead of the war on terror we now have the “war on success.”

    Government is the be all, end all: “I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves; that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity.” –Comrade Obama

    I don’t think anyone is crying here about devisiveness other than the devisiveness caused by the left wingers.

  8. Big Dog says:

    The left wanted the troops to fail and wanted us to lose the war. Did not support it or the troops.

    Let me help you Bunny. You always take an exception or relatively rare occurrence and try to equate it to a larger number.

    The Reagan issue was an isolated incident percentage wise. It happened a long time ago when this sort of thing was not common and the same is true for the black community of the time.

    Now, when 70% of a population is without a father then there is a problem that can not be compared to a very small percentage that is not represented by a single incident. In fact, the children still had both parents.

    There is quite a difference between a divorced couple and one that was never married. When young black men are knocking up many girls and girls are having multiple children from different men.

    They do not compare and it was stupid for you to even try. But, you always have to find some exception and then try to equate it to an entire population.

    We call it rationalizing.

  9. Big Dog says:

    The comparison works very well. Limbaugh said he supported the president but not his policies and the libs said they supported the troops and not the war.

    I was at enough of the DC protests to hear the comments about troops failing.

    Reid declared the war lost, they condemned commanders, they were gleeful over body counts.

    I want Obama to fail as well. I do not want what he does for this country so I want him to fail. I know the libs wanted Bush to fail and worked hard to ensure he had a tough time. Now they want everyone to act like we should all hold hands and get along.

    Screw that.

  10. Schatzee says:

    I think someone is confused about exactly what personal freedom is versus family values. Personal freedom means you have the right to make your own decisions regarding your own life and, by design, reap the benefits or suffer the consequences accordingly.

    Strong family values (establishing and maintaing a typical nuclear family, active participation by both parents in raising a child, discipline, guidance, etc.) help people to make the right choices in their lives with respect to those freedoms afforded us. These principles are really not mutually exclusive – or hard to understand.

  11. Schatzee says:

    Oh, I forgot to add, I’m with the whole SCREW THAT thing, too. I know that people wanted the war lost to make problems for Bush and his administration and that, my friends (and not) is certainly a failure for our troops.

  12. Liberty Card says:

    Note: The action against Rush is right out of Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals. You can see it’s not working so well when the Liberals begin to skew the attack to others, ala Bunny’s pathetically lame attempt to make Reagan and Family Values the issue.

    The fact is, Rush is right. The right needs to understand they cannot win by turning the other cheek. Liberals need to be beaten like a drum. B-HO’s hypocrisy over his cabinet picks, his stupidity, his inability to articulate a cogent thought extemporaneously, and his full on assault on business needs to be contrasted vigorously with the conservative agenda of lower taxes, less government, personal freedom.

    When B-HO’s Brown Shirts start visiting your home to ensure you are in compliance with Green Laws, it will be too late.

    • Randy says:

      What about Limbaugh and his family values?

      • Liberty Card says:

        What about them? Limbaugh could be a cloistered nun, or Hugh Hefner and the meaning behind what he says would not change. Either you want to move this country to communism, or you want to keep it capitalistic. What does that have to do with anyone’s family values?

  13. Randy says:

    Please find me one person that said they hope the troops fail.

    I have two brothers that have served multiple tours in Iraq, one that was a member of the first division Marines that invaded Iraq. We have all discussed it, and agree that we would more than likely be much better off today, as a country, if we had not invaded Iraq in 2003. That does not equal hoping the troops fail.

    Thinking the present war in Iraq was a bad idea doesn’t mean hope that the troops fail. There was all kinds of hope that Bush would be able to produce the WMD’s and say that the war was justified. But there was also a great deal of skepticism that did turn out to be justified that the Iraq invasion was a bad idea.

    Thinking Obama’s economic policy is a bad idea is fine. If it turns out to be catastrophic, you should scream like banshees about it. That line of thought should be welcomed. Dissent and debate is always good, and quite patriotic. Hoping for failure from the getgo isn’t.

    • Big Dog says:

      I heard plenty of them at their protests in DC but I doubt I could find them. They are probably in a soup line somewhere.

      • Randy says:

        I can go to some street protests and hear all sorts of crazy things. I’ll find those people for you, no problem. Figureheads and “pundits” from the left? Nope. Not one of said they hoped the troops failed.

  14. Adam says:

    Am I the only one here already tired of the the right using their imaginary perception of how liberals acted over the last 8 years as their excuse for saying unreasoned, idiotic things like it’s OK to hope Obama fails because liberals wanted the war lost and hoped the troops failed?

    Also anybody notice how the only people talking about Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals are conservatives saying that is somehow the playbook liberals go by? Get real.

    • Big Dog says:

      Imaginary perception. Man you liberals have short and selective memories. But look at it this way, this is all in your head. There is nothing wrong with wanting bad policies to fail. I worked hard to make sure Bush’s immigration amnesty plan failed.

      • Adam says:

        Yes, you think the “left” wanted the troops to fail. Imaginary perception?

        You make no clear distinction between what the left is and isn’t yet you feel offended when somebody suggests that the “left” might include pundits and leaders and not just those dirty ****ing hippies you see at the protests.

        Oh, you heard it on the street so the entire “left” must feel same. Imaginary perception?

        Your lunacy since Obama won has consisted of making the same kind of arguments you spent the last 8 years saying liberals were dumb for making. That must make you dumb, of that there can be no debate.

        • Big Dog says:

          Adam, it is not imaginary. The liberals in Congress did everything they could to keep us from winning from declaring that we lost to disclosing secrets, to trying to cut funding to disparaging a highly decorated war hero. Their calls for us to leave Iraq without victory means they wanted us to fail. They wanted us to lose, they did not care because they wanted the political clout.

  15. Big Dog says:

    Randy, unless I missed something, no one here said the liberal pundits or leaders said they wanted the troops to fail. I said they claimed to support the troops but not the war and that it is no different than supporting the president and not his policies.

    Did they directly say it? Not that I am aware (not the protesters, the pundits) but they did try to subvert the war efforts.

    We are talking about Obama who was never a troop. The left called Bush a failure and claimed they were waiting for him to fail.

    You changed what was said. No one here made the claim that any pundit or leader said they wanted the troops to fail. Their actions though, spoke louder than words.

  16. Big Dog says:

    What about them Randy?

  17. Randy says:

    “The left WANTED our troops to fail and they wanted us to lose the war.”

    That’s what you said. The left called Bush a failure AFTER he, from their perspective, failed. I don’t politically classify myself as “left”, but I am certainly not a conservative, which makes me “left” by default in the world of the modern conservative. There were plenty of people that thought invading Iraq was a bad idea. None of those people wanted the effort to fail, they thought it was a bad idea. That’s the difference.

  18. Big Dog says:

    There is no doubt the left wanted the troops to fail. It is why they declared the war lost and it is why they continued to try and cut funding. Now, I don;t mean everyone on the left because there are certainly moderate and conservative people on the left.

    However, saying that the left wanted the troops to fail is different than saying that they said it. No one said that they said it. Just that they wanted it as evidenced by deeds like leaking intelligence, calling them stupid, saying they torture and rape people in the middle of the night and of course, saying things designed to undermine the war.

    Democrats made a big deal of how the war issue was going to mean votes for them.

    As for Bush, the left was looking for him to fail just a few days before 9/11. Would you say that he had failed by then?

    Read it here and note the headline.

  19. Angi says:

    Count me in with the “I hope Obama fails” crowd.

    No apologies.

    And for all you liberals who scream bloody murder every time a conservative dares to suggest Obama is a socialist-borderline-communist, read the following article.

    Obama’s dealing cards straight from Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals and is following practically line-by-line the Communist Party of the USA’s platform for advancing their agenda.

    So HELL. YES.

    I want Obama to fail.

  20. Bunny Colvin says:

    “”Let me help you Bunny. You always take an exception or relatively rare occurrence and try to equate it to a larger number.

    The Reagan issue was an isolated incident percentage wise. It happened a long time ago when this sort of thing was not common and the same is true for the black community of the time.

    Now, when 70% of a population is without a father then there is a problem that can not be compared to a very small percentage that is not represented by a single incident. In fact, the children still had both parents.

    There is quite a difference between a divorced couple and one that was never married. When young black men are knocking up many girls and girls are having multiple children from different men.”

    This from the guy who, eleven minutes after posting this garbage, accused all liberals of wanting our troops to fail based on the comments of a few wackos at an anti-war rally. His contradictions never stop.

    70% of the black population without a father? Wow- that’s a lot of test tube babies.

    Using some of your logic over in the “small business” debate, maybe all these black men don’t get married because they want to avoid all of the pesky paperwork.

    And Jane Wyman had different men in and out of all of her adult life. Must have been a real burden on those children. How the hell were they supposed to figure out who their “real daddy” was? Poor little things.

    Oh, and mAngi- I don’t read the American “Thinker”. I get plenty of disinformation from the global warming deniers on this site.

    • Big Dog says:

      Based it upon what he heard at a number of rallies with tens of thousands in attendance AND (which you seem to have missed) nearly the entire body of Democrats in Congress who did everything they could to ensure failure.

      Once again, one person having infidelity issues does not equate to an epidemic in a population. The two cannot be compared. And if her children suffered it was one instance. When 70% of the white population is doing that then you can say something. When the white community is suffering the same self inflicted wounds as the black community then maybe you will have a point.

      Though you tried to be a smart a$$ about it anyone with a brain knows it means without a father PRESENT. No wonder there are so many problems in the black community. Successful blacks like you are unable to see the problem. Those who do, like Bill Cosby, are castigated for saying what everyone knows.

      Bunny gets his lies from the poser in chief.

      • Angi says:

        Bunny also doesn’t realize that if he ever has any hopes of anyone taking him seriously, he should knock off the craptacular nicknames he gives people.

        It’s laughable, really. Like I’m supposed to get offended?

        Grow up, Bunny. Or maybe you are 16, and that’s impossible for you at this juncture.

  21. Bunny Colvin says:

    I’m white, dipsh!t.

    Bill Cosby? Isn’t he the guy who drugs women before he sexually assaults them? Yeah, he’s a real role model.

  22. Bunny Colvin says:

    I’m about as black as that uncle Tom on the corny “I Pledge” video. Somebody should tell that hoodlum to put his hat on straight. And that throwing your arms around and talking fast doesn’t make you look smarter.

    • Big Dog says:

      I see, a black person who is not enslaved to the Democrats is an Uncle Tom. I could never understand why blacks put up with that. Bunny, distorting people’s names and using gangsta and ghetto slang does not make one appear smarter but it has not stopped you.

      Uncle Tom. Racist. Now hear this. Bunny says blacks who do not toe the liberal line of subservience to the left and the plantation life of second class citizen as a member of the Democratic party are Uncle Toms.

      • Bunny Colvin says:

        If he was acting like that in a video supporting Obama, you’d be talking about how he’s just another uneducated thug from the ghetto (crooked hat, throwing his arms around, yelling). Instead, you praise him for being what he is- an Uncle Tom who desperately wishes he was white.