[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Not being George Bush, I have no idea why he moronically supported it, why?

The "conservative plan" was attempted in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 by the Bush Administration in attempts to regulate and bring under control the Fannie/Freddie meltdown before it occurred.
Attempts that were blocked by Democratic committee members who, we have now learned, were into the pockets of those very organizations.
Threatened with - among other tactics - a filibuster by the junior Senator from Illinois - wonder where THAT guy is now?

Examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_2D4mK95NQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN31-nKndg8

Do you think bush was wrong with the 700 billion bailout?

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

This was an economy that was GROWING until AFTER Democrats regained control of Congress in 2006, yet everyone has blamed the Bush Administration for everything.

this is the old "mark furman said the N word" defense.... bush was in power for all 8 years so i don't buy it

[Macrobat]

Whether you "buy it" or not is irrelevant. Historical fact is fact - and verifiable.

Bush inherited a faltering economy from Clinton, the economy having grown only at a 1.1% annualized rate over the previous three quarters from March 31 of the first year of Bush presidency. Bush had his tax cut plan approved by Congress in June, proposed early as a response to the economic decline and, despite the aftermath of the 2001 9/11 attacks.
While the economy grew under the Bush administration, growth was below average in comparison to the average for business cycles between 1949 and 2000. Overall real GDP grew at an average annual rate of 2.5%. Between 2001 and 2005, GDP growth was clocked at 2.8%, 0.6% below the average of 3.4%, while GDI (Gross Domestic Income) growth was 36% below average. The number of jobs created grew by only 6.5%, 28.5% below the average growth rate of 9.1%. The growth in average salaries was less than half as usual; 1.2% versus 2.7%, respectively. While growth in consumer spending was 72% faster than growth in income, it too failed to keep pace with the average of previous cycles. Only investment residential real-estate soared, growing 26% faster than average.
Despite growth levels considerably below previous levels, a March 2006 report by the United States Congress Joint Economic Committee showed that the U.S. economy outperformed its peer group of large developed economies from 2001 to 2005. (The other economies are Canada, the European Union, and Japan.) The U.S. led in real GDP growth, investment, industrial production, employment, labor productivity, and price stability.



I think Bush was painted into a corner with the bailout. And I have now stated in three answers to you that I disagreed with it. There were multiple attempts by the Bush Administration to head off the collapse throughout his presidency. The housing market should have been allowed to bottom and correct itself. Housing values were artifically high and this "bailout" is simply prolonging the inevitable by continuing to prop up those inflated values. That 26% growth in investment paired with the forced government-underwriting of bad mortgages, forced by the Community Reinvestment Act, led to the real estate collapse.

It also led directly to all the hands being thrust in Washington's direction now.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Seems you are the one mathematically challenged. The deficit for 2008 was $435 billion. In the next three years, the government will need to borrow $3.6 trillion. By very definition - a deficit.


That's BORROW as in, it will have to be paid back - with interest.

Yet you actually BRAG that his ONE YEAR deficit will be "only" three-quarters of a trillion dollars more then the ENTIRE Bush deficit - for eight years.

Just keep trying to compare 8 years of a presidency to what Zero has spent in one month - please do.

It's not we who are embarrassed. Or at least you SHOULD be.

Ok. Someone needs to brush up on their terminology and the facts before speaking. First of all, there is no "ENTIRE Bush deficit - for eight years". A budget deficit (or a surplus) applies to a given fiscal year's budget only. The national debt refers to the total accumulated debt of the US government ... or the sum of all previous deficits (or surpluses). And then there is the national debt increase which is the real number ... which differs from the "budget deficit" because it doesn't use the Social Security surplus to reduce the number AND it factors in non-budgeted spending such as the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Now let's examine the facts shall we?

The debt increased by approximately $550 billion on average each year during the 2003-2007 period, but then increased over $1 trillion during FY 2008.

The cumulative debt of the United States in the past 8 completed fiscal years was approximately $4.3 trillion, or about 43% of the total national debt of ~$10.0 trillion as of September 2008.[65][66] President Barack Obama announced in February, 2009, his intention to ban federal accounting "gimmicks" previously employed to make the budget deficit appear smaller than it really is.

US Public Debt



So while it is true that the "budget deficit" was 400+ billion for 2008 ... the "national debt increase" was actually 1 trillion. Furthermore, if you add up the sum of the "budget deficits" in that chart it is still more than what Obama's budget (which doesn't include the accounting gimmicks) is proposing. And if you add up all the "national debt increases" in that chart and compare it to what Obama's budget is proposing there simply is no comparison.

This simply bears repeating .....

The cumulative increase in the national debt under the Bush Administration was 43% of the total national debt incurred during the ENTIRE HISTORY of this country. 4.3 TRILLION DOLLARS

And let's not even get into the Reagan years ...

OAW

PS: You'd think those on the right would be applauding Obama's stand on eliminating accounting gimmicks used to mask the real increases to the national debt. That is, after all, a very financially conservative thing to do.

[Shaddim]

Actually, in some ways I'm a bit excited. This course of action by Obama greatly improves the chances for a Fight Club-type full system meltdown. We, as a species, really need something like that to make us focus.

[Macrobat]

OAW, even if we accept YOUR numbers, Obama is set to nearly DOUBLE that in one year.

Not to mention that the previous deficit is more than 70% owed to ourselves (American citizens) - to Social Security (raped by the D-controlled Congress under LBJ) and Medicare - whereas Obama's will be owed to the Chinese and whoever else steps up to loan us the money for his programs.

You may want to reconsider your smugness.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

OAW, even if we accept YOUR numbers, Obama is set to nearly DOUBLE that in one year.

Not to mention that the previous deficit is more than 70% owed to ourselves (American citizens) - to Social Security (raped by the D-controlled Congress under LBJ) and Medicare - whereas Obama's will be owed to the Chinese and whoever else steps up to loan us the money for his programs.

You may want to reconsider your smugness.

First you need to cut out all the hyperbole and compare apples to apples. It's not being "smug". It's stating simple facts which you seem hesitant to accept. It's not going to "double" in one year. If you are going to make such a statement you have to compare the actual national debt increases (not the budget deficits) over the last 8 years .... 4.3 trillion .... to the projected Obama deficit (which doesn't include the accounting gimmicks previously employed) ... 1.75 trillion.

Now please explain how 1.75 trillion is double 4.3 trillion? It's not even double the 1 trillion national debt increase from last year. So please. Just cut it out. Ok?

OAW

[besson3c]

Can I get a hot dog over here?

[The Crook]

Rush Limbaugh.

*snickers*

[waxcrash]

I like how the conservatives criticize Obama for being threatened by Rush. Obama knows that Rush is an ego maniac and can't back down. So they go after Rush - and of course Rush eats it up. This strategy which Obama is taking was well thought out a long time ago and is starting to work. So Rush spews his crap, but there are more center-leaning conservatives that think Rush is too extreme. It's just causing the GOP to implode on itself.

Take a look at Michael Steele the other day. He called Rush an "entertainer", "incendiary" and "ugly". The next day the chairman of RNC is apologizing to him. Ha ha ha! So who is the leader on the Republican party??? Rush said Steele was "gutless" and "afraid" to challenge Obama. All this infighting is hilarious.

Rush does not represent the majority of the GOP. I think the latest statistic of which political party Americans associate themselves with was 28% call themselves Republican, 38% call themselves Democrat, and 29% independents. The Republican party is shrinking and will continue to do so if Rush is considered a mouth of the conservative party.

[Shaddim]

Rush has received more publicity in the last week than he has in over 5 years, which will cause his show to grow in listeners.

For some reason, the Dems have decided to start padding Rush's pockets. Did you guys simply decide he didn't have enough money or fame? Or, did you simply not think at all?

[SpaceMonkey]

Pretty much any mainstream economist will tell you that the worst thing we can do right now is try to balance the budget. In the near-term, the deficit isn't the biggest concern.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Rush has received more publicity in the last week than he has in over 5 years, which will cause his show to grow in listeners.

For some reason, the Dems have decided to start padding Rush's pockets. Did you guys simply decide he didn't have enough money or fame? Or, did you simply not think at all?

Maybe he will get more listeners.

But Rush Limbaugh is tremendously unpopular overall. Making Rush the face of the GOP benefits Democrats as a result.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Maybe he will get more listeners.

But Rush Limbaugh is tremendously unpopular overall. Making Rush the face of the GOP benefits Democrats as a result.

Rush has said, on many occasions, his success does not depend on who wins elections. BO seems fixated not only with Rush, but Sean Hannity as well, to the point of dropping his name several times during the 2008 campaign. I don't remember Keith Doberman or Rachel Madcow getting under W's skin.

[Shaddim]

So, I guess that's answer "B".

Rush doesn't care about the GOP either, really. He cares about his bank account and staying in the limelight, same goes for Coulter, O'Reilly, and Hannity. I'll bet they were thrilled when Obummer was elected, it gives them years of material to exploit. These are simply muckrakers who thrive on the attention bestowed by unthinking Liberals. Hell, I know some who tune in to Rush just to argue with the radio, oblivious to the fact that they're falling for such a simple deception.

No, Rush doesn't represent the mainstream GOP, any more than Michael Moore represents Dems, but you can keep thinking that way and adding more zeros to his bank accounts. He'll thank you by adding more affiliates behind the "golden EIB microphone".

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Rush has received more publicity in the last week than he has in over 5 years, which will cause his show to grow in listeners.

For some reason, the Dems have decided to start padding Rush's pockets. Did you guys simply decide he didn't have enough money or fame? Or, did you simply not think at all?

i wonder if rush will get more listeners.

i mean, what conservative doesn't already know/listen to him?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

I think Bush was painted into a corner with the bailout. And I have now stated in three answers to you that I disagreed with it. There were multiple attempts by the Bush Administration to head off the collapse throughout his presidency. The housing market should have been allowed to bottom and correct itself. Housing values were artifically high and this "bailout" is simply prolonging the inevitable by continuing to prop up those inflated values. That 26% growth in investment paired with the forced government-underwriting of bad mortgages, forced by the Community Reinvestment Act, led to the real estate collapse.

It also led directly to all the hands being thrust in Washington's direction now.

by whom?

i acknowledged that you didn't agree with the bailout

but the solution for the housing meltdown was a 180 degree turn for bush... right?

small government, tax cuts, free market etc... then, pow!

if you were the president back in september, what would you do? or what would you have wanted bush to do?

let the banks fail? let ford, gm chrysler die?

i know it's a tough question and i am not putting you on the spot...just wondering...

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

i wonder if rush will get more listeners.

i mean, what conservative doesn't already know/listen to him?

Like I said before, I know a lot of liberals who listen just to scream profanities at their radio.

[besson3c]

You don't need Rush Limbaugh to scream at your radio. Your radio doesn't even have to be switched on to scream at it.

[stumblinmike]

Rush is awesome. He rules. Conservatives will never hold power again! Thank you Mr Limbaugh

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by waxcrash 

I like how the conservatives criticize Obama for being threatened by Rush. Obama knows that Rush is an ego maniac and can't back down. So they go after Rush - and of course Rush eats it up. This strategy which Obama is taking was well thought out a long time ago and is starting to work. So Rush spews his crap, but there are more center-leaning conservatives that think Rush is too extreme. It's just causing the GOP to implode on itself.

"center-leaning conservatives"

Is that like "jumbo shrimp"?

I mean, seriously...do you even believe what you are tying yourself? As I've stated before, this does nothing but make Obama look small. He's doing it as a distraction, hoping people will ignore the CLUSTER FOXTROT he's getting himself (and the country in). Much better him look small and put the focus on Limbaugh then to have the country focus on what a complete failure he's becoming. It's a losing strategy which will do little but cut losses short term.

Rush does not represent the majority of the GOP.

He represents himself. I do believe though that the ideas he expresses does represent those shared by the majority of the GOP. At least the majority that are conservative.

I think the latest statistic of which political party Americans associate themselves with was 28% call themselves Republican, 38% call themselves Democrat, and 29% independents. The Republican party is shrinking and will continue to do so if Rush is considered a mouth of the conservative party.

Just a few years ago Republicans held a majority of just about every branch of government in the US. This happened after a President decided to move the country too far to the left, too fast, while spending lots of money and raising taxes in ways that didn't grow the economy. They forget what got them elected and it appears now they've remembered. Yogi Beara would tell us it's likely "deja-vue all over again" come 2010, since the Democrats apparently forgot what got them booted out of office back in 1994.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Rush is awesome. He rules. Conservatives will never hold power again! Thank you Mr Limbaugh

I want some of what you're smoking, did you pinch it from Barry?

Actually, never mind, it just seems to make him paranoid.

[besson3c]

Where's my damn hot dog?

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No, Rush doesn't represent the mainstream GOP, any more than Michael Moore represents Dems, but you can keep thinking that way and adding more zeros to his bank accounts. He'll thank you by adding more affiliates behind the "golden EIB microphone".

Well, I don't accept that Rush isn't representative of the "mainstream GOP" but let's put that question aside for the moment. He doesn't have to. The idea behind making Rush the face of the GOP is that by tying the party to a tremendously unpopular media figure, Democrats benefit. He is less popular than even Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers! Now you can keep hammering your point about how Limbaugh personally profits from these efforts, but that point is irrelevant to electoral political outcomes.

[Shaddim]

Want relish?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Well, I don't accept that Rush isn't representative of the "mainstream GOP", blah, blah, blah...

Then you're being just as pig-headed as Rush.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Well, I don't accept that Rush isn't representative of the "mainstream GOP" but let's put that question aside for the moment. He doesn't have to. The idea behind making Rush the face of the GOP is that by tying the party to a tremendously unpopular media figure, Democrats benefit. He is less popular than even Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers! Now you can keep hammering your point about how Limbaugh personally profits from these efforts, but that point is irrelevant to electoral political outcomes.

I heard the same things being said in 1993.
Democratic research firm Greenberg-Quinlan-Rosner did the poll. I wonder how Rachel Madcow or Keith Doberman would do if a poll conducted by a Republican research firm and posted on The Free Republic.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

For some reason, the Dems have decided to start padding Rush's pockets. Did you guys simply decide he didn't have enough money or fame? Or, did you simply not think at all?

Dude, they've been quaking in their loafers over the guy for over 20 years now- what exactly is new?

Liberals actually believe the President of the US needs to have a 'strategy' against...


...A TALK SHOW HOST!

It is entertaining, and yes, as he has for 20+ years, Rush is laughing all the way to the bank.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Where's my damn hot dog?

I make it a habit not to feed trolls.

[besson3c]

Crash: and Conservatives freak out about Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and probably any number of other individuals and groups too... Is your point that Liberals freak out more or somehow their freaking out is different enough to be undesirable?

Whatever, you can make that argument if you'd like, I have my hot dog now to enjoy...

[ironknee]

so this steele backed down from criticizing rush...

who really is in charge?

btw what ever happened to always respecting the president?

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Then you're being just as pig-headed as Rush.

If that's all you have to say, then you aren't interested in a serious discussion.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I heard the same things being said in 1993.

Well, it's basically the Republican playbook, so you've seen these things much more recently. It's nice to see Democrats actually use their tactics against them.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Democratic research firm Greenberg-Quinlan-Rosner did the poll. I wonder how Rachel Madcow or Keith Doberman would do if a poll conducted by a Republican research firm and posted on The Free Republic.

Very true.

If anyone has other polls about Limbaugh, feel free to chime in. My feeling though is that he's very unpopular.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Liberals actually believe the President of the US needs to have a 'strategy' against...

...A TALK SHOW HOST!

I think you're totally missing the flavor of this latest thing. Democrats are having a lot of fun making Rush the face of the GOP. And the fact that any Republican leader who criticizes Rush has to grovel and apologize the next day to him only adds to the perception that this talk show host is the GOP's leader.

[ironknee]

^^

crook has it right... we LOVE this.

it's like another palin, plumber and jindal ... a little poke and we got rush and steele to fight each other...

trust me, this IS entertainment

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Crash: and Conservatives freak out about Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and probably any number of other individuals and groups too... Is your point that Liberals freak out more or somehow their freaking out is different enough to be undesirable?

Whatever, you can make that argument if you'd like, I have my hot dog now to enjoy...

Besson, rather than your troll act, try paying attention.

The relevant difference has already been pointed out: we're talking about liberals needing the President of the US to acknowledge and have a 'strategy' against a talk show host: IE, a crystal clear admission that he can't handle free speech that's critical of him, which is generally a hallmark of ideas that can't stand the light of scrutiny.

Knock off the weak trolling and go find an example of Bush having some strategy against Michael Moore or any liberal talker, or conservatives or Republicans encouraging him to, or needing a 'fairness doctrine' against Air America or something- then you'd have a relevant comparison.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

I think you're totally missing the flavor of this latest thing.

There's no 'latest' thing- the left's playbook against Rush (and virtually anyone they disagree with) has been the SAME since 1988.

Clinton may have taken the bait once or twice while in office, but I think he was much more skillful than Obama appears to be at knowing that it made him appear silly not to be able to take the "heat" from a radio talk show.

Right now your exhausted Emperor is revealing that he has no clothes, and his every attempt to take on the talk show host in the public arena only serves to prove that it's pure weakness for a head of state to even feel the need to challenge a private individual in the first place. But keep insisting otherwise!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

so this steele backed down from criticizing rush...

who really is in charge?

btw what ever happened to always respecting the president?

That went out with all the "chimp" and "shrub" comments over the years.

If that's all you have to say, then you aren't interested in a serious discussion.

and you were? That's pathetic.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Clinton may have taken the bait once or twice while in office, but I think he was much more skillful than Obama appears to be at knowing that it made him appear silly not to be able to take the "heat" from a radio talk show.

Right now your exhausted Emperor is revealing that he has no clothes, and his every attempt to take on the talk show host in the public arena only serves to prove that it's pure weakness for a head of state to even feel the need to challenge a private individual in the first place. But keep insisting otherwise!

Agreed, for all Bubba's faults, he did know how to take criticism. Obummer is a sad, pitiful little man, in comparison.

"Oh no! These talk show hosts are attacking me. Circle the wagons!"

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Besson, rather than your troll act, try paying attention.

The relevant difference has already been pointed out: we're talking about liberals needing the President of the US to acknowledge and have a 'strategy' against a talk show host: IE, a crystal clear admission that he can't handle free speech that's critical of him, which is generally a hallmark of ideas that can't stand the light of scrutiny.

Knock off the weak trolling and go find an example of Bush having some strategy against Michael Moore or any liberal talker, or conservatives or Republicans encouraging him to, or needing a 'fairness doctrine' against Air America or something- then you'd have a relevant comparison.

If Bush saw Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan as a serious threat, they would have a strategy too, it's not a big deal, this is how politics works. Obviously some feel that Rush is able to mobilize people enough to have some of threatening effect, such as voting for Hillary Clinton or whatever Rush was trying to get people to do during election season. So, there are attempts being made to prevent this.

Where people like you go wrong is in going all ape **** in thinking that this is some unique case of free speech stifling or something. Rush can say what he wants, nobody is preventing this, he is just being marginalized. This is politics, nothing new here... There are always good guys, bad guys, guys thrown under the bus, guys scapegoated, and guys that are the (sometimes misdirected) subject of scrutiny and loathing.

To say that this should never happen would be a fair point, but I'm sure you were one of the people bitching and moaning about how bad of a mother Cindy Sheehan was, how she should go home, or whatever... Why? Because she was seen as a threat to your political agenda. We can argue about the extent to which you would go about mitigating this threat, but the fundamental truth that you would do things to mitigate this threat (e.g. by marginalizing her with the things you say about her) makes it difficult to really take these sorts of arguments seriously.

This is just partisan politics as usual, and I'm ready for a hot dog, so serve up bitch!

[besson3c]

That 0'bama the Nobama Obummer Hussein guy is one awesome president!

Can I get some onions for my hot dog?

[olePigeon]

If Rush Limbaugh thinks he knows all the answers, why doesn't he just run for president?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Crash: and Conservatives freak out about Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and probably any number of other individuals and groups too... Is your point that Liberals freak out more or somehow their freaking out is different enough to be undesirable?

This is coming from the White House. Not just "conservatives". Big difference. The last time a Republican President put forth a strategy to smear private citizen's in the media in order to achieve his political goals, his "enemies list" was probably just a little longer and the names of the "plumbers" involved leaned a little further to the right than the current ones Obama has put into place.

People are taking glee at the President's men organizing attacks against media critics.
Jack Anderson is turning in his grave right now.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Agreed, for all Bubba's faults, he did know how to take criticism. Obummer is a sad, pitiful little man, in comparison.

"Oh no! These talk show hosts are attacking me. Circle the wagons!"

Very true. The funny thing is that when Clinton DID "take the bait" and his poll numbers where in the toilet and the Republicans took over in 1994, the same guys advising Obama now where the guys telling Clinton to do it then. Highly ironic. At some point, you'd think that Obama would be able to put two and two together if he's so smart. I simply think that his partisan, cut-throat nature simply wins out over what should be common sense.

It wasn't until Morris starting explaining to the President how stupid it made HIM look that he changed tactics and routinely thumped the Republicans to the point where he could get caught engaging numerous felonies while in office and be essentially untouchable.

Like I said, they tried it with Gingrich and it wasn't really all that effective in the end, and the same guys have been trying the same thing with Limbaugh all these years and Rush gets probably no fewer listeners in the end.

Again...if this is the best Obama can do in order to fight ideas (attacking the messenger)....it's clear he's bereft of them. So much for "change".

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That 0'bama the Nobama Obummer Hussein guy is one awesome president!

Can I get some onions for my hot dog?

Many credited Rush with the 1994 Republican majority.

There are those who call Bush an idiot because he isn't an eloquent speaker. We now see just because someone can deliver a speech off a teleprompter doesn't make him a genius, and the market investors have figured that out. Since his election, and every time he or someone in his administration opens their mouth the markets tank. The markets were >11K when BO was elected, now they are < 7K for the first time in 12 years. The markets actually started to decline when it became apparent that BO was going to be the Dem nominee. This bear market is 100% BO's baby.

BTW here ya go.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This bear market is 100% BO's baby.

Or not.

[hyteckit]

It's Clinton's fault. If Clinton learn how to keep his pecker in check, we wouldn't be in this mess we are in now. We wouldn't be spending billions in Iraq.

I'm a Republican: I'm obsessed with Clinton's pecker.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Many credited Rush with the 1994 Republican majority.

There are those who call Bush an idiot because he isn't an eloquent speaker. We now see just because someone can deliver a speech off a teleprompter doesn't make him a genius, and the market investors have figured that out. Since his election, and every time he or someone in his administration opens their mouth the markets tank. The markets were >11K when BO was elected, now they are < 7K for the first time in 12 years. The markets actually started to decline when it became apparent that BO was going to be the Dem nominee. This bear market is 100% BO's baby.

What are you smoking?

The Dow was at 8,175 on Oct 27, 2008.

Dow Jones

[waxcrash]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I mean, seriously...do you even believe what you are tying yourself? As I've stated before, this does nothing but make Obama look small. He's doing it as a distraction, hoping people will ignore the CLUSTER FOXTROT he's getting himself (and the country in). Much better him look small and put the focus on Limbaugh then to have the country focus on what a complete failure he's becoming. It's a losing strategy which will do little but cut losses short term.

As I stated before, this strategy has been in the works for some time and it's working.

1. Connect Rush to the GOP - Rush's own admittance that he wants Obama to fail.
2. Americans don't want Obama to fail, they want to get out of this mess.
3. This makes the GOP fail.

Don't believe me?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19596.html

[besson3c]

Chongo: why do you keep repeating stuff about Obama speaking off of a teleprompter? The insinuation is that he is only a good public speaker because somebody else feeds him great speeches to simply read, but this is factually incorrect, so why say it? It doesn't help your arguments, and makes them seem to lack focus with this distraction.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Chongo: why do you keep repeating stuff about Obama speaking off of a teleprompter? The insinuation is that he is only a good public speaker because somebody else feeds him great speeches to simply read, but this is factually incorrect, so why say it? It doesn't help your arguments, and makes them seem to lack focus with this distraction.

Cause that's what Rush say.

Whatever Rush says, it's the truth.

[waxcrash]

Ha ha, this is good.

I'm Sorry, Rush

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What are you smoking?

The Dow was at 8,175 on Oct 27, 2008.

Dow Jones

Just look how the decline started in May of 2008, just when BO was wrapping up the nomination. The Dow was over 13,000. Investors kept hearing BO say he wanted to double cap-gains, and reacted by pulling out of the market before he did.

[hyteckit]

Again, what are you smoking?

Here's what Chongo said:

The markets were >11K when BO was elected, now they are < 7K for the first time in 12 years.