Category: Rush Limbaugh

‘Somebody Has to Stand Up’

Posted on Comments

So says Mark Levin:

[H]e offered $100,000 to Chris Matthews to find any example where Sarah Palin or Levin himself had “promoted the murder of anybody.”
The direct challenge to Matthews took place shortly after Levin had played clips of Matthews suggesting Levin’s passionate radio shows were “angry” and apparently implying that Levin’s shows and those of talker Michael Savage had some responsibility for the Tucson murders. The allegation came on the heels of a specific allegation by left-wing Pima County Sheriff insisting Rush Limbaugh was at fault, while MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann demanded Palin “repudiate her own part in amplifying violence and violent imagery in politics.”
Said Levin, who is also a considerable lawyer in his role as head of the landmark Legal Foundation:
“I challenge Chris Matthews, I’ll put $100,000 on the table, to find any example where Sarah Palin has promoted the murder of anybody,” said Levin — specifically excluding terrorists and the Taliban.
Levin went on: “A hundred thousand on the table if Chris Matthews can find anywhere Mark Levin has urged the murder of people who have different political viewpoints. That’s the murder of politicians …where I said go out there and kill X,Y,Z…go out there and kill A,B,C. I challenge him right now. Sarah Palin. Me. Go ahead.”

Matthews is a gutless faggot Canadian. Meanwhile, the “Lean Forward” network has now made a graphic out of its counterfactual guilt-by-association, prompting Radley Balko to say:

It’s a powerful image. . . . It’s also complete bullsh*t.

And when are people going to start talking about the influence of Zeitgeist on Tucson shooter Jared Loughner?

Rush Limbaugh Reads My Blog On Radio, Makes Mrs. Other McCain Angry

Posted on Comments

OK, I’ll get around to why my wife is angry later. First, I gotta brag on making it into Rush’s “Stack of Stuff” :

This from the American Spectator blog from a couple days ago: “For decades, Americans have been lectured that there is exactly one standard by which sexual activity can be judged: Were the participants ‘consenting adults?’ Now comes the news that Columbia University political science professor David Epstein, 46, has been arrested and charged with having a three-year-long sexual affair — with his own daughter. The daughter, now 24, was an adult when this incestuous relationship (allegedly) began in 2006 and, while incest remains illegal in New York State, some commenter’s at the Columbia University student newspaper Web site are mystified as to why it’s illegal: ‘Wait, why is consensual incest a crime? It might not be appealing to everyone, but if they’re adults and they consent, who cares what they do?'” This is a typical comment from a student on the site.
“Readers might suppose that arguments involving phrases like ‘thou shalt not’ and words like ‘abomination’ are sternly frowned on at Columbia University, so that the faculty would have a hard time answering such a question from their students. Likewise, readers will scarcely be surprised to learn that Professor Epstein is an ardent admirer of President Obama and a vocal critic of Sarah Palin.” He has had an incestuous relationship with his own daughter. The students say it’s no big deal, they both agreed, it’s a consensual relationship. This guy is an admirer of Bam and doesn’t like Palin, behaves this way. You used to have some success using incest as a counter point to liberals who insisted that limiting marriage to a man and a woman was an unconstitutional violation of the equal-protection clause. If the student newspaper is gonna jump straight for defending incest, then we got a problem. If that’s in any way representative of that generation at large or hopefully it will be confined to the Columbia student body. But bestiality I guess would be next because who cares the horse didn’t consent? Well, I know we can’t tell people what to do with their own bodies and we can’t call it incest ’cause that’s a label and that is too limiting. Labels are too limiting.
Yeah, this is a major, major problem. It’s about freedom, total free, do what you want to do, as long as both people are involved in it and consent to it. Of course, does a daughter consent or does she feel pressured into it? I’m just asking. Well, I’m not trying to delve into the sickness of either one of them. I’m trying to ask legitimate questions that the American left would pose here. Have we not known things were headed and tracking in this direction morally? Have we not known this for years? All of the excuses, it’s not for you to judge. What two people want to do with their own bodies and lives is their business, except when it’s smoking, except when it’s eating, except when it’s things liberals don’t like. I don’t know if Woody Allen’s weighed in or not but he could be the poster child for it. He certainly at one time was the poster child for Democrat Party social policy.

So mega-dittos, Rush. Thanks for reading The American Spectator. Now let me explain why Mrs. Other McCain is mad at you.

To quote my wife: “He reads your stuff, but he never says your name! He’s been doing this ever since you came to Washington! He’s a big pussy-face — and you can tell him I said so!”

Well, that’s my wife, Rush. I’ve tried to explain to her that it’s most likely the “McCain” part that causes this problem. Even if you understand that I hate and detest everything John McCain represents, such is the toxic damage he’s done to the name, if you were to read my byline on the radio, you’d have to take two minutes to disambiguate me from my disgraceful cousin. And that wouldn’t be good radio, would it?

Anyway, thanks again.

Malkin and Coulter Underrated?

Posted on Comments

Conservative Home, a new Web site run by people you never heard of, has published the results of a survey of “1,152 Republican activists” identifying their favorite pundits.

The top five are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Charles Krauthammer, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity — i.e., the top talk-radio star, three Fox News hosts and and a Washington Post columnist who appears frequently on Fox News.

Before you say “epistemic closure,” let me point out that Michelle Malkin is ranked No. 7 and Ann Coulter No. 9 on the list. Both of them are more conservative than O’Reilly or Newt Gingrich (No. 6) and both of them have written important, heavily-researched books that were also huge bestsellers.

Malkin’s Invasion must be ranked as the best book on immigration policy since Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation (which is very high praise) and In Defense of Internment . . . my God, talk about poking the hornet’s nest of political correctness with a stick.

As for Coulter, her books are much better than is suspected by people who know her only for her snarky jabs on TV. As for her right-wing bona fides, I still remember the shock of reading Godless, in which she described Joe Sobran as her “mentor.” If you know anything about Sobran, that one reference ought to give you pause the next time you hear some idiot dismiss Coulter as a “neo-con.” 

Malkin and Coulter and George Will (No. 10) would all rank above O’Reilly in any fair ranking of conservative pundits, but “favorite” is not the same as “most conservative,” of course. I’m also surprised that Mark Levin didn’t make the list, but you see that — with the exception of Limbaugh and Will — the basic factor here seems to be, “Who gets the most airtime on Fox?”

The Conservative Home editors themselves have other concerns:

Worryingly, columnists often regarded as among the most thoughtful conservatives did not fare well. David Brooks of the New York Times only mustered a mention from 1.3% of the panel (14 people). Ross Douthat, also at the NYT, won just four votes and Mike Gerson, Washington Post writer and former speechwriter to President Bush, gets just three mentions.

These omissions are entirely understandable:

  • David Brooks is not a conservative, period. He has described himself as a “moderate,” and I say we take his word for it.
  • Douthat is conservative and, as the editors say, “thoughtful,” but his thoughtfulness manifests itself as an unwillingness to reach out, smack liberals upside the head and yell, “You’re wrong!” (Metaphorically, of course.) A good conservative pundit has to be confrontational toward liberalism, and aggressively so. This has been true of every great pundit of the Right since Buckley smacked Yale upside the head in 1951.
  • The basic problem with Gerson can best be summarized in the phrase “former speechwriter to President Bush.” Gerson recently wrote a good column, which makes him 1-for-the-season by my count. In general, Gerson’s prose is boring and bland. David Frum considers Gerson his intellectual inferior and this is one point where even Frum’s worst enemies wouldn’t argue with him.

It is possible to be erudite and serious without being pompous, snobby, wishy-washy or dull, and the Brooks/Douthat/Gerson troika can’t seem to transcend that hurdle.

Sarah Palin’s Biggest Gamble

Posted on Comments

Following up on the earlier post about Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Christine O’Donnell, I have spoken to a few sources, one of whom described this as “the longest of long shots,” a decision based not on political calculation but as a matter of “pure principle.”

Another source pointed out that Rush Limbaugh might have had an influence, as he returned from vacation Tuesday and pounded hard on the Delaware primary — following his friend Mark Levin, who has been O’Donnell’s staunchest defender on talk radio.

At any rate, here’s Sarah Palin’s Facebook endorsement:

The wave of positive change can really sweep across our land with the election of Constitutional Conservatives who promise to use common sense and rein in the federal government spending! Please support Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. She will support efforts for America’s energy security, patient-centered health care reform, cutting government waste, and letting the private sector thrive and prosper! We can’t afford “more of the same” in Washington. Christine will help usher in the real change we need to get America on the right track. Please visit her website at www.christine2010.com and follow her on Facebook and Twitter.

Just five days before Sept. 14 primary, can Palin’s endorsement turn the tide in Delaware? Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Dan Riehl has a similar reaction, citing this endorsement by Palin as a matter of “principle . . . integrity” and certain other admirable qualities. A tip of the fedora to Dan who, as I said Tuesday, went on the warpath against RINO Mike Castle and Castle’s supporters. And I must point out that it was co-blogger Smitty who first called our attention to Christine O’Donnell back in March.

For the First Time Ever, Rush is Wrong

Posted on Comments

“I’m not going to do Twitter. There’s no way to make any money on Twitter. Twitter is just fad type stuff.”
— Rush Limbaugh

Twitter is a communication tool. Millions of people — including Alyssa Milano’s 1,038,358 followers — use Twitter to communicate. And you can’t communicate with those people if you’re not on Twitter.

Think about it, Rush: In the time it takes to type 140 characters and hit “Tweet,” you can send your thoughts to however many people follow you. (Which would be a lot of people. Maybe even Alyssa Milano.)

And you know what else, Rush? That Tweet can include a link to an item on your Web page, which is of course loaded with obscene profit opportunities. As a shameless capitalist blogger, I saw from the outset how useful Twitter could be in terms of promoting my site.

While your radio audience is vastly larger than my blog readership, there are nevertheless people on Twitter who don’t have an opportunity to listen to you regularly, and might benefit from getting the El Rushbo’s timeless insights via Twitter.

The communication on Twitter is two-way, of course. The people you follow on Twitter can send you tips on breaking news, and so forth. And you can actually have conversations via Twitter that are pretty cool, since anyone who follows your feed can jump in and add their two cents.

Hey, Mark Levin’s using Twitter. If you’re going to be on the cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush, don’t you think you should ask F. Lee Levin why he’s active in this new medium?

All this stuff may seem like an Internet version of the CB radio craze, but it’s not. And if you’re going to be on Facebook, you definitely need to be on Twitter.

Trust me, Rush: Join Twitter.

And please re-Tweet me sometime.

I’ve almost given up on Alyssa Milano. Almost.

(Hat-tip: Kathy Shaidle.)

That Would Be A Maybach, Gibbs

Posted on Comments

by Smitty (via Drudge)

Purely Reprehensible Egotistical Slimy Sycophant (PRESS) Secretary Gibbs has nothing better to do than make personal attacks on citizens, e.g. Rush Limbaugh, who fail to agree with the atrocious policies his boss carries out and for which he gleefully carries water. In particular, attacks on the foul policy of bailing out the automakers.

To clarify the point of what Rush drives, American Digest has reported the brand would be Maybach. My next set of wheels will likely be either a Ford or something else lacking a government taint.

No one other than a tool like E. J. Dionne thinks Gibbs has shred #1 of credibility anyway.

Perez Hilton Parody Shifts Away From Self; Now Parodying Man Of Principle

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Rush Limbaugh was married recently, as our readers well know. Via Orit Sklar on Twitter comes word of foppish buffoon Perez Hilton mocking Sir Elton John for playing the Limbaugh wedding.

“$1 Million for my soul” says Elton in the photo.

In the first place, Perez, it would be a drab world if I could not differentiate between actor and act. Elton John is an artistic genius by any reasonable measure. Do I salute everything the man does? No. Do I think my own sins lesser than his? No. But, even if I don’t agree with his every practice, and the details are all backwards, I can still get misty-eyed over

In the second place, it would be helpful if you could develop a theory of what loyalty Elton John owes anyone. Can you string together coherent thoughts, Perez, and can you articulate exactly what lines a performing artist has crossed by doing what performing artists do, namely, perform? Are you Immanuel Kant, or “I’m. . .man, I can’t”? Truly, you own me the explanation as much as Elton owes you, but see what you can do with it.

In the third place, why the angst over Rush? Is it style or substance? Can you build any factual case where Rush merits your disdain?

OK, that’s about as much regard as I can muster for that sad twerp. Sobriety, exercise, and spiritually healthier intake are what that one needs.

Wedding Bells For Limbaugh

Posted on Comments

WASHINGTON, DC–Rush Limbaugh will marry long-time girlfriend Kathryn Rogers on June 5th, according to a knowledgeable source. The wedding is reportedly planned for Palm Beach, Fla., where both Mr. Limbaugh and Ms. Rogers live.

This exclusive news was received unexpectedly tonight while I was interviewing Liz Carter, a Republican Congressional candidate in Georgia’s 4th District. I asked Carter campaign operative Cheryl Prater to tweet this exclusive:

This post dictated via co-blogger Smitty, while I drive along Constitution Avenue between the Washington Monument and the White House. Smitty has searched and found the following background on the Limbaugh-Rogers relationship:

The Huffington Post had the following tidbits:

The Palm Beach Post reports that 57-year-old Rush Limbaugh has a new — and much younger — girlfriend. Limbaugh has reportedly been seeing Kathryn Rogers, 31, for the past six months. Rogers (seen with Limbaugh at a Miami fundraiser last weekend) lives in West Palm Beach and works as a party planner for the South Florida Super Bowl Host Committee.

Last May, Limbaugh announced that President Clinton was “intently chatting up” Limbaugh’s female companion at a New York restaurant, but he did not reveal her name.

Limbaugh divorced his third wife Marta in 2004 after 10 years of marriage. . .

Expect further news as we await official confirmation.

Smitty: A restraining order may be necessary for both Mrs. Other McCain and Stacy if the Shoe Leather Fund receives enough love to support the two of them flitting South to enjoy another honeymoon and crash Limbaugh’s wedding. Just sayin’.

Update: via Drudge BHO will apparently not attend the possible bachelor golf round:

When President Obama was asked if he would play a round of golf with his talk-radio nemesis Rush Limbaugh, the response, relayed by a top Democrat, was: “Limbaugh can play with himself.”