Rush Limbaugh's Prediction

Bill Thompson

Banned
B
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
6,171
Not much will change in the next two years. Not really. The Executive Branch of the government is in charge of conducting war. And every report I have read from every source says it is not rational to think that we can pull our troops out right away.

But Rush Limbaugh made a prediction yesterday. He said that the media isn't going to be so harsh on the government for the next two years because they want to paint a rosy picture now that the Democrats are the majority so that Hillary will become president.

I wonder if his prediction will be true. I wonder if the press will start being nicer to our national government while the government really has not changed overnight like it seems.
 
I wouldn't put much stock in anything Rush has to say. Never have before!
 
Is this the same Rush Limbaugh who just admitted that he's a lying propagandist? I can appreciate that some people used to believe him, but anyone who still does is truly lost to sense and reality.
 
Bill Thompson said:
Not much will change in the next two years. Not really. The Executive Branch of the government is in charge of conducting war. And every report I have read from every source says it is not rational to think that we can pull our troops out right away.

But Rush Limbaugh made a prediction yesterday. He said that the media isn't going to be so harsh on the government for the next two years because they want to paint a rosy picture now that the Democrats are the majority so that Hillary will become president.

I wonder if his prediction will be true. I wonder if the press will start being nicer to our national government while the government really has not changed overnight like it seems.
Click to expand...
When have the media, or more importantly White House reporters, been harsh on the Government? When did they ask difficult questions? When did they ask followups? I can count on one hand the number of media figures who I have seen actually ask difficult questions or raise credible criticism of the government, and two of them are comedians pretending to be newsmen.

The "liberal" media is a myth and a lie.
 
Bill Thompson said:
Not much will change in the next two years. Not really. The Executive Branch of the government is in charge of conducting war.
Click to expand...

Or more correctly, THIS Executive Branch is in charge of completely screwing up the war and is responsible for nearly 3,000 dead American soldiers.

Bill Thompson said:
But Rush Limbaugh made a prediction yesterday. He said that the media isn't going to be so harsh on the government for the next two years because they want to paint a rosy picture now that the Democrats are the majority so that Hillary will become president.
Click to expand...

Why does anyone listen to Rush Limbaugh anymore? He's a shameless, drug-addled hypocrite who has been pissing on liberal Americans (who are now the majority) from his immoral high ground since LONG before Bush took office.

I also wonder how a man who works in the broadcasting business can constantly point his finger at the media as being biased? And what if Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency in 2008 (although I frankly hope she doesn't run)? Wouldn't that only mean that Americans ELECTED her?

I guess the poster boy for conservative hypocrites forgot about the will of the people and the fact that he doesn't share the high-ground with the President anymore.
 
Does "media" include Fox News or the all the Right Wing radio pundits, like Rush Limbaugh, that dominate talk radio? Isn't Fox News, the news outlet that is constantly bragging about it's higher viewer ratings compared to the other News Channels.
 
Mephisto said:
Why does anyone listen to Rush Limbaugh anymore? He's a shameless, drug-addled hypocrite who has been pissing on liberal Americans (who are now the majority) from his immoral high ground since LONG before Bush took office.
Click to expand...
I suggest you consider who votes against Republicans, and also who votes for Democrats.

They aren't all liberals.

There are some mildly libertarian sorts who vote third party, or cast a punishment vote against the Republicans. I personally know quite a few military officers who did that in 2004: they voted for Kerry to punish the betrayal of "Reagan conservative" principles. There are isolationist sorts who vote against interventionists (which BushCo clearly is in their eyes) and there are white nationalist sorts who vote against Bush for even less palatable reasons. None of them are what I would call modern liberals, though perhaps some are classical liberals.

You also have about 30-40 % of the eligible population who ignore the chance to join the electorate, who don't bother to vote, and who are thus hard to characterize as much of anything, liberal or otherwise.

"Liberals" at the moment may be a plurality in America, but I don't believe they are a majority. If you count the patronage vote in the Rio Grand Valley, for example, you've got a blue band of socially conservative, ethnically bound bloc voters. These people are hardly "liberals."

Perhaps if you more clearly define what a "liberal" is your assertion would sell better.

The classical "liberal," the TR-Progressive liberal, the FDR liberal, the Adelai Stevenson liberal, or the post JFK "liberal?"

Who are you talking about?

DR
 
Trantor said:
Does "media" include Fox News or the all the Right Wing radio pundits, like Rush Limbaugh, that dominate talk radio? Isn't Fox News, the news outlet that is constantly bragging about it's higher viewer ratings compared to the other News Channels.
Click to expand...
How dare you call the inspired voice of God (or, the "folks," as O'Reilly likes to say) media! Don't you know the difference?
 
Darth Rotor said:
I suggest you consider who votes against Republicans, and also who votes for Democrats.

They aren't all liberals.
Click to expand...
What? Is there some sort of list serve where you and the local conservative radio talk show guys get these talking points? You understand that this line of argumentation is damage control, right? It's a post hoc rationalization (or "spin") to lessen the impact of the election on the base.
 
SlippyToad said:
When have the media, or more importantly White House reporters, been harsh on the Government? When did they ask difficult questions? When did they ask followups? I can count on one hand the number of media figures who I have seen actually ask difficult questions or raise credible criticism of the government, and two of them are comedians pretending to be newsmen.

The "liberal" media is a myth and a lie.
Click to expand...

I think the major media has given up its role as a government watchdog in exchange for access. If a media outlet asks tough questions then, "No soup for you! One year!"

ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and CNN are the Entertainment Weeklys of the Beltway. Never a harsh word for the celebrities in power.
 
Last edited:
Darth is right that it is unwise to paint all Republicans with the same brush. After all, Rush himself has gone after RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) because the weren't true to the Republican Ideal. And sadly, with the a few exceptions, notably Santorum, the Repubs that got ousted were indeed the more moderate ones. I'm guessing because they came from states where "moderate" was what people want and all politicians have to please the people. This time the Republican moderates got whacked by the Iraq backlash. Even so, replacing them with Democrats is still the right thing to do, IMO.

But this should be a warning to Republican RINO hunters: Be careful what you wish for.
 
Bill Thompson said:
Not much will change in the next two years. Not really. The Executive Branch of the government is in charge of conducting war. And every report I have read from every source says it is not rational to think that we can pull our troops out right away.

But Rush Limbaugh made a prediction yesterday. He said that the media isn't going to be so harsh on the government for the next two years because they want to paint a rosy picture now that the Democrats are the majority so that Hillary will become president.

I wonder if his prediction will be true. I wonder if the press will start being nicer to our national government while the government really has not changed overnight like it seems.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Rush will eat fecal material and leave this vale of sorrow.
(Enquirering minds wunt 2 no).
 
Tricky said:
Darth is right that it is unwise to paint all Republicans with the same brush. After all, Rush himself has gone after RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) because the weren't true to the Republican Ideal. And sadly, with the a few exceptions, notably Santorum, the Repubs that got ousted were indeed the more moderate ones. I'm guessing because they came from states where "moderate" was what people want and all politicians have to please the people. This time the Republican moderates got whacked by the Iraq backlash. Even so, replacing them with Democrats is still the right thing to do, IMO.

But this should be a warning to Republican RINO hunters: Be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...
Defeated Republican Senators:

Allen
Burns
Chafee
DeWine
Santorum
Talent

I count 2 moderates.
 
Upchurch said:
What? Is there some sort of list serve where you and the local conservative radio talk show guys get these talking points? You understand that this line of argumentation is damage control, right? It's a post hoc rationalization (or "spin") to lessen the impact of the election on the base.
Click to expand...
WTF are you talking about? Are you channeling Z-N here? Damage control? How about my unemotional analysis of an election. I am not a Republican. You can take your attempt to tar me with some straw brush and shove it where the sun don't shine. I don't need some talk radio jagov to think for me, I do fine on my own. Shills like Hannity or Limbaugh aren't men of substance, they are all flash, no boom.

I am addressing Mehpisto's overstatement that "America has a liberal majority." I then expand on the point with some detail. This is analysis, and not "rationalization." The swing vote, which the Democrats captured in this election (good for them!) is hardly "liberal." Or, maybe it is, if we establish what a liberal is before we examine Mehpisto's assertion, and in doing so, find it to be right or wrong.

I damn near voted for Kerry in 2004. It was a hard, hard decision to do otherwise.

Some of my friends did for the core reason of BushCo's betrayal of Reagan Conservatism. It was a vote to punish. I am hardly "liberal" in the modern sense, nor are they. Ay number of them were Buchanan style "paleo-conservatives." I am perhaps close to "liberal" in the classical sense. (Having been raised by "classic liberal" parents, that should be no surprise.)

The vote is what it was, the swing voters have spoken. The conclusion that Mephisto draws, about "liberal Americans (who are now the majority") is not supported by this election's issues, nor its results.

The "vote against" point was explicitly raised to capture the loss of the swing, center and center right vote, by BushCo in this election. Those folks seemed to vote Webb versus Allen, in Virginia, or tipped the scales in Montana. Likewise in Ohio.

Mehpisto's assertion is as foolish as any mandate Clinton inferred in 1992 when he won by a popular plurality, or any mandate BushCo inferred from the 2000 election.

DR
 
Dr Adequate said:
I love it when these people talk about "the media" as though it doesn't include them.
Click to expand...
Rush was obviously referring to the news gathering media which he is not apart of. He can hardly consider himself to be apart of that news media even if they are not liberally biased.
 
Last edited:
hgc said:
Defeated Republican Senators:

Allen
Burns
Chafee
DeWine
Santorum
Talent

I count 2 moderates.
Click to expand...
I'm only going on what political analysists said. I couldn't comment on the specific position on the liberal/conservative scale that any particular congressperson holds. However, I think it is inaccurate not to list House members. It is much harder to remove a senator, as they have much greater name recognition and seniority is so very important there.
 
Luke T. said:
I think the major media has given up its role as a government watchdog in exchange for access. If a media outlet asks tough questions then, "No soup for you! One year!"

ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and CNN are the Entertainment Weeklys of the Beltway. Never a harsh word for the celebrities in power.
Click to expand...
I generally agree with this, but with one additional observation: what I see is that the mainstream media, and even O'Bilely, will ask tough questions from time to time. They just never challenge the garbage they get in response.

"Mainstream" guys like Chris Matthews will tend to challenge with more scrutiny the Dems' responses, more so than they do with the Repubs, IMO. Maybe that will change with the new Congress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom