Bloodthirsty Liberal

The CPUSA begs to differ:

RUSH: So Obama says he’s not a Bolshevik but, folks, the Communist Party USA loves Obama. Here are just some sample headlines. “CPUSA and Obama Platforms are Identical.” August 8th, 2008: “Forget for the moment about Bill Ayers and Obama’s other Communist friends and mentors of the distant past,” and they go on to cite how his agenda and theirs are platforms, Obama’s and the CPUSA, are identical.

…

It’s just what the Communist Party USA wants, just what Obama is doing. Here’s another: CPUSA: Obama Will change USA Forever,” and they’re happy about it! August 7th, 2008: “Communist Party CPUSA Endorses Obama.”

“Communist Party USA Hails Obama Victory.” “‘From the understandably elated editors of the Communist Party USA’s people’s weekly, formerly the Daily Worker, July 1st, 2009: ‘Communist Party USA Eelebrates Obama’s First Six Months.’” “Communist Party USA to Take the Streets for Obama,” August 10th, 2009. This is to oppose the tea parties and the town hall meetings that were going on. “Communist Party USA Honors SEIU and the AFSCME Union Leaders.” “CPUSA Speech Lays Out Obama Agenda.” I mean, it’s right there for people to see; and these are not, you know, play communists. They’re not all that powerful here. Well, they are actually with Obama in office. But he says that he’s not a Bolshevik. “I’m not. I’m not an ideologue,” but he most definitely is.

QED

As I believe I just was.

President Obama has asked for some good ideas on how to create jobs. Maybe his big ears missed this from El Rushbo back in January:

I don’t believe his is a “stimulus plan” at all — I don’t think it stimulates anything but the Democratic Party. This “porkulus” bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party’s power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party’s majority power for decades.

Keynesian economists believe government spending on “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects — schools, roads, bridges — is the best way to stimulate our staggering economy. Supply-side economists make an equally persuasive case that tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs and cause an economy to rebound. That happened under JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. We know that when tax rates are cut in a recession, it brings an economy back.

…

Congress is currently haggling over how to spend $900 billion generated by American taxpayers in the private sector. (It’s important to remember that it’s the people’s money, not Washington’s.) In a Jan. 23 meeting between President Obama and Republican leaders, Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.) proposed a moderate tax cut plan. President Obama responded, “I won. I’m going to trump you on that.”

Yes, elections have consequences. But where’s the bipartisanship, Mr. Obama? This does not have to be a divisive issue. My proposal is a genuine compromise.

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let’s say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion — $486 billion — will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% — $414 billion — will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.

Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people’s wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.

I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate — at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations — in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There’s no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There’s no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There’s no reason to insist that recovery can’t happen quickly, because it can.

Admit it: even if you don’t care for Rush, don’t you wish we had tried that? Don’t you wish we still would?

You can bet JFK would.

No, that’s not a Ryder Cup competition, or any other golf term.

It’s the number of testicles owned by the entire Washington press corps—shared among Major Garrett and Jake Tapper (and Helen Thomas, of course):

TAPPER: Former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld took issue with a lot of the speech last night, and I just wanted to clarify it. The president said commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. I assume you’re referring to the McKiernan requests throughout 2008.

GIBBS: Well, I — that’s, I believe, what the speech — the line of the speech. I will let Secretary Rumsfeld explain to you and to others whether he thinks that the effort in Afghanistan was sufficiently resourced during his tenure as secretary of defense.

TAPPER: Well, he says…

GIBBS: I — I think that’s — that’s something that, you know…

TAPPER: … he said he’s not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006 when he was secretary of defense.

GIBBS: I — again, I’ll let him explain to the American public whether he believes that the effort in Afghanistan during 2001 to 2006 was appropriately resourced. You know, you go to war with the secretary of defense you have, Jake.

TAPPER: That’s cute. The — the question, though, is what specifically was President Obama talking about when he said that?

GIBBS: Again, what President Obama was talking about were additional resource requests that came in during 2008, which we’ve discussed in here. But Jake, again, I’ll leave it to the secretary of defense in 2001 to 2006 to discuss the level of resourcing for that — understanding the level of commitment that we already had dedicated in Iraq, and whether or not he feels sufficient that history will judge the resourcing decisions that he made during that time period in the war in Afghanistan were or were not sufficient.

In other words, Barack Obama lied during the speech.

As we noted two days ago. It wasn’t a mistake or a misspeak: he read it off TOTUS.

As Ed Morrissey notes:

Obama made that accusation, and Gibbs tried dodging the question because he couldn’t come up with any support for it.

And who was the Secretary of Defense in 2008? Why, none other than Obama’s current SecDef, Robert Gates.

And what did candidate Obama think about surges back in ‘07?

Let him tell you:

We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don’t know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

Gotta let Rush have the last word:

He’s an idiot. He is a lying idiot! He says he can’t find a general who will tell him it worked? Have you ever heard of David Petraeus, who is a general? It is working. A year and a half ago, he is dead wrong. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. When he’s put on the spot like this, and he doesn’t have an answer prewritten that he has memorized, he is wandering aimlessly in search of a thought. Axelrod said, “Well, of course going to throw soldiers at something, it’s going to work.” No! Just the opposite. Obama, in his own words: the surge is impossible. We will hold onto this bite, and we will continue to play it at the appropriate strategic times to clearly illustrate: This man knows not at all from what he is saying.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la meme chose.

So says DemocracyCorps

These base Republican voters dislike Barack Obama to be sure – which is not very surprising as base Democrats had few positive things to say about George Bush – but these voters identify themselves as part of a ‘mocked’ minority with a set of shared beliefs and knowledge, and commitment to oppose Obama that sets them apart from the majority in the country. They believe Obama is ruthlessly advancing a ‘secret agenda’ to bankrupt the United States and dramatically expand government control to an extent nothing short of socialism. While these voters are disdainful of a Republican Party they view to have failed in its mission, they overwhelmingly view a successful Obama presidency as the destruction of this country’s founding principles and are committed to seeing the president fail.

Instead of focusing on these intense ideological divisions, the press and elites continue to look for a racial element that drives these voters’ beliefs – but they need to get over it. Conducted on the heels of Joe Wilson’s incendiary comments at the president’s joint session address, we gave these groups of older, white Republican base voters in Georgia full opportunity to bring race into their discussion – but it did not ever become a central element, and indeed, was almost beside the point.

Now, who does that sound like?

My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, “Well, I hope he succeeds. We’ve got to give him a chance.” Why? They didn’t give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I’m not talking about search-and-destroy, but I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.

…

Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.”

…

Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.”

It’s awfully big of James Carville to excuse conservatives (Rush most of all) from charges of racism—but he’s not done with them, not by a long shot:

The Republican base voters are not part of the continuum leading to the center of the electorate: they truly stand apart. For additional perspective, Democracy Corps conducted a parallel set of groups in suburban Cleveland. These groups, comprised of older, white, non-college independents and weak partisans, represent some of the most conservative swing voters in the electorate, and they demonstrated a wholly different worldview from Republican base voters by dismissing the fear of “socialism” and evaluating Obama in very different terms.

Oh, really?

Among independents, who provided Obama’s margin of victory last fall, 64 percent have severe doubts about his plans. The polls are averaging nearly 50 percent opposition.

Oh really?

The reason is Obama’s sinking numbers, particularly with independent voters. With all voters, Obama’s favorable ratings have slid 22 points since he was inaugurated in January. He still has a firm majority. However, a new Marist poll shows he has a small net negative with independent voters. Among independents, 45 percent approve and 47 percent disapprove. His disapproval rating is up 10 percentage points since August among independents.

Independent voters don’t matter much in New York, but they do in swing states that Obama won like Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin and Ohio. And their congressional Democrats are watching.

Oh really?

Forty-three percent now of Americans, only 43 percent, would vote for him for president today.

You look at his approval ratings, he slipped back into the 40s, but more interestingly, independents, he’s losing, 46-41. And on health care, he’s losing independents, 53-36.

Oh really?

The approval ratings of the president by Democrats and Republicans are as one would expect with 77% of Democrats giving President Obama positive ratings compared to 14% of Republicans. Independents, however, are more down on the president as 60% give him negative ratings while 40% give him positive marks on his overall job performance.

Oh really?

A slim 43 percent plurality of Americans now disapproves of the job Barack Obama is doing on Afghanistan, an increase from the 32 percent who disapproved last month. Only Democrats, at 63 percent, assign positive marks to the president on Afghanistan, compared with 20 percent of Republicans and 38 percent of independents.

Oh really?

As health care legislation moves out of the Senate Finance Committee, a majority of Americans says they oppose the reforms being considered. A Fox News poll released Thursday finds that by 54 percent to 35 percent, Americans oppose the reforms.

…

Predictably, a 65 percent majority of Democrats favors the legislation, while 86 percent of Republicans oppose it. Independents oppose the reforms by 62 percent to 23 percent.

You get the point. Independents are trending Republican, and the Democrats are soiling their shorts.

I agree with them.

- Aggie

Yesterday, I wrote a lengthy post about the controversy over Rush Limbaugh’s hope to join a group as a minority partner (ha!) to buy the St. Louis Rams. Judging by the lack of comments, you don’t need me to add anything more.

But Rush thought it would be useful to know the background of who is telling lies about him: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Rick Sanchez:

CALLER: … But I was calling to remind you of that little incident with “Reverend” Jackson where he thought his microphone is off and he had a really nasty name for our now president, Barack Obama.

RUSH: That’s right. He used the N-word.

CALLER: Yeah! It was on the news a few times, but, you know, of course he gets a pass. It’s so double sided. It’s awful.

RUSH: Well, he used the N-word, and then said he would like to cut Obama’s nuts off.

…

RUSH: January 18th, 2001, ABC News: “Moving to pre-empt a tabloid newspaper report, the Rev. Jesse Jackson this morning released a statement admitting he had an extramarital affair that resulted in a daughter who is now 20 months old. ‘This is no time for evasions, denials or alibis,’ said the Baptist minister and former aide to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. ‘I fully accept responsibility and I am truly sorry for my actions.’” (sigh) He was having the affair as he was counseling Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky episode, ladies and gentlemen. That’s all you need to know about that. I’m sure you’ve heard it, remember it. I just wanted to refresh your memory on it.

And from Jake Tapper. Now, this is August 17th of 2000. Jake Tapper who was at Salon.com at the time wrote this. He’s now at ABC. “It’s tough to imagine this year’s Republican National Convention featuring a prime-time speaker who once said that that ‘Zionism is a kind of poisonous weed that is choking Judaism.’ Or that he was ’sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust.’ Or that traditional Democratic support for Israel is because of ‘the Jewish element in the party … a kind of glorified form of bribery.’ And certainly not if he had ever referred to Jews as ‘Hymies’ and New York as ‘Hymietown.’ The Rev. Jesse Jackson, of course, has made all of these comments, and more.”

…

From the New York Post, June 15th, 2008: “Anheuser-Busch gave him six figures, Colgate-Palmolive shelled out $50,000 and Macy’s and Pfizer have contributed thousands to the Rev. Al Sharpton’s charity. Almost 50 companies — including PepsiCo, General Motors, Walmart, FedEx, Continental Airlines, Johnson & Johnson and Chase — and some labor unions sponsored Sharpton’s National Action Network annual conference in April. Terrified of negative publicity, fearful of a consumer boycott or eager to make nice with the civil-rights activist, CEOs write checks, critics say, to NAN and Sharpton — who brandishes the buying power of African-American consumers. In some cases, they hire him as a consultant. The cash flows even as the US Attorney’s Office in Brooklyn has been conducting a grand-jury investigation of NAN’s finances.”

…

Do you know who Rick Sanchez is? Do you know he’s got two middle names? Rick “DUI” Sanchez, Rick “Leaving-the-Scene” Sanchez. Rick Sanchez was a hit-and-run driver when he lived in Miami, and he is a hit-and-run reporter. From the New York Observer, October 9th, 2007: “Mr. Sanchez had already survived what would ordinarily be a career-killer. While leaving a Miami Dolphins game with his father in 1990, Mr. Sanchez struck a drunken pedestrian, who later died of his injuries. According to police, Mr. Sanchez’s own blood-alcohol level was above the legal limit, and he left the scene before returning. He ultimately pleaded no contest to a DUI charge, but avoided jail time, and even remained on the air. Asked about the incident, Mr. Sanchez’s Ron Burgundy jocularity vanished in an instant.

“‘I don’t see where that has anything to do with anything,’ he said, and called the inquiry ‘a hatchet question.’ He soon regained his cool though. ‘Was it an unfortunate experience? Yes. Was it a learning experience? Absolutely. Do I wish it hadn’t happened? Of course,’ he allowed. ‘I was wrong, because I had a couple of cocktails, because I was over the legal limit,’ he went on. ‘It could have happened to anybody. … There were probably a lot of other people leaving the stadium that had had a couple of beers as well.’” From the Miami New Times, August 7th, 1991: “Minutes after midnight on the morning of December 10, 1990, an intoxicated Smuzinick darted out in front of a Volvo on a residential street near Joe Robbie Stadium. The driver of the car, WSVN-TV Channel 7 anchorman Rick Sanchez, became the subject of a subsequent January 16 New Times story that described the odd circumstances of the accident.

“Sanchez, whom a Metro-Dade police officer said ’smelled strongly of alcohol,’ first stopped his car but then later left the scene. A blood test to determine Sanchez’s sobriety was not administered until an hour and fifteen minutes after the collision. Though Sanchez says he tried to aid Smuzinick at the scene of the accident and flag down motorists, eyewitnesses claim the anchorman ignored the injured man and loudly told police and bystanders that blood tests were pointless, and would hurt his public image. His attorney, Richard Essen, now says the anchorman returned home and had ‘a couple of drinks to calm his nerves’ before returning to the scene,” before talking to the cops after striking somebody near the Dolphins Stadium and killing him. This is Rick Sanchez — and, hey, Rick? I got sources. I researched this. I sourced it. And I checked it before I decided to go on the air with it. This is how it’s done, Rick, and I’m not even a journalist.

All facts, all sourced, all actually happened.

And Rush was being generous, soft even. He let Sharpton off easily. No mention of Freddie’s Fashion Mart in Harlem or Yankel Rosenbaum in Crown Heights or Tawana Brawley in Wappinger Falls. Google ‘em if you don’t remember. When Sharpton speaks, people die.

Millions of you who are confused by the whole kerfuffle over Rush Limbaugh being part of a group seeking to buy the St. Louis Rams football franchise (American football, to our overseas readers) look to me, BTL, to explain the whole complex mess to you.

Sigh. It’s a tough job, but…

The Rams are one of the National Football League’s nomadic franchises. Born in Cleveland in the 1930s, they moved to Los Angeles in the 40s, where they enjoyed limited success (in different stadia) for almost fifty years. In 1994, the moved to St. Louis, which had been robbed of its own team, the Cardinals, in 1987. Now, the Rams are up for sale, and Rush, a lifelong football fan and native of Cape Girardeau, MO is part of a group that wants to buy them.

Uh-oh.

Approximately 65% of NFL players are black, or at least non-Caucasian. Now, if you believed everything you read about Rush Limbaugh, you absolutely would not believe that Rush would follow a game of which two-thirds of the players are black. And you certainly wouldn’t believe that his favorite team, the Pittsburgh Steelers, whom he follows around the country like a love-sick puppy, has a black coach and an owner who supported Barack Obama and Jack Murtha publicly and financially.

If you believed everything you read about Rush Limbaugh, you’d think—heck, you’d know—he is a racist, straight up (as Ms. Garofalo likes to say).

But what would you base it on? Would it be his controversial comment that—let me get this right:

The comments referenced by Limbaugh came during Sunday’s pregame show when the conservative talk show host offered the opinion that [Philadelphia quarterback Donovan] McNabb wasn’t as good as the media perceived him to be.

“I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well,” Limbaugh said. “There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve. The defense carried this team.”

There you go.

A conservative opinionator called out the media for worshipping a false idol based solely on race—what else did ESPN expect or want from him?—and his two black co-panelists even agreed with him at the time. You can say Rush was wrong about McNabb, then and now. McNabb’s flaws were more pronounced back then, though he subsequently lead the Eagles to the Super Bowl (where they lost to America’s Team, the New England Patriots). But Rush didn’t say anything about McNabb’s race, other than that the media—what he calls the drive-by or state-controlled media—made him out to be better than he was based solely on race alone. In libel law, truth is an absolute defense.

Nobody blinked at the time, but give the race-mongering industry a few days and they can turn a passing comment into a raging controversy:

Democratic presidential candidates Wesley Clark, Howard Dean and Rev. Al Sharpton called for ESPN to fire Limbaugh. Others in both political and athletic circles also lashed out at Limbaugh’s comments.

The National Association of Black Journalists also called for ESPN to “separate itself” from Limbaugh.

“ESPN’s credibility as a journalism entity is at stake,” NABJ president Herbert Lowe said in a news release. “It needs to send a clear signal that the subjects of race and equal opportunity are taken seriously at its news outlets.”

Rush resigned, classily, and went back to making millions on the radio:

“My comments this past Sunday were directed at the media and were not racially motivated,” Limbaugh said in a statement issued late Wednesday night. “I offered an opinion. This opinion has caused discomfort to the crew, which I regret.

“I love NFL Sunday Countdown and do not want to be a distraction to the great work done by all who work on it.

“Therefore, I have decided to resign. I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of the show and wish all the best to those who make it happen.”

So, is that all Rush’s detractors have on him?

Oh no. There’s the little matter of Barack the Magic Negro:

“Barack the Magic Negro” is a satirical song by Paul Shanklin, which appeared on his 2008 album We Hate the USA. The song is a parody sung to the tune of “Puff, the Magic Dragon”.

The lyrics of “Barack the Magic Negro” refer to President Barack Obama (who at the time the song was written, was a candidate in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries) as an example of the stock character of the magical negro for whom white American voters would vote in order to assuage white guilt.

The song was first aired on The Rush Limbaugh Show in 2007, prompting criticism of the show’s host, the conservative political commentator Rush Limbaugh; however, Limbaugh noted that he was not the one whom had originally coined the term in reference to Obama.

…

Peter Yarrow, co-writer of “Puff, the Magic Dragon”, termed its use by Saltsman “offensive” and “shocking and saddening in the extreme.”

Well, that make me only like it more.

Indeed, Limbaugh was not the first to apply the term to Obama. That credit goes to that racist rag, the Los Angeles Times.

And you know which other notable vile bigot used the term before the Times?

Spike Lee.

But then, you should hear what Spike has to say about the image of blacks in general in Hollywood. He and Rush would share an “Amen to that, brother” moment.

There are many more citations of the term here.

So, the race-baiters are 0-for-2, deep in the hole. What are they going to do but swing for the fences?

Make stuff up:

If people are trying to destroy your reputation and your credibility, your life and your career by attacking you as a racist, then you have to stand up and fight that. Now, we are in the process behind the scenes working to get apologies and retractions with the force of legal action against every journalist who has published these entirely fabricated quotes about me, slavery, and James Earl Ray. I never said them. We have tracked them. We know where they came from. We don’t know the identity but we know where they came from, a single blogger who posted the stuff on my Wikipedia page in Wiki quotes, unsourced. Wikipedia says, “Well, this is in dispute.” It’s not in dispute. They were never uttered. I never said them.

…

I mean these guys are hustling race, I predicted this would happen with President Obama’s election. I mean there are people that profit from all this. Reverend Sharpton is one. You know, he wanted to get into radio. I didn’t try to stop him even though he’s got a checkered past. He was the author of the Tawana Brawley hoax. But I believe in freedom, and I don’t discriminate and if he wants to get into radio, fine and dandy.

But look at these people running around trying to prevent people they don’t like, don’t even know, from engaging in an activity which might actually improve current circumstances. Jesse Jackson, who wanted to neuter President Obama at one point during the campaign, these guys could no more survive being held to the same standard they apply to everybody else, and especially when they get involved they start telling lies about people. So it’s a fascinating thing to go through. It’s a fascinating thing to watch otherwise professional journalists totally embarrass themselves by repeating fabricated, made-up quotes I have never said. And we found out where it all came from, and we’re going to do two things. To everybody who has repeated these lies we’re going to send a letter and say, “Back it up, source it, prove it, find out where I said it, I want to know.” If they can’t, which they won’t be able to, then we’re going to demand an apology and a retraction, and that is the least that some of these people can do.

Rush is going to be fine. The NFL is the ultimate gentleman’s club, and the other owners can blackball him without even giving him a reason. (There’s an irony for you.) He’ll get even more publicity, and people like me, who used to hate him, will grow ever stronger in their loyalty.

What’s the big deal then, you ask? Let me cite Mark Steyn on the issue:

What’s the theory here? He said these things on the air in 2006 and nobody noticed? 2001? Maybe 1995, back when Clinton was blaming him for Oklahoma City? Hey, let’s not get hung up on details. Just because nobody can find any evidence anywhere of Rush saying these “quotes” doesn’t mean he didn’t say ‘em.

…

[W]hen I began guest-hosting for Rush, I was amazed to discover that George Soros pays a team of stenographers, many of them called Zachary, to work their tippy-tappy fingers to the bone for three hours transcribing everything Rush or his fill-ins say in the hope that their efforts will one day be rewarded and he will deliver the big career-detonating soundbite.

…

So where are these racist soundbites? Where’s the audio? Where’s the transcript? Name the year. Heigh-ho, say CNN’s Rick Sanchez and the rest of the basement-ratings crowd. Not our problem: It’s for Limbaugh to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he’s never said it. We’re too busy fact-checking anti-Obama jokes to fact-check our own reporting . . .

I’ve gone on long enough, and the Bloodthirsty Puppy is demanding love and attention, so I’ll just summarize with two words.

Liberal Fascism.

I was out walking the Bloodthirsty Puppy yesterday, listening to Rush, as is my wont, when Susan from Glendale, CA called. It was a memorable moment in radio.

Voice choked with emotion, she went on for minutes on end, without interruption. She almost lost it it—her composure, her mind—but kept it together, just. They even managed to work a commercial break into her pause for breath. They came back from the break and she was still there, this time in conversation with Rush. But her oration was great radio theater, like Orson Welles reading Ayn Rand. This is why Rush is so popular, and why he’s so dangerous to the left. He is brilliant. Not just at political analysis, but at political theater. He left the aural stage to her alone.

They’ve posted the audio, which I strongly recommend, as well as the transcript. It has to be heard to be believed.

A caller to Rush’s show today posed an interesting question: if the elderly are encouraged to “take a pill” rather than have surgery, will the same back of the hand apply to other populations, with challenged health requiring costly medical intervention, whose ultimate outlook is similarly shortened?

Namely, HIV and AIDS patients.

Why not give them the blue pill or the red pill—better care, instead of more care?

We don’t blame them for their medical condition—why punish geezers?

Needless to say, everyone involved recognized it as a rhetorical question.

Aunt Agatha has already reported this, but it bears seeing the ultimate example of confiscatory taxation:

Congressional plans to fund a massive health-care overhaul could have a job-killing effect on New York, creating a tax rate of nearly 60 percent for the state’s top earners and possibly pressuring small-business owners to shed workers.

New York’s top income bracket could reach as high as 57 percent — rates not seen in three decades — to pay for the massive health coverage proposed by House Democrats this week.

The top rate in New York City, home to many of the state’s wealthiest people, would be 58.68 percent, the Washington-based Tax Foundation said in a report yesterday.

That means New York’s top earners, small-business owners and most dynamic entrepreneurs will be facing new fees and penalties.

The $544 billion tax hike would violate one of President Obama’s ironclad campaign promises: No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s.

Under the bill, three new tax brackets would be created for high earners, with a top rate of 45 percent for families making more than $1 million. That would be the highest income-tax rate since 1986, when the top rate was 50 percent.

The legislation is especially onerous for business owners, in part because it penalizes employers with a payroll bigger than $400,000 some 8 percent of wages if they don’t offer health care.

But the cost of the buy-in to the program may be so prohibitive that it will dissuade owners from growing their businesses — a scary prospect in the midst of a recession.

No wonder Rush Limbaugh got the hell out of there. Governor Paterson as much as said good riddance to bad rubbish, but I think a lot of ditto-head millionaires will be fleeing Stockholm-on-Hudson.

BTW, I left my conservative shell at a party the other day to venture the opinion that taxation was a moral issue. The person I was speaking with had just complained generally about a proposed state tax hike, so I thought I might be safe. Not in Massachusetts. He immediately switched directions and pointed out that other states have hight tax rates, too. I allowed that, but I kept asking him what is the total tax burden we face, and how does it compare to other states? We pay state income tax, sales tax, property tax, plus all sorts of other taxes, fees, and tolls—what does it add up to, and what is that number added to the federal burden?

And is it fair? Ought there not be a number (percentage) above which no American may be taxed? Obama notoriously answered a question about the disincentive of higher capital gains taxes by saying it’s a question of fairness. Well, what’s fair about hammering someone with a 60% tax rate, and who benefits when as a result no jobs are created?