Bloodthirsty Liberal

Oh wait, they did—and they didn’t!

Seven women participated in the National Organization for Women’s day of protest against Rush Limbaugh in front of Limbaugh’s D.C. affiliate WMAL, Friday.

NOW’s national protest day had been in the works since April 19, when the women’s advocacy group launched their “Enough Rush” campaign.

Pairing with media watchdog Media Matters for America NOW is targeting local affiliates and local advertisers, Friday’s demonstration was touted as the group’s big demonstration of opposition to Limbaugh with affiliates across the country participating in protests.

NOW has had Limbaugh in their crosshairs for nearly two decades, and they renewed their effort to get Limbaugh off the air as a response to the radio host’slate February insult of contraception activist Sandra Fluke.

Wait, is that how she’s billing herself now? “Contraception activist”? It does suggest some rather more attractive images than first year junior partner at Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe. But as BAR-ack (to use his original pronunciation) learned, activism—even contraception activism—isn’t all its cracked up to be (pardon the pun).

Last week Limbaugh launched a response to NOW’s campaign against him in the form of a Facebook group for his female listeners, “Rush Babes for America aka the National Organization for Rush Babes,” to show not all women adhere the NOW agenda. His Facebook group surpassed NOW’s Facebook “likes” in under 24 hours.

Matson shrugged off the women who have joined the “Rush Babe” Facebook group explaining that it is just an attempt by Rush to feed his ego.

Well, duh! Even Rush would tell you that. What part of “serving humanity just by showing up”, “half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair” and “talent on loan from God” was unclear to you?

But your Ditz Fits have backfired on you dreadfully. In the future, when your well-publicized turnout at a “massive rally” is seven, just pretend you’re trying to decide where to go for lunch. It’s a natural cover.

NOW, the organization that never heard of honor killing, has decided that the biggest problem women have is Rush Limbaugh

The National Organization for Women (NOW) is attempting, once again, to do what no other group has been able to accomplish — get radio giant Rush Limbaugh off the air.

On Thursday, the women’s advocacy group announced a renewed protest campaign —”Enough Rush” — to bring Limbaugh down.

“He is going to be whining and calling us out about his First Amendment rights” Terry O’Neill, president of NOW, told The Daily Caller about how she expects Limbaugh to react to their campaign. “There is nothing in the Constitution that says Rush Limbaugh gets $38 million a year for being on a radio show.”

The group, which Limbaugh often jokingly refers to as the NAGs (“National Organization of Gals”), is rallying their chapters for a day of protest on May 18th.

Brian Glicklich, Limbaugh’s spokesman, told TheDC that his audience will not be driven away by the group’s efforts.

“Every organization that has tried to censor Rush Limbaugh has failed because his audience won’t stand for being told by agenda-driven activists what speech is acceptable,” Glicklich explained. “NOW has been attempting to silence ideas they dislike for a long time; this is nothing new, and has no more integrity or honesty today than ever.”

What a useless group. If they were really interested in helping women, they would start with honor killing and forced “female circumcision”. Who cares what some dude on the radio says? Ah, maybe they care because he is witty and has something like 10 million… or is it 20 million listeners a day? Seriously, we might listen to NOW if NOW did something useful.

- Aggie

I’ve been sitting on this story for a couple of days because, while I knew it bothered me, I couldn’t quite articulate the breadth, depth, and height of my objection.

I think I got it now.

Ironically, the misogyny Rush Limbaugh spewed for three days over Sandra Fluke was not much worse than his regular broadcast of sexist, racist and homophobic hate speech:

–Women cabinet members are “Sex-retaries.”

–”The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.”

–The National Organization for Women is “a bunch of whores to liberalism.”

–[Said to an African American female caller]: “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.”

These are just a few samples from the arsenal of degrading language Limbaugh deploys on women, people of color, lesbians and gays, immigrants, the disabled, the elderly, Muslims, Jews, veterans, environmentalists and so forth.

Limbaugh doesn’t just call people names. He promotes language that deliberately dehumanizes his targets. Like the sophisticated propagandist Josef Goebbels, he creates rhetorical frames — and the bigger the lie the more effective — inciting listeners to view people they disagree with as sub-humans. His longtime favorite term for women, “femi-nazi,” doesn’t even raise eyebrows anymore, an example of how rhetoric spreads when unchallenged by coarsened cultural norms.

First, a hat tip to Best of the Web’s James Taranto:

[Y]ou have to marvel at [Jane] Fonda, [Robin] Morgan and [Gloria] Steinem’s chutzpah in comparing Limbaugh to Goebbels and then, in the very next sentence, denouncing him for using a Nazi analogy. The technical term for this sort of thing is “comedy gold.”

I left in the worst of the accusations against Rush because I don’t want to hide anything—and because they are irrelevant. Oh yeah, at least one of them is spurious, too.

How many years has feminism been set back by these three stalwarts of the women’s movement asking, nay, demanding, to be protected from the opinions of this beastly man? And to what depths has journalism sunk when a news organization (correction: CNN) publishes calls for censorship?

Limbaugh has been Limbaugh for years—I guess I have been a fairly regular listener for about three—and to demand his broadcasting execution for his admittedly and intentionally offensive terms like femi-nazi and sex-retary plays into the worst stereotypes of the humorless feminist. (How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb? That’s not funny!)

The race-baiting is more troublesome, but as referenced above, is largely made up—another problem I have with this piece. I had always dismissed Rush on the basis of these allegations, but in all the hours I have listened, I have never heard anything remotely like it. Rush opposes the organizational liberalism of most black and women’s groups, as do I. Slavishness (not funny, BTL) to political dogma leads to silence when Sarah Palin is called the c-word or Herman Cain the n-word. Rush has never wished to cut off Obama’s “nuts”, as Jesse Jackson has; has never said Obama should be serving coffee, as Bill Clinton has; has never commented on his “Negro dialect”, as Harry Reid has; has never called him “clean”, as his Vice President has.

What’s more, this amounts to piling on. This piece appeared almost ten days after his original comments and more than a week after his apology. It’s not as if Rush wasn’t roundly criticized for what he said about Sandra Fluke. It’s not as if he hasn’t lost sponsors and stations. I get the sense that these feminist celebrities just wanted ink.

I offer no defense of Rush Limbaugh, except to say that I enjoy his show and learn a lot from it. When I don’t like what he’s saying, I switch the station. I recommend that solution to this problem—and repeat my disgust with CNN and these three women.

PS: Now, this is how you handle a jackass and a bully:

RUSH: Here is Terry O’Neill. She’s the NAG president, National Organization for Women, the NOW gang. (We affectionately call ‘em the NAGs.) It was in New Orleans Saturday at their convention. All this outrage, all of this outrage that they have been spewing for a week — how horrible it’s been, how uncouth — listen to her describe it.

O’NEILL: The work we have ahead of us is not gonna be easy. Right now it really seems like, you know, we’ve got this godsend named Rush Limbaugh –

NAGS: (giggling)

WOMAN: Wooo!

O’NEILL: — who has, like dropped this thing in our lap, which is just wonderful.

…

RUSH: Hey, it’s been dropped in our lap! It is “just wonderful.” This Rush Limbaugh thing was just wonderful. I thought they were outraged. I thought they were offended. I thought it was the worst thing they ever heard anybody say. It’s “wonderful.” What a political opportunity!

…

A godsend! The NAGs called me a godsend. So not only am I God’s gift to Obama, I’m God’s gift to women.

Eighty percent of the people in the CBS/New York Times poll are not better off. That has to be worse than it was under Carter, folks. And what the women of America want is jobs. They want an expanding economy, so we don’t have to beg the government for their birth control pills.

When life gives you Limbaugh, make Limbaugh-ade. Terry O’Neill gets it. And Rush gets it too.

Not good.

From the NY Times, if you’re counting:

As baby showers go, the party Mary Russell attended to celebrate her niece’s first child was sweet, with about a dozen women offering congratulations over ice cream and cake.

But somewhere between the baby name game and the gifts, what had been light conversation took a sharp turn toward the personal and political — specifically, the battle over access to birth control and other women’s health issues that have sprung to life on the Republican campaign trail in recent weeks.

“We all agreed that this seemed like a throwback to 40 years ago,” said Ms. Russell, 57, a retired teacher from Iowa City who describes herself as an evangelical Christian and “old school” Republican of the moderate mold.

Until the baby shower, just two weeks ago, she had favored Mitt Romney for president.

Not anymore. She said she might vote for President Obama now. “I didn’t realize I had a strong viewpoint on this until these conversations,” Ms. Russell said. As for the Republican presidential candidates, she added: “If they’re going to decide on women’s reproductive issues, I’m not going to vote for any of them. Women’s reproduction is our own business.”

Are you reading that? Do you think that the Republicans need Iowa if they want the White House? What a hole these Republicans (with the sweet assistance of the media) have dug.

Ok, article #2:

Again, from the NY Times. And the NY Times, is the media, and they are cheerleaders for Obama, we get it. But it worked last time, and there is absolutely no reason to believe it can’t work again.

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s re-election campaign is beginning an intensified effort this week to build support among women, using the debate over the new health care law to amplify an appeal that already appears to be benefiting from partisan clashes over birth control and abortion.

On Monday, mailings will go out to one million women in more than a dozen battleground states in three separate versions for mothers, young women and older women, campaign and party officials said.

An effort called “Nurses for Obama” will begin on Wednesday, with nurses nationwide enlisted to be advocates for the health care law in their communities. And a new Web site will include links to video testimonials about the health care overhaul signed by Mr. Obama in 2010, including from a former critic who subsequently was found to have breast cancer.

Through the month, ending with what the campaign’s headquarters has designated a “Women’s Week of Action,” campaign field offices will organize phone banks, campus activities, house parties and media events featuring local residents helped by the law, officials say.

The campaign is trying to use the political climate to regain the traditional Democratic advantage among women, even as moderate Republican and independent women voice disenchantment with the Republican focus on social issues.

Women were 53 percent of the national vote in 2008, and given Mr. Obama’s and his party’s continuing weakness among white men, they are crucial to his re-election. Though Mr. Obama won 56 percent of their votes four years ago, women narrowly went for Republicans in the 2010 midterm elections that cost Democrats control of the House.

It is just so sad to consider that Obama will win again, with a plurality a female voters, when his economy has done more to hurt women and children than any other group. The reality is that most male-dominated fields pay a bit more than more female-dominated fields. And the job losses have been concentrated in construction, etc. Most of those men have children and most of the families were in better shape when he had a job. But none of that matters because Rick Santorum allowed the conversation to go to contraception. Contraception! Which was widespread by the early 60s, and maybe even earlier. I am not happy with the democrats about this, but truly disgusted with the Republicans for being so inept.

Do you have a daughter? Do you seriously want your daughter to be limited in her choices in life because she cannot access contraception? Or would you prefer that she “have it all”, according to her own wishes? Please don’t write and tell me that no one is going to take contraception away; the debate was about payment. Even entering into the discussion of access to contraception was beyond dumb. Because no self-respecting woman can comfortably defend the discussion among friends, relatives and co-workers. Unless she belongs to the teeny, tiny minority that doesn’t believe in the use of contraception. They are out there, but they aren’t even a rounding error.

Furthermore, I seem to remember that before any of this came up, there was a bizarre question at one of the debates, regarding contraception…. is that right? I remember writing that it was just such an off-the-wall question, where did it come from? 24 carat crazy. If that’s an accurate memory, it means that the media was moving in this direction all along, probably with the help of some of the sharper democrat consultants. Anyone else recall that wacky question?

- Aggie

So, Rush apologized to Sandra Fluke, Saturday online, today on air:

While I have your attention, give me 30 minutes here. It’s all I ask and then you can do what you want. I want to explain why I apologized to Sandra Fluke in the statement that was released on Saturday. I’ve read all the theories from all sides, and, frankly, they are all wrong. I don’t expect — and I know you don’t, either — morality or intellectual honesty from the left. They’ve demonstrated over and over a willingness to say or do anything to advance their agenda. It’s what they do. It’s what we fight against here every day. But this is the mistake I made. In fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them.

Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke. That was my error. I became like them, and I feel very badly about that. I’ve always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program. Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for. They distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her. I do not think she is either of those two words. I did not think last week that she is either of those two words.

The apology to her over the weekend was sincere. It was simply for using inappropriate words in a way I never do, and in so doing, I became like the people we oppose. I ended up descending to their level. It’s important not to be like them, ever, particularly in fighting them. The old saw, you never descend to the level of your opponent or they win. That was my error last week. But the apology was heartfelt. The apology was sincere. And, as you will hear as I go on here, it was not about anything else. No ulterior motive. No speaking in code. No double entendre or intention. Pure, simple, heartfelt. That’s why I apologized to Sandra Fluke on Saturday, ’cause all the theories, all the experts are wrong.

I heard that while walking the Bloodthirsty Puppy. When Rush went to commercial, I switched the dial to Laura Ingraham, wondering if she was talking about the issue. And what do you know, she was. She wondered why Sandra Fluke got a call from the president and told her parents should be proud (of what? having sex in law school? I suppose that is an accomplishment)… and so many other women didn’t.

Women like Michelle Malkin

Malkin was crudely slammed by Olbermann: “She received death threats and hate-filled voice mails all thanks to the total mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascistic hatred, without which Michelle Malkin would just be a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.”

Misogynistic to the extreme, but I can’t ignore a faint whiff of racism too. The stench is pretty overpowering here:

My maiden name is Maglalang.

The diversity-embracing nutroots just LOVE my last name.

…

I thought this line of attack had played out. But nutroots-panderer and Johnny-come-lately Keith Olbermann, parroting Media Matters, has picked up the meme.

He can barely contain his glee at referring to me as “Michelle MaglaGONG Malkin.”

I don’t think Olbermann ever apologized. For anything. Where’s her call, Mr. President?

But that’s nothing to what the Loving, Lovable Left did to Sarah Palin.

BILL MAHER: Oh, and did you hear this? [Laughs] Sarah Palin finally heard what happened in Japan…

[Audience laughter]

MAHER: …and she’s demanding that we invade Tsunami. I mean, she says, “These Tsunamians will not get away with this.” Oh speaking of dumb tw*ts, did you…

[Audience laughter and applause]

Ha-ha! Yay! Call her another name, Bill!

According to the Dallas Voice, this happened on Sunday while Maher was “performing” at the Winspear Opera House (photo courtesy Reuters):

It’s that fearlessness — he acknowledged that some people would probably be uncomfortable with some of his remarks about religion, not to mention calling Sarah Palin a “c*nt” (“there’s just no other word for her”) — that makes Maher the most dangerous person in comedy.

And not content to call her names, he called her family names:

[W]hen I point out that Sarah Palin is a vainglorious braggart, a liar, a whiner, a professional victim, a scold, a know-it-all, a chiseler, a bully who sells patriotism like a pimp, and the leader of a strange family of inbred weirdos straight out of The Hills Have Eyes, that’s not sexist. I’m saying it because it’s true, not because it’s true of a woman.

What do you think he meant by that? And did he apologize? And did President Obama pick up the phone?

What about Laura Ingraham herself?

Ed Schultz: … Like this right-wing slut, what’s her name, Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she’s a talk slut.

Hey, that’s the word Rush used! Whaddya know?

To his credit, Schultz apologized, and to hers, Ingraham accepted it:

“I thought so little about it, I didn’t even mention it yesterday,” she said, calling his comments “not all that nice, to say the least.” But, she continued, “he apologized, and I accept his apology. It seemed heartfelt, it seemed like he really wished he hadn’t said it, and I accept the apology… I wish him the best. I wish his family the best.”

Let this be a lesson, boys and girls. Don’t call women sluts, or you’ll get in big trouble. Tw*ats, c*unts, and mashed up bags of meat with lipstick are fine, however, so you have plenty to work with.

PS: I didn’t even get to Ann Coulter.

PPS: Ingraham confirms no call from Obama.

UPDATE
Kirsten Powers has more.

No, not bloodsucking parasites—we’ll leave public sector unions for another time (bada-bing!)—this kind of tick:

Jobless claims tick back above 400,000

The number of Americans filing first-time claims for unemployment benefits edged up last week, the government said Thursday.

There were 410,000 initial jobless claims filed in the week ended Feb. 12, according to the Labor Department. That was up 25,000 from the week before, and slightly more than the 408,000 claims economists surveyed by Briefing.com had expected.

…

While initial claims data have been distorted recently by severe winter snow storms, the numbers have been trending lower since August. The weekly figure is near its lowest levels since July 2008.

The numbers still reflect inclement weather in certain parts of the country, but the effect was minimal in the most recent week, according to a Labor Department official.

The 4-week moving average of initial claims, which aims to smooth out volatility, rose to 417,750 from the previous week’s revised average of 416,000.

“This is nothing to worry about,” said Ian Shepherdson, an economist at High Frequency Economics. “The downward trend is still in place, though the weekly numbers have been hugely volatile in recent weeks because of the severe weather.”

Was the weather this bad in the Bush administration? Maybe the global warming… climate change… a**-freezing alarmists are right. I’ve never heard such concerns about the weather.

Meanwhile, other surveys are seeing different ticks:

Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, hit 10.0% in mid-February — up from 9.8% at the end of January.

…

The percentage of part-time workers who want full-time work worsened considerably in mid-February, increasing to 9.6% of the workforce from 9.1% in January.

…

Underemployment, in which Gallup combines part-time workers wanting full-time work with the U.S. unemployment rate, surged in mid-February to 19.6% — mostly as a result of the sharp increase in those working part time but wanting full-time work. Underemployment now stands at basically the same place as it did a year ago (19.8%).

Rush noted that today is the 2nd anniversary of the stimu-louse bill. Let’s give it another year.

It might yet work:

More than a third of the stimulus money for contracts, grants and loans — about 35% — has yet to be paid out, even though the money is available. And a far higher percentage of the money Washington disbursed hasn’t been spent in some municipalities.

Of course it hasn’t been paid out yet. The 2012 election is months away. Rush always called this a political slush fund. Right again.

Well, one of Al’s listeners anyway:

AL SHARPTON (43:13): Let’s go to the phones Jeff, let’s go to December in Cincinnati, December.

DECEMBER IN CINCINNATI: How are you doing? All right. Man this is the craziest thing I ever heard of in my life. We blaming Sarah Palin for this lunatic that went out here and shot up the town, but we going to blame Sarah Palin. This is my two cents man, I’ve been hearing your show and listening to people call in, it’s that same old stuff to me. We got to find someone to blame. But this is the left playing games and I think it’s going to backfire on them man. I seriously do. Sarah Palin shouldn’t, your guest Jeff, whatever his name was, he was way off man. Sarah Palin ain’t got to apologize and take no responsibility for none of this craziness. This dude (Loughner) was going to do something sooner or later and it had nothing to do with Sarah Palin.

JEFF JOHNSON (Sharpton Guest): Brother brother let me ask you this let me ask you this, I don’t think either of us blamed her for the shooting. Here’s the issue, whether it’s Sarah Palin on the right or whether its other folks on the left and I don’t think the left is off the hook on this either, but we were talking about her comment in particular. You don’t believe that both she and people on the left and the media for that matter are responsible for promoting the kind of environment that encourages this kind of stuff to happen. Not that they were responsible for one crazy person in Arizona taking a gun and shooting a Congresswoman, but for creating an environment that increases hostility instead of reduces it.

DECEMBER IN CINCINNATI: No, and I’ll tell you why, cause this environment is way before Sarah Palin. You know people buy into this Republican and Democrat thing too much now and it’s the radio talk show hosts and media stream that’s bringing this out. It ain’t Sarah Palin. It’s the people that host these shows and all this stuff that throw this out here. More people are into politics now than ever. You’ve got people families breaking up fighting each other over Republican and Democrat. You know you was right about one thing. Everybody do have to take some blame if somebody is going to take some blame, but Sarah Palin, no way! I think the reason why Sarah Palin taking all the blame is because they scared of her. There’s a possibility she could be president. Why, she’s public enemy number one to the left. Now for her to get all this attention, she must be top dog. That’s my two cents.

As Rush has said many times, they tell you whom they fear by their words and actions. Sarah Palin was governor of the most remote state in the union, and now she’s not even that. But she scares them [bleep]less. More than Mitt, Huck, Tim, Chiris, Jeb, and the rest of them combined. Now, why do you think that is? And why do you think they were so quick to drag her into the Tucson massacre?

PS: The ultimate in chutzpah (for today, that is):

BOTTOM LINE: Sarah Palin, once again, has found a way to become part of the story. And she may well face further criticism for the timing and scope of her remarks. She is already taking heat for her use of the term “blood libel” (see today’s Tweets). In her video she notes, “President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process.” It remains to be seen exactly what Obama will say tonight, but White House aides say another goal of his address will be to lift the nation up in this moment, not sully it with politics.

To paraphrase Clarence Thomas, she should have accepted her high-tech rape with grace and style.

One word: word.

A few weeks after President Obama’s victory in the 2008 election, adviser Rahm Emanuel quipped that “[y]ou never want a serious crisis to go to waste . . . [because it] provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.” Emanuel was correct: The situation in which the new Administration found itself constituted an unusual political dynamic that, properly used, would have allowed the Obama Administration both to stimulate the economy and make it more productive over the long haul.

The Administration should have endorsed a stimuluspackage based on a repeal of the corporate income tax and reductions in employment taxes. This policy would have accomplished its stated goals, and the budgetary implications would have been less negative than those of the package ultimately adopted because this alternative plan would have enhanced rather than detracted from economic efficiency. This approach would also have been difficult for Republicans to oppose.

Yet the Administration did not take this approach, presumably because its true goals were not just economic stimulus. Instead, the Administration wanted to reward its constituencies (unions, environmentalists, public education) and increase the size and scope of government. This tactic is consistent with the Administration’s policies in general. Across the board, it has taken a big government, redistributionist approach, whether regarding housing, unions, health, the auto industry, trade, anti? trust, or financial regulation. The Administration’s view appears to be that government is better than individuals at deciding how taxpayers get to spend their money and that government should engineer large transfers from richer to poorer.

Whether the Administration’s stimulus package will be successful is still to be determined. If the extra spending ends up being productive, then the impact of the stimulus might be positive on net. My own prediction, however, is that the programs adopted will generate large distortions and substantial waste, with minor stimulus impact. This is a pity because much better alternatives were available.

Let me quarrel with my better by insisting that if the economy turned around tomorrow (which, lamentably, it won’t), it couldn’t possibly be due to Obama’s stimulus boondoggle—which has been in place for a year and a half, with no discernible effect. Even Obama would agree: If everything up to now has been Bush’s fault, how would Obama’s policies magically take hold overnight?

No, this is the result of the stimulus bridge we were sold:

On the eve of the midterm elections, a third-quarter GDP report showing a meager 2 percent growth rate is the final nail in the Obama Democrats’ political coffin.

The economic nails slowly have been hammered into that coffin all summer and fall. A spate of subpar economic statistics has shown the failure of the fiscal-stimulus spending program. And myriad tax and regulatory threats produced by new government policies have created a massive uncertainty overhang and a dismal jobs outlook. American businesses have gone on an investment-capital and hiring strike.

For a White House that bet the ranch on a massive government pump-priming plan, it has all turned out to be a complete failure. The scheduled economic recovery has simply not occurred.

…

It should have been recovery summer, according to the president and his followers. But it is now officially a recovery slump. The entire command-and-control economic philosophy of the Obama Democrats has proven to be a big bust. And they’ll pay a very big price for this.

In fact, the last two GDP reports have averaged less than 2 percent growth, something that qualifies as a growth recession, not a recovery.

Even worse, the GDP deflator – the broadest inflation measure – came in at 2.2 percent in the third quarter, following a 2 percent reading in the second quarter. That means inflation is rising faster than real output. Stagflation.

Aggie has been calling it stagflation for months now. The rest of us are just figuring it out.

When Rush Limbaugh notoriously announced “I hope he fails!” it was taken by some, disingenuously, to mean that he hoped the country failed. Rather it was obvious to anyone with a brain stem that Rush meant he hoped Obama failed in his ambitions to remake the country in a socialist image. But Rush might also have meant that he hoped that, if we had to have a President Obama, he hoped he failed and failed spectacularly in his Stalinist-Leninist efforts. Because that’s happened, too.

Speaking of Rush and failed stimulus efforts, it’s been at least a couple of weeks since I posted this:

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!

Look at your pay stubs, liberals, and admit you don’t feel a pang that Obama didn’t take Rush up on his offer. I bet you even secretly wish (in those dark places of your heart you don’t admit even to your psychiatrist, your publicist, whatever) that Rush were president.

First things first:

He had gotten as close as -10 as recently as nine days ago, but with election closing in, so is the ground to his cockpit. How would you like to be looking at that chart with this guy coming to campaign for you? I’d tell him to shove his endorsement, too.

Looking behind the numbers:

Critical parts of the coalition that delivered President Obama to the White House in 2008 and gave Democrats control of Congress in 2006 are switching their allegiance to the Republicans in the final phase of the midterm Congressional elections, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Republicans have wiped out the advantage held by Democrats in recent election cycles among women, Roman Catholics, less affluent Americans and independents. All of those groups broke for Mr. Obama in 2008 and for Congressional Democrats when they grabbed both chambers from the Republicans four years ago, according to exit polls.

If women choose Republicans over Democrats in House races on Tuesday, it will be the first time they have done so since exit polls began tracking the breakdown in 1982.

Smelling blood, Rush Limbaugh has moved in:

Operation Reverse Chaos or Reverse Operation Chaos, whichever you wish to call it, is once again established so as to allow Hillary Clinton what is rightfully hers: an opportunity to win the White House. It was hers. She had been anointed, and then Obama comes along and for whatever reason they pulled the rug out from under her. The Clintons still want the White House, bad. You can tell how bad by how unenthusiastic Bill Clinton is running around the country campaigning for Democrats, for Obama. Because Clinton and Hillary know that their best chance for her to get the nomination in 2012 is for the Democrats to have a lackluster performance next Tuesday. The worse the defeat is, the worse it is for Obama. As Obama said, and he’s agreeing with me, he’s not on the ballot but his agenda is. Damn straight it is. That’s exactly what’s being voted on Tuesday: Obama’s agenda. Therefore, the greater the Republican victory is, the greater the opportunity for Hillary to challenge Obama for the nomination in 2012. They don’t want to wait ’til 2016. The odds of the White House being held by Democrats after 2016 is practically nil after what Obama is going to finish doing destroying the country in four more years if that happens.

In the primaries, in order to keep the Democratic contest going, Rush announced Operation Chaos, encouraging everyone who was eligible to vote for Hillary. He may have had some effect in close contests.

Now, he calls for Operation Reverse Chaos. If Hillary’s your gal, if you think she can stop the Democratic Party from pulling a Thelma and Louise, vote Republican, if you can stomach it, or stay home if you can’t. The party has to see that with Obama as a figurehead, their chances of running any form of government higher than the local recycling program will be nil.

Rush caught their ear:

Dear Rush,

…

I don’t think even you understand just how much damage Obama has done to the Democrat Party — to the point where formerly lifelong Democrats like myself, and everyone here at HillBuzz.org, are actively working to expose the party and literally burn it to the ground for the good of the country.

None of this is being reported in the media, but a Civil War in the Democrat ranks has been raging since May 31st, 2008…a date every Hillary Clinton supporter knows well, because that was the date of the Democrat Rules & Bylaws Committee Meeting where Howard Dean (then-DNC Chair), Donna Brazile, and scores of other Kool-Aid slurping Obama flunkies took off their masks and revealed the full extent of the Leftist coup that had taken over the party. This was the day when the DNC took delegates Hillary Clinton won in Michigan away from her and handed them to Obama (despite the fact he wasn’t even on the primary ballot in that state, because he removed his name when his campaign realized he’d come in third in that race).

…

You seem to know most of all this, so I’ll end the history lesson by noting the people alienated by the Democrat Party during the primaries in 2008 — where it was clear the party and the media colluded at great lengths to push Obama while hammering Hillary Clinton into the ground — never came back to the Democrat Party.

This is also when most of us stopped using the term “Democratic Party”, since there’s nothing “democratic” about these people. They are the “Democrat Party”, and even that is hard to acknowledge because they really and truly have proved themselves to be enemies of real democracy.

…

[O]ne of the biggest reasons the Democrats are in the trouble they’re in right now is because of how frequently the Left and the media (one and the same, really) called anyone who opposed Obama a RAAACIST. If you supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries instead of Obama, you were called a RAAACIST. If you were someone like me who fundraised for Hillary, who hosted events for her, who put yourself out there and wrote columns advocating her or did media spots talking up her candidacy, you were aggressively targeted by the Obama campaign and his supporters…relentlessly attacked as a RAAACIST! and assaulted with the Alinksy Rules for Radicals in hopes of breaking your spirit, terrorizing you, and making you abandon Clinton for fear of having these people destroy your life, ruin your business, and make you an absolute pariah in your community.

This is what the Obama campaign, the media, and the DNC did to DEMOCRATS.

…

[Donna] Brazile [...] said, outright, that the Democrat party did not need blue-collar white voters, the Jacksonian voters, the Hillary voters, because the party was “Obamafied” and would win elections for generations with the Obama coalition of blacks, Leftist elites, Hispanics, low information gay voters, and self-hating Jews.

This is all the Democrats have left, Rush.

…

As part of your “Reverse Operation Chaos”, you really need to emphasize something the media just won’t talk about — and that’s the simple fact that even if you called yourself a Democrat for 32 years, the way I did, because everyone you grew up with and everyone in your family was a Democrat, that in 2010 it’s time to ask yourselves what that really means.

Do you want to be in a party that calls people racists for stepping out of line and voicing opposition to the socialist lurch of the current administration?

Do you condone voter fraud and the shameless, undemocratic tactics employed by Democrats?

Do you wish to associate with the likes of ACORN, the SEIU, the Black Panthers, and all the other thugs, goons, and degenerates the Obama campaign and White House employ as the DNC’s muscle on the ground?

It is crystal clear that being a patriotic American who loves this country is intellectually incompatible with being a Democrat. If you love America and want it to prosper, the Democrat Party is at absolute odds with everything we need for a thriving, successful economy.

Hillary supporters realize this.

There’s a lot more—a lot—the guy was obviously feeling it. I know better than to expect the PUMAs to save us this time. We had several lively PUMA threads here back in the day, but we still got Barack.

But if President Obama can unite die-hard Hillary supporters and Rush Limbaugh, he is truly the transformative figure we were told he is.

All credit to Rush for remembering this, but as I championed Julio Osegueda as the poster child for the Typical Obama Voter, I’d like to share it with you too:

You say you work at McDonald’s, Julio? And you want to know what Obama can do about your benefits? I’d say you got your answer this morning.

McDonald’s Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.

Ask, Julio, and ye shall receive. No offense, but may ye choke it.