Limbaugh And Me: The Angry Proselytizers

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 10:44:53 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

J sends me this link to the complete, unfirewalled text of the Frank Rich column where Rich writes:

What the angriest proselytizers on the left and right have in common is a conviction that their political parties will commit hara-kiri if they don’t adhere to their bases’ strict ideological orders. “If Democrats do not stick to their guns on Iraq,” a blogger at TalkLeft.com warns, there will be “serious political consequences in 2008.” In an echo of his ideological opposite, Mr. Limbaugh labels the immigration bill the “Comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act.”

In all seriousness, it was very gracious of Mr. Rich to include the link, though I take serious issue with his characterization of what some of us favor regarding the Iraq Debacle.

< What Can The Democrats Do About The Iraq Debacle? | Life Goes Fast and Sunday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Limbaugh And Me: The Angry Proselytizers | 12 comments (12 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

et al (none / 0) (#1)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 10:55:07 AM EST

Actually, I think they are both right. With the base of both groups in ruin, it will be interesting to watch who elects who.

There is no more base member ... (5.00 / 0) (#19)
by Sailor on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 05:24:10 PM EST

... than ppj who is a big fan of mr bush's excellent adventure and advocates torture and secret prisons. his only reservation is that bush hasn't killed enough muslims yet, including whole populations of innocent folks.

We didn't do the job in Iraq... quit long before we should have...

BTW, ppj also said: As for the cost of war in Iraq, no one ever said it would be zero in terms of soldiers. But it has been very close to that. in April 2006.


: Sailor - Your comments are OFF TOPIC (none / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 06:51:02 PM EST

plus the attack re secret prisons, torture, etc., is just a repeat of a false claim that you know to be false. (Guess what that makes you???)
But please keep doing it. It defines you better than I can.
For the other, take it over to the Sunday Open Thread and I'll be happy to demolish whatever claim hey are supposed to be making.

They could vote for each other, (none / 0) (#2)
by dkmich on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:34:31 AM EST

but I don't think they can even trust themselves.

What consequences? (none / 0) (#6)
by JSN on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:48:10 AM EST

Most of us are not going to throw our bastard out because the alternative is someone who is far worse.

: "Most of us" (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:53:06 AM EST

You answer your own question.
Some will not vote. Some will not work as hard. Some will not give as much.
That is not consequences in your mind?

Fundamentalists (none / 0) (#14)
by koshembos on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:18:29 PM EST

Frank Rich is right at least the left (I don't care much about the right). Democrats cannot stop funding the war in Iraq; they don't have the numbers. The left wants them is to filibuster a Republican funding in the Senate. This still leaves Bush without a budget and he'll "find" a law, regulation or just break the law and will fund the war.

All this brings us to where we already are, so where exactly is the ruinous future coming from?

I'll ignore your fundamentalists nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:28:33 PM EST

Instead I'll ask you who you are referring to when you write:

The left wants them is to filibuster a Republican funding in the Senate.

I think you just made it up.

Most of us who support the Reid-Feingold framework understand that regular appropriations bills can not be filibustered.

You obviously do not. your comment is a miasma of ignorance. You write:

This still leaves Bush without a budget and he'll "find" a law, regulation or just break the law and will fund the war.

"Just breaking the law" does not provide Bush with one penny. You speak from ignorance obviously.

Then you write:

The Congress just passed a funding bill, which is not the scenario being discussed going forward. Again your ignorance is showing.

Finally form whence the ruinous future? I dunno, who predicted ruin? I predicted consequences, which is a deflated base. That is happening as we speak.

I am sorry to be harsh with you but I really have had it up to here with ignorant commenters pontificating on that of which they know nothing.


Do you read anything here? n/t (none / 0) (#15)
by andgarden on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:26:09 PM EST

: Heh (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:29:04 PM EST

I worte too many words to say what you just wrote.

doesn't get it, or biased? (none / 0) (#18)
by Lora on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 04:01:17 PM EST

From Frank Rich's piece:

I shed a tear for Richard Milhous Nixon.

[!!!]

This flat-lining administration inspires contempt and dismay more than the deep-seated, long-term revulsion whipped up by Nixon;

[Bush ain't so bad]

After it [Dems] sent Mr. Bush a war-spending bill stripped of troop-withdrawal deadlines 10 days ago, the cries of betrayal were shrill, and not just from bloggers.

[Oh dear, shrill? We know who gets called "shrill."]

John Edwards,...bellicose Democratic cheerleaders for the war... is now equally bellicose... He chastises them ...

[My, what flattering descriptions of Edwards.]

Among Republicans the right's revolt against the Bush-endorsed immigration bill is also in temper-tantrum territory, [Oh, ok...fair and balanced?] moving from rational debate about complex policy questions to plain old nativism, reminiscent of the 19th-century Know-Nothings. [eh...but he didn't single any rebub out to "flatter" like he did Edwards, a viable Dem prez candidate. And no such descriptors for Buchanan or Limbaugh.]

Withdrawal from Iraq is also on its way.

[Hmmm, WHERE have I heard that before? Oh yeah.]

Gerald Ford implicitly captured that sentiment when he described himself as a healer; his elected successor, Jimmy Carter, was (to a fault, as it turned out) a seeming paragon of serenity.

{OK, WHICH one is portrayed more positively here? Heh.]

Robert Novak pointedly welcomed his candidacy last week because, in his view, Mr. Thompson is "less harsh" in tone than his often ideologically indistinguishable rivals and "a real-life version of the avuncular fictional D.A. he plays on TV." [WOW.]The Democratic boomlet for Barack Obama is the flip side of the same coin: his views don't differ radically from those of most of his rivals, but his conciliatory [HEH] personality is the essence of calm, the antithesis of anger.

[And finally....]

If it was a relief to the nation to see a president as grandly villainous as Richard Nixon supplanted by a Ford, not a Lincoln, maybe even a used Hoover would do this time.

[A repub. How conVENient.]

I take serious issue with his BIAS.

Does either party have any credibility left? (none / 0) (#21)
by rhodescholar on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 07:12:02 PM EST

Bush sucks up to his corporate masters like the good poodle he is and blows up the federal defense budget to over $500 billion for the first time...then sucks up even harder in an obscene, disgraceful bill to allow 12 million criminal trespassers to stay in the US, further deflating salaries for most americans.

Pelosi goes to Syria to suck up to Assad to try to burnish her foreign policy credentials, which leads to the undermining and arrests of many syrian democracy supporters.

Neither party has ANY appealing candidates.