Rush Leads GOP Media Charge In Favor Of AIG Bonuses

Digby points out that while some Goopers are trying to pin the AIG bonuses on Democrats (not without merit, it is pretty clear the Obama Administration fought to remove any restrictions on bonuses), Rush and the GOP Media hordes are fighting for the AIG bonuses. Says Rush:

"A lynch mob is expanding: the peasants with their pitchforks surrounding the corporate headquarters of AIG, demanding heads. Death threats are pouring in. All of this being ginned up by the Obama administration."

The GOP/Fox pitchmen are singing the same tune. "Republicans in Disarray?" Don't hold your breath for the Politico headline to that effect.

Speaking for me only

< Obama On The AIG Bonuses: "The Buck Stops With Me" | Judge Denies Bail to al-Marri >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Somebody is on the happy pills... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 02:54:46 PM EST
    again...as a proud peasant with half a mind to pick up a pitchfork, I can assure Rush that Obama didn't put me up to it...in fact, if the peasants ever got so fed up that they picked up pitchforks, Obama would be firmly on the side of the AIG mafia, not the peasants...bank on it.

    Hmm, if dittoheads weren't dittoheads, (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 02:55:09 PM EST
    this could divide his audience.

    Nah (none / 0) (#4)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 03:03:49 PM EST
    Pro-corporate arguments have been part of Rush's schtick for a long time now.  He's always sticking up for Wal-Mart or for John Thain's right to buy an expensive trashcan or whatever.  His populism is of a different flavor.

    Pretty much explains why (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by NYShooter on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 03:20:04 PM EST
    his $400,000,000 contract was a bargain; he can reliably deliver fifteen million Dildo-Heads to the Republican/corporate slaughter house while convincing them that forfeiting their children's dental care to finance CEO bonuses is the patriotic thing to do.

    Sure (none / 0) (#6)
    by CST on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 03:06:52 PM EST
    But until recently there wasn't nearly as much of a populist outrage at this type of thing.

    It is easier to agree with pro-corporate arguments when everyone is doing well.

    He may be consistent in that regard, but that doesn't mean his listeners are.


    Be careful (none / 0) (#28)
    by MediaLies on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 05:24:48 PM EST
    Never underestimate the power of propaganda.  Populist outrage is what what allowed Hitler and his henchmen to lead the Germans into WWII. They channeled the anger over hard times into aggression against others.  Right now in America special interests are plotting our next big military adventure, billed as the salvation and security of the common man while actually lining the pockets of the wealthy and leaving us poorer and less safe.

    Frankly (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 05:31:29 PM EST
    I'd be more worried about a French Revolution style of uprising than the Hitler version.  Right now, only Lou Dobbs is really focusing his anger at "others", everyone else apppears mad at the rich.

    Although I am not really afraid of either.  Germany post WWI and France pre-revolution had a lot bigger problems than we currently do.


    AIG vs GM workers (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MediaLies on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 04:22:47 PM EST
    General Motors workers are being asked to renegotiate their contract before a federal bailout is given.  AIG execs are being asked after the fact and only because people are complaining.  I don't think workers are complaining loud enough.  If I were a GM worker being told by his union to accept concessions on an "existing contract" to save the company, I wouldn't vote yes until all bailout recipients were taking the same haircut as me.  

    And what about Congress?  A 2009 pay raise?  Let's tie Congressional pay raises to the minimum wage so every time Congress gets a raise so do the poor people.

    I love the minimum wage idea (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by BernieO on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 06:22:12 PM EST
    That makes a lot of sense and would also be a good political move.

    I believe the senate (none / 0) (#22)
    by CST on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 04:29:25 PM EST
    unanimously voted against a pay raise yesterday.

    Still to go in the house, but I seriously doubt they are that politically stupid to oppose it.

    I agree with you on the AIG v.s. GM thing.  The one difference here is leverage.  I don't mean the U.S. government, I mean the workers.  The GM workers need the bailout money so they can keep their jobs to feed their families.  The people making $3 million a year in bonuses can probably walk away and retire on what they made last year.  That's not to say we should give in to AIG, that's just to say that the union workers don't have a choice but to compromise.


    Leverage (none / 0) (#26)
    by MediaLies on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 05:11:43 PM EST
    Leverage is in the hands of the people. Remember Rodney King?  When those cops were found innocent and people went out in the streets it didn't take long for the powers that be to rethink double jeopardy and bring some new charges against them.   If we could just turn off Lou Dobbs long enough to get off the couch...  

    what percentage of taxpayer money (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 04:50:02 PM EST
    goes to defense contractors?  I realize we did not have to bail them out, but we are shelling out 20%+ of our budget for defense, not including the wars.  Since we the taxpayer are paying for weapons systems, shouldn't we know what kind of bonuses are going to defense contractors?  

    We should also look at people who do business with medicare/medicaid, what types of bonuses are they reaping at the expense of taxpayers?

    The list can go on and on.  Why should we stop with bailout recipients?  

    Does anyone here think that we are getting a better deal with Halliburton right now?   How is that money being spent?  

    "CEOs at top defense contractors have reaped annual pay gains of 200% to 688% in the years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks."

    The chief executives at the seven defense contractors whose bosses made the most pocketed nearly a half-billion dollars from 2002 through last year.

    The CEOs made an average of $12.4 million a year, easily more than the average corporate chief. Since the start of the war, CEOs at defense contractors such General Dynamics (GD, news, msgs), Halliburton (HAL, news, msgs) and Oshkosh Truck (OSK, news, msgs) have made, on average, more in four days than what a top general makes in a whole year, or $187,390."

    "we didn't bail out the defense contractors"


    I don't see it (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 02:58:44 PM EST
    What I see are Republicans pinning the AIG bonuses on Democrats because of the stimulus. (and yes, it's from Politico).

    I haven't seen Republicans in the media (apparently besides Rush) saying they are FOR the bonuses. Both parties are piling on,saying how awful this is (Grassley wants them to commit suicide, remember) so to tie in with the last post - this absolutely stops at Obama's door.

    What part did you not see? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 03:06:41 PM EST
    I see (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 03:13:25 PM EST
    Rush spinning this garbage, but in most other outlets, I see Republicans just as outraged by these bonuses.  They, however, are blaming the Dems.  

    What other Republican besides Rush is saying that AIG should be getting these bonuses?


    Glenn Beck? Cavuto? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 03:18:12 PM EST
    Rush actually does the Dems a great service here.

    You want to pretend he does not get ink and interfere with the GOP attempt to pin it on Dems?

    Well, that's your perogative I suppose.


    No (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 03:35:07 PM EST
    But most people in the country do not listen to him. Sure he had a big audience.  Beck and Cavuto?  Seriously?  With audiences that small?

    Rush's audience believed this stuff anyway.  And you're right - he's messing with the R's message that this is the Dems fault.  But I don't see anyone on Capitol Hill spouting this nonsense. Again - when Grassley's telling them to commit suicide - that's what is getting the air play.


    "Most people" (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 03:36:46 PM EST
    does not include the Media.

    Who do you think "most people" listen to exactly?


    "Most people" (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 03:57:22 PM EST
    don't really read newspapers or blogs and may catch a few minutes of the nightly news.

    Those who listen to Rush or Cavuto or Beck already believe this crap. Just as those who listen to Olbermann or Matthews or Maddow will think the administration really did only find out about these bonuses last week.


    I would bet the Republicans are furious with Rush (none / 0) (#32)
    by BernieO on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 06:14:51 PM EST
    for this. I sincerely hope so. It's about time they realized that this guy is bad for their party. Rush is all about himself. I actually used to listen to him when Bush I was in office because Rush was always going after Bush. I think he contributed to Bush's loss.

    The republicans are having it both ways right now (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Farmboy on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 05:58:39 PM EST
    The pols are attacking the Dems for allowing the bonuses to occur.  The right-wing media is arguing the other direction, saying that Dems are trying to punish success.  Their base gets riled up, regardless of cause.  All they need to know is that Dems are bad, hm-kay?

    Actually the (none / 0) (#7)
    by Bemused on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 03:12:15 PM EST
      accusation of Obama inciting a mob to threaten AIG is not nearly as off the wall as his later comment that you can't limit the incomes because without the super-wealthy in NYC  to pay city taxes and  support the welfare state you may as well put a fence around NYC and make it a prison.

      So the city is nothing but the super-wealthy and the criminals? I don't want to steal Kdog's thunder so I'll stop here.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 03:17:00 PM EST
    Do you have a link for that comment?

    Here (none / 0) (#12)
    by CST on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 03:23:47 PM EST
    "This $500,000 limit on executive pay -- let me tell you why it won't work. New York City will die. New York City needs a whole bunch of people being paid a whole lot of money, so they can tax their butts off, so that the city can maintain its stupid streets, potholes, and welfare state. Without the super wealthy in New York, it's over. You might as well go get Kurt Russell in there, put a fence around the whole country, and turn it into a prison, because that's what it would be."

    emphasis mine.

    From mediamatters


    How the "super wealthy" (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 05:29:08 PM EST
    like mana in the desert, sustain us all. Thus spaketh the Rush.

    So bow down and assume the position, all Dittoheads!


    Yet the other Republican mantra is (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by BernieO on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 06:16:39 PM EST
    that is the small business owner who drives the economy. Funny how they never get called on this discrepancy. The right wing propagandists talk out of both sides of their mouths and get away with it all the time.

    it's in the sound clip clip (none / 0) (#13)
    by Bemused on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 03:27:37 PM EST
    in the original post.

    Oh come on. (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 04:07:53 PM EST
    The "prison" comment was a reference to the movie. Surely you've seen or heard of it?

    It was not a serious suggestion that NYC is nothing but fat cats and criminals...


    Most of what he says (none / 0) (#18)
    by Bemused on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 04:15:54 PM EST
      on all subjects isn't serious, and I recognize (although I question whether many of his supporters do) that he doesn't intend some of what he says to be considered  seriously.

      That doesn't make it any less outrageous beecause i think he knows many of his listeners don't get what he might claim was just a joke if called on it.


    OK, be outraged. Your call. (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 04:19:06 PM EST
    Sure, nothing he says (none / 0) (#27)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 05:23:59 PM EST
    is "serious" or an insinuation of anything serious; the man's just an entertainer.

    you don't suspect (none / 0) (#21)
    by Bemused on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 04:23:09 PM EST
     in your heart of hearts that Limbaugh was pandering to the  segment of his audience that would take that  comment as an insinuation to reinforce their beliefs that NYC is crawiling with criminals who mostly have darker skin and perhaps speak with accents or even other languages?

    He's been playing this (none / 0) (#25)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 05:01:02 PM EST
    the-Left-just-wants-to-punish-sucess horsesh*t for years; it's hard to believe even a few hundred people in the country are monumentally stupid enough to gobble it up, but we have to remember that his is just the most unabashed version of the meme. The "Southern Strategy" has had mega-church types pushing a just slightly softer christianized version to their humble sheep for years also.

    But let the rectal cyst with a mouth keep running it; his type will bring them all down eventually.


    I agree but his schtick has worked (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by BernieO on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 06:23:56 PM EST
    mainly because Democrats have been pathetic at getting out a counter message. I know people who realize that things have come unglued but still use right wing talking points to explain it.

    It don't get much better than this. (none / 0) (#24)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 04:53:44 PM EST

    Confused...help me out... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Maise7 on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 12:58:20 AM EST
    Okay, so the money that went to AIG...was that sent while Bush was still in office? And the amendment that Dodd put in about limiting bonuses....it wasn't retroactive...right? So, it wouldn't stop AIG from sending out those bonuses. If this is all true...then why are the blaming Demorcats...Dodd...and Obama?

    Because... (none / 0) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 01:06:59 PM EST
    Obama On The AIG Bonuses: "The Buck Stops With Me"

    Rush Leads GOP (none / 0) (#38)
    by ineedmychange on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 01:52:18 PM EST
    What constitutes a "peasant" I guess anyone who is not in the million dollar bracket?  I suppose that would not include his listening audience? All you peasants out there-why do you contribute to his ratings & continue to increase this guy's wealth.
    THE GOP can get into the tech arena all they want but as long as they have Limbaugh as their poster boy it will still be a right wing extremist organization-I'd love to see Limbaugh in the unemployment line-not a chance-he knows to make millions by making incindiary comments
    When  is America going to learn politicians want us split along party lines--we need to hold all politicians accountable regardless of party and until we do that nothing will change in Washington.  Our Best friend IS THE INTERNET-PEOPLE-spend a few hours looking stuff up instead of playing games-it is a good way to keep taps of your politicians-locally-statewide and nationally.
    And e mail every chance you get.  At least they know you are watching what they are doing.