... "No terroist attacks since 9/11 ... you think the terrorists are happy now ... you bet" ...
... "Now watch how the media changes its negative reporting" ...

Dance, dance, dance ...

... "The Democrats won with nothing" ...
... "Polosi said there is going to be a return to civility. Is that her admiting they've been uncivil?" ...

It's the first time I've enjoyed listening to Rush in a while ...

11/8/2006 12:33:55 PM

Rush is a fool

11/8/2006 1:26:17 PM

Quote :

"... "The Democrats won with nothing" ... ... "Polosi said there is going to be a return to civility. Is that her admiting they've been uncivil?" ... "

Is this not true?

11/8/2006 2:07:39 PM

Not really. Although the first statement is arguable, that's all it is. The second statement could easily enough be answered "No, she's replying the Republican leadership of the house bred an uncivil environment."

11/8/2006 2:16:00 PM

You can tell that Rush is a college dropout

11/8/2006 2:18:58 PM

and addicted to opiates

11/8/2006 2:19:30 PM

As a democrat, I have been really angry with my party's attacks. I hate Hillary Clinton with a passion now.

11/8/2006 2:23:28 PM

Here's a post at the high-traffic conservative Red State blog:

Quote :

"One does not view the results of the midterm elections with a devil-may-care attitude and hope or expect to learn anything of consequence as a result. The elections were a disaster for Republicans. I agree with others who have said that this was not so much a case of Democrats winning an election as it was a case of Republicans losing one. And that makes it harder to swallow. Republicans lost because we forgot who we were. We were supposed to be the small-government, low taxes party. We got the "low taxes" part right but we forgot about that all-important "small-government" aspect. In doing so, we angered and infuriated our base, many of whom decided that divided government was a better and more effective way of achieving small-government goals than was electing Republicans. The blame for this has to go to the top. Speaker Hastert, Majority Leader Boehner and Majority Whip Blunt have been singularly ineffective at presenting a coherent and attractive message to Republicans and to the country at large and governing in accordance with that message. Needless to say, a leadership change is sorely needed and thankfully, it now appears that good people are prepared to help make that change a reality. In the Senate--which being in a pessimistic mood, I anticipate we will lose as well--Majority Leader Frist has been one of the worst floor leaders we have ever seen attempt to take command of Senate proceedings. He will be replaced by a masterful Senate leader in Mitch McConnell. Pity Senator McConnell could not have had a majority to work with. And then there is President Bush, who has been quite content to govern as a big-government conservative, a philosophical stance that got the GOP to where it is now; staring down the barrel of Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress. For the President to be able to lead a Republican resurgence, he too shall have to come around to a small-government viewpoint. No more bloated federal highway bills. No more NCLB. No more Medicare prescription drug benefits. No more inconstant attention to free trade. Small-government conservatives and right-of-center libertarians did not expect this from a Republican President and a Republican Congress. And they deserve better than what they have gotten. I could perhaps have accepted this election with something amounting to equanimity if small-government principles had truly been tried and had truly lost. But this was not the case here. Republicans did anything but put their best policy foot forward. And we have no one to blame but ourselves. Again: Democrats did not win this election so much as Republicans lost it. And if you think I am less-than-pleased about that, well, you are right."

After the President's speech in a later post, they also told Bush to grow a spine and a pair of balls.

Ouch.

11/8/2006 2:48:30 PM

you know that Rush has to be secretly celebrating after last night since these results will do wonders for his ratings

11/8/2006 2:57:21 PM

he already has the #1 talk radio show in the country

11/8/2006 3:00:24 PM

Quote :

"As a democrat, I have been really angry with my party's attacks. I hate Hillary Clinton with a passion now."

I love you [no homo]

11/8/2006 3:03:58 PM

^^ Rush has a good base, but no one would know who Rush was if it weren't for Bill Clinton. Without Clinton, Rush would have had no prominent Democrat to yell at and no way to build an audience.

The Democratic win last night gave him a liberal from San Francisco as Speaker of the House.

He'll be angry and spewing vitriol, and his ratings will go up because of it.

[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 3:05 PM. Reason : /]

11/8/2006 3:05:18 PM

What Red State is saying however, isn't from the part of the GOP which controls the politics of the party. If the fiscal conservatives controlled the GOP, it proabably wouldnt have lost. But the religious "put the gay marriage ban on as many states to get turnout up" faction has trumped any reasonable compassionate message from the GOP in oh 8 years.

Rush is a dolt. Period. He is a man who offers NOTHING to the greater good of America. Only partisan attacks that accomplish nothing except make Clinton haters happy. Does he matter? Yes. Because when so many people formulate their opinion around such a polarizing figure, America will not grow and compromise.

I think the anit-Big Brother and fiscal responsibility part of the GOP may all be about dead if it wasnt for this election. If they cannot grab back the power from the moral majority, i would hope than perhaps they would think of making in roads in the democratic party. How better to control the party of "larger goverment spending" than to control their ideology? I know many moderate Democrats who think like Republicans just without believing God needs to be forced into government.

11/8/2006 3:15:15 PM

This looks funny now...

Quote :

"Or you can look at Karl Rove's pre-election spat with National Public Radio's Robert Siegel. SIEGEL: We're in the home stretch, though, and many would consider you on the optimistic end of realism about - ROVE: Not that you would be exhibiting a bias ... SIEGEL: I'm looking at all the same polls that you're looking at every day. ROVE: No, you're not. No, you're not. SIEGEL: No, I'm not. ROVE: No, you're not. You're not. I'm looking at 68 polls a week. You may be looking at four or five public polls a week that talk about attitudes nationally but that do not impact the outcome of - SIEGEL: I'm looking at main races between - certainly Senate races. ROVE: Well, like the poll today showing that Corker's ahead in Tennessee, or the poll showing that Allen is pulling away in the Virginia Senate race. SIEGEL: Leading Webb in Virginia, yeah. Mr. ROVE: Exactly. SIEGEL: But you've seen the DeWine race and the Santorum race - I don't want to have you call races. ROVE: Yeah, I'm looking at all these, Robert, and adding them up, and I add up to a Republican Senate and Republican House. You may end up with a different math, but you're entitled to your math, I'm entitled to THE math. SIEGEL: Well, I don't know if we're entitled to our different math, but you're certainly - ROVE: I said THE math. I said you're entitled to yours."

11/8/2006 3:37:45 PM

haha

11/8/2006 3:39:57 PM

rove pwnt

11/8/2006 4:03:58 PM

Man, what was he rambling about? The man's good with elections, but everyone saw the house going down.

11/8/2006 4:10:03 PM

Rush was talking about exit polls where people said that the Republicans are the party of big government ...

Thank you Mr. Bush, and Mr. Clinton ....

11/8/2006 4:23:41 PM

Quote :

"What Red State is saying however, isn't from the part of the GOP which controls the politics of the party. If the fiscal conservatives controlled the GOP, it proabably wouldnt have lost. But the religious "put the gay marriage ban on as many states to get turnout up" faction has trumped any reasonable compassionate message from the GOP in oh 8 years."

this is true and I personally hate Polosi, I love San Fran (my dad is from there) but Polosi and co. represent everthing that is wrong w/ the great state of califoninia [/Arnold] hence why i'm also very glad the govenator won as did mr liberman both whom I feel are outstanding people.

11/8/2006 5:11:51 PM

Quote :

"roguewolf: He is a man who offers NOTHING to the greater good of America."

I must disagree. I think Rush Limbaugh handed Claire McCaskill a Senate seat in Missouri. Sounds like greater good to me

11/8/2006 5:14:19 PM

^ What was so good about handing her her seat?

11/8/2006 5:26:47 PM

What did the democrats run on besides not being aligned with George Bush?

If there's a silver lining in all of this, the country is going to see just how bat shit crazy Pelosi is and hopefully we'll see the real democrat agenda come through since they never have the guts to openly admit what they stand for.

I predict that they will try to impeach Bush, they will try to defund our military efforts in Iraq, further putting our troops in harm's way by not giving them the funding they need to fight the war, they will end Bush's tax cuts, and God knows what else, but it will all be great political ammo for '08.

[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 6:12 PM. Reason : ]

11/8/2006 6:07:53 PM

^ You should check out the 100 Hours thread. It's a plan...it might not happen, but it is a plan. And in her press conference today, Pelosi said impeachment was off the table.

Honestly...

Do Republicans still think that demonizing Nancy Pelosi...a woman that most people didn't even know until last night...is a worthwhile tactic?



[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 6:14 PM. Reason : add]

11/8/2006 6:12:39 PM

Did you not see her interview on 60 Minutes? She makes Dean's ramblings look like Dr. Suess stories.

11/8/2006 6:13:32 PM

^^^ The Democrats are a bit scatterbrained, but they're not stupid enough to try to impeach Bush.

[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 6:13 PM. Reason : /]

11/8/2006 6:13:36 PM

SAN FRANCISCO VALUES
SAN FRANCISCO VALUES
SAN FRANCISCO VALUES

11/8/2006 6:44:29 PM

Quote :

"Wlfpk4Life: they will try to defund our military efforts in Iraq, further putting our troops in harm's way by not giving them the funding they need to fight the war"

NO, NO, NO.

Bush and Co. were the ones who put those soldiers there underfunded and without a plan. The only reason most Democrats got behind the war was because they were misled, and it made political sense for them to support it because they knew Bush was gonna take us there anyway.

The issue of who is to blame is not one to be twisted because that's real suffering going on over there, real fucking people. It's one thing to pass the buck on having raised taxes or some shit, but don't you dare try to make Democrats take the blame for the betrayal of those soldiers stuck in Iraq.

11/8/2006 8:35:51 PM

SPK, why do you hate America?

11/8/2006 8:49:31 PM

IF THE DEMS WERE SO SMART THEY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN TRICKED BY AN IDIOT!!!!1

[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 8:54 PM. Reason : cu cu rikkiiiiiiii]

11/8/2006 8:51:39 PM

^^^ But Bridget, the troops don't need body armor when the war in Iraq is only going to last six months.

[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 8:58 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2006 8:58:21 PM

YES YES YES.

If you think the troops are poorly funded now, just wait until the Dems control the military's budget.

There were unforseen problems in Iraq and they are being addressed, but don't think for a minute that anymore funding will be coming down the pike, making the current situation worse.

11/8/2006 9:10:43 PM

Oh noes! Gloom and Doom!!

11/8/2006 9:13:50 PM

QUICK QUESTION:

Do Democrats have a history of "underfunding" the military during wartime?

I don't know about this shit.

11/8/2006 9:14:30 PM

I don't think so much that the military is going to be underfunded per se but shady companies like Haliburton are not going to be given a free pass with no-bid contrats a huge costs to the tax payer.

11/8/2006 9:18:02 PM

that and democrats fundamentally put less emphasis/money into wars/defense than republicans

i mean its one of the main differences in the parties' ideologies

11/8/2006 9:19:59 PM

they just have a history of underfunding defense budgets

11/8/2006 9:26:49 PM

They hate America.

11/8/2006 9:28:58 PM

11/8/2006 9:34:35 PM

BridgetSPK:

Quote :

"Bush and Co. were the ones who put those soldiers there underfunded and without a plan"

Wlfpk4Life:

Quote :

"If you think the troops are poorly funded now, just wait until the Dems control the military's budget."

Rule #1 of Debate:
Demonstrated history beats general speculation ...

11/8/2006 10:00:28 PM

Quote :

"that and democrats fundamentally put less emphasis/money into wars/defense than republicans"

Tell that to FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Wilson


also, I take it as a badge or honor that I put less emphasis on wars. I don't want war. No one should want war.

[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 10:29 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2006 10:28:37 PM

Quote :

"YES YES YES. If you think the troops are poorly funded now, just wait until the Dems control the military's budget. There were unforseen problems in Iraq and they are being addressed, but don't think for a minute that anymore funding will be coming down the pike, making the current situation worse."

The military was underfunded by George H.W. Bush, further underfunded by Bill Clinton, and foolishly by George W. Bush via his Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who thought all that was needed to win a war 10 years from now is a Joint Strike Fighter and a functioning satellite.

The problem is that these three presidents' administrations cut military spending (i.e. number of troops) but did not cut military commitments.

[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 10:38 PM. Reason : /]

11/8/2006 10:32:49 PM

^^That's what I thought about Democrats in war, but I didn't have the confidence to say it.

[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 10:36 PM. Reason : Thanks!]

11/8/2006 10:35:54 PM

okay, let me correct my statement. Democrats in the last 50 years have typically cut defense spending

11/8/2006 11:47:24 PM

Link?

11/9/2006 12:01:02 AM

Quote :

"Bush and Co. were the ones who put those soldiers there underfunded and without a plan."

That's funny. I thought it was Clinton who castrated the military's budget.

11/9/2006 1:00:32 AM

^You wanna argue with Flyin Ryan...

Quote :

"Flyin Ryan: The military was underfunded by George H.W. Bush, further underfunded by Bill Clinton, and foolishly by George W. Bush via his Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who thought all that was needed to win a war 10 years from now is a Joint Strike Fighter and a functioning satellite."

11/9/2006 1:11:02 AM

Aww, man, foolishly????

There was nothing foolish about the war in Iraq!!!

OH WAIT.

Look, burrobitch, we all know who put those soldiers there, and any military buff could tell you what a ridiculous deal it was in the first place.

So, seriously, don't blame Clinton for the fact that the Bush administration fucked up hardcore.

11/9/2006 1:18:07 AM

just puttin blame where it ought to be. remind me. who was in control of Congress during HW's term? i forget...

So yeah, don't give me this "Bush underfunded them." If Clinton didn't castrate, then dubya wouldn't have to make up for the lake of a penis.

11/9/2006 1:38:56 AM

^I'm sorry...when you say "lake of a penis"

...do you mean "lack of a penis"?

Because that's a critical part of your point, right?

[Edited on November 9, 2006 at 2:40 AM. Reason : I dunno...I just know what has happened the past six years, fucking fool.]

11/9/2006 2:36:53 AM

Quote :

"just puttin blame where it ought to be. remind me. who was in control of Congress during HW's term? i forget... So yeah, don't give me this "Bush underfunded them." If Clinton didn't castrate, then dubya wouldn't have to make up for the lake of a penis."

Dems 88-94
Reps 94-06

Bush underfunded. It's a widely known fact. Google military publications about that time if you don't believe so.

Clinton underfunded too. That's also a widely known fact. And if you're going to bring up who controlled Congress during HW's term, shouldn't you also bring up who controlled Congress during most of Clinton's term?

And look at the BRAC Rumsfeld orchestrated with a Republican congress. The guy pretty much thought standing military forces was a bad thing and you could win a war with an airplane, despite every indication from the First Gulf War an "Air War only" was impossible. Hmm, is it any wonder that with that philosophy how Iraq turned out?

[Edited on November 9, 2006 at 7:18 AM. Reason : /]

11/9/2006 7:14:49 AM