advertisement

J. KARL MILLER: Limbaugh's induction accompanied by partisan criticism

Wednesday, May 23, 2012 | 6:00 a.m. CDT; updated 4:08 p.m. CDT, Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Despite the deluge of self-righteous and angry protests to include campaigns such as "Missourians against Rush Limbaugh," negative editorials, letters to editors, denouncements from pulpits and legislative podia and more than 35,000 petition signatures, the inevitable came to pass — he was inducted into the Hall of Famous Missourians.

Yes indeed, the bust of controversial talk show host Rush Limbaugh has joined those of Stan Musial, Harry S Truman, Mark Twain, Dred Scott, George Washington Carver and Walt Disney in the state Capitol. Limbaugh was nominated by House Speaker Steven Tilley, a fellow southeast Missourian, and the campaign, pro and con, was as polarizing as the subject himself.

As expected, the "anti-Rush" crusade can be best described as tragicomic opera at its most entertaining.  It provided a forum for Democratic Party legislators to wax eloquently and posture mightily in denouncing their least favorite talk radio host.

The bloggers, the syndicated columnists, the talking heads, the party leaders and every organization with an ax to grind took up the cudgel — the epithets "racist," "hatemonger," "misogynist," "bigot" and "homophobe" flowed like water over a spillway. Speaker Tilley was not spared criticism — his nomination of Limbaugh  attained major league status on the left as he was skewered in The New York Times and by MSNBC's Chris Matthews in an interview with Sen. Claire McCaskill.

Gov. Nixon, called upon to step forward and block Rush's Hall of Fame entry, wisely declined, instead offering the safe opinion "that only people who have passed on should be honored." In reality, the anti-Limbaugh blitz was futile. Instead of thwarting the process, it backfired by gift wrapping an extra measure of publicity for the talk radio icon.

As I have made clear in the past, I am not a particular fan of Mr. Limbaugh — I suppose I could be described as mildly ambivalent.  Nevertheless, there is not one scintilla of doubt that the arch-conservative talk show host is, in fact, famous and, like it or not, he is a Missourian.

A four-time recipient of the Marconi Radio Award for Network/Syndicated Radio Personality of the Year (awarded by the National Association of Broadcasters), he was inducted into the National Radio Hall of Fame in 1993. The highest-paid syndicated radio host, Mr. Limbaugh also has hosted the No. 1 commercial talk radio show in the U.S. since 1991, with daily listeners estimated at more than 15 million.

Evidence of his "human" side is seen in his annual "EIB Cure-a-Thon" for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, an effort that has raised millions of dollars in its 22 years of service, and in his donations to the Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation. This latter foundation collects money to provide scholarships for the children of Marines and law enforcement personnel who have died in the line of duty.

Following his induction into the Hall of Famous Missourians, both the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and The Kansas City Star published "sour grapes" editorials, slamming the recipient, decrying partisanship and echoing the Democratic Party legislators' laments over closing the chamber to all but selected Republicans.

Unwittingly, the Republicans did the Democrats a favor by having a selective audience and making the announcement too late for any reaction. Had it been advertised and open to all, a phalanx of dissenters would have assembled for a less than orderly protest. They would have made complete fools of themselves as mobs are wont to do.

Finally, in today's climate of forced political correctness and diversity, it is doubtful that Mark Twain would have passed muster for the Missouri Hall.  After all, he is roundly accused of politically incorrect prose, particularly "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," the novel unfairly and ignorantly condemned as racist and unfit for inclusion in selected libraries.

Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, to include vocal or written assent/dissent.  Admittedly, Limbaugh is a polarizing figure whose shtick in torching the left sometimes crosses the line.  Nevertheless, to deny a National Radio Hall of Fame member induction into the Hall of Famous Missourians would be silly.  As I recall, the less than mannerly Ty Cobb is one of five charter members of baseball's Hall of Fame.

Besides, in a couple of weeks, it will be forgotten for some new episode of similar unimportance.

J. Karl Miller retired as a colonel in the Marine Corps. He is a Columbia resident and can be reached via email at JKarlUSMC@aol.com. Questions? Contact Opinion editor Elizabeth Conner.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Richard Saunders May 23, 2012 | 12:03 p.m.

Anyone who would engage in either side of this circus isn't fit to set foot in public, let alone open their mouth, as they are nothing but a public nuisance.

Divide and conquer is alive and well in Missouri, I see. Those who promote it should be ashamed rather than believing they are "fighting the good fight." That these people constantly choose to fight shows just how little they understand about getting along with others.

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum May 23, 2012 | 12:29 p.m.

Yawn.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro May 23, 2012 | 1:09 p.m.

Everything old is new again!
The Diceman returns to Vegas:
("Andrew was very controversial with his profanity and sexism that he was banned from MTV and boycotted by Sinead O’Connor and Nora Dunn.")
http://www.ticketmomma.com/vegas/shows/a...

(Report Comment)
James Lane May 23, 2012 | 1:17 p.m.

Great commentary as usual, Colonel.

SEMPER FI,

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 23, 2012 | 1:57 p.m.

I do not hold the slightest bit of respect for Rush and his fear-mongering tactics and spreading of misinformation. I pity those that hold what Rush says as "news" instead of what it really is - "opinion". Similarly, what I said is just my opinion and the beauty of this country is that everyone is free to agree or disagree.

That being said, I would like to state that I have no issue with him being inducted into the Hall of Famous Missourians. I agree that he is famous and he is from Missouri. I would like to think those people inducted would be someone who the majority of Missourians could look up to but I too realize there have been controversial inductions prior to Rush and I'm sure many more will follow.

Time to move along.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon May 23, 2012 | 1:59 p.m.

If Limbaugh belongs in, then so does Bloody Bill Anderson and Frank and Jesse James, all veteran partisans of an earlier time and all native Missourians. The Speaker of the House could set up a proper rogues gallery instead of honoring just one of them.

And even Al Capone gave to charity. So what?

Nonetheless, if the event was so "similarly unimportan[t]" to the good Colonel, then why did he waste his time writing about it? If all he can launch are rhetorical parthian shots, then why does he even bother?

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro May 23, 2012 | 2:27 p.m.

@Bob Brandon:
To equate a right-leaning shock jock radio celebrity with murderers is much more distasteful then anything the Rushman broadcasts.
However, what's your take on recent black panther rhetoric about cracker hating?
("Shabazz:")
http://lonelyconservative.com/2012/05/do...

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 23, 2012 | 2:32 p.m.

BobB: "then why did he waste his time writing about it? If all he can launch are rhetorical parthian shots, then why does he even bother?"
____________________

Because he wanted to?
Because the Missourian wanted him to?

Where's the beef? You read it, didn't you? Why did you bother?

The Colonel's mission was accomplished, methinks.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith May 23, 2012 | 3:10 p.m.

While Louis Schneebaum does his yawning I think I'll take a nap. We've got a genuine non-issue here, folks.

Why not admit Thomas Catron [pronounced CAT-ron], a Missouri boy who attended and I believe graduated from MU, after which he and a buddy set out for New Mexico Territory where Tom opened a law office in Santa Fe. Tom was the known head of a secretive organization called the Santa Fe Ring, that dabbled in all sorts of questionable but mainly profitable activities, among them the Lincoln County War and the infamous Maxwell Land Grant. Whereas most Wild West desperadoes used guns and fists, Tom Catron simply used legal manipulation. Defrauding Hispanic New Mexican citizens was a popular pastime.

When New Mexico became a state (100 years ago in 1912) Catron became a United States Senator. There's a god-forsaken county in western New Mexico named for him.

(Report Comment)
Eric Cox May 23, 2012 | 6:02 p.m.

He more infamous than famous, but Walt was a racist so Rush should be right at home.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush May 23, 2012 | 6:26 p.m.

Celebration for
Bringing the fringe mainstream for
Over thirty years.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 23, 2012 | 6:57 p.m.

Ray Shapiro said: "To equate a right-leaning shock jock radio celebrity with murderers is much more distasteful then anything the Rushman broadcasts."

Karl's argument is that the objections don't matter, as all that is required for induction is popularity and place of birth. Arguing for the inclusion of famous Missouri murderers is merely the logical extension of his argument. Bob Brandon's argument, therefore, is that our criteria for induction should be better defined, and that Rush Limbaugh--while certainly not on the same level as a murderer--does not deserve the honor.

Maybe you would care to provide the metric we're using such that a murderer is excluded from the list but an aggressive, sensationalist radio hack isn't? What's the cutoff point?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 23, 2012 | 9:05 p.m.

For me, the best reason Limbaugh should not have been inducted was given by Gov. Nixon:

"...that only people who have passed on should be honored."

We've recently seen how it turns out when this wisdom is not followed.

All the other arguments are just funny and a poke in the liberal eye.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller May 23, 2012 | 9:22 p.m.

Mr Hopfenblatt,
If you must take issue with my "argument," please show me the courtesy of criticising what I actually wrote rather than altering my words and meaning for your own benefit. "Popularity" is not and was not the criteria for Limbaugh's induction to the Hall of Famous Missourians nor did I even intimate that popularity was a consideration.

Inasmuch as I doubt that many of my vocal "fans" bother reading my commentary--instead, reacting in Pavlovian fashion to my byline, I will repeat for you

"A four-time recipient of the Marconi Radio Award for Network/Syndicated Radio Personality of the Year (awarded by the National Association of Broadcasters), he was inducted into the National Radio Hall of Fame in 1993. The highest-paid syndicated radio host, Mr. Limbaugh also has hosted the No. 1 commercial talk radio show in the U.S. since 1991, with daily listeners estimated at more than 15 million."

As I have made abundantly clear, I am not a particular fan of Rush; however, induction into a National Hall of Fame would appear to more than qualify one for similar inclusion in his own state's Hall.

You would do well to memorize this quote "“Tolerance only for those who agree with you is no tolerance at all.”
― Ray Davis

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 23, 2012 | 9:59 p.m.

Karl:

The difference between those awards and the one being discussed here is that those are given by private organizations, which get to pick whoever they want however they want. This one is mediated through the state government, and it should have higher standards than random private organization X.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Imus#Ho...

Don Imus has more awards than Rush Limbaugh (of the same prestige and even better), and yet I doubt you'd consider him worthy of the honor if he was from Missouri. (Let's all remember that this was the guy who referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as a bunch of "nappy-headed hoes").

Also, I have no idea what's your issue with my choice of words. Someone famous is by definition someone popular, aka popularity has everything to do with it.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon May 24, 2012 | 12:07 a.m.

Mr. Shapiro wrote: "what's your take on recent black panther rhetoric about cracker hating?"

Mr. Brandon's answer: "I wouldn't put them in the Hall of Fame, either. You?"

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon May 24, 2012 | 12:11 a.m.

Mr. Williams wrote: The Colonel's mission was accomplished, methinks."

The epistemic closure is strong in this one, yes.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon May 24, 2012 | 12:52 a.m.

The good Colonel wrote: "'[p]opularity' is not and was not the criteria for Limbaugh's induction to the Hall of Famous Missourians nor did I even intimate that popularity was a consideration."

The problem is that there are no criteria whatsoever established apart from the whims of the Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives. Even the Speaker's role is not mentioned on the Hall's website: http://www.house.mo.gov/famous.aspx.

Perhaps Speaker Tilley felt he had to balance the induction of Mr. Dred Scott and Mr. Buck O'Neil earlier in the session with that of Mr. Limbaugh, although I certainly don't recall either Mr. Scott or Mr. O'Neil ever being admitted to the National Radio Hall of Fame or having an audience both as numerous and as utterly unverifiable as that of Mr. Limbaugh.

As far as I know, Mr. Scott and Mr. O'Neil have been honored, well apart from and (in the case of Mr. Scott) long before the Hall of Famous Missourians, for their part in beginning to undo the invidious legacy of racism and hatred in this country (after all, Mr. Scott's case helped ensure the legendary infamy of the Taney Court and ultimately the record of the Southron lost cause), something I suspect will not be among the first things to come to mind when considering the range of Mr. Limbaugh's considerable contributions to free speech.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller May 24, 2012 | 6:42 a.m.

Mr Hopfenblatt,
"Someone famous by definition is someone popular?" Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro and Attila the Hun were famous--but popular?

A wise man, when he finds himself in a hole, stops digging.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 24, 2012 | 7:44 a.m.

I didn't expect to have to spell it out, but I'm obviously differentiating between "famous" and "infamous." Otherwise, once again, there is no argument to exclude well-known Missouri murderers from the Hall of Famous Missourians.

Then there's the fact that "well known" is an accepted definition for both words (popular and famous), without any connotation necessarily attached to either. In other words, the one in a hole is you, as you're the one quibbling over nothing.

I presented an argument which you didn't address at all. Instead you found it a better use of your time to play semantical games over a single word.

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum May 24, 2012 | 11:02 a.m.

I'm confused as to why the Missourian allows this guy to contribute so regularly to their publication and places him so prominently. He's obviously not intelligent and offers no legitimate insight on anything.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm May 24, 2012 | 11:16 a.m.

Louis,

The Missourian takes the MSNBC/Fox News approach of having someone spout out a bunch of unintelligent hyperbole and partisan nonsense to get both sides riled up. Love it or hate it; it works as a business model. I agree that Karl's posts are pure garbage but you cannot argue with the fact that they get tons of views and comments. Long story short; the Missourian (like Fox News and MSNBC) have sold their journalist integrity for greater ad revenue.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm May 24, 2012 | 11:26 a.m.

"Someone famous by definition is someone popular?" Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro and Attila the Hun were famous--but popular?

Yes they were very popular among their people (much in the same way that Rush is popular among the extreme right wing but hated by others). How do you think they got to the places of power they did? I know that logic is not among your strong suits but this is pretty obvious stuff. You should take that advise from the old wise man.

(Report Comment)
Joy Mayer May 24, 2012 | 11:58 a.m.

@Jack, thanks for your comment. We sure strive for diverse voices here. Are you interested in submitting your own letter or guest column? Opinion editor Elizabeth Conner has instructions here: http://www.columbiamissourian.com/accoun...

Joy Mayer
Columbia Missourian

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm May 24, 2012 | 12:29 p.m.

Joy,

The issue is not diversity, it's printing hyperbolic, partisan, garbage which is what this is. There is nothing wrong with conservative, liberal, or moderate articles or opinion pieces as long as they are well thought out, logical, and contribute to the greater discussion which these are far from it. Louis and I are not nearly the first readers to point this out either.

I would like to reiterate this statement:

Long story short; the Missourian (like Fox News and MSNBC) have sold their journalist integrity for greater ad revenue.

If the Missourian editors want to continue printing this stuff then do so but to expect readers to respect your publication as a serious journalistic endeavor is unrealistic.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller May 24, 2012 | 1:04 p.m.

Go back to sleep Mr Schneebaum. Your yesterday "Yawn" far surpassed the intellectual content of today's immature personal attack. You and Mr Hamm could get together and offer a symposium on partisan hate and hyperbole. Mr Limbaugh would be proud of you both. :)

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking May 24, 2012 | 1:47 p.m.

Col. Miller contributes about as often as Rose Nolan or David Rosman, and both of the latter have made hyperbolic statements in their editorials also. If you object to one side, you have to object to the other. There is a severe shortage of fact and perspective on both sides these days, and it's a big part of the reason why so little gets done.

What possible difference does it make if Limbaugh is in the Hall of Famous Missourians or not? He's an entertainer, and as such, has a large following. He also has a lot of the same personal problems that entertainers do. But what he does is legal, and people are free to ignore it. He's famous (no one can tell me he's not) and he's a Missourian. To deny him membership because of his politics is wrong.

THings must be going pretty well if people are expending energy over something minor like this.

Speaking of entertainers, wasn't Sheryl Crow inducted recently? If not, she should be.

DK

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 24, 2012 | 2:46 p.m.

Why do the Colonel's yawners and detractors spend so much time posting here? Colonel Miller's columns, as previously indicated by the management, usually get more response than any other, and often times more response than the rest of the columnists combined. Nobody is forcing you to read or post on Colonel Miller's op/eds.

Jack Hamm - several of those notorious figures made it onto the cover of Time Magazine's Man of the Year feature. Rush Limbaugh has done more to generate public discussion of issues than any other person in media or politics. He has also given more to charity than any other person in media.
He has also single handedly started a movement to provide media counterpoint to the left wing diatribe the public had to endure until 1989, without serious rebuttal. Now talk radio and FOX news dominate the media. The left's pathetic attempt to counter with Air America showed the public isn't going to listen to that nonsense. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan as he so aptly put it: We win, you lose.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 24, 2012 | 3:12 p.m.

"We win, you lose."

Oh...So that's why we have a Democratic President.

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum May 24, 2012 | 3:35 p.m.

I agree with Mr. Hamm. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't the Missourian owned and operated by our University? Surely there must be hundreds of intelligent, insightful young people that would gladly publish their work regarding the complex local/national/global issues that society faces. Why this?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 24, 2012 | 5:09 p.m.

Rich, let's see if you're still saying that on January 22nd, 2012.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 24, 2012 | 5:10 p.m.

Ooops, 2013.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 24, 2012 | 5:23 p.m.

Louis, trouble is, there are many young and inexperienced people who do not have the analytical skills that come with dealing with real world issues. During my career I had to work with hundreds of companies and banks in over 40 countries. Additionally, while I was in the military and attached to ARFCOS, I visited virtually every embassy and consulate on the planet. I speak a sufficient amount of foreign languages to order dinner or get my face slapped because I mispronounced a word in many locales.

What I did accomplish for my employers was to build a relationship one customer at a time by letting them know that I would deal with them honestly, and we would work hard together to resolve issues before and after a sale was completed. Common sense solutions.

Liberalism does not deal in common sense solutions. Liberalism deals in an "I feel that" realm of nonsensical
illusion that simply is unworkable at best, and dangerous at worst. Business budgets on a worst case scenario, and any extra income is either invested in operations, inventory, personnel, or saved. You do not budget your expenses on pie in the sky forecasts of revenue. You do not presume that you can endlessly increase debt to cover
operating expenses. Liberals must learn and enforce fiscal discipline or they will become either irrelevant or extinct as a political force. Then again, if liberals did that, they would no longer be liberals.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 24, 2012 | 5:26 p.m.

Mark Foecking said: "What possible difference does it make if Limbaugh is in the Hall of Famous Missourians or not? He's an entertainer, and as such, has a large following. He also has a lot of the same personal problems that entertainers do. But what he does is legal, and people are free to ignore it. He's famous (no one can tell me he's not) and he's a Missourian. To deny him membership because of his politics is wrong."

It's not his politics; it's the manner in which he presents them and the reason why he's popular. People here love to treat Bill Maher as the liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh (not really, but you know what I mean); well, I wouldn't want Bill Maher's bust on the Hall of Famous Missourians either (if he was a Missourian).

You mentioned Sheryl Crow, how about Eminem? He was born in St. Joe, after all. He is one of the best-selling rappers of all time worldwide and has won multiple national and international awards. Should we add his countenance to the Hall as well?

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 24, 2012 | 5:35 p.m.

Don Milsop said: "Liberalism deals in an "I feel that" realm of nonsensical illusion that simply is unworkable at best, and dangerous at worst"

You mean like how conservatives "feel that" people are self-made, despite the fact that such a claim is complete nonsense? Or how they "feel that" free markets magically work themselves out without government regulation, despite the fact that they wouldn't dare make the same point regarding human beings and criminal laws?

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum May 24, 2012 | 5:52 p.m.

Jonathan,

It should also be included:

1)largely unregulated capitalism has been tried and proven to fail when it is without some regulatory element.

2)'trickle down economics' has not proven effective. Capital gains taxes during the 'Great Recession' were the lowest at any time since just prior to the 'Great Depression' -- they remain at those levels, slowing economic growth.

3)Even self-professed (educated economists) capitalists agree with this FACT.

And, finally...

4)Democrats are not anti-capitalist.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 24, 2012 | 9:26 p.m.

Jonathan, take the time to read Booker T. Washington's Up From Slavery. You might learn that some truths are eternal. Some falsehoods, like liberalism are also eternal. Mr. Washington pointed out both in his book far greater than I ever could. And I would think a former slave is able to put it into the proper perspective.

(Report Comment)
James Lane May 24, 2012 | 9:27 p.m.

This was a great thread,until the leftwing wackos started showing their butts!!!

SEMPER FI COLONEL,

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 24, 2012 | 11:24 p.m.

Louis, you forgot to add that FDR's new deal was an absolute failure. FDR came into office with unemployment at 23.6%. It slowly lowered to 14.3% by the end of 1937, and then rocketed back up to 17% to 19% in 1937 and 1938.

This was in spite of the national debt increasing under FDR during this same time frame by 107.5%. During the years of
the Hoover administration, the national debt only increased 10.7%. The only thing that pulled us out of the depression was WW2. And the only reason that happened is because FDR allowed industry to do what it needed to do to meet production. The industrials took charge of industry, and the govt kept their nose out of it. Oh, that's why we won the war. Not because of FDR's socialist buddies.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking May 25, 2012 | 6:54 a.m.

Don Milsop wrote:

"The only thing that pulled us out of the depression was WW2"

Hm. What's going to pull us out of this one? Remember we had a huge domestic manufacturing base and were self sufficient in energy and strategic minerals, which is not true today.

Regulation of industry (or not) had little to do with the recovery. Demand for military equiupment was up, and industry rose to meet the demand (it also helps that the demand boosted our exports). They're not rising today because there's no demand. When consumer confidence picks up (and there's some indication that it is) they'll expand (although maybe not in the US). Our industry is still relatively unregulated compared to a country like Germany, whose economy is doing better than ours.

Jonathan wrote:

"You mentioned Sheryl Crow, how about Eminem?"

I'm OK with that too. I think Sheryl has had a lot broader success just due to the type of music she plays, but I agree that Eminem has made a great contribution to his genre (what little I know of it).

I guess what I'm saying regarding Limbaugh is I'm not really concerned that he's polarizing, or a boor, or is a lousy role model in his personal life. He has accomplished a lot in his field, however people feel about that, and I'd think this deserves recognition.

DK

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett May 25, 2012 | 9:21 a.m.

@"If Limbaugh belongs in, then so does Bloody Bill Anderson and Frank and Jesse James..."

Exactly.

:)

The only difference between Rush and Jesse James is that James shot buttets and Rush "shoots off his mouth."

Both notorious, instead of famous.

Had there been a Notorious Hall of Fame, both names would belong there, no doubt.

:)

(Report Comment)
matt arnall May 25, 2012 | 11:24 a.m.

Don-To say that Republicans are fiscal conservatives is absolute nonsense. An outright lie. A total nontruth. Beyond fiction. They just want to spend money in different areas. Do as I say, not as I do would appear to be a good catch phrase for the GOP. You need to look at the track record, and then correct your statement.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 25, 2012 | 1:49 p.m.

"An outright lie. A total nontruth. Beyond fiction." Sir, you have described your own posts to a T!

To ignore the first Federal, balanced budget since 1968 and the obvious intent of Republicans to do it again, after our last J.E. Carter like (worse?) 3 years of Democrat controlled government requires complete ignorance of history or, the taint of a socialistic mindset. Both, may be applicable here.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 25, 2012 | 2:35 p.m.

Rush Limbaugh despises liberalism. He truthfully so states each and every day of the 5 days per week he broadcasts. Unlike his liberal detractors, whom take great pride in their exotic and unique, "name calling" (in lieu of fact), he explains every accusation or condemnation, in easy to understand or prove language.

Today, in 15 minutes, he delved into the reasoning of the CEO who told Charlie Rose on the air, that he supported BO in 2008, but no longer does. While, Rush wondered, We all knew what BO was is. WHy should not, this intelligent, corporate head? The thought that the CEO was looking at a Democrat for President and not a liberal, was discussed.

Not bombastic, nor any of the other words our liberals use to bash him. Female, British author, Taylor Caldwell, who treated socialism, in her books, much as Rush does now, once wrote, back in 60's, "our children know something is wrong, but, they don't know who to blame." With her help and with Rush, Fox News, etc. they now can tell. The liberals, simply, cannot stand it!

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 25, 2012 | 3:05 p.m.

I haven't been a reader of this opinion board long but from what I've just read, it seems Frank is unable to get through a paragraph without screaming "liberal" or "socialist" while declaring Republicans as our holy savior.

Not that it's an entirely bad thing. Every board needs some amusement or else no one would continue reading. Thank you Frank, for being "that guy".

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 25, 2012 | 3:12 p.m.

R. Cookley - "Frank is unable to get through a paragraph without screaming "liberal" or "socialist" while declaring Republicans as our holy savior."

This is what is meant by,"liberal detractors, whom take great pride in their exotic and unique, "name calling" (in lieu of fact)". No, Rich, You da guy!

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 25, 2012 | 3:26 p.m.

Mark F. - ""The only thing that pulled us out of the depression was WW2"

Hm. What's going to pull us out of this one?

Well, RUSH said today that the boom of our exploration and recovery of OIL will do it. He also, mentioned that this boom is occurring in spite of Obama and Democrat effort to throttle it in every way possible for them.

These, of course, are words from Rush, you and liberals, do not want to hear.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 25, 2012 | 3:30 p.m.

---ACTION---
**Fade to black and credits roll**

Frank's the hero the U.S. deserves, but not the one it needs right now. We will continue to ridicule him. Because he can take it.

Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector.

A dark knight.

---AND CUT--

I'll grab the popcorn. Do you need a refill on Kool-aid, Frank?

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 25, 2012 | 3:42 p.m.

More, "liberal detractors, whom take great pride in their exotic and unique, "name calling" (in lieu of fact)"!

Is this all you got?

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 25, 2012 | 3:48 p.m.

More, ""liberal detractors, whom take great pride in their exotic and unique, "name calling" (in lieu of fact)".

Is this all you got?

(Report Comment)
matt arnall May 25, 2012 | 3:53 p.m.

Frank, I can't find words to respond to you. You put your foot into your mouth with the greatest of ease. Tell me how your GOP is actually fiscally conservative. Actually, don't, as all I will get is links to FOX news articles that don't carry a lick of truth to them either. I am not even arguing that your hated liberals are doing any better at common sense when it comes to budgeting. The whole government cannot or will not balance a budget. But you will stand on the right and shout at the top of your lungs how great you are and how bad the left is, no matter what the conversation is. Hopeless indeed..........and now you will respond "Matt Arnall is the hopeless one with his liberal views. Etc, etc." Pointless pointless pointless. I wish you would stop.

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum May 25, 2012 | 4:05 p.m.

Hilariously, Obama has increased federal spending LESS than any other present since Eisenhower. The previous record holder on that was Clinton. Public sector job growth has decreased the most under Obama, especially as compared to Bush and Reagan. These are FACTS. Republicans do not deal with them.

Don't believe me? Start by reading the article on MarketWatch (don't worry conservatives -- it's run by Rupert Murdoch!) entitled "Obama Spending Binge Never Happened". Please try to let the FACTUAL information you find there SINK INTO your thick, thick skulls...

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum May 25, 2012 | 4:15 p.m.

We're living in a bizarro world, where the filibuster renders victories as losses and so-called 'liberals' are vastly more fiscally conservative than conservatives. In fact what do conservatives even want to conserve?

Not life or money -- a trillion here and there to 'spread democracy' (that we don't even enjoy at home) is no big deal, the deaths thousands of civilians are acceptable to them, they rack up federal spending, and hire more federal workers.

Not the environment -- they want to end regulation and, inexplicably, hold a staunch believe that Earth's resources are infinite. If they don't believe that Earth has an infinite carrying capacity, then they're sadistic, because it means they don't think conditions for humans 10, or even 100, generations into the future is relevant in any way.

What's worse they stick with failed paradigms. Romney thinks consolidating wealth at the top will stimulate the economy. It does not. Romney wants to invade Iran. Insane. Under Romney, Massachusetts had the worst job growth in the nation. Not impressive. Romney's business experience entailed flipping company's at a profit with no regard for the American worker. Not admirable.

This is your conservative candidate. Do yourself a favor and vote for Obama.

(Report Comment)
Richard Saunders May 25, 2012 | 4:43 p.m.

Wow, after looking over this thread, I see my prediction was spot-on.

Too bad this effort is merely a waste of time, serving as a distraction for all the other crimes committed by those who wield power.

Good Jorb, Everyone! I'm so glad you folks pay attention to what's really important in life. Legislators of all stripes are undermining society by destroying the economy, yet this freaking circus is all anyone cares to discuss.

I hope none of you have children, because you're doing them a grave disservice. Ben Franklin's advice to be "ever vigilant" has turned into "never vigilant" it seems, as apathy is far easier.

Here's a question. When paper currencies eventually collapse, leaving all but the 1% destitute, will any of this idiocy matter IN THE LEAST?

We can't even get AG Koster to open his mouth on the absence of clear property titles in Missouri over the last decade (thanks to the criminal cartel d.b.a. MERS) (or get a story in the paper about this crime), but whoa boy, can we ever create a controversy over NOTHING.

There comes a time in life to out away childish things.

(Report Comment)
Richard Saunders May 25, 2012 | 4:43 p.m.

er... that would be "put away"

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 25, 2012 | 5:14 p.m.

Matt A. - Do you read what you write? You wrote, "To say that Republicans are fiscal conservatives is absolute nonsense.absolute nonsense. An outright lie. A total nontruth. Beyond fiction." Republicans have not had control over Federal spending except since WW2 except the 12 years 1995-2007. Then, with the necessary signature of Clinton on Their legislation, they balanced the budget 4 years in a row, started significant Debt reduction and overhauled our welfare system before 9-11 changed everything. Is it possible you are not aware of this information? I doubt it.

Many of us really respect other opinions, but cannot sit idly by and read those so far from the factual truth. I am truly sorry. You stop and I guarantee, I will stop.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 25, 2012 | 5:59 p.m.

Louis S. - Do you dream these posts the night before, or do you make them up as you go along?

"These are FACTS. Republicans do not deal with them." Your in depth recital of our political history, somehow, did not contain a word about the culture of unemployed, unemployable teenagers (the worst situation) as well as the adults trapped in the Obama created, no growth, economy. 25% unemployed teens, not receiving the necessary training in responsibility, work ethic, etc., the teen needs to avoid becoming an unemployed adult. You and Pilosi will give us, "unemployment checks give us more bang for the buck"!

Neither did it touch the "phenomenon", of 5T$ of new debt in 3 yrs of Democrat government control, or the specter of more than 1T$ of newer debt every year into the foreseeable future. A spectre for we taxpayers, a godsend for the unionist Democrat millionaires whom improve their wealth with every borrowed or printed dollar.

Imo, anyone defending the Obama, Democrat regime at this point is insidious, as well as comfortable with the decline of the United States of America in world affairs, which our youth now face.

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum May 25, 2012 | 6:27 p.m.

Frank, you are completely unwilling to deal with reality. I hope you don't have a wife/life-partner/etc that has to deal with you.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 25, 2012 | 6:39 p.m.

Louis: What if Frank gets his ideas from....her?

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote May 25, 2012 | 8:16 p.m.

@Frank,

How many times do we have to rehash this?

The increased taxes of 1993 combined with the top of the business cycle (low unemployment-increased tax revenues) put our fiscal house in order. The deficit decreased every year Clinton was in office including the 3 that predated the 1997 Republican takeover of congress:

http://factcheck.org/Images/image/Federa...

Cutting taxes and one mild recession + one major recession/depression has thrown us out of whack again.

Also Don Milsop may want to study his history vis a vis federal spending increases under past presidents. Barack Obama has the lowest level of federal spending increases since the 1950s:
http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834...
Since inaugurations and fiscal years don't add up, I'll await the unconvincing whining that the 2009 budget signed by he who cannot be named that began Oct. 1 2008 should be assigned retroactively to Obama. (Note in the above chart the $140 billion authorized by Obama in fiscal year 2009 has been included in Obama's total).

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 25, 2012 | 8:38 p.m.

@ Christoper

There's no rooms for facts in here! We can't have anything contradict Rush (or Frank - though I gather he is merely a talking head for Rush) for they (and only they) speak the TRUTH!

LIBERAL MEDIA SOCIALIST MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD LIES!

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 25, 2012 | 8:49 p.m.

Louis S. - Great response! We are discussing politics and you turn to what? Family relations? Psychiatry? What? Like the other notable liberals around here you turn to emotion, sentiment, anything but reality in the effort to sell your flawed product, Socialism!

MW may recall my statements that my wife is from 1950's Scotland, UK; before Ms. Thatcher was heard of. The exodus from that nation with it's free national health care, housing and most everything a serf could expect in one lifetime, was phenomenal. If not for my good looks and pleasing personality, I might think our marriage was only a route for her escape. Our well over 50 years together have convinced me this was not the case.

You guys can give us your defense of socialism, without mentioning "socialism" until you, like the thread, sometimes turn blue, yours is the losing side. Our youth even with the public school teachings, still remember what freedom means.

When you, yours and the liberal Democrats create enough false chaos to make them forget, then the great history of the U.S.A. will end. This, not whether Matt Romney has been as successful as claimed, is the object of this election.

How far from reality is this?

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 25, 2012 | 9:19 p.m.

Hey Frank - Is your wife a member of "Rush Babes for America".

Sounds a bit risqué.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 25, 2012 | 9:47 p.m.

Christopher - "How many times do we have to rehash this?"

I suppose until you stop your fictitious crap about the issue! The Clinton "deficit reduction" plan, after he withheld needed highway gas taxes in order to show "cash on hand", raised gas tax nearly a nickle and soaked SS recipients who earned more than His prescribed amount over their legally entitled stipend (cost me thousands of retirement needed funds from sale of business property), may have shown some "deficit reduction" (all that Democrats have ever required to show that they "care").

Neither he, nor his "deficit reduction plan" and any Democratic controlled Congress would have ever considered balancing our Federal budget. Would you like to contest this statement?

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 25, 2012 | 10:03 p.m.

Rich Cookley - You,(I deleted, sir) are out of line. Do you have anything, beyond the 5th grade of a unionized school system to offer? If not, please leave the adult subjects to we adults and be happy watching "Dancing With the Stars" reruns.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 26, 2012 | 1:17 a.m.

@ Frank

If you find the group offensive, maybe you should tell your hero Rush about it. It's sponsored right on his homepage. From their "About Me" section:

"The National Organization for Rush Babes) is a Facebook Page dedicated to the millions of conservative women who know what they believe in: family, American Values, and not being told by Faux Feminist Groups how to think."

But hey, guess I have the unionized school system to blame for teaching me to read.

How did you know I was watching "Dancing with the Stars"? Boy, you have us liberals pegged.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking May 26, 2012 | 2:33 a.m.

frank christian wrote:

"Well, RUSH said today that the boom of our exploration and recovery of OIL will do it."

It's a minor uptick in an path of generally declining production since our national peak in 1970. Here's what it looks like in perspective:

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/20...

Democrats, and Obama, want cheap gasoline to squander also. Everyone does. Shiela Soccermom needs cheap gas to move her hyperscheduled kids over 20 square miles every day, and God help us if Bubba Micropenis's monster truck (that's never seen more cargo than a cooler and lawn chairs) costs too much for him to go cruising Saturday night. Addicts don't vote for you if you increase the cost of their junk.

Geology and physics is increasing the cost of our fuel, not government. Chevron is abandoning a shale oil lease that it's had since 2007 because it's not profitable:

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2...

Rush simply doesn't know what he's talking about when he discusses energy. Few people do.

DK

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking May 26, 2012 | 2:53 a.m.

frank christian wrote:

"Neither he, nor his "deficit reduction plan" and any Democratic controlled Congress would have ever considered balancing our Federal budget"

No Congress has. The budget surpluses in the latter days of the tech boom just fell into their laps, and under conditions of significantly higher income and cap gains taxes than we have today. If lower taxes stimulate the economy so much, then why does our present economy continue to sputter?

The idea that cutting taxes pays for itself is dangerous fiction. $15 trllion in debt since Reagan is proof enough of that concept. The frightening thing is roughly half the Congress continues to believe the fiction.

As long as our national credit card is still good, it doesn't matter. When it's not, everything will change. Both parties have done this, and neither party offers a viable solution.

DK

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 26, 2012 | 4:56 a.m.

Matt, could you please point out to me where I said today's Republicans were fiscal conservatives?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 26, 2012 | 5:11 a.m.

Christopher, at least use an official government website when trying to post data that supports your position.

Mark writes: The idea that cutting taxes pays for itself is dangerous fiction.

Reagan cut taxes drastically. Revenue went from $517.1 billion at the end of 1980 to $909.2 billion by the end of 1988. Unfortuntely, the Dems busted the budgets Reagan proposed and increased spending from $591.1 billion to $1.064 trillion. Don't blame tax decreased that increased revenue for spending increases. To do so is a bald faced lie and rank hypocrisy.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/His...

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking May 26, 2012 | 6:25 a.m.

Don Milsop wrote:

"To do so is a bald faced lie and rank hypocrisy."

Then argue with this:

http://rricketts.ba.ttu.edu/Tax%20Rates%...

DK

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon May 26, 2012 | 8:29 a.m.

Mr. Ellis wrote: "[w]hy not admit Thomas Catron...?"

Indeed; Mr. Catron, former Confederate who became a Republican politician when he moved to New Mexico following the Civil War, was instrumental in leading the territory into statehood under the Taft Administration. Amassing his fortune through fraudulent land leading defended with outlaw gunmen, he ultimately began the wreck of the GOP in New Mexico when he used his influence to get his good buddy, Albert Fall, into the U.S. Senate with him in 1912. Fall later became U.S. Secretary of the Interior under the Harding Administration and went to prison over the Teapot Dome Scandal. Even Catron became too corrupt for the NM GOP, who ultimately asked Catron to get out of politics. He obliged in 1916, dying in 1921.

He'd fit right in now. Alas.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 26, 2012 | 8:53 a.m.

Mark, your ability to revise and/or ignore pertinent facts that do not fit with your perceived problems and solutions are becoming legend. I recall, when I asked that you recognize the balanced Budgets of the 90's as an admirable feat, you stated the debt reduction (well over 500B$) was too insignificant to consider. Now, here you are, telling us, "The budget surpluses in the latter days of the tech boom just fell into their laps," tho R's passed Taxpayer
relief Act and Balanced Budget Act specifically for that purpose. You seem to like Answers.com. This is in their answers about the "boom":

"The hallmarks of the 1990s boom were the creation of almost 24 million jobs, or an average of 200,000 jobs a month; a national unemployment rate that dropped to around 4 percent for an extended period; productivity gains month over month; gross domestic product (GDP) growth month over month; unprecedented investment in the stock market (Wall Street added $10 trillion in wealth over the decade); a bull market fueled by $100 billion in initial public offerings (IPOs), many of them technology stocks; low interest rates; a low inflation rate averaging 2.6 percent per year; the elimination of the federal budget deficit; and the addition of dollars to the paychecks of many American workers. The last time the economy had seen similar indicators was during the 1960s. But in January 2000 the boom surpassed all others to become the longest sustained expansion in U.S. history."

You also produce another "modified" graph that only shows what a responsible Congress, willing to control the spending can do. The only period of surplus was during the tenure of the 1994 Republican controlled Congress!

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 26, 2012 | 9:06 a.m.

"Democrats, and Obama, want cheap gasoline to squander also."

What an irresponsible statement! Obama's Sec. of Energy doesn't own a car and has proclaimed: "somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." (He no longer holds that view in this election year.)

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon May 26, 2012 | 9:39 a.m.

Mr. Christian copied: "But in January 2000 the boom surpassed all others to become the longest sustained expansion in U.S. history."

Yes, then G.W. Bush became President in 2001, and the rest is current history, as it were. As I recall, the Republicans tried to blame his recession on the same president who presided over this economic expansion, Bill Clinton. Which was followed by the most anemic recovery on record of its day. Then the 2007 recession started on his watch, or lack thereof, and here we are.

If modern Republicanism is a civil religion, then it's eaten up with a "no true Scotsman" fallacy that leaves them inarticulate yet bloviating against criticism. Massive long-term "temporary" tax cuts to the rentier class of 1%'ers, gigantic borrowing off the budgetary books to finance intractable overseas wars, and extensive war contracting fraud and deregulation of opaque financial markets transmitting U.S. mortgage fraud not just to U.S. but global financial markets (of which Facebook and J.P. Morgan are the latest sad, laughable exemplars) have delivered nothing to the vast majority of Americans except fear and anger. Most importantly, the failure of their politics are never their fault; they always insist that it's has to be the fault of the Emmanuel Goldsteins in this country: "blame 'them,' not us."

By the way, this is Mr. Limbaugh's permanent legacy as well. Certainly something to celebrate.

(Report Comment)
matt arnall May 26, 2012 | 10:21 a.m.

Don- So you agree that the GOP is not fiscally conservative? Is that what you are saying?

(Report Comment)
matt arnall May 26, 2012 | 10:30 a.m.

And yes, Frank, you show respect for everyones opinion. You have shown that to be true in all of your posts.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller May 26, 2012 | 10:45 a.m.

Mr Foote,
I am afraid I am going to have to correct your " The deficit decreased every year Clinton was in office including the 3 that predated the 1997 Republican takeover of congress"

I believe you might find that the 104th Congress, elected in November 1994 and seated in January 1995 saw the Republican Party controlling both the House and the Senate. By the way, that was the Congress that balanced the budget.

Mr Brandon:
If, as you claim, it was disengenuous for President Bush and the Republicans to blame the recession that was in progress on President Clinton, why is it not equally wrong for President Obama to spend his entire Presidency blaming President Bush?

By the way, President Bush never blamed his predecessor as he had far too much class. And, if you will look at the record rather than falling back on "as I recall" you will find that Under then President Bush, there were 52 straight months of growth. By the way, the average unemployment during the Bush Presidency was under 6 percent.

Too many of those who post complaints treat facts as though thery were hooded cobras.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 26, 2012 | 11:02 a.m.

Bob Brandon - You too show the ability, or willingness to ignore any fact that does not fit your "story". It's becoming epidemic!

You ignore All the information enclosed in my post, then pounce upon the last sentence provided by Answers as though with it you can impart some startling new revelations to we of the "huddled masses". Another miserable, liberal, failure.

Repetition becomes tiring, but seems necessary to answer those of your ilk, whom apparently for the self satisfaction, continue to repeat the same falsities over and over.

"Then the 2007 recession started on his watch, or lack thereof, and here we are." Clinton, Frank, Dodd tampering with the J. E. Carter CRA in 1993, created the mess that came to a head in 2007. W. Bush as well as J. McCain made at least four legislative attempts to stop the insanity of their regulation, all stopped by minority Democrats in the Senate. The head of CATO Institute had told the D' Congress that the changes "would be very costly to the economy and the banking system in general. Niskanen believed that the primary long term effect would be an artificial contraction of the banking system." He recommended that the Regs. be repealed.

"to finance intractable overseas wars,"? At least 6 nations that sponsored or allowed terrorists safe haven, no longer do so. Count the number of nations seeing Iraqis vote for the first time took courage to overthrow their controlling despots. Egypt is now holding their first presidential election in 7000 years. The known attribute of Democratically elected governments is that they are less likely to attack other governments and people. This plus the increased safety of our people, make the "Bush Wars" quite affordable.

"Most importantly, the failure of their politics are never their fault;" A really silly statement, when the cause of any American problem is now explained by liberals, with two words: George Bush.

Show us how to celebrate the Democrat legacy.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 26, 2012 | 12:59 p.m.

Colonel says:

"If, as you claim, it was disengenuous for President Bush and the Republicans to blame the recession that was in progress on President Clinton, why is it not equally wrong for President Obama to spend his entire Presidency blaming President Bush?"

And then Frank continues blaming the recession on Clinton. So, by that logic, it is perfectly acceptable to blame the ongoing crisis on Bush. I'm completely fine with blaming Obama for the ongoing mess if it also agreed that Bush caused the mess in the first place. But Frank will have you believe that every bad thing that has ever happened was because of Democrats and the Republicans are the saviors making everything better.

You can cook the books any way you want. I think it's reasonable to assume a President's policies really don't take effect until 6 months after their presidency begins. By that logic, if I look at July 2001-July 2009 (Bush's term), we lost 1,758,000 jobs (Despite his 52-month growth...which is very misleading but that's an entire topic in itself). From July 2009 until April 2012, we have gained 2,825,000 jobs. (Numbers from BLS - Total Nonfarm Employment - Seasonally Adjusted).

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 26, 2012 | 1:23 p.m.

(1) In discussions about who-did-what economically, let's not forget the tech and housing industries of the 1990's. They were huge economic drivers, and both proved to be huge bubbles that burst.

(2) It is ludicrous for ANY President (or their supporters) to blame a predecessor, and y'all know it. If you (or any politician) take a job eyes-wide-open, you are accepting the responsibilities for whatever comes next. It does not matter what came before; after all, you are the one who looked at the job, decided you wanted it, and then took it. Indeed, given all the briefings and information a possible President has (more than YOU'LL get in a job interview), I can see NO excuse whatsoever for claiming "I didn't know it was such a disaster".

You are judged by the job you do. You either fix bad things or you don't, you either lead or you don't, you either accept responsibility or you don't.

In my business experience, I did NOT hire anyone who showed even a teeny hint they blamed others....for anything. Many of my interview questions were directed towards finding this information. If there was any doubt, you were off the hiring list.

Blaming a predecessor is a statement about you, not the predecessor. There are few administrations I can recall that have spent so much time blaming others for failure; one is the Nixon administration.

(3) This article is about Rush Limbaugh. What's interesting when reading these posts is that so many sound just like him. I see only two differences: (1) you know him, but he doesn't know you, and (2) he has a much bigger audience. As for nastiness, there's little difference.

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum May 26, 2012 | 1:25 p.m.

"President Bush never blamed his predecessor as he had far too much class"

Why... Missourian? Get this guy off your front pages. It shames you.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 26, 2012 | 2:03 p.m.

MarketWatch author says Obama the most thrifty of Presidents since Eisenhower.

Not so fast. The "other" newspaper in town (but not this one, but I don't know why) has an article from the AP that begs to differ.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/U...

Agendas are ubiquitous. Everyone has one. Question is....are the agendas malignant, benign, known, or unknown?

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 26, 2012 | 2:28 p.m.

R. Cookley - "And then Frank continues blaming the recession on Clinton." This a generality of the sort, liberals such as yourself, Bob Brandon, and others feel smug laying on us in your vain attempts at defense of the crooks now controlling us.

I factually told exactly what these people did in regard to this recession!

"But Frank will have you believe that every bad thing that has ever happened was because of Democrats and the Republicans are the saviors making everything better.", is another falsehood. I may have by now recited most of the "bad things" Democrats have done. One, unable to handle the truth, might decide to blame "Frank", as you have done. I really am interested, do you even consider the events that I have related in regard to Clinton, Frank, Dodd, recession? Do you consider my accusations false? How did you arrive at the conclusion, "But Frank will have you believe that every bad thing that has ever happened was because of Democrats.."?

If Bush lost fewer jobs than Obama has gained, why do we still have 8.1 unemployment (only reduced because if the numbers of workers having given up their search for jobs)?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/april-une...

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 26, 2012 | 2:39 p.m.

We're worried about the bust of someone's head....while the risk of a renewed (and much more horrible) global recession starting in Europe and the US is much closer than most think, if they think of it at all.

If that happens, you ain't seen nothing yet.

I may have to revise my 3 year old projections that things would start to turn around by 2013-2014.

(PS: I see Britain is already making plans on how to prevent a mass immigration from the mainland; they'll prolly take the cash, tho.)

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 26, 2012 | 2:46 p.m.

"In Greece, more than two years into its financial crisis, nearly one-third of the country’s bank deposits have already left the country.

There has been no such exodus in Spain so far, where over the last year about 4.3 percent of bank deposits, or 41 billion euros, the equivalent of about $51 billion, has been transferred out of the country. But that amount is in addition to a decline of 140 billion euros in foreign-owned financial assets in the last year, like the sale by foreigners of Spanish government bonds."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/busine...

PS: Holy cripes! One-third of all bank deposits have left Greece! And 4.3% of Spain's! And Schumer wants to lock your money up if the US goes into the crapper....it stays, but you can go, tho. Don't come back.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller May 26, 2012 | 2:53 p.m.

Mr Schneebaum,

Please find me one, just one, example of President Bush blaming anything on Presdident Clinton once Bush took office. When you find that you cannot, perhaps it will encourage you to research before you post. Your proclivity to post in generalities without regard to facts or even the subject matter you dispute is positively amazing.

May we assume that you do not subscribe to the Missourian, read it at the library or from a neighbor's discards? It is obvious that you only read the column online, otherwise you would realize that neither I nor any other opinion columnist is to be found on the front page. We reside on the OPINION page.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith May 26, 2012 | 2:55 p.m.

Maybe poor old Rush would get a better reception if he were able to slam dunk a basketball, bat .340 in MLB for a season, score hat trick goals in NHL hockey, sack NFL quarterbacks, or ride the same horse to win the Triple Crown (I feel sorry for the weight the horse would have to carry).

As for female inductees, what a shame Kim Kardasian and Lady Gaga weren't born in Missouri!

Was Ken Lay born in Missouri? I know he grew up here and was an MU grad. Great choice!

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller May 26, 2012 | 3:43 p.m.

Ellis,
You left out "win a Nobel Peace Prize." I find it interesting, albeit not surprising, that not one of the liberal or progressive persuasion has come to the defense of Limbaugh's freedom of speech or freedom of expression rights. Or are those freedoms the sole properety of the left? Perhaps one of them would care to explain?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 26, 2012 | 3:55 p.m.

JKarl says, "...not one of the liberal or progressive persuasion has come to the defense of Limbaugh's freedom of speech or freedom of expression rights."
________________

True.

But we've had a post wondering why you are allowed to write/post for the Missourian.

I won't gripe, tho, since I've wondered the same thing for him.

(PS: If your columns were dismissed from the Missourian, the paper would sure be homogeneously liberal. You have the honor of being the "token" conservative?) ;^)

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush May 26, 2012 | 6:12 p.m.

Did not Bush blame his
Predecessor for leaving
A budget surplus?

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 26, 2012 | 9:26 p.m.

Hi JKarl

Liberal here. Perhaps you missed my first comment on this op-ed, but to summarize, I said while I have absolutely no respect for Rush, I have no problem with him begin accepted into the Hall of Famous Missourians. I even brought up freedom of speech by stating that the beauty of this country is that everyone is free to agree or disagree.

As for Bush blaming Clinton - I seem to remember him beating around the bush and attempting to pass blame for 9/11 to Clinton. There wasn't a whole lot else he could pass blame for as he inherited a MUCH better economy than he passed on to Obama.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 26, 2012 | 10:41 p.m.

Karl said: "Mr Schneebaum,

Please find me one, just one, example of President Bush blaming anything on Presdident Clinton once Bush took office. When you find that you cannot, perhaps it will encourage you to research before you post."

I'm not Louis, but here you go:

http://money.cnn.com/2002/08/07/news/eco...

"When I took office, our economy was beginning a recession."

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.g...

"Well, one thing is certain, that the growth rate is going to be positive, as opposed to the negative growth rate we inherited."

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.g...

"Two-and-a-half years ago, we inherited an economy in recession."

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.g...

"Let me tell you something, the deficit was caused by a recession which we inherited and did something about."

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.g...

"To leave Iraq now would be to repeat the costly mistakes of the past that led to the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. The terrorists saw our response to the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings in the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. The terrorists concluded that we lacked the courage and character to defend ourselves, and so they attacked us."

Perhaps you should take your own advice and research before you post. (And I'm talking "research" as in, "google 'Bush blames Clinton'")

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith May 27, 2012 | 7:03 a.m.

J. Karl:

Yes, Karl, freedom of speech and expression are the sole province of the Left. Everyone knows us Fascists on the Right don't believe in such things. Isn't that taught at MU? We've heard rumors that it is.

My question, Limbaugh aside, is this: how can you be for ever larger and more intrusive government and at the same time champion individual rights? Oxymoron, or maybe just plain MORON? :)

For the record, I dislike Limbaugh. I also dislike war, but I don't go around badmouthing war veterans.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon May 27, 2012 | 8:05 a.m.

The good Colonel writes: "I find it interesting, albeit not surprising, that not one of the liberal or progressive persuasion has come to the defense of Limbaugh's freedom of speech or freedom of expression rights."

The good Colonel has conceded defeat in this discussion if he has to launch this red herring. As far as I can see, no-one is denying his right to speak. Many of us do object to his exercise of such rights as a basis for his inclusion into the Hall of Famous Missourians.

Therein lies the difference. Let's see if the Colonel will so foolishly take the bait and insist that to object to his inclusion is the same as objecting to his right to speak.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon May 27, 2012 | 8:07 a.m.

Mr.Hopfenblatt:

Well played, sir; well played.

(Report Comment)
matt arnall May 27, 2012 | 8:57 a.m.

So where did Miller go. He got his one, just one example. I guess the steam train stops going once all the hot air is gone. What a shame......

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin May 27, 2012 | 9:48 a.m.

Here's to the Colonel -- and all the great US Marines, including my wife's brother (a Lt. Col, USMC) and heroic armed services members who have preserved for us the greatest gift in history: the rights and the ability to use our words and our pens instead of bullets and guns to change our destiny, all while taking orders from We the People, through our elected representatives.

The US Marine Corps Hymn (Wonderful rendition)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJlNw0myB...

From the Halls of Montezuma
To the Shores of Tripoli;

We fight our country's battles
In the air, on land and sea;

First to fight for right and freedom
And to keep our honor clean;

We are proud to claim the title
of United States Marine.

Our flag's unfurled to every breeze
From dawn to setting sun;

We have fought in ev'ry clime and place
Where we could take a gun;

In the snow of far-off Northern lands
And in sunny tropic scenes;

You will find us always on the job--
The United States Marines.

Here's health to you and to our Corps
Which we are proud to serve
In many a strife we've fought for life
And never lost our nerve;

If the Army and the Navy
Ever look on Heaven's scenes;

They will find the streets are guarded
By United States Marines.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 27, 2012 | 11:49 a.m.

"Please find me one, just one, example of President Bush blaming anything on Presdident Clinton once Bush took office."

It would seem to me a necessity for Jona H. to post statements in which *Bush blamed Clinton* not ones simply relating to the state of the economy and what he was doing to correct, or the need for the Bush Wars.

J.H. was attempting lamely, to defend a Democrat, so the liberals chant "well played"! What a bunch!.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 27, 2012 | 12:01 p.m.

Another thought. Though Bush did not blame Clinton in any of Hopfhenblatt's quotes, having picked these as such, would it not follow that he and the other liberals, quite possibly do? Hmmmm

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 27, 2012 | 1:19 p.m.

So when Bush talks about the poor economy he inherited, it's not blaming Clinton but merely speaking of the economy.

When Obama does it, he is blaming Bush.

Well played, Frank. Logic of a 4 year old. Perhaps best to leave adult conversations to the adults.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon May 27, 2012 | 2:27 p.m.

"So where did Miller go."

Writing his next column, I suppose.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 27, 2012 | 2:28 p.m.

OK, 4 yr old, "At a fund-raising event for Democrats in Dallas, where Bush now lives, Obama said the former president’s “disastrous” policies had driven the U.S. economy into the ground and turned budget surpluses into deficits.

Obama defended his repeated references to Bush’s policies, saying they were necessary to remind Americans of the weak economy he inherited from Bush in January 2009." This is the first link I looked at. This is Obama, "doing it"! Only a nitwit, would not recognize the difference.

Is it a lame brain or liberal ideology that continually causes liberals to omit or ignore any words damaging to their usual falsities?

(Report Comment)
matt arnall May 27, 2012 | 2:55 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Rich C. May 27, 2012 | 3:56 p.m.

Frank -

Do you have exact quotes from that incident? The only direct quote I've been able to find from articles referencing that fundraising event show Obama merely stating the condition of the economy when he took office....Which according to you, is perfectly acceptable.

The quote I found in the articles:

" The policies that crashed the economy, that undercut the middle class, that mortgaged our future, do we really want to go back to that, or do we keep moving our country forward?”

According to you, those failed policies were because of Clinton, not Bush. So, that would mean Obama was blaming Clinton?

Obama has likely directly blamed Bush at some point and he may have at that fundraiser. I'm merely just asking for quotes to support it instead of what article thinks Obama is referring to.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon May 27, 2012 | 3:58 p.m.

Hmm, Mr. Christian:

So President Obama didn't inherit a trashed economy from President Bush?

What then did he inherit? 4% unemployment? 250,000 new jobs created every month? Massive deficit spending throughout the Bush Administration?

What did I miss, sir?

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 27, 2012 | 8:54 p.m.

R. Cookley - This is hard for you isn't it? Were you able to understand any of my May 26 11;02A post to B. Brandon about bank lending changes under CRA by Clinton in 1993? Here is the link for the full story on Obama Bush bashing.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/articl...

And, a few more:http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/03/17/4431541-obama-criticizes-bush-on-the-economy?lite

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/17...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/20...

This one could be called Real personal, http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/20...

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 27, 2012 | 9:28 p.m.

B. Brandon - "What did I miss, sir?"

You seem to have missed a lot, unless you are just another hypocritical liberal, ignoring detrimental fact. Bush unemployment rates from Answers -
2001 - 4.7%
2002 - 5.8
2003 - 6.0
2004 - 5.5
2005 - 5.1
2006 - 4.6
2007 - 4.6
2008 - 5.8

Not 4, 4.6% when the banking scandal hit in '07. No liberal seems to have guts to remember that Bush's domestic spending was for Education and prescription drugs that Democrats had been trying obtain since time began. Gas was $1.84 when W left.

Many would think that the economic problems of today would more warrant our conversation than the history of days gone by.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 27, 2012 | 10:35 p.m.

I did read your post on May 26th.

Speaking of "Hypocritical" - You seem to enjoy passing blame to others which seems a bit hypocritical since you also enjoy chastising Obama for doing the exact same thing.

But hey, that's typical of "Birthers" such as yourself. Reminds me of those tea-party rallies (if that's what you call 20-30 senior citizens protesting) where someone is holding a sign stating "Don't steal from Medicare to support socialized medicine".

Thanks for the links though. Some of them did actually show SENATOR Obama blaming Bush. I'm to assume Romney and Santorum have been running clean campaigns and not blaming the current President for any of the economic faults? Were candidates suppose to get up there and say what a fine job Bush has been doing for the past 8 years? No, candidates say what they want to change...What is wrong with the current state of the U.S. Even McCain was passing some blame to Bush when he was running for President.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon May 28, 2012 | 6:39 a.m.

Mr. Christian wrote: "You seem to have missed a lot..."

You seem to cherry-pick your data.

Unemployment was 6.1% in April 2008, and 7.5% in Dec. 2008, not 5.8%. Some 3.6 million people lost their jobs from Dec. 2007 to Dec. 2008. That was on Mr. Bush's watch.

Moreover, the poverty rate rose from 11.25% in 2000 to 13.2% in 2008.

It was one of the weakest economic recoveries ever. Not to mention the massive and unrecovered damage to pension savings after the economic debacle beginning in 2007. That was also on Mr. Bush's watch.

The prescription drug benefit/Medicare Part D failed to allow the federal government to negotiate for price reductions as the VA can. It's been another windfall for the prescription drug industry.

NCLB has turned our children from learners to test-takers, and has been co-opted by the GOP as yet another attack on public education.

If you want to give President Bush all the credit you think he's earned, he should get what he's earned both good and bad.

The odd thing is that, for all practical purposes, President Obama has largely followed the same economic policies as
Bush. The TBTF banks are still TBTF. Even so, the cost of the 2009 stimulus bill is a fraction of the costs of the wasted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started by President Bush.

None of these distinctions Mr. Limbaugh will ever point out, by the way.

The problem for Bush's defenders - and Mr. Limbaugh's as well - it that neither of them are real conservatives. They're not about conserving anything that ordinary people care about. They're not about conserving individual liberties from governmental intrusion. They're not about preserving local jobs so that ordinary folks can make a decent living. They're ultimately not about conserving and preserving local communities. They're really about monetizing everything as agents for Wall Street and moneyed interests determined to privatize their gains and socialize their losses.

And if the rest of us don't agree, well: Obama's a socialist, or a Muslim, or a Kenyan and he's got something to hide if he won't show his birth certificate (which he long ago did, even though he shouldn't have had to). This is your side, Mr. Christian, and it's a pretty one.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 28, 2012 | 7:48 a.m.

"Is it a lame brain or liberal ideology that continually causes liberals to omit or ignore any words damaging to their usual falsities?"

I see now, it is liberal ideology in control of a lame brain.

One, rather than accept laid out facts, brings up "birthers", (I don't care where any socialist was born, to allow one to control invites disaster.) and Tea Party which have changed the Congressional conversation from "spend" to "save"!

The other, again, ignoring previously discussed facts blames the Democrat caused housing scandal on Bush, because he was still there!

We suddenly drop the "criminal" expense of the "Bush Bills" and turn to the way they were written. Both were largely written and totally pushed thru the U. S. Congress, by Democrat Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Then spouts the totally discounted liberal crap about the "wasted wars". "started by Bush."

"The odd thing is that, for all practical purposes, President Obama has largely followed the same economic policies as
Bush." This comment is a total fabrication of the truth!

Having pointed out the rejection of facts in this discussion, by the two, we can presume that the return posts will be totally about me.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller May 28, 2012 | 7:54 p.m.

Mr Hopfenblatt and Mr Arnall,

I am still waiting for Mr Schneebaum's response. I don't recall asking either of you to respond--I just wanted to see if Mr Scnneebaum will EVER post anything he has researched or if he will continue attack the
messenger without any evidence that he has read the op/ed.

By the way, Mr Hopfenblatt--your examples were sadly lacking in evidence that Bush blamed Clinton. I was looking for examples of President Bush caterwauling about the "Failed Clinton Presidency" or a return to the "failed Clinton years" et cetera. That never happened under Bush but,the attacks on Bush have never stopped. I suppose when incompetence and arrogance is all, one has to offer, it is easier to lay the blame on your predecessor than to accept responsibility for your failures.

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum May 28, 2012 | 8:08 p.m.

Nice try Shiller. Why would Bush Jr. blame Clinton for handing him the country in the best fiscal shape it had ever been? Sorry to keep you waiting so long.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 28, 2012 | 8:48 p.m.

Whoa, shiller Schneebaum! An Impeached President and a Republican controlled Congress, handed W. Bush "the country in the best fiscal shape it had ever been?" Are you sure?

Research or embarrassing verbal screw-up? The latter, of course.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 28, 2012 | 10:27 p.m.

Frank, did Bush leave the country in better or worse shape than he inherited it?

If you claim better, what possible facts can you muster up to back your ridiculous claim?

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum May 28, 2012 | 11:21 p.m.

Frank is your typical conservative, still focused (and furious) about the fellatio received by another man. We're talking about the money, chum!

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon May 29, 2012 | 8:01 a.m.

The Colonel wrote: "By the way, Mr Hopfenblatt--your examples were sadly lacking in evidence that Bush blamed Clinton. I was looking for examples of President Bush caterwauling about the "Failed Clinton Presidency" or a return to the "failed Clinton years" et cetera."

This is just cherry-picking, by the way. One can deflect blame through intermediaries just as well as by oneself.

"I was looking for," in this case, really means "I'm moving the goal posts where I want to so I can deny anything I want.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 29, 2012 | 8:29 a.m.

Louis - And now sex rears it's ugly head, from nitwits with nothing else to add?

"We're talking about the money, chum!" Not sure what you refer to here, but I think, the Debt is what most have been talking about.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 29, 2012 | 9:21 a.m.

Frank - I'm pretty sure sex reared its head when you mentioned the bit about impeachment. It's not nice to call yourself names.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 29, 2012 | 10:03 a.m.

If I presented a list of those included in my first sentence, above, your name would be on it. Stop trying to defend the indefensible and get a life!

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 29, 2012 | 10:30 a.m.

Perhaps the Colonel would be so kind as to provide quotes of Obama directly blaming Bush as well? I'm curious about all those "failed Bush presidency" and "failed Bush years" references he says exist. (Not saying they don't, but you demanded evidence from Louis/"liberals," so it's only fair that you provide some for your claims too)

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 29, 2012 | 11:12 a.m.

J. H. You upset me. I posted this to compare with your lame presentation on the subject and you didn't see it? Here it is again. "Here is the link for the full story on Obama Bush bashing.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/articl......

And, a few more:http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/03/17/4431541-obama-criticizes-bush-on-the-economy?lite

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/17......

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story......

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2......

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/20......

This one could be called Real personal, http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/20...... "

The Col. may want to show you more, they are there.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 29, 2012 | 11:29 a.m.

McCain blaming Bush:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008...

Santorum blames Bush:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16...

Palin blaming Bush:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/world/...

Romney blames Obama for factory closing under Bush's presidency:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-18...

Everyone blames everyone else. It's politics. "Pass the buck" one would say.

But apparently it's only wrong when Obama does it.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 29, 2012 | 12:00 p.m.

J. H. - Sorry some of these stories have been changed. Try "obama criticizes bush for economy"

First read msnbc is one in which Bush looks "too relaxed" to Obama.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor May 29, 2012 | 3:14 p.m.

The award for the most out of touch post that I have ever read on here, which is saying something, goes to Jonathan asking for quotes of Obama blaming Bush. If you would like to pay me for my time, no rollbacks here like wal-mart..., I could come up with 10 a day. The natural charisma that Obama did posses and helped win over some moderates like my father has been spent with his failure to, "man up". My father was upset with Bush for the long occupations, not the initial kick in the pants, mind you. This caused him to try something different and vote for Obama (His lawyer wife was in his ear as well...) However, Obama's continued failures and lack of responsibility in owning up to anything exemplifying his "whiner" attitude is exactly why my father is mad that he ever voted for this empty, snake oil salesman president we are now suffering through. By the way, it looks like my father (moderate, leans con) and my stepmother who has been solidly dem for some time are both going to vote for Romney. I think the libs have surrounded themselves with so many yes men and have a compiant, "yes men" media, that they have lost touch with how peoples perceptions of Obama have changed dramtically over the last year. I think if Obama took ownership at some point near the end of his first year, he could have kept the charade going. People are sick and tired of failures who continually blame others and Obama will feel this come November!

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 29, 2012 | 3:56 p.m.

@ Mike

"Out of touch" you are.

Polling data from McCain/Obama from 4 years ago is almost identical to the current polling of Obama/Romney.

Just because mom and pops are voting differently doesn't mean everyone else will. Just as you know some former Dems that will be voting Republican this election, I know some former Repubs that will be voting Dem.

I'm not saying it's in the bag by any means. I just think it's a bit naive for you to speak for the country.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 29, 2012 | 4:50 p.m.

Off topic, but no hook to hang from:

From The Examiner Washington:

Attorney General Eric Holder, the IRS, and the liberal lawyers at the ACLU will brief several hundred pastors in the African American community on how to participate in the presidential election -- which the Congressional Black Caucus chair expects will help President Obama's campaign.

"We will have representatives from nine denominations who actually pastor somewhere in the neighborhood of about 10 million people, and we're going to first of all equip them with the information they need to know about what they can say and what they cannot say in the church that would violate their 501c3 status with the IRS," Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., told MSNBC today.

"In fact, we're going to have the IRS administrator there, we're going to have the Attorney General Eric Holder there, we're going to have the lawyers' organization from around the country, the ACLU -- all giving ministers guidance about what they can and cannot do," he noted.

Cleaver said they would not tell pastors which candidate to support. They will let them know who to regard as the bad guys, though (hint: not Democrats). "We're going to talk about some of the draconian laws that have cropped up around the country as a result of the 17 percent increase in African American votes," Cleaver said, describing voter ID laws as a form of Jim Crow-style "poll tax" on seniors and black voters.

The CBC chairman is confident that "President Obama is going to get 95 percent of the [African American] vote," and wants to keep that turnout high. "We want to let them know that there is a theological responsibility to participate in the political process, at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition," he said.
______________________________________

Goose/Gander and all that..............

(Report Comment)
mike mentor May 29, 2012 | 6:02 p.m.

@Rich
First off, the polling numbers for Obama/McCain will show you nothing as far as how people's opinions have changed of Obama after suffering through his presidency because those polls took place before Owebama was exposed as the snake oil salesman that he is. So, comparing those two numbers is worthless as far as evaluating how people feel about Owebama after having a taste of lie and spend. (the repubs in congress kept him from being the same tax and spend dem, so he just went with lie and spend instead...) In order to more accurately examine my point that Obama has spent his charisma by being a whiner pres you would need to look at Owebama's polling numbers from the first year of his presidency and compare those to current polling numbers. You will not find a pretty picture.

Secondly, I included a little familial anecdotal evidence just to share. I certainly did not imply at all that 2 people I know very well are proof that the country is sick and tired of a whining failure. The polling numbers on Owebama's favorable rating do though, in spite of the lamestream media selling out their integrity and doing their best as extensions of his press sec to spin everything his way.

P.S. My sister and I will be voting repub as we always do and my mom (step-mom above...) and brother will be voting dem as they always do, but I don't know a single Repub that is going to vote dem this November. Not a one...

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 29, 2012 | 7:00 p.m.

frank: I posted quotes, therefore I want quotes in return.

-First link: A bunch of nonsense.
-WSJ link: No relevant quotes (all it says is "Obama slammed the Bush administration." The quotes don't mention any specific criticism.)
-NPR link: Obama wasn't even president at that point. (Note the Colonel limiting Bush's comments to those he made during his presidency, not those during his campaign or even earlier.)
-RCP link: Couldn't watch the video. No comment.
-First USA Today link: Again, this is during his candidacy. I specifically linked only to comments Bush made DURING his presidency, per Karl's request. Return the favor.
-Second USA Today link: It's just a repeat of the first.

In summary: Try again? You have categorically failed at everything you set out to do, and the funny thing is you don't even realize it.

To Mike Mentor: It has nothing to do with being out of touch or not. It has to do with proving you're all doing the same amount of research you're demanding we do. The Colonel wanted quotes, and I gave him quotes. Now it's your all's turn to provide quotes of your own. Note his words, "Failed Clinton Presidency" and "failed Clinton years"? There was no reason to use that terminology unless he knows Obama said something similar about Bush. So, provide the proof. It's a simple request. (and by the way, don't pull a Frank and post utterly irrelevant links. I want proof positive of Obama trashing Bush)

Your response is nothing but lazy argumentation. "lol ur asking for proof when it's all right there lol."

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 29, 2012 | 8:16 p.m.

"I specifically linked only to comments Bush made DURING his presidency, per Karl's request." And J. H., they proved NOTHING! Have you been staying up again/ no that's not fair. You have produced nothing in your "quotes" in which Bush only mentions "inherited" twice. Then, only in reference to what He was doing about the problem.

I'm tired of trying to reason with those defending this socialistic criminal while he and the leadership of his party are in the process of destroying our economy, thus our country. I restricted comment to the "leadership" of D' party because I heard that Sen. Ron Wyden, Democrat, Ore., has joined Paul Ryan in a bill to save MEDICARE. Ron Wyden may be the most courageous Democrat alive today! If the Pelosi's and Reid's and their ilk can be removed from control of our government we have an excellent chance of becoming a strong and prosperous U.S. of A., again.
Would J. H. disagree?

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 29, 2012 | 8:32 p.m.

To be tired of trying to reason with people one has to actually have tried. You never did, instead launching your generic, copy-paste drivel full of anti-left catchphrases and nothing else.

I specifically told you why each one of the links you posted fails as proof of your claims (minus the one I couldn't watch). Once again, try again?

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum May 29, 2012 | 8:36 p.m.

"My sister and I will be voting repub as we always do"

Translation: We are brain-washed and refuse to think.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 29, 2012 | 9:15 p.m.

Jon H. This is it in a nut shell! Why not dispute my contention about the Democrat leadership you so profusely defend in other cases? No, your only resort is to hang on tightly to your initial lame "to do" about who blames who! A childish and worthless expenditure of time and resources by yourself and those choosing to read you. This is my last "try".

Louis - Will you and your sister be voting "repub", or what?

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 29, 2012 | 11:14 p.m.

Frank wants to save Medicare?

What a socialistic thing to do. Hell, I bet he was born in Kenya too.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 30, 2012 | 5:12 a.m.

Good job with the intellectually dishonest weaseling, Frank. The Colonel asked Louis to come up with "one, just one, example of President Bush blaming anything on Presdident Clinton once Bush took office," arguing further that Louis will not be able to. All I needed was five minutes of Google to prove him wrong, and lo and behold, you (and then he as well) started making excuses about how Bush didn't name-drop Clinton in those quotes therefore my links don't count. Then Karl went on to further make excuses via "hey, I asked Louis, not you," meanwhile you were all proud of your links until I explained clearly why they're irrelevant.

Doesn't matter how many excuses you keep making, the onus is on you to cough up some quotes. It should be really easy to do based on how appalled you all claim to be at Obama's endless cheap shots at Bush, right? So go ahead and do it. Until you do, anything else is just ducking and weaving, such as you're doing now.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 30, 2012 | 8:05 a.m.

JH -
Your 1st quote, no mention of Clinton, but,
"The current Bush administration's claim that it inherited a recession from Clinton became somewhat more credible last week, when the Commerce Department revised its estimates of GDP, the broadest measure of economic growth, in the first, second and third quarters of 2001, showing that it shrank in all three quarters."

Your 2nd, no mention of Clinton or anything else pertinent.

Your 3rd, no mention of Clinton, but, "Two-and-a-half years ago, we inherited an economy in recession. Then the attacks on our country, scandals in corporate America, and war affected people's confidence. And that hurt our economy. But we acted. We passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account. We got the economy going again because we worked with the United States Congress to pass historic tax relief, not once, but twice"

4th, No mention of Clinton, but, what He was doing: "Now, people said, well, maybe you shouldn't have done that, maybe you shouldn't have had tax relief, maybe you should have let the recession run its course. But my attitude about that is, is that a deep recession would have caused more people to lose work. And I'm more worried about families finding a job and putting food on the table than I am about economic theory and economic numbers. And so the recession was shallow."

If Clinton is mentioned in #5, somewhere not seen by others, consider yourself the winner. If not, you may disappear for a few weeks (as is your normal habit when verbally beaten around here), then re-appear to nit-pick again.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 30, 2012 | 8:52 a.m.

Frank's Post - No mention of anything intelligent or pertinent.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor May 30, 2012 | 10:46 a.m.

@Jh
C'mon now Jonathan. Owebama's whining and blaming are more regular than the Col's movements (with all due respect sir...). To ask for proof of that is like asking for proof that the sky is blue and rain is wet. To me it implies that you have either had no exposure to any media in the last 3 years, which I know not to be the case, or you are taking the tantrum route and exhausting any chance of a meaningful conversation. Politicians have always played the blame game, but Owebama's shameless in his unwillingness to accept any responsibility for the failure of his spending spree to do anything but enrich the already super rich connected Dem donors. This was done for the sole purpose of increasing his chances of reelection by loading his own coffers under the guise of helping others or being green or whatever other image the con man wants to put forth. He did take credit for killing Bin Laden. See how easy that was to admit that someone I don't like and think has been the worst president since Jimmy Carter did something right. It really does help communication along when people don't argue over things as self evident as Owebama's whining and blaming or make an argument over the meaning of "is".

(Report Comment)
mike mentor May 30, 2012 | 10:53 a.m.

Louis Schneebaum May 29, 2012 | 8:36 p.m.
"My sister and I will be voting repub as we always do"

Translation: We are brain-washed and refuse to think.
______________________________________________________

Uh, who would be the culprit of this brainwashing you talk about. The lamestream media certainly did not do anything but try to brainwash me to have the opposite views I hold. Hmm, maybe there are some brainwashed folks around...
I formed my views as a young adult after having leaned liberal as a student. This was before Fox News, so you can't blame them for this brainwashing. I guess I got brainwashed by the self evident truths of life that came to me as I educated myself of our civilization's history and matured from my youthful naivety to a man. As I matured I learned things like honoring those that came before me to bless me with an opportunity to live a self determined life in a Republic that evolved from other failed forms of government that the liberals want to return to because they lack the courage to embrace the risk that comes with self determination. I embrace this form of government and am actually getting goosebumbs right now with overwhelming gratitude that I was blessed to be born in to a nation who's most evolved form of government directly led to it maturing from infancy to the world leader in a seemingly impossible short amount of time!
Courage is not the only thing I find lacking in liberals. The liberals are also lacking in self awareness. According to Pew research center Mar 29th-April 1st survey only 62 percent of Dems could correctly identify their party's conservatism/liberalism and 90% of Republicans could. The survey also found that only 59% of Dems could correctly identify Nancy Pelosi as a Dem and only 54% of Dems could correctly identify Abraham Lincoln as a Repub. I don't know about these days when everybody gets a blue ribbon because it satisfies the immediate wants of the children, like giving them a piece of candy when they throw a tantrum, but when I went to school 59% and 54% were both F's. Now, are the liberals just ignorant to politics and history which would leave them without the knowledge base to make informed decisions about the way things should be or is it just an unwillingness to accept the reality that the wicked witch of the west is one of their own and one of our greatest leaders was "the enemy". The poll also showed that only 46% of Dems could correctly identify which party is generally more supportive of reducing the size of government. Mind you, this was not asking about whether or not the size of our federal government should be increased or decreased, just which party holds those views. The fact that less than half of liberals could correctly identify what their own party's views are could be considered evidence of pervasive ignorance or brainwashing. I'll let you make that call…

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 30, 2012 | 11:10 a.m.

TL;DR - Something about how smart Mike thinks he is and how dumb every liberal is.

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote May 30, 2012 | 11:20 a.m.

@MM

Based on this data:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-k625RsnD-8w/T7...
Which party would you say is more supportive of a smaller federal government? Federal spending grew more under every Republican president in the last 30 years (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II) vs. Clinton and Obama. If you include inflation, federal spending under Obama has actually decreased, using his predecessor's last budget as a baseline: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum May 30, 2012 | 11:37 a.m.

Facts will not work on these guys! Pointless!

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 30, 2012 | 12:35 p.m.

@mike mentor: Once again, the whole point of my demanding proof is for you guys to show some reciprocity. If the proof is all over the place as you say it is, then it would've taken you far less time to post several links than it did to type up those huge rants of yours.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 30, 2012 | 3:14 p.m.

Facts that will work for everyone are the complete ones.

Mr, Foote was forced to omit the other branch of government, our Congress, which actually controls spending, from astute comments about which prez is responsible for which catastrophe.

Reagan and Bush 1 were saddled with Democrat Congresses. Most of Bush 1's 42 vetos had to with grossly irresponsible spending plans of D's. B2 had R' congress six years and pushed 2 Democrat "dream bills" thru for Democrats, E.M. Kennedy in particular. Last two years he got N. Pelosi leading Congress and records were set in one single accounting period. More money came into treasury (Bush tax cuts) than in any previous period. N. Pelosi approved a record amount of spending during the same period.(Miami Herald)

No one has ever called for 1+T$ deficit spending, year after year into the future, except B. Obama, N. Pelosi and their Democrat Congress, while never even bothering with a Budget!

(Report Comment)
mike mentor May 30, 2012 | 3:37 p.m.

I would rather add to the discussion by sharing my opinions than playing games. I don't have time to argue over the meaning of "is". If a poster would ask you to prove that George W ever said something that made him seem bafoonish, I would call them out for being a wrench in the works as well. If you want to make a more controversial statement, maybe some proof is warranted if you want to bring others around to agree with you. Incidentally, I did just do a google search for "Obama Blames Bush" and it came back with 3,730,000 results. I'll let you pick out your favorites on your own time...

I think our time would be better spent talking about specific failures of his presidency and his taking responsibility for none of them.

Solyndra

“Obviously, we wish Solyndra hadn’t gone bankrupt. Part of the reason they did was because the Chinese were subsidizing their solar industry and flooding the market in ways that Solyndra couldn’t compete. But understand, this was not our program per se. Congress–Democrats and Republicans–put together a loan guarantee program.”

- March 22, 2012

Investigation found many improprieties in the way the white house fast tracked this taxpayer raping, but of course our leader fails to take the responsibility...

Afghanistan

“When I came into office there has been drift in the Afghanistan strategy, in part because we had spent a lot of time focusing on Iraq instead. Over the last three years we have refocused attention on getting Afghanistan right. Would my preference had been that we started some of that earlier? Absolutely. But that’s not the cards that were dealt. We’re now in a position where, given our starting point, we’re making progress.”

- March 14, 2012

I am failing because I am a failure and someone else should have solved this problem for me so I could take credit for it...

Iran

“When I took office, the efforts to apply pressure on Iran were in tatters. Iran had gone from zero centrifuges spinning to thousands, without facing broad pushback from the world. In the region, Iran was ascendant.”

- March 4, 2012

Again, I don't know how to deal with this problem as I am in way over my head. What do you expect from a community organizer. That damn guy before me should have solved this problem so I could take credit.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor May 30, 2012 | 3:41 p.m.

The Economy

“We’ve made sure to do everything we can to dig ourselves out of this incredible hole that I inherited.”

- February 23, 2012

This hole you speak of has grown faster under your three years than it did under 8 years under your whipping post, George W. Yet again, no solutions just blame.

The Deficit:

“We thought that it was entirely appropriate for our governments and our agencies to try to root out waste, large and small, in a systematic way. Obviously, this is even more important given the deficits that we’ve inherited and that have grown as a consequence of this recession.”

- November 9, 2011

Again, the deficits have grown much faster under Owebama and much of it because of increased domestic spending that did not achieve the results that he said they would. Again, Owebama deflects blame for his own failures and for his own spending spree by blaming someone other than himself.

If Owebama was the CEO of a private company he would have been fired by now as blaming someone else for failure after failure when you are the leader is not tolerated in the real world, yet I have more.

(cont.)

(Report Comment)
mike mentor May 30, 2012 | 3:43 p.m.

The Debt:

Unemployment:

“We inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression, a banking system on the verge of meltdown. We had lost 4 million jobs by the time I was sworn in and would then lose another 4 million in the few months right after I was sworn in before our economic policies had a chance to take root.”

- May 10, 2011

Well, this time he didn't specifically name names for who's fault it was as that would have made the Dem party mad at him for naming Barney Frank and Bill Clinton, two Dem darlings, but nevertheless unemployment went way up and Owebama didn't solve the problem nor take any responsibility. Two hallmarks of a failed leader.

The Election of Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.)

“The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they’re frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”

- January 20, 2010

This one is a gem. Blaming this election result on Bush rather than as a reaction to his own failed spending policies that clearly caused the tea party backlash.

The Financial Crisis

“We inherited a financial crisis unlike any that we’ve seen in our time. This crisis crippled private capital markets and forced us to take steps in our financial system — and with our auto companies — that we would not have otherwise even considered.”

- June 1, 2009

See above about slick Willie and Barney Frank. They wanted to appease their voters who were having a temper tantrum at the grocery store checkout line when they saw the people that have worked harder or smarter buying the candy they couldn't afford. So, rather doing the right thing and denying the candy from the tantrum throwers and explaining what it takes to EArN the candy, they just handed over the candy and passed the buck until there was no where else to pass it and we eventually paid in the billions for this liberal, entitlement program.

Well, I wasn't going to go this far, but once I got started I couldn't stop. I feel like I just got trolled. argh...

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 30, 2012 | 5:15 p.m.

So now, asking someone to substantiate their claims is playing games. Interesting the way logic works around these parts.

Interesting also how you don't have time to find quotes of Obama specifically criticizing Bush, and yet you just spent hours finding Obama quotes talking about a number of other issues and adding your own spin to them. You do realize that's exactly what I've been asking you guys to do, except with quotes of Obama trashing Bush, right?

Good job with the lazy argumentation again. Google "Bush blames Clinton" and you get 2,100,000 results. That doesn't prove anything, though, now does it?

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum May 30, 2012 | 7:07 p.m.

Bush got so high on the smoke Clinton didn't inhale that he requested a discharge from the Guard and went to Harvard!

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 30, 2012 | 7:44 p.m.

And made better grades than John Kerry!

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements