What is the deal with attacking Rush Limbaugh?

In the past couple of weeks or so I have noticed an up tick in attacks on comedian Rush Limbaugh, especially coming from the White House and Democratic associated groups. I just don’t get it.

Rush is the voice of the Republicans? When has he not been? Did Democrats wake up one day, click on their radio, and say “What the fuc*???? Who is this person?”

But then again I don’t care. Democrats need a different plan.

Maybe it’s pay back for the attacks on the group Move On during their ad controversy in 2007. Or maybe the storm caused by the misuse of comments by General Wesley Clark about John McCain. It could even be a counter to the Swift boating of John Kerry in 2004.

It gets a lot of press because the villagers are looking for ways to give more press coverage to the GOP plus they have thousands of hours to fill on their cable channels and talk radio shows and not enough white young women go missing to keep fill that time. Besides Shark Week is in July.

Rush lies. The guy cherry picks his call ins. He is a bigot. He called Obama and Hillary pretty much every name in the book without losing his job. Probably 90% of his listeners are sheep and will never be reasoned with and they agree with all he says. Rush loves the attention and press coverage because he loves to play the victim. There is nothing new about Rush.

Using the power of the White House and the Democrats to attack the windbag is really like shooting fish in a barrel. And it has the same effect like sending another “strongly worded letter” from the Congress that we often saw during the final years of W’s term instead of Congress growing a pair and exerting some legislative power than comes from being in the majority.

The fact remains that the public voted and the GOP has nothing to offer. Rush has nothing to offer but cries of victim hood.

We have some serious issues to take care of and right now Rush and the GOP are irrelevant. They are a waste of time.

Here is an agenda I would like to see:

1. Ignore Rush Limbaugh – turn off the radio or enforce the Fairness Doctrine and a return to owner responsibility to the local community to provide a wide range of voices. Both items are still in the FCC rules.

2. Smack the GOP upside the head – have the Dem leadership explain “we gave them a chance and now we WILL do it our way…” Every time a Dem gets on a Sunday or Cable talk show and asked why they haven’t been “bi-partisan” they have to say “we gave them a chance and they refused to go along. If they want to participate our door is open but we won’t ask them any more because we don’t have to…” They need to say this EVERY FRICKING TIME when a microphone is shoved in their face. That’s how you frame a discussion.

3. If one of those Sunday or cable shows keep giving all the air time to the GOP refuse to accept an invite to one program as an example. Then hold a press conference outside the studio of that program and point out how one sided the talk shows are considering the reality outside the DC beltway.

4. Replace Senator Harry Reid with someone who will act like a majority leader in the Senate of the party with the majority. Maybe Reid just has a lot of lube left over from 2008?

I know it is hard to adapt to a new power structure but we need the Dems to learn fast and get on the stick or they will lose the chance the 2008 elections gave them.

Rep Jim Jordan still clueless and still hates the Unemployed

I like the old saying attributed to Abraham Lincoln “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt”. Well it seems US Rep Jim Jordan (R-OH 4) seems not to be familiar with that quote because during a conversation with journalists in Findlay this past week, as he was about to start his second term in Congress, he removed all doubt on a number of issues.

In a question and answer format Jordan ran through the various issues facing the country:

Q: Are we not in different circumstances now? Making more credit available, more money available has not worked. The money has been sitting idle. Does not that argue more for government spending, putting people to work on public works projects who are not at work?

A: I would have to say just the opposite. All the government spending has not worked. When you think about the bailout fever that has grabbed Washington, whether it has been the Fed or it has been the Treasury itself (bailing out) Bear Stearns, AIG, Fannie, Freddie, Citigroup, auto bailout… we have tried this. We have been through a year now, spending.

A better approach, I think, is allowing the marketplace, those people who make the marketplace work, to have tax breaks. That will have a better chance of growing the economy versus additional spending. 

and this related answer:

Q: What is the threat to the work ethic?

A: Fifty-three weeks of unemployment insurance… When I was in the (legislature), one of the things we Republicans did for welfare reform was… putting on a time-limits component which said if you are an able-bodied adult after two years of welfare assistance, you are done.

As far as respecting the free market, when you look at all the bailout stuff, that is just anti-free market. 

Jim Jordan: Tax cuts make sense, but spending a concern published in The Findlay Courier 01/10/2008

Did he check his e-mail or read the papers? The free market led to the bail out when selfish profit mongers did stupid things because of a lack of oversight and millions of people got hurt. It would be like cake frosting when the so-called free market would burst into flames, that it would take out the people who caused the flame out in the first place, but they seem to be the ones who get away with it every time.

I wonder if Jordan has ever had no money or so little he had to decide between filling the tank with gas or dinner?

I find in these comments someone who is out of touch with people who are poor and the working poor. Those who have no money and those who make so little that they are one check away from falling into the social safety net.

I don’t know of or have ever known anyone who wanted to be unemployed. Even after losing a job the bills don’t stop. There might be a mortgage to pay, electricity to keep on.

Of course at the end of a long day at the Capitol, Jordan can slip into his warm bed and not have to be concerned about the unemployed, afterall the free market will save the day.

Rep Jim Jordan says “Nay” to the unemployed

On the same day Rep Jim Jordan (R – OH 4th) voted against the Wall Street bailout, he voted against H R 6867. What is H R 6867? The short title is known as Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008. The act extends unemployment benefits for people at least until March 2009.

Yes, Jordan who seemed vote against a bill he felt didn’t provide an American solution to the finance meltdown, didn’t seem to want to help people who are out of work and close to exhausting their unemployment benefits. He was one of 28 Republicans to say “Nay” – the only nays on the bill. It passed the House 368 to 28.

Well at least he is consistent and following in the esteemed steps of Michael Oxley who held the seat before him.

I guess it’s okay for the 6 to 10 percent unemployed across his district. They don’t vote, do they?

Rep Jim Jordan still has no answer to finance crisis but “No”

The US House of Representatives voted 263-171 to pass the Senate version of the so-called “Financial Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” which was meant to bail out Wall Street and get the credit markets moving again. Rep Jim Jordan (R-Urbana) once again voted against the bail out and once again for no apparent reason other than “free market” reasons.

Washington, DC — Today, Congressman Jim Jordan (R-Urbana) issued the following statement on the treasury bailout.

“I understand that there are serious concerns in our financial markets and that it was appropriate for government to attempt to help.

Unfortunately, Washington, as it all too often does, chose a big government “solution,” rather than an “American” solution. Instead of looking to address the concern in a free-market fashion, this tax-and-spend Congress chose to spend $700 billion dollars, the equivalent of one quarter of the federal budget, on a Wall Street bailout.

Washington and Wall Street caused the situation, which is already hurting American families. Now, those same American families are asked to provide the dollars to fix it.

This legislation took our debt limit to $11.3 trillion dollars, proving that this is the wrong approach.

I will continue to protect taxpayers and families from the excessive spending habits of a Congress that is in need of fiscal responsibility.” 

Rep. Jordan Statement on H.R. 1424

No suggestions of what he would do differently, only he didn’t like a big government solution.

In his official statement on why he voted against the first version of the bill he does offer one suggestion:

My support is with an alternative plan that would utilize private capital to solve the problem far better than government bureaucrats. By removing the barriers to risk-taking and investment, and providing a government-backed insurance program as a safety net, we would be laying the groundwork to avoid future problems.

Rep. Jordan Addresses Bailout

The problem with a private capital solution was the time factor and regulations. People who watch the credit markets said that the credit contraction going on on Wall Street would land on Main Street as early as Monday if nothing was done. That means some small businesses would be forced to close because they couldn’t meet their payroll. Some larger companies would come next and then you would see the free fall.

Also those with billions on the side lines would be wary of buying too much which would cause some banking regulations to kick in.

Jordan’s solution might work as a long term solution but the economy might have collapsed before it was set up. The bail out bill at least puts a cork in the free fall allowing for more time to fix the problem.

If Jordan seemed to understand that he might not have voted against the bill. It also seems he might not have read the bill since it includes an insurance program – to be funded with risk-based premiums paid by the industry as printed in Section 102 of the final bill.

Rep. Jim Jordan clueless on Bailout issue

Jim Jordan cracks me up.

“It was a little bit surprising that we were able to prevail,” Jim Jordan (R-Urbana) said after the vote. He represents Ohio’s 4th District and was in Washington for the vote. Jordan, a Republican voted against the plan, which he said would have provided a government solution to a problem that would be best served by the free market. “I think members by the vote tally said loud and clear they want a different solution,” he said. “They want to do it the way America has always done it: with a free market, free enterprise solution.”

Jordan votes against rescue plan

I guess he isn’t aware how Wall Street got hold of those toxic assets. The Free Market!

Yes back in the 1990’s when the GOP was in charge they got rid of those nasty rules and regulations dating from the 1930’s. It was like giving booze and car keys to a teen and asking them to be safe….. and Jordan thinks the free market will help?

I feel bad for average people who will be really hurt if we just let the market collaspe. No credit, no money for growth, no money for new city projects, no money for school buildings etc….. if something isn’t done to bail out the frat boys on Wall Street.

I feel bad that Jordan and the GOP put themselves ahead of the country.