posted
I guess I'm the one to start this conversation, well here is Shep Smith reporting the Robertson damnation of Haiti, I have to give Smith alot of credit for his calm demeanor despite the obvious less polite statements he may have spoken otherwise. Pat Robertson claims that the Haitian people made a deal with the devil to remove the French from thier lands, therefore this earthquake and all its death and mayhem is an act of God punishing the people who descended from they who made the pact with the devil all so long ago. True story.
Now we come to Rush Limbaugh ignoring the human tragedy and icreasing number of confirmed deaths, Rush makes the entire disaster on Obama. How he is ignoring America and its needs to aid Haiti only to raise his numbers "in the light and dark skinned communities" and saying "its playing directly into his hands" because humanitarian aid is always about politics and never about helping human lives. Yup, Obama is so evil that sending aid to dying people is still evil.
posted
Rush's comments are just an extreme result of what Limbaugh and other Republican talk show hosts have been doing for the past year - taking anything that happens and trying to reframe it in some way, no matter how ridiculous, that makes Obama look bad.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro: Point. I guess theoretically, Robertson could be "sticking up" for the Hispanic and Asian communities if he uses a classification scheme that includes medium.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never been a fan of Rush. I consider myself a conservative but I think Rush is full of himself. I think it is sad that he accuses Obama of thinking he is god when sometimes I think he believes himself to be the same.
I actually used to enjoy listening to Sean Hannity's show, but over the past two years he has become almost as bad as Rush.
The only one that I enjoy listening to now is Mark Levin (sp?). Yeah he yells more than Hannity and Rush, but you can tell he actually believes what he is saying, he isn't saying it just because it will get him ratings. He usually backs up his statements as well, providing sources on the subject he is speaking on. I find he preaches less than Rush and Hannity, maybe that is why I like him.
Rush and Hannity are doing what Al Franken and his liberal talk network did when Bush was President. The problem is no matter what side of the isle you are on, people don't want to hear that kind of radio. That is why Air America went bankrupt, and if Rush and Hannity are not careful they may end up with the same fate.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem is no matter what side of the isle you are on, people don't want to hear that kind of radio. That is why Air America went bankrupt, and if Rush and Hannity are not careful they may end up with the same fate.
Except that, apparently, quite a few people on one side of the aisle want to listen to that kind of radio. I know several, personally. Ergo, there are advertisers ready to pay the radio stations to reach that large body of listeners. Thus far, I haven't heard of any bankruptcies.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Urg. Rush gets paid to be ignorant. It's frustrating to people like me who are trying not to be ignorant and are broke most of the time.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Except that, apparently, quite a few people on one side of the aisle want to listen to that kind of radio. I know several, personally. Ergo, there are advertisers ready to pay the radio stations to reach that large body of listeners.
I think we discussed something similar before. Generally speaking, AM radio or talk radio tends to be appealing to right leaning people and the internet tends to be appealing to left leaning. Air America failed because the demographic that would listen to Air America typically doesn't listen to AM radio or talk radio. I think they would have done much better had they done it as internet radio or something similar to that
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree about this being the same thing as when the left piled on President Bush.
When the devastating Tsunami hit a few Christmas's ago there were no left pundits claiming that the only reason President Bush rushed aid to those in need were to garner political support.
In fact, while the left that I heard remarked how great a job our troops were doing in improving our image in Pakistan by bringing in aid, several on the right argued that this was the only reason we needed to be sending aid--to help the War on Terror.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like Obama, but even I think Limbaugh is an idiot.
But... doesn't everyone already know that? Raising the issue is like pointing out that Bill Cosby is black, or that Ellen Degeneris is gay. So?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem is no matter what side of the isle you are on, people don't want to hear that kind of radio. That is why Air America went bankrupt, and if Rush and Hannity are not careful they may end up with the same fate.
Except that, apparently, quite a few people on one side of the aisle want to listen to that kind of radio. I know several, personally. Ergo, there are advertisers ready to pay the radio stations to reach that large body of listeners. Thus far, I haven't heard of any bankruptcies.
You would be correct in that there are numerous people that listen to their shows. I would be interested though in seeing what their numbers were three years ago compared to what they are now. Does anyone know a good site that lists this information?
I also have not heard of any bankruptcies, I was explaining that if they continue to repeat the same rhetoric every single day over and over people may lose interest. I think part of the reason conservative radio is still so strong is that it has been around a lot longer.
They have the right to say what they want, and I oppose any legislation like the Fairness Doctrine, but I wish they wouldn't go as far as they do. They have become conservative shock jocks. Most of the time they are hurting the conservative movement rather than helping it.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those of you who have already read Hidden Empire, doesnt the Limbaugh accusation against the president making the political best out of any and all situations sound a bit familiar? I couldnt help but compare his monologue against scenes from the book. Seriously who knew OSC could predict the future?
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most of the time they are hurting the conservative movement rather than helping it.
Well, this is a strange way of putting things. If you mean hurting the movement in the sense that they're impeding the movement from doing right things, I agree. If you mean they're impeding the effectiveness of conservatives and Republicans...well, that's just wrong. For decades now they've been incredibly effective at energizing their base.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Didn't the Left bash Bush for slow response and the amount of aid after the tsunami?
I didn't see a lot of that, and I did see a lot of press about how we were sending aid, and all we did over there.
He used the Navy, for heaven's sake, and got them there fairly quick.
I DID see some things about how the aid was getting there, and how effective it had been, but they didn't seem like attacks on Bush. God knows I thought he was a horrible President, so I think I would have noticed.
There ARE lessons to be learned from other disasters, but none of the lessons I think worthwhile have anything to do with politics after the fact.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you mean hurting the movement in the sense that they're impeding the movement from doing right things, I agree. If you mean they're impeding the effectiveness of conservatives and Republicans...well, that's just wrong. For decades now they've been incredibly effective at energizing their base.
I'd think that a political movement that is effective at doing wrong things is actually ineffective.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And his foot is so far down his throat he can speak clearly. Colbert calls his "Papa Bear" yes? well daddy has been drinking and Obama seems to have profited of the spilling of a paint can in the garage.
So few pundits make Jon Stewarts job so simple as Rush Limbaugh.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Didn't the Left bash Bush for slow response and the amount of aid after the tsunami?
I also don't really remember this. Much like Haiti, I know the military sent one of the hospital ships, and an aircraft carrier (for the production of clean freshwater), and food and water, as well as helicopters to help deliver the aid to the affected areas.
You might be able to find the answer with a simple Google search, but I don't remember it being even a minor kerfuffle.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wasn't the initial amount of aid from the US government a bit low compared to other countries? I think there were some complaints, and it was quickly clarified that this number wasn't the final amount -- the government was stating they would send at least that much and probably a lot more.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet Bush got hammered over New Orleans, even though the Democrat leadership in Louisiana totally dropped the ball also. Does anyone remember the buses sitting unused? How can that be blamed on Bush?
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most of the time they are hurting the conservative movement rather than helping it.
Well, this is a strange way of putting things. If you mean hurting the movement in the sense that they're impeding the movement from doing right things, I agree. If you mean they're impeding the effectiveness of conservatives and Republicans...well, that's just wrong. For decades now they've been incredibly effective at energizing their base.
I would agree with you to an extent. In the past few decades I think Rush was good at energizing the base. (Hannity wasn't nationally syndicated yet) I would argue that in the last 4 years they have not energized the base very well. The losses in Congress for republicans in both 2004 and 2008, as well as the presidential election show me that incendiary language and put downs do not energize the republican base as much as you think.
Love him or hate him, in my opinion Newt Gingrich was the last person that was able to effectively energize the republican base without the use of put downs and tailored information. His Contract for America really did a good job at energizing the base, even though (arguably) it did not turn out the way people thought.
On a side note, I heard he is making stops in New Hamshire and Iowa soon. Who knows? We may see a President Obama/Newt Gingrich show down in a couple of years. That would be interesting to say the least.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The losses in Congress for republicans in both 2004 and 2008, as well as the presidential election show me that incendiary language and put downs do not energize the republican base as much as you think.
I think you have to consider the hypothesis that incendiary language and put downs do a fine job of energizing the base, while disgusting everyone else.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: And yet Bush got hammered over New Orleans, even though the Democrat leadership in Louisiana totally dropped the ball also. Does anyone remember the buses sitting unused? How can that be blamed on Bush?
It's not. The number of things that Bush was and should have been hammered for, however, are legion. That doesn't preclude further failures of local government.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Obama opponents are using every movement made by Obama--good or bad--and pointing out how wrong or evil it is.
But the same happened with Bush, to a greater extent.
If you're going to dish it out, be prepared to hear the same when Your Guy is in office. Personally, I'm sick of the whole thing. I'd like to see the debate elevated a little.
Rush is Rush. I don't agree with his take on this particular issue--as in there's anything at all wrong with Obama's handling of it--but within the context of the program that day, it wasn't as outrageous as people are claiming it to be. He encouraged people to donate to the Red Cross and private organizations to help the people of Haiti, and I'm guessing a lot of Rush fans did.
Also, wasn't Rush Limbaugh's "light skinned and dark skinned" comment made to illustrate a point about Harry Reid?
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robertson didn't have much to say ten years ago, and at this point, he genuinely seems to have lost his remaining marbles. If he had any sense, he'd step down.
Rush is what Rush is. No person to his left can ever be doing good for good reasons, no government program other than the military can ever be effective or worthwhile in his mind. Very little he could say should come as a surprise to anyone by this point. It was a sad day for the Republican party when he proved he could make Steele back down.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, I hate Bush, and think he was horrible for our country's reputation, but even I don't think everything he did was bad.
I also don't questions his motives. That's what scared me about the guy. He sincerely thought he was going what was best for us as a country. Doing what he could to keep us safe.
Regardless of the cost to future generations.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually you are wrong. When President Bush did things that were good, the large chunk of the ocean he set up as a park, his plans to send men to Mars, the eventual success of the Surge strategy, members of the press gave him credit.
I can hear those on the right yelling about the Surge. When it was announced the press was very critical. When it proved successful the press were all over how "the Left had been proved wrong" and how this was going to hurt Democrats in elections.
Democrats took a lot of hits for New Orleans. The busses that were not used because, well, no one could find the bus drivers who had already left town, and it would have been against standard procedure, etc... However, President Bush was the one who flew in and said how great a job his FEMA chief was doing, while that FEMA chief spent most of his time worrying about wardrobe.
And yes, there were complaints about the original size of the donations the US announced after the Tsunami hit. Those announcements were made swiftly and early, a gut reaction done without all the facts in place. They were later updated.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robertson is a strict Christian and the people of Haiti cut the heads off of chickens and baptize people in their blood as a blessing. I'm not judging animal sacrifice religions but do you blame a Christian for....New Orleans....another disaster...another bastion of sin. Maybe Las Vegas will be next.
Limbaugh really didn't say anything inaccurate. Obama was more responsive to Haiti than the Fort Hood Shooting. His quickest response was to call a police officer reporting to a suspected burglary stupid and his second slowest decision was responding to the commander in Afghanistan. The most deliberative decision he has made since entering office - the decision that held us all in suspense....choosing the breed of dog for his kids. There are many political considerations to account for...certainly couldn't be a German Shepard. Too arian, like his "typical white woman" grandmother.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Let's put things in perspective. The Fort Hood killings were undeniably terrible. The number of deaths from this quake so far outpaces the Fort Hood killings by thousands of times. And they're our neighbors. And of course what Limbaugh actually complained about, the thwarted Christmas day bombing, nobody died at all!
'Strict Christians' don't believe God punishes descendants many generations later with gruesome death for the supposed transgressions of their ancestors.
Limbaugh said Pres. Obama was 'irritated' to have to speak about the Christmas day attack. Was that accurate? He said Obama 'lives for' the deaths of tens and thousands of people to bolster his own credibility. He said that we've already donated to Haiti, via the income tax. Was that accurate? And of course he suggested that a White House facilitated charity effort that would send donations quickly to the Red Cross was somehow objectionable.
At best, these things are debatable. Not even one of them is accurate.
Y'know, malanthrop, it's not like we're going to forget you're a hack. I mean, you've got to give us some time without you before you need to start rebuilding your credibility in that area.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's very frustrating, being a moderate centrist and trying to find news sources and political commentators that aren't so obviously biased toward extreme Left or Right positions that they demonize everything the other side does.
Sigh. I miss William F. Buckley, Jr. Lord knows he was no centrist, and there is much to disagree with in his views, but at least he was fair and always let the other side have an equal chance to talk.
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Seriously who knew OSC could predict the future?
Wouldn't be the first time. He predicted Civilization-type computer games and internet message boards, off the top of my head.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama's reaction to Haiti isn't purely political. Of course, any US president would send aid. He isn't doing anything out of the ordinary for America. America is always the #1 source of aid in the world. The Indian ocean tsunami is a perfect example. Tsunamis that killed over 100k in the most populous Muslim nation in the world. America donated a hundred times more than Saudi Arabia. America provided more support than any other nation. America is always there in a time of need...even for nations that demonize our imperialism.
Obama's response is the norm for America but he will politicize it. There are home auctions in Detroit where the starting bid is $100.00 and there are no takers. Michigan is the most unionized state in the nation and it's capital city cannot sell a house for a hundred bucks. Good thing Obama spent 15 hours with union leaders exempting them from the 40% "cadillac tax" on health insurance. Makes perfect sense, unions support his party. The 40% tax should only be imposed on people who don't support the DNC.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mal I appreciate your agreeing with us that US aid to our near neighbor Haiti is not a political stunt.
How you used that to jump to an attack on unions is a stretch that really waters down your arguments in general.
In particular being unable to sell a house is several orders of magnitude less of a difficulty then having every house in your city collapse with hundreds of thousands of friends and family, neighbors and strangers dead.
Worse, in one argument you contradict your previous arguments and yourself. You complain that we are not doing enough to help those in Michigan who can't sell their houses, then complain when President Obama tries to help them by limiting (not removing) the tax on their contracted health care benefits. Your complaint seems to boil down to the idea that Unions caused all kinds of unnamed problems, and that without them the US Car companies would be doing fine and that the people who have lost their homes would still be gainfully employed.
Of course, without unions they would be employed at about 1/10th their current pay.
Of course, over the past decade those same unions have cut their own pay by 2/3rds. Even the head of GM said, on NPR last week, that they have the most competitive payroll in the world.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: America is always the #1 source of aid in the world...America donated a hundred times more than Saudi Arabia.
Is this an absolute figure, percent of GDP, per capita, or some other measure?
Do you think he knows the difference... or that he cares? To Mal it's not the numbers, it's the saying the numbers that matters. If you can say it, it's true in as much as you want it or need it to be true.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you count private aid (which is considerably higher in the US than almost any other country), te're number one in total, unsurprising. Per capita, we're somewhere around number two (at least last I heard, when Ireland was number one, but they're having more trouble than we are, recently). Percent of GDP, probably about the same. (edit: I retract this statement. By that measure, we are roughly comparable to a lot of developed countries, but a good number, notably scandinavian ones, out donate us).
So really, he's not far wrong. We're certainly number one compared to any non-small country (Ireland has 1.5% of our population). (edit: total and per capita, maybe not % GDP -- though non-small eliminates several other high givers).
Of course, counting private aid is very complicated, and definitions of aid are fuzzy. The numbers generally include, for instance, numerous donations to Israel, but also dramatically undercount donations by the many independent churches in the US, which often donate considerably in time and money.
It is only in governmental aid abroad that the US seems like a true pauper. We match or dwarf most other developed countries when you count private aid. (edit: this statement remains true if you use % gdp, it just becomes "match" rather than "dwarf" for a lot more of them)
edit again: be warned, a lot of sites discussing this issue are using "adjusted" numbers that penalize different countries based on subjective measures, such as "how good the governance of private aid is" (and ones that, I will point out, can penalize some very effective aid by small donor groups, such as frequently occurs in the US). Those are not actual aid divided by gdp calculations, just new 'scorings' that the authors chose to use the % gdp appellation for. Using those numbers (which are at best an extremely debatable aid effectiveness ranking mechanism, not % gdp) the US is near the bottom . . . but I'm pretty certain those numbers were designed to show that. We're very healthily in the upper middle if you use raw $ aid / $ gdp.
quote:Dear Pat Robertson, I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I'm all over that action. But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I'm no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished. Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth -- glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake. Haven't you seen "Crossroads"? Or "Damn Yankees"? If I had a thing going with Haiti, there'd be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox -- that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it -- I'm just saying: Not how I roll. You're doing great work, Pat, and I don't want to clip your wings -- just, come on, you're making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That's working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract. Best, Satan
posted
There is an argument to be made that the international community's response to Haiti is political. Yes, the aid is absolutely necessary, but maybe we should pay attention to both the history of the region and the strings attached to that aid.
Peter Hallward has written quite a lot on Haiti. Here is an article in the Guardian laying out his basic contentions. Basically, he argues that the devastation this earthquake wrought is largely due to economic exploitation. Hallward has also written a book on Haiti, and here is a fine review of it. The review tracks Haiti's leftist political history, with emphasis on Jean-Baptiste Aristide's Lavalas movement. Inspiring stuff in the face of shameful circumstances.
More history here, with emphasis on how Haiti's agricultural industry was destroyed in order to create an urban workforce.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
