Barack Obama | News | Republican Party | Rick Sanchez | Robert Gibbs | Rush Limbaugh

Limbaugh 'Obama Fail' Remarks Continue to Resonate

Change

Following the exchanges this week by conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh and Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, Americans United for Change has released a new video urging people to call GOP leadership and tell them to reject Limbaugh, the party's "real leader."

Meanwhile, reactions to Limbaugh's remarks continue to resonate. CNN's Rick Sanchez asked Indiana congressman Mike Pence if he wanted Obama's policies to fail.

Said Pence: "You bet, we want those policies to fail. Because, Rick, we know big government, increases in debt, the micromanagement of the economy out of Washington, DC is a policy that will fail."

And White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs remarked on RNC Chair Michael Steele's apparent cave to Limbaugh, saying, "I was a little surprised at the speed in which Mr. Steele, the head of the RNC, apologized to the head of the Republican Party."

Watch all three clips, AFTER THE JUMP...

Robert Gibbs, and Mike Pence:

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. I may be mistaken, but shouldn't Pence's comments be considered "Unamerican?"

    Republicans are acting like spoiled children who have been given new rules by their new daddy.

    Posted by: Kevin | Mar 4, 2009 10:33:03 AM


  2. Yes, let's focus our attention on that fat old pillhead from the radio!! Don't look at what Obama's up to while our country crumbles -- there's a glorified disc jockey over there! Look at that!!

    This will take attention away from the fact that everything Obama has done so far has been either a contradiction of campaign promises or just generally fucked up.

    Bread and circuses make a nice distraction while our country falls apart under its second consecutive incompetant president.

    Posted by: paul c | Mar 4, 2009 10:50:32 AM


  3. Someone needs to tell Rush that Republicans presided over the biggest government expansion in history. Hello Homeland Security! Maybe the GOP would be slightly more credible if they didn't do all the things they scream about Obama doing.

    Posted by: MT | Mar 4, 2009 10:56:37 AM


  4. It's nice that we have people like Paul C here to provide ideological balance. The debate would be so much less productive without chronic malcontents, right-wing dagwoods, and media sluts like Limbaugh bitching about Obama's policies while having none of their own.

    Posted by: MikeMick | Mar 4, 2009 10:58:21 AM


  5. Andy,

    I get the impression that Robert Gibbs was being intentionally snarky when he referred to Lumbar as the head of the Republican party. Just check out the subtle smile.

    Posted by: Acronym Jim | Mar 4, 2009 11:03:34 AM


  6. Paul C,

    I previously directed you to an independent Web site (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/) that's keeping track of Obama's action on 510 campaign promises. Yet you still promote the lie that Obama is breaking campaign promises right and left. He's not. At all.

    It's no wonder you're unhappy with the media focus on Rush, since most of your debunked talking points can be traced directly back to the fat old pillhead.

    Don't let facts stand in your way, dear. Rush prefers you keep on spreading that manure around.

    Posted by: 24play | Mar 4, 2009 11:04:37 AM


  7. Who pissed in Paul's bowl of cheerios? His observation that "everything Obama has done has been just generally fucked up" could not be more wrong. Ending torture and closing the travesty of Guantanimo is fucked up? Helping people remain in their homes is fucked up? Trying to save jobs through stimulus spending? Starting the process of ending don't ask, don't tell? Providing a tax break to 95% of Americans? Asking the wealthy to step up and pay their fair share of taxes? Pushing new initiatives in clean energy and green power? These are right in line with what Obama promimsed during his campaign. President Obama is off to a great start, especially given the dismal mess he inherited.

    Posted by: Brian | Mar 4, 2009 11:07:28 AM


  8. Let's silence all criticism of the Obama Administration. Last week Gibbs attacked Rick Santelli from CNBC; this week Gibbs attacks Jim Cramer from CNBC. Anyone who confronts Obama and the Imperial Presidency is un-American. Pass the fairness doctrine and let's stifle debate that does not pay tribute and offer respect to our dear leader. America is best with one-party unchallenged rule.

    Posted by: Impeach The Prez | Mar 4, 2009 11:13:51 AM


  9. Looks like Nobama/Biden Time/Just Biden Time/No Thanks/Vet/Liz/Leah has returned to us under yet another screen name.

    A troll by any other name...

    Posted by: 24play | Mar 4, 2009 11:27:24 AM


  10. I can't stand Rush. I listen to talk radio in the morning and when they have his "Rush Update" I either moan or turn the radio down.

    That being said, I am not for big government. Obama is increasing it just like Bush did. We need to cut taxes for everyone not just 95% because lets face it those 5% employ most of us. I think we also need term limits in congress. Both Dems and Republicans get in there and forget they work for the people and do whatever they need to do to stay in power.

    In response to Brians comments, I agree with closing Gitmo. The question is, where do we put them. Some countries don't want them back. Also I am not for helping families stay in their home. If someone is foreclosed on they can go and rent. Also the cheap price on a foreclosed home is a great deal for someone as a starter home. 92% of all people with mortgages pay on time and they don't feel like they need to help those struggling. Also Brian, what is the fair share for the wealthy? I mean they are almost at a 40% tax rate. It just seems like being wealthy has become a bad word in this country. I'm sure if we were in the top 5% we would be singing a different toon. Hell I want to be filthy rich so I can provide opportunities to others either through charitable giving or job opportunities.

    Posted by: Matt | Mar 4, 2009 11:35:26 AM


  11. Mike Pence is a huge douche, and I'm not even sure he has opposable thumbs, and I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't get caught like one of his cronies, Larry "Bojangles" Craig doing a tap, tap, tap in an airport bathroom.

    Posted by: troschne | Mar 4, 2009 11:47:26 AM


  12. Matt turns the radio down when Rush comes on so he can concentrate on reading his Ayn Rand.

    Posted by: 24play | Mar 4, 2009 12:01:20 PM


  13. Thank you Prez Obama for providing a tax break to 95 percent of all Americans. That extra $8 a week in my paycheck has more than made up for the massive destruction of my 401K that has occurred since your election to which Wall Street responded with a plunge in stock values. I know you don't care about Wall Street, Mr. President, but 50 percent of all Americans have money in the market including union workers or state employees whose pension funds are invested. I know you don't care about watching the stock market, Mr. President, but its a foward-looking economic indicator that is decidely unimpressed with your cap and trade carbon policies, your proposal to increase capital gains taxes (which impacts everyone who invests in a mutual fund), and your profligate and irresponsible spending plans. Just because George Bush generated a $1 trillion deficit in 8 years why do you feel compelled to generate an additional $1 trillion deficit in 4 weeks? Basically Obama is taking every idiotic thing done by Bush and cubing the idiocy.

    Posted by: Impeach The Prez | Mar 4, 2009 12:01:47 PM


  14. Kennedy cut the top tax bracket from 90% to 70%. Reagan cut the top tax bracket to 28%. Moving back to 38% is not that bad of a jump.

    Being wealthy is not a bad word in this country. As someone making less than $100K, my tax rate is 28%. Asking someone making over $350K to pay 38% (10% more than me while they make 400% of my salary) doesn't seem to be a tremendous burden.

    Assuming I make $75,000, moving my taxes up 2%, drops my income to $61,000 - a real burden to someone trying to raise a family. Moving the tax burden up 10% on someone making $350,000 drops their income to $315,000. A bigger hit but certainly less likely to affect the lifestyle.

    Posted by: Ed | Mar 4, 2009 12:03:32 PM


  15. My bad. I did my math wrong. It 75,000 would become 72,000 with a 2% tax move. (This is why I should always use a calculator. - sigh). A 10% move would mean $67,500 for 28%er.


    Posted by: Ed | Mar 4, 2009 12:06:12 PM


  16. if i'm not correct, isn't the lack of management of the economy what caused the debacle we're currently in???

    Posted by: kerry | Mar 4, 2009 12:07:01 PM


  17. Some of the rich don't mind paying more in taxes. They realize that someone needs to pay for government services and programs and after the Bush years, the middle class is pretty tapped out. Charle Barkley, retired NBA player, said this when asked about taxes. "Well, I think that if you’re rich — I thank God I’ve been very successful — if you’re rich, you’re always going to be rich. If we pay more in taxes, I got no problem with that. If you’re making that kind of money, a couple hundred thousand dollars here or there are not going to change your life." American policy has been to divert money to teh top and let it trickle down. Hasn't work very well. Obama seeks to build from the bottom up, more sustainable and more wise.

    Posted by: Brian | Mar 4, 2009 12:09:16 PM


  18. Impeach the Prez? The destruction of your 401k since Obama's election is his fault? Wow, dude-were you not noticing that your 401K was probably laden with high-risk funds? Perhaps some oil companies, which Cheney worked out an agreement with (in a secret meeting back in 2001)?

    Grow a pair and deal with the fact that so many people lived beyond their means.

    Posted by: Gary | Mar 4, 2009 12:20:22 PM


  19. Forgive me if I don't get why this is such a big deal. If Republicans wanted Democrats' policies to succeed, they'd be Democrats. The Democrats spent 8 years fighting Bush's policies, and before that the Republicans spent 8 years fighting Clinton's policies. It's the very nature of partisan politics and the two-party system. Why are we expecting the Republicans to fall in line and say "we agree with the President" when nobody expected the Democrats to do that under 8 years of Bush?

    Posted by: Mike | Mar 4, 2009 12:20:41 PM


  20. You're right, Mike. The Democratic obsession with fat old Rush is a red herring, and by engaging in an irrelvant pissing match with a radio talk show host who is tied to a Republican Party with no power, Obama and his team can distract Americans from the economic disaster that is being compounded with their tax-and-spend policies. Just wait till Americans are hit with massive energy bills as Obama's cap and trade carbon plan is implemented. Good thing Team Obama has given 95 percent of us all an extra $8 a week in tax cuts because we are going to need that and more once the power plants -- 50 percent are fired buy coal, 50 percent are fired by natural gas -- raise their rates in response to Obama's mandated cap and trade plan. But hey, it's more fun (even if not productive or relevant) to talk about what a fat cow Rush is because it just makes us feel better. Team Obama certainly knows how to manipulate his supporters into focussing on the inane.

    Posted by: Impeach The Prez | Mar 4, 2009 12:37:29 PM


  21. "when nobody expected the Democrats to do that under 8 years of Bush?"

    After 9/11, if you weren't in line with Bush, you were a terrorist sympathizing traitor. Then in 06 most people caught on to the greatest lie in modern history.

    Posted by: GiveMeABreak | Mar 4, 2009 12:39:34 PM


  22. Completely agree with Mike. Everyone here who is falling in line with Obama were the same ones PRAYING for Bush to fail - some even praying that worse things would happen. Why is it so different. And if you look at the votes on stimulus and coming up on the budget, the true bipartisan vote was on the NO side, as several democrats voted against the stimulus, but no one is attacking them.

    Here is the problem with more taxes - the "rich" people own businesses, which then hire the "not so rich" people. So we tax the rich more, they have less income than they are used to having so they cut costs somewhere else - either by raising our prices or by laying people off. So either way, the "not so rich" pay the price.

    And it is Obama's "non-leadership" in this crisis that is causing the market to drop lower and lower. The market reacts on a daily basis to what is going on THAT DAY - NOT to what happened 3 months ago. Its interesting that when the market started to drop in October it was Bush's fault b/c he was president, but now, its still Bush's fault. Double standard, yet again.

    And again, WHY can't people with differing views come on this website and have a rational, respectful discussion? It is 100% true that anyone who questions Obama is completely shut down. Whether its in the media or on a site like this. I am sure that if we discussed this rationally, we could truly respect each others' views. I hope we succeed as a country - although I disagree with a lot of what the administration is doing. I'm allowed to say that, AND be gay at the same time.

    Posted by: BC | Mar 4, 2009 12:44:40 PM


  23. @ Mike,

    Surely no sane person wants policies aimed at rescuing the American economy to fail? I imagine that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the latter don't expect the President's policies to succeed.

    Hoping that the policies will fail strikes me as a text book example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    @ Impeach the Prez,

    The man's been in office for little more than two months. If any single politician is to blame for the economy, would it not be more fair to blame the person in charge the 8 years before that?

    Posted by: european | Mar 4, 2009 1:01:41 PM


  24. Mike: in a completely partisan approach to politics, you're correct that it would be foolish for opposing parties to ever support each other.

    On the other hand, there is such a thing as bi-partisan support. If politics were supposed to be completely partisan, we wouldn't have this, but some things are too important not to do, and laws do get passed with support from both parties.

    Further, as voters, while we might not expect an opposition party to fall in line with the talking points of the other party, we *DO* expect our country to be governed for the common good. That whole "promote the general welfare" thing.

    What we have today from the Republicans is an unprincipled obstructionism bordering on deliberate undermining. Had they adhered a little more closely to their own stated principles under King George, their stance today could be taken a bit more seriously. Only now, out of power, has the party rediscovered federalism, fiscal responsibility, and constitutional authority. They would very much like us to forget that, under Bush, there was Terry Schiavo, huge entitlement increases and borrowing and spending into deficits (because they "don't matter"), and executive "signing statements" that permitted extraordinary rendition and torture.

    The meyer-lemon icing on the cake, of course, is their vocal desire to see Obama fail. They also want to forget that in the early days of the Iraq war, all criticism of the war and of Bush was considered unpatriotic, and that "liberals want us to fail." Now that they are out of power, they've wholly embraced the desire to see Obama fail, under a veneer of "we only want what's best for the country."

    How do they square this? "Because we 'just know' these policies will fail." No empirical data, just supposition and fear and total faith-based knowledge that their policies are right and they know what's best for the country. And an amazing desire to send down the memory hole the consequences of their stated policies for the last 8-12 years.

    Limbaugh is merely one of many nasty eruptions of modern American conservative tribalism (hence "IOIYAR" -- "it's okay if you're a Republican"). The sooner they realize this -- and fix it -- the sooner a majority will be willing to trust them again.

    Posted by: AG | Mar 4, 2009 1:03:25 PM


  25. Impeach The Prez, meet Paul C. Paul C, meet Impeach The Prez. Wow! You two sure do make a cute couple! Now, here's some of that redistributionist wealth. Go see a movie--Predator or something. Then, go to dinner--maybe at Denny's, someplace like that. After that--wink, wink--you two are on your own! Oh, yeah there's a Log Cabin Republican meeting on Friday night. Yeah, and they're gonna talk about smaller government, a strong national defense, lower taxes and personal freedom. I think they're having a give-away drawing, too. A special "over-night" at G. W. Bush's new digs in Dallas is the top prize! They're also going to have a discussion group titled "Same-Sex Marriage and the LCR--Why We Must Never Accept The Homosexual Agenda!"

    Posted by: mike | Mar 4, 2009 1:10:19 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Hate Crime Enhancements Filed Over Galveston Gay Bar Attack« «