George W. Algore (Say's Rush Limbaugh, Political issue for leftists)

rushlimbaugh ^ | 6/3/2002 | Rush Limbaugh

[Mike Darancette]

thus giving the NYT and the DemocRATs two days of soundbites and a fat lot of nothing else

Since the report states that Global Warming is possible it gives the DemocRATS some talking points which the same report then shuts down by saying that no action can or should be taken. CASE CLOSED.

OBTW: Has anyone seen any reports of laudatory noises being made by any environmentalists, Greenies, DemocRATS, or liberal press and media about this report?

[nicollo]

Starting with Bush's inaugural address, folks need to start listening and stop wishing they'd heard something else.

The newly deaf hear echoes of past sounds, I am told. So it seems with the Limbaugh Wing of Wishful Thinking, which wants its President to echo its every gilded radio wave.

Hate to inform, but he's not Rush's President: he's our President. Rush's 20 millions elected Bush? Maybe Rush didn't work hard enough last November.

Rush has fallen in love with his ideas. We enjoy his arrogance, but self-love is not for public consumption. His intellectual-high of late is as embarrassing as it is self-defeating. To say that Bush has "highjacked" conservativism is stupid. Show me a single Bush lie from the campaign. Come on, try. You'll have to uhhuh and yeah but alot, but you aint' gonna find any smoke.

What Bush has done is become President. If Rush was fooled, the foolishness is on his part. I see nothing in Bush that has changed. These inane attempts to read between the lines of his policies are just that: listen to what he says.

I'd like to say I'm dissapointed with Limbaugh. I can't. I'm just sad. A closed mind is a sad thing to flaunt. Or maybe Rush is just pissed off that Bush hasn't replaced Powell with Netanyahu.

[AAABEST]

As for Rush...I caught his show today for the first time in a long while...and he was so flat, boring and self serving I could only bear the first hour.

Your political philosophy is flat, boring and self serving but that doesn't make you dishonest as some are claiming Rush to be.

[Texaggie79]

He's starting to lose me..........

[rintense]

And there you have it folks. Bushbots will contort, twist, and rationalize to any extent to cover for their boy....just like Carville and the Clintoon followers used to do. (Still do, actually).

Keep telling yourself that.

[Commie Basher]

I think it is the democrats plan to do this non-stop hits on Bush like the NYtimes story!

to depress turnout by rightist voters, by inducing apathy through disillusion.

The Dems can't control rightist voters -- only Bush can depress rightist turnout. And he can easily increase rightist votes by loudly proclaiming that global warming is bunk.

Why isn't he?

[jimt]

-- don't care about his golf, who he knows, who calls him, and his stupid cigars!

Me either. I do care about a president I funded and voted for enacting statist measure after statist measure. I care about a president I funded and voted for operating a "justice" department I can't tell from Janet Reno's, taking zero action to bring criminals to justice.

Rush's golf, acquaintances, callers and cigars don't mean diddly, you're right. Perfidy by a guy I helped elected means a whole lot.

[jimt]

"helped elected" = "help get elected"

[liberalism=failure]

Yeah, Rush, running all the way to the bank on this one, agitating all the dittoheads. Trying to up his ratings. Same ol', same ol'

Demonization of projected motives, typical liberal tactic.

[liberalism=failure]

Sorry, but it is Drudge's irresponsible headlines and his obvious trumping of Rush...

sounds like another vast right wing conspiracy (TM),

boo scarrrry!

[liberalism=failure]

OK, because the terrorists are in 60 countries, have fun attacking them all. It is not our policy to attack them all. It is our policy to give them a chance to cooperate with us.

I didn't say we should necessarily attack Saudi Arabia. I said they shouldn't be called a "friend", because they aren't.

[marajade]

You mean you had it at post 24 and only until thousands of posts later we all got it?

Shame on us.

[TLBSHOW]

He did today I believe.

[quidnunc]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Rush has a somewhat limited playbook of ideas and the present political climate and world situation are leaving him behind.

Unless he adapts to the changing situation post 9/11 Rush will become an anachronism and increasingly less significant for all his oratorical skills.

He's becoming boring because he's in danger of becoming irrelevant.

[lara]

I love Rush. He puts principle and country before party and politics.

[marajade]

Well he blew it big time in this case...

[lara]

How did he blow it? Like many of us, he doesn't believe in global warming and stuck to his guns. He is entitled to his opinion, just as you are.

[marajade]

He used the NYT as a source who misrepresented the report. Have you read any of the threads?

[quidnunc]

WHAT U-TURN? I know I'll be excoriated as a Bush toady for saying this, but I don't actually get the notion that the Bush administration has done a palpable U-turn on global warming. Check out this story. "Last year, the White House described climate change as a serious issue after seeking opinions of the National Academy of Sciences but was undecided about how much of the problem should be blamed on human activities," the Associated Press reports. This year, in a report to the U.N. no less, the administration argues that "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability." Wow. What a change. And no one is claiming that the Bush administration has shifted actual policy. It's also a grotesque distortion to say that most conservatives completely rebut the notion of some human effect on global warming. Certainly Bjorn Lomborg acknowledges it. My own view of this weird little summer story is that it's a major Howell Raines coup. A reporter finds some tiny and insignificant change in the wording of administration policy, and Raines puts it on his front page. Drudge takes the bait and Rush follows. Chill, guys. It seems to me that the Bush administration has long held the sensible skeptical position (which does not preclude taking human impact on global warming seriously). The difference between them and Al Gore is that they don't take this as a certainty or buy the notion you have to throw the economy into reverse to prevent it.

RAINES OF TERROR: Did you get through that New Yorker Ken Fellata piece on the New York Times under Howell Raines? Okay, I did. But I share Tim Noah's skepticism about the caveats in the piece about the Times' doing well under Raines. Pulitzers are establishment prizes given to establishment friends (with occasional credentializing outreach). And as Tim points out, "Chatterbox would argue that a major newspaper that can't sweep the Pulitzers in a year when a gigantic disaster befalls its hometown is a very poor newspaper indeed. The awards are as much for the disaster as they are for the coverage." I'm not just saying this because Mr Raines banished me, but I used to feel I was missing something when my Times didn't get delivered and I read the Washington Post instead. Now I don't. What I got from Auletta's piece was that Raines is a left-liberal populist ideologue, who likes to big foot his reporters and editors. Not that there's anything wrong with it! There are plenty of great editors who have been from a similar mold, and having a crusading, left-liberal paper, with more pop-culture and vivid writing could be a great addition to the reading world. But one thing it isn't: the paper of record. It has excised almost all non-left commentary from its op-ed and editorial columns. It is skewing news coverage in ways that will please Nation-readers — like the hysterical Enron coverage, the bogus poll designed to argue that the public blamed Bush for Enron, or the burying of politically incorrect studies about the validity of racial profiling in speeding tickets. And it's increasingly happy assuming its readers agree with it. So it explains less and hectors and preens more. Again, this is fine. But let's acknowledge what it is. Raines is on a crusade for the populist left. And Raines is now the New York Times.

-snip-

(Andrew Sullivan in the Daily Dish, June 4, 2002)
To Read This Article Click Here

[ChadGore]

Here's the way I see it.
Kyoto blows, and everybody knows it. I'm happy that Bush has taken a stand on that early in his first term.

In the future, on this issue, jobs will flow into the country for one of 2 reasons:

A) We have reasonable enviromental controls
B) We have unreasonable environmental controls.

With Bush ACTING on emissions INDEPENDANT from Kyoto, he has positioned the country to react pro-activly as the issue unfolds in the future.

It's gonna shake out like this:
1) If the whole of the planet boycots every American product or service because of our lack of emission standards, Bush can act, INDEPENDANT from Kyoto, and save jobs.
or
2) If the whole of the planet can't afford American products and services because of overly opressive emission standards, Bush can act, INDEPENDANT from Kyoto, and save jobs.

Bush wins, the country wins, jobs win, warming wins. It's a quadrupal win that puts us first.