Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

PRESIDENT OBAMA TAKES ON RUSH LIMBAUGH IN NEW MEDIA WAR
NY Post ^ | 01/23/09 | Charles Hurt

Posted on 01/23/2009 5:21:37 PM PST by Phantom Lord

PRESIDENT OBAMA TAKES ON RUSH LIMBAUGH IN NEW MEDIA WAR

WASHINGTON -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."

That wasn't Obama's only jab at Republicans today.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 111th; 1stamendment; bho44; ericcantor; fairnessdoctrine; freespeech; gloating; gorush; media; obama; rush; talkradio; war; zerovsrush
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 401-408 next last
To: Phantom Lord
The left will eat this up; make up for points lost in appointments etc.

I think we'll see a lot of this over the next four years; there are lots of people who can go under the bus, or into the system, to cover for administration gaffes or any little coup that might take place in the name of bipartisanship.

41 posted on 01/23/2009 5:31:31 PM PST by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

I guarantee that this is Zero’s hint that he is going to try and shut Rush off with the Fairness Doctrine.


42 posted on 01/23/2009 5:31:48 PM PST by TennTuxedo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

Know your Enemy - the “PROGRESSIVES”, discusses the enemy in depth:

Literally translated, the phrase PROGRESSIVE means AMERICAN SOCIALIST, and those who are “PROGRESSIVE” employ the whole SOCIALIST arsenal of deceit and violence. A PROGRESSIVE is a man, woman, or child; a tough fighter, with words or weapons, for what he is taught to call the “liberation” of United States of America.

“PROGRESSIVE” also applies to the military and civilian components of the “Democratic Party” . To its deluded followers the “Democratic Party” is the government they serve, but to the vast majority of REAL AMERICANS it is an instrument of terror and oppression manipulated by the SOCIALISTS IN CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

The SOCIALIST regime in WASHINGTON DC directs, controls, and supplies the entire “PROGRESSIVE” political and military effort to conquer the REAL AMERICANS IN THE NON-SOCIALIST STATES.

All control, political and military, comes ultimately from the “National Committee of the United States Democratic Party” (DNC), which maps out broad strategy.

In the United States itself, the “PROGRESSIVES” have created a show of legitimacy through the “Democratic Leadership Council” (DLC). The DLC’s central committee sets policy and also is responsible for planning and organization building.

The next level in the SOCIALIST-dominated DEMOCRATIC hierarchy consists of the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE (DNC), which determine agitprop (persuasion and propaganda) policy guidance, and which are responsible for political indoctrination and training.

Within the last 6 years the program of the “Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee” , the “50 State Strategy”,” as they call it, has become a major program. A favored practice is the use of girls, women, and children, speaking as sisters or mothers, to serenade small groups, calling to them to vote “DEMOCRATIC” for their families’ sak

43 posted on 01/23/2009 5:32:40 PM PST by Rome2000 (Peace is not an option)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

swallowed that SOB, Hook, Line, and sinker, he did.

Amazing how easy Obama takes the bait. If Rush can fluster him what is Putin gonna do to him?


44 posted on 01/23/2009 5:32:52 PM PST by halfright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking in Kansas

Now I’m going out of my way to listen to Rush!


45 posted on 01/23/2009 5:32:56 PM PST by Prince of Space ("Your weapons have no effect on me!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

And I just heard on WMAL radio here in DC that, this morning, a Dem Congresscritter introduced legislation to abolish the 22nd Amendment.


46 posted on 01/23/2009 5:33:17 PM PST by GreyFriar (Spearhead (3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

Rush 2012?


47 posted on 01/23/2009 5:33:27 PM PST by Blue State Insurgent (Thank you, President Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

I almost exclusively listen to the pod cast. But 12:05 on Monday I will be in my car with the radio on.


48 posted on 01/23/2009 5:33:29 PM PST by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

“I won,” he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. “I will trump you on that.”

He will for two years....

I think an attitude like that will even turn off the RINO’s (hear that McCain, Snow, and the rest...)


49 posted on 01/23/2009 5:34:30 PM PST by 80sReaganite (Where is our next Ronaldus Magnus....? (hint: He's running the state of Louisiana!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

If Rush had actually come out and endorsed a conservative GOP candidate (which precluded McInsane or any of those other RINOs), we might not be witnessing this garbage coming out of the 0bamunist regime right now.


50 posted on 01/23/2009 5:34:31 PM PST by mkjessup (All *HAIL* the illegal regime of TKU ("The Kenyan Usurper"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

The GOP hasn’t listened to Rush for a while, and more’s the pity.


51 posted on 01/23/2009 5:34:34 PM PST by RightOnTheLeftCoast ([In the primaries, vote "FOR". In the general, vote "AGAINST". ...See? Easy.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
"Seminar-Caller In Chief"


I am so LOL at Zobama's stipidity.

52 posted on 01/23/2009 5:35:15 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

The One is afraid of one man with a microphone. One man has spooked The One. Imagine what our nation’s enemies will do...


53 posted on 01/23/2009 5:35:19 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sundog

There is more to it than just passing it. I doubt it will stand these days. Too many people, to many interests.

Bring it on.


54 posted on 01/23/2009 5:35:22 PM PST by Tarpon (America's first principles, freedom, liberty, market economy and self-reliance will never fail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
I almost exclusively listen to the pod cast.

And with good reason. No bumper music, no Paul Shanklin 'comedy.'

55 posted on 01/23/2009 5:35:36 PM PST by relictele
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
"I won," he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. "I will trump you on that."

Translation: You must act like McCain.

56 posted on 01/23/2009 5:36:29 PM PST by donna (If America is not a Christian nation, it will be part of the Islamic nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs

It’s just childish of Obama to come with all his left wing clap trap and then when the republicans try to reason with him, he says “Oh, you’re just listening to Rush Limbaugh!” No dummy, they were trying to wake you up.


57 posted on 01/23/2009 5:36:29 PM PST by Williams (It's The Policies, Stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: diamond6
And so it begins

The Liberal Messiah will not tolerate dissent. This is going to get much worse before it gets better.

58 posted on 01/23/2009 5:36:33 PM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

Debates on the constitutionality of the Act

In the 1930s, the Supreme Court struck down many pieces of Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation, including the Railroad Retirement Act. In May, the Court threw out a centerpiece of the New Deal, the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and New York State’s minimum-wage law.

President Roosevelt responded with an attempt to pack the court via the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937. On February 5, 1937, he sent a special message to Congress proposing legislation granting the President new powers to add additional judges to all federal courts whenever there were sitting judges age 70 or older who refused to retire.[27] The practical effect of this proposal was that the President would get to appoint six new Justices to the Supreme Court (and 44 judges to lower federal courts), thus instantly tipping the political balance on the Court dramatically in his favor.

The debate on this proposal was heated and widespread, and lasted over six months. Beginning with a set of decisions in March, April, and May, 1937 (including the Social Security Act cases), the Court would sustain a series of New Deal legislation.

Two Supreme Court rulings affirmed the constitutionality of the Social Security Act.

* Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S, 548[28] (1937) held, in a 5–4 decision, that, given the exigencies of the Great Depression, “[It] is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare”.

The arguments opposed to the Social Security Act (articulated by justices Butler, McReynolds, and Sutherland in their opinions) were that the social security act went beyond the powers that were granted to the federal government in the Constitution. They argued that, by imposing a tax on employers that could be avoided only by contributing to a state unemployment-compensation fund, the federal government was essentially forcing each state to establish an unemployment-compensation fund that would meet its criteria, and that the federal government had no power to enact such a program.

* Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as Steward, upheld the program because “The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way”. That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress’s general taxation powers.


59 posted on 01/23/2009 5:36:56 PM PST by Rome2000 (Peace is not an option)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
"...You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done..."

The arrogance is appalling. He can stick it. As others have said...so it begins.

60 posted on 01/23/2009 5:37:06 PM PST by rlmorel ("A barrel of monkeys is not fun. In fact, a barrel of monkeys can be quite terrifying!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 401-408 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson