Limbaugh throws down the gauntlet

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

My goodness, Michael Steele expressly said Limbaugh's NOT the de facto leader. He claimed he was.



Conversation with you is impossible when you can't get even the most basic facts straight.

And then he apologized. lol. I felt bad for the guy, watching him get caught by his boss and then needing to plead for his job.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And then he apologized. lol. I felt bad for the guy, watching him get caught by his boss and then needing to plead for his job.

In other words, you didn't have your facts straight. As usual.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by Tex

But don't tell me "dignity of the office" when Obama suddenly runs and hides.

Would Limbaugh submit to a drug test before hand?

90% of the public would think the President is an idiot if he engaged El Rushbo in a debate.

The overwhelming respose would be "why?"

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

In other words, you didn't have your facts straight. As usual.

Once again, read, think, type. Step 2 is a doozy for you.

Steele considers Limbaugh to be his boss. So does Limbaugh. So does CPAC. Who do you think is the head of the party?

[Tex]

It's kinda funny to see this thread devolve into who has challenged whom to a debate in times past.

No one realistically expects any President--including Obama--to respond to every debate request from every little person anywhere on the planet. Presidents are much too busy and despite Bill Clinton's best efforts, the office does have more dignity than that.

But when a President chooses to single out an individual, especially a non-elected private citizen, for personal attacks, he can't then retreat behind the "dignity of the office."

Besides which, Obama, among others, thinks there isn't enough balance on the radio. What better way than to take Limbaugh's 20 million listeners--many who don't agree with him--and make his case? He's called Limbaugh the de facto leader of the opposition's party. If so, doesn't that mean the President should work with him to get things done? Isn't Obama supposed to be Mr. Bi-Partisan?

Gibbs was finally forced to admit yesterday that targeting Rush has been "counterproductive," perhaps the first admission that this two-faced foolishness is not effective.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Would Limbaugh submit to a drug test before hand?

90% of the public would think the President is an idiot if he engaged El Rushbo in a debate.

The overwhelming respose would be "why?"

As long as we're throwing out made-up stats, 90% thinks the President is an idiot for elevating "El Rushbo" in the first place.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Once again, read, think, type. Step 2 is a doozy for you.

Steele considers Limbaugh to be his boss. So does Limbaugh. So does CPAC. Who do you think is the head of the party?

Funny, Steele and Limbaugh have both said the exact opposite. You can't even get past Step 1.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's kinda funny to see this thread devolve into who has challenged whom to a debate in times past.

No one realistically expects any President--including Obama--to respond to every debate request from every little person anywhere on the planet. Presidents are much too busy and despite Bill Clinton's best efforts, the office does have more dignity than that.

But when a President chooses to single out an individual, especially a non-elected private citizen, for personal attacks, he can't then retreat behind the "dignity of the office."

Besides which, Obama, among others, thinks there isn't enough balance on the radio. What better way than to take Limbaugh's 20 million listeners--many who don't agree with him--and make his case? He's called Limbaugh the de facto leader of the opposition's party. If so, doesn't that mean the President should work with him to get things done? Isn't Obama supposed to be Mr. Bi-Partisan?

Gibbs was finally forced to admit yesterday that targeting Rush has been "counterproductive," perhaps the first admission that this two-faced foolishness is not effective.

I hate interrupting your string of responses to yourself. This thread is funny, because the entire premise that the president must debate those whom he criticizes is asinine, to say the least. Bush and Reagan both criticized countless individuals. None of them ever received a debate offer, and nobody suggested they should. Should Bush have debated Harry Reid when he blamed Reid for immigration reform issues?

Rush is the de facto leader of Republicans. That is the problem. He shouldn't be. He is radical and in no way representative of the values of most Americans, let alone Republicans. The man has a 10% approval rating. To get things done with elected Republicans requires that they stop kissing Rush's ring. They won't. Obama urged them to do so and wound up with Steele apologizing to Limbaugh for calling his program "ugly" and "incendiary," both of which are totally accurate observations.

[MikeWaters]

The president and his handlers are in over their heads. This will become increasingly apparent as time passes.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I hate interrupting your string of responses to yourself. This thread is funny, because the entire premise that the president must debate those whom he criticizes is asinine, to say the least. Bush and Reagan both criticized countless individuals. None of them ever received a debate offer, and nobody suggested they should. Should Bush have debated Harry Reid when he blamed Reid for immigration reform issues?

Is Harry Reid an unelected private citizen (which I've repeated like, 3 times)? My, you have reading trouble.

I know you're a political neophyte, but presidents don't typically go after private citizens in public.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Rush is the de facto leader of Republicans. That is the problem. He shouldn't be. He is radical and in no way representative of the values of most Americans, let alone Republicans. The man has a 10% approval rating. To get things done with elected Republicans requires that they stop kissing Rush's ring. They won't. Obama urged them to do so and wound up with Steele apologizing to Limbaugh for calling his program "ugly" and "incendiary," both of which are totally accurate observations.

He's the de facto leader, says you. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. And his approval ratings are irrelevant. As I told you before, Limbaugh represents conservatism, and a lot more than 10% agree with many of his views.

Time will tell if this is a wise strategy, but Gibbs "counterproductive" comments already indicates cracks in the strategy.