Limbaugh throws down the gauntlet

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

In other words, Obama is too big if a wuss to debate Limbaugh.

That's like asking Bush to debate Michael Moore during his tenure. Realistic?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Are you honestly suggesting that a president cannot criticize anyone unless he also debates that person if invited? We call that line of thinking stupidity where I come from.

Is publicly criticizing a radio host who disagrees with one's agenda beneath the dignity of the President?

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Is publicly criticizing a radio host who disagrees with one's agenda beneath the dignity of the President?

Did he criticize him or just paint him as the leader of the GOP?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

That's like asking Bush to debate Michael Moore during his tenure. Realistic?

It's clearly not the same thing. Bush did not call Michael Moore the de facto leader of the Democrat party, nor direct his surrogates to make him their primary talking point. In fact, he handled his critics--who were quite nasty, in point of fact--very presidentially.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

That's like asking Bush to debate Michael Moore during his tenure. Realistic?

Did Moore ever challenge Bush to a debate?

I think Bush would be a wuss to not have debated Moore as well. It has nothing to do with being realistic or not.

I didn't pay too much attention Moore's blathering, so I'm curious if Bush publicly criticized and whined about him as much as Obama does about Limbaugh.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's clearly not the same thing. Bush did not call Michael Moore the de facto leader of the Democrat party, nor direct his surrogates to make him their primary talking point. In fact, he handled his critics--who were quite nasty, in point of fact--very presidentially.

Moore wasn't attacked by Bush subordinates / agents? Of course he was... the entire right wing went after Moore.

Rush is an easy mark, politically. Limbaugh is allowing the "ballerina" (Emmanuel) to use him to abuse the GOP. That is funny.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Moore wasn't attacked by Bush subordinates / agents? Of course he was... the entire right wing went after Moore.

Rush is an easy mark, politically. Limbaugh is allowing the "ballerina" (Emmanuel) to use him to abuse the GOP. That is funny.

The "entire right wing" is a bit nebulous. We're talking about high-level elected officials and their aides. There is evidence (if you believe Politico and Washington Times) that Obama has personally directed this effort via Emmanuel, Carville, and Begala. Even his press secretary Gibbs has taken to jabs at Limbaugh. They specifically chose to do so after examining poll numbers.

I don't remember Bush directing Delay, Hastert, Rove, McClellan, Snow, and Perino to do the same to Moore. How many times did Bush even say Moore's name?

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by Tex

The "entire right wing" is a bit nebulous. We're talking about high-level elected officials and their aides. There is evidence (if you believe Politico and Washington Times) that Obama has personally directed this effort via Emmanuel, Carville, and Begala. Even his press secretary Gibbs has taken to jabs at Limbaugh. They specifically chose to do so after examining poll numbers.

I don't remember Bush directing Delay, Hastert, Rove, McClellan, Snow, and Perino to do the same to Moore. How many times did Bush even say Moore's name?

Is this really important? Didn't the VP get into trouble for revealing Plame for political reasons? (In that case I don't believe Bush ordered the action, that was Cheney all the way.)

I'd bet that Obama has bigger things to work on for the most part, but as for Gibbs, Emmanuel, Carville & Begala... when that type of gift lands in your lap, are you supposed to do nothing? Carville has lost a lot of the fire he had during the Clinton years, but come on, is he supposed to not do anything with the revelation that Rush's numbers are that low?

If an influential public figure like Limbaugh says he wants the President to fail, it's not acceptable to counter punch?

Politics is still politics. If anything, Obama is letting it be known that he won't take shots without returning fire, which is what he did in the campaign when Steve Schmidt was taking him down, Rove-style.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Is this really important? Didn't the VP get into trouble for revealing Plame for political reasons? (In that case I don't believe Bush ordered the action, that was Cheney all the way.)

Nope. Dick Armitage. You need to take off the tin foil hat.

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

I'd bet that Obama has bigger things to work on for the most part, but as for Gibbs, Emmanuel, Carville & Begala... when that type of gift lands in your lap, are you supposed to do nothing? Carville has lost a lot of the fire he had during the Clinton years, but come on, is he supposed to not do anything with the revelation that Rush's numbers are that low?

If an influential public figure like Limbaugh says he wants the President to fail, it's not acceptable to counter punch?

Politics is still politics. If anything, Obama is letting it be known that he won't take shots without returning fire, which is what he did in the campaign when Steve Schmidt was taking him down, Rove-style.

It's perfectly fair, and Limbaugh isn't complaining. But don't tell me "dignity of the office" when Obama suddenly runs and hides.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's clearly not the same thing. Bush did not call Michael Moore the de facto leader of the Democrat party, nor direct his surrogates to make him their primary talking point. In fact, he handled his critics--who were quite nasty, in point of fact--very presidentially.

Difference being that Michael Moore was NOT the de facto leader of the Democratic party. Rush is for Republicans. And Bush didn't handle his critics "presidentially." He just called them terrorists helpers and accused them of hating America.