Limbaugh quietly removes banner mocking climate change

Al Gore's Doomsday Clock is apparently now a thing of the past.

Here's something that I knew, years ago, was coming. And you can only imagine my delight to discover that it has finally happened: Rush Limbaugh has removed his mocking "Al Gore's Doomsday Clock" countdown page.

The countdown began in 2006, after Al Gore declared that we had ten years left before climate change would pass the point beyond which we would be powerless to stop its effects. Limbaugh naturally had to hype this up and say that it was the amount of time we had left before "the Earth cooks." 
 
The doomsday clock has been ticking along all that time. But I noticed that over the last year, it had been slowly being deprecated on the website. It went from being one of the most prominent banners on the main page to a little sidebar banner. And then it was pushed down to the bottom of the stack of sidebar banners. And now not only is the banner gone, but the page is gone as well. 
 
The only clue that it ever existed is, as of this writing, a link at the very bottom of Limbaugh's website. However, that link takes you to a 404 page. 
Obviously Rush Limbaugh can't just say "I was wrong about that." Or even "I begrudgingly admit that there may be some truth to the issue of climate change." It's bad for his business, because his business is keeping his listeners as entertained as they are ill-informed. And honest discussions of scientific and observational data just will not do the job.
 
Limbaugh is one of the few people left in America who is still willing to publicly point to a cold day and say that it disputes what he insists on calling "global warming." Just about everyone else is aware that climate change means more energy in the system, thus higher highs and lower lows and bigger storms more often. And in fact, that is exactly what we have been seeing.
 
Just as Al Gore predicted.
 
I want to be smug about this. But the truth is, it's just depressing me. After all, if climate change has finally gotten so bad that even Rush Limbaugh is starting to admit (quietly, probably hoping that no one will notice) that it's a real thing, then things really HAVE gotten bad. 
 
But hey, no need to get down in the dumps about this! Maybe there was just a problem with the page, and it will be restored soon, and we can go back to our lives secure in the knowledge that Rush Limbaugh will never either change or admit he is wrong.
 

Rush Limbaugh dubbed "Misinformer of the Year"

Rough year for El Rushbo

2012 may have been the year when Rush Limbaugh finally decided that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" is not strictly speaking true. (Or maybe not - he certainly makes a lot of hay out of his "outsider status.") He was nominated "Misinformer of the Year" for his bad behavior during and after the Sandra Fluke incident, his constant downplaying of the many misogynist episodes by other Republicans that occurred during the year, his insistence right up until the last minute that Romney would win, and more.

In fact, 2012 was such a bad year for Rush Limbaugh that many experts feel Limbaugh's taint has spread to all of talk radio, and even threatens to contaminate the Republican Party as a whole. If people see Limbaugh as "the voice of the Republican Party," maybe the Republican Party would prefer that this not be the case. Desperate to lure in new voters, trying to find a way to relate to women and non-white people, the Republican Party can ill afford to be associated with Rush Limbaugh. Thus the GOP took many steps this year to distance itself from Limbaugh and his vitriolic attacks on everything non-Limbaugh.
 
Some claim that Limbaugh's curious insistence on embracing conspiracy theories about the election, while insisting that Romney would win, cost the Republicans the election. If Limbaugh had focused on getting people to vote, or on explaining to people how they would benefit from a Republican president, Romney might be sitting in office today. Instead, Rush insisted on clinging to the last shred of fantasy right up until the very last second.
 
"Everything except the polls points to a Romney victory," he said, on election eve. 
 
Indeed.
 
Certainly 2012 proved to be a difficult year for Limbaugh's bottom line. A lot of advertisers pulled out of his show, and from a pragmatic perspective, the entire reason Limbaugh exists is to sell ad space. Limbaugh's difficulty retaining advertisers had a huge ripple effect throughout the talk radio sphere. Limbaugh's shenanigans meant that "the entire talk radio industry is still suffering massive financial losses." And a lot of radio industry executives who weathered the Limbaugh storms of 2012 must surely be asking themselves what he will say next, and how bad the next one will be.
 
Nevertheless, you have to admire the man's tenacity. Not many people would still have their jobs after publicly proclaiming that women who want contraception are "sluts," much less insisting that they provide sex tapes in exchange for basic reproductive care. (By the way, does Limbaugh take Viagra? And if so, does his health insurance cover it? Enquiring minds want to know.)

Surprise! Limbaugh gets America's psychiatry situation all wrong

Amazingly, blames liberals for deinstitutionalizing the mentally ill.

The Sandy Hook shooting was extremely distressing to everyone, liberals and conservatives alike. We all need to come together to find solutions to this problem, not point the finger of blame. But Limbaugh, perhaps sensing that his vehement stance against gun control is too over-the-top even for his own listeners right now, is busy pointing blame at liberals wherever he can.

The problem is, he's just plain wrong.
 
In a recent transcript, Limbaugh pounces on the phrase "patients' rights" with a vitriolic glee. From this one phrase, he (mistakenly) builds up an entire liberal conspiracy as to why it is difficult - virtually impossible - to commit someone to a mental institution in America today.
 
In fact, everything about the current state of mental health care in America was created single-handedly by conservatives like Rush Limbaugh. 
 
Conservatives who wanted to cut taxes and reduce government spending, thus closing many institutions which had formerly cared for mentally ill patients. 
 
(The biggest slashing of mental health institutions occurred during Reagan's time. It was so successful, in the minds of conservatives, that it has continued to a point where our country has virtually nowhere for a non-criminal mentally ill person to turn. Our prison system has become the de facto mental health institution in America. And conservatives love that, because conservatives love a full prison.)
 
Conservatives who sneer at entitlements, thus cutting funding to public mental health services which are aimed at the poor and homeless. 
 
Conservatives who rebel against the "nanny state" and insist that you shouldn't be able to lock someone up against their will, even if their will is in the middle of a full-blown schizophrenic episode, thus creating "patients' rights" in the first place.
 
Limbaugh acts like "patients' rights" is a namby-pamby bit of liberalist PC propaganda. But patients' rights is the one thing that stands in between the individual and the state, when the individual is mentally ill. You would think Limbaugh would be in favor of that. Patient's rights is also the concept which prevents many of the abuses which occurred in the past, like the practice of performing lobotomies on anyone who was the least bit difficult. Or gay.
 
So now Rush Limbaugh thinks we should institutionalize mentally ill people who need 24/7 support? Well, I agree. And I look forward to a Limbaugh who is apparently willing to set aside his libertarian beliefs and tell the state to provide mental health support to every citizen who needs it.

Limbaugh's "don't politicize the tragedy" double standard

Is anyone surprised?

On Friday, Rush Limbaugh asked liberals not to politicize the tragedy of the shooting at Sandy Hook. Sanctimoniously, with his eyes turned up to God, Limbaugh proclaimed that "Left Mobilizes to Politicize School Shooting." 

"As we sit here at this very moment," as the initial news was still hitting, Limbaugh said that "there are liberals trying to find a way to blame this on conservatives and Republicans." Oh those nasty liberals! Have they no shame? Is there no limit to what they will twist to further their own agenda? Is there no tragedy so great that they will refuse to stand on it to declaim their message to the masses?
 
Then, predictably, just three days later Rush Limbaugh politicized the tragedy of the shooting at Sandy Hook. 72 hours after shaking his fingers at liberals who Limbaugh imagined would "turn it into an event to advance their agenda," here Rush is, doing THAT VERY THING.
 
Liberals have used the Sandy Hook incident to promote the idea of gun control because they believe that is how to stop it from happening again. But if you ask me, what Limbaugh has done is even worse. He is using the Sandy Hook incident to frighten people with the specter of what a dystopic future we are living in, now that the liberals are in charge.
 
Limbaugh doesn't have a clear path to solving this problem. He mutters empty phrases like "social guardrails" and then goes off the guardrails himself, talking about how the Fast and Furious debacle was a conspiracy cooked up by the federal government "to create throughout this country the exact emotions and energy that the story, the shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School created." 
 
Limbaugh also describes Gawker as "a militant homosexual site, entertainment. Not militant. It's a gay site." Which… what? That Rush Limbaugh describes Gawker as "a militant homosexual site" says a lot more about Rush Limbaugh than he probably intended. 
 
Gawker is a gossip website. Nothing more, nothing less. But by hitting that panic button in his conservative religious audience, Rush is just adding to his tapestry of fear and hate and divisiveness. Instead of using Sandy Hook as an opportunity to mend fences and work together as a nation, Limbaugh has decided to hold it up as an example of the terrible future he's been talking about all along.
 
Way to go, Rush. You truly are a terrible human being.

Best way to get women to vote for the GOP? Stop insulting them.

But Rush just can't do it.

Limbaugh is still mulling over the stunning Republican defeat in the 2012 election. Not only did the Republican presidential candidate lose, but several states legalized gay marriage, and two states legalized marijuana use. (One state - Washington - legalized both. We win at awesome this year!)

Why? Because this year, liberals voted. They don't usually, you know. Traditionally, the Democratic voter turn-out has been beyond pathetic. But hey, you get Democrats to start voting, and look what happens: things that Democrats and liberals love start happening. Pow. 
 
Limbaugh and the GOP both know that they are in trouble. If women start voting, they invariably vote liberal. If the Republicans want to start gaining ground, they have to find a way to improve their image with women. 
 
Here is a tip: stop insulting them. That would be a great first step, don't you think? Between Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a slut, Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" comment, and the general Republican push to ban abortions and limit access to birth control, a lot of people wonder why any sane woman would vote Republican in the first place.
 
But not to fear! Rush Limbaugh has a solution to this problem! No, his solution is not to stop belittling and insulting women. Don't be silly! 
 
 
Wow. Sometimes I am in awe of Rush Limbaugh, truly. This is the kind of thing that makes me wonder if he is actually just having us all on, putting on the world's greatest piece of performance art. Like Sacha Baren Cohen to the nth degree. 
 
By the way, this kind of thing is the reason why the Republican party is increasingly trying to distance itself from Limbaugh. Limbaugh wonders why the Republicans have started rejecting him. It's because, he keeps saying things like "there are only two things that can get [single women under thirty] voting for the Republicans. One is, get men marrying these women so they're no longer single, so that their lives provide what they want. If they stay single, then they're going to turn to government for the things that they want." 
 
In other words, the Republican party doesn't have a "women" problem; it has a "Rush Limbaugh" problem.

Republicans blame Limbaugh

Did he cost them the election?

Limbaugh is used to being hated and blamed by liberals and Democrats. But now he is being hated and blamed by conservatives and Republicans. I would almost feel bad for the guy, if it wasn't such a self-created problem. And the truth is that Limbaugh, like the Dark Side of the Force, thrives on your hatred.

In fact, this situation is only highlighting something that many people have noticed: the Republican party is fracturing into two pieces. On one side you have the moderate Republicans who are willing to compromise in order to push their agenda forward. These are the Republicans who are willing to accept gay marriage (like Shepherd Smith, who famously stated on FOX News that Republicans against gay marriage are on "the wrong side of history"). 
 
On the other side you have the Tea Party folks. They are not quite Libertarians, but they are close. In fact, most of them are falling into the Libertarian camp by default, even though they consider themselves staunch Republicans. These are the hard line Republicans, the ones who refuse to back down or compromise, even if they know it will cost them votes.
 
Rush Limbaugh is obviously on the Tea Party side. Will the Tea Party form its own thing? Currently it benefits greatly from its ties to the main Republican party, the way the Green Party benefits from its ties to the Democratic party.
 
But Rush Limbaugh and others are the ones who are driving this wedge into the heart of the GOP. And doing it proudly, as you can see. 
 
Limbaugh's siege mentality means that he thrives on - for example - accusations by Republicans that he was responsible for Mitt Romney losing the 2012 presidential election. Republicans see Limbaugh as a polarizing force, and polarization is the last thing you want when you are trying to win the election. (It's great for ratings, though!)
 
Instead of addressing these concerns directly, Limbaugh goes off on a typical tangent about FREEDOM. Waving the flag, hand over heart, the whole thing. 
 
He makes a particularly strange point about Democrats looking to government as their salvation, whereas Republicans look at government as the main road block in life. But Limbaugh specifically references "gay marriage and gay rights." Not to state the obvious, but you kind of have to get the government involved if you want to legalize gay marriage. 
 
And Limbaugh sniffs that "to them, we are against gay marriage and gay rights." What's this "to them"? Republicans and Limbaugh in particular ARE against gay marriage and gay rights, unless I missed the memo where Limbaugh stopped using the term "feminazi" and started participating in Gay Pride parades.

Limbaugh pushes away Hispanics and Boehner in one fell swoop.

Sneeringly plays "Feliz Navidad"

Many pundits are saying that the Republicans lost the election because they failed to reach out to black and Hispanic voters. Heck, even a lot of Republicans are saying that. 

Trust Rush Limbaugh to take a serious and honest assessment of the Republican party's shortcomings, and not only throw it back in everyone's face, but also turn it into a racial insult. 
 
Limbaugh begins with an audio clip of an interview that Republican and Speaker of the House John Boehner recently did with Diane Sawyer. "I think what Republicans need to learn is, how do we speak to all Americans?" Boener said on an interview with Diane Sawyer. "Not just the people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans?"
 
That is - I think most people would agree - not only a reasonable thing to say, but a rational and fair one as well. It's honest, and it doesn't cast blame, it just focuses on the road that Republicans need to take to improve things, not only for the GOP but for Americans as a whole.
 
Cut back to Rush Limbaugh who sneers, "Let me help… let's reach out to the Hispanic community." 
 
And then he plays "Feliz Navidad."
 
Here is the context for this: it is Limbaugh's contention that Obama won the election by promising all kinds of magical gifts (like basic health care) to groups (like Hispanics) who felt entitled to them. Limbaugh calls this the "Santa Claus effect." Liberals and non-white people are like children, you see, demanding presents. Who's going to vote against Santa Claus?
 
The only way to lure people away from Santa Claus is with another Santa Claus. By playing "Feliz Navidad," Limbaugh is saying "You Hispanics are childish rubes who only vote for the person who gives you free stuff… well, it's Christmas over here at the Republican party, too! Vote for us, you idiots!"
 
I guess we should just count our lucky stars Limbaugh didn't find a way to play the Mexican Hat Dance. That seems like more his style. But he's so busy criticizing Liberals for insisting on hand-outs (like basic health care) that he obviously forgot his little party trick of mocking other cultures with terrible accents.
 
This kind of thing is why people say that Limbaugh is bad for the Republican party. Because while the GOP is making an effort to be more inclusive and reach out to Hispanics (which will also help Republicans win elections), Rush Limbaugh is turning up his nose at the very idea, as well as belittling an entire ethnicity.
 

Liberals, please consider this!

Do liberals really support this?

Since the election in which President Obama won a second term, I have tried to think of why voters kept him in office. I’m sure the liberals reading this would like nothing more than to tell me in person. However, since that isn’t going to happen, why not at least read what I have to say and determine if you see any merit in my concerns.

Please remember, the election was recent and these are only disparate thoughts and are not bound together in any particular order.

  • Democrats have the objective of garnering the Hispanic vote. Not just the current population of Hispanics but many new arrivals over the next four years.
  • Obama will grant a broad amnesty to Hispanics—current and future arrivals—which will endear him to Hispanics and ensure their vote. He will also grant them the full rights of an American citizen such as driver’s license and the right to vote.
  • Democrats have, are and will continue to smother Hispanics with every entitlement program available in the free world. An example of which is the advertising blitz via electronic media along the Texas and Arizona borders on the availability of federal assistance on providing food through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP. If the illegal immigrants pay any taxes at all, is only a pittance. Even worse than this is the fact that the commercials are being shown over the border as an inducement for Hispanics to come to the United States.
  • Why would the Democrats do this? Simple. If they can dramatically increase the number of Hispanics in Arizona and Texas and make the Hispanics dependent on the government for their every need they will win these two states in the general election, garnering their huge number of Electoral College votes needed to remain in office in perpetuity.

I know staying in office is a good thing in the minds of liberals. However, consider this. Young people, college students and those thirty or less, already believe healthcare, college tuition, food assistance programs and 99 weeks of unemployment insurance are a God-given right whether or not they choose to hold down a job and work for a living.

After four years or more of these types of entitlements, does anyone honestly believe that the young people will be happy with JUST the entitlements they have been receiving? The answer is no, it’s human nature to expect and demand more. Also, when if ever, students decide to leave college—after all there are many inducements to stay as long as possible—will they be employable, have a work ethic or even want to work? They will probably prefer to live off the system.  They will have no problem allowing other citizens to finance their every need through their hard work.

Finally, who is going to pay for all of the “free stuff?” Fewer people will work so taxes will go up to support the leeches of society; this is just common sense. As working people take home less money they will need more help from the government in the form of food stamps and other government programs.

Our national debt is currently reported at over $16, 000,000,000. We are barely paying the interest on this loan from China and other countries. The debt will increase; the credit rating of the United States will be cut again and again, leading to inflation, the dethroning of the dollar as the World’s Main Reserve Currency and the decline of the value of the dollar both domestically and overseas.

There are so many social ramifications of the democratic strategy that it makes my head hurt.

Rush Limbaugh's dark night of the soul

A tailspin of uncharacteristic self-doubt

Obama's victory by a thread has sent Rush Limbaugh into a tailspin. He truly believed that it would be a Republican landslide. Even in the face of clear polling data, he believed in the landslide. And in the wake of Election Day, we find Rush in an existential crisis.

In this long, almost Shakespearean discourse, you can see a Rush divided against himself. He starts out with the typical Republican party line: Democrats are Santa, the voting public is a bunch of children, Obama promised them candy so they voted for him. It's all just a load of sour grapes, and Rush seems to know this, because next he switches to an aggrieved, "Why don't they love us?" sort of thing.
 
Limbaugh makes a good point: the Republican party has a lot of high-profile women and non-white people in power. And yet Republicans don't (in Rush's words) "get credit for it." Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Condoleeza Rice, Mark Rubio, Herman Cain. 
 
If you actually look at the numbers, there isn't THAT much diversity in the Democratic camp. It's still mostly white dudes in power. Politics reflects the nation, and in our nation, white dudes hold the power. The kyriarchy trumps mere politics. 
 
But the Democrats have positioned themselves as a minority-friendly, women-friendly party. Whereas the Republicans have the image of being just a bunch of rich white dudes. Limbaugh acknowledges this problem, then throws up his hands in exasperation.
 
"If we're not getting the female vote, do we become pro-choice? Do we start passing out birth control pills? Is that what we have to do?"
 
Limbaugh acts like this is a ridiculous idea. But the answer - not to state the obvious - is YES.
 
And that's really what this comes down to. What does it mean to be a Republican? Can you be a Republican and still be in favor of gay marriage? Can you be a Republican who is pro-choice? Can you be a Republican who believes that immigration laws should be loosened?
 
The obvious answer, again, is YES. 
 
Women want agency over their own bodies. Hispanic voters want to not feel persecuted by their own government. Black people want to be treated with respect. These are all things that the Republican party, as a whole, COULD DO. Without losing a single bit of its Republicanism. 
 
The Republican ideal is "less government." The Republicans could find a way to make that message speak to black voters, to Hispanic voters, to female voters. But in order to do that, they might have to loosen the ties of social conservatism. As long as they stick to the conservative party line (anti-immigration, pro-life, overwhelmingly white) the Republican party is probably doomed.
 
A fact of which Rush Limbaugh is apparently keenly aware. And yet, he can't bring himself to change. 

The shameful political deal

Fema's poor performance after Sandy

Me, I’m “just” a legal citizen of the United States. I am Republican, but more specifically a conservative. I was watching the news—while working on my computer—several days ago. I was working along, paying scant attention to the real time news stream on my computer screen when Chris Christie appeared with President Obama. At that time, I liked Christie’s outspoken, hard as nails attitude so I stopped typing and maximized the box on the screen.

I saw Christie—who looked a foot shorter—gazing up adoringly at President Obama. Christie then went on for several minutes to compliment and thank Obama for his efforts in assisting in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

I am trying to keep this blog as serious as possible and not succumb to attacking either the Governor or the President.

However, I have to say I was okay with this scene for the first moment it occurred. Then I became increasingly incensed when Christie continued to fawn over the President as though everything was now okay and one million homes were not without power and thousands of homes were not destroyed. And perhaps worst of all, hundreds of thousands of citizens were still hungry with no shelter or even blankets.

The president flew in for the photo op and then immediately flew out. Nothing has changed in regards to the suffering of the citizens in the decimated cities. Hurricane Sandy caused more damage than Hurricane Katrina. President Bush was attacked in a coordinated conspiracy of the news media for his lack of response. Obama has gotten praise and the citizens still don’t have food, shelter or gas for their cars. They also don’t have protection for their homes so they can leave them for any period of time.

The question is: WHAT WAS THE DEAL BETWEEN CHRISTIE AND OBAMA? There is something that has to do with politics and it has to be something big for Christie to receive down the road. Christie—with his ego—will run for President in 2016. Does he believe Obama will win the 2012 election? Is he going to change his party affiliation to democrat to receive Obama’s support for his Presidential campaign?

If Obama and the federal government were actually helping in the affected areas or if Christie wasn’t so blatantly pandering and subservient to Obama I wouldn’t ask this question. What did Christie get in return for giving Obama a bump in the polls? One thing for damn sure, when Christie collects on his debt somewhere down the road, it will be apparent to voters what he did in 2012 and all the political horse trading in the world won’t help him then.

Pages