Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Special Inauguration Week BOW Award

I'm still not ready to return to the full-length BOW (Buffoon Of the Week) Award entries I was posting during the political campaign.  But I did want to give out this special Inauguration Week BOW Award, because it seems so richly deserved.

No, I'm not giving it to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, for his mangling of the Presidential Oath on Tuesday, though I could.  Nor am I giving it to Vice President Joe Biden, for his ill-advised joke about the Chief Justice which seemed to annoy President Barack Obama (first time I've typed that -- I like it!) so much the following day, though I could.

Instead, this BOW Award goes to America's number one talk radio clown, Rush Limbaugh, for announcing to the world that he hopes Obama fails as President.  Limbaugh was asked by "a major American print publication" for a 400 word essay on his "hopes for an Obama Presidency."

Here's his exact reply:

So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” ... See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.

First off, who knew that liberalism was responsible for all that's gone wrong in the last eight years?   And here I thought George Bush and the Republican leaders of Congress for most of the last decade were conservatives.  Silly me.  Second, this is the same guy who just two years ago said, with respect to people on the left who he perceived as rooting for George Bush's failure, "I’m getting so sick and tired of people rooting for the defeat of the good guys."  For the record, I never wished for George Bush to fail.  I never wanted American soldiers to die in Iraq because of his misguided policies.  I never rooted for the economy to tank, costing millions of Americans their homes and their jobs.  Mr. Bush managed to preside over all these things without encouragement from me, without any of us rooting for him to fail.  Was I an enthusiastic supporter?  Never.  Did I support him in the aftermath of 9/11, when for one brief, shining moment he actually expressed the mood of the nation and seemed to be responding responsibly?  Yes, I did.  Then he attacked Iraq.

If Rush wants to root for Obama's failure, that's fine.  Right-wing ideologues have been marginalized already.  By publicly calling for the failure of a new President with 75% approval ratings, in a time when people are truly suffering, Rush furthers that process, and makes it clear to all just what a buffoon he is.  And so this week, he wins the BOW Award.  Take a BOW there Rush; you've earned it.  And then see if you can get the other foot in your mouth, too.  Maybe that will shut you up for a while....


( 27 comments — Leave a comment )
Jan. 25th, 2009 08:14 pm (UTC)
I totally agree.

Limbaugh is such a twit, I really don't know why he gets as much air time as he does, outside of his small circle of adoring nutjobs. Maybe people like to laugh in total disbelief.
Jan. 25th, 2009 09:34 pm (UTC)
Sadly, Sherwood, if you go to the FOX News website and read the comments posted in response to some of their "news" stories, you find a lot of people who think just the way Rush does.
Jan. 25th, 2009 09:39 pm (UTC)
*shudder* this is true. I tend to forget, because I avoid Fox News with intent.
Jan. 25th, 2009 08:23 pm (UTC)
And then see if you can get the other foot in your mouth, too. Maybe that will shut you up for a while....

Oh, what a lovely thought!
Jan. 25th, 2009 09:36 pm (UTC)
Wishful thinking, I fear. His mouth is big enough to accommodate both of Shaquille O'Neal's feet...
Jan. 25th, 2009 09:16 pm (UTC)
On the other hand, maybe it's time to just pay no attention to Rush at all.
Jan. 25th, 2009 09:36 pm (UTC)
Yeah, Maybe. But this was so BOW worthy, I couldn't resist.
Jan. 26th, 2009 12:41 am (UTC)
Very true.
Jan. 25th, 2009 09:24 pm (UTC)
But what about Chris Wallace for suggesting an hour after the inauguration that Obama wasn't really the president...

Or Bill O'Reilly for stating that the scariest line in Obama's speech was "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." A line which I thought was the most heartening.
Jan. 25th, 2009 09:38 pm (UTC)
Yes. Both were BOW worthy as well. This was why I didn't want to get in to a full-length BOW entry. Because once I get going on one, there's so much material that I never know where to stop....
Jan. 26th, 2009 01:59 am (UTC)
Make that 83% approval, as of the night before Inauguration. Bush: 22%, Cheney 13%.
Jan. 26th, 2009 02:08 am (UTC)
Beg your pardon! Didn't mean to cheat him out of his full measure of support. Check out the comment I got on my other blog. Truly the work of a wingnut: http://davidbcoe.wordpress.com
Jan. 26th, 2009 02:22 am (UTC)
>I thought George Bush and the Republican leaders of Congress for most of the last decade were conservatives.

You don't have many conservative friends, do you? Otherwise, you would know that...no, George Bush is by no means a conservative, and the conservatives have been despairing of him for years now. (He is a Republican, but there is a whole group of Republicans who are not conservatives. McCain is another, which is why he had trouble appealing to the conservative voting base. Before Palin, they weren't behind him at all.)

But, you are absolutely right...hoping the president fails is just vile and petty! I much prefer the attitude of Zo (Alonso whatever-his-name-is, the young, black, conservative who makes all those funny web casts) who hoped very much that Obama does well, despite his objections to him. He shows a much greater breadth of mind.
Jan. 26th, 2009 04:11 am (UTC)
Conservatism knows many forms, I guess. George Bush's social views were and are deeply conservative. So was his approach to foreign policy, which ignored the UN and international diplomatic efforts in favor of military aggression and unilateralism. So was his approach to the environment. To my mind, the only thing that wasn't conservative was his profligate spending and refusal to face budget realities.
Jan. 26th, 2009 02:13 pm (UTC)
I know many conservatives like to say GWB really isn't a conservative. (I'd be trying to distance myself and my party from him, too, if I was a member of the GOP.) But like it or not the old Goldwater brand of conservatism is long dead.

The modern day GOP has morphed into something Goldwater would find totally unrecognizable. So would T.R. So would Eisenhower. So would Lincoln.

THAT Republican Party -- one of true fiscal/economic/environmental conservatism -- is dead and gone. And it ain't coming back.
Jan. 26th, 2009 04:13 pm (UTC)
Mark wrote: "THAT Republican Party -- one of true fiscal/economic/environmental conservatism -- is dead and gone. And it ain't coming back."

And for proof of this, one need only reflect on this Presidential campaign. If there is a modern day Republican who comes close to this old ideal, it's the John McCain of 2000. And in order to win his party's nomination this time around he had to sell his soul to the hard-core right. Sad, but true. In my opinion, the closest thing to old-school GOP conservatism that exists today is the Democratic Blue-Dog Coalition.
Jan. 26th, 2009 03:25 pm (UTC)
Bush was in the center on most of the things you mentioned. The real conservatives are much farther over and had been right from the beginning of his term. In both foreign policy and the environment, he fell quite short of what the conservatives were looking for.

In fact, it oftened amused me -- in a sad way -- to hear my liberal friends yelling and screaming about how far to the Right Bush was at the very same time that my conservative friends were railing on about how short Bush was falling of what they wanted.

Jan. 26th, 2009 04:17 pm (UTC)
If the "Real Conservatives" are that far to the right of Dubya I can only pray to every god I can think of that they never find themselves in a position to influence policy.
Jan. 26th, 2009 02:05 pm (UTC)
What amazes me is how he still has an audience when after the 2006 elections he admitted on air he was carrying water for the GOP. Think about that. Then think about the people who listen to his show, support and defend the pig vomit he spews on air daily, and don't see a problem with that.

(And don't even get me started about his trips to Puerto Rico with penis-hardening pills so he can fuck underage children, or his on-air apoplectic screams how drug users should be thrown in jail -- until this fat slump himself was caught gobbling Hillbilly Heroin like M&Ms and making his housemaid buy them illegally in a parking lot. Typical GD Republican: do as I say not as I do.)

It comes down to this. Some people ARE lemmings. They are incapable of self-reflection. They are happy in their stupefying ignorance and they believe it somehow empowers them to know less about the world and hold dangerously simplistic views.

What I find most appalling is they're okay with that. They don't wnat to know more about themselves or the world around them. They live in fear and their ideology is based entirely on fear and how fear can be used to further their own political power.

Says a lot about the limitations, and dangerousness, of their ideology.
Jan. 26th, 2009 03:33 pm (UTC)
>What amazes me is how he still has an audience when after the 2006 elections he admitted on air he was carrying water for the GOP.

Would you stop listening to a talk show host because he admited he was loyal to the Democrats? People like guys who express their point of view.

Our nation is split nearly half and half between conservatives and liberals -- you only have to look at the last two decades of election results to see that. The liberals - based on voting records, live mainly in the coastal cities. The conservatives cover most of the middle of the country.

Here's the map I'm referring to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/election/uscounties.html

The coastal cities, however, is where most TV comes from, so most TV and news shows have a liberal bent. To most conservatives, it seems as if no one is on their side except Fox and a few radio personalities. Of course they're going to stay loyal to the few guys on their side.

That being said, Rush L. is not a guy most of the conservatives I know listen to. He's too loud and rude.
Jan. 26th, 2009 04:30 pm (UTC)
I utterly reject the notion that the media has a liberal bias. Yes, I know: there were studies that said the media ran more positive coverage of Obama than of McCain, except for a small period in September when McCain was leading. The problem with this study (which is reflected in that two week blip in McCain's favor) is that the study counted as "positive" and "negative" coverage any story that dealt with the horserace issue. So any story that cited a poll showing Obama ahead counted as "positive" coverage for Obama and "negative" coverage for McCain. The fact is that the media is biased toward whatever sells. When the Rev. Wright story broke the media beat it to death, hurting Obama the entire time. They never reported the John Hagee story with the same vigilance because it wasn't as juicy. This worked to McCain's benefit. In fact, for months people referred to the media as "McCain's base" because they loved him so much and shied away from negative stories about him. NOT writing a story doesn't show up in studies like the one I mentioned, but that's a bias as well.

By late September it became clear that a) McCain's campaign was in trouble; b) Palin was a bad choice; and c) Obama's lead in the polls was growing. The press covered these stories as news and the right screamed that this demonstrated bias. As has been said, "Facts are liberal." They certainly were in this case. But the media savaged Hilary Clinton. The press ran with the William Ayers story though there was nothing there. Going back in history just a bit, the press delivered the Administration's message on the Iraq war early on. They're not liberal. They're hungry for a story that sells.
Jan. 26th, 2009 04:10 pm (UTC)
Can't argue with anything you say here, Mark. There are right-wingers I can understand and respect, even as I disagree passionately with their ideology. Rush is not one of them. He is a loathsome human being through and through.
(Deleted comment)
Jan. 26th, 2009 04:15 pm (UTC)
Re: My Four Words:
Beats mine: "Limbaugh is a gasbag."

Thanks for the comment!
Jan. 26th, 2009 05:43 pm (UTC)
Somehow Mr. L doesn't realize that if our prez fails to lead us out of the wilderness, the country is fornicated. So in essence, he wants us to fail just so he can point and say, "See, I told you so!" Much like the idiot notion of burning the village to save it. Only this time the village in question the USA.

Jan. 26th, 2009 06:10 pm (UTC)
Well put, Jana. That's exactly what he'd saying.
Jan. 29th, 2009 01:05 am (UTC)
The list of things that the Conservatives are screaming about because the news media never touches them are long indeed.

The reason I think it is a bias to the left...not the far left, just to the left, is that the basic ideas and language used are in keeping with Liberal ideas. If they were neutral, they'd sound like CNN half the time and Fox the other half.

But what I don't think -- and you put your finger on it -- is that this necessarily means the reporters are bias. The stories tend to favor the left because heartwarming stories are more interesting, because certain ways of telling stories sell more copies. So, they get in the habit of telling them in a certain way. The Right notice because they object to that particular sell, the Left doesn't notice because they tend to think that way anyway. (Not being a Conservative myself I often don't notice until some friend who is sensitive points it out to me.)

> I can only pray to every god I can think

This made me laugh because I could picture this as a topic for a funny fictional debate, a kind of "does praying to more gods help your cause or does it just endanger you when you piss ofg some by praying to the other" kind of thing. (It doesn't sound funny when I write it, but picture it being discussed by dry British comedians. ;-)

Edited at 2009-01-29 01:05 am (UTC)
Jan. 29th, 2009 01:38 am (UTC)
Yeah, Jagi, I hear what you're saying, but I just don't buy it. The media stories that are "heartwarming" often involve traditional (and I think superficial) expressions of patriotism or "old-fashioned family values" that bear little resemblance to what many people experience in today's world. They are deeply conservative in the things they value and not necessarily "liberal" at all. But they sell. Modern conservatives, in my opinion, scream about the "liberal press" because their ideas are bankrupt. Complaining about the press is all they've got. I happened to listen in to today's White House press briefing, and you should have heard the "liberal press" hammering away at Obama's Press Sec. (whose name I've forgotten) about little piddling stuff. They're playing gotchya, just like the right complains about, but they're doing it to the Democrat now. The difference is, if they play gotchya with Obama he'll run circles around them, because he's way, WAY smarter than any of them. When they play gotchya with Dubya or Palin, or even McCain, they're on equal footing, and so they're more effective.
( 27 comments — Leave a comment )


Australia, Ghost Gum
David B. Coe

Latest Month

September 2014


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner