Is this ethical?

[jmo]

"President Barack Obama's team is helping lead an effort to cast Limbaugh, a polarizing, conservative talk radio show host, as the Republican Party's new face, using campaign-style attacks against a high profile target." Source:

 

What I have a problem with is that Obama team, who are on the government payroll are leading the coordinated attack against Rush.

While the 1st Amendment doesn't prohibit this, it violates the spirit of the Amendment and why it was put in place. The 1st Amendment exists to ensure the people have a right to disagree with their government. Now the government is attacking Rush for expressing his opinion. This is wrong.

 

I know there are few fans of Rush on this board. I say this as a matter of principle, not politics. In my opinion, this would be just as wrong if it were George Bush attacking Al Franken>

 

 

[el jefe]

i have no problem with this. republifuck mudslingers have engaged in this sort of behavior for decades. now that the democrats are doing it, the repubs suddenly start whining. i say tough shit, grow up. lee atwater, karl rove pulled all sorts of crap, where was your concern then? rush limbaugh is a clown and the repubs are too cowardly and/or stupid to distance themselves from him so the democrats are making political hay -- this surprises you? if you think this is a problem, advise the repubs to drop limbaugh. being on the government payroll didn't mean that karl rove suddenly had to become bipartisan, so why is that required of a democratic administration? if it's fair for one side, then it's fair for the other.

[jmo]

As I said, this isn't about partisanship, it's about principles. I wasn't very active on this board at the time of Karl Rove. So, that's where I was the.

 

You made the accusation, now prove it. Name one instance when a republican government official, holding or representing one holding an office engaged in a campaign to discredit one critic.

 

"if it's fair for one side, then it's fair for the other." Only brings hard feelings and more partisanship, and is counterproductive to anything useful.

[Stefan]

the press is hyping this stuff

 

I heard it. it isn't nothing to listen to. kinda boring stuff

 

but I do not understand Rush when he did say he wanted Obama's thing to fail. If it fails, then we as Americans will fail. I did not agree with going to Iraq, but at least I would have wanted to win.

[StevenSeagal]

 

"if it's fair for one side, then it's fair for the other." Only brings hard feelings and more partisanship, and is counterproductive to anything useful.

 

 

Right, we certainly wouldn't want to incite further partisanship by criticicizing a guy who, to a chorus of righteous cheers, told the CPAC:

 

"Our idea of 'bipartisanship' is bringing them [Democrats] into a room and forcing them to agree with us after we've cleaned their clocks politically..."

 

This, after incessant GOP whining that Obama's pledge of bipartisanship was phony because the new administration offered to work with them but wouldn't agree to the GOP's every demand.

 

If someone like Rush, with his vast (and baffling) influence over so many citizens, can also have so effectively bullied an entire political party into parroting his divisive, misleading and failed ideologies, then I think by all means the opposing party and for that matter anyone in government who believes in what they are doing and sincerely feels their policies are going to be good for the country has a right to respond to him. At this point the main "discredit" is simply asserting that he is the leader of the GOP behind the scenes. How exactly is this assertion a negative on Rush if the GOP base seems-as they do- to so strongly agree with his message?

 

People who take issue with this are just pissed because it is a brilliant political strategy by the Dems- forcing the R's to reject or accept leadership affiliation with an offensive reactionary who champions greed, ignorance, and all the elements of the most base level egoism in our culture.

 

 

 

 

[StevenSeagal]

 

but I do not understand Rush when he did say he wanted Obama's thing to fail. If it fails, then we as Americans will fail. I did not agree with going to Iraq, but at least I would have wanted to win.

 

Stefan, this is the response Rush wants from people , specifically so he can invoke the "dems wanted Bush to fail in Iraq" GOTCHA retort.

 

The real reason Rush wants Obama to fail is that if (and yeah admittedly a big if), in four years, the country is happy and prosperous or otherwise well on its way- then his credibility is fucked...except with his dittohead base who would gladly go down with the ship, bleating all the way.

[el jefe]

As I said, this isn't about partisanship, it's about principles. I wasn't very active on this board at the time of Karl Rove. So, that's where I was the.

 

You made the accusation, now prove it. Name one instance when a republican government official, holding or representing one holding an office engaged in a campaign to discredit one critic.

 

"if it's fair for one side, then it's fair for the other." Only brings hard feelings and more partisanship, and is counterproductive to anything useful.

 

scooter libby, assistant to the pres of the united states george bush and chief of staff of vice president dick cheney, was convicted of releasing classified information to the press in an attempt to discredit an administration critic.

 

besides, the democrats aren't currently attempting to discredit limbaugh. they don't want to silence him but rather they want to give him a megaphone with "voice of the republican mainstream" printed in large letters on the side for all to see. limbaugh has no credibility anyway. as i see it, the ball is the republifuck court: repudiate the toxic limbaugh or embrace him. it's their decision.

 

also, let's be clear about something: libby wasn't convicted of a felony because his behavior was "unethical" but rather because it was illegal. legality and ethics are different things. you seem to want to argue that obama's people have to foreswear political allegiances once they take the reigns of government. this is incredibly naive. do you also believe the republican congessmen should be prohibited from voting as a bloc or criticizing the obama budget plan because they, too, are on the government payroll? give me a break.

 

bipartisanship would be nice, but the repubs had a chance but refused to try. now you think the democrats have to continue to pursue bipartisanship even though the repubs have refused to engage in it? not likely. as rahm emmanuel said, the democrats only have to try bipartisanship, they don't have to succeed at it. it's been tried, the repubs declined to meet them halfway, so there we are. i say the democrat are right to let them have it.

[ivan]

doesn't duty to country demand you dog your opposition? the more power they lose, the more likely you'll be able to get your agenda through the congress, no?

 

see - being an asshole is patriotic!

[el jefe]

ivan, what jmo wants is the one way street of fascism where the conservatives have free reign to behave however they want (since their agenda was sanctified by the baby jesus himself) and democrats are kept silent by some "ethical" code of conduct that amounts to simply "thou shalt not talk back." all of this justified, of course, by the fact that he wasn't he "wasn't very active on this board at the time of karl rove" (i.e., world history prior to jmo's activity on this board no longer exists and appeals thereto are essentially out of bounds).

 

"dogging" the opposition is duty to country in a democracy. in the fascist, one-party world the right to oppose is "unethical".

[jmo]

Scooter Libby got what he deserved. The fact that I wasn't on this board simply explains where my opposition to that was at the time.

 

I love the way that you guys project your own intolerance and bias on to others. I did not say any of what you think I want, and specifically said the opposite. Where are you getting this baby jesus stuff?

 

Government officials criticizing each other is fine. So is the press criticizing the government. Government officials responding to critics by attacking and trying to marginalize them is wrong. No one is going to take our liberties away all at once. They'll do it one piece at a time.

 

The right to oppose is also wrong in socialist countries

 

At one point I thought it was possible to have civil politcal debate. I was wrong. Up until now, I've hardly thrown any mud, despite all that's been thrown back at me. I have better things to do with my time than argue with a bunch of third grade dropouts who can convince themselves they are right by bashing down every who disagrees with them. Enjoy your litter box.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

"President Barack Obama's team is helping lead an effort to cast Limbaugh, a polarizing, conservative talk radio show host, as the Republican Party's new face, using campaign-style attacks against a high profile target." Source:

 

What I have a problem with is that Obama team, who are on the government payroll are leading the coordinated attack against Rush.

While the 1st Amendment doesn't prohibit this, it violates the spirit of the Amendment and why it was put in place. The 1st Amendment exists to ensure the people have a right to disagree with their government. Now the government is attacking Rush for expressing his opinion. This is wrong.

 

I know there are few fans of Rush on this board. I say this as a matter of principle, not politics. In my opinion, this would be just as wrong if it were George Bush attacking Al Franken>

 

 

Assuming the Reuters conjecture is true (which I doubt)...So...Rush can attack the government but the government shouldn't defend itself?

 

Where in the hell did you get that idea that the 1st Amendment exists to ensure that people have a right to disagree with their government, or for any other 'official' reason, for that matter? Our rights are SELF EVIDENT...the government doesn't 'grant' them to us, nor require us to 'use them properly'. We can use them for whatever we damn well feel like; they exist with or without government. The majority of 1st Amendment supreme court rulings, for example, have nothing at all to do with disagreeing with the government. The central theme there, if there is one, is people simply trying to do their own thing and enjoy the freedoms that are core to our society.

Edited March 7, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[mattp]

I agree with your litter box analysis, JMO, but what I have come to understand around here is that many people think rhetorical insult and baiting are demonstrations of spirit and intellect or otherwise part of what makes the discussion compelling. Sometimes I agree, but when it turns to a steady diet of the stuff even the best caviar gets pretty nasty.

 

As to the Democrats and even the White House fighting back against Rush Limbaugh? I get what you are saying about how there is something unseemly when a President can use his pulpit to attack a critic but I think this is vastly outweighed by the simple justice of the matter when you have someone like Limbaugh, a blowhard liar who has been a major player in American politics for 20 years and who fired the first shot in this conflict. I agree with those who say: let him have it.

[tvashtarkatena]

I agree with your litter box analysis, JMO, but what I have come to understand around here is that many people think rhetorical insult and baiting are demonstrations of spirit and intellect or otherwise part of what makes the discussion compelling. Sometimes I agree, but when it turns to a steady diet of the stuff even the best caviar gets pretty nasty.

 

 

Example #1. That didn't take long. The boy just can't help himself.

 

As for boys who seem to be able to take care of themselves in this schoolyard full of 'bullies', jmo doesn't appear to have much of a problem in that department.

Edited March 7, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[mattp]

You are really screwing up here, Tvash. Us lefties are supposed to stick together and stay on point. Lets get back to bashing the "other guys" now.

[jmo]

I agree with your litter box analysis, JMO, but what I have come to understand around here is that many people think rhetorical insult and baiting are demonstrations of spirit and intellect or otherwise part of what makes the discussion compelling. Sometimes I agree, but when it turns to a steady diet of the stuff even the best caviar gets pretty nasty.

 

As to the Democrats and even the White House fighting back against Rush Limbaugh? I get what you are saying about how there is something unseemly when a President can use his pulpit to attack a critic but I think this is vastly outweighed by the simple justice of the matter when you have someone like Limbaugh, a blowhard liar who has been a major player in American politics for 20 years and who fired the first shot in this conflict. I agree with those who say: let him have it.

 

Fair enough. tvash said the same thing, so I apologize for any remarks I made that that were snide or insulting. Except for the previous post in this thread.

 

No one is going to convince anyone of anything, so political discussion here is really pointless.

Edited March 7, 2009 by jmo

[el jefe]

the democrats aren't trying to marginalize rush limbaugh and they sure aren't attempting to silence him or in any way limit his right to free speech. instead, they are trying to place him front and center as the voice and de facto leader of the republican party; they are working to amplify his voice, not silence it. if this is bad for the republicans (and i believe it really hurts them), then the repubs need to grow some cajones and make it clear that rush doesn't speak for them. they are getting played by the democrats and i'm loving it because i believe the tables have finally been turned and the republicans are no longer in control of the terms of the debate. this is a refreshing change.

 

nothing about this situation is in any way a threat to anyone's civil liberties. however, your desire to promote the notion that democrats in power aren't allowed to comment in this way is definitely an attempt to curtail the civil liberties of others. you want to talk like you are in favor of free speech while at the same time deciding who gets to talk and who doesn't. sounds like fascist behavior to me.

 

you want everyone to agree with your "tsk, tsk, how unethical" crap when the tide is flowing opposite to what you want, but you stick your head in the sand and say "i wasn't on this forum" during the karl rove years, as if somehow one could only have learned about karl rove et al on cc.com! you need to grow some cajones if you are going to venture out onto the playground at lunchtime. you conservatives have become so accustomed to controlling the terms of the debate you have no idea what to do when you don't have your way, so please, go ahead and take your ball and go home. what is happening right now re: rush limbaugh and his role vis-a-vis the republifuck party is the democratic process at work. you are the one who wants to decide who gets the right to free speech and when.

[tvashtarkatena]

You are really screwing up here, Tvash. Us lefties are supposed to stick together and stay on point. Lets get back to bashing the "other guys" now.

 

Me, screw up?

 

Never.

[mattp]

No one is going to convince anyone of anything, so political discussion here is really pointless.

 

For me, the point is generally not to convince anyone of anything. I participate in these discussions mostly for recreation but also because I actually find it compelling to read how some knucklehead who I completely disagree with views the world. It is interesting and occasionally educational.

[jmo]

No one is going to convince anyone of anything, so political discussion here is really pointless.

 

For me, the point is generally not to convince anyone of anything. I participate in these discussions mostly for recreation but also because I actually find it compelling to read how some knucklehead who I completely disagree with views the world. It is interesting and occasionally educational.

 

Good Point. It has been both.

[ivan]

No one is going to convince anyone of anything, so political discussion here is really pointless.

i would say this bon mot is true regardless of location

[olyclimber]

"I was on acid and I looked at the trees and I realized that they all came to points, and the little branches came to points, and the houses came to point. I thought, 'Oh! Everything has a point, and if it doesn't, then there's a point to it.'" -- Harry Nilsson

[KaskadskyjKozak]

"I was on acid and I looked at the trees and I realized that they all came to points, and the little branches came to points, and the houses came to point. I thought, 'Oh! Everything has a point, and if it doesn't, then there's a point to it.'" -- Harry Nilsson

 

What's your point?

[olyclimber]

[video:youtube]l2a-_dvxtN0

[bradleym]

I love the way that you guys project your own intolerance and bias on to others...Up until now, I've hardly thrown any mud, despite all that's been thrown back at me. I have better things to do with my time than argue with a bunch of third grade dropouts who can convince themselves they are right by bashing down every who disagrees with them. Enjoy your litter box.

 

jmo, i hate to be the one pointing this out, and i don't suppose you will accept it, but here goes...

 

You began recently to post statements, assertions and leading questions that perhaps in your mind are 'true' or 'factual' or 'clear as day'. Things like, 'Obama is no messiah', 'why is Obama appointing criminals?', 'Obama is out to destroy capitalism', 'Obama wants to infringe our civil rights', etc (some of these are paraphrased, but i think the essence is accurate). You've also stated several times that the market has fallen significantly since the election, or since the inauguration, as though there is a direct correlation and there might not be anything else than Obama out there in the wide world that is driving markets.

 

In the case of the FOX article that you employed to 'prove' your assertion that 'Obama is no messiah' (no one here, certainly not me, ever asserted that he was--classic strawman), I attempted to demonstrate to you that the reality addressed by that article is a little more complicated than the article would have us believe. I didn't 'prove' that the article was wrong (not my intent), but that it wasn't exactly right either. I don't think that has sunk in with you--in which case, you might be a little more hesitant about your statements--and maybe it never will.

 

You wish to engage in 'civil political debate', yet you insist on declaring that the analyses and solutions to problems are very simple, and that the Obama administration are either very cynical or very stupid for not realizing how simple things really are. (How can we pronounce such final judgements on an administration that is less than two months old, anyway?)

 

For example, you stated in another thread that there are four or so things you would do about the economic situation were you president. Yet, reducing spending to balance the budget could actually make it worse, counter-intuitive as that may seem. Econ 101 describes the economy as a circulation of wealth, and recessions are in part the absence of circulation, so there may actually be a role for government in trying to restart that circulation, even at the risk of future inflation due to deficits. Balanced budgets result as much from increased tax receipts due to a strong economy as they do from cutting spending.

 

There is plenty to debate in the above paragraph, and i'd be happy to do so--i might learn something.

 

But if you insist on making simplistic, and frankly antagonistic statements, then don't be surprised if someone who appreciates the complexities of the situation eventually throws up his hands and gets nasty about it.

 

It has little to do with 'liberal' v 'conservative'. I get in just as much trouble around here with j_b as i might with you, and those labels just serve to perpetuate simplistic and uninteresting shouting matches, when in fact there are interesting things to talk about.

[Fairweather]

You use quotation and speech marks more than the BBC. And the statement below struck me as wholly arrogant:

 

But if you insist on making simplistic, and frankly antagonistic statements, then don't be surprised if someone who appreciates the complexities of the situation eventually throws up his hands and gets nasty about it.

 

When liberals use this simplistic and, frankly, antagonistic strategy, they shouldn't be surprised when thinking people eventually throw up their hands and get nasty about it.