Praising Limbaugh are we now?
He is such a puffed up bag of wind, so full of his own self-importance, the epitome of Enid Goldstein's moniker for him - "El Porko Grande".
That he can somehow woo Libertarian Leftists like Camile Paglia is bizarre.
Et tu, Simon?
Anything coming out of this man's mouth relating to fiscal conservatism is bogus. Not one single word of even minor criticism could he utter against the Republican excesses of the last 8 years. Always a mouthpiece for partisanship, he abandoned his principles years before oxycodone.
So now, having found his righteous babe in the governor of Alaska, and his nemesis in the black President (but note that he dares not mimic him like he did Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton), he takes up the mantle of conservative values. You know, those values he threw away for the past 8 years in an orgy of self-serving lust for the interviews that propped up his banal 3 hours of hokum and hype.
You want to turn off your readers?
Then praise or quote a piece of ship like Rush.

Frank,

Glad to have pissed you off.

Now the question is: "is it a good idea?"

"Not one single word of even minor criticism could he utter against the Republican excesses of the last 8 years."

I don't like Limbaugh much either (mostly because of his inability to admit he was wrong about the Michael J. Fox situation, his hypocrisy on the Drug War, and his warmongering), but I'm pretty sure that statement is demonstrably false. I don't have access to his archives, but I believe I recall complaints about the Dept. of Education and No Child Left Behind, as well as the expansion of Medicare, Campaign Finance Reform, and steel tariffs, to name a few.

You seem to think that Limbaugh is never correct, yet Limbaugh is the partisan? Even I think James Carville is occasionally correct. Or Limbaugh for that matter.

And just how many interviews has Limbaugh had on the show in the past 8 years? I'm guessing no more than a few a year. He rarely did them when I used to listen. I think you're exactly backwards about the orgy of self-serving lust. Politicians bend over backwards to get on Limbaugh's show, not the other way around.

Frank -

How about you unplug the computer for a few months, and actually, y'know LISTEN to Rush every day.

Then maybe you won't shoot your mouth off spouting some other idiot's lies about what the show, and Rush, actually represent.

Who the hell am I kidding? Why should you do that when its so much easier to spew venom. After all, you won, right?

To answer your question, Simon -

It's a great idea to cut business taxes. Which is precisely why it won't happen.

It's not about money, it's about power. Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and their sycophants in the media want to control the lives of the little people. You can't do that if you let them alone to be prosperous.

I hate to admit that I've listened to Rush almost every day. That doesn't mean he is isn't a cracker with a cigar and an ego.
But even a talk show host I despise like Michael Savage took on the Republicans as they sold out their principles.
And it isn't that Limbaugh couldn't mount an attack. His months of belittling McCain and mounting rump support for Hillary is proof.
And those almost daily attacks against McCain certainly didn't help him as the final candidate up against Obama.
Perhaps Joe R. is correct that he did utter a few criticisms. But in the scheme of things, they certainly didn't stand out.
He was just a mouthpiece, and now he wants to stand on principle? Please.
As to the idea of $414 billion in tax cuts, a better idea would be a $414 billion cut in government expenses, starting with farm subsidies, a roll back and elimination of the prescription drug entitlement, etc...

You know Frank, for someone who says he listens to Rush, you really haven't heard
a word he's said maybe in the last five years. Yeah we feel the same way about the governor of Alaska, the only candidate worth a tinker's damn out of the whole lot, She wisely avoided the primaries, because she had a real job to do. She was the only thing driving this pathetic sham of a campaign, and not because she wanted to bring about some theocracy.

He was critical on every one of those points like the prescription drugs bill, and other
federal spending, you weren't opposed to tax cuts, or the necessary foreign expenditures in the Near East and South Asia. He was rightly critical of the path McCain took alienating the libertarians and the conservatives in the base. Savage was even more brutal and had less of a strategy how to resolve the situation. Hillary became the stop gap, which halted his advance for a while

narciso: I've listened to Rush for years, waay back when he was a regional fixture in Sacramento making fun of those hicks in Rio Linda.
That doesn't mean he's the conservative "god" that he thinks he is. The man made a fortune with the rise of conservatism during and after Reagan. He was so right during the early '90s when he helped bring about a Republican congress. But it slowly ended when his conservatism gave way to pure partisanship with the junior Bush and Cheney.
He never had the guts to really grill those people and their followers about prescription drugs, no child left behind, or the theocratic obscenity of faith based initiatives where those of us without a religious anchor point saw OUR tax money flowing to religion by government edict.

Of course his real downfall was the total hypocrisy of his years and years of tying drugs to leftists and Democrats, his years of mocking the Clinton's and their camp followers, while all the time getting himself hooked on prescription drugs.
One would think just a little humility would follow. But no, to him ALL liberals are scum, if not outright mental cases.
Only the grand poobah himself can rail against those radical activists like Obama who smoked a joint or two as a young man, and then hold his hypocritical self-righteous head up.

As to his plan to cause problems in the Democrat primary by having Republicans vote for Hillary, it was a joke. It only served to actually get Republican women who are pro-choice to register Democrat. How many of them ended up voting for Obama we'll never know. But I suspect a lot.

As to his babe Sarah Palin, I actually like her. But she is so not presidential material.

As to his babe Sarah Palin, I actually like her. But she is so not presidential material.

I think that 3 more years of Obama will have lowered the bar sufficiently. In any case in 3 years it will be a clean the bums out election. Something she has had experience with.

"...3 more year of Obama will have lowered the bar sufficiently."
Good point. We'll see.

So based on conjecture, no hard facts, or even more than a cursory examination of his long record of conservative policies, you ask us to give up because he's not perfect enough. I'd like to see what candidate meets your exacting
standards, I imagine Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is a nice man who would make a good Sec. of the Treasury, once the gold standard is reestablished. He is naive about foreign policy and our enemies, and has had some unsavory connections to anti-semites. I wouldn't vote for him for president.

What I'd like to see is someone with the intelligence & speaking ability of Rudy Giuliani, but without his baggage, get nominated by the Republicans. They need someone who can redefine & effectively articulate their core principle: the maximum extension of freedom within the framework of limited government. That means they can't rail against the nanny state and at the same time expand it, AND embrace social nanny-ism by passing coercive laws and regulations to implement the desires of Christian preachers. And it means that they must go back to pushing limited government without huge deficits, since THOSE deficits are only depriving future generations of their freedom.
And finally, like Reagan they need to once again become a party with a positive outlook.
To turn around the demographics that are killing the party, they need to get in the forefront of pushing freedom, even if that eventually means freedom to choose an abortion, freedom to choose to consume alcohol, nicotine, and addictive drugs, freedom to marry the same sex, freedom to engage in hate speech or not...in short to push for the maximum amount of social and economic freedom within the confines of an orderly society, where laws PROTECT people instead of forcing the average person to protect himself from the government.

So, if giving up because the party of Limbaugh isn't "perfect enough" is what you think, you're wrong. The Republican Party has turned upside down from what it once gave lip service to, and has abandoned those of us who value freedom over servitude.

Alright, well good luck finding a candidate like that. In a great many ways, the babe is closer to what you seek, but let perfection be the enemy of the good; that has worked out so well recently. What was Guiliani's big hangup again, that he cheated on his wife, he was pro choice, pro gay rights, pro immigration; but oh yes, he wasn't a fan of Colombia's favorite export. Your complaint about preachers rings a little hollow, the whole culture war, began when the government began mandating and undermining the belief of the parishioners

narciso,

If government can undermine faith, I'd say the real problem was lack of faith not an excess of government (although that has its problems too).

Government has always been godless. When it pretends to be otherwise go for your guns. Because it won't be long. There was a time when Christians faced lions to keep their faith and a little (or a lot) of government indoctrination has you down?

Your problems are much bigger than government.