Lord Limbaugh the Bellicose

Dave Letterman had this to say to Katie Couric recently about Rush Limbaugh.

Letterman: What about this bonehead Rush Limbaugh? Honest to god, what is going on there?

Couric: [laughing] Dave, don't do this to me. Please don't do this to me.

Letterman: No, because now ... he gets up at Washington and he's the keynote speaker at some function and he comes up ... he he he looks like a Eastern European gangster. You know, he's got the black jacket on. The black silk shirt and it's unbuttoned like "Oh yeah, when you think Rush Limbaugh you think ... oooh, let's see a little flesh".

I saw the video of Limbaugh. Letterman is exactly right. Limbaugh was grotesque. He was careening all over the stage and sweating profusely. It was really a frightening scene. And his message "pro-failure"; project much.

I couldn't get the thought of Luca Brasi out of my mind when I saw Limbaugh. You know Brasi, the Corleones' very frightening hitman. I can just see Limbaugh playing the role at Connie's wedding. He's been practicing his lines outside and finally is escorted in to see the Don. And he says very stiffly, "Don Corleone, I am honored and grateful that you have invited me to your home on the wedding day of your daughter. And may their first child be a masculine child."

Except, the problem is Limbaugh is not frightening in the least. Physically he looks like an ugly Pillsbury Doughboy. So I don't really understand this kowtowing to this limpid load of lipids.

It's just funny that the Republican party seems to have lost its balls. These were the guys who were always talking tough, you know the chickenhawks. Now they're crawling all over each other to offer their obeisance to this loudmouth.

Good. Five years from now they'll be a regional party.

He's No Partisan, Bah

I don't pretend to know much about how judges are supposed to interpret the law, or not. It's always seemed to me that the job of a judge was to hand down common sense decisions based on legal precedent. If that is not the case, then what's the point of keeping records of decisions?

Anyway, I have been only somewhat interested in the Wisconsin Supreme Court campaign between Supreme Court Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Judge Randy Koschnik. I probably should be more interested, but of late the bantering back and forth has been boring and I have three kids to raise. Still, from the little I've read I see no reason not to vote for Abrahamson. Sure, I come from a more liberal background and would likely have voted for Abrahamson if I'd read or heard nothing at all up to the moment of voting itself, but I'm willing to take a look and I have. Randy Koschnik (“I'm not a partisan”) is an extremely partisan conservative. His beliefs about free society do not match mine.

Now more so than ever. I came into possession of a letter ostensibly written by William “Butch” Johnson. Mr. Johnson is CEO of Johnson Timber out of Hayward, Wisconsin. From the content of the letter it's fair to say he's a rabid /Republican/conservative. Lot's of them out there in the deep woods, apparently. Nothing new. What's troubling is the letter is authorized and paid for by Koschnik for Justice. In the letter, Johnson is asking for $100,000 real quick; like in the next ten days (the letter was date Feb. 11, 2009 – who knows if they reached that goal). As the Illusory Tenant points out, nothing like scaring open the pocketbooks.

Knowing that Judge Koschnik had pledged to run a clean campaign (he could begin by shaving off that hideous beard) I was curious to see if the rhetoric in the letter matched his promises.

Small businesses struggle while violent criminals walk free ...

Whoa, that's quite a dichotomy. That sentence makes it sound as though Justice Abrahamson is to blame for violent criminals ravaging small business in Wisconsin. Since the letter is preaching to the choir, who cares about facts backing the nonsense.

The quiet menace of tyranny lurks in the shadows as liberal judges seize power from the people's legislature. In all of this, one common thread emerges …

Quiet menace of tyranny? Liberal judges seizing power? Those be fighting words and hardly representative of running a “clean” campaign. I wonder if Peter DiGaudio is writing for the Koschnik campaign.

As a conservative and a leader in tbe Republican Party, I believe that three equal branches of government are necessary to maintaining a functioning government capable of defending individual rights and maintaining an even hand of justice.

Well, if that were true, Johnson would be voting for Justice Abrahamson, because the Supreme Court already tilts to the conservative side of the ledger; bought and paid for by Republican extremism. This is not about defending individual rights, it's about stacking the deck so right-wing business owners in Wisconsin like Mr. Johnson are provided a free hand.

On the other hand. Shirley Abrahamson has lost sight of these crucial principles. Instead. she is leading our entire legal system down a destructive path toward her revolutionary dream of a Supreme Court with unchecked power to re-create society in its own image.

Whose image? If the efforts to seat Annette Ziegler and Michael Gableman are any indication, it's conservatives who are being revolutionary and un-democratic in their attempt to re-create the Supreme Court in their own narrow-minded image.

Shirley Abrahamson is one of the leading liberal activist justices in the entire country. Her decisions have eroded the Rule of Law, undermined our economy, jeopardized the safety of families and breached the principles of our republican form of government. Your generous gift will help Judge Koschnick defeat the leading liberal scion of judicial abuse. I hope you'll respond in the next 10 days. Thanks again!

It's rhetoric like this that dominated the eight years of the Bush administration and contributed mightily to the 2006 election results and the smashing victory for decency and American values in the 2008 election. Apparently these thugs have not learned their lesson.

Deathstar Obama

A friend of mine sent this to me.

Conservative Flab

Hi, I'm Patrick X. You might not know it now, but I used to be an intellectual lightweight. But then I bought Conservative Flab (available for three easy payments of $19.95) from the Charlie Sykes show and now I'm a heavyweight. Yup – I got these amazing flabs just by listening to Charlie (and other conservative talk show hosts – radio frequencies included on cd) without getting out of my chair 24/7. I can't wait to share Charlie's diet secrets with you.

Charlie will show you his "Nobama” technique for quarter barrel flabs and adding intellectual heft all over your body. And don't worry if you can't type, he'll teach you the one-handed hunt and peck technique (keeping the other free for other activities) and you'll be ready to post in no time.

Secrets to Flabs

If you buy Charlie's cds, he'll demonstrate faux outrage that will keep you glued to your chair. Remember to get mom involved. She'll need to know when to bring you those tasty barbecued ribs (featured in the Conservative Flab Cookbook) while you write.

Cardio-Carrying Conservative

This is not your liberal next door neighbors video. You'll learn how to ignore your lawn, home upkeep and annoy your libtard neighbors with the general rundown appearance of your property – it's unimportant – as you listen to Charlie extoll the virtues of personal responsibility. If only those liberals could see you now down in your basement.

Flab Sculpt

Charlie will fine tune your racist commentary with the use of code words (“they” and more) you've always wanted to use but had to get up from your chair to do so. Now you can do it without moving a large muscle group.

Step-by-Step Nutrition Guide

Charlie will also share his secrets for exposing the great liberal myth of tolerance for others. You'll be able to shatter any libtard argument and still eat the foods you love!

Hips, Buns, and Thighs

Get ready to add to those stubborn problem areas. With the help of Charlie Sykes, you'll be out of your skinny jeans in no time and will have joined the legion of conservative bloggers nationwide fighting liberals, socialists and personal hygeine.

If you don't completely transform your body within 30 days just like I did, Charlie will keep your money and chastise you personally on-line and on his radio show (hey, at least you got on). So what are you waiting for? C'mon, let's battle liberalism together.

Stratergizing Blame

Republican (conservative) strategy for placing the blame for the ills of the economy:

Blame minorities and Barney Frank (you know, because he talks funny and he's, ick, gay).

Greedy, rich, white bankers couldn't possibly share in any blame.

Fairness Doctrine Revisited

Boots and Sabers author and West Bend News columnist, Owen Robinson, would have you believe that the Fairness Doctrine is an evil plot by liberals to cancel the free speech rights of conservatives. Robinson would be wrong for a number of reasons. Mostly because he doesn't let facts get in the way. Let's take a closer look at the pertinent parts of his Feb. 13 editorial in the West Bend News.

Robinson says this about the history of the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine was an unconstitutional provision whereby the federal government used its power over the licensing of specific frequencies to dictate that the station owners provide "equal time" to opposing viewpoints. President Reagan rescinded the doctrine.

About the only thing correct about that paragraph is there was a president named Reagan and there was in existence something titled the Fairness Doctrine. First of all, there was nothing unconstitutional about the Fairness Doctrine., In fact, the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality by a vote of 8-0 in response to charges that the doctrine violated the First Amedment (Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). Can't get much more constitutional than an 8-0 vote by the Supreme Court.

It wasn't until the advent of the Reagan Administration that the FCC, now staffed by Reaganites and headed by former Reagan campaign staff member Mark Fowler suceeded in overturning the doctrine. The reasons for this move -- conservatives who claimed the press was savaging Reagan (I don't recall the press letting up with Carter or Clinton, but then I guess liberals are not so thin-skinned). Want to get around constitutional protections, pack the FCC.

Secondly, the Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with “equal time” as Robinson purports. The Fairness Doctrine required that controversial matters be discussed and opposing views be aired. Hardly a free speech barrier as Robinson states. Additionally, stations were given choices as to how to present these views, however equal time was not required for these views.

There was an Equal Time rule which applied only to political candidates and provided that the opposition be provided an equivalent chance to respond. Wow. Such clamping down on free speech.

In fact, if anything – considering that conservative thought and the Republican party were in minority status for 40+ years, you'd think they'd love the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time rule. Of course they had other things in mind. Note that Rush Limbaugh's national radio show began August 1, 1988, shortly after the FCC ruling on the doctrine.

The rest of Robinson's piece is mostly nonsense. To back up his attack on liberals and their supposed universal support of the Fairness Doctrine, he offers us an example of government regulation of newspapers on government roads. Huh? The problem with this silly analogy is there is no limit to the number of newspapers that can be printed, nor roads that can be traveled. Unlike broadcast frequencies which are a limited resource.

But it's all really a moot point. Personally, I think that attempting to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine is misguided. Twenty-first century communcation does not lend itself to government oversight, no matter how benevolent the intent may be. Regard the efforts of Communist China to rein in its increasingly electronic-savvy populace and you see the issue. If it is next to impossible to regulate in China, imagine the difficulty here.

That is why we should all join with Robinson and his cohorts to ensure the Fairness Doctrine is never reinstated. Back in the 20th century when conservative ideas were relegated to the background, not by delivery mechanism, but by the ideas themselves, conservatism floundered. Now, after a short hiatus in which Americans were hoodwinked by the lying liars on hate radio, the Republican party and its ideas have declined back into minority status. Why? It's because the more they spoke (and because of the rise of the Internet) people understood conservatism, weighted down by its prejudices, its bigotry and its lack of inertia does not represent what is best for this country.

So, let the conservatives spew their many strata of hate. It's best they be allowed to rant on hate radio. Nobody's gonna get fooled again anyway

Unbelievable ... Well, Maybe Not

The words are just beginning to fly regarding this editorial cartoon in the New York Post. Predictably the Post is defending the cartoon saying it was a parody of the recent "Travis the Chimp" attack in Stamford, Connecticut. Apparently a chimp attacked a woman forcing police to shoot and kill the monkey. Because of this, the Post says the image has nothing to do with the President, who is we all know considered the author of the stimulus bill.

Okay, a couple of things. Why a parody of the dead chimp? I'm 100% certain the dead chimp did not provide any assistance to the writing of the stimulus package. So, the chimp is not to blame. And it is certainly not a play on the old "shoot the messenger" schtick. Another excuse being it's a play on the old infinite monkey jokes -- you know, how many monkeys would it take and how many years to write the complete works of Shakespeare. Sure.

So what is it? Who else could the cartoonist be referring to? Even obliquely. Think seriously about it. If the cartoonist was not referring to our President, it was a mightily clumsy attempt at humor. The only thing remotely redeeming about it is the quality of the drawing; not very good. No wonder the author works for the Post, not exactly top drawer in the realm of journalism.

It's really quite pathetic. One writer actually had the audacity to compare this to those calling former President Bush a chimp. Really. What racial overtone regarding chimps and caucasians am I missing?

Fess up. It's just another stupid wing-nut saying what he really believes.