Cambpell Brown vs. Rush Limbaugh (vs. Ali Velshi vs. Limbaugh)

Tonight on “No Bias, No Bull”, Campbell Brown put Rush Limbaugh in her crosshairs over Limbaugh’s attack on Ali Velshi after Velshi criticized parts of Limbaugh’s WSJ article). Transcript follows…

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW”)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Mr. Velshi, you are incompetent. You are a disservice to your business, except you fit right in at CNN, disinformation, character assaults. This economy is nowhere near as bad as it was in 1982.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So, let’s stop there.

Now, Mr. Limbaugh, you may well have a legitimate case to make about tax cuts and what they can do for the economy, but the histrionics and the name-calling, they undermine anything constructive you might have to say.

Rush, I would love for you to come on, on this show and debate Ali on the issues. Make a case for your ideas. Our country is in desperate straits right now, and we need ideas. But what we don’t need is nasty rhetoric and useless noise. This doesn’t help anyone get a job or keep a job or feed their family.

If there were ever a time to put the meanness behind us and focus on real dialogue and real solutions, this is the time. And, on that note, we invited Ali to respond, not to the name-calling, but to the substance of this debate. We’re putting ourselves to our NO BIAS, NO BULL test tonight. And, Ali, let’s see, you know what you are. You’re incompetent.

No, seriously. I mean, let’s deal with the substance of the issues and forget the other stuff he said.

ALI VELSHI, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Right. Right.

BROWN: And, with that in mind, let me play a little bit more of what — of the case he made on his radio program.

VELSHI: Sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW”)

LIMBAUGH: Now, Mr. Velshi, after calling me a liar — and I’m not even a business reporter, but you pretend to be — 1986, GDP down over 6 percent. We were in a recession.

What was the centerpiece of Mr. Reagan’s economic recovery plan, Mr. Velshi? Let me spell it for you, T-A-X C-U-T-S.

In fact, Mr. Velshi, you may not have seen anything like this before, but I have. I have seen worse. I lived through worse.

When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the top marginal tax rate, Mr. Velshi, was 70 percent. When Ronald Reagan left office in 1989, the top marginal tax rate was 28 percent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: All right. So, he argues the economy much worse in the early ’80s than it is right now.

Does he have a point?

VELSHI: Yes, I mean, I don’t want to get into a “My recession is worse than your recession” argument.

But, ultimately, I am going to have to interject with a few facts that he might have to think about. We have — unemployment was higher back then than it is today. It was 10.8 percent. It’s 7.2 percent right now.

But 2008, we saw the price of a median single family home drop 15 percent. Never before have we seen that on record. Industrial production, which is the measure of how much we actually make in this country, has never been lower than it is right now.

Personal income, adjusted for inflation, was higher then than it is today. Personal savings — right after Reagan got elected, people were socking away 12 percent of what they made, today, virtually nothing, which means we don’t have anything to get us through a recession.

But put all of the economic talk aside for a second. Ultimately — we have talked about this many times — this is an economy that is based on people’s willingness to spend money, more than any other economy in the world. People are not willing to spend money.

And just to give you the one indication of this that we always talk about, and it’s consumer confidence. Inconveniently, for Mr. Limbaugh, the standard for consumer confidence was set in 1985. So, 1985, whatever consumer confidence was back then is considered 100. Today, it is at 38. It is the lowest it has ever been.

Until consumers start buying, businesses will not start investing. You can give them all the tax cuts you want; they can’t.

Now, he is right about something. Reagan cut taxes from 70 percent to 26 percent. They’re 35 percent right now, the top marginal tax rate. So, we don’t — we can’t halve them.

Back then, when you took them from that rate over a course of years, down to 26 percent, even if you didn’t believe in tax cuts, you would really believe that that would be stimulative.

So, ultimately, there are two schools of thought, cut taxes or stimulate the economy another way. Virtually nobody falls into one entirely camp or the other. I, too, would like to pay lower taxes.

But, ultimately, the facts are the facts. But maybe it was worse for a lot of people. Every recession is hard on — on some people. But we are in a very dire situation right now.

BROWN: All right, Ali Velshi with that perspective tonight. Certainly, I will reiterate my request for Rush Limbaugh to come on.

VELSHI: Absolutely.

BROWN: And we could actually have this as a debate. But, Ali, appreciate it tonight. Thanks, as always.

56 Responses to “Cambpell Brown vs. Rush Limbaugh (vs. Ali Velshi vs. Limbaugh)”

  1. Let the flames begin.

  2. dgfamilyhistorian Says:

    Campbell Brown doesn’t know what she’s talking about. That “useless noise” as she puts it is what is keeping this nation together. She has no idea of how this country is run and I’m glad that I don’t watch her show. I listen to Rush everyday and I am proud of what he says and his ideas for making this country better!! GO RUSH!!!

  3. gettingpwned Says:

    lollerskates…

    random note from seeing the clip of him hating on obama the other day: has rush put on some serious weight or what? geez…

  4. Rush is a big f….OK, I won’t go there. I hope you guys aren’t planning on letting Rush and Sarah Palin spearhead your party for the next four years. As a Democrat and Obama voter it’s fine with me, but it’s a bad idea. There’s plenty of Republicans, beginning with the new RNC Party Chairman Michael Steele, who can wave your flag without being so polarizing. Rush and Sarah are going to keep you locked into the 39% you got this time. 39% aint gonna cut it.

  5. missy5537 Says:

    Republicans and conservatives typically don’t get “in your face” like democrats do (think Maxine Waters, John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Chuck Schumer, etc.). Instead, they tend to play “nice”, be diplomatic, etc.

    Enter Rush. He says the things our politicians cannot (or have not, until now). I truly think he got the House GOP to vote against 0bama’s Porkulus bill this week, and without the big dustup between 0bama and Rush, I doubt whether they would have stood up to the democrats.

    And yes, it IS pork! Apparently the stimuli doesn’t even come into play until sometime next year, and even then, any jobs don’t seem to be real evident. It sounds like it’s just a big giveaway program to the dem’s special interests.

    Thank God for Rush and others pointing these things out.

  6. Campbell Brown monkey see monkey do…If I criticize Rush maybe I will get a bump in ratings? She is following Obama’s lead, let me distract folks from any message out in the news cycle “Spending Package real bad idea” and make it about a Radio Personality.

    Pretty Lame.

  7. lurkerlou Says:

    Another lie I caught joeremi in. I saw you wrote that you weren’t a Democrat, now you say you are a Democrat lol.

    and what is this 39% you are talking about?

  8. zonedaiatlas Says:

    Has anyone heard the news about John Conyers Wife? While John Conyers is busy going after Bush, Cheney and Karl Rove. His Wife is implicated in a Detroit bribery case and the FBI says they have “electronic surveillance evidence” that links her to the crime…

  9. This follows right in line with the Dem strategy of making Rush Limbaugh their target.

    It started with Obama, lowering the office of the Presidency, by criticizing him (something Bush never, EVER, did, despite all the b.s. that was thrown his way for 8 years). Then the DCCC, the media, moveon.org. You’ll notice Campbell Brown didn’t call out Paul Begala for calling Rush a “drug addict” on her very same network.

    It’s a concerted, and pathetic, effort by the Dems to paint Rush as the evil, racist leader of the GOP. It’s a total crock of s%$# and they know it. Well, the media doesn’t, because they’re lapdogs at the feet of the Dems, devouring whatever Obama’s minions throw them.

  10. Pay attention Lurker. I claim to be a left-leaning centrist, not a far-left liberal. I never said I wasn’t a Dem. 39% is a number I hear related to the votes McCain got. It must be the percentage of electoral votes, because Wiki says he got 45% of the popular vote. Either way, Republicans can’t win with a hard right strategy these days, which is what Sarah and Rush represent. You have to have moderates and independents, votes the 2000 version of John McCain could have gotten.

  11. unclearthur Says:

    It’s a concerted, and pathetic, effort by the Dems to paint Rush as the evil, racist leader of the GOP.

    For once, I agree with Red, except I’d remove the ‘and pathetic’ – the democrats are quite successfully pinning the image of the GOP to Limbaugh’s bombast. Which means that everything that blowhard says is now going to be perceived (if it wasn’t already) as GOP Party Platform.

    heh. Run with it.

  12. paulzman0459 Says:

    You will never see Rush go toe to toe with anyone from the other side in a widely publicized debate. Why? His ignorance will be exposed, his casual listeners will drop off and he will struggle for ratings…which isn’t in his best interest. So, as long as he can fuel the fire and be part of the problem instead of the solution, you will NEVER see him debate anyone from the other side because unlike his show, where it is well orchestrated and under his control, he will be made to look very foolish (remember his performance with ESPN and he had to resign).

  13. Velshi, unfortunately, is just a yes man when asked questions by the liberal anchors at CNN. When he is challenged by consevatives like Limbaugh, we’re actually able to learn something from the guy. Reading the transcript above, I actually learned something from the guy. He actually made me think and changed my mind on some things.

  14. Dave Olbrich Says:

    Rush Limbaugh has all the intellectual integrity and genuine political credibility of Howard Stern or Bubba the Love Sponge.

    The sheep that follow him need to stop dragging their knuckles against the ground, stand upright, stand for something besides greed, hatred and lies … and join the rest of us at the grown-ups table.

    A large part of the Obama win was a direct indictment of wacky, divisive, wrong-headed right-wing moutpieces like Hannity, Limbaugh and Coulter. Just because your prejudiced brain agrees with their ridiculous and backwards point of view, doesn’t make it right.

    If Blagojevich had been a republican, Rush would have been defending this guy. His a right-wing water carrier with absolutely no sense of right and wrong.

    It is hard to be a conservative, when its leaders have turned it into a philosophy based on hypocrisy.

  15. biznews247 Says:

    I’m a Conservative Republican. We ALL need to give President Obama a chance to put this country on the correct economic track. Rush and Hannity have been on President Obama’s case since before he was sworn in as President. Enough is enough.

    Personally, I think the combination of Michael Steele as the new RNC Chairman and Mitt Romney as our next candidate for President will give the GOP a fighting chance. Romney understands finance, Wall Street and economics. Give the new President the next 2 to 3 years to see what he can do – if it’s not working, then let the combination of Romney & Steele hammer the DEMS and see if we can regain control of the White House.

    For the record, I like Sarah Palin as a person and as Governor of Alaska, but she is NOT the answer for rebuilding the Republican party. Sorry Sarah!

    Congrat’s to Michael Steele – he is the right person at the right time to rebuild the GOP.

  16. unclearthur Says:

    I think the combination of Michael Steele as the new RNC Chairman and Mitt Romney as our next candidate for President will give the GOP a fighting chance.

    You may be right, but Romney doesn’t stand a chance in today’s Republican party. Palin? possibly.

    Poor GOP…

  17. Dave Olbrich Says:

    biznews247 —

    I’m always curious when two reasonable people look at EXACTLY the same thing and see two completely DIFFERENT things.

    So I gotta ask. Why are you a conservative republican? What do you believe that you think they also believe? Whenever I answer this question … coming from the other direction … I always have to start with “For all their warts, political timidness and misteps…”

    Mitt Romney is going to have trouble with the religion thing and the Massachusetts thing. He might be able to overcome them. Obama overcame the black thing and ran the gauntlet of misinformation set up for him by the vast right-wing conspiracy. I don’t know enough about Romney to make much of a qualitative judgement.
    But the democratic party would love to run against Sarah Palin again.

  18. Campbell Brown vs Rush Limbaugh– Clash of the mental midgets. Duel of the dimwits. War of the Morons. Battle of the imbeciles. Both of these self-anointed “experts” are unworthy of the attention they continually endeavor to draw to themselves.

  19. Dave, I love it when hypocrites like you talk about being “at the grown up table” yet resort to childish name calling. In the same post where you tried to convince us you’re a “grown-up” you called conservatives the following:

    sheep, knuckle draggers, wacky, divisive, wrong-headed, prejudiced, ridiculous, backwards, and hypocrites (pot, meet kettle).

    How very adult of you.

    Have you ever even listened to Limbaugh’s program? I’m betting not.

    He is hardly a “water-carrier” (more name-calling) for the Republicans. He has ripped the Republican party on numerous issues. I know, because I actually have listened to the show. I guess that makes me a sheep, and all the other pathetic names you used earlier.

  20. Dave Olbrich Says:

    Yep. Guilty of hyperbole. But for the record:

    I only called followers of Rush Limbaugh sheep and knuckle draggers. You don’t have to be a follower of Rush to be a conservative do you? Or is that one of the rules? At a local church, my daughter was told she couldn’t be a Democrat and a Christian, so I’m a little unclear regarding the rules to join the conservative club.

    I did not call conservatives wacky, divisive, wrong-headed, backwards and/or ridiculous. Those names were reserved ONLY for Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, and their copycats. Once again, I assume that is an extremely small sub-set of conservatives. Just
    based on this small selection of responses, I would guees that this would exclude conservatives like erljr and biznews247 above.

    I did call conservatives (more or less) prejudiced and hypocrites. We can debate the hypocrite thing if you want (although I pointed that one at the leaders, not at the rank-and-file believers), but the prejudiced comment is beyond debate. In order to believe the “truth” that comes from Hannity, Limbaugh and Coulter you have to have prejudices in that general direction … something that let’s you see and understand the truth of it. In the same way that I’m prejudiced toward the reporting of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow … the lens I look at the world through makes their words ring “true.”

    I called Rush a “right-wing” water carrier. I didn’t say Republican. If he rips Republicans, it would only be for not being conservative enough or for not attacking liberals more harshly.

    As far as you are concerned, slip on any shoe that fits. Wear them all if you want. Or none of them. Of all the names that I supposed called “conservatives” … only “prejudiced” was aimed scattershot at everyone … and I stand by that remark.

    Unfortunately being conservative means being from the same ideological pool that opposed women’s right to vote, opposed civil rights for black Americans and opposed laws to end child labor. If you’re pleased and proud to stand on the shoulders of those accomplishments/points-of-view … knock yourself out.

  21. And joe, McCain got 46 percent of the vote, not 39, not 45.

    58,343,671 people voted for him.

    Dave, it’s also funny that you use Hillary’s “vast right wing conspiracy” line, saying it was used against Obama.

    That’s funny, because it was Hillary who used Rev. Wright against Obama, not John McCain. It was Bill Clinton who used race against Obama, not John McCain.

    Biznews, I totally agree about Michael Steele. The “grown-ups” in the Dem party will paint him as an Uncle Tom, but he was an excellent choice for RNC head.

  22. Dave Olbrich Says:

    Nobody ever said that John McCain had any part or contributed in any way to the messages delivered by the single-minded, myopic, and high effective communication channel that is the vast right-wing conspiracy. I made no references to Rev. Wright.

    You call it funny. Fine. I call it changing the subject.

  23. Dave, your post lectured people who vote Republican to start being “grown-ups” and yet your post was filled with childish name-calling.

    Now you come up with this gem…

    “Unfortunately being conservative means being from the same ideological pool that opposed women’s right to vote, opposed civil rights for black Americans and opposed laws to end child labor.”

    Total douchebaggery on your part.

    Clearly, you need to go back to 4th grade history, and learn that it was the DEMOCRATS who opposed civil rights legislation, NOT THE REPUBLICANS.

    There’s only one former KKK member in the US Senate, and he’s considered an icon in the DEMOCRATIC party, Robert Byrd. Byrd fillibustered against civil rights legislation for 13 consecutive hours on the Senate floor.

    As for women’s rights to vote, in 1896, Republicans were the first major party to favor women’s suffrage. When the 19th Amendment finally was added to the Constitution, 26 of 36 state legislatures that had voted to ratify it were under Republican control.

    CHILD LABOR: This comes from that icon of the “vast right wing conspiracy”, the NY Times…

    CHILD LABOR BILL PASSED.; House Republicans Help Defeat a Southern Filibuster.

    Special to The New York Times.

    February 16, 1915, Tuesday

    So, basically, the party you support was actually the one on the wrong end of ALL THREE issues you just tried to attack Republicans with.

    Wanna try again?

  24. libertyandjustice Says:

    “Unfortunately being conservative means being from the same ideological pool that opposed women’s right to vote, opposed civil rights for black Americans and opposed laws to end child labor. If you’re pleased and proud to stand on the shoulders of those accomplishments/points-of-view … knock yourself out.”
    DO’s statement is so absurd and insulting it borders on insane or a derangement problem. So much for a rational discussion.

  25. Dave Olbrich Says:

    Never said Republican. Said “conservative”
    They aren’t the same thing in your mind, are they ? ? ?

    Have you got equally pithy comebacks for Republican David Duke and right-wing extremist and the 2nd worst modern-day terrorist to strike on American soil, Timothy McVeigh.

    I can’t prove it. I can only guess based on past behavior, but if McVeigh would have had liberal leanings, the right-wing hatchet men would be throwing him in the face of the faithful every chance they got in an effort to raise money and regain power from the “evil” liberals … or evil Democrats … because apparently you and yours can’t tell the difference.

  26. libertyandjustice Says:

    Dave stops the nonsense and hate. The Unabomber was a liberal and most conservatives don’t believe he represented mainstream liberals. Please get a grip.

  27. Dave Olbrich Says:

    libertyandjustice (?)

    If you’re right about most conservatives (and all evidence I can think of says that you are) … I concede on the Unabomber point … touche … on this particular point … you are right.

    But I ask again.
    What makes someone a conservative?
    What do you believe that makes you a conservative?
    Why do you believe what you believe?
    I’m fascinated.

    For instance, one of my very best friends in the world leans so far to the right that he almost falls over. I asked him the same questions. After a good amount of sorting through the talking points, he admitted that he thought all poor people were lazy and didn’t want to work. He was a conservative because he didn’t like lazy people getting any of his tax money.

    And I haven’t said anything hateful. It may have been nonsense (as that determination is awfully subjective).

  28. L&J, it’s clearly hopeless. Dave’s ridiculous post got torn to shreads with something he’s totally unfamiliar with…. facts.

    So he resorts to David Duke & and a THEORY about Timothy McVeigh.

    Your post is so pathetic, I can’t even put into words how warped and diliuted you must be.

    No, Dave, Republicans and conservatives are not the same thing. Nor are liberals and Democrats. But Republicans have always been the more conservative party, and the Dems the more liberal.

    It was the more liberal Dems who fought against civil rights, women voting and child labor. The more conservative Republicans fought to get all three passed.

    So, clearly, by your theory, but with FACTS thrown in, “being LIBERAL means being from the same ideological pool that opposed women’s right to vote, opposed civil rights for black Americans and opposed laws to end child labor. If you’re pleased and proud to stand on the shoulders of those accomplishments/points-of-view … knock yourself out.”

    Congratulations. Now head on back over to DailyKos with the rest of the loons.

  29. unclearthur Says:

    He is hardly a “water-carrier” (more name-calling) for the Republicans.

    Exactly. He is now the leader of the Republican party. Don’t believe me? Ask Rep Gingrey…

    you need to go back to 4th grade history, and learn that it was the DEMOCRATS who opposed civil rights legislation, NOT THE REPUBLICANS.

    You need to learn a bit of history your own self. Remember the ‘solid south’? that was southern democrats. And yes, southern democrats were rigidly anti-civil rights. And when the Democratic Party under Truman changed and embraced Civil Rights? They all became… Republicans. Look it up. Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms – all started their careers as Democrats and left the party so they could continue to be bigots.

  30. unclearthur Says:

    It was the more liberal Dems who fought against civil rights, women voting and child labor.

    Uh, no. When Dems in the south were fighting against civil rights, they were CONSERVATIVES. Unless you consider Jesse Helms to be a liberal?

  31. Dave Olbrich Says:

    big red 08 —

    You wrote …”No, Dave, Republicans and conservatives are not the same thing. Nor are liberals and Democrats. But Republicans have always been the more conservative party, and the Dems the more liberal.

    It was the more liberal Dems who fought against civil rights, women voting and child labor. The more conservative Republicans fought to get all three passed.”

    I assume that this is just wishful thinking, desiring so intently to be on the right side that you’re willing to actually change the definition of words. If you want to claim that conservative Democrats stood in the way of progressive liberal Republican legislation, then you might actually be approaching a “fact.”

    Unfortunately, if wishes were fishes … you can’t change the definition of “conservative” and “liberal” in an effort to make your point.

    CONSERVATIVE means, “disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.”

    LIBERAL means, “favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs … free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: … open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.”

    Women’s right to vote, civil rights for minorities and opposing child labor are socially progressive and NOT conservative by its very definition and ARE liberal by its very definition. Like it or not.

    Twist it around all you want. Justify it in your head all you want. Cling to your prejudices (the same way I cling to mine), but you can’t simply reverse the definition of words to suit your purposes. Attempting to do so makes you look … well … not good.

  32. libertyandjustice Says:

    Dave thanks for the question.
    As a conservative I believe (a partial list)
    All men (and Women) are created equal. Racial discrimination and sexism is wrong!
    I believe in honesty, truth and fairness in all human endeavors including media reporting.
    I believe people should be judged by their character and not by things that they “can’t control”
    I believe in the American work ethic. It’s a character builder.
    I believe in capitalism because it is proven to produce the greatest wealth for the greatest number of people. It‘s part of freedom and liberty which I cherish.
    I believe in individual liberty, and that government should stay out of my life if I am not directly harming someone else.
    I believe that hard work should be rewarded and that lack of work should not be subsidized/encouraged with a well meaning but society destroying set of perverse incentives. How about workfare instead of welfare!
    I believe we should have a social safety net that teaches people how to fish instead of giving them fish.
    I believe in equal justice under the law. Regardless of party or politics.
    I believe in freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
    I believe in seeing people as individuals not as member of a group that implies what they think and do.
    I believe in volunteerism charity and reaching out to help people.
    I believe in representative democracy and I detest corruption in government or in any human endeavor.

  33. libertyandjustice Says:

    Sorry, one other belief must be added.
    I believe that science should not be politicized. Science should be based on facts and the scientific method. That does not stifle debate and contrary facts. Good science seeks truth not political outcomes and true science seeks proof before heralding conclusions.

  34. unclearthur Says:

    I believe in freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

    Does this mean that if one doesn’t have a religion, they must be assigned one? I can’t say I’m very crazy about that prospect…

  35. Art, you named a whopping total of THREE former Dixiecrats who became Republicans, saying “they ALL became Republicans”.

    As is often the case here,, you’re dead wrong. The overwhemling majority remained Democrats, and include : Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton’s mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr.

    Are you telling me Robert Byrd is a conservative? Or Bill Clinton’s mentor? He fillibustered the Civil Rights Act too. And Gore Sr. voted against it.

    So the senior member of the Dems, the mentor to your beloved former President, and the father of your global warming icon come from the ideological mindset you were referring to earlier.

    And Trent Lott wasn’t an elected official until 1973, long after the Civil Rights Act passed.

    Dave, we’re talking about political ideology, not the dictionary definition of the words liberal and conservative.

    L&J summed up what it means to be conservative very well.

  36. libertyandjustice Says:

    LOL Art, No you don’t have to believe in anything and you should not be forced to participate in any religion but let’s not deny some else their right to openly practice their religion. Similar to freedom of speech. We all need to tolerate our differences.

  37. unclearthur Says:

    Red, no one is denying that there were conservative democrats – there still are. Are there any liberal Republicans left in office? Or even moderates?

  38. unclearthur Says:

    but let’s not deny some else their right to openly practice their religion.

    Uh… that depends. If openly practicing YOUR religion requires you to get in my face and tell me what to do, that’s where your rights interfere with MY right to be left alone.

    And unfortunately, many people interpret the dictates of their religion in exactly this way.

  39. libertyandjustice Says:

    I agree Art. Nobody should force you to do anything regarding religion.

    However, they should have the freedom to practice their religion openly even if they say something you don’t like to hear. That’s the same as freedom of speech. That does not mean you have the right to not hear something in the public square. All types of speech should be protected.

    “Telling you what to do” is not the same as making you do it. They can tell you all day and you can ignore them all day. That’s freedom!

  40. Dave Olbrich Says:

    BigRed — you wrote “Dave, we’re talking about political ideology, not the dictionary definition of the words liberal and conservative.”
    That sentence doesn’t mean anything. You’re actually defending changing the definition of words so that they mean what you want them to mean … not what they really mean. Okay. I can’ t help you with that. Liberal and conservative cannot mean exactly the opposite of their actual meaning just because it is expediant to your argument. This applies in the both the political realm and the dictionary/vocabulary realm.

    Truthandjustice:
    I read the list of things that you believe that you think makes you a conservative. Very thoughtful list. And without quibbling about small, petty differences in potential wording, I believe in most (if not all) those things. I’m not a conservative.

    Here’s where the rubber meets the road: What do you think liberals believe? Why do you believe it? Why do you take issue with it? Who told you that liberals believed it?

    For me. If I were to make a list of things that conservatives believe in … from the other side of the mirror … my list would have been very different. As you can imagine, whenever our representatives fail to meet our ideals, that’s where the trouble starts.

  41. So much for light traffic on the weekend. Let me just say that….oh I don’t care. It’s Saturday and the beer is cold. Go Arizona! OK, I don’t actually give a flip about football, but as an American I’m required to watch the Super Bowl, so I’ll take the underdog.

  42. “Are there any liberal Republicans left in office? Or even moderates?”

    What is that, a joke? We just tried to get a very moderate one elected President.

    McCain’s buddy Lindsey Graham is a moderate, as well.

    As for libs, there’s Susan Collins & Olympia Snowe.

    Several of the more liberal ones, like Lincoln Chafee, Chuck Hagel, Jim Leach, etc. have left office, or been defeated in the past 2 years.

    The fact that so many conservative (blue dog) Dems have been elected recently tells me that conservatism trumps liberalism to a lot of people. In fact, more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal.

  43. i disagree with libertyand justice in one area only,some people absoloutely cannot work and that makes welfare or disability absolutely necessary.no ‘workfare’ type of program would be appropriate for many people simply cause they can’t. stress related disablities caused by conditions such as bipolarity or chronic anxieteies for example. there are tons of people across the country that have sleep disorders .mine is insomnia caused by stress.if i have so much as a lunch appointment with someone in the afternoon ,i’ll be awake all that night previous or waking up all night off and on because of it. having to hold a job would be something that would keep me awake and NEVER getting any sleep,thusly winding up in a hospital(which has almost occured once).this condition isn’t rare,just something not covered by the media,so many have never heard of it.it’s a sleep disorder and falls in line with others such as sleep apnea,etc.not the same thing as apnea,but it is sleep related/.there are many conditions like mine that create unemployable situations . so i have to disagree with anyone that believes that “‘anybody that hs two arms and legs can do SOMEthing'”. and i disagree with people(of course)who favor abolishing programs like welfare or social security disability programsi in favor of ‘work orientation’ programs.there’s millions of disabled people who wouldn’t benefit form those.but for some reason just about anyone i talk to who is in favor of such a transition are democrats.people that are in favor of eleminiating such helpful programs in favor of ‘teach e’m to work’ programs aren’t very studied on the subject of the disabled.ior else they just don’t care.one or the other./

  44. Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus Says:

    CNN – Showing us again why the MSM has no credibility anymore.

  45. libertyandjustice Says:

    There were two questions raised yesterday that I would like to answer.
    Dave asks “What do you think liberals believe? Why do you believe it?”
    Dave, I hope you have changed your misconception of what conservatives believe. I commend you for wanting to know, and you may find out that we have a lot more in common if you continue to have an open mind. I am also open to your thoughts. (If you hold the insults)
    Regarding what I as a conservative think liberals believe. I cannot answer that because I am not a liberal, but I think I can list some areas where we may have some policy disagreements so here goes.
    As a conservative, I believe in small government, government is a force for good when it does only things the private sector is incapable of doing./ I.e. police and fire, public schools, national defense, social safety net for those who cannot help themselves etc. I’m afraid of big government that intrudes into your life, confiscates your wealth, punishes success, encourages bad behavior, subsidizes inefficiency, and socially engineers. That destroys liberty and justice unintentionally.
    As a conservative, I believe in the constitution as a protector of our rights and a limitation on government and those who might harm you. I don’t believe in legislating from the bench. If some part of the constitution or law needs to be changed we have a democratic way of doing it. It’s called the legislative or amendment process. That process is the living breathing process part of the government, the Non elected judges are there to interpret the laws not to make the laws. If the law need s to be change get the votes, don’t let judges change the will of the people by re-writing the laws or the constitution.
    As a conservative, I’m not against unions but I’m not for unions. It should be determined by the workers only thru secret ballet without intimidation by any party (union or company).
    As a conservative, I’m against teacher tenure and the monopoly of the public school system. Unfortunately, tenure entrenches poor performing teachers and ill serves the students and is a national catastrophe. I’m for school vouchers and competition in education; why not let the poor people have access to better schools and let the schools compete. It will raise the bar for everybody. Yes there may be some downside to this (which I can’t think of at the moment) but let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Certainly, most kids would benefit from better choices. We don’t subsidize terrible restaurants why subsidize terrible schools, give people the freedom to walk and vote with their feet and vast majority will benefit. It’s common sense.
    As a conservative, I don’t believe government should be propping up or dictating to business. If a business makes poor decisions it should go thru bankruptcy. (Citi, B of A etc.) Fannie and Freddie should never have been socially engineering the rates of home ownership (Barney Frank) by underwriting subprime loans and then securitizing those loans with AAA ratings. This whole financial melt down and housing bubble would have been avoided if government was not social engineering home ownership for folks who should of been renters instead of owners. Let the market work and institute fair regulations that make common sense. Such as strong antitrust and full disclosure.
    As a conservative, I believe in a strong defense, unfortunately mad men like Hitler, Stalin, Mao Chavez and the like are not paper tigers. A strong deterrent minimizes the likely hood of wars. I’m not for nation building and intervention in other countries affairs. However, I do believe we should do what we can to prevent genocide and promote democracy and capitalism because it improves people’s lives. Yes, I believe Bush made a un intended big mistake in Iraq, believing there was WMD, but I believe also that the surge has worked and the country is much better off today as a democracy than having the brutal dictator Sadam still there. That’s not giving Bush a pass! I’m not for the US being the policeman of the world but he did manage to parlay the horrible costs of this war into something good.
    As a conservative, I’m not happy with the bias in the media. Again I think the serious straight news media should be fair and balanced and treat both sides of the augment in an unbiased ethical manner, sort of like “Equal justice under the law’ I suspect your happy with the media except with FNC and talk radio, but if you were fair you would have to admit the media is corrupt and lacks credibility.

    WVMR, I wish you well. I am sorry to hear of you disability and if someone is disabled then I of course think they should be helped by the government. However, I believe even most disabled should be required to give back something in exchange for assistance. (If they are capable) That builds a just society and adds something to the economy. For example, you obviously can use a computer, could you do something at home on the computer that gave something back. Perhaps, work for nonprofit, sending emails out or something like that? I believe all work is meaningful and honorable, Could you not, help at a nursing home or even pick up the trash on your street in exchange for your assistance. Every little bit helps and you may even build the confidence to move up the ladder to something even more productive.

    Well, thanks for reading. I invite you liberals and moderates to join us!

  46. jasonheartland Says:

    I hope people don’t hold their breath waiting for a propagandist and liar like Limabugh to appear on CNN to discuss this. He’s all show and bluster and, when called out on details, too often obfuscates or sticks to his disproved arguments. Give it to Velshi, at least he nodded toward Limbaugh’s point about unemployment figures in the 1980s before critiquing Limbaugh’s argument in detail. For someone such as Limbaugh, showing some semblance of fairness in debates rarely happens. And yes, as someone of the left, I do listen to Limbaugh. He’s hilarious, so often inaccurate, so often guilty of criticizing people and politicians with whom he disagrees while defending his political allies who do the same things, so often misrepresents information, so often cherry-picks information such as in the 1980s-versus-2008 discussion above. He’s hilarious, just not in the ways he tries to be.

    If right-wingers believe that all work has value, they should be in favor of it bring properly remunerated, including through allowing unionization, instead of backing politicians whose anti-labor policies and allegedly “free-market” provisions have hastened the decline of people’s purchasing power, the decline of real wages over the last 40 years, and more. If so for freedom, how about preventing businesses from harassing and intimidating workers to prevent unionization–the far more common example of workplace intimidation than what some bad-apple unionists do? [See Kate Bronfenbrenner’s work]

    Spare me the specious claim that McCain was “very moderate” when he toed the line with a extremist like Bush to get elected, reversing policies on torture (that we’re even discussing torture as policy is an abject disgrace), abortion, budgets, Iraq, and more. Spare me also these quasi-commandments about Americanism and hard work. So many Americans work hard and fall behind. So many Americans work hard and have no health insurance. So many Americans have mental illnesses and health issues preventing them from holding down regular jobs, yet still manage to raise kids. So many Americans are eligible for benefits yet are routinely lied to so states can wrongly pare down welfare budgets by not paying eligible citizens. [See the most recent Mother Jones.] Spare me the hackneyed mantra about tax cuts from Limbaugh and others, when we’ve lived in the era of the greatest tax cuts, and have a bloated national debt as a result, all with job cuts–and well before the recent economic downturn. The first three years of the malfeasant Bush administration saw 84 major corporations not pay taxes and/or get tax refunds despite being very profitable for 1, 2, or even 3 years. No job guarantees for the tax cuts, hundreds of billions in tax revenue lost, for the upward redistribution of wealth. [See Citizens for Tax Justice]

    Spare me the conservative mantras already. You repeatedly failed. You squandered a budget surplus. You started two wasteful, grotesquely expensive wars. You backed torture. You repealed Glass-Steagall. You hastened job flight. You railed on and on about paring down government, then showed how feeble scaled-down government is. You sat on your hands, blaming overwhelmed states and local governments, while Katrina blasted the gulf–right after years of crowing about America the effective security state.

    Spare me.

  47. unclearthur Says:

    This whole financial melt down and housing bubble would have been avoided if government was not social engineering home ownership for folks who should of been renters instead of owners.

    The housing bubble was caused by an insatiable appetite for US mortgage-backed securities, mainly on the part of newly wealthy investors overseas. Chinese crimelords and Vietnamese entrepreneurs and Russian businessmen all wanted to invest in something that ‘always increased in value’, which for the past 20-30 years would have described homes in the United States.

    When demand for these investments outstripped supply, it was the lenders (abetted by loosened regulations), who started lowering their requirements to get a mortgage loan, specifically to beef up their stock of mortgage-backed securities. Never mind that the risk associated with these new loans was significantly higher than the risk for traditional mortgages… there were gulls out there ready to buy them. Before it all went belly-up, you could get a mortgage without showing any proof of income – that’s simply insane.

    Greed and a lack of regulation and/or regulatory oversight caused the housing bubble. NOT social engineering.

    I’m afraid of big government that intrudes into your life, confiscates your wealth, punishes success, encourages bad behavior, subsidizes inefficiency, and socially engineers.

    you were very specific about what you thought the government SHOULD do but here you’re just stringing together a bunch of meaningless platitudes. For instance, while I’ll all for discouraging ‘bad behavior’, I’d have to know what you consider bad behavior before I agreed with you – I suspect our definitions would not be at all similar.

    WRT ‘confiscating wealth’, I must presume you are against taxation of any kind. (ALL taxation confiscates money from people.) So please propose alternate funding arrangements for, say, our national defense.

  48. libertyandjustice Says:

    Art

    Thank you for your response. I’m not sure where you get your information from but here are some facts. You ask for examples.

    You write“Greed and a lack of regulation and/or regulatory oversight caused the housing bubble. NOT social engineering.”

    70% of all mortgages are funded by Fannie and Freddie. The subprime fiasco did not start until Fannie and Freddie started funding (approving) subprime and then guaranteeing sub prime thru securitization. No investor of Fannie or Freddie debt in subprime has lost a dime because Fannie and Freddie dept is guaranteed by the federal government. That’s why so far the government has committed 70 billion (and we are just starting) to make good on these guarantees. It’s the tax payers who are on the hook for most of it, not the investors you mentioned.

    “NOT social engineering.”

    The change in Fannie and Freddie loan requirements that started the Subprime disaster was an effort at social engineering. Why else? I’d love to know your explanation and source for your facts! Democrat Barney Frank and some misguided Republican going along clearly had these well intentions but illogical goals in mind. That goal was to increase home ownership to as many low income people as possible and to spread the risk as broadly as possible. Representative Frank makes no apology and he is proud of it. He wrote the law and stood in the way of reform attempt. He “meant well” and he assumed like many that house prices would never come down and in theory these folks would rise to the responsibility that comes with home ownership. Unfortunately that idealism was a pipe dream. The collapse in housing and resulting foreclosures started a spiral and a domino effect on all other types of credit. Maybe we can agree that we do need reasonable regulation here. But not perverse regulations that create bad incentives like in the case Fannie and Freddie.

    “I’d have to know what you consider bad behavior before I agreed with you – I suspect our definitions would not be at all similar.’

    That’s easy and as plain as day. Encouraging people to take out loans they can’t possibly pay back. Would not have happened if Fannie and Freddie were not funding these ridiculous loans. Wouldn’t you call that bad behavior and social engineering? Then what is it?

    WRT ‘confiscating wealth’, I must presume you are against taxation of any kind. (ALL taxation confiscates money from people.) So please propose alternate funding arrangements for, say, our national defense.”

    Don’t be ridiculous, of course taxation is necessary but it should not be used as a tool to confiscate or spread wealth, punish the successful and try futilely to level the playing field because it hurt the economy and the very people you want to help. For example, it is proven over and over again that a lower capital gains tax produces greater wealth and greater tax revenue. However liberals feel it’s unfair. How can a tax rate that increases total revenue and create more wealth, economic activity IE jobs be unfair. It’s like the Old Russian that is given a choice to have the opportunity to buy a cow or have his neighbors cow (that is about to have a calf) taken away. The Russian is envious and says take his away and then everything will be even. (Everyone loses economically) inequality actually creates incentives and opportunities and jobs for those who go after it. It’s a good thing and produces the highest overall standard of living. That’s a fact. What part don’t you get?
    Income tax rates of up to 54% (NY, state local and federal) are in my book confiscatory and like the capital gains reduce incentives and work thereby reduce the total government tax take. The proof is when we reduce these high rates, economic activity increases and you get a greater tax yield. Would you rather have 25% of a trillion dollar economy or 20 % of a two trillion dollar economy? If you choose 25% you may feel good about clobbering the achiever but you’re shooting yourself in the foot because it shrinks the economy and your own well being. I know it’s hard to get the connection but it’s a fact. People like to deride this as trickledown economics. It works to help everyone but is hard on the emotions if you envy somebody else’s success.

    These are facts Art. Look them up if you don’t believe me!

    Enjoy the Super Bowl; I’m rooting for the underdog. Go Cardinals!

  49. unclearthur Says:

    For example, it is proven over and over again that a lower capital gains tax produces greater wealth and greater tax revenue. However liberals feel it’s unfair.

    I don’t know if ‘liberals’ universally feel it’s unfair, but I do know that the basic premise “a lower capital gains tax produces greater wealth and greater tax revenue” is simply untrue.

    The historical evidence bears out the ineffectualness of these tax cuts as well. In November 1978, the top rate for capital gains was cut from 39 to 28 percent. In the prior 12 months, the economy had grown 5.8 percent; in the next year and a half, it fell one percentage point.

    In August 1981, the top rate was again cut, this time from 28 to 20 percent. In the prior 12 months, the economy had grown by 3.5 percent; in the following 12 months, it fell by 2.8 percent. Of course, these tax cuts may have suffered from accidentally bad timing in the business cycle, but many conservatives reject business cycle theory, claiming that tax cuts are more responsible for economic performance. In that case, they have a major refutation to explain.

    By contrast, capital gains were raised in 1976, and economic growth jumped up from 3.6 percent in the previous two years to 5.2 percent in the next two years. Capital gains were again raised in 1986, from 20 to 28 percent, and economic growth rose from 2.2% in the previous year to 3.8% over the next two years.

    The effect of capital gains tax changes on unemployment is even more striking. The unemployment rate rose sharply after both the 1978 and 1981 capital gains tax cuts. By contrast, the jobless rate fell significantly after the 1976 and 1986 capital gains tax hikes were passed.

    Proponents of a capital gains tax cut have no historical evidence to point to when trying to prove the benefits of these cuts. Given their track record of failure, any future proposals should be rejected out of hand.

  50. libertyandjustice Says:

    facts from the Congressional Budget Office,

    Well, what do you know. The latest statistics on capital gains tax collections were recently released by the Congressional Budget Office, and receipts are not down but way up. By 45% to be exact. As part of President Bush’s 2003 investment tax cut package, the capital gains tax rate was reduced to 15% from 20%. Opponents predicted, as ever, that this would reduce tax revenue.

    Not even close. Here’s what actually happened. This 25% reduction in the tax penalty on stock and other asset sales triggered a doubling of capital gains realizations, to $539 billion in 2005 from $269 billion in 2002. One influence was the increase in stock values over that time, thanks in part to the higher after-tax return on capital induced by the tax cuts.

    But another cause for the windfall was almost certainly the “unlocking” effect from investors selling their existing asset holdings in order to realize some of their profits and pay taxes at the lower rate. They could then turn around and buy new assets, hoping for higher rates of return. This “unlocking” promotes the efficiency of capital markets by redirecting investment into new and higher value-added companies. It also yields a windfall for the Treasury. In 2002, the year before the tax cut, capital gains tax liabilities were $49 billion at the 20% rate. They rose slightly to $51 billion in 2003, then surged to $71 billion in 2004, and were estimated by CBO to have reached $80 billion last year — all paid at the lower 15% rate. In short, the lower rate yielded more revenue.

    One of many examples. FYI even Obama agrees with these facts. He did not challenge this in a debate.

  51. Dave Olbrich Says:

    libertyandjustice (hee hee)

    Your use of hardcore right-wing codewords has me very concerned about not only where you draw your “facts” from but also about your ability to be open-minded. Can you see what you’re doing? Do you even recognize it for what it is? Or has it become your truth?

    If you have such serious suspicions of unbiased news sources (seeing liberal boogie men in the dark corners) that means that the only “truth” you know is gleaned from the right wing propagandists. The information has already gone through their filter before it gets to you. You seem like someone that might recognize shades of gray when confronted with them, but do you remember the last time you accepted evidence that was contrary to your previous beliefs that made you change your mind about something?

    I actively search out a wide variety of points of view and apply skepticism to ALL of them.

    You certainly seemed better informed and thoughtful than Big Red, who based on his posts will always be partisan. He’s proud of it. He’s a political fighter. There is a place for people like that, but talking to them tends to be a waste of time unless you are forced to accomplish something together.

    You wrote: “As a conservative, I believe in small government, government is a force for good when it does only things the private sector is incapable of doing. I’m afraid of big government that intrudes into your life, confiscates your wealth, punishes success, encourages bad behavior, subsidizes inefficiency, and socially engineers. That destroys liberty and justice unintentionally.”

    See, now we’re getting somewhere. You’re afraid of the government.
    And yet, only the government is actually within the reach of the citizens. Unless you own a company, you get no say in how they behave, where their priorities lie or if the greater good has any chance of being served. The myth of the efficient, fair, just, or level-playing field of today’s “open market” needs to be put in perspective or put to rest. It certainly isn’t the panacea that conservatives tend to pretend it is (of course, that praise stops as soon as they are victimized by it, but that’s changing the subject.) The government is a collection of your fellow citizens under the control (more or less) of your fellow citizens. That’s what voting is all about, making politicians accountable. To have any control over corporate criminals, you need laws and law enforcement, which is part of the government and judiciary that you don’t trust. Are you trying to say that you trust and believe that the private sector can look out for the well-being of everyday citizens as much or more than the government? Should everyone’s life and health be subject to a corporate bean-counter’s profit-and-loss statement?

    I could do ten to fifteen pages on your belief (I hope I’m not misinterpreting this) that our current government confiscates wealth and punishes success. The government since the time of Reagan (and no kudos to Clinton on this one) has systematically redistributed wealth from the poor and the middle-class to the wealthy and super-wealthy. Every attempt to reverse this trend gets slapped by the great and powerful conservative LABEL MAKER as socialistic “redistribution of wealth” … or as you put it … confiscates wealth and punishes success.

    Instead of being grateful for their success and happily contributing to the system that they stripped-mined to reach their lofty levels of “success” … conservatives (and I’m generalizing here) tend to whine about how unfair it is. The working poor of this country work more hours, for less wages, less respect and less benefits than the middle and upper classes of this country. Who REALLY benefits from this hard work, employers.

    Have you seen the statistics of what top corporate executives made in comparison to their workers in the 1950s? the 1990s? today? The differences are obscene and prove my point, not yours. And don’t get me started on welfare. I agree with you that, for the average case, it should be work-fare … but that doesn’t even begin to approach the real problem which is that corporate welfare is a grotesquely higher percentage of the US government budget than social welfare.

    So while conservatives (from my point of view) spend their time trying to make sure that tax dollars go to strip-mining CEO’s for a multi-million dollar bonus, their mortgage on their Italian villa and the money to pay lawyers to protect their off-shore accounts, liberals are tying to find a minimum wage job and a loaf of bread for a poor family, who probably lost their income when Mom/Dad’s job was moved to India. That is a gross exaggeration of course, but no more prejudiced than your “confiscating wealth and punishing success” comment.

    Something I think we both agree on is the new (reasonably so) mentality of “entitlement” that seems to have overtaken our country. My problem is the sense of entitlement of the wealthy.
    “We have to get tax breaks or we’re not giving to charity.”
    “If I can’t make 20% annual return on my money, it simply isn’t worth investing.”
    “I work hard for my 15 million per year salary, earned on the backs of an army of minimum wage workers, why can’t we all pay the same tax rate.”
    “I led this company to a seven straight money-losing quarters, cost thousands of people their jobs, lost vast amounts of money for the company’s investors, but I worked hard … so I’m clearly entitled to my 20 million dollar golden parachute.”

    Why would this society expect its most economically disadvantaged people to respect the law and justice, when there is so little evidence that their elected officials or corporate leaders have any respect for the law? And yet the poor are prosecuted and thrown in jail … and the wealthy are seldom prosecuted and even less often pay for their crimes.

    Wow … have a I strayed from the subject. This has been fun.
    I won’t be back.

  52. lurkerlou Says:

    joeremi makes up stuff or is uninformed. You’ve got to call him out on it. I was like wtf is this 39% he’s talking about lol.

  53. libertyandjustice Says:

    Lot’s of paranoia and complaints Dave. No counter arguments, logic or facts presented in your post.

  54. cincin kawin…

    […]Cambpell Brown vs. Rush Limbaugh (vs. Ali Velshi vs. Limbaugh) « Inside Cable News[…]…

  55. Chapter 13 Birmingham,Chapter 13 Sterling Heights,Chapter 13 Ferndale,Chapter 13 Bloomfield hills,Chapter 13 Troy,Chapter 13 Madison Heights,Chapter 13 Warren…

    […]Cambpell Brown vs. Rush Limbaugh (vs. Ali Velshi vs. Limbaugh) « Inside Cable News[…]…

  56. iphone 4 Otterbox Defender…

    […]Cambpell Brown vs. Rush Limbaugh (vs. Ali Velshi vs. Limbaugh) « Inside Cable News[…]…

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: