Rush Limbaugh for the New York Times Op-Ed Page

I've always thought Sowell would be perfect for this role.  He could take on Krugman on economics and Herbert on Race.

That'll never happen.

So yes, the almighty MaHaRushie for the NYT indeed!

Rush wouldn't take it, peeps.  I nominate Ramesh Ponnuru.

...would make me happy. 

The NYT will never choose anyone who opposes illegal activity. Rush apparently opposes illegal immigration, but he came to the issue late AFAIK. Douthat is yet another tool who has no knowledge of these issues.

 Here's the problem:

We shouldn't play this game. Either we engage the liberal media on our terms or on none at all. The Times needs someone who is as far to the right, in as hard-edged and partisan a way, as Paul Krugman is to the left.........

 

Your problem is that Krugman deals in a little thing called facts.

Rush?  Not so much.

 

And to the assertion that he is heartland conservative?

Yeah, nothing says heartland conservative more than one who lives in NYC, has a mansion in a gated community in florida, smokes imported cuban cigars and drinks $1500 bottles of wine and vacations in the south of France. (not to mention those curious little trips to the Dominican Republic with a satchel full of Viagra that didn't belong to him.  That's a heartland conservative, alright.. Nothing "elite" about that lifestyle.  Nah.

I do, however welcome El Rushbo to the pages of the NYT.  I'm sure he would be welcomed and last about as long as he was welcomed and lasted in the broadcast booth for NFL games.

 

The American public got one taste of fat boy and spat him out.  Post-haste.

 

For a movement that is supposedly "full of ideas", you sure to betray that particular lie with this post.

 

 

I subscribe to The NextRight to see what the other side is thinking (you might have guessed that from my name - but then there were plenty of folks from the entire political spectrum who thought the same thing about W).  I've held NextRight and its contributors at a pretty high level of respect since the entries here tend to be well thought out, with a cetain level of logic behind them.  I may not agree with them, but I respected the thought process behind them.

But this entry give me great pause about Mr. Ruffini.  Why?  One line shoots my respect for him to heck:  "I have a great deal of respect for Bill Kristol ...(or for that matter, Charles Krauthammer...)".

Bill Kristol is so off the wall, and so wrong so often, that he should be writing fiction instead of behing held at any level of regard as an analyst or leader of political thought.  Charles Krauthammer is the biggest tool of the corrupt GOP leadership that brought us the eight years of W hell.  He repeated whatever W's hacks said so often that I've started calling him Polly.  My local newspaper used the term "Grand Old Parrot" for a letter I wrote requesting they replace CK with a conservative pundit who was capable of independent thought.

Torture?  CK: "TORTURE!"

Invade Iraq?  CK: "INVADE IRAQ!"

Invade Iran?  CK: "INVADE IRAN!"

Unregulated markets will police themselves?  CK: "ABSOLUTELY NO REGULATION!"

Democrats are fiscally irresponsible and Republicans are fiscal gods (ignore the GOP's record deficits and record spending and failure to even try to match revenue with expenditures)?  CK: "All those Dems want to do is spend money!  WE are doing the RIGHT THING by cutting taxes during the time of war, outspending ANY other administration, recording record deficits, and destroying the financial stability of the US!  Doubt our wisdom?  YOU MUST BE FRENCH!"

Here's your cracker, Polly.

If we're going to be serious about winning the battle that's currently raging for ideological (and economic, social, etc) control of this country, one of our primary goals (along with taking back the educational system) needs to be destroying the liberal stranglehold on the mainstream media. A big part of that is driving the New York Times into total irrelevance, or out of business.

We should just stop talking about it, stop caring about the NY Times, force it to fade away and die quietly through complete and utter lack of interest.

Limbaugh and his ilk, the hate-filled, usually wrong denizens of echo chambers (Savage, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly et al) where opposing thoughts are not permitted, are among of the reasons for the GOP decline.

They are the face of the GOP, like it or not, and their mindless hatred and screeching wrongness have driven thinking folks away from the conservatve side.

Limbaugh especially is a drug addict, convicted money launderer, deafened through drug abuse, drug smuggler and sex-tourist, who is wrong about three times as often as he is right.  I wouldn't want this pervert living in my neighborhood.   PLEASE DO NOT LET HIM REPRESENT ANYONE BUT HIMSELF.

If votes are the goal, the GOP needs to move away from the morons and move toward the majority of Americans.  The last thing it needs to do is showcase the people who will steadily deliver 22% of the electorate, the looniest part...and drive away everyone else.

Unfortunately.  Just to follow on what RR said, the fact that people like yourself can equate someone like Rush Limbaugh with Paul Krugman is a sad, ironic comment on the reason for the ending of the conservative movement's ascendance.  You can put Maureen Dowd on the just above unthinking side of Kos level, but you can't put Kristol anywhere but just above the furthest right, least thinking parts of the conservative movement either.  Krugman won a Nobel prize for God's sake.  You're going to put an unthinking, braying jackass who happens to be a genius entertainer (Rush) in the same sentence?  Come on...

indulging in false equivalences and stereo types?