Rush Makes Obama An Offer

Rush Limbaugh has been the subject of continuous attack by the Obama administration for some time now. I agree with many others who believe such attacks (and others against other critics) are childish and unbecoming of the office, and will eventually backfire.

I think the Obama Whitehouse knows this, too, but figure if they can just keep the GOP off balance long enough they'll be able to push the rest of their agenda through before America wises up. They're even bragging about it to Politico.

Well, Rush is shooting back by challenging the President to come on his show and debate policy. He knows full well Obama won't--can't--accept such a challenge. But then Limbaugh moves on to the real meat of his challenge--exposing Obama's and the Democrats' hypocrisy, pettiness, and outright nastiness:

In fact, Mr. President, you know what, I know these are tough economic times, and you're trying to convince people that you're "saving" the taxpayers money, that you're cutting spending, that you're cutting the deficit. In that vein, I, Mr. President, will send my jet, EIB One, to pick you up and bring you here and take you back to wherever you want to go. You'd love it. It's not as big and luxurious as your jet, but it's got enough seats for your Secret Service detail. But it is something to behold. I'm very proud of it, Mr. President. I worked for it. I paid for it. Taxpayers pay you for your travel. Nobody pays me for mine. I pay for it. I pay for the airplane. I pay for the travel. I pay for practically everything I do. We can talk about that, too. I could tell you what that's like.

And once you land, by the way, I have a fleet of SUVs because I have guests here all the time. I have four or five SUVs. I can send a caravan to pick you up. I'll even put you up at The Breakers. It's a five-star resort. I'll do it all on my dime. We don't want the taxpayers footing any of the bill for this -- and my jet burns a lot less fuel than your two and your C-130 to bring your limousine and SUV caravan here. In fact, you know what, Mr. President? I'll tell you what I will do, if you will do this. I will promise to order some Wagyu Kobe beef at $100 a pound, just like you serve at your cocktail parties and your Super Bowl parties. I'll get it from Allen Brothers in Chicago, since you like that. I know you like $100-per-pound beef. You serve it at the White House.

But I'll cover the cost. I will cover the cost, Mr. President, so that the taxpayers do not have to pay for it, as they did your Super Bowl party, and as they do your Wednesday afternoon cocktail party. So you have no excuses. Your flunkies are demanding this debate. Your flunkies are targeting a private citizen with an enemies list that so far has three or four names on it: Mine; Rick Santelli; Jim Cramer at CNBC; and let's not forget Joe the Plumber, who your allies in Ohio also tried to destroy. The difference is that Joe the Plumber does not have his own microphone every day. They're shutting Santelli up at CNBC. They're going to shut Cramer up pretty soon, too, but he'll go down with a fight. That isn't going to happen here, to me.

He finishes with some rhetorical fireworks:

Rahm Emanuel is leading the team going after a private citizen, and the Drive-By Media applaud, get on board and help further the mission. We live in different times. So if you can wipe me out -- and, by the way, Mr. President, and Mr. Emanuel: Don't make the mistake of assuming I'm wiping myself out here in the process. I want to thank you guys for elevating me beyond the stature I already earned and achieved, because now more and more Americans have the opportunity to learn who you really are, what your ideas will really accomplish, and what damage and harm I think your policies will bring for a very, very long time to them and to this country.

I've never been a fan of Limbaugh, so I imagine I'd be in the 89% of people under 40 with whom he doesn't poll favorably. But I also have to admit that my dislike has never been based on actual experience. I also would never assume for a moment that Limbaugh is the "leader of the GOP". If that were the case they'd be a much different party--and perhaps we'd not be in the mess we're in.

If anything this concerted attack by the Administration makes me want to start listening to Rush just to see what ideas and information he's putting forward that the Administration finds so frightening. By making this attack they run the risk of making Mr. Limbaugh the actual leader of the American Conservative movement and putting together a strong enough coalition to give them difficulties in 2010.

The way things are looking now that would be a good thing. Less power in the hands of this Democrat administration may be the only way to save this country from becoming completey unrecognizable by 2012.

Newsflash: Obama a Good Speaker

I was nearly impressed with Obama's Non-State of the Union Address last night. I almost fell for the rhetoric and believed he can turn things around and introduce real (and positive) change in Washington. But then I remembered that this is the same person who approved funding to save Pelosi's Mouse and yet told us last night that there are "no earmarks" in the stimulus bill.

(Technically, he's correct. Nothing was in the bill that couldn't have been reviewed before the vote. It's just that they purposely made it as difficult they could to review the bill before the vote. It's still dishonest, and it's still pork. Call it whatever else you may.)

He also told us "The U.S. does not torture." Technically true. But he reserves the right to do so if we deem it appropriate.

He told us "...the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it." A lot of critics are pointing out that it was a German who invented the automobile, but that misses the point entirely. When I heard that statement I asked myself "Why not?" That's like saying we have to dump more money into innovations around the light bulb just because we invented it. If someone else can make it better and/or cheaper, then let them do it. Why keep us enslaved to outdated technology?

No, seriously, I say "the nation that invented the automobile should be looking harder for the technologies that will revolutionize the automobile or render it obsolete altogether.

He wants to spend more money while cutting the deficit. He wants to get that money by taxing the rich, while cutting taxes on "the rest of us". Nice idea, but let's see the details.

He wants to go through the budget line by line and remove wasteful spending. Good luck with that one. The president does not have a line-item veto. His budgets are the beginning of the funding process, not the end. Any budget he submits will have to pass through Congress, who will simply put back in everything he wanted to remove. They are the ones who put them in there in the first place.

He wants to reform health coverage in a bi-partisan manner. So? The Democrats have already proven they don't need the other party to do what they want. Even if Obama is serious about coming up with a moderate plan I doubt Pelosi and Reid are. If socialized medicine is what they want, that's what we'll get.

He wants to improve education and increase the number of college graduates. That sounds good on the surface, but he is once again forgetting basic economics. If the number of college graduates increases we run the risk of surplus (especially if those grads are not in the areas needed). When there is a surplus of something competition increases and the cost of it goes down. So unless the demand for college graduates also increases, all he will really be doing is driving down income and devaluating the college degree.

If college graduates get paid less, then that pushes the threshhold of what they will accept down as well. They'll start looking for work in jobs formerly filled by high school graduates or even dropouts. Employers, who look for the best they can get for the least they can pay, will start raising their standards--because they can get what they ask for. Do we really want a college degree to be a requirement to drive a truck or build a house? That just pushes those who formerly held those jobs into lower-level jobs. The entire working population takes a step backward in pay, tax revenues fall, taxes go up higher on the rich, more rich sell their business rather than see more of their money disappear, and more people are out of work looking for lower-paying jobs. It's a nasty cycle.

Education is a good thing, but making it universal just makes it unimportant.

He spoke about expanding benefits for our soldiers, but last I heard he planned to cut the military budget. So that means we'll have well-cared-for soldiers who lack the equipment to fight and the means to deploy. Are we turning isolationist? We'll see what he really submits, but I'm dubious about this one.

The bottom line is this: everything he said sounded good. But he's already shown us time and again that what he says and what he does do not always match up. He claims he wants transparency, and yet he swears all the military leaders to secrecy regarding his budget. And he's also proven that he either agrees with or lacks the guts to oppose Pelosi and Reid.

If he's not willing to cross his own party then it really doesn't matter what president tells us. We may as well put Pelosi on the platform and let her tell us what to expect for the next four years. I'm waiting for him to prove he's not just the official spokesperson of the Democractic Party.

Forgetting to wait for Pelosi to officially introduce him doesn't count.