?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Hawk's Inner Sociopath The Latest Victims Criminal Archive Criminal Profile Previous 50 Victims Previous 50 Victims Next 50 Victims Next 50 Victims
Bipartisanship - Hawk's Eyrie
It's all about releasing your inner sociopath
merhawk
merhawk
Bipartisanship
Dear Rush Limbaugh,

I do not think this word means what you think it means:

From Rush Limbaugh's speech to the CPAC
...To us, bipartisanship is them being forced to agree with us after we politically have cleaned their clocks and beaten them. And that has to be what we're focused on...

From Merriam-Webster Online:
bipartisanship
One entry found.
Main Entry:
bi·par·ti·san
Pronunciation:
\(ˌ)bī-ˈpär-tə-zən, -sən, -ˌzan, chiefly British ˌbī-ˌpär-tə-ˈzan\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1895
: of, relating to, or involving members of two parties ; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties
— bi·par·ti·san·ism \-zə-ˌni-zəm, -sə-\ noun
— bi·par·ti·san·ship \-zən-ˌship, -sən-\ noun


You might want to work on using your words properly, you being a talk show host and all that.

Thanks.

Hawk

Here's the link to the entire Limbaugh speech. Be warned, it's on the Fox News website.

Tags: , ,
Mood: surprisingly bemused

12 talons or Rake your talons?
Comments
neonhummingbird From: neonhummingbird Date: March 4th, 2009 08:38 pm (UTC) (Permanent Entry Link)
He's now apparently dared Obama to debate him, presumably so that he can then call Obama a coward or whatever for not doing it. < rolling eyes > Because in the middle of a war and a global recession, the President of the United States needs to be dropping everything to 'debate' a conservative windbag asshat radio host. Uh-huh.
(Deleted comment)
skwidly From: skwidly Date: March 4th, 2009 09:04 pm (UTC) (Permanent Entry Link)
If you haven't seen last night's Daily Show, yet, I highly recommend it.
merhawk From: merhawk Date: March 9th, 2009 06:15 pm (UTC) (Permanent Entry Link)
Why do you think I started digging around at Rush's speeches in the first place?
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
merhawk From: merhawk Date: March 9th, 2009 06:15 pm (UTC) (Permanent Entry Link)
I... didn't do much of it! I heard about it on the Daily Show, and then wanted to make sure I had the quoting right.
hex_16 From: hex_16 Date: March 5th, 2009 06:25 pm (UTC) (Permanent Entry Link)
[Initially posted, then redacted to fix some spelling/grammar, and clarify my point.]

I listen to Limbaugh rather regularly, so I feel I can clear this up.

In Limbaugh's estimation (as put forth on his show), the Democrat definition of compromise and bipartisanship is for Republicans to cross the aisle to them, and not vice-versa, in a dilution or outright compromise of core conservative principles. In other words, the Democrat's "bipartisanship" equals "Republicans caving in," and it's not really compromise so much as Democrats getting their own way.

You'll invariably find that assessment incorrect, but that's the Limbaugh perspective, and as such, he's using the Democrats effective definition of "bipartisanship" against them.
hex_16 From: hex_16 Date: March 5th, 2009 07:31 pm (UTC) (Permanent Entry Link)
Found a quote in the transcript in Limbaugh's own words:

"In other words, let's say as conservatives liberals demand that we be bipartisan with them in Congress. What they mean is: We check our core principles at the door, come in, let them run the show and agree with them. That's bipartisanship to them."

So there's the necessary context that was missing from your quote of Rush Limbaugh.
(Deleted comment)
hex_16 From: hex_16 Date: March 6th, 2009 12:15 am (UTC) (Permanent Entry Link)
I have no flipping idea why he thought making that comparison was a good idea...
merhawk From: merhawk Date: March 9th, 2009 06:20 pm (UTC) (Permanent Entry Link)
No, it's not necessary for my point. My point was that it's a bullshit, made-up, definition on bipartisonship. Rush could have made a speech[1] about what true bipartisonship is, and that the Republicans need to force that through. Instead we got even more political posturing that just shows all he cares about is winning, not working with others to make a better country.

As for the Democrats? I call bullshit on them as well. If Pelosi were my district, I'd be voting against her. However, it wasn't the LPAC I was hearing, it was the CPAC. Hence my calling bullshit on Limbaugh, who does manage to plow more shit than most everyone else - though Fox News likes to keep up with him!

In regards to policy, if both the Left and the Right are unhappy it's a good thing. That generally means whatever we did is probably pretty balanced and the right thing to do.

[1]Not that anyone outside of the conservatives would have believed him, considering his past behavior.
12 talons or Rake your talons?