Resolution Condemning Limbaugh to be Introduced on Monday

It appears that Representative (and Senate candidate) Mark Udall will be introducing a resolution on Monday which would seek to condemn Rush Limbaugh's obscene attack on the integrity and patriotism of American service members.

I wouldn't expect this resolution to pass, as I don't expect many -- if any -- Republicans to vote for it. But from my perspective, the point of this resolution isn't to receive a majority vote, or even really to condemn Limbaugh.  After all, a great number of us in the Democratic Party don't believe that the United States Congress should be in the business of "condemning" the speech of American citizens. As I see it, the point of this exercise is: 1) to highlight the hypocrisy of those Republicans who would vote to condemn the speech of MoveOn, but not that of America's Favorite Chickenhawk -- even as he smeared rank-and-file service members -- and 2) to make sure that those Democrats who saw fit to publicly condemn their ally on the floor of Congress are willing to do the same to a man who despises them and the Democratic Party.

In light of those goals, I hope that all of us in the netroots will honor and respect the decision of those Democrats who choose to vote against both the MoveOn and Limbaugh resolutions.  They're taking a responsible, ethical, and consistent position.  As for Democrats who voted for the MoveOn resolution, but vote against the Limbaugh resolution?  Well, let's just hope that there aren't any.

•  2/3 of Rudey McRomney have already

  condemned those remarks, so don't be surprised if a number to vote for it.

  by Geekesque on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:20:10 PM PDT

  •  And Fred Thompson, when asked,

    responded Rush Who? and explained he had never heard the name before, and also expressed surprised that American troops were even in Iraq, much less that a number of them think the US should get the hell out.

    by RobertInWisconsin on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:23:33 PM PDT

    •  Hi. My name is Fred.

      Apaprently, I just opened my eyes and realized I was in America and running for president.

      What's the question again?

      by Stand Strong on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:25:58 PM PDT

      •  "Who am I? Why am I here?"

        by RobertInWisconsin on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:26:54 PM PDT

        •  "Danger! Danger, Fred Thompson!"

          

          by Stand Strong on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:34:39 PM PDT

          •  Ghouliani would make a Damn Fine

            Doctor Smith.

            thanks for your assistance creating this association within my brain.

            by revenant on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:45:52 PM PDT

        •  Fred Thompson to star in Hitchcock remake!

          "The Man Who Didn't Know Shit."

          by Finck II on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:52:28 PM PDT

      •  Funny

        My question is: Is he really clueless or is he just a liar.  He claimed not to know anything about Terri Schiavo!

        by Unstable Isotope on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:27:37 PM PDT

        •  those are not mutually exclusive

          characteristics...he can be both.

          by Glic on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:37:57 PM PDT

        •  As Dogbert would say...

          Is he really clueless or is he just a liar.

            That's not an "or" question.

          by Buzzer on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:41:07 PM PDT

        •  It won't surprise me

          5-6 years from now, to hear that Fred's Alzheimer's was first noticed in 2007.

          We are men of action; lies do not become us.

          by ER Doc on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:47:22 PM PDT

          •  or 1972!

            by madgranny on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:05:31 PM PDT

      •  ROFL!!! n/t

        by Terre on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:28:08 PM PDT

    •  How long has he been in a coma?

      Perhaps we should remove his feeding tube.

      by kitebro on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:26:27 PM PDT

      •  Some people seem to REALLY like

        Stupid presidents. Case in point: 1600.

        by ms scarlett leadpipe on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:54:30 PM PDT

    •  "Rush? Naaah, I don't need to hurry.

      I'm gonna take my time.  Now, what's this you're talking about, son?"

      by Geekesque on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:26:39 PM PDT

      •  What's all this fuss about

        Russian Pimples?!?

        Ohhhh, Rush Limbaugh?

        Never mind...........

        by RobertInWisconsin on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:27:55 PM PDT

        •  Yes, the Pimple avoided the Nam draft

          because it had a 'Rush' on its head...

          by Ferrofluid on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:48:25 PM PDT

    •  You've read Thompson's platform I see.

      He does now support lethal injection for those six kids who made Jenna Bush drill for oil in the Everglades though.

      by mungley on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:27:19 PM PDT

      •  Hehehe

        Jenna Bush and 'drill' being so close in the same sentence.

        hehehehe

        by RobertInWisconsin on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:28:29 PM PDT

        •  Jenna? drill? more like screwdriver . . . n/t

          by corvo on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:29:49 PM PDT

        •  I for one would appreciate

          if we avoid sexual innuendo around family members.  

          If you wanna lech or repulse on actual politicians who have chosen to be public figures, that's a LITTLE more in-bounds.  Depending on how it's done.

          by lgmcp on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:33:13 PM PDT

          •  Hard to avoid

            when subject is photographed drunkenly cavorting with a female friend on a barroom floor in NYC.

            by RobertInWisconsin on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:40:03 PM PDT

            •  Also, write my congresswoman

              and maybe she'll introduce a resolution on Monday condemning me for my remarks against the Patriotic First Daughters of our Commander-in-Chief . . . :)

              by RobertInWisconsin on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:41:19 PM PDT

              •  Gee, you are certainly ready

                to be thoughtful about whether certain kinds of knee-jerk responses are in fact unpleasantly sexist.  

                by lgmcp on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:43:35 PM PDT

                •  Sexist ?

                  Oh please, get over yourself.

                  by RobertInWisconsin on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:47:16 PM PDT

            •  In the words of the Digg 1337

              pics or it never happened ;)

              by Ferrofluid on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:49:53 PM PDT

              •  A couple links

                HERE

                and

                HERE

                Why aren't she and her sister in uniform over in Iraq when her father says that the future of American freedom and Western civilization itself depend on the War in Iraq ?

                by RobertInWisconsin on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:57:33 PM PDT

                •  In an interview with ABC

                  She says that she is serving by being a teacher and representing the country abroad. She and Mitt's kids need to get together: we could call it the black hole of right wing patriotism, a gathering so dense that no sense whatsoever can leak out.

                  by nippersdad on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:06:28 PM PDT

                  •  Serving the country abroad ?

                    She must be on some serious drugs and/or alcohol to make such a ridiculous remark.  Or just plain stupid.

                    Getting puke-drunk in Buenos Aires isn't 'serving' anything, hell it's not even self-serving.

                    Any minute now I expect congressional Republicans and Democrats to introduce a resolution condemning Jenna Bush for equating getting piss-drunk in a South American tavern with risking your life in the middle of the war in Iraq.

                    [ crickets ]

                    by RobertInWisconsin on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 03:07:29 PM PDT

      •  Thompson's platform:

        by Finck II on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:53:52 PM PDT

    •  Rip Van Winkle?

      Does he really expect anybody to believe this bullshit?  And if it really were true that he's that oblivious, how can he expect anyone to vote for someone so clueless?

      by jrooth on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:37:27 PM PDT

    •  Ghost of Raygun n/t

      by Ferrofluid on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:45:42 PM PDT

    •  Snark! Right?

      by karpinsky on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:15:38 PM PDT

    •  ...Fred then went on to say

      that he expected trouble in the region when Bill Clinton handed over the Suez Canal to Iraq and further vowed to use military force to take back the Northwest Passage from Malta.

      by Subroutine on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:42:20 PM PDT

    •  Old man Fred, that old man Fred,

      He dont say nothin, but he must know somethin
      That old man Fred, he just keeps shufflin along.

      He dont do debates,
      But he does do Leno.
      But them that cant debate em, may soon be forgotten,
      Old man Fred, he just keeps shufflin along, oh yes he does.

      The other candidates all sweatin and toilin,
      Their bodies achin and rackin, now listen!
      Lift that bar, youd better, tote that campaignin,
      And if ya are too lazy,
      Youll land in hades.

      by straycatinpdx on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:44:06 PM PDT

    •  Submitted for your approval.... An elderly man

      awakes on a small planet and finds that he is running for President and lives with an extremely physically well endowed woman who is young enough to be his child, but says that she is his wife.  Is he confused, no, the fictional NY County DA has taken a detour to the Twilight Zone.

      by MrJersey on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:58:36 PM PDT

  •  How many will condemn the

    Dems for wasting precious legislative time? You watch. They will. They have no shame.

    by madgranny on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:06:48 PM PDT

    •  And their next argument will be

      that Rush was only quoting a caller and/or that MoveOn's was an AD, therefore premeditated, where Rush's (only a) comment was spontaneous and therefore somehow forgivable.

      by madgranny on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:09:15 PM PDT

      •  How about

        MoveOn paid to say their awful thing, but Rush Limbaugh gets paid to say awful things

        by Janus on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 06:20:30 PM PDT

    •  Let them!

      Then loudly proclaim that they don't support the troops and are willing to stand by while Rush calls REAL soldiers, REAL war veterans, 'phonies.'

      Frankly, rhetoric does play a big role in politics, and I think the Republicans should get tarred and feathered for this.

      Too bad it didn't come sooner, as with the slander on Cleland and Kerry, the shameful 'Purple Heart band-aids' at the Republican Party convention, etc.

      by RobertInWisconsin on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:10:21 PM PDT

    •  and rush was taken out of context

      that was one of his big excuses today

      by certainot on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:03:11 PM PDT

      •  Ah, yes, Rush and the poor, defenseless O'Reilly

        by madgranny on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 06:20:04 PM PDT

  •  And the Dems should say IF YOU DON"T CONDEMN

    Rush, then You stand with him!!!

    (sound familiar>)

    Unlike MoveON, ALL prominent GOPers have appeared on Rush--like bush and Cheney.  So have the GOP candidates.  They can't disassociate themselves and this could knock Rush out for the 2008 cycle if they label him as the pariah he is.

    This is win/win if the Dems can show courage.

    by SemDem on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:29:17 PM PDT

    •  GOP owes catastrophe to limbaugh

      and the talk radio monopoly, and so do we. if nothing else it will get progressives to take this guy a bit more seriously.

      if the res is worded right it could be used to point out how important limbaugh and co have been in getting us into this disaster, as rove's most important propaganda tool. their uncontested repetition to tens of millions every day has been almost totally ignored by progressives, to the democracy's detriment,

      by certainot on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:58:13 PM PDT

•  LMFAO!

  NICE! More useless symbolic legislation.

  I apologize. I understand the point but weren't we all just arguing about the utter pointlessness of resolutions condemning speech?

  by Stand Strong on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:20:47 PM PDT

  •  I condemn your demeaning speech towards this

    condemnation of demeaning speech! Outrage! Outrage!

    by benheeha on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:22:23 PM PDT

    •  I condemn your condemnation of my condemnation of

      this pointless condemnation of speech on the heels of our Congresscritters condemning more condemnation of a particular military leader for his scrupples.

      by Stand Strong on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:24:27 PM PDT

      •  Ditto!

        Um...I mean...I agree!

        by kitebro on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:27:35 PM PDT

      •  I totally disagree...

        ...I think.

        by sillia on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:28:04 PM PDT

        •  Watch Out

          there might be a strongly worded "sense of the blog" letter coming to your mailbox sometime soon....maybe...if my consultants think I should sign it....

          by surferal on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:44:34 PM PDT

          •  I'll be taking a poll

            to find out whether or how to respond.

            by sillia on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:19:16 PM PDT

      •  Well try condemning my

        ReZolution!

        Hea ha.

        by Little on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:51:13 PM PDT

  •  I wouldn't vote for it

    I wouldn't vote for either the MoveOn or the Limbaugh resolutions.  But I do think that this will be a useful exercise which both highlights GOP hypocrisy, and forces Democrats who treated the netroots shabbily to extend the same treatment to a famous Republican.

    Like I said above, I've got no problem with Dems who vote no on both counts.  That's what I would've done.

    by Trapper John on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:25:09 PM PDT

    •  Well then I guess

      we're going to have to watch closely and see if our leaders actually vote for it or not.

      by Stand Strong on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:27:10 PM PDT

    •  Trapper..its heartening to read your comments

      because YOU GET IT....

      this is an excercise in the tough love of 'be careful who you bend over for'

      all I want to see is 22 democrats who thought it was 'expediente' to just give IN to the republican OFFICAL orchestrated swiftboating of moveon.org to stand up and NOW have to do the same for rush limbaugh

      the other democrats SHOULD abstain...but use the platform to again talk about how pathetic it is to bring these type of resolutions to the senate (and house) in the first place becasue there is NO END once you open that kind of pandoras box.

      and i definitely want to see ALL the republicans. who exhibited OUTRAGE over that Ad in that newspaper have to either now condemn the machine that feeds them or be publically forced to become the BIGGEST HYPOCRITES in all the land, bar none

      when the repubs refuse to condemn rush limbaugh (and they will) we will be handed the perfect way to PUSH BACK any attempt to label us 'troop haters" come the 08 campaigns.

      by KnotIookin on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:33:34 PM PDT

      •  I'll bet you the anti-MoveOn Dems...

         ...are the ones MOST sweating this thing.

        by Buzzer on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:43:07 PM PDT

        •  They wont vote simple

          will be too busy doing something else at that minute in time.

          by Ferrofluid on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:52:04 PM PDT

        •  as well they should

          many of them took the easy way out of a situation the republicans happily put them in....now they are faced with the consequences

          by KnotIookin on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:57:24 PM PDT

          •  Now I REALLY want this thing to go to a vote

             If only to embarrass the Bush Dogs. A vote to protect Limbaugh would be SERIOUS primary fodder.

            by Buzzer on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:00:03 PM PDT

        •  Like the GOP at Tavis Smiley's

          is how they'll show up.

          by auditor on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:38:30 PM PDT

      •  The Boxer amendment condemns all attacks

        It condemned attacks on Kerry, Cleland, and Petraeus.  This has been covered, and the language would cover the Rush remarks, too.  It shows Democrats are consistent in condemning these types of attacks on men and women in the uniform.  It garnered 50 votes (48 Dems and 2 Repubs).

        by beachmom on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:34:24 PM PDT

    •  Nope.

      No on MoveOn, abstain on this.

      I'll support "no first use."

      I won't support "no response."

      by Elwood Dowd on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:57:50 PM PDT

    •  On the other hand,

      if the Dems were to devote energy toward highlighting GOP hypocrisy, that wouldn't leave time for much else, would it?

      by frsbdg on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:04:37 PM PDT

    •  The vote will be published and I can't wait to

      see the names.

      by merrylib on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:14:30 PM PDT

    •  I respectfully disagree

      Unless you want Republicans to keep pulling this kind of stuff, you have to retaliate. Otherwise they will keep doing this knowing that the Dems won't fight back.

      When Republicans redistricted illegally in Texas, the Dems decided not to do the same.

      When Republicans decided to get rid of an democratically elected governor in a special election, we decided not to fight back eventhough there was a time when we could have done the same.

      And now in a completely wasteful and useless exercise, Republicans (and Democrats) condemned a Democratic organization. When the same thing happens a week later by a Republican, Democrats again will not retaliate. "It would not be right", "it is a waste of the Congress' time".

      Is it any wonder that Democrats always seem to lose in the eyes of the public when it comes the so called narrative? We are so supposed to be unpatriotic, care less about the military etc. At least if you want to believe FoxNews ets. And by not fighting back (and instead believing in principal) we are fighting the battle for foxNews.

      While you are right on principal (no doubt about that), the Dems have got to pass this resolution to send a message that this is what happens the next time you Republicans try to pull something like this. We will fight back.

      And by fighting back, the people will more and hear what Rush said. As of right now, I doubt that many people among Joe Public have even heard it.

      by mnguy66 on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:26:48 PM PDT

      •  WINNER, WINNER, WINNER

        Trapper John is dead wrong.  

        That's Kerry's Swift Boat Strategy all over again.  If they say shit like that, they must be forced to pay a price, and I don't care what we do to make them pay.  And you know why?

        Because the Democrats won't follow that up with something like my wonderful Congressman's attempt to punish Columbia for letting that moron Iranian speak at their college.

        FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT, no more turning the other cheek.  Kick them in the balls, throw dirt in their eyes, pull their hair, whatever it takes to hurt these GD M Effers, to inflict some kind of pain on their party and their personages.

        MAKE THEM PAY A PRICE FOR ONCE IN MY LIFETIME, EH.

        by Duckman GR on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 10:41:23 PM PDT

    •  We Can Choose To Not Fight Back

      and claim the moral high ground, but does that really make sense when the other side has no concept of morality.

      by Wilby A Hasben on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:09:48 PM PDT

      •  You may see the choice of not fighting back as

        claiming the moral high ground, but the country will see the Democrats as the party that had their lunch money stolen by the other kid, and instead of doing something about it, just went home to sulk and whine.

        by MrJersey on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 10:08:20 PM PDT

        •  You're preaching to the choir, but....

          that's how the repiglicans see us now. In fact, that how I see us (our elected democratic representatives) now. I've never been so disappointed in the spinelessness of my party as I am now.  

          by Wilby A Hasben on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 10:50:19 PM PDT

  •  A little theater can be worthwhile now and then

    if it serves a purpose like highlighting Republican hypocrisy.

    by jrooth on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:39:52 PM PDT

    •  But not on Monday...

      by Little on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:59:11 PM PDT

  •  Good recipe

    If Dems don't respond with a similar resolution, maybe the Republicans will say, 'Gee, that was civil of them. We should refrain from doing that next time.'

    Or maybe the only way to get these corrupt, unprincipled SOBs to start behaving is to say: "It's an eye for an eye on this floor, you sanctimonious jackass."

    by Elwood Dowd on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:55:26 PM PDT

  •  Agreed

    I think the Democrats need to just not vote on these silly, useless, waste of time resolutions.  Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid need to just stand back and say enough's enough.  We voted them in to end the war not get all pissy every time some blowhard opens his/her mouth.  This particular bill just draws more attention to Rush and would be exactly what he wants.  

    Once the war is ended, Habeus is restored, my children have health insurance, and the president and vice president are impeached I think I will have more patience for this type of political jackassery!

    by gring0242 on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 04:57:59 PM PDT

    •  Rash will go into infantile rage if this passes

      Nobody ever stood up to him before. He'll go beserk. He was already going beserk on Friday, trying to lie his way out.

      by creeksneakers2 on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 09:57:16 PM PDT

•  Well alright, then.

  I already called Ken Salazar to get him onboard. Maybe a matching Senate statement will come.

  by benheeha on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:20:57 PM PDT

  •  Aaah Salazar

    That will be interesting.  He voted for MoveOn censure, didn't he?

    by Heart of the Rockies on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:55:15 PM PDT

    •  Yep.

      Kennie love him some war and soldierin'. Always reliable for voting for these magnetic yellow ribbon bills.

      by benheeha on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:59:19 PM PDT

      •  Along with

        the flag amendment.

        by Heart of the Rockies on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 07:34:50 AM PDT

•  They should just vote "present"

  That is the way to make the point that these sorts of things should not be brought up.  (Obama was right in that sense; he was wrong in thinking it should be done solo.)  And when the GOP votes this down, bring up another next week, and another the week after that, and so on.  There will always be fodder, I'm sure.

  by Major Danby on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:21:46 PM PDT

•  do two stupids make a smart?

  because both these resolutions by themselves are pretty fucking dumb. (even if I appreciate the strategy of this one)

  by danthrax on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:21:46 PM PDT

  •  I concur.

    I can do that, right? Concur?

    by Stand Strong on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:22:41 PM PDT

    •  that or condemn it

      those are your only two choices, according to Republicans.

      by danthrax on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:23:53 PM PDT

      •  It is so.

        I heard Mitch McConnell ( who is also "not gay") say so.

        So, yes, it is as you say.

        by Glic on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:27:08 PM PDT

        •  You're right, of course. He's NOT gay.

          And I don't know why someone would bring up the fact that he's gay, which he's not. I'm glad you didn't.

          So let's all forget the idea that "Senator McConnell is gay."

          by revenant on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:35:37 PM PDT

          •  well, that's why I brought it up

            for clarity.

            by Glic on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:36:20 PM PDT

            •  I concur.

              I can do that, right? Concur?

              ;-P

              by Stand Strong on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:37:29 PM PDT

              •  that or condemn it

                those are your only two choices, according to Republicans.

                by Glic on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:39:17 PM PDT

                •  I love your posting style

                  smart, yet funny with its subtlety.

                  by danthrax on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:58:10 PM PDT

                  •  I concur

                    I can do that, right? Concur?

                    ;-P

                    by Glic on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:05:29 PM PDT

                  •  I've noticed

                    that yours is the same.

                    by Glic on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:26:56 PM PDT

          •  Okay

            I'll forget the idea that Mitch McConnell is gay. I suppose he just has "Happy Feet".

            by Wilby A Hasben on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:35:14 PM PDT

  •  No they do not

    and I don't like the way this is going.  If your friends (not) jumped off a bridge, would you jump too?  

    The way to show up hypocrites is not to emulate them. It's great as thought experiment, but lousy as a live action.  

    by lgmcp on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:27:42 PM PDT

    •  How many American kids died in Iraq

      this week? Condemning Rush Limbaugh is as idiotic as all the talk about some stupid ad, -- at a time when we were supposed to be talking about GETTING OUT OF IRAQ!

      sigh.

      by TrueBlueCT on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:57:14 PM PDT

    •  I disagree

      I like the idea of pointing out hypocrisy.  If they have a problem with Moveon, then surely, they are horrified by a drug addict casting aspersion on the motivations of our fighting men and women.

      by Dave from Oregon on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:45:06 PM PDT

    •  I disagree:

      The way to show up hypocrites is not to emulate them. It's great as thought experiment, but lousy as a live action.  

      How would we know, we have never actually tried it as a tactic. Just look where that has gotten us. I'm ready to try anything at this point.

      by nippersdad on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:17:53 PM PDT

  •  Like it or not, this petty, trivial shit counts

    that's the way it is, and I say Full Steam Ahead.

    my kind of entertainment!

    by revenant on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:31:48 PM PDT

    •  damn right it does

      There hasn't been squat about it on the cablenets today. This is one way to get coverage of it. As such, I support it.  Of course, fox won't say anything, but maybe CNN will.

      by dougymi on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:46:36 PM PDT

      •  It's worth every penny to see the Minority Leader

        start one of those micro-pressers, and almost everything he says is about MoveOn. Next week, if we're lucky, his monologue will concern a drug-addled Talk Radion beloved by Mouth-Breathers.

        Yee-Haw!!

        by revenant on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:53:04 PM PDT

        •  Here's the benefit.

          Record all the C-SPAN2 coverage of the Republicans trying to defend Rush's statements (cuz you know they will), and then use those in ads to HAMMER them come election time.  VoteVets could probably come up with something quite powerful.

          Can't wait to see what Mitch McConnell has to say on the Senate floor about this.  Get your VCRs ready.

          by BruinKid on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 04:35:46 AM PDT

    •  Does this mean we can expect Tim Russert

      to ask everyone on his show Sunday if they denounce the Limbaugh comment?

      I didn't think so.

      by Nimbus on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 06:38:41 PM PDT

  •  2 stupids = 1 smart?

    Let's see... Bush plus Cheney equals... umm, nope. It doesn't.

    by bitter fruit on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:35:15 PM PDT

  •  reciprocal fucking dumbness (n/t)

    by jrooth on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:42:05 PM PDT

  •  But it does make the two "stupids" equal.

    surely, the Republican leadership will see this and support the bill or ask to present a bill rescinding the Moveon condemnation.  Of course, pigs will be flying on that day....

    by Dave from Oregon on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:36:23 PM PDT

•  Ehhhh ...

  Hunh.

  There is almost something Mao-esque about these sort of public political denunciations.  What country am I living in, again?

  Next up ... "self-criticism," show trials and five year plans.

  by bink on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:24:04 PM PDT

  •  Hang on ...

    I've got an old copy of the "Little Red Book" around here somewhere ...

    I used to use it to terrorize my Cuban teachers back in high school (something of a hazardous sport back in the '70s).

    by jrooth on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:44:52 PM PDT

•  Fighting the Battle of Who Could Care Less

  I've Got
  This Great Idea
  Why don't we pitch it to the Franklin (f-in)Mint:
  Fine pewter portraits of General Apathy and Major Boredom
  Singing whatever and ever amen ...

  Ben Folds

  by Glic on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:24:22 PM PDT

•  The Rebublicans

  need to learn that they can't always get away with calling us "America haters."

  Yeah, both resolutions are a sad commentary on the state of democracy in this country.

  But the fact that as soon as they come out with something nasty and unfair, we send it flying back to them is a good thing, at least short term.

  by SadTexan on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:24:27 PM PDT

  •  Screw Them

    by Jihad Will Eat Itself on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:32:38 PM PDT

    •  Re your handle