Thursday, March 5, 2009

VIDEO: Rush Limbaugh: "Effeminate" Rahm Emanuel "The Ballerina"

Rush is on "en fuego"; slams Obama et al, calls Rahmbo "the ballerina".

The Liberal Commun-O-Crats have ushered in a new anti-Rush strategy.

This strategy will back-fire on the Socio-Crats and I love it!

From Real Clear Politics:

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh asks Obama to come on his show and debate him: "If these guys are so impressed with themselves, and if they are so sure of their correctness, why doesn't President Obama come on my show? We will do a one-on-one debate of ideas and policies. Now, his people in this Politico story, it's on the record. They're claiming they wanted me all along. They wanted me to be the focus of attention. So let's have the debate! I am offering President Obama to come on this program -- without staffers, without a teleprompter, without note cards -- to debate me on the issues. Let's talk about free markets versus government control. Let's talk about nationalizing health care and raising taxes on small business."

Rush's quote from Hot Air:

But make no mistake about it. Emanuel is the leader of all of this. Carville and Begala are just trying to ride my fame into their fortune and become relevant again. Begala and Carville, don’t confuse them with the power brokers that are managing this. It all Emanuel. Begala and Carville are second-rate talking heads on CNN. CNN has no audience. Rahm Emanuel is the power behind the throne — and don’t let his effeminate nature and his ballerina past mislead you on this. He may look effeminate (he was a ballerina at one time) but he has the feral instincts of a female rat defending its young. Well, take a look. When Emanuel and Carville and Begala are together (and I’ve seen pictures) it looks like a reunion of the Village People. (singing) Y! M! C! A!


Stumble Upon Toolbar submit to reddit


  1. First the White House takes shots at Limbaugh, then the DNC runs anti-Limbaugh ads (even some in Spanish), then the press drills every GOP official about Limbaugh, then the left-leaning press takes the worst reactions and tries to create a false crisis out of it... wherever could such a strategy have sprung from?
    Obama mentor Saul Alinsky’s handbook Rules for Radicals outlines the techniques used by this administration to try and break any link between Rush Limbaugh’s influence and the GOP- it’s basically a divide-and-conquer approach:
    Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
    Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
    According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.” __________________________________________

    Now that we know what the underhanded control-freak Obama is up to, conservatives, Limbaugh, and the GOP would be well-advised to ignore these malicious hypocrites, and don’t take the bait.
    The narcissist Obama looks desperate and insecure going after Rush, so just let him go down with his ill-advised policies… shouldn’t take long now.

  2. Why are conservatives so entranced with Limbaugh? He is an entertainer, not a leader of a political party. The only other entertainer in his league I think is Oprah and I mean that as a compliment to Rush. Rush, is a fascinating guy and enormously talented entertainer, a guy who addresses the anxieties, aspirations and prejudices of put-upon, middle-class white men in much the same way Oprah speaks to the anxieties, aspirations and prejudices of angsty middle-aged white women. I applaud his success in finding his market niche and creating a media empire, God Bless America.

    But outside the dittohead universe, I think his 'leadership' is taking you down a place you don't want to go.

    Just imagine, for a moment, how conservatives would react if four months after the worst defeat liberalism had suffered in a generation, Keith Olbermann (or a Rachel Maddow or a Paul Krugman or whomever) showed up to deliver the keynote address at a liberal equivalent of CPAC, and during the course of his speech he blasted every Democrat who disagrees with him as a miserable sell-out, suggested that conservatives are fascists and conservatism a psychosis, lectured the crowd on the irrelevance of policy ideas to liberalism's political prospects, and insisted that the only blueprint liberals need to win elections is the one that Lyndon Johnson used to rout Barry Goldwater. And then further imagine that both before and after this speech, a series of left-of-center politicians ventured criticisms of Olbermann, only to beat a hasty and apologetic retreat as soon as he turned his fire on them.

    Conservatives would be chortling - and rightly so! Not because liberalism needs to purge or marginalize its Keith Olbermanns, or because impassioned liberal entertainers don't have a place in left-of-center discourse - but because when your political persuasion faces a leadership vacuum, you don't want to have it filled by someone who appeals to an impassioned but narrow range of voters, and whose central incentive is to maximize his own ratings.

    Remember when National Review ran a cover story about Howard Dean, entitled "Please, Nominate This Man!"? That's how liberals feel about Rush Limbaugh at the moment: They can't get enough of him. Your conservatives are playing into their hands.

  3. Oh, I did like Men in Tights but would vote for Blazing Saddles and History of the World over this one from Mel Brooks

  4. that was very nice passage