Posts tagged ‘Rush Limbaugh’

August 31, 2011

What to make of Bill O’Reilly as an Immoral Masthead

by Vince Giordano

This story is thick:

Last summer, Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly came to believe that his wife was romantically involved with another man. Not just any man, but a police detective in the Long Island community they call home. So O’Reilly did what any concerned husband would do: He pulled strings to get the police department’s internal affairs unit to investigate one of their own for messing with the wrong man’s lady.


Roger Ailes—treating his local police department like a private security force and trying to damage one cop’s career for the sin of crossing Bill O’Reilly.

The article goes on with the details from the Nassau County Police Department. Just like Rush Limbaugh and his drug problem as well as Donald Trump and his spoiled treatment on the part of his dad (as he then goes on to question Barack Obama’s education credentials and if he is worthy to be out POTUS), we now have O’Reilly who talks big talk, calls people pin heads, and does his best to be the conservative champ in terms of moral righteousness. I wonder how he will spin this on his show. Victimization possibly?

August 30, 2011

Pushing Buttons of Racial Resentment

by Vince Giordano

While the left or those who enjoy attacking the right’s seemingly 1950’s esque “let’s take America back” style of reform, which if we were to go there, it would be horrendous, these quick labels of “racist!” hurt discourse and frankly are mostly inaccurate. The right is not stupid. Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump are big figures who use racial stereotypes to joke or make their points and then whine when they are picked on. The judgments made on them may be overdrawn but they could save the headaches by avoiding inaccurate racial stereotypes in the first place.

August 30, 2011

Judging Hurricane Irene and Our Hurricane-type Hysteria

by Vince Giordano

If you live on the east coast in the U.S., you most likely have heard about Hurricane Irene non-stop for the past week (at least). A few of the places you may have heard bits of news from would of been the Weather Channel (as well as other local or national news stations) as well as Facebook (as well as the World Wide Web). Both of these media outlets covered this hurricane quite extensively. The former was done by professionals while the latter was done by mostly normal joe’s. What both have in common is that they stirred up interesting reactions in all of us.

T.V., especially weather coverage, can go over board. The constant reporting and sometimes worst-case scenarios may really freak people out to the point of hysteria. Facebook seemed to have had similar effects. One friend of mine noticed an interesting trend that isn’t necessarily unique to Hurricane Irene but still interesting: while many people freaked out about Hurricane Irene, many people freaked out about people freaking out about Hurricane Irene. If you think about it, this irony surely does play out in many situations. I don’t have T.V. so I somewhat tried to avoid Facebook so that I could sit back and watch the rain come down and relax over a shut-in type weekend.

One final note: politics has to come into play somehow with this hurricane and the hysteria (doesn’t it?) Two pieces worth checking out: Rush Limbaugh’s usual comments regarding the hysteria:

It was a rainstorm and there was a lot of flooding and there were deaths associated with it,” Limbaugh said. “But they hype — folks, I’ll tell you what this was, was a lesson.

“If you pay any attention to this, they hype — the desire for chaos, I mean, literally — the media desire for chaos was a great learning tool. This is a great illustration of how all of the rest of the media in news, in sports, has templates and narratives and exaggerates beyond reality creating fear, so as to create interest.”

With at least 40 people dead (and rising) and millions in damage, the king of hype and hysteria has to chime in, doesn’t he? However, I partly am in agreement with Rush. Some members of the media, and I include Facebook in this, have a tendency to almost want drama, hype, and buckets of craziness, in not only national events but their own lives.

Second, Ezra Klein et al wonder if we didn’t hype the storm enough considering what it was capable of:

A lot of the commentary over whether the storm got too much attention has been based around the damage the storm did or did not do. NBC’s Al Roker, for instance, tweeted, “Since when is covering a storm that kills 16 people and counting, causes massive flooding and millions in damage hype?” Over at the New York Times, Nate Silver runs somenumbers and concludes that Irenes ranks as “the 8th-most destructive storm since 1980, adjusted for inflation and the growth in wealth and population.”

But the Irene hype occurred mostly before it made landfall, and so mostly before we knew how bad it really was, or wasn’t. Storms are unpredictable, both in their path and intensity, and though Irene mostly broke our way, it could easily have swung towards New York City and picked up speed before smacking into the city. If that had happened, we would be having a very different conversation right now. So the question isn’t whether the storm was overhyped given how things actually went, but whether it was overhyped given how they could have gone. I’m not enough of a meteorologist to render a verdict on that, but it’s the right question to be asking.

July 2, 2011

Quote of the Day

by Vince Giordano

“There is a revenue stream called tax cuts,” – Rush Limbaugh.

May 26, 2011

Both Sides Incite The Race War

by Vince Giordano

Of all people, Bill O’Reilly showed a few examples of how the Left really does sometimes incite racial anxieties:

Recently on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” the moderator, David Gregory, questioned whether Newt Gingrich’s description of Mr. Obama as the “food stamp president” was a racist statement.

Mr. Gingrich told Gregory his question was “bizarre.”

It was also typical.

When Donald Trump advised the president to “get off the basketball court” and down to business, he was branded racist by a variety of mainstream pundits.

In my Super Bowl Sunday interview with Mr. Obama, I asked him if he was a football fan. Some loon on HBO immediately branded that question racist.

Even for me, those comments listed above are mostly far from racial flame throwing.

When certain yes-no questions are asked that usually intertwine one’s view of race and their political views, answers can draw a thick line in the sand pitting “the racists” against “the tolerant ones”:

These questions, which have been used in a number of studies of racial attitudes, asked respondents to agree or disagree with statements regarding the condition of African Americans in the United States including whether a legacy of racism and discrimination has made it difficult for blacks to get ahead, whether blacks have gotten less than they deserve in the United States, whether blacks would be as well off as whites if they tried harder and whether blacks should be able to overcome prejudice the same way other minority groups did, without any special favors.

Not coincidentally, one can arrive at the “resentful” answers to these questions not only through racism, but also through conservative beliefs. One might say blacks should “try harder” out of a belief that they are lazy — or out of a belief that in America, hard work produces results no matter the color of one’s skin, and is preferable to government aid. One might say blacks shouldn’t get “special favors” out of a dislike for them — or out of a belief that no one should get special favors on the basis of race. These conservative beliefs may be right or wrong, but they are not inherently racist.

Robert VerBruggen makes two mistakes in his piece. One, he insinuates that hard work, no matter your skin color, produces success. That is so far from the truth it is laughable. Tim Wise has dismantled this myth several times. Also, VerBruggen concludes that there is no actual evidence to support conservatives being labeled as racists. I then ask these questions: why is your party almost always represented by whites, hostile to immigrants, represented by race-baiters (Rush Limbaugh), supportive of wealthy (a homogeneous group of whites) business owners and CEO’s over the poor (who, mostly non-white, are because years of education being withheld to them, almost always behind their white counterparts in test scores, school performance, or even the chance of being unemployed)?

May 17, 2011

Dialing R-A-C-I-A-L Numbers

by Vince Giordano

Newt Gingrich plays the old Rush Limbaugh game of dialing up racist anecdotes and then easily flops back into a defensive crybaby mode when called on them.

May 4, 2011

“Rush Limbaugh’s Strategically Ambiguous Monologues”

by Vince Giordano

Well put by Conor Friedersdorf (as always). His strategic breakdown of Rush’s show and logic exposes his cowardly approach to “talk show discourse”. This is worth a full read:

In order to fully grasp his mastery of the strategically ambiguous monologue, let’s go back to the line I flagged before: “Last night I was as proud as I have been of the U.S. military in I don’t know how long.” Earnest praise for the troops? Sure seems like it on first listen. Mocking allusion to Michelle Obama’s controversial “proud of my country for the first time” remark? Also plausible! Especially in context. Certainly some of his listeners heard it that way and chuckled. But also totally deniable if necessary! The important thing to realize is that there is no right answer, other than whatever happens to be more convenient for Limbaugh at a particular moment in time. 

Hence he and his flock of followers are nearly impossible to nail down. There is always an escape back hatch to go out of and cry foul.

This failure to articulate and defend a single coherent position is the tactic of an intellectual coward, one who has abandoned any pretense of adding to the discourse, and satisfies himself by being an especially adept manipulator. In a man as smart as Limbaugh, it is a perilous course, for it can only end in self-loathing. But credit where it’s due: he is damned good at the game he plays. 

April 13, 2011

For The Love of Lucre

by Vince Giordano

Don’t call Rush Limbaugh a racist, says Conor Friedersdorf, but a businessman:

In a long profile of Limbaugh published awhile back by The New York Times Magazine, the talk radio host is interviewed while sitting in his 24,000 square foot house, beside a brochure for the $54 million airplane he owns. “Do you know what bought me all this?” he told the interviewer. “Not my political ideas. Conservatism didn’t buy this house. First and foremost I’m a businessman. My first goal is to attract the largest possible audience so I can charge confiscatory ad rates.”

Critics of Limbaugh would do well to avoid issuing the simplistic accusation of racism that merely causes his listeners to rally around him and improve his ratings. The more serious and accurate critique is that he deliberately plays on the racial sensitivities of minorities and liberals, and intentionally provokes the racial anxieties of his listeners. In doing so, he exploits one of the most sensitive and historically fraught divides in American society for the sake of lucre.

April 8, 2011

Glenn Beck’s New Direction

by Vince Giordano

Glenn Beck’s deteriorating relationship with Fox News, his desire to seek new business opportunities, or some other reason has lead for him to step down effective December 2011 from his daily TV show. Fox supposedly did not offer him a new contract. I see this as a big deal, but time will tell how this unfolds for Beck post-Fox. Outside the Beltway offers a good overall coverage of this news.

It will be telling if Glenn Beck transitions over to a radio personality similar to Rush Limbaugh, finds a hot opportunity elsewhere, or dissolves into obscurity.

March 11, 2011

How Rush Limbaugh Sees Our Recession

by Vince Giordano

I have off school today so I am able to relax a bit (I really need to), have some coffee with cream, and write about an article that stuck out to me. I am sometimes so drained during the week that it is hard for me to put together my thoughts and churn out a piece. However, when someone explains something to a T, its hard not to

write about it.

I don’t think I have ever been in my car and listened to Rush Limbaugh. You could count me as lucky. However, from time to time I catch glimpses of his screeds on his website. Andrew Sullivan highlighted one particular screed of his that captures Rush’s true essence:

We all know Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, but unemployment compensation? The payment of unemployment benefits is almost as high as Social Security in this country.  Folks, we are not going to survive as a nation, not the way we’ve been founded, with this kind of sloth and laziness and feeding at the public trough. It just cannot happen.  And to even call this “wages” — I’m actually kinda glad they did because it points out how ludicrous this is and how dangerous it is.  “Handouts,” handouts, the redistribution of wealth “makes up one-third of US wages.”  Social welfare spending has increased three and a half times since 1960.

We declared war on poverty, and it’s given us this.  We declared war on poverty, and what do we have?  Thirty-five percent of our people living on the dole!  Thirty-five percent of American citizens living on “handouts,” and where are the handouts coming from?  Their fellow citizens… I know it’s depressing, folks.  I mean some people are so lazy that they will only be unemployed if they’re paid to be unemployed.

After his min-sermon, a listener dialed in to share his real (not abstract) story of battling cancer, being unable to work, and collecting unemployment benefits. Rush’s response:

Do you think I actually think you ought to be denied stuff? Okay.  I don’t think that.  I’m not talking about people like you, but there are people who fudge this disability business.  I had a story not long ago about a bunch of drunks in jail getting disability payments because they were alcoholics. Well, we are a compassionate country.  There is not a person in this country that does not want somebody who cannot provide for themselves to go empty.  There’s not a person in the world who wants that. You don’t fall under the headline definition freeloader or what have you.  And if you’re bothered by it, it’s life.

A lot of things affect a lot of people.  But we’re not talking about you.  And you are not the majority of that 35% on the dole anyway.  You’re a small percentage of it.  You’re not the problem we’re talking about.

Sullivan sums up Rush’s general caricature of those unemployed as jailed drunks, lazy sloths, and the like. As Sullivan put it, Rush backs down from his abstract tirade when faced with a real life case.

What does this show us? Maybe we shouldn’t allow bigots such as Rush dictate the conversation every time unemployment benefits come up for renewal in Congress. Maybe we shouldn’t let a multi-millionaire tell us how every person on unemployment acts, behaves, or uses their money. Maybe we should turn off the radio and step into the actual world of someone whose life is decaying because of being without a job.

January 13, 2011

Public Discourse and Mutual Target Usage II

by Vince Giordano

Above, Sarah Palin stands her ground in the wake of the Tuscon shooting. The full transcript to her speech can be viewed here. Ezra Klein starts us off with a critique of her response:

Imagine if Palin had come out and said, “My initial response was to defend the fact that I had never condoned such violence, and never would. But the fact is, if I in any way contributed to an unhealthy political climate, I have to be more careful and deliberate in my public language rather than merely sharpen my defenses.” That would’ve been leadership: It would have made her critics look small, and it would’ve made her look big. Those who doubted whether Palin could rise to an occasion that called for more than sharp partisanship would’ve been silenced.

Of course, Palin didn’t say that. Al Sharpton did (or at least he saidsomething very close). Palin accused her opponents of propagating a “blood libel.” Rather than admitting that we all sometimes go too far, and that we must constantly work to see the humanity in others and tamp down on the dangerous certainty we have in ourselves, she lashed out at her critics, mocked the idea that political rhetoric was ever “less heated” and noted that there was a time when politicians settled disputes through duels.

So that’s Palin’s substantive response: Politics has never been reliably civil, her critics are unfair to her and at least she’s not shot anybody. All that is true. But you won’t find “stop bothering me, this tragedy isn’t my fault” in the chapter headings of any books on leadership.

Her response is very Jonah Goldberg-esque; we don’t live in a utopian world where everyone talks nicely to each other. She comes off somewhat callously and apathetic towards the invective streaming through the infected U.S. media and seems to let it off the hook as part of what we have in an imperfect world. This is somewhat a norm amongst conservative figures in America. America is seen by Palin as “exceptional” and our constitution is sacred. Yet don’t you dare try to make our world or nation perfect because we live on a fallen earth. When seeing that logic, it sounds out of touch from the struggling world and uninterested in change. Of course they want to change, but you will see a great difference in the moving direction for change and source of inspiration between liberals and conservatives.

Furthermore, no single American is that disconnected from the mass media’s tentacles that they do not get swept up in birtherism thoughts, comparisons between Barack Obama and Hitler, or one of many culture wars. No one is taking the blame off of Jared Lee Loughner and fully blaming Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, or the Right. Many are simply saying that their usual rhetoric that is flowered with jingoistic, pompous, and sometimes angry words has an affect on us all.

In Palin’s defense, I am siding with Jared Lee Loughner being a nihilist, meaning he rejected everything, both sides of the political aisle, and doesn’t seem to be hellbent on destroying one certain party. It is more of a sick irony than a direct correlation that Gabrielle Gifford’s shooting overlapped with her district being the lucky recipient of gun cross hairs. Would the Democratic party be called for inciting violence if one of the Congressmen or Senators in its cross hairs map was shot?

Now on to Obama’s speech. Dave Weigel posted the full transcript to Barack Obama’s speech in Tuscon and is worth a full read.

Money quote:

You see, when a tragedy like this strikes, it is part of our nature to demand explanations – to try to impose some order on the chaos, and make sense out of that which seems senseless.  Already we’ve seen a national conversation commence, not only about the motivations behind these killings, but about everything from the merits of gun safety laws to the adequacy of our mental health systems.  Much of this process, of debating what might be done to prevent such tragedies in the future, is an essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government.

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

As you read on, Obama denounces the idea of blaming one another during this time. I wonder if Palin takes that as him defending her amidst the ‘blood libel’ thrown her way? Obama continues on by showing the inward affects this event has (or can have) on us all:

After all, that’s what most of us do when we lose someone in our family – especially if the loss is unexpected.  We’re shaken from our routines, and forced to look inward.  We reflect on the past.   Did we spend enough time with an aging parent, we wonder.  Did we express our gratitude for all the sacrifices they made for us?  Did we tell a spouse just how desperately we loved them, not just once in awhile but every single day?

So sudden loss causes us to look backward – but it also forces us to look forward, to reflect on the present and the future, on the manner in which we live our lives and nurture our relationships with those who are still with us.  We may ask ourselves if we’ve shown enough kindness and generosity and compassion to the people in our lives.  Perhaps we question whether we are doing right by our children, or our community, and whether our priorities are in order.  We recognize our own mortality, and are reminded that in the fleeting time we have on this earth, what matters is not wealth, or status, or power, or fame – but rather, how well we have loved, and what small part we have played in bettering the lives of others.

Obama closes with the desire for us all to see America as 9 year old Christina Taylor Green did:

Imagine: here was a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just starting to glimpse the fact that someday she too might play a part in shaping her nation’s future.  She had been elected to her student council; she saw public service as something exciting, something hopeful.  She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model.  She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted.

December 7, 2010

Obama Reaches Out

by Vince Giordano

For Obama’s bipartisan sake, his caving in to the Bush Tax Cut extension is a good thing. It better quell some of the huffing and puffing from the Right that he won’t “meet us on our side” and follow some unspoken order from America to take up a smaller government.

Lately, I am seeing two lanes of thought in relation to “Obama’s welfare state / dependency programs”. One side sees that these programs have people on their rolls who are ignorantly and lazily dependent on government money and the Democrats have done some sort of lobotomy experiment to make them forever follow them their handout trail. The other side sees some people on the program rolls that are generationally dependent but also many enrolled who wholeheartedly need it. A case and point example for the first side can be seen below:

The emerging deal is not all good news, of course.  It is not wise to provide extended unemployment insurance for the duration of 2011.  That’s likely to contribute to persistently high unemployment and discourage the adjustments necessary to get more people back to work.  And temporary tax cuts are much less effective than permanent ones at spurring productive investments and job creation.

The author banks on a black and white schema for unemployment insurance. He sees that this insurance provided for those out of work will just keep their butts planted down on the couch and give them no hope other than to be a parasite of the government.

Such views taken up by the author can be credited to only knowing a few people on welfare or unemployed and who also happen to enjoy not having a job and not making much off of the government. This view is quite condescending and probably comes from a privileged white ledge, far removed from their ivory towers and white suburbs. Another source of such poppycock stereotyping is Rush Limbaugh. When Rush Limbaugh makes racist jokes or jokes insinuating racial stereotypes towards Barack Obama, one not only gets a bad picture in their head of Barack but also of black people. Rush must not think too highly of black people, even ones who have risen out of a tough single parent home and gone on to be a constitutional scholar and president of the United States.

After sifting through the racist innuendos and the seemingly truth statements that “all people on welfare or who are unemployed are lazy”, one needs to ask some questions. What about there being only 1 job out there today for every 5 applicants? What about our nation being in one of the worst recessions in decades? What about our unemployment rate still not going down but hovering around 9.8%?

More times than not, the first side is held up by privileged whites who haven’t had to worry about not receiving great education, health care, living in a stable home, or living in an impoverished neighborhood. Their existence is never questioned based on their races behavior on a macro level. They simply live without having their race drag them down. The second side can tend to be a mixed bag of colors. They may make up educated whites as well as those who have been or have known someone enrolled in a state program. The words of Andrew Marin, even though spoken about the divide between the church and the GLBT community, ring true in this case: “We have to go to a culture before we know a culture” (emphasis mine).

Back to taxes, how we construct our outlook on taxes and the economy in turn directs our allegiance towards a certain direction. Sure our personal experiences play in to that as well (Growing up, my Dad always complained about extra taxes coming his way. He was, and still is, a self employed landscaper, so extra taxes hit him and he feels them). If we see taxes towards the rich as a hindrance towards job creation, especially in a recession, we will say ‘no way’ to ending tax cuts. On the flip side, if we see tax cuts for the middle class as helpful for they are the ones who are more apt to spend on the basics (food, furniture, stimulating local business) than to save in large amounts, then one would say “sure, give those guys the tax cuts”.

As I said, in the end it comes down to the reality we construct. How much of that is based on actual reality (our experiences, empirical evidence) and based on faux theology (Mike Huckabee, Glenn Beck, Fox News), only ourselves can fully peer into that source.

December 3, 2010

Sugar Coating Racist Euphemisms

by Vince Giordano

Tim Wise goes off against the notion that America is in a post-racial era and shits on the idiots (Rush Limbaugh, partly Barack Obama) for pressing racist buttons or shying away from such issues as “well they (the Tea Party and their racist signs) are just angry about the economy”. I love this guy.

November 11, 2010

Uncited Screed of the Day

by Vince Giordano

Enjoy this tasty treat by the grossly overweight Rush Limbaugh.

October 26, 2010

Dominion Theology Alert

by Vince Giordano

From who else?

Lisa Deaton, a small-business owner in Columbus, Ind., who started We the People Indiana, a Tea Party affiliate, is supporting Mr. Young in part because of his stand against climate change legislation. “They’re trying to use global warming against the people,” Ms. Deaton said. “It takes away our liberty.”

“Being a strong Christian,” she added, “I cannot help but believe the Lord placed a lot of minerals in our country and it’s not there to destroy us.”

“It’s a flat-out lie,” Mr. (Norman) Dennison (a 50-year-old electrician and founder of the Corydon Tea Party) said in an interview after the debate, adding that he had based his view on the preaching of Rush Limbaugh and the teaching of Scripture. “I read my Bible,” Mr. Dennison said. “He made this earth for us to utilize.”

All of the items on earth, if used without any discretion or respect towards the earth (remember John 3:16:’for God so loved the world‘), can do damage. Is that a lost thought?

October 1, 2010

Rush Limbaugh on Family Guy

by Vince Giordano

Simply hilarious.

August 13, 2010

Rush’ “Monogamous” Heterosexual Lifestyle

by Vince Giordano

The rest of the photo’s are here. Till death do us part, eh?

This storyline goes along with the rest of the “monogamous” heterosexual crowd: Larry King, Elizabeth Taylor, et al. Like I have noted before, this doesn’t give solid enough reason (in my opinion) for same sex marriage but discredits many pundits. In part, I do support not making certain people second-rate citizens but am not fully convinced of the reasons supporting same sex marriage.

July 14, 2010

Limbaugh’s Pad for Sale

by Vince Giordano

The WSJ has an article on Rush Limbaugh’s $12.25 million condo for sale in NYC. This is due to his anger over a raise in income taxes:

One broker familiar with the transaction said the final price was about $11.5 million. Mr. Limbaugh paid just under $5 million for the apartment as well as a maid’s room and a storage locker, in 1994.

Last year when New York state adopted a temporary income-tax surcharge to raise more than $3 billion a year, Mr. Limbaugh said on his radio show that he was going to “get out of New York totally” and sell his Manhattan apartment. A Web transcript of the show is titled “El Rushbo to New York: Drop Dead.”

But property records show that Mr. Limbaugh has been a beneficiary of rising property values in the city since 1994.

July 8, 2010

“Spray and Neuter Liberals”

by Vince Giordano

The title was taken after a bumped sticker I saw on a truck today. Here is a quotable from Rush Limbaugh:

“Who is Obama? Why is he doing this? Why? Why is he doing it? Is he stupid? Is it an accident? Is he doing it on purpose or what have you? … I think we face something we’ve never faced before in the country — and that is, we’re now governed by people who do not like the country, who do not have the same reverence for it that we do. Our greatest threat (and this is saying something) is internal… That word ‘payback’ is not mine, [but] it is exactly how I think Obama looks at the country: It’s payback time… There’s no question that payback is what this administration is all about, presiding over the decline of the United States of America, and doing so happily,” –Rush Limbaugh, accusing the president of treason on racial grounds.

June 11, 2010

The noisome “news” by Rush

by Vince Giordano

Rush’s screed, thankfully short, are dripping with invective and pernicious “commentary” clearly on it’s own radical island and in extremist, talk radio overdrive:

The disconnect between liberalism and Americanism.  Says it all.  The Kagan nomination shows it, the state dinner thing tonight, the way they’re handling that.  Obama going to Ohio yesterday, 15-point-something percent unemployment in Ohio.  And Obama goes in and starts talking about how wonderful things are in the country and things are coming back.  It’s like pouring salt on the wound.  Foreclosures and repossessions are at an all-time high, yet we’re in an economic recovery.  And all this is great news for Obama.  It’s the disconnect between liberalism and Americanism, and they clearly are two separate things.

Now if you think all liberals are ideological and live inside academic textbook boxed worlds, then there are some issues to that world view. But, not every American drapes themselves in an American flag and lives in depressed sectors of Ohio and attends Tea Parties.

Why is this ad-like link on the right of the page? Why do we need to think this way? Is it that easy to find a scapegoat? To truly leave all stones unturned, this could be taken all the way back to the Civil War or even to a lesser degree the World Wars.  Several presidents, Congresses, Fed Chairmans, businesses, poor business deals by the small fries, and much much much more encompasses where we are now. At the end of the day, I don’t think I am educated enough to give a strong answer, nor do I think any answer lacks shades of grey.