here is a good short summary of the trouble Haiti is in (although death toll may be exaggerated), and the sort of help it will need, and hence just what a shit Limbaugh is.

(The White House probably doesn’t listen to Brits, but this campaign to grant Haitians Temporary Protected Status in the USA looks worth supporting).

Yet again Liberal Conspiracy is obssessed by what AMERICAN right-wingers say, then implies BRITISH ones think the same with little or no evidencial basis.

Suinny, if you want to go into American politics, go to America. Do the thoughts of the French right wong shine light on that of the Tories here?

If UK right-wingers cut their ties to US right-wingers, and stopped describing them in glowing terms (pretending that issues like this are an eccentric exception, rather than the rule), you’d have a point.

“If UK right-wingers cut their ties to US right-wingers, and stopped describing them in glowing terms (pretending that issues like this are an eccentric exception, rather than the rule), you’d have a point.”

Perhaps: except no one outside the wilder shores of the Christian fundamentalists thinks that Pat Robertson is anything but a whack job.

It would be like saying that Lenin’s Tomb is representative of the British left: instead of his being representative of that tiny minority of Trot whackjobs who have never quite got past that stage of thinking that the Che Guevara posters are cool therefore we should go kill all the bourgeois.

Sunny,

Rather than go to a news commentator to find out what Rush Limbaugh said on his Wednesday show you should go to http://www.rushlimbaugh.com for a transcript of the programme. It is more accurate – if that matters to you. He was not suggesting people should not give money to Haiti, rather it would be better to do it by donating to charities not the US government.

1st quote from Wednesday’s show:

RUSH: We’re going to start in Raleigh, North Carolina. Justin you’re first today. Great to have you with us.
CALLER: Mega Rush Baby dittos. My question is, why did Obama in the sound bite you played earlier, when he’s talking about if you wanted to donate some money, you can go to WhiteHouse.gov –
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: — to direct you how to do so. If I want to donate money to the Red Cross, why do I need to go to the WhiteHouse.gov page and –
RUSH: Exactly. Would you trust that the money is going to go to Haiti?
CALLER: No.
RUSH: Would you trust that your name is going to end up on a mailing list for the Obama people to start asking you for campaign donations for him and other causes.
CALLER: Absolutely.
RUSH: Absolutely right.
CALLER: That’s the point.
RUSH: Besides, we’ve already donated to Haiti. It’s called the US income tax.

2nd quote from Wednesday’s show:

RUSH: Well, I’m glad you did and I’m glad you called, Carol. Thanks very much. I had somebody go to WhiteHouse.gov to see what the donation process is. And this is all the guidance you get on donating to Haiti at the White House site. What I’m going to read to you is buried in a very long blog post about what Obama said about the earthquake. You get that first, you gotta read what Obama said, the maximum leader, you gotta read what he says and then you get to the bottom and here’s what it says. “You can also help, immediately, by donating to the Red Cross to assist the relief effort. Contribute online here, or donate $10 to be charged to your cell phone bill by texting Haiti. Find more ways to help through the Center for International Disaster Information.” So that’s all the guidance you get. Now, that’s pretty easy, text Haiti and you’re gonna get billed for ten bucks and that money ostensibly is going to go to Haiti.

In reply to rumpypumpy:

The oh so heinous White House page here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/01/14/president-haiti-first-waves-our-rescue-and-relief-workers-are-ground-and-work

Where they link out to the red cross within 5 lines?? Because it’s unreasonable to think that some people might go to whitehouse.gov to find out what’s going on and what to do?

Is it not slander to suggest that Obama would use money donated to Haiti for his re-election campaign? If anything, the transcript suggests paints him in even less favourable light than the original quote (not just lacking in compassion, but clearly bonkers and devoid of judgement).

#5 Maybe you’re willing to describe Pat Robertson as a “whack job”, but would the Republican leadership? There lies the difference with your example. Robertson fulfils useful functions for the Republicans: he’s a valued part of their party and organisation. I’m not sure Gordon Brown would say the same about Lenin’s Tomb.

Sunny,

Brilliant post – you link to a post which picks you up for celebrating the hospitilisation of another human being. Great brotherhood of man stuff.

In that post the word ‘mainstream’ is never used of Rush Limbaugh (who is not quite mainstream even in the US – there are plenty of Republicans and right-wing Democrats (yes they exist) who loath the man). You add this word in a bit of unnecessary spinning to try and tar Tim Montgomerie. Which leads to an interesting moral question: do you see yourself as superior to Mr Limbaugh in your manipulative twisting of facts and subtle suggestiveness?

Oh incidentally, the actual story proves only that Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson are idiots, probably with persecution complexs (hopefully justified). But did any of us need to be told that particular bombshell?

#9

Yes, there are plenty of Republicans who loathe the man. But the leadership of their party doesn’t have the guts to criticise him. He and Robertson both fulfil useful functions for the Republicans. Their leadership recognises that, so they’re willing to tolerate him instead of making it clear to the American public that he doesn’t speak for them. Personally, I think that will disadvantage them in the long run. The trouble is, it also disadvantages American political discourse in the meantime.

Rush has the highest rated talk radio show in the US – I think that alone makes him mainstream. Also, notice that mainstream is out of Sunny’s speech-marks

Tim did however describe a paranoid, militant, hate-filled (and hate fuelled) individual who has no doubt contributed to hate crimes against the targets of his hateful invective (People of Colour, Immigrants, Muslims, Pro-Choice, Homosexuals, Transgender Individuals…).

Keith Olberman was good on Rush and Pat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPoWOw8Jm5w

tim,

I do not doubt you on this. But I am not sure I’d be a Republican anyway: assuming someone right wing in Britain would feel at ease with the religious, big-government, moralistic idiots that are a large chunk of the Republican party is a rather large assumption. Best way to look at it is that one of this sites favourite bogey men, Dan Hannan (crossing threads today) wanted Mr Obama to win the presidency, although he does not agree with his every policy apparently. And there are still some Democrats who are particuarly illiberal.

Matt,

Mainstream was not quoted, but Sunny said ‘This is the same person Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome recently described as a mainstream “centre right personality”.’

Putting mainstream after the verb implies that it was part of Mr Montgomerie’s description, not Sunny’s editorialising. And since Sunny has excellent English I find it hard to believe this is a mistake, especially as there is no reason to have the word mainstream anywhere in the description.

you link to a post which picks you up for celebrating the hospitilisation of another human being. Great brotherhood of man stuff.

Oh I have absolutely no sympathy for Rush Limbaugh whatsoever. If that makes your head pop – even better. Funny though – you don’t say anything about his comments only about how I don’t have sympathy for your boy Rush….

“assuming someone right wing in Britain would feel at ease with the religious, big-government, moralistic idiots that are a large chunk of the Republican party is a rather large assumption.”

Umm, there’s an awful lot of them in the Tory Party you know. Just as there are in the Labour Party actually, although the morals and the flavour of religion do tend to change.

I find it odd that we have defenders here of bigots, racists and idiots, you’d think on the point of Robertson and Rush being vile humans, we could all agree and then worry that they are partially reflection of the right in America.

Instead we have people defending them. Madness.

Also, on the point of why this is worrying for us over here I have these three horrible words for you:

THE ATLANTIC BRIDGE

Sunny,

Rush Limbaugh is (as you might notice if you read carefully) not one of my favourite people. I dislike anyone who is racist, homophobic, small-minded and petty about other human beings because they do not agree with them. Don’t fall into the trap of group thinking and label me right-wing, then assume I must agree with idiots like that.

I frequently disagree with you, Sunny, but do not feel the need to think of you as inferior in any way. Should any misfortunate befall you, I would be genuinely upset, as you are a human and worthy of equal regard as anyone else (I should point out here this is a belief in democracy and equality, not any religious thing). Sure, I’ll pick you up on stupid statements, errors of fact or just generally on political disagreements. But this does not mean I do not value you as a human. I even value Rush Limbaugh as a human, and wish him no ill harm beyond the end of his broadcasting career. I don’t like Mr Limbaugh, but wishing harm on him is a totally different thing.

Sunny, I guess you oppose the death penalty or the use of corporal punishment. So if you do not allow the dispassionate state to inflict suffering, why do you relish the suffering of those who have committed no crime, however morally repugnant the two of us both think they are. It is petty, and puts you on a level with the hate-filled demagogues we are discussing here. I hope (and would pray, apart from my lack of religious belief) that you are better than that.

15

Tim,

I know there’s a few of them in the Conservatives, although most Conservatives are the sort of people who also serve on charities, as indeed are most Labour party members I’ve met – in Britain being prepared to commit to a party for non-career purposes tends to be a commitment not just a statement.

But more to the point, why would I care? I’m not a Conservative, although at the moment I will likely vote for them (assuming their local candidate is not one of the idiots).

16.

Who is defending Mr Limbaugh. I certainly don’t, and rumpy pumpy seems to be giving a more complete transcript rather than Sunny’s edited highlights. That’s not necessarily defence, just providing more information.

Tim Montgomery. The country is in trouble when someone like Tim Fucking Racist Montgomery thinks someone like Rush Limbaugh is mainstream.

In answer to tedious question: defenders of Rush are Who Watches The Watchman and rumpytroll

20. John. It is Sunny who seems to portray Rush as mainstream, not Tim Montgomerie (check the linked to article).

21. Daniel. Who is watching me (and if you recognise the reference, maybe you should understand my normal behaviour?). Anyway, it might help if you read my comments, where I call Rush Limbaugh an idiot, racist, homophobic, petty and small-mnded, and state explicitly I am not defending him. So I suggest that your statement I am defending him is an assumption based on the fact you expect me to because I am ‘right-wing’ rather than bothering to read what I wrote.

In the main I am critising Sunny for lowering himself to Limbaugh-like levels of stupidity and honest presentation. Sunny at least is an honourable man, as are you, even if you disagree with me. I would not say the same for Rush Limbaugh, even if he might (unlikely) agree with me. He is due the respect due to a human being, but his views and pronouncements stink. So, no, I do not defend him at all.

watchman

Montgomerie call’s him “centre right”. what’s the difference between centre right and mainstream right? if the mainstream is not the centre, where is it? even if you think there are difference meanings, you’re splitting hairs

American Right wingers are once again showing how false their so called ‘pro life ‘lectres are.

These people love death…particularly brown people.

18, how do you explain this?

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftwatch/2010/01/voluntary-sector-dominated-by-labour-and-liberal-democrat-sympathisers.html

Pathetic shite from Montgomerie. I bet he’s a virgin as well.

Is he going to watch me? I’m bricking it!

There are forward explanations for the Haiti earthquake as well as for the tsunami in 2004 or the earthquakes in Lisbon in 1755 and San Francisco in 1906.

It’s called: Intelligent Design.

I suggest we call on the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury to consider their positions.

They could at least resign in protest.

Great to see the tory trolls defending Rush.

Tells you all you need to know about tory trolls and the Right in the UK.

“This is the same person Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome recently described as a mainstream “centre right personality”.”

Yes, this tells you all you need to know about Tim Montgomerie. He is a brownshirt of the first order. His conections with the brownshirt right in America is well known. He just repeats their talking points here in the UK.

Umm, Sally?

“Yes, this tells you all you need to know about Tim Montgomerie. He is a brownshirt of the first order. His conections with the brownshirt right in America is well known.”

You do know who the brownshirts were, don’t you? The SA?

The left wing socialist part of the national socialist movement? You know, the lefties of the Nazis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

“After Hitler took power in 1933, the SA became increasingly eager for power and saw themselves as the replacement for the German army. This angered the regular army (Reichswehr), who already resented the Nazis. It also led to tension with other leaders within the party, who saw Röhm’s increasingly powerful SA as a threat to their own personal ambitions. Originally an adjunct to the SA, the Schutzstaffel (SS) was placed under the direct control of Heinrich Himmler in part to restrict the power of the SA and their leaders.

Although some of these conflicts were based on personal rivalries, there were also key socioeconomic conflicts between the SS and SA. SS members generally came from the middle class, while the SA had its base among the unemployed and working class. Politically speaking, the SA were more radical than the SS, with its leaders arguing the Nazi revolution had not ended when Hitler achieved power, but rather needed to implement socialism in Germany. Despite its sympathy for its own brand of socialism, the SA would often pick street fights with Communists and Social Democrats.”

No? You don’t know that?

Personally, I hope that whatever it was that old pimple-on-the-ass chickenhawk Rush had that caused him to go to hospital recently really hurt.

Oh please not a pathetic Jonah Goldberg piece of bullshit about how Nazis were liberal. I could not give a donkeys dick about which side of the Nazis the brown shirts came from

Classic Right wing straw splitting.

You think twat, Worstall, did you not read in that very link that the leftists were wiped out by Hitler, as were the unions and the parties of the left?

http://www.nextleft.org/2010/01/day-of-shame-for-daily-mail.html

“a well organised party of the right ready to take over responsibility for national affairs with the same directness of purpose and energy of method as Hitler and Mussolini have displayed”

But you think they were wrong- well, it wouldn’t be the first or the last time that the Mail published lying filth- but do you really think they’d celebrate a left-wing movement?

The fact is, I am on the left, and my ideas have have been vilified by the Mail, Tory vermin, the Blair/Brown party (I do not call them Labour as they are unworthy of the name of the party I was a member of), the BNP (ask yourself why they call themselves right-wing and slag off “lefties” as fervently as any bloggertarian cunt) and so on. But we were right all along, as this recession and the utter failure of the City of London, the service “industries” and the property bubble to enrich us demonstrates.

You don’t even bother trying to defend your chum Montgomerie, because he has been proven beyond doubt to be vindictive and a fuckwit. Instead, you move the goalposts like the liar you are.

“You think twat, Worstall, did you not read in that very link that the leftists were wiped out by Hitler, as were the unions and the parties of the left?”

Yes, I did know that. It’s still true that the SA were the leftists in the Nazi ideological pantheon. Which makes Sally’s comment about them being rightists historically ignorant, d’ye see?

And there is most certainly an element of “national socialism” which is “socialism”.

“You don’t even bother trying to defend your chum Montgomerie”

No, not my chum. I’m not a Tory and I’m most certainly not a Christian Tory which Montgomerie most certainly is. Which is why I don’t try to defend him,. d’ye see?

Interesting that you should run this story rather than, say, report the fact that David Cameron has written personally to every Conservative Party member asking them to make a donation to the DEC.

And what has been Gordon Brown’s response?

“The compassion of the British people and the world has to be matched by co-ordination.”

He just had to get a statist propaganda line in there, didn’t he? Disgusting.

I’m most certainly not a Christian Tory

I thought you were a Downside-educated Papist Tim?

“I thought you were a Downside-educated Papist Tim?”

Indeed, but the religion bit didn’t stick. The readin’n'ritin’ bit did and I understand the logic behind many of the Catholic arguments, but the belief in God and thus the theoretical underpinning of such arguments didn’t manage to survive…..not that it had ever actually been there to be honest.

If this weren’t do obviously oxymoronic I think I’d describe myself as a Catholic atheist. There is a distinctive Catholic way of looking at the world (or perhaps that should even be a distinctive Benedictine manner) which is cultural or perhaps a set of logical strictures. And it’s quite possible to retain that without the belief in the beard in the sky.

This is going well off thread of course but as an example: the Benedictine attitude to knowledge can be summed up as (indeed, it was summed up to me several times in this manner) as: “God is truth. The more knowledge you have the closer to truth you will get and thus the closer to God you will get.”

The implication of this being that one should study any and everything so as to get closer to the truth of the universe and thus to God.

Now, drop the references to God and you get “The truth is out there. More knowledge will get you closer to that truth.”

The implication of this being that one should study any and everything so as to get closer to the truth of the universe.

Yes, I know, rather odd, but that’s the sort of thing I mean by “Catholic atheism”.

As to how far along I’ve got in this approach to truth well, that’s really for others to determine, not me, for I’m so obviously biased. Life is simply chemicals learning how to self-replicate, we’re the result of random mutations winnowed by changing environments and competition to reproduce, this isn’t a test phase, this life is all there is, markets work better than non-markets most of the time except when they don’t, Adam Smith was right about sympathy, the division and specialisation of labour, rent seeking by businessmen, Ricardo was right on trade and Mill on liberty and civil liberties.

I could go on but you almost certainly don’t want me to.

Tim Worstall,

I can, sort of, understand why you feel the need to defend yourself. I cannot quite understand why you are defending a completely mental Yank?

Perhaps you could explain.

It is not entirely difficult to say that Pat Robertson is as mad as a hatter. Well, at least I think so. It doesn’t compromise any other opinions you might have.

So why, Tim, are you attacking any thought process that thinks Pat Robertson is as thick as two short planks? It is fucking obvious that extreme right wing Americans are off their trolleys.

Quite why you would apologise for that is beyond me…..

“I cannot quite understand why you are defending a completely mental Yank?”

Erm, try brushing up on that reading comprehension bit. This is what I said about Robertson:

“except no one outside the wilder shores of the Christian fundamentalists thinks that Pat Robertson is anything but a whack job.”

Calling someone a whack job isn’t really normally thought of as a defence of them you know.

#35

No, David Cameron didn’t write “personally” to every Tory member. Don’t be silly. He may have signed off on a letter or more likely e-mail asking Tory members to donate. But Labour Party members received a similar communication asking us to donate too.

And do you think aid can be delivered without “co-ordination”?

Tim Worstall

As to how far along I’ve got in this approach to truth well, that’s really for others to determine, not me, for I’m so obviously biased. Life is simply chemicals learning how to self-replicate, we’re the result of random mutations winnowed by changing environments and competition to reproduce, this isn’t a test phase, this life is all there is,

Had you stopped it there, I would not disagree with your sentiment.

But you couldn’t, could you? You had to add your politics:

Adam Smith was right about sympathy, the division and specialisation of labour, rent seeking by businessmen, Ricardo was right on trade and Mill on liberty and civil liberties.

You ought to admit that is in the political arena.

Oh sure, that latter is indeed in the political/economic arena. I still regard them as revelaed truths about the universe though…:-)

Tim Rand “except no one outside the wilder shores of the Christian fundamentalists thinks that Pat Robertson is anything but a whack job.”

I am afraid that is rat shit.

Could you pick up the phone and get straight through to the Republican President of the last 25 years Tim?

Because whacky Pat could. Both Bush ‘s and Ronnie Raygun woiuld take his calls. But the Republican party is now owned by the Christians fundies, so anyone outside does not count, in Republican cirlces.

I’ve a serious proposal to make about a useful job for Blair to get him far away from Britain in the run-up to the election here: act as mentor on international affairs to Sarah Palin to prepare her for the US Presidential election in 2012.

She plainly needs all the mentoring she can get and Blair’s stance on foreign policy issues will surely be congenial to much of the Republican Party.

In due course, to do the Labour Party a big favour he might consider relocating to gain the residency qualification for US Citizenship.

Just a thought.

It’s important not to generalise. Follwing the media on this side of the pond, there does not appear to be a “screw Haiti” constituency of any significance, indeed quite the opposite. Limbaugh is a shock jock who is enormously well paid for being outrageous. Robertson, a surprising advocate of the recent global debt relief campaign, is actually involved in the aid effort. He just has some very odd views (and judging from his conflation of the Haitian Slave revolt with the as yet unborn Napoleon III, a fairly sketchy grasp of history).

During my first hurricane season after crossing the Atlantic I watched with morbid fascination as Robertson assured his viewers that a hurricane then apparently headed for Florida was God’s response to Disneyworld’s pro-gay promotions. The Almighty (one must assume) immediately altered the hurricane’s course and it made landfall at Virginia Beach, Robertson’s HQ. You’d think he’d take the hint. The thing is, although the man is clearly more than one sandwich short of a picnic, he will actually do more to help the almost all of his critics.

Ask Pat about all those diamonds that came out of Africa after backing various leaders in those countries?

It seems that some of the whackier brands of Christian fundamentalism are not the only religious zealots blaming human (in)action for the earthquake…

http://theorator2009.blogspot.com/2010/01/fundamentalist-religious-response-to.html

But I didn’t see this comment reported on the BBC or here for some reason.

An independent voice of reason speaking truth to power…yeah right, that comment smacks a wee bit of LOOK OVER THERE, also, Robertson and his ilk are not a whacky branch of Christianity, they are a mainstream branch of US Christianity and I’d like to offer a nice counterpoint to the bullshit being written about Danny Glover:

http://www.pamil-visions.net/danny-glover-versus-the-real-morons-sound-bit-media/210555/

@ Jimmy

Careful there because you then get into the discussion of is it better to go out and help like Roberston aimed with your bible and ideas, so with a clause ‘I am sent by jesus to give you water, now before I give you water to drink you must repent for being a darkie and you must show that you will forever discriminate against all that is not Christian’

Hmm, no thanks Pat. I’d rather die of dehydration than take your help with all that not so small print.

“Careful there because you then get into the discussion”

If it’s a choice between death and a little bible thumping then I think it’s a pretty short discussion.