Rush Limbaugh has “a character issue.” He repeatedly bears false witness and I don’t understand why that doesn’t make social conservatives sick.

Here’s what Obama had to say to Europe about anti-Americanism: “But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what’s bad…. On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated. They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America.”

If a conservative said that, Limbaugh would shout it out with pride! Because Obama said it, he deliberately ignores it so he can continue lying about Obama in order to frighten ordinary Americans. To me, it’s just sickening. It’s un-American to engage in that kind of… tribalism. What I grew up believing about America is that we are an advanced nation, one nation, indivisible, committed to real principles of truth and justice. We’re not two tribes committed to tribal loyalty no matter how many lies or character assassinations have to be made. The mendacious Limbaugh is this (tribal) political hostility personified and, to me, he represents a disease in American politics.

Why support and defend a person like Limbaugh who so is so ugly and so consistently has to lie to maintain his positions? The only thing I can think is that the people who defend him are basically defending their own right to enjoy the anger he stirs up in them. How do you justify clinging to that when there’s evidence that what you’re angry about isn’t even true and, further, it is not only dividing your political party, it’s hurting your country?

I’m not backing away from my earlier statement that I’d much prefer to see the Uighurs settled somewhere outside our borders. That said, I consider it completely unacceptable to keep them locked up indefinitely or repatriated to China, either, so I recognize the difficulty of the situation. If you or sinz54 (who seems to think he understands my motives better than I do) have some better ideas, please present them.

However, interesting as this side-discussion is, look back on Rush’s words. If you read through the paragraphs quoted on this page, it is impossible to escape the conclusion that Rush is saying that Obama wants to harm America, that Obama is a deliberate enemy of America. Whether you agree with that conclusion or not (I don’t, myself) is not actually the point in question. David Frum’s point was that although many on the left despised our last President and thought he’d done serious damage to the U.S., there weren’t any progressive voices as prominent as Rush who claimed that Bush WANTED harm to come to America, and Frum’s further point was that when someone as visible and important in the conservative movement as Rush Limbaugh makes that claim about Obama, it damages the credibility of that movement among the conservatives and centrists it vitally needs to retain and attract.

There is not one demographic measured by the Gallup Poll in which Republicans have gained strength since 2001, and the ONLY demographic in which they have not lost ground is those who attend church frequently, although they’ve come close to retaining the same share of self-identified conservatives and citizens aged 65 years or more. Nationally, the number of self identified liberals in or leaning towards the Republican Party has declined from 17% of all liberals to 9% and the number of self-identified moderates who are or lean towards the Republican Party has declined from 37% of all moderates to 28%. Self-identified conservatives who are Republicans have dropped only 1%, from 66% of all conservatives to 65%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-Losses-Span-Nearly-Demographic-Groups.aspx

I’ve seen many claims on this site and elsewhere that Republicans need to become more conservative to regain popularity. The data would seem to indicate that is not the case. Certainly, allowing the party to headline Rush’s brand of conservatism, containing a strong streak of paranoia regarding an incredibly popular President’s loyalty to the country, seems ill-advised at best and disastrous at worst, even aside from its influence on policy.

Oh, brother.

They’re not “aspiring.” They trained in terrorist training camps. They are terrorists who just haven’t pulled the trigger quite yet.

Chinese tourists or businessmen visiting that part of America would have to fear for their lives. So might Chinese-Americans who could be mistaken for Chinese nationals.

How come you liberals opposed aiding the Contras in Nicaragua, but now you’re prepared to give asylum to trained terrorists from China?

Pen in hand, listening carefully for something he can use to get attention, that rare little nugget he can turn into an article to get more than a handful of comments. Maybe even parlay it into a cable TV appearance. That’d be sweet!!

How much different, really, is Frum’s appropriation — from Al Franken and his book “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot”??

In both cases, unflattering pictures of their love/hate sugar-daddy prominently displayed. Do these two fist-bump when they pass each other at the airport?

Cut the cord, David. Focus on the real problems — those being that our media is composed almost entirely of uncritical democrat voters, and the current occupant, who is systematically and fundamentally “changing” this country for the worse — regardless of his underlying motivation for doing so.

Additionally, your word of combatant is perhaps imperfect. It was September of last year when their “enemy combatant” status was legally removed. As I’m sure you’re aware, they are accused of no crimes against the U.S. or U.S. forces–the reason they were imprisoned is that they were receiving training at a Taliban camp, and it is known that they planned to use that training against China. That is, they ARE aspiring terrorists/revolutionaries, but not against us. That distinction doesn’t make them attractive immigrants, of course, and I don’t myself support settling them here.

It seems completely unnecessary to worry about it, however, as early this year Canada indicated it is willing to take some of them and Munich offered to take all the rest of them off our hands. Hence, the debate here always seemed quite one-sided, with many arguing that they couldn’t come, vs…..no one, so far as I could see.

What is also true is that it is factually backed up. Until the uproar from the people that was the Obama administration’s leading plan for how to handle the chinese combatants that no other country wanted to take.

Are you trying to now contend that Obama did not see that as a viable option until the opinion polls came out firmly against it?