March 05, 2009


Rush Limbaugh challenged Pres Obama to a debate. Oh, if only this could happen.

I would rather have an intelligent, open discussion with you where you lay out your philosophy and policies and I lay out mine -- and we can question each other, in a real debate. Any time here at the EIB Network studios. If you're too busy partying or flying around giving speeches and so forth, then send Vice President Biden. I'm sure he would be very capable of articulating your vision for America -- and if he won't work, send Geithner, and we can talk about the tax code. And if that won't work, go get Bob Rubin. I don't care. Send whoever you want if you can't make it. You don't need to be leaking stories to Politico like this thing that's published today. You don't need to have your allies writing op-eds and all the rest. If you can win at this, then come here and beat me at my own game, and get rid of me once and for all, and show all the people of America that I am wrong.

Rush would crush Obama to smithereens.

In other challenge news, Greg Mankiw tells Paul Krugman to put his money where his mouth is.

How big of a dork does it make me to say that I would pay real money to see these two smackdowns go down?

It's like a blogger nerd's SuperBowl.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:18 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 1 kb.

1 You know, I don't think that Rush and Obama having a debate would do much. I mean, you are assuming that Obama answers the questions asked, and doesn't somehow go into another answer a la: "Well, I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice-cream, and that Joey Naylor, that is the defintion of liberty." That debate would most likely be a win for both according to their respective supporters. And Obama would keep his cool, and Rush might get all frustrated because Obama wasn't answering the questions, and so some people who didn't understand what was going on would assume that because Rush was frustrated, he must be losing the debate...nah, I don't see anything good coming from it. I mean, according to me, all the debates before the election were a waste of time. All spin.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at March 05, 2009 04:14 AM (irIko)

2 OMG - CVG totally nailed how the President answers without giving answers! That was awesome!

Posted by: airforcewife at March 05, 2009 05:28 AM (Fb2PC)

3 I would watch this too, with popcorn. Heck, I would probably *pay* to see this! However, I think CVG is partially right, in that if the debates were held like the presidential debates, it might not be as effective as we'd hope it would be. I would rather see questions posed by supporters of either side to each of them – a liberal to Rush, a conservative to Obama – or that they each got to write their own questions, or have more time to rebut each other. I do think that Rush would smash Obama, rhetorically. He would out-argue and out-articulate him. But Obama's followers would only see it as Rush beating up their beloved president, and act accordingly. In a truly fair world, this debate would be FREAKIN' AWESOME. In OUR world, this debate could never, ever occur. The media would never allow it to be equitable, no matter who won.

Posted by: Deltasierra at March 05, 2009 08:43 AM (fPHZv)

4 Boring.... Rush would steamroller the President so badly his supporters would cry and whine worse than when Bush became president over Gore. That is why Obama was elected in the first place complete hissy fit anger. Surprise! now he's a liberal? Not a surprise.

Posted by: Ruth H at March 05, 2009 08:57 AM (hBAQy)

5 CVG, I agree completely. But I don't think Sarah is saying "a debate would do much." I think she just wants to see what Rush will say and how Obama will respond. She didn't say anything about the debate persuading anyone. Wanting to see a debate does not necessarily entail the American public actually listening to it and suddenly realizing, OMG, Rush is right, what were we thinking!? That will never happen, though I constantly hear conservatives say, oh, if only our message got out. It is out (remember Joe the Plumber?) and millions still don't care, because ... We Will Never be Popular for Doing What’s Right. Well, maybe not never. But it is a fundamental fact that the Left is basically the party of the superficially good, and is therefore destined not only to be popular, but make the people who espouse its ideas popular. Everything they say makes sense – at first. It sure sounds good to be nice to everybody, give away the store, to flatter everyone, to believe our enemies are nice people and everyone’s values are OK. Conservative policies for this country are largely a matter of tough love. They do work, but tough love is seldom requited at the time.

Posted by: Amritas at March 05, 2009 09:22 AM (+nV09)

6 I have to admit that I stole the quote from "Thank you for smoking." It's a scene where Nick Naylor, spokesperson for Big Tabacco, is explaining to his son how things work in his job. Joey Naylor: what happens when you're wrong? Nick Naylor: Whoa, Joey I'm never wrong. Joey Naylor: But you can't always be right... Nick Naylor: Well, if it's your job to be right, then you're never wrong. Joey Naylor: But what if you are wrong? Nick Naylor: OK, let's say that you're defending chocolate, and I'm defending vanilla. Now if I were to say to you: 'Vanilla is the best flavour ice-cream', you'd say... Joey Naylor: No, chocolate is. Nick Naylor: Exactly, but you can't win that argument... so, I'll ask you: so you think chocolate is the end all and the all of ice-cream, do you? Joey Naylor: It's the best ice-cream, I wouldn't order any other. Nick Naylor: Oh! So it's all chocolate for you is it? Joey Naylor: Yes, chocolate is all I need. Nick Naylor: Well, I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice-cream, and that Joey Naylor, that is the defintion of liberty. Joey Naylor: But that's not what we're talking about Nick Naylor: Ah! But that's what I'm talking about. Joey Naylor: ...but you didn't prove that vanilla was the best... Nick Naylor: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong I'm right. Joey Naylor: But you still didn't convince me Nick Naylor: It's that I'm not after you. I'm after them.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at March 05, 2009 10:04 AM (irIko)

7 CVG, I was wondering what you were referring to. Thanks for providing not only the source, but the context! I like the last line: It's that I'm not after you. I'm after them. Obama would not be after Rush; he'd be after his suppOrters. cOnvincing them is the key to victOry. Defeating Rush is beside the point.

Posted by: Amritas at March 05, 2009 10:28 AM (+nV09)

8 Oh I loved that movie, CVG!

Posted by: airforcewife at March 05, 2009 11:45 AM (Fb2PC)

9 Oh, that might be worth getting cable TV for! Sign me up for a popcorn party in the parallel universe where it happens, LOL - it would be TOO. FUN. And WAAAY good call, CaliValleyGirl. :-)

Posted by: kannie at March 05, 2009 02:38 PM (iT8dn)

10 oh I'd be all over that, I'd even pay and I redefine cheap. while we're at it I'd pay to watch al gore debate actual scientist, you know people who actual know about climate change. btw. i have the hardest time leaving you comments. I always get a message saying too much spam and commenting is down. Am I the only one? Is the computer on to the fact that I tend to have little to add to the conversation.

Posted by: the mrs. at March 06, 2009 09:29 AM (NJQf+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
49kb generated in CPU 0.08, elapsed 0.2357 seconds.
48 queries taking 0.2072 seconds, 179 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.