I would like to thank Limbaugh

[zero-gravity]

So Mitt Romney is in lead in the primary polling, and Palin (who isn't running) is in a close second......

I would like to take this time to thank the greatest champion of the American left: Rush Limbaugh.

This man single handedly through his anti-GOP rhetoric and calls for a new conservative manifestation among the republican party while it was at its weakest has essentially fractured the republican party to near a point of no return. Because of him and the media populism employed by the neo-conservative republicans, Obama will probably win a second term and we liberals can continue to comfortably reign for a good number of years. In the meantime he walks away with millions of dollars.

No but seriously though, the republican party is a mess and I don't see them recovering in time for the presidential elections.

[Malachy]

Wait, what?

This would have been something I'd expect to pop up after the 2008. But the Republican party enveloped the Tea Party movement like an amoeba and rode that groundswell of popular opinion to some rather strong results in 2010.

In 2008, what you are saying was totally true - there was a purging of moderates from the Republican party - but they latched onto a popular movement as soon as it popped up and used it to reinvigorate itself.

Now, the Republican party has control of more state houses than before and has a majority in the House of Representatives. Limbaugh was a catalyst of what you are saying 3 years ago maybe, but not so much today.

Now, the most likely scenario for a republican failure is sort of a similar backlash the Democrats had in 2010, that they will swerve too far to the right and disenfranchise the independent voters who voted for them during the midterms. Which, admittedly is a historically low-turnout election, and those who do turn out are more idealist and only a small percentage of independents can sway the vote.

[zero-gravity]

Just because the republicans won the house and part of senate is no indication that they are in any way unified and does not directly relate to the power vaccuum. There is simply no strong republican candidate that can reign in all the votes of the republican party. For example, Mitt is ahead in the primary polls but many republicans are reluctant to vote for him because he isn't "conservative enough" similarly someone like palin many would say is "too radical" etc etc.

[Malachy]

At 6/14/11 06:26 PM, zero-gravity wrote: Just because the republicans won the house and part of senate is no indication that they are in any way unified and does not directly relate to the power vaccuum. There is simply no strong republican candidate that can reign in all the votes of the republican party. For example, Mitt is ahead in the primary polls but many republicans are reluctant to vote for him because he isn't "conservative enough" similarly someone like palin many would say is "too radical" etc etc.

The republican party is extremely unified - that's why there was such a purging of moderates in 2008. During smaller majorities through the 2000s we saw republican nominees and initiatives fly through Congress. The Democrats are the more splintered group - How else do you think they squandered a super majority in Congress? Of the two parties, the Republicans are the most organized by far.

A weak field of hopefuls to challenge an incumbent president is par for the course in US politics. I mean, why would you waste upwards of $500 million on a campaign that you probably aren't going to win when you will have better luck in 2016? We're also more than 6 months away from the first Republican primary - and we all know how long a battle that can wind up being. Early polls are totally useless at this point in the game.

Even so, a presidential candidate isn't really considered the party leader until they win the primary. I don't see where there's a leadership vacuum. Primary contenders are fighting to be that leader. Once they have candidate for the general election, they wind up becoming that leader and really only so long as they are a candidate (or become president). McCain isn't the face of the party anymore and he was their last Presidential candidate.

[bengroomed]

Wow. Can't we just get a third party started to reveal the candidates who would follow the path set by the people that put them in office? Where did the Whigs go anyway? When our political process was began there were no career politicians. They went and served for a low salary and then went back HOME to their own businesses. We as a country are in serious trouble if we can't get this fixed. Soon. As for Limbaugh, he's great if you like your blood pressure to be up while you're driving around listening to him on AM radio. Can't see him being a success like Beck on the television though, not as camera friendly. Mitt would be good, Pawlenty would be good. Can't say I know much about the others. I don't think Palin is going to commit, but I could be wrong. Obama needs to go. Healthcare needs to be fixed back and we need to QUIT spending money we don't have.

[Korriken]

meh. I keep hearing the same old drones day after day, "there are no strong "moderate" republican candidates, Obama is a shoe in for 2012, he's unbeatable, he killed bin Laden!

Problem is, a moderate republican candidate IS a weak candidate. "Vote for me, I'm going to do everything Obama is doing, but to a lesser degree!" would be the best way to get Obama reelected.

Herman Cain would wipe the floor with Obama. Proof's in the pudding. He's already being hammered on by the left with phrases like "Uncle Tom" and "Oreo". I mean, look at this article.

let's see... start with the title of the article. Obama's New Black Enemy - Conservative Mascot, Punk Ass, Uncle-Tom Herman Cain

That's pretty damned harsh. and why is it that any black person who does not conform to the "black pop culture" of 'white man's keeping me down!" is an Uncle Tom and Pander to his "white masters"

And this guy calls white people racist? he's more racist than most white people I know. (though I do know some who are pretty far out out there...)

I personally can't wait to see Cain get the nomination just to see how nasty the Media gets trying to destroy him.

Of course, as time passes, I can only imagine how much Mitt Romney is going to be praised in the media. He's Obama's wet dream to run against. the perfect "moderate" (weak) republican that Obama could probably beat without even trying. Between his Massachusetts healthcare reform and his stance on global warming.

Of course, Mitt Romney would be the one candidate that Obama would run against and almost certainly win.

That is, as long as the others don't do anything stupid, like run as an independent to dillute the vote to give Obama the win.

[Korriken]

At 6/14/11 06:02 PM, zero-gravity wrote: No but seriously though, the republican party is a mess and I don't see them recovering in time for the presidential elections.

well stop watching the liberal pundits on tv. I would say radio too, but apparently the one liberal radio network went belly up. Turns out no one wants to listen to them on their way to work, at work, or coming home from work. They want you to believe that, just like they want you to believe that Obama is unbeatable and is going a damned good job (he isn't)

I see so much regurgitation on these forums, its enough to make me wanna regurgitate something else.

of course, these are the same people who tell you only a "moderate" republican could even hope to challenge Obama. Problem is, a weak, moderate republican would catch hell beating Obama because there would be little he could challenge Obama on, especially if he agrees with half the stuff Obama stands for.

a "moderate" republican running against an radical liberal would be like a horse jockey trying to play football. it's not going to work out well at all. you can TRY but you will most likely fail. A good candidate has to not only attract enough independent voters (who are not as important as people make them out to be, as they are usually poorly informed and tend to vote to either keep someone if they like them or get rid of them if they don't) The thing you gotta do is get YOUR voters to leave their homes to vote on election day. you run a weak candidate that no one can get behind and most of your voters will be sitting at home on election day saying "big freaking whoop, our guy sucks"

[Camarohusky]

At 6/15/11 12:29 AM, Korriken wrote: a "moderate" republican running against an radical liberal

Too bad this ain't gonna happen, because we don't have a radical liberal in office.

In all seriousness, I have to very much disagree with malachy. While the Republican made huge gain in 2010, I do not see this surge as a referendum on the side of Republicans. Rather it seemed to be equally a referendum against Democrats (especially among moderates).

The Tea Party and the hard shift to the right has fractured the Republicans. The moderates are largely scared by much of what the Republican Party has shown recently. The Tea Parties were voted in for the fiscal ideals and outsider attitude, but in the end nothing has changed and the outsiders have played the inside game better than the insiders have.

Unless the Republicans can regain the zeal and enthusiams they had in 2010 they're going to have a hard time in 2012, especially with the lackluster candidates they have put forth.

[vanguardst]

Doesnt matter who wins, you will get the same government agenda.

Wake up, it's the same people pulling the strings from behind the scenes. Republican, democrat - divide and conquer.

[Korriken]

At 6/15/11 01:04 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

Too bad this ain't gonna happen, because we don't have a radical liberal in office.

Perception is everything, I suppose. Maybe not so radical as he is incompetent. Given that he was elected in the middle of a faltering economy, he turns around and begins trying to get his health care reform passed, and completely ignores the economy. Then he passes the stimulus bill, preaching doom and gloom if it doesn't pass, saying unemployment won't go about 8% the unemployment rate went past 10% afterwards and that the money will be spend only on "shovel ready jobs".

He also later admitted that he discovered there were no shovel ready projects... then several days ago even cracks a joke about it.

It was explained to Obama that the permitting process can delay projects for "months to years ... and in many cases even cause projects to be abandoned ... I'm sure that when you implemented the Recovery Act your staff briefed you on many of these challenges." At this point, Obama smiled and interjected, "Shovel-ready was not as ... uh .. shovel-ready as we expected." The Council, led by GE's Jeffrey Immelt, erupted in laughter.

*facepalm* you mean, Barack Obama, the smartest man that ever existed and so smart that no one should dare question his intelligence, didn't know that in order to build things you need a PERMIT? SERIOUSLY? I'm half his age, never been in politics and I know what a building permit is.

Then you got the amount of wasteful, useless spending in the stimulus, which there are hundreds of websites with lists of them... oddly enough none of them liberal websites. Can't figure out why that is.

In all seriousness, I have to very much disagree with malachy. While the Republican made huge gain in 2010, I do not see this surge as a referendum on the side of Republicans. Rather it seemed to be equally a referendum against Democrats (especially among moderates).

Either way its good for the republicans and bad for the democrats.

The Tea Party and the hard shift to the right has fractured the Republicans. The moderates are largely scared by much of what the Republican Party has shown recently. The Tea Parties were voted in for the fiscal ideals and outsider attitude, but in the end nothing has changed and the outsiders have played the inside game better than the insiders have.

Unless the Republicans can regain the zeal and enthusiams they had in 2010 they're going to have a hard time in 2012, especially with the lackluster candidates they have put forth.

I see some good candidates myself. Reason you can't see how good they are is because you disagree with their viewpoints. a lackluster candidate would be one who is fiscally liberal. to see which candiate is the weakest, just watch tv and see which one the pundits of msnbc praises. to see the best ones, see which ones they attack. They will be pointing out every minor error that the good ones make, while praising the ones Obama could beat with ease, to make sure the good candidates don't get in.

take, for example, the praise for Mitt Romney. While Herman Cain is not even mentioned. Gingrich didn't get hardly any mention either (not that anyone thinks Gingrich has a chance) However, the praise is lavished on Mitt Romney, even calling him the front runner... which is precisely what the DNC wants to happen.

[SmilezRoyale]

I don't see the difference between Romney and Obama. [Aside from promising to repeal Obama care, which simply cannot and will not happen. Obamacare is like it's precedessors now a permanent part of the American heritage]

The original poster is right in the sense that Limbaugh's brand of neo-conservatism is principally what bothered Americans in 2004, 2006, and 2008. In 2004 Bush won by convincing the public that John Kerry was an opportunist who didn't believe in any of the promises or statements he made / was making. He also pulled the "better the devil you know" line.

And on both cases Bush could have been right. It's hard to imagine a John Kerry ending the Iraq and Afghanistan wars after supporting them now in light of the fact that the present president, 4 years later and having claimed to have opposed the wars from the beginning, did no such thing.

The tea party could be seen as a reaction to the brand of conservatism that brought us from 2000 to 2009, However I'm not of the opinion that the American public is that 'thoughtful'. Public Opinion polls suggest that the general public has the same views as today's mainstream politicians. - yes we want to cut the deficit but we want to do it in a way that doesn't cut any programs nor raises any taxes

If Romney is elected Obama will likely perform the same strategy as Bush, and will convince the public that he is nothing but an opportunist who doesn't believe in anything that he says, and will run the "Better the devil we know" line.

And on both cases Obama is probably right.

Regardless, Limbaugh is not a "Tea party" Guy and I do not think he has ever pretended to be.

[All-American-Badass]

At 6/15/11 11:04 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Obamacare is like it's precedessors now a permanent part of the American heritage]

I'd like to know your logic in this statement, because Obamacare is still supported by less than half the people in America and it took many months to get through both houses of Congress. Not really something I'd call American heritage.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 6/15/11 12:40 PM, All-American-Badass wrote:

At 6/15/11 11:04 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Obamacare is like it's precedessors now a permanent part of the American heritage]

I'd like to know your logic in this statement, because Obamacare is still supported by less than half the people in America and it took many months to get through both houses of Congress. Not really something I'd call American heritage.

I don't see the unpopularity of Obamacare being qualitatively different than the unpopularity of any entitlement program ****circa the time of its inception****

My guessing that Obamacare is here to stay is based upon the fact that very few government programs are ever abolished.

[Patton3]

At 6/15/11 12:11 AM, Korriken wrote: meh. I keep hearing the same old drones day after day, "there are no strong "moderate" republican candidates, Obama is a shoe in for 2012, he's unbeatable, he killed bin Laden!

Problem is, a moderate republican candidate IS a weak candidate. "Vote for me, I'm going to do everything Obama is doing, but to a lesser degree!" would be the best way to get Obama reelected.

Isn't it unfortunate that 'moderate' is equated to 'bad'? I would argue that's not the case. Yes, you have to appeal to your base in order to get the nod from your party and to ensure they give a good turnout on election day. However, if you're unable to appeal to moderate voters, you're ignoring 35% of Americans. Not exactly a formula for success. Also, take a look at McCain who was considered more moderate, right leaning, however you care to describe him. Even after an extremely unpopular presidency, following a 2006 landslide for the Democrats, he managed 48% of the popular vote.

Herman Cain would wipe the floor with Obama. Proof's in the pudding. He's already being hammered on by the left with phrases like "Uncle Tom" and "Oreo". I mean, look at this article.

let's see... start with the title of the article. Obama's New Black Enemy - Conservative Mascot, Punk Ass, Uncle-Tom Herman Cain

One article from a site I've never even heard of before can't exactly be taken as representative of all left-leaning media. And a rule of thumb is if a source uses terms like 'punk ass' to describe a potential candidate, probably not something to be listened to, and I'd warrant that site is anything but main stream.

That's pretty damned harsh. and why is it that any black person who does not conform to the "black pop culture" of 'white man's keeping me down!" is an Uncle Tom and Pander to his "white masters"

See above.

And this guy calls white people racist? he's more racist than most white people I know. (though I do know some who are pretty far out out there...)

I personally can't wait to see Cain get the nomination just to see how nasty the Media gets trying to destroy him.

Of course, as time passes, I can only imagine how much Mitt Romney is going to be praised in the media. He's Obama's wet dream to run against. the perfect "moderate" (weak) republican that Obama could probably beat without even trying. Between his Massachusetts healthcare reform and his stance on global warming.

Once again, I'm failing to understand why being a moderate makes you weak. Come the general election, both parties need a candidate who can appeal to more moderate voters. Democrats more so than Republicans, yet the point still stands.

Of course, Mitt Romney would be the one candidate that Obama would run against and almost certainly win.

That is, as long as the others don't do anything stupid, like run as an independent to dillute the vote to give Obama the win.

[Korriken]

At 6/15/11 06:21 PM, Patton3 wrote:

Once again, I'm failing to understand why being a moderate makes you weak. Come the general election, both parties need a candidate who can appeal to more moderate voters. Democrats more so than Republicans, yet the point still stands.

well, i'm talking financial policy. We don't need a republican that's going to pile on entitlements, spend money like there's no tomorrow, sign legislation piling on restrictions that stifle business, then try to cut taxes. to make himself look conservative.

it's a bad combination. we need a president that's gonna rein in the spending, remove restrictions, and adjust taxes to give business a little room to expand. The economy sucks right now because businesses aren't going to take huge risks that might sink their company or cause a major profit loss. and right now, most business owners I've talked to are scared to death of the policies that Obama is using.

This coupled with people not wanting to buy things, make for a rough economy. I work at a furniture store. all of the full time workers got cut to part time just to keep the business from going under. Maybe Obama could pass us a few million to keep the doors open.

[Korriken]

I'd like to thank Limbaugh myself for something else. giving me a good chuckle today at work when I was half asleep with an earpiece on because there was nothing to do.

Two if by Tea That's cheesier than hell.... but, Cheesy as it is, he is giving a portion of the profits to Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation. Mighty nice of 'em.

isn't capitalism just grand?

[Patton3]

At 6/15/11 07:08 PM, Korriken wrote:
well, i'm talking financial policy. We don't need a republican that's going to pile on entitlements, spend money like there's no tomorrow, sign legislation piling on restrictions that stifle business, then try to cut taxes. to make himself look conservative.

it's a bad combination. we need a president that's gonna rein in the spending, remove restrictions, and adjust taxes to give business a little room to expand.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, weak in the sense that those policies aren't, in your opinion, good for the country?

[SadisticMonkey]

At 6/15/11 08:43 PM, Patton3 wrote: So if I'm understanding you correctly, weak in the sense that those policies aren't, in your opinion, good for the country?

Weak in the sense they're just doing what your average politician is doing and not trying to make any real change.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/15/11 07:19 PM, Korriken wrote: Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation. Mighty nice of 'em.

isn't capitalism just grand?

You mean grand in the fact that government agencies have to rely on private charity? Especially when it is intended to deprive those same government agencies of their base money via tax breaks?

[Korriken]

At 6/15/11 08:43 PM, Patton3 wrote:

So if I'm understanding you correctly, weak in the sense that those policies aren't, in your opinion, good for the country?

not good for the country? explain to me how they ARE good for the country, because I just don't see it.

[Korriken]

At 6/15/11 11:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

You mean grand in the fact that government agencies have to rely on private charity? Especially when it is intended to deprive those same government agencies of their base money via tax breaks?

No I mean grand in the fact that the man the entire left wing despises dedicates money to charity. This, evil, despicable, money hungry pig..... giving to charity. his own money too.

here's a little something to boil your liberal blood. enjoy... or not.

[Entice]

At 6/15/11 12:11 AM, Korriken wrote: Problem is, a moderate republican candidate IS a weak candidate. "Vote for me, I'm going to do everything Obama is doing, but to a lesser degree!" would be the best way to get Obama reelected.

It's really the other way around. There isn't much of a radical left in America- liberals here are just more moderate conservatives with some liberal policies.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 6/15/11 07:08 PM, Korriken wrote:

well, i'm talking financial policy. We don't need a republican that's going to pile on entitlements, spend money like there's no tomorrow, sign legislation piling on restrictions that stifle business, then try to cut taxes. to make himself look conservative.

I.E. 'We don't need a republican'

[SadisticMonkey]

At 6/16/11 02:53 AM, bgraybr wrote: It's really the other way around. There isn't much of a radical left in America- liberals here are just more moderate conservatives with some liberal policies.

Tell me more about all the radical free-market republicans in washington!

[Camarohusky]

At 6/16/11 12:51 AM, Korriken wrote: No I mean grand in the fact that the man the entire left wing despises dedicates money to charity. This, evil, despicable, money hungry pig..... giving to charity. his own money too.

Oi. Two words: TAX BREAKS.

He gives with one hand in order to deprive from the other. That's all charity tax breaks really are.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 6/16/11 09:58 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/16/11 12:51 AM, Korriken wrote: No I mean grand in the fact that the man the entire left wing despises dedicates money to charity. This, evil, despicable, money hungry pig..... giving to charity. his own money too.

Oi. Two words: TAX BREAKS.

He gives with one hand in order to deprive from the other. That's all charity tax breaks really are.

So he performs two virtues with one good deed.

Donating money to the needy on the one hand. And depriving funds for State-run welfare bureaucrats, unnecessary military conflicts, and subsidies to corn farmers on the other.

What could be more virtuous than that?

[Korriken]

At 6/16/11 09:58 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Oi. Two words: TAX BREAKS.

He gives with one hand in order to deprive from the other. That's all charity tax breaks really are.

so, what you're saying is that he doesn't give to charity, which in turn helps other people, in order to help other people. He only gives to charity to screw other people?

That's troll logic if i ever seen it.... or are you mad because he's not giving that money to the government?

Or perhaps people should not be allowed to choose which organizations they wish to give to? Would you like it better if everyone gave their charitable giving money to the government and let the government decide who gets what?

Or perhaps you think helping fallen and injured marines and their families to not be a worthy cause?

[Patton3]

At 6/16/11 12:51 AM, Korriken wrote:
No I mean grand in the fact that the man the entire left wing despises dedicates money to charity. This, evil, despicable, money hungry pig..... giving to charity. his own money too.

here's a little something to boil your liberal blood. enjoy... or not.

Though that's admirable, in light of a drug problem and several marriages, hearing him preach to me about family values creates kind of a surreal moment. Not to mention unfounded claims, twisting of information, etc. It's no better when others do it, and given my political leanings it's always possible I and other like minded people might be a little lighter when left wing pundits pull the same shit. But be that as it may, is there really any excuse for such twisting of information?

[Korriken]

At 6/17/11 03:16 PM, Patton3 wrote:

Though that's admirable, in light of a drug problem and several marriages, hearing him preach to me about family values creates kind of a surreal moment. Not to mention unfounded claims, twisting of information, etc. It's no better when others do it, and given my political leanings it's always possible I and other like minded people might be a little lighter when left wing pundits pull the same shit. But be that as it may, is there really any excuse for such twisting of information?

meh drug problem came from back pain, it's not like he just sitting around one day and said, "you know, I bet some pain medicine would be fun to take"

I'm not sure on his marriages or how they ended.

Oddly enough, after doing a lot of searching around on the subject of Rush Limbaugh accuracy, I come up with very little. There are plenty of leftist websites who cherry pick things to bash him with, but just so happen to leave out when he is right, which seems to be pretty often given this guy rants for 3 hours a day 5 days a week and there isn't all that much to use against him, except for personal attacks which have no bearing on whether what he speaks is true or not.

to be that's pretty telling when you have to go after someone's personal life because you can't find much to call the person out on. Kind of like when Rush got busted with Viagra coming home from the dominican republic. People were screaming about him being a child rapist, among other things.

So about all this information twisting... got any links to non leftist websites that show these?

[Patton3]

At 6/17/11 09:28 PM, Korriken wrote:
So about all this information twisting... got any links to non leftist websites that show these?

With the drug addiction and several marriages, what is to me hypocritical is that even in light of this he preaches about his strong conservative and family values, and often lambastes people of even the slightest left political persuasion as being amoral and without values.

Well, here's something from a transcript of one of his shows, featured front page of his website
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/s ite_061711/content/01125110.guest.html

Highlights:

"The left needs you dependent, the left needs you subservient. The left, the Democrats and the president want you needing them. They love it when you call 911 when the Chinese restaurant screws up! They love it when you call 911 when McDonald's is outta Chicken McNuggets. They love it when you call 911 when a drug deal goes bad and you don't get the right change."

-The left needs you subservient because they create all these social programs?

"Remember Microsoft? Microsoft forgot something very important. They did not have a lobbyist in Washington. They didn't have an office. They weren't greasing the skids. Guess what? Massive lawsuit. Remember when Microsoft didn't have any lobbyists? They were punished for it. Now they do."

-saying that Microsoft was given a lawsuit because they didn't have lobbyists, referring to United States vs. Microsoft. Microsoft was prosecuted for violation of the Sherman anti-trust act, and it was alleged that they had abused Monopoly power.

That's from one small section, of one show, and it's from his own site.

Or here: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl e/0,9171,976829,00.html
A more liberal source, yes, but since it's an interview and not an editorial or opinion column:
"Q. I know you're not a hater, but don't you think you come across as mean when you call feminists ugly women who can't get dates?

A. No, it's not mean. I once wrote a newspaper column when I was in Sacramento, and I said feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream. There is a profoundly held, truthful belief rooted in there that is, in my mind, compassionate and sympathetic to women. But you have to think about it yourself in order to get it."

-'Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.'
Not because women were marginalized, not treated as equals, not given the full rights of a citizen of the United States; because there were a bunch of ugly women who wanted access to mainstream media.

Or then there's this, once again from his website:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/s ite_101408/content/01125113.guest.html

"they have been training young black kids to hate, hate, hate this country, and they trained their parents before that to hate, hate, hate this country. It was a movement. It was a Bill Ayers, anti-capitalist, anti-American educational movement. ACORN is how it was implemented, right under our noses."

-'they' is referring to Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and ACORN. He's proposing that African-Americans, old and young, have been conditioned to hate the United States.

As well, I think I'm correct in saying that his opposition to global warming is well known?

In 2007, the IPCC reported that human activity very likely causing climate change, very liekly meaning a probability of 90% or greater. -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur e/6321351.stm

"the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is 'unequivocal' and that human activity is the main driver, very likely' causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950" - New York Times, quoting International network of Climate Scientists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/scienc e/earth/03climate.html?ex=1328158800&en=
61f42312221df544&ei=5090&partner=rssuser land&emc=rss%3Cbr%20/%3E

"Climate conditions in the past provide evidence that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are associated with rising global temperatures. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), and secondarily the clearing of land, have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat-trapping ("greenhouse") gases in the atmosphere...There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." International Arctic Science Committee.

http://amap.no/acia/

And on a more broad note, he doesn't treat people who are liberal, left-leaning, or even moderate as others who have a different opinion than he does; every other sentence seems to be something about how we're un-American, un-patriotic, and even down right evil.

Earlier in this very thread, you were criticizing numerous news outlets and wondering how they would lambaste Herman Cain; Limbaugh does the same thing to nearly anyone of a different political persuasion at every turn.