Why on earth does Limbaugh do a live vid feed from his broadcast studio? If anyone has a face for radio, it’s him.

Oh, it’s worth seeing. Betty, I wish they’d zoom in on him so we could see the spittle and drool…

I was tuned-in to Rush that day. He ranted on the thesis for 30 minutes, then took all of five seconds at the show’s close to announce that, yeah, well, he’d been duped.

Michael Ledeen ran with it, as well…and Beck was still beating it yesterday.

If Rush’s defense is that the thesis story is “plausible” because we all know that Obama is a Commie, I’d say that’s a free pass for everyone who floated the “slavery built the South” quote during the NFL kerfuffle. After all, anyone who listens to Rush knows that he can’t abide Negroes.

Pretty off topic, but I just have to get out in front of this.

Anyone want to bet how OpenLeft will spin that.

Ouch, that’s pretty indefensible. Don’t think you’ll see much spinning going on. To make it even worse, he said it on the Alex Jones show.  What in the hell was he thinking going on that nutball’s show?

Just read the whole thing. I can’t believe he’s not apologizing for using the word “whore.” And Weiner’s quote won’t help him much. Funny that Weiner obviously doesn’t care for him since they’re both the heroes of the leftosphere these days.

If Rush’s defense is that the thesis story is “plausible” because we all know that Obama is a Commie, I’d say that’s a free pass for everyone who floated the “slavery built the South” quote during the NFL kerfuffle.

And the young goats. Don’t forget Rush’s love of young goats.

I was wondering when Alan Grayson would jump the shark, and what his “Dean scream” would be.

I can’t believe he’s not apologizing for using the word “whore.”

Indeed. I mean, I get the metaphor obviously, but you would think a politician from the party that considers itself much more concerned with women’s issues would at least apologize for calling a successful professional woman a whore.

And Weiner’s quote won’t help him much. Funny that Weiner obviously doesn’t care for him since they’re both the heroes of the leftosphere these days.

I’ve been waiting for that shoe to drop. I’ve been told by plenty of people around the Hill that Grayson isn’t at all popular with progressives there, and that the general consensus is that he’s a phony piece of shit who’s primarily out to raise money from that certain segment of the Netroots and develop his own little cult following. I’m surprised Weiner was that blunt though. That’s about as harsh as it gets.

Unfortunate word choice since the lobbyist in question is a woman. Other than that, I can’t disagree with Grayson—it is a crying shame that an Enron lobbyist now guards the Fed against attempts to make its machinations more transparent.

it is a crying shame that an Enron lobbyist now guards the Fed against attempts to make its machinations more transparent.

I think it’s more depressing that Sanders, Grayson, etc. are aligning themselves with Bircher Paul, but that’s just me I guess.

Yes, it’s just you, Brien, the lone voice of reason. The rest of us are deluded doodyheads who would just as soon link arms with the Randians and skip right over the nearest cliff. Or maybe we just think it might be a good idea to introduce a little congressional oversight into the Fed…same thing, I guess.

Even a blind pig can find an acorn (sorry) once in a while, and Fed oversight is Ron Paul’s.

The rest of us are deluded doodyheads who would just as soon link arms with the Randians and skip right over the nearest cliff.

Well it really isn’t Randian, but ok. My point is that one should probably be mindful of the company you keep, and that the proposition has been part of Ron Paul’s anti-Fed crusade should give people at least some level of pause. Lay dog with dogs and all that.

As far as the policy itself goes, I really have no clue what you do. In theory it would be nice to have more transparency from the Fed, but in practice it’s hard to see how that doesn’t create some pretty bad outcomes. Christ, the chairman of the Federal Reserve can’t even give realistic forecasts if they’re negative without sending the market into a tailspin just by talking.

Well it really isn’t Randian, but ok.

I was talking about Paul, who admires Rand as much as the John Birch Society.

My point is that one should probably be mindful of the company you keep, and that the proposition has been part of Ron Paul’s anti-Fed crusade should give people at least some level of pause. Lay dog with dogs and all that.

Yeah, yeah, and speaking of dogs, did you know Hitler loved them? That gives me paws (heh, get it?) about also being a dog lover. But seriously, MY point is that it’s not a choice between one lunatic fringe or another: It’s entirely possible to think the amount of former-Enron-lobbyist-guarded secrecy surrounding the Fed is a troubling thing without advocating a return to the gold standard.

As far as the policy itself goes, I really have no clue what you do. In theory it would be nice to have more transparency from the Fed, but in practice it’s hard to see how that doesn’t create some pretty bad outcomes. Christ, the chairman of the Federal Reserve can’t even give realistic forecasts if they’re negative without sending the market into a tailspin just by talking.

Well, mind you, I’m talking out of my ass too, but I think it’s worth exploring a system in which someone other than unelected former Wall Street kingpins have oversight of the organization that controls US monetary policy. I realize it’s a dicey situation, but so are national security secrets, and we don’t respond to that conundrum by turning foreign policy over to the military. I think the same principle applies.

Yeah, yeah, and speaking of dogs, did you know Hitler loved them? That gives me paws (heh, get it?) about also being a dog lover.

I’m not really sure criticizing someone for staking out the same position as Paul by co-sponsoring a bill with him really counts as a reductum ad Hitlerum.

I realize it’s a dicey situation, but so are national security secrets, and we don’t respond to that conundrum by turning foreign policy over to the military.

Maybe, but I’m not sure the workings of security and monetary policy are really that similar.

Anyway, I’m certainly open to something different, but a public audit is just crazy.

I guess a translation is in order:

1: “Heh” = humor, haha, just kidding, etc.

2: “But seriously” indicates that the previous thought WASN’T serious.

3: Security / monetary policy = not similar workings, but situations in which secrecy is at a justifiable premium.

4: Public audit = Meh, I wasn’t saying I’m all for the bill as written (just that more transparency is a good idea), but I don’t think an audit is so crazy. As it stands now, there is practically zero accountability. An audit in which congress was briefed in a closed session (like in national security situations, the differences in their inner workings notwithstanding) might not be such a crazy idea.

Discover why J. Edgar Hoover and senior FBI officials considered the John Birch Society to be “extremist”, “irrational” and “irresponsible”.

Maybe because the John Birch Society IS extremist, irrational and irresponsible? Even J. Edgar Hoover was right occasionally.

So Rusky gets punked because he does not fact check (Not the first time)? Wow, what a surprised.

After so many years of mis-labeling and mis-characterizing others he gets smacked down by the NFL “Not For Limbaugh”. Way to go NFL, great job!