http://www.nypost.com/seven/02172009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/rahms_rent_is_just_the_tip_of_ethics_ice_155536.htm

Limbaugh couldn't even use a PDF file, an intellectual force?

I am very unhappy with Mr Emanuel.
Ethics in Government Act (1978)

In section 102, Source of incomes does cover rents.

He failed to report his Rent Free Living. What I want is, as an American, and an US citizen; some real transparency and ethical fortitude.

The more I think about it, the more I surreal it seems to me. The system is rife with nepotism, and malfeasance. Whether it be cognitive, or unconscious.

Its all very interesting, all though I couldn't care less. I could have been playing games, instead of creating an argument. Also, up vote for a good video, even if I don't agree.

*EDIT: It took some digging, but I also found this and interesting read: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/02/more-on-tax-consequences.html

Nordlichreiter, I'm not sure this falls under the section you're referencing from that document. It seems pretty clear that when they mention rent as an alternative income, they're meaning it in the context of a Government-employed landlord receiving rent money from other people.

I think it's a pretty huge jump to treat a cheap or free service (and that's surely what this was) a source of income. When I find a bargain at 50% off, I sure don't pay sales tax on that other 50% that I didn't pay, and I'd think common sense says the same would apply here.

At most, I'd say an ethical question would be brought up if he was receiving this service from a lobbying group and not reporting it against the total allowed by such groups, but in this case it's a fellow democratic representative. Same party, same policies, and I'm willing to wager this room isn't being held against him in some way that would influence his vote.

The whole thing stinks. It takes some serious twisting and leaps of logic to come to the conclusions I've heard from Hannity and Limbaugh that this man is just another corrupt democrat, based on this rent issue.

Rush is the voice of modern conservative movement.

This has happened before, in the light of massive failures the GOP often goes further Right in a belief that it would resurrect their power. Needless to say the poll numbers are not with them as ratings for both the congressional and republican party are in the deep reds.

Also where was the talk radio Knights of Conservatism when Bush was in power with his liberal spending government, illegal wars and infractions of the constitution?

Ko ko ma sho ko da da indeed.

I agree that refering to Limbaugh as an "intellectual force" is being incredibly generous...

But I think it's a good strategy... much in the way Palin did... Limbaugh sends moderates and independents rocketing to the left and the democratic party...

With thousands of people losing jobs... homes... financial aid for school etc... When Limbaugh says... i hope Obama fails... he looks like the good and true bag of bloated waste that he is... The fact that he REALLY is the face of the conservative right now just makes them even less appealing to anyone not already drinking the koolaid... in my opinion at least...

>> ^Januari:
I agree that refering to Limbaugh as an "intellectual force" is being incredibly generous...


It wasn't meant as a compliment to Rush, it was meant as an insult to Republicans.

Basically they're trying to equate Republicans with a very well-known and unpopular figure. That way when people hear Rush saying something they don't like then they automatically transcribe that statement to the entire Republican party.

It is a good tactic because many people already view political parties like sports teams... "our" team vs "their" team. They think of the opposing party in very broad generalized terms, and if they can put a face on that generalization then it will only strengthen their belief.

Personally I think each politician should be judged by their individual stances on issues instead of the party they belong to. That's my problem though... I like to think.

Well no of course it wasn't a compliment... and what your saying is fine... except that if you listen to Limbaugh speak, he seems to be trying very hard to equate his view on things as being that of all 'true' conservatives and republicans...

I have no issue with Emanuel helping him with that cause...

^ It seems to be making a lot of Republicans very uneasy, which I find funny. Many of them don't want to be equated with Rush, but they also don't want to publicly denounce him.

Emanuel and others are more than happy to press the issue, and Rush doesn't seem to mind either. It puts the squeeze on social conservatives which tickles me a bit. Rush isn't going to back down, so individuals in the party will have to choose to either embrace Rush's views or denounce them.

I don't want the entire Republican party to be demonized, but I have to admit that I wouldn't be upset to see social conservatives take a public political beating over this.

The New York Post is a well-known GOP rag.

They're going after Rahm because he had the audacity and balls to smear their "Great Leader" Rush, on national television.

This shit is working better than I ever expected. I think the Dems learned how to play some awesome tricks after having Bush's dick slapped in their faces for eight years.

^ The most amusing thing for me about this tactic is how easy it would be for the Republicans to defuse it.

Just have a leader in the party say he's a sideshow, and that we've got serious issues to deal with and shouldn't be focusing on these sorts of games. Kinda like Steele did, only he messed it up by apologizing afterwards when Rush made it known that he was displeased.

Either the Republican party is beholden to this blowhard, or it's not. If they don't want to distance themselves from Rush, they're confirming that Rush is -- as Rahm says -- the voice of the Republican party.

I also think you have a hard case to make for saying a focus on party is somehow a mistake, especially if you're going to present it as an indictment against people's capacity to think if they happen to identify strongly with an existing political party.

But then, all Independents think they're smarter than everyone else; in fact it seems to be the defining principle of their party.

^ The problem with labeling Rush a sideshow is that they alienate Rush's audience. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that, but they seem to be scared of losing the "conservative core" vote.


As far as parties: I'm not saying anything bad about people who strongly identify with a particular party. What I was talking about is when people project ideas they don't like onto another party and then speak of that party as if that belief is ubiquitous.

For instance, if someone thinks tax cuts caused our economic problems then they may choose to frame it as "Republicans destroyed our economy". Why hold individuals accountable when it's much easier to blame everyone in their organization? People do the same to Democrats.

I'm all for discussion of specific issues, but most of the time it degrades into "Party A = good, Party B = bad".



But then, all Republicans/Democrats/Independents/Libertarians/etc think they're smarter than everyone else; in fact it seems to be the defining principle of their parties.

^ I like this version better. =)

>> ^Psychologic:
^ The problem with labeling Rush a sideshow is that they alienate Rush's audience. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that, but they seem to be scared of losing the "conservative core" vote.


There literally are not that many dittoheads out there. He has 3million listeners, and the one's that I personally know range from nutball lunatics, to people who casually listen to him and think he's mostly full of shit.

Just because 1,000 lunatics went nuts at CPAC doesn't mean there's that many more of them in this country who follow their brand of idiocy. And, as all the polls show lately, the average American isn't buying their bullshit anymore.

It would do a great service to the GOP to unleash the hounds on Rush and gain a bit of credibility for their party.

^ My goodness, you think they might alienate Rush's audience by calling him a sideshow? Won't constantly kissing his ring alienate everyone else?

I guess they'll have to decide whose interests they serve, and act appropriately.

As far as people oversimplifying it's certainly a problem, but everyone wants to play the blame game, especially the politicians themselves.

I think what you're really reacting to is the fact that most of the debates over "issues" are spawned by differences between the two parties, and unless someone has a completely neutral opinion, they're going to wind up sympathizing with one party or the other's position.

There's also a lot of people who buy into the underlying philosophy of liberalism or conservatism. While they may have some quibbles about how the associated parties are living up to those ideals, it doesn't mean they're going to start supporting adherents of the other ideology.

>> ^NetRunner:
^ My goodness, you think they might alienate Rush's audience by calling him a sideshow? Won't constantly kissing his ring alienate everyone else?
I guess they'll have to decide whose interests they serve, and act appropriately.


Yea, I really don't understand it. They know that being closely associated with Rush will alienate a lot of possible voters, but at the same time they seem to be trying their best not to say anything bad about him.

Maybe they're afraid that if Rush blasts them on his show then they won't get votes from either side, or maybe Rush was a big reason some of them got elected to begin with and they feel they owe him for it.

It's a really bizarre situation, but it is funny to see Steele run back to say he's sorry every time he says something unflattering about Rush.