President Obama attacks Rush Limbaugh

Yesterday President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill that they needed to quit listening to Rush Limbaugh if they wanted to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package. (link to New York Post story)

I am sure this made Rush Limbaugh’s day. Rush will have a field day with this attack. It enhances his prestige and will energize his audience. Rush couldn't have paid for better advertising. I would think President Obama would be better off to simply ignore Limbaugh and relegate him to the fringe. Was this a harmless off-the-cuff remark or is there a strategy behind making Limbaugh the image of his opposition? I just got through saying I was a Will-Brooks conservative, not a Hannity-Limbaugh conservative, and now Obama is driving me back into the Limbaugh camp.

Years ago I used to make a point to listen to Rush if I was free to do so at the time he was on. I was a Rush fan. Over time, I grew tired of Rush and stopped listening. At times I found myself annoyed by him. Some his more outrageous episodes such as the attack on Michael J. Fox and his hypocritical drug use and his often-faulty logic and his mean-spirited humor caused me to loose any respect for him I may have had. I lost all desire to listen. Now, I am anxious to see how Rush responds to this attack so I will try to tune-in.

In addition to finding this attack on Rush interesting, I seem to recall something about Obama going to be the post-partisan President. Dismissing those who have legitimate questions about the proposed trillion-dollar stimulus package as followers of Rush Limbaugh does not sound like a guy who is trying to build bridges and change the way things are done in Washington. I think I am beginning to understand what Obama meant when he spoke about ending partisanship in Washington. I think he meant that if you didn’t agree with some of his policies you were to keep your mouth shut and roll over and play dead. Obama has only been President for two days and the warm and fuzzy is starting to fade.

Top Stories

Engish-only Fails!

Yesterday the voters of Nashville rejected the English-only charter amendment. The opponents of the proposed charter amendment won a lopsided victory by defeating the measure with almost a 10,000 vote margin. 41,752 people voted against the measure and 32,144 voted for it. That and one other proposed charter amendment were the only things on the ballot. Turn-out was considered high for an election where no candidates were running for office.

The opponents of the measure included many Nashville public figures and institutions included the Governor, the Mayor, Chamber of Commerce, prominent business leaders, nine College Presidents, religious leaders, The Tennessean and various others. The only prominent people publicly identified with the proponents of the Amendment was the sponsor, Councilman Eric Crafton and local conservative radio talk show host Phil Valentine. Despite the lopsided public opposition their was a fear that the silent majority would defeat the establishment and the measure would pass. Many proponents of the bill viewed this measure as a way to make a statement about the problem of illegal immigration. Had the measure passed, Nashville would have been the largest city to ever pass such measure.

I am relieved that Nashville defeated this proposed amendment. It was unnecessary and was bad public policy. Had the measure passed, no one knew for certain what the impact would have been. It would have saved the city of Nashville almost no money since most translation services provided to residents of the city are paid for by Federal funds and are required or are provided by bi-lingual employees who are already on the payroll. The city has recruited bi-lingual policemen. Many feared the measure would prohibit a policemen who speaks Spanish from talking to another person in Spanish. Signs at the airport in other languages may have been illegal. School official may not have been permitted to send messages home with children in the language of the parents of the child. No doubt their would have been numerous expensive legal challenges to the measure. The Chamber feared it would hinder tourism and business recruitment. I think if it had prevailed it would have presented Nashville in a very bad light. I am glad that decency and common sense prevailed and this divisive measure was defeated.

Top Stories

Today I am voting "No" on English-only

To learn more about the issue, contribute, or get a yard sign visit Nashville for All of Us.

Top Stories

Nashville's English-Only Charter Amendment ...

is unnecessary, legally irresponsible, and bad public policy.

By Nathan Moore

The “English only” charter amendment is bad, not because the Metropolitan government doesn't need to be speaking in English (it already is), but because it is completely unnecessary. The primary advocates, many of whom I have known for years, are pursuing bad government policy with reckless abandon and it is shameful. The call for a special election, which would cost the taxpayers somewhere in the ballpark of $350,000 for an unnecessary, legally irresponsible amendment, is absurd. The money Metro would be spending could just as well go to more accessible English as a second language classes, which would go further toward solving the perceived linguistic problems of our city than this silly amendment.

As Davidson County Republican Party chairman Tom Lawless noted in The Tennessean today, “What is the great immediacy of this?”. He is certainly right - there is no immediacy, especially not in the case of this poorly contrived law.

I tend to look for the best in people, and will give most the benefit of many doubts, but I truly cannot figure out what positive is being accomplished with this amendment. The state of the law will not change. The only outcome will be that costs to Metro will go up in the form of litigation from certain constitutional challenges.

There is no language crisis in our city. Immigrants are not “holding out” on us, refusing to speak in anything but their native tongues. No one comes to America (and more specifically, Nashville), not wanting to learn English. There is not some underground society on Nolensville Road that has pledged to speak Spanish or die.

But what does need to die is the English-Only charter amendment. It is giving conservatives in Metro an awful reputation, one that many of us do not deserve and strenuously resent. I strongly oppose the English-Only charter amendment and urge its backers to rethink their reasons for supporting it. Surely we can focus on something that would actually make Metro better, leaving the coarsely developed aura of this irrational xenophobia in the gutter where it truly belongs.

Comment
Nathan Moore is a Nashville attorney, conservative activist, former Davidson County Young Republican Chairman and blogs at MoreThoughs. I had the pleasure of hearing him debate the proposed Nashville English-only charter amendment that is on the ballot to be decided January 22. Nathan debated Councilman Eric Crafton, the author of the bill, at today’s First Tuesday Group, a monthly Republican gathering. I concur with the arguments made by Nathan and the opponents of the bill.

Top Stories

The Inauguration

The Obama inauguration speech just concluded. It was inspirational and motivational. He set the perfect tone. I did not think the speech itself was a great speech, but a good speech. He did not sugar coat the problems we face but offered hope. He recalled our past challenges and our greatness and told us that we can overcome the current problems and that there are more great days ahead. He applauded the American sprit and our achievements. Any criticism of the Bush administration was very subtle. He appeared as a practical, reassuring, strong figure who loves this nation.

I was pleased that he extended a hand of peace to our enemies but vowed that we would defeat those who practice terrorism. His comment, “We will defeat you” was worthy of a cheer. His saying that we will not apologize for our way of life was another great line. I was pleased that he said we would defend our country without compromising our values.

One of the most poignant parts of his speech was when he said that in 60 years we went from a time when his father could not be seated in a restaurant to today when a person of color is being sworn in as President. That is a reason to take pride in our nation. We have changed for the better. His election is symbolic that we have lived up to the ideas our nation has long professsed.

I thought the whole events of the day and the ceremony and the music and the prayer and the speech were reassuring and up-lifting. To see the Bushs receive the Obamas for a short receptions somehow stuck me as an ordinary event yet an important symbol of the American civility of politics. We may disagree with our political advisories but we can interact and be polite and pleasant. To witness the amiable, peaceful transfer of power is something we take for granted, but we should realize that is not the way things are done in much of the world and for much of world history. We are truly blessed to live in America.

I will have differences with the party in power and hope the Obama administration fails to achieve some of their objectives. However, Obama is my President. Today, I feel nothing but goodwill toward the new administration and I have pride in my nation. God Bless Obama and the United States of America.

Top Stories

I am starting to feel warm and fuzzy.

I am watching Hardball and it was reported that tonight Barack Obama will be hosting a dinner honoring John McCain. What? Not only that, apparently when interviewing potential top tier foreign policy advisors he asked them to fill out a questionnaire and then asked John McCain to help judge the answers. Last week Obama attended a dinner at George Will’s house where David Brooks and other conservative commentators were in attendance. This is unreal. I was amassed that he selected Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State. And then, Rick Warren was selected to say the official prayer asking God’s blessing on the new administration. His economic advisors include people with whom Wall Street are comfortable. He has equivocated and backtracked on some of his campaign promises. People I respect and admire say they think Obama is pragmatic and reasonable. Maybe he really meant it when he talked about bringing a new climate of nonpartisanship to Washington. Maybe he is the right man at the right time for our nation. I am starting to feel all warm and fuzzy.

Top Stories

Obama's Costly Inauguration!

People are being evicted from their homes, unemployment is up, the stock market is down, we have homeless on the streets and the inauguration of President Barack Obama is going to cost $150 million!

And, I really don't care. Spend it! Party hard! Celebrate!

This money could be used to feed the homeless or fight aids and help people make their house payment. Yea, but we also need to party. Anyway most of the money is from private donors. If they were not spending it on this big party they probably wouldn't be spending it. We have no claim to the money of rich Democrats who are spending their own money.

That portion of the money that is spend by the city of D.C or the State of Virginia is an investment in tourism. Any government of a tourist destination spends public funds on safety. It is a public investment. That money spend by the Federal government I don't begrudge. We need to spend funds for ceremonial operations of government. Why do we have all of those military bands? This is their chance to play.

Anyway, this spending is an economic stimulus with a multiplier effect probably greater than the multiplier effect of the public funds that Congress will soon appropriate. Florist, hairdressers, hotels, restaurants, cab drivers, waiters, chefs, souvenir vendors, designers of ball gowns and many, many more will earn income from the event. So a big party is good economic activity.

I just want to point out that the inauguration is by far the most costly in history costing $150 million in the worst of economic times since the great depression. The Bush inauguration in 2005, by comparison, cost about $70 million which was then the most costly to date. Many Democrats were critical of the cost of the Bush inauguration. When Reagan was inaugurated, Mrs. Reagan was severely criticized for wearing a $10,000 gown to one of the balls. I promise not to criticize the cost of Michelle's gown.

If you are a Democrat, ask yourself if you would be complaining about this expensive party if the shoe was on the other foot. In today's economic hard times, if John McCain had been elected and it was the Republican team spending this kind of money on a party, what would you be saying? I know it is hard to believe, but their will be another Republican inauguration someday. So, if you are not bitching about the cost of this party, don't bitch when it is our turn.

I know it is a hopeless quest to try to get sanctimonious hypocritical liberals to see their contradictions, but I like to try.

Top Stories