You are hereForums / Future of the GOP-- How to get Our Party Back / This Republican Won't Apologize

This Republican Won't Apologize

By Suzi LeVeaux - Posted on 06 May 2009

I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that Colin Powell won't apologize to Rush for comments he made in a speech on Monday.  An exerpt from NewsMax..a very right wing site.

Powell lashed out at Limbaugh and conservative icon Ann Coulter. Neither serves the party well, Powell said during a speech to corporate security executives at a conference in Washington sponsored by Fortify Software Inc.

"I think what Rush does as an entertainer diminishes the party and intrudes or inserts into our public life a kind of nastiness that we would be better to do without," Powell said.

I'd love to know if Rush rants and raves about this strong, respected Republican who doesn't need to pacify him to get votes.  HA

This makes me happy...

Wingnut thought process: This means that Colin is a democrat now and he's saying this because the president is black.

saw that yesterday and almost posted it too - and I was thinking the same thing.  Powell would sooner tell Rush to kiss his patoot than apologize!

Limpbaugh responds:  (Think Progress)

[Powell] is out there saying I am killing the republican party while he endorsed and voted for Obama. … He’s just mad at me because I’m the one person in the country who had the guts to explain his endorsement of Obama. It was purely and solely based on race! There can be no other explanation for it. What Colin Powell needs to do is close the loop and become a Democrat instead of claiming to be a Republican interested in reforming the Republican party.


"Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
"Or the one."

- Captain Spock & Admiral James T. Kirk

- Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

I refer you back to my wingut thought process. Fit to a tee. ( :
Ding ding ding....we have a winner!!!

LOL, that gave me a good chuckle. What do I win? Hopefully not a Rushbo t-shirt...

Repetitive, unreasonable, and offensive. Sounds very Pythonesque.

It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.

Lewis Black

Oops!  I can assure you that the typo was purely unintentional.  Having said that, it is pretty darn funny.  


"Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
"Or the one."

- Captain Spock & Admiral James T. Kirk

- Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

It was pure genius when David Axelrod was the one who signed off on this strategy of painting Rush as head of the Republican party and Rahm and Gibbs lit the fuse. It was brilliant in the first week and it keeps paying dividends.

Now every time some poor Republican tries to makes sense and step out ahead of the pack, Rush swats him down. Eric Cantor "It's Not a Listening Tour" has permanent tire marks on his back and the rest of the party won't say a peep for fear of what might happen. Rush is now telling Colin Powell to go become a Democrat and I'll bet no one in the party tells Rush to stuff it even though the Republicans fell all over themselves back in the day to have Colin run for President.

Rush pretends to be Pro-Military but has no problem going after someone with the impressive resume of Colin Powell (I realize he is associated with Bush and many here will not forgive his role in the Iraq War-but one can't argue with his record and honors.) Rush also went after Charles, the Veteran caller who was so upset that the U.S. decided to ignore the Geneva Convention and construct a torture program. And let's see...did Rush ever serve? You know I'd never hold that over someone, but Rush sure would and has! The idea that Powell only endorsed Obama because he is black is as ridiculous as the idea that Cantor insisting this was not a listening tour had nothing to do with Rush's comments.
But the hordes of caucasian endorsers of other caucasians is just fine. Is it possible for African Americans in this country to tie their shoes without it being racially motivated? Just saying
Great point (as usual) Misty!

That all depends, it a black shoe?

So, does the AA endorser have to endorse the white guy to avoid the appearance of racial motivation?  As you said, no one questions it when it is the other way around.  You are spot on!

Rush doesn't appear to be pro-military with any consistency. In fact, he doesn't appear to be pro anything with consistency, other than pro-Rush. He is a typical extremist, who uses facts convenient to his argument, to push his agenda without any responsibility to consistency or loyalty to anything other than himself! Somewhat like Michael Moore or Bill Maher, just in the other direction.
Maybe Moore but not Maher. Maher doesn't use lies or cherry picked facts, he just uses raunchy jokes with things that are almost common knowledge. He also identifies himself as a comedian where as Rush doesn't.
Double Post... 

Begging to differ on the statement that Maher does't use "cherry picked facts". I've witnessed it. I don't hold it against him, much like I don't hold it against Rush. Neither of them have ever claimed to be journalists, reporting facts, just men with opinions.

 When it comes to either of them, I thank my lucky stars for the "OFF" button, unless I am in the mood for a laugh.

Can you give me examples?

I thought we just had a recent conversation about Bill Maher calling all followers of Christ, mentally ill and crazy.  I'd call that "cherry picking" his facts, or just being obtusely biased.  


"Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
"Or the one."

- Captain Spock & Admiral James T. Kirk

- Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

I'd call that making a broad stupid observation. I'm talking about when he's talking politics, policy etc. Him painting Christians with a broad brush is not distorting facts it's just being abrasive in his skeptical views on religion.
As you know, I don't like Maher,  I seldom watch him, so am not a good judge.  But let me ask you a question;  Is it possible that you don't see him as cherry picking because you hold basically the same viewpoints as he?  I'm saying this as an accusation in any way, just pointing out that it's human nature to see as "factual" those with whom we agree.
No. I don't hold all the same views as him. I am talking about distorting things like Rush does. Never seem him do it. Never seen anything like these things from Maher. Just generalizing bad taste jokes.

You know Suzi, I could also turn that question  on you too. ( :

Is it possible your not seeing him being nothing like the liar Rush is because he is disrespectful to your beliefs? 

Sure, that's possible.  I also said that I don't watch him enough to be a good judge.  But I also know human nature. ;-)

Of course, no one is the liar Rush is, except maybe Sean Hannity.   But cherry picking and being an out and out liar are not the same thing, IMO.

I don't see much of Maher either unless sometimes when he's on Leno. That's about it, but still I have never heard him cherry pick. If someone can show me where he has, then i'll shut up. ( : I mean it's not like it's my mission to defend him, I just think comparing him to limbaugh is a stretch. (no pun intended on Limbaugh's weight)... (maybe)....

He seems to more in the arena of making comedic observations about mainstream news stuff and not reporting it for his advantage....

Fair enough.  Maybe "extremely biased" would be a better term than "cherry picking".  But saying "a Nazi pope is running a child abusing cult" isn't exactly factual.  *shrugs*

I think he might be biased on religion but when he talks politics he sees the stupidity all around. I would really compare him to a very abrasive version of Jon Stewert with less class. Just my opinion though. Jon Stewert also sometimes points out weird things with religion but he does it without being disrespectful. Maher doesn't seem to care if he's more respectful in his presentation...

Just my opinion though, but like I said I really don't see much of him anymore. The last two times I saw him was on Leno a few months ago, and on Huckabee's show even farther back than that....

Maher on Huckabee??  lol  I would have loved to have seen that one.

You know, if Maher talked about blacks, Jews, Hispanics or any other group the way he talks about Catholics and Christians, he would be in big trouble.  I'm just sayin'..... Hate speech is hate speech, even when it's couched as "comedy".



"That's the thing about faith... if you don't have it, you can't understand it and If you do, no explanation is necessary."

- Major Kira Nerys

- Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

Since when is criticising someone's beliefs equal to "hate speech"? Were you offended when he criticised Scientology? He believes ALL religons are ridiculous and i happen to agree with him. Does that make me hateful as well?
Take it easy Ron!  Being critical is one thing...."a Nazi pope is running a child abusing cult" is far beyond that.  If he says similar hateful things about Scientology, Judism, or any religion, yes, it's hate speech.   You may find religion to be ridiculous, but that is hardly hate speech.  I'm not criticizing the opinions, but the manner in which those opionons are expressed.  Surely you see the difference..........
I see it Suzi, and I really don't mind Maher. I watch him and I really enjoy his New Rules. But it does bother me in the manner he talks about people who do have faith. Even though I am not that fond of Organized Religion as a whole, You know how I feel about GOD and my beliefs. So that to me is also being judgemental to my beliefs as well. HE has a right not to believe, but just don't put down those that do. It's all in the delivery of how he says it.   

" Being critical is one thing...."a Nazi pope is running a child abusing cult" is far beyond that."

I can understand why that would be offensive, but personally, I see the Catholic Church as a corrupt institution so I think attacking it is fair game. Maybe he could have worded it "nicer", but what he said was mostly true. If the Church has the right to condemn people to Hell than they certainly should be open to harsh attacks.


You are being very judgmental, Ron. There are a lot of Catholics who are members here, and I will ask you to be more respectful of their beliefs.    Thank you.

I think he (Maher) was referring to the fact that the Pope was a former Nazi. Or at least that he was a member of Hitler's Youth for a while. And we all know where the child abusing issues comes from.

I'm not saying up or down on the comment, just citing its genesis, that he wasn't pulling Nazi out of thin air.

 I'm just saying there are people who could argue that it wasn't necessarily hateful comments, or hate speech, in the way, for example, that Rush throws out demeaning, spiteful, mean, and patently untrue, comments designed specifically to incite strong hateful emotions in people.

TC, I understood exactly where it came from, but was addressing Ron's comments about a whole faith.  I stand by my decision, and suggest we let this one rest.  Thanks.

I would like to take a moment to point out that I never accused either Rush, or Bill Maher of being a liar. I only pointed out that both of them have cherry picked facts before, facts that benefit their argument in any given debate.

 Rush may use his cherry picked facts to force his opinion and agenda on the listening audience, and Maher may use it for shock or comedic value. But they are both guilty, nonetheless.

 As for examples, I once again apologize to you SG. I cannot bring myself to sit in front of the computer and sift through Bill Mahers monologues for very long, searching and documenting occasions where he has used selective facts to support his agenda.

 Edit for add; I don't see much of Maher either unless sometimes when he's on Leno. Well SG, then is it possible that you haven't seen  "Real Time w/ Bill Maher" enough to make a fair assesment in reference to the cherry picking I spoke of? I am not trying to spark a serious debate. I have heard Mr Maher use selected facts convenient for his argument. I cannot cite those instances. But I don't think it is fair to dispute what I am saying based on the few appearances you have seen of Maher on Leno.

 As a side note; I like Maher the comedian. That is why I watch his show now and again. I wont defend his politics, but I will defend his presentation. He has never once pretended to be a journalist, or a defacto leader of the democrat party. He seems to be just a man with an opinion, albeit an extreme one.

I need to see it for myself. I still don't think he does it. Don't get up in arms because I won't take your word for it.

 Evrytings irie mon!

 A little Jamaican slang. I am not up in arms. Was just trying to magnify my point. I hope evrytings irie with you.

 Sometimes taking the word of a choice few is enough. Sometimes it is not.

I'm ok and like I said it's not my mission or anything to defend Maher at all costs. I don't care that much. I do however want to see something for myself before I judge him in that aspect. We have enough to judge him on that is seen all the time...

I understand. I don't feel the need to judge him on much of anything. He is an opinionated comedian who claims to be an opinionated comedian. Even if it is true, that he spouts cherry picked facts for his purpose, he's still just an opinionated comedian.

 Rush, on the other hand, spouts convenient facts in effort to sway opinion and undermine authority. I feel a need to judge him!

I watch it fairly often. I would not call Maher a cherry-picker.


IMO, Maher uses comedy as a cover for his hate and disdain.

I concur with Ms Moderator. Maher is a hateful man. Almost seems as he is angry for being born, and he must direct his hatred towards those he does not identify with.

 SG, No, I cannot cite examples of Mahers selective fact choosing. I just remember watching "real time" and thinking how convenient it was that he often commented on part of a story, rather then delving into the entire thing. I noted how he would at times take a portion of a statement, rather than the entire statement, and use it against someone to prove a point. Which seems to me to be dishonest at the very least. But again, I do not fault Mr Maher. He never claimed to be a journalist.

 I know many people view Rush as the defacto leader of the Republican party. But I doubt he speaks for any Republicans on this site. I think he could be viewed as the leader of the Conservative movement. But the Republican party is entirely too diverse to be considered predominantly Conservative.

 The main problem with the party is the lack of leadership.

 But I do agree with Colin Powell on this one. I do not think Rush helps the Republican party.

But will the Republicans of this site ever respect their elected Republican officials when they've repeatedly had to swallow their statements at the threat of Rush's microphone? Even if the Republican party is diverse, what does it say when Rush Limbaugh is untouchable and when Fox News has a discussion panel where the host agrees with a guest that Colin Powell is a "traitor".

 Oh! Here's the link of Fox host sides with guest calling Powell a traitor!
Trust me-these clowns do not make it easy for me to keep the "R" next to my name. The temptation to switch to an Indpendent grows with every apology to Rush!
Damn... When you said Fox News I was thinking an actual panalist as it usually relates to them not Nick Depaolo. I really liked him, he's a stand up comedian that's been associated with a lot on Comedy Central the past 10 years. It made my gut sink knowing that he would say that. Let alone him appearing on Fox News at all.  
Wow, after looking it up I never knew he was associated with Fox News as much as he is. I've only ever seen him on Comedy Central...

Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook




RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for We will never share or sell your email address.