About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Limbaugh claims that "Marxist" Obama "intends to purge all Republicans" from civil service

November 12, 2009 1:34 pm ET

From the November 12 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by The_Cat (November 12, 2009 1:36 pm ET)
      13  
      Meanwhile, in other 'news', Fascist Limbaugh is busily purging all Republicans from the Republican Party...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DAWUSS (November 12, 2009 1:37 pm ET)
      5  
      What? How? Who?

      It sounds like what he's saying is American English, but I can't make any sense of it...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by epkklk851 (November 12, 2009 2:36 pm ET)
        4  
        I've been around the government for way, too long. I understood exactly what he was talking about, and knew instantly that he had gotten everything wrong. In all my years, I've only ever met one SES (Senior Executive Service) and I think that person was career status and not political!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Sharpe (November 12, 2009 1:45 pm ET)
      4  
      Oh yes red state - it might as well have been from the Times or whatever paper is actually seen as not bias right now.

      This would be a dream. Too bad its limbaugh and not obama saying it. I would just put limbaugh and beck on a death panel but purging would be fine too.

      FIRING OF THE ATTORNEYS???? Is limbaugh the only one in the country that doesn;t realize that was ACTUALLY A HUGE SCANDAL. The way he said it, it was like nothing ever came of it.

      All we need to do is listen to the first 20 seconds - his source of news where he is getting these undesputed facts is redstate.com
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jbraskin4786 (November 12, 2009 1:46 pm ET)
      4  
      Trasnferring again, Rush.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pilotshark (November 12, 2009 2:05 pm ET)
      4  
      Oh rushbuttboil we can only hope right
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Sharpe (November 12, 2009 2:13 pm ET)
      4  
      That crazy chuck schumer with all his wild conspiracy theories that END UP ACTUALLY BEING TRUE!!!! I love limbaugh's take that he makes schumer out to look like some fear-monger when he is taking about a HUGE political scandal and proved to the country that Bush was trying to abuse his executive powers (which wouldnt be the last time) to manipulate country-wide elections. This resulted in the resignation of NINE officers of the department of justice at the highest level resigning including the attorney general as a direct result. The RIGHT is so overly concerned with their made up conspiracy theories that the actual stories just sneak right past them.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wzwriter (November 12, 2009 2:18 pm ET)
      7  
      Sounds like El Rushbo has still not purged all the OxyContin from his hideous, bloated body.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by epkklk851 (November 12, 2009 2:19 pm ET)
      6 1
      Rush, you big dummy. Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Most appointments are not political, only a very small set serve on a political appointment, and their term ends at the end of the Presidential term. All Obama is doing is saying if you held a political appointment within the last five years, you can't be converted over to a regular civil service position without permission from OPM. At best, it is a few positions in the Executive Branch and Congress. And I would think you would be happy to know that the person seeking the appointment now has to compete for the job or at least measure up the requirements for the job before getting it. This is an anti-spoils system ruling. The tens of thousands of us regular excepted service employees will go on our merry way regardless of the party in Office. And as Government employees, we aren't supposed to discuss politics at work, and our rights in regards to partisan participation are restricted.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by EZ4you2say (November 12, 2009 5:00 pm ET)
          4
        No, what the order says is that if you were a political appointee and then moved into a Civil Service job within the last 5 years, the OPM now will review your status and decide whether you still deserve the job. If you fall into this category, the Civil Service employment rules don't apply to you anymore.
        Did any of you people even read the memo?
        I'll bet not.
        Oh Yeah....big conspiracy theory by the right wing.
        Heres the memoin case you're interested.
        Obama can do no wrong!!!!!!!
        Follow the messaih over the cliff you lemmings
        Report Abuse
        • Author by epkklk851 (November 12, 2009 6:41 pm ET)
          1  
          Yes, I did read the memo; did you? Your interpretation is wrong. It says any Federal agency must have written permission from OPM if it wants to convert someone from a political/non-career SES position or someone who held such a position into a regular Civil Service appointment before making the conversion. It says nothing about going back and taking appointments away from people. Civil Servants have very specific rights and responsibilities. OPM wants to make sure that any conversion also meets the standards of education and experience required by a specific job description. The memo further states that this rule applies if they held a political appointment within the last five years. OPM currently examines the fitness of employees being converted and will continue to do so. This is an anti-spoils system ruling intended to keep the civil service both professional and apolitical. It only affects a handful of people because very few people serve in the Executive Branch or in Congress on political appointments. I have included the paragraphs that are pertainent, so readers can judge for themselves. But really, you should do a better job of reading something before you go getting all hot and bothered over it. And I wouldn't talk about lemmings and cliffs and messiahs if I had just "Rush"ed headlong over such a big one myself following a white whale of a messiah. How embarrasssing.


          "In no case may an agency make an appointment of the type described below without written authorization from OPM:
          (A)The appointment of a current political Schedule A or Schedule C Executive Branch employee or a former political Schedule A or Schedule C Executive Branch employee who held the position within the last five years to a competitive or non-political excepted service position under title 5 of the U.S. Code.
          (B)The appointment of a current Non-career SES Executive Branch employee or a former Non-career SES Executive Branch employee who held the position within the last five years to a competitive or non-political excepted service position under title 5 of the U.S. Code."

          Report Abuse
      • Author by Tiredog (November 12, 2009 6:09 pm ET)
        1  
        He never has and never will...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mjh (November 12, 2009 2:31 pm ET)
      5  
      Limbaugh claims that "Marxist" Obama "intends to purge all Republicans" from civil service



      I declare -- I have NEVER seen one person who claimed to know SO MUCH of what President Obama thinks, does, or intends to do {other than Obama himself, that is} . . .
      Report Abuse
      • Author by catfish1968 (November 12, 2009 3:05 pm ET)
        3  
        That was what I was thinking -how can he claim to know so much about a man he's never met and never talked to?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mycos2679 (November 12, 2009 4:27 pm ET)
          1  
          One of the hallmarks of the authoritarian/conservative personality is their tendency to project personal tendencies they're trying to deny within themselves back out onto those they see as the "enemy". In this regard, Limbaugh does a very good job of describing his own thoughts and desires, presenting the right-wing authoritarian mindset in more vivid detail than one usually sees in conservatives.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (November 12, 2009 2:41 pm ET)
      4  
      Is this right wing lunacy trying to out conspiracy theory each other or what?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jose2 (November 12, 2009 2:50 pm ET)
        1  
        It's lunacy when you can get one republican to vote on an otherwise democrat bill and call it bipartisan.

        It follows if you get only one stealth democrat in the republican party, every bill would be bipartisan.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (November 12, 2009 2:48 pm ET)
      4  
      Reading is fundamental, Rush.


      Read the darned memo before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (November 12, 2009 2:50 pm ET)
      6  
      I mean, it's not as if you had to sign a loyalty pledge to the government to work for them, or to get a job working in Iraq. It's not as if you had to go to an evangelical university to get a job in the DOJ. I mean, someone who did things like that would be, oh, wait, my sources are telling me that Bush did exactly that. Whereas, you wouldn't be allowed to get certain jobs if you weren't a republican.

      Where was blimpies outrage then? Oh, I know, it's all manufactured, as per usual.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (November 12, 2009 3:07 pm ET)
        5  
        Exactly. It's like they completely forget Monica Goodling and the hiring practices admittedly done under Gonzo at the DOJ.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (November 12, 2009 3:52 pm ET)
          4  
          Don't forget the following things as well:

          1. Loyalty pledges to republican party if you wanted to attend a W rally or speech.

          2. Needed to be born and bred republican if you wanted a job with the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Which led to, not having the right people for the right jobs, and basically the CPA being a disaster.

          3. DOJ and Goodling (as you noted above).

          Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (November 12, 2009 3:55 pm ET)
      2  
      Since there's nothing civil about today's Republicans, I say let the purging begin.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Lord of Light (November 12, 2009 4:01 pm ET)
      3  
      Yep, the McCarthyesque rolling out the Marxist imagery again ...

      [http://www.beatsandbombs.com/wp-content/2009/07/broken-record-765056.jpg]
      Report Abuse
    • Author by erock33 (November 12, 2009 4:33 pm ET)
        7
      Just by reading some of the posts on MM (this link and others) it seems some of you would be completely ok with locking up political adversaries based soley on their ideology. Please tell me I'm wrong?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by canaanxing9025 (November 12, 2009 6:16 pm ET)
        3  
        erock33:

        OK, you're wrong. Unless the political adversaries have broken the law,they are protected by the 1st Amendment like everybody else.

        However, unless my history is wrong, I believe that Thomas Jefferson 'purged' the federal government of the Federalists. This 'purge'(or pragmatism, as some would say) is considered a mini revolution by many historians.

        BTW: Jefferson's 'purge' gave us Marbury v. Madison.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by epkklk851 (November 12, 2009 7:01 pm ET)
             
          Actually, Marbury v. Madison was not about a purge. Marbury never got his appointment because Madison refused to deliver the last minute appointment to Marbury (given by the Adams Administration). And he sued to get it, but never did. By the way, the Supreme Court Cheif Justice, Marshall was also the Adams official who had failed to get Mr. Marbury his appointment in time.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by canaanxing9025 (November 12, 2009 7:51 pm ET)
               
            epkklk851:

            John Adams appointed many Federalists, many were judges, and some like Marbury, was a Justice of the Peace. John Adams did this the night before he left office - hence the term midnight judges.

            Madison (a supporter of Jefferson) was wrong. They were legally appointed by a sitting President.

            However, John Marshall (a Federalist) argued to toss a Federalist appointee 'under the bus' to make a larger, more important precedent. John Marshall was able to convince the Supreme Court to toss out Marbury's claim, by virtue of the Judicary Act of 1789, and the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by epkklk851 (November 12, 2009 8:17 pm ET)
                 
              I will grant you that Marshall threw Marbury under the bus to make a larger point, but a purge implies getting rid of someone who was already there. Marbury never got the appointment, even if he should have, and was never in power. I am not so sure that the ability to make these midnight appointments is a good thing, so the failure of the Jefferson Administration to deliver the appointments was in its own best interest, and the best interest of the country. If you allow an outgoing Administration to pack the courts with friendly judges as they are leaving, you hamstring the incoming party. It also lays the ground for Judicial Review, and I am a big believer in Judicial Review.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by canaanxing9025 (November 12, 2009 9:43 pm ET)
                   
                epkklk851:

                I am not so sure we agree. But you have raised many interesting points. But, I am a 5:00 A.M person, and need to go to sleep.

                I do hope we can carry on this conversation tomorrow..
                Report Abuse
                • Author by epkklk851 (November 12, 2009 10:01 pm ET)
                  1  
                  I'm a 5:30 person myself. It's my bedtime, too.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by canaanxing9025 (November 13, 2009 7:01 pm ET)
                       
                    epkklk851:

                    Ok, but by virtue of the Constitution, Marbury, and the judges were appointed. The problem I have is that Jefferson and Madison did not deliver the appointments by a sitting President; regardless of when he appointed them. I think that is where we disagree.

                    I have tried forever to understand Jefferson. Was he a idealist (as in his younger days)? Was he an ideologue (arguments with Hamilton)? Was Jefferson a pragmatist? I have conluded that Jefferson was a pragmatist. The Louisana Purchase is a good example.

                    I have come to the conclusion that Jefferson lived in his head. I think this is where we agree, Jefferson was a pragmatist. He envisoned greater things and acted on them, He didn't get stuck in ideology.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by canaanxing9025 (November 13, 2009 7:28 pm ET)
                         
                      epkklk851:

                      We also agree on Judicial Review. However, when all else fails the Framers gave us Amendments :)
                      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (November 12, 2009 6:19 pm ET)
        3  
        Just by reading your post, it seems you don't have the gumption to level this accusation toward anyone specific. Please tell me I'm wrong.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (November 12, 2009 6:29 pm ET)
        3  
        Well you are pretty obviously wrong and have been apparently listening to too many ideological fairy tales no doubt. In addition to any replies you might get to your post, I would pay attention to the thumbs down sign. I suspect the conservatives who visit may hit the thumbs up if they share your delusions, but I am guessing the thumbs down is going to be more popular. Just a hunch.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (November 12, 2009 10:20 pm ET)
        1  
        Yeah, you are 100% wrong.

        We'd love to have fair debates here and nationally with a legitimate opposition party and with reasonable opposition posters.

        It's your side, your FoxNews, your Limbaugh, who are poisoning the debate, refusing to participate in our democracy, being ideological purists, having kneejerk reactions to anything from the opposition. It's your side that has suggested interrogating all Muslim soldiers because one soldier who happened to be Muslim went insane and no one caught it. It's your side that has proposed that we keep suspected terrorists locked up forever.

        And you haven't read any posts here that have suggested what you claim. None. We don't think that, nor say that. See, the problem here is your preconceived notions. Your blinders. Your partisan blindspot. Your need for validation of your own ideas is so great that you're basically delusional when it comes to evaluating your opposition.
        Report Abuse