But Mike Huckabee took a different tack, calling the right-wing attacks “deplorable.” “I think it was the Commander-in-Chief of our military paying respect to a dead soldier, and I’m grateful that he did that, and I was proud of him for doing that,” Huckabee said. In a recent interview, CBS’ Katie Couric asked Huckabee if he was criticizing Limbaugh, but Huckabee declined to take the bait:

COURIC: Were you referring to anyone in particular or anyone specific because I know Rush Limbaugh had criticized the day before you made that statement.

HUCKABEE: No one in particular. I wasn’t criticizing Rush. He’s got a bigger megaphone and microphone than I do and I’m not going to get into a war with him. It wasn’t about Rush Limbaugh; it was about the general tenor. I read editorials, I heard people on commentary shows.

Watch it (starting at 31:05):

Huckabee, a potential GOP candidate for president in 2012, apparently knows the dangers of criticizing the Party’s de-facto leader. Numerous Republicans over the past year — including RNC Chairman Michael Steele — have criticized Limbaugh at one point or another but then came crawling back to apologize.

It’s kind of tough to figure out with the shady science right now, what are we supposed to be doing right now with our climate. Are we warming or are we cooling? I don’t think Americans are even told anymore if it’s global warming or just climate change. And I don’t attribute all the changes to man’s activities. I think that this is, in a lot of respects, cyclical and the earth does cool and it warms.

Listen here:

Palin, of course, lives in the state that is at the epicenter of man-made global warming. Global warming has caused Alaska’s average temperature to rise by 3.4°F, causing once-frozen land to collapse, glaciers to disappear, outbreaks of beetles and wildfires to spread, and forcing Todd Palin’s Iron Dog race to move hundreds of miles north. And yes, the science is clear that it’s because of all the fossil fuels Palin loves to “tap into.”

Cantor hemmed and hawed in response. “Rush Limbaugh, other personalities…have opinions,” he said, emphasizing that the Republican Party is a “party of inclusion” that has room for voices like Limbaugh. But Cantor — the only Jewish Republican member of the House — clarified that he does not condone the use of Hitler “in any discussion of politics” and such comparisons “are not, I think, very helpful.”

Hunt pressed: “So it was inappropriate for Limbaugh to say that?” Cantor responded:

CANTOR: You know, look Al, I think Rush Limbaugh is a conservative voice for America. A lot of the things he says I agree with.

HUNT: But not that?

CANTOR: Right. I don’t condone the use of the word Hitler.

Watch it:

Steve Benen comments, “I suppose Eric Cantor deserves some credit” for his “mild and indirect rebuke. I’m just not sure if he’ll stick to it.” TPM notes that Cantor’s office is trying to highlight his independence from Rush by pointing reporters to the story.

Last week, Cantor’s spokesman said it was “inappropriate” to display a prominent photograph at a GOP rally comparing health care reform to the Nazi concentration camp in Dachau.

Here is — these are my thoughts on New York-23. … We cannot forget how this whole thing happened in the first place. There was not a primary. The right message here would indict the way party bosses, Republican Party bosses and these big thinkers like Newt screwed the whole thing up from the get go.

Listen here:

The war between Newt and Rush extends back to earlier this year, when Limbaugh said Gingrich was tearing apart the conservative movement by trying to embrace “better policy ideas.” Gingrich had argued that the “era of Reagan is over,” and that Republicans needed more than simply being the “party of no.” Limbaugh is of course quite comfortable with the “party of no” status.

When the White House snubbed Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace of an interview with President Obama in September, Wallace defended his program by claiming it is a “truly fair and balanced show.” This morning, he had an opportunity to demonstrate his fairness, but failed miserably.

During his 30-minute on-air interview with Rush Limbaugh, Wallace did not ask a single critical question of the hate radio host, nor did he ever seriously challenge Limbaugh’s views at any point in the interview. Wallace relished engaging in a hostile interview with President Clinton in 2006, arguing afterwards that, “My instinct is to go after them with the high hard one.” He showed none of those instincts this morning.

Instead, Wallace teed up a series of softball questions, allowing Limbaugh to offer unchallenged accusations of Obama. Some examples:

WALLACE: This week it will be one year since Barack Obama was elected president. In that time, what has he done for and to the country?

WALLACE: You have now taken to calling Mr. Obama the man-child president. What does that mean?

WALLACE: Let’s talk about a couple of the big issues the president is dealing with now — first of all, Afghanistan. You suggest that he is taking all of this time to decide what to do in Afghanistan to keep his left-wing base on board for health care reform.

WALLACE: But you don’t think that Barack Obama has a profound respect for our soldiers and the families that are giving the sacrifice?

WALLACE: Do you think the individual mandate is constitutional? Do you think the government has the right to tell people, You’re going to get health insurance, and if you don’t get it, you’re going to pay a penalty?

WALLACE: To press my question, why aren’t people turning to the Republicans?

WALLACE: I think you’re a great broadcaster. How can you possibly be worth that kind of money?

WALLACE: If he does win, how is Rush Limbaugh going to handle seven more years of Barack Obama?

Limbaugh took the opportunity to issue screed after screed — calling Obama a “radical” leader who is “destroying” the country, claiming Obama “doesn’t care” about the troops in Afghanistan, and dismissing Obama’s trip to Dover Air Force base to see the fallen soldiers as a “photo op.” Wallace silently went along for the joy ride.

Full transcript of the interview below:

WALLACE: Rush, welcome to FOX News Sunday.

LIMBAUGH: Thank you. Appreciate it.

WALLACE: This week it will be one year since Barack Obama was elected president. In that time, what has he done for and to the country?

LIMBAUGH: I think it’s all to. I don’t think there’s any for. I’m — Chris, I’m — I’m really, really worried. We’ve never seen this kind of radical leadership at such a high level of power in the –in the country.
I believe that the economy is under siege, is being destroyed. Anybody with any economic literacy would not do one thing this administration’s done to try to revitalize the private sector. They’re destroying it.
And I have to think that it may be on purpose, because this is just outrageous, what is happening — a denial of liberty, an attack on freedom.
I mean, just — just a couple days ago, they talked about these 650,000 jobs that they’ve created or saved. There’s no such thing as a saved job. Besides that, they’ve destroyed jobs. They’ve lost 3.3 million jobs in this country since Obama’s stimulus plan, and it’s going to get worse.

WALLACE: But — but wait a minute. How about save the country from a financial abyss, 3.5 percent growth in the third quarter in GDP?

LIMBAUGH: There wasn’t any growth in the private sector. That 3.5 percent came from two things — government spending on Cash for Clunkers — they just moved fourth quarter auto sales into the third quarter — and the first-time home buyer thing.
GDP equals CIG — that is, consumers, the investment of business, and government. And it’s all G. It’s all government. There is no private sector growth. There were no new jobs being created. We’re losing them.

WALLACE: How about kept the country safe for nine months?

LIMBAUGH: I don’t know how safe we are. Iran is nuking up. Everything that we’ve asked them to do they are forgetting. They’re not going to move their plutonium, their enriched plutonium –uranium out of the country like they said so.
We can’t make up our minds what we’re going to do in Afghanistan. We’re dithering there. I don’t — I don’t think we’re any better off in any way it could be measured.

WALLACE: You have now taken to calling Mr. Obama the man-child president.

LIMBAUGH: Right.

WALLACE: What does that mean?

LIMBAUGH: Just — he’s (inaudible) he’s a child. I think he’s –he’s got a — a five-minute career. He was in the Senate for 150 days. He was a community organizer in Chicago for however number of years.
He really has no experience running anything. He’s very young. I think he’s got an out-of-this-world ego. He’s very narcissistic. And he’s able to focus all attention on him all the time. That –that description is simply a way to cut through the noise and say he’s immature, inexperienced, in over his head.

WALLACE: Let’s talk about a couple of the big issues the president is dealing with now — first of all, Afghanistan. You suggest that he is taking all of this time to decide what to do in Afghanistan to keep his left-wing base on board for health care reform.

LIMBAUGH: Well, it’s partly that, but I also don’t think he cares much about it. I think once…

WALLACE: Well, come on.

LIMBAUGH: No, I — no, see, this is — I know this is going to sound controversial, but I don’t think he cares that — if he –Chris, if he cared about — we’ve got soldiers and their families worrying about what we’re going to do. The general on the ground said we need some more troops.
The policy that he implemented in March he now doesn’t like and is trying to figure out how best to make everybody happy here politically on his side of the aisle and also for his image. Democrats have a tendency to be seen as weak on defense, so he’s battling with that.
But again, if he cared about victory — remember, he said about Afghanistan victory is not something he’s comfortable with, the concept. It reminds him of the Japanese surrendering on the USS Missouri. It made him very uncomfortable.
He wants to manage this rather than achieve victory. He says these things. I don’t know if people actually listen and have them register when he does.

WALLACE: But you say you don’t know that he really cares. Do you at least give him credit for going to Dover, Delaware to honor the remains of soldiers, dead soldiers, who came back from Afghanistan?

LIMBAUGH: You know, see, the politically correct thing to say here would be, Oh, yes, I am very impressed that President Obama decided to go show his concern for the remains, troops who’ve given their lives for freedom in this country.
It was a photo op. It was a photo op precisely because he’s having big-time trouble on this whole Afghanistan dithering situation. He found one family that would allow photos to be taken. None of the others did.
And of course, when you have a sycophantic media following you around, able to promote and amplify whatever you want, then he can create the impression that he has all this great concern, but the — Bush did this…

WALLACE: Well, no…

LIMBAUGH: … but no cameras.

WALLACE: I don’t know that he ever went to Dover, Delaware.

LIMBAUGH: No, he went to see the families.

WALLACE: Yes, he certainly went to see the families.

LIMBAUGH: But he didn’t make photo ops out of it. The…

WALLACE: Well, but the argument would be that it was political of Bush not to be seen with the coffins because he was trying to hide it, hide the cost of war from the American people.

LIMBAUGH: Well, I have the benefit of knowing George Bush a little bit, and I — I — I’ve seen him cry talking about missions that he’s ordered. I think he has a great, profound, deep respect for the families of all military personnel, and those who have died…

WALLACE: But I don’t disagree with that…

LIMBAUGH: … and I — he’s not going to use them.

WALLACE: But you don’t think that Barack Obama has a profound respect for our soldiers and the families that are giving the sacrifice?

LIMBAUGH: Chris, throughout the Iraq war, it was Barack Obama and the Democrat Party which actively sought the defeat of the U.S. military. They convened hearings and accused General Petraeus of lying. They said the surge would not work.
Harry Reid stands up, waves the white flag — this war is lost. Jack Murtha is out saying our Marines at Haditha are guilty of rape. John Kerry is accusing our Marines of committing terrorism acts by going into the homes of Iraqis at midnight in the dark terrorizing, looking for Al Qaida or whoever was there.
Yeah. I mean, look. I hate to be honest with you here, but I do question their commitment to national security. I question their commitment to the U.S. military. They’ll put their political survival and their political power being gained over anything else. They’ll use anybody and throw anybody away in order to achieve it.

WALLACE: You also say that the president should give the generals, the commanders on the ground, as many troops as they need to win.
But a staunch conservative like George Will says, Look, this –Afghanistan has been a dysfunctional country. It’s a corrupt country, and that we can beat the Taliban and beat Al Qaida without this huge commitment of new troops.

LIMBAUGH: Well, I don’t know that. I don’t — I don’t have the benefit of knowledge that George Will has, so I trust the experts, and to me they’re the people in the U.S. military.
But these are — these are — you know, the surge in Iraq — same thing. We went — it worked. The Democrats were the ones opposed to it. They said it would fail, it wouldn’t work. And by all measure it did.
Now the basic same theories are being suggested for Afghanistan and — I don’t know. The thing that bothers me about this is we’re there. You know, it’s — whether we should have gone or what we’ve done heretofore is now irrelevant. There’s only one thing to do, win. you know, what about Afghanistan? Easy. We win, they lose.

WALLACE: Let’s turn to health care reform.

LIMBAUGH: Yeah.

WALLACE: You have made no secret of the fact you oppose the public option, government-run health insurance to compete with private insurers. With tens of millions of Americans still uninsured, do you think that the government has any moral obligation to find some way to cover them?

LIMBAUGH: There is a way to insure the uninsured without doing any of what we’re doing. If that were the objective, then I’d be full for it.
This is not about insuring the uninsured. This is not about health care. This is about stealing one-sixth of the U.S. private sector and putting it under the control of federal government.
And when they get this health care bill, if they do, that’s the easiest, fastest way for them to be able to regulate every aspect of human behavior, because it will all have some related cost to health care — what you drive, what you eat, where you live, what you do.
And there’ll be penalties for violating regulations. It’s going to be the biggest snatch of freedom and liberty that has yet occurred in this country.

WALLACE: And in 30 seconds, how do you insure the insured without this big overhaul?

LIMBAUGH: Well, I’ve run the numbers, and the real number of uninsured that want insurance is 12 million. Take some of the unspent stimulus. We have 85 percent of the stimulus unspent. Take some of it. For 35 to $40 billion a year, you could insure those people, not $2 trillion, not 1.4 — if that’s the objective, do it now.

WALLACE: Do you think the individual mandate is constitutional? Do you think…

LIMBAUGH: No, I don’t think the…

WALLACE: … do you think the government has the right…

LIMBAUGH: No.

WALLACE: … to tell people, You’re going to get health insurance, and if you don’t get it, you’re going to pay a penalty?

LIMBAUGH: I do not think it’s constitutional. Chris, this — this is — these are dark days for the country. This is deadly serious stuff. This is a total attempt to remake the country as founded and constituted. And it — it worries me greatly.

WALLACE: We asked our viewers for some questions.

LIMBAUGH: I love Fox viewers. I love them.

WALLACE: Well, George Heplin (ph) sent this, If President Obama would agree to an interview, what would be your first question?

LIMBAUGH: Why are you doing this? Why? What in — what — what do you not like about this country that makes you want to inflict this kind of damage on it?

WALLACE: Lucille Golman sent this question, Did you vote for John McCain in the 2008 presidential election?

LIMBAUGH: I did.

WALLACE: Really?

LIMBAUGH: Of course.

WALLACE: But you’ve been so critical of John McCain.

LIMBAUGH: Yes, but you weigh the two. I don’t think — there are a lot of people, Chris, that are saying there’s no difference in two parties. I know a lot of people think that, and they’re — and they really, really believe it.
But I don’t know of any Republican who would try to take over one-sixth of the U.S. economy. I don’t know one Republican who would put forth this — this irresponsible cap and trade bill. I don’t know one Republican who would actually do that as something he initiated.

WALLACE: Let’s talk about the state of the GOP. A recent Fox News poll found that the approval rating for the president has dropped to 49 percent, but meanwhile, only 25 percent of people approve of congressional Republicans.
As voters have growing doubts about the president and his policies, why aren’t they turning to the opposition? Is there something that the — that the Republican Party lacks in the way of a positive, affirmative agenda?

LIMBAUGH: The Republican Party needs to learn something. If it goes country club blue-blood moderate, it’s going to lose. If it goes Reagan conservative and commits to it, it’s going to win landslides.

WALLACE: To press my question, why aren’t people turning to the Republicans?

LIMBAUGH: Well, right — right now there’s no central Republican leader to turn to, and there’s no central Republican message. The Republican messages is sort of muddied. What do they stand for? Right now it’s opposition to Obama.

WALLACE: And is that enough?

LIMBAUGH: Well, it may be in 2010. I mean, I — I actually do think that there’s going to be a revolt against the Democrat Party and against Obama, even if voters in 2010 have nothing to vote for.

WALLACE: So do you think that the Republican Party — do you see it as a big-tent party or small-tent party?

LIMBAUGH: Big tent.

WALLACE: But — but you sound like you’re kind of saying to the moderates, the — particularly on social issues, If we lose you, too bad.

LIMBAUGH: Well, I look at — when I say big tent, I look at the United States of America, so I — I — I’m an American. I love this country. I want everybody in it to do well.
The conservative message is not, OK, Hispanics, we have this plan for you. Women, we have this plan for you. That’s what the Republican Party’s trying to do, and emulate group politics. And the history is that — you know, why be Democrat lite? Let them handle that.
Let’s go after the big tent that is the country, and let’s go get every person in this country — I don’t care what their race is, what their gender is, what their sexual orientation.
If they are told that there is somebody that’s going to lead this country or party that is actually going to strengthen them, give them the tools, get out of their way and let them make this country work, the Republican Party can attract a majority like they haven’t seen since the ’80s.

WALLACE: In the Time Magazine article about Glenn Beck recently…

LIMBAUGH: Oh, yeah.

WALLACE: … they write just as you found your place as the triumphant champion of the age of Reagan, that Beck is tapping into the fear and anger on the right today.
Is that why you think he’s struck such a chord, because he taps into the fear and the anger of the conservatives today?

LIMBAUGH: There is a lot of fear. There’s a — there’s a tremendous amount of fear in the country over what is happening in Washington to individual liberty and freedom. He may well have tapped into that.
The anger — I think that’s — that’s sometimes overplayed, because it’s become a cliche for the left to say angry white men as a way of denigrating conservative energy and ideology. But there’s no question there’s a lot of anger. And if — and if he’s tapped into that, I wouldn’t be surprised.

WALLACE: When you look at Glenn Beck and you see this explosion, what do you feel?

LIMBAUGH: Well, I’m kind of — I’m kind of proud.

WALLACE: No envy, no competition?

LIMBAUGH: No, no, no, no, no. I mean, my radio audience is astronomically high. I’m — look it, in 1988 there was nobody doing what I’m doing. Nobody. You had — CNN was the only cable network, and you had the three networks and the newspapers.
And now look. Now look what’s out — all of this conservative media, conservative talk radio, television, Fox News, the conservative blogosphere. I mean, I — in one way, I could — I could — if I wanted to have my ego to be as big as Obama’s is, I could say, Look what I created.
So any success out there on my side, conservative media — damn, if it’s going to help us get this country back, bring more in.

WALLACE: Let’s talk about you. You said recently, I actually thank God for my addiction to pain pills because I learned more about myself in rehab than I would have ever learned otherwise. What did you learn from drug rehab?

LIMBAUGH: One of the — one of the things that I’d always had trouble with in my life was trying to be what other people expected me to be or wanted me to be, in my personal life, because I wanted to be liked.
And everybody’s raised to want to be liked and to want to be loved. Nobody wants to grow up being hated. Now, interestingly, my radio career — I don’t care. You know, I — I figured that out. It was a tough thing, Chris, to learn to take as a measure of success being hated, you know, by 20 or 30 percent of the country. I mean, that — because nobody’s raised for that.
But in my personal life, what I — the thing I learned most was that the only way to have real intimacy with people, real solid relationships, is to be who you are. That will attract the kind of people worthy of having intimate relationships with, good friendships with.

WALLACE: And without putting you on the couch, are you saying that the addiction came from some sense of personal inadequacy?

LIMBAUGH: Oh, of course. Yeah. It — I wasn’t good enough. I was masking unhappiness elsewhere, not dealing with the real reasons I was unhappy in my personal life. I had — I had never experienced the kind of euphoria that I got from a pain pill.
I think the only time that I really — with all the success I’ve had, the only time I’ve had the kind of euphoria is when I made the high school football team as a sophomore. I was never prouder of myself.
But all my career achievements did not create that for me, because it’s — you’ve got to maintain it every day. It’s not something you earn and that it lasts forever. And I don’t look back. I don’t stop and think about what I’ve accomplished because there’s always tomorrow, so I don’t have time for the euphoria. I don’t have time for that.
Man, am I — it’s — I’m too busy trying to meet everybody’s expectations tomorrow. So the pain pills came along and they masked all these feelings of inadequacy that I had. Now, after just seven weeks of this place in Arizona, I have zero feelings of inadequacy.
It has not been replaced by an irresponsible ego. It’s just a confidence in who I am.

WALLACE: You signed a new contract last year — eight years, reportedly $400 million.

LIMBAUGH: Reportedly, right.

WALLACE: So I’ll — I’ll go to the horse’s mouth. True?

LIMBAUGH: It could be true. You know, I’m a — a guy who earns a percentage of what I generate every year. There are some guarantees, but I’ll tell — the $400 million is not guaranteed. I have to earn that. So far…

WALLACE: But you could earn $400 million.

LIMBAUGH: I could. I’m ahead of schedule, in fact.

WALLACE: And don’t get me wrong.

LIMBAUGH: Right.

WALLACE: I think you’re a great broadcaster. How can you possibly be worth that kind of money?

LIMBAUGH: Very simply. Value is determined by what somebody will pay you to do what you do. I’m probably worth more. I’m not complaining. Do not — do not misunderstood.
But you know, this whole question — see, because I’m a capitalist. You’re worth whatever you can get. You’re worth whatever your value is, and that’s determined by what somebody’s willing to pay you for it.
And the only reason I get that money is because the people who invest in me get results beyond their expectations.

WALLACE: All right. You believe in the free market.

LIMBAUGH: I do.

WALLACE: Let’s talk about the NFL and the decision to drop you as a possible owner. What about the argument, Look, this is a bunch of billionaire owners sitting around and saying, ‘Rush Limbaugh isn’t good for business?’ Is that the free market?

LIMBAUGH: Yeah, but that didn’t happen. It never was allowed to get to that point. My name was leaked as being part of a group. Roger Goodell, the commissioner, goes out and cites a six-year-old quote from — that I made about Donovan McNabb, got it all wrong.
Jim Irsay of the — I call him hearsay because he’s repeating things that weren’t true — the owner of the Indianapolis Colts, joins the chorus. I never got — I never got past first base. I mean, we…

WALLACE: So what do you think that was about? What do you think happened?

LIMBAUGH: Well, I think it’s actually about the fact that the NFL is about to lose its current collective bargaining agreement with the players.
And guess who happens to be the new executive director of the players association? A guy named DeMaurice Smith, who is Obama. He’s part of his transition team. He has — he has suggested that the Congress, the White House, might get involved in stop a player-owner lockout.
So I — I think — and he got involved in this, too, you know. He was out participating in the spreading of quotes I didn’t say, warning Goodell and the owners what might — I think this was a warning shot across the bow, saying to the NFL, Look, we’re going to be close to running this league, not you. We don’t want this guy here.
And I think — I don’t — I don’t really take this personally, but I do think it was a bunch of cowardice all the way around.

WALLACE: Let’s do a lightning round — quick questions, quick answers.

LIMBAUGH: All right.

WALLACE: You started talking about Vice President Biden this week, and you said to your producers, Now, get the bleep button, because I may go over the line, and then you censored yourself. So I’ll ask you, what do you think of Joe Biden?

LIMBAUGH: Pompous, a bit of a windbag and wrong.

WALLACE: About?

LIMBAUGH: Pretty much everything. I mean, he was a guy in July who says, Well, we — we guessed wrong on the stimulus jobs. We guessed wrong. Anybody with a brain could have told you the stimulus plan wasn’t going to work. I mean, he’s a walking comedy of errors.

WALLACE: Sarah Palin — you say that you admire her backbone. Do you really think she’s ready to be president?

LIMBAUGH: Well, yes, I do. See, I am a — one thing I do not do is follow conventional wisdom, and the conventional wisdom of Sarah Palin is she’s not smart enough, she needs to bone up on the issues, she’s a little unsophisticated, she — Alaska, where’s that? — doesn’t have the pedigree.
I’ve seen — she’s the only thing that provided any kind of a spark for the Republican Party. This is not an endorsement, but I do have profound respect for Sarah Palin.
There are not very many politicians who have been through what she’s through — been put through and still able to smile and be ebullient and upbeat. I mean, this woman, I think, is pretty tough.

WALLACE: Finally, some politics. You predict a possible blood bath for Democrats in 2010.

LIMBAUGH: I really do. I know that there is an eruption waiting to happen at the ballot box. I know that a majority of the people in this country are opposed to every single major agenda item that Obama has proposed and is trying to get passed.
The mainstream media doesn’t do it, doesn’t know it. They think they need a visa to go to Missouri. You know, they — they’re not in touch with what’s happening out — and in fact, if they find out that there’s this kind of angst, they look at the voters with contempt –
Well, you’re not sophisticated to understand how brilliant Obama is and how magical his agenda — they don’t want any part of it.
And it’s going to be bigger than anybody thinks, especially –especially — if health care gets passed, and if they get cap and trade, and they start going down this global warming fiasco track and get something passed on that. There will be a revolt at the polls.

WALLACE: If you had to bet now, does Barack Obama win re- election in 2012?

LIMBAUGH: If I had to bet now, he will not.

WALLACE: Have you got a name of somebody who’s going to beat him…

LIMBAUGH: No.

WALLACE: … can beat him?

LIMBAUGH: No. I have no clue about that.

WALLACE: If he does win, how is Rush Limbaugh going to handle seven more years of Barack Obama?

LIMBAUGH: You know, I’m glad you asked me that, because one of the questions I always get is, Rush, isn’t Obama — aren’t these Democrats in power good for your business? The way I go about my business, I’m out to get the highest ratings I get every day.
I’m going to attract the largest audience I can regardless the news. It’s my — it’s my talent that draws the crowd. The news is incidental to it. No. I’m worried, seriously worried, about the future of the country.
I would never put my personal success in front of what I think is something that’s disastrous for the country.

WALLACE: And seven more years of Barack Obama would…

LIMBAUGH: Well, it would be painful. It would literally be painful. This is — every day you get up and there’s a new potential threat to liberty and freedom being launched by this man and his administration.
And it’s kind of — be — I mean, I — some days I’m in — I’m in radio and some days I feel like I’m in the trenches in a war — no bullets being fired, but trenches in a war. I mean, it’s really –it’s really intense when — you know, I love this country.
To have this kind of passion, and my — you know, I want — Paul Revere. I want as many people to hear what I think the problems are, because I believe the people of this country eventually will make it — make it work and get what they want. I do believe in the Democratic process and the vote.

WALLACE: Rush, thank you.

LIMBAUGH: Thank you, Chris.

LIMBAUGH: Look at 1988, there was nobody doing what I’m doing. Nobody. You had CNN was the only cable network and you had the three networks and the newspapers. And now, look, now look what’s out — all this conservative media. Conservative talk radio, television, Fox News, the conservative blogosphere. I mean, in one way, I could, if I wanted to have my ego be as big as Obama’s is, I could say, look what I created.

Instead of pushing back on Limbaugh’s description of Fox as ideologically conservative, Wallace moved on to the next question, saying, “let’s talk about you.” Watch it:

Reflecting the emerging stranglehold over the Republican Party that Limbaugh and Beck now exert, the new cover of The Weekly Standard identifies Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin as the faces of the GOP (see image to the right). Yesterday morning on C-Span, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich expressed concern with the cover:

Well, I just think it’s interesting that two of the three people on the cover are talk radio hosts — Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. And they’re fine people, and they have big audiences, and that’s terrific. But you have a party that has Gov. Haley Barbour, it has Gov. Mitch Daniels, it has Gov. Tim Pawlenty. [...] You know, you can have a very, very intense movement of 20 percent. You can’t govern. To govern, you got to get 50 percent plus one after the recount.

Watch it:

Gingrich has been taking heat from right-wing activists for endorsing the Republican candidate in New York’s upcoming 23rd congressional district race. The right-wing base — i.e. tea party activists — are rallying behind Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman, who has earned the endorsement of Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, and Michele Bachmann, among others.

Gingrich’s comments reflect an ongoing tension in the Republican Party between their tea party activist base and those who want to embrace more moderate candidates. After Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said he didn’t want to belong to shrinking party full of “angry white guys,” Beck shot back that he’s “going to stick with the angry people…because they’re only angry about you.”

On PBS last Friday, conservative commentator David Brooks said “the Republican Party has a terrible problem of who its spokespeople are.” He expressed concern the influence of Beck and Limbaugh is “part of a larger problem” that the GOP has.

On Fox News Sunday today, the “All-Stars” jumped to Limbaugh’s defense. NPR’s Juan Williams set up a false comparison, claiming that people don’t complain about MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann announcing football games even though he makes “divisive” statements about conservatives. The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol used the NFL player’s union’s opposition to Limbaugh to attack unions in general, saying “thank God most of the workforce isn’t unionized”:

KRISTOL: Thank God most of business isn’t a monopoly. Thank God most of the workforce isn’t unionized. Why could this happen? This could happen because all the NFL players are in one union. Because all the NFL owners are in one club and pressure can be put on them. Thank God there’s more diversity in this country in terms of different industries and different businesses. And people can be controversial and can still find places that are willing to have them.

Watch it:

Kristol’s attack on unionization ignores the fact that unions are good for the American economy since unions help workers secure higher wages and greater benefits. Additionally, the collective bargaining of unions give workers the ability to shape the conditions of their employment, as the NFL players union successfully demonstrated.

According to Dan Lebowitz, executive director of the Center for Sports and Society at Northeastern University, the NFL has 78 percent African-American players. Because the player’s union has leverage, that means the players won’t have to work for someone who said just two years ago, “the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”

LIMBAUGH: They [Democrats] have to have a villain to advance everything, because they cannot sell their ideas. They had to demonize me with false, fake, made up quotes. To protect their precious little — National Football League as an outpost of racism and liberalism, which is what it is.

Listen here:

But as Media Matters points out, NFL teams, owners, players and personnel gave overwhelmingly to GOP since 1989. Limbaugh fans are rallying behind him, with some proposing a boycott of the NFL. A RedState blogger strongly supported the hate radio host in a post titled “Tonight… We Are All Rush Limbaugh.”

[Checketts] realizes he must remove the controversial conservative radio host from his potential role as a minority member in the group in order to get approval from other NFL owners, the sources said.

Three-quarters of the league’s 32 owners would have to approve any sale to Limbaugh and his group. Earlier this week, Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay predicted that Limbaugh’s potential bid would be met by significant opposition. Several players have also voiced their displeasure with Limbaugh’s potential ownership position, and NFL Players Association head DeMaurice Smith, who is black, urged players to speak out against Limbaugh’s bid.

Limbaugh would not comment on Checkett’s reported move. However, on his radio show today, he remained defiant and defensive, saying criticism of his bid is “all about smearing mainstream, traditional conservatism” and accusing his critics of “spread[ing] lies.”

“I’ve said many times before, we’re all held to a high standard here,” Goodell said. Then he continued: “I would not want to see those comments coming from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL –- absolutely not.” [...]

“The comments Rush made specifically about Donovan, I disagree with very strongly,” Goodell said. “It’s a polarizing comment that we don’t think reflect accurately on the N.F.L. or our players. I obviously do not believe those comments are positive and they are divisive. That’s a negative thing for us, obviously.”

In 2003, ESPN fired Limbaugh for arguing that Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb was overrated within the sports press because the “media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.” In recent days, NFL players and the head of the union have also spoken out against the bid, and today, Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay said he would vote against Limbaugh, calling his past comments “inappropriate, incendiary and insensitive.”

- Ryan Watkins

GANGEL: Glenn Beck — do you worry about the new guy on the block?

RUSH LIMBAUGH: No. Look, in 1988, I’m the only national conservative voice. Now look at conservative media. Look what I have spawned. Glenn Beck to me is right on daddy-o. Glenn Beck is a result of my success.

Limbaugh’s attempt to take proud procreative ownership of Beck sickened MSNBC’s Donny Deutsch this morning. “What a megalomanic,” Deutsch said of Rush. “What a scary, distasteful human being he is.” Emphasizing that Beck and Limbaugh are in the business of “selling hate,” Deutsch observed, “Think about what I’ve spawned? Think about someone who even says that. Ick. Ick. Ick.” Watch it:

Well, Limbaugh certainly wants to act like he is a leader of the Party. Just a few moments later, NBC’s Jamie Gangel told Limbaugh that he has a propensity to “scare Republican politicians,” particularly RNC Chairman Michael Steele, who backtracked earlier this year after calling Rush an “entertainer.” Limbaugh responded by instructing the GOP chairman on what he should be doing:

GANGEL: GOP Party Chairman Michael Steele, at his peril, he criticized you. He said you were just an entertainer. And he said you were “incendiary” and “divisive.”

LIMBAUGH: That’s right.

GANGEL: You went after him. I’ve never seen anyone apologize quite so quickly.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you’d have to ask him why he apologized. But, the reason I went after him is not because he said those things about me. It’s because he’s off-message! Michael Steele should be out there raising money and planning more ways to get people to vote for Republicans.

Watch it:

Also in the interview, Limbaugh is asked whether he was moved in any way by the election of the first black President. “Yeah, but I got over it pretty quickly,” said Limbaugh, who declared his desire to see Obama “fail” even before he was inaugurated. Limbaugh said he predicted Obama’s election would “exacerbate racial problems — and it has.” Indeed, Rush has done his part to make sure of that.

I’ve spoken to the Commissioner [Roger Goodell] and I understand that this ownership consideration is in the early stages. But sport in America is at its best when it unifies, gives all of us reason to cheer, and when it transcends. Our sport does exactly that when it overcomes division and rejects discrimination and hatred. [...]

I have asked our players to embrace their roles not only in the game of football but also as players and partners in the business of the NFL,” said Smith in the e-mail. “They risk everything to play this game, they understand that risk and they live with that risk and its consequences for the rest of their life. We also know that there is an ugly part of history and we will not risk going backwards, giving up, giving in or lying down to it.

Our men are strong and proud sons, fathers, spouses and I am proud when they stand up, understand this is their profession and speak with candor and blunt honesty about how they feel.

In 2003, ESPN fired Limbaugh from Sunday NFL Countdown for saying that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb was overrated because the “media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.”

BECK: Of all things, the Nobel Peace Prize should be turned down by Barack Obama and given — you ready for this, oh this one’s going to make headlines — should be give to the Tea Party goers and the 9-12 Project. … Because of the arrogance of the progressives that thought no one would stand in their way. That he would be able to accomplish everything. Two weeks into his presidency, they nominated him for it and said, “oh this is going to be a slam dunk.” Because of the Tea Party goers and the 9-12 Project people that stood in his way and stopped him from accomplishing the things that he thought, “please, I’m the Messiah, I’ll be able to accomplish that.”

Listen here:

Beck’s radio rival, Rush Limbaugh, was more caustic, telling Newsweek, “The Nobel gang just suicide bombed themselves. Gore, Carter, Obama, soon Bill Clinton. See a pattern here? They are all leftist sell-outs.

Now, the players themselves are piling on. Specifically, many African-American players have explicitly stated that they would never play for a team that Rush Limbaugh owns. “All I know is from the last comment I heard, he said in (President) Obama’s America, white kids are getting beat up on the bus while black kids are chanting ‘right on,’” New York Giants defensive end Mathias Kiwanuka told the New York Daily News, adding, “I don’t want anything to do with a team that he has any part of.” Other black players expressed similar sentiments:

[New York Jets linebacker Bart] Scott says players remember what Limbaugh said [about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donavan McNabb], and adds that the NFL would be wise not to allow the nationally syndicated host into the league.

“It’s an oxymoron that he criticized Donovan McNabb,” Scott said. “A lot of us took it as more of a racial-type thing. I can only imagine how his players would feel. I know I wouldn’t want to play for him. He’s a jerk. He’s an —. What he said (about McNabb) was inappropriate and insensitive, totally off-base. He could offer me whatever he wanted, I wouldn’t play for him. … I wouldn’t play for Rush Limbaugh. My principles are greater and I can’t be bought.”

Indeed, as CNN reported at the time, ESPN fired Limbaugh from Sunday NFL Countdown for “his statement that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb was overrated because the media wanted to see a black quarterback succeed.” But, of course, Limbaugh has a long sordid history with making racist remarks. Some of his more recent lowlights:

– “Look, let me put it to you this way: The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”

– “We need segregated buses. … This is Obama’s America.”

– “President Obama is black. And I think he’s got a chip on his shoulder.”

– Democrats are interested in Darfur to secure black “voting bloc.”

– “Minorities never do anything for which they have to apologize.”

– Obama’s nomination for president “goes back to the fact that nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy.”

– Obama is a “halfrican-American.”

Advising the NFL to block Limbaugh’s pursuit of an NFL franchise, St. Louis Dispatch sports columnist Bryan Burwell wrote recently, “Dancing with Limbaugh is like dancing with a snake. Eventually, the snake will bite you. That’s his nature.”

Limbaugh will be one of a panel of seven distinguished judges that will help decide which of the 53 contestants will capture the Miss America 2010 title and serve as the Goodwill Ambassador for the Children’s Miracle Network, as well as introduce the first Go Green platform for MAO. [...]

“We are thrilled to have Rush join us for our pageant this year,” said MAO President and CEO, Art McMaster. “He will bring a thrilling new dimension to the competition and we know that the 2010 Miss America Pageant will be filled with new twists and exciting opportunities with him as one of our national judges.”

It’s odd that Limbaugh will take part in choosing someone who will ultimately help the MAO “Go Green,” considering that he is a staunch anti-environmentalist. But the MAO’s choice is most shocking because of his fairly solid history of making sexist remarks. He has once said that women love Hillary Clinton because they’ve “had two or three abortions,” that women “live longer than men because their lives are easier,” and that all women want is to be hired as “eye candy.” Limbaugh also regularly rails against feminism, the “feminization of this culture,” “feminazis,” and the “chickification” of America. Unsurprisingly, women don’t like Rush Limbaugh. One wonders what MAO President Art McCaster is so “thrilled” about.

KING: Would you want the Limbaugh, that crowd — would you want them to be your voice as the Republican Party stands in this country?

BACHMANN: Well remember it’s who the American people are referring to Larry. And the American people are looking to voices like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck –

KING: I just told you — it’s 2 percent of America. It’s 2 percent!

BACHMANN: If you look for a critical mass, that’s the movement, that’s the direction that the critical mass is going. And the American people are very smart people.

Watch it:

Bachmann’s answer got a chuckle out of Larry King. “That’s funny,” he said.

IMUS: So you’re on the cover of Time magazine, your book’s number one I’ve noticed this week.

BECK: Yeah. It’s gone well.

IMUS: Sean Hannity, Rush, they both hate you.

Beck: No. No, they don’t.

IMUS: They all hate you.

BECK: No they don’t, no they don’t. Why must you stir up the hate?

IMUS: You’re telling me Rush is happy you’re on the cover of Time?

BECK: Yeah, I actually got a note from Rush.

IMUS: What did Rush say?

BECK: “I hate you.” (LAUGHTER) No, you know what? Rush has been really very gracious. The whole time, he has. He really has.

Watch it:

While Imus was mostly joking, there have been disagreements on the right over how much prominence Beck should have. Last month, Limbaugh said that he found attempts to “rally people” — like Beck and his 9/12 Project do — “cheap and disingenuous“:

“I don’t rally people and haven’t since the first year of my radio show,” he wrote to POLITICO. “At that time, all local talk hosts were attempting to prove their worth by getting people to cut up gasoline credit cards, call Washington, etc. I thought it was cheap and disingenuous. The few times I did, early on, suggest people call Washington, the reaction to it from the media was that the response was not genuine (I shut down the House switchboard) because people only did what they did because ‘Limbaugh told them to.’”

Beck’s recent suggestion that “John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama” created a surge of anger to from conservatives, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and radio host Mark Levin. Former Bush administration officials Peter Wehner and David Frum have also lamented the influence Beck is having on the conservative movement.

The conservative movement may have to deal with a lot longer if some of his fans have their way. At a book signing in Worcester, MA this weekend, 500 people lined up in the rain to see the Fox News personality. When he arrived and greeted the crowd, one man yelled out, “Glenn Beck for president!”