The subtle bipartisanship of Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh takes to the pages of this morning's Wall Street Journal in praise of what might some dittoheads might consider an unfamiliar notion: Bipartisanship. According to Rush, the stimulus bill didn't have enough of it:

Yes, elections have consequences. But where's the bipartisanship, Mr. Obama? This does not have to be a divisive issue. My proposal is a genuine compromise.

Rush then goes on to detail his amazingly wacky proposal -- namely, dividing the spending in the congressional bill based on the percentage of the presidential vote that each party won. Under Rush's plan, 54 percent of the stimulus money would go to "infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats." (Sounds fair.) And the rest of the money would go to a series of extreme tax cuts determined by ... Rush Limbaugh. Democracy lives to fight another day.


Presented by

Conor Clarke is the editor, with Michael Kinsley, of Creative Capitalism. He was previously a fellow at The Atlantic and an editor at The Guardian. More

Conor Clarke is the editor, with Michael Kinsley, of Creative Capitalism, an economics blog that was recently published in book form by Simon and Schuster. He was previously a fellow at The Atlantic and an editor at The Guardian. He is also on Twitter.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register with Disqus.

Please note that The Atlantic's account system is separate from our commenting system. To log in or register with The Atlantic, use the Sign In button at the top of every page.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

A Stop-Motion Tour of New York City

A filmmaker animated hundreds of still photographs to create this Big Apple flip book

Video

The Absurd Psychology of Restaurant Menus

Would people eat healthier if celery was called "cool celery?"

Video

This Japanese Inn Has Been Open For 1,300 Years

It's one of the oldest family businesses in the world.

Video

What Happens Inside a Dying Mind?

Science cannot fully explain near-death experiences.

More in Politics

Just In