Powered by TypePad

« Right, Because The Markets Would Benefit From Confusion And Uncertainty... | Main | It's Been A Long Six Weeks For All Of Us »

March 07, 2009

Comments

bolitha

First of all, I think the MSM has mislead as to what Rush said. AND, I think it is quite fooish of the White House to continue with this silliness. Rush, of course, loves it and is now challenging Obama to a debate??? Wonders never cease. I really think our president, no matter who he/she is, should NOT engage in the politics of personal destruction. As for me, I am getting a little tired of all the bruhaha.

SunnyDay

It's a diversion. People should refuse to take the bait.

centralcal

Well, I for one want Obama to fail at implementing his policies that would change this country into a socialist state.

Maybe there is some say to say this that is politically correct, but I am tired of PC language.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

Would the Great Commuicator present his ideas in a way intended to antagonize and provoke, or in a way that would enlist the sympathy and understanding of the great unconvinced?

I guess we're supposed to assume the latter, but "We start bombing in five minutes", "the evil Empire" and "the Soviet Union is the focus of evil in the modern world" raise the possibility that a great communicator may use both methods at times.

BTW, I'm kind of at a loss at what the difference is between what Patterico thinks Rush should have said and what he did say.

PeterUK

Quite simply,if Obama wins America will have lost,just as England lost when Tony Bliar won.

Nations can never win when iconoclastic socialist gain control.The titanic conflicts of the twentieth century were over which version of socialism prevailed.

boris

what would Reagan do?

In what capacity? President like Obama? Did Reagan ever go after his media detractors? No. Did Reagan ever use provacative rhetoric? Yes. Therefore it must be true that Reagan never used provacative rhetoric against domestic media critics.

Not sure how to apply the "Reagan standard" here.

Pofarmer

Well, we also have to be prepared to go to war with the conservatives we have. Conservatives need to quit undercutting and backbiting one another in the public square.

BobS

TM: Rush should only be considered and utilized as an asset. To think otherwise weaknens the goals of conservatism.

boris

Yesterday I commented:

Obama is NOT going to fail to advance his domestic agenda. That is going forward and nothing is going to stop it. “Hoping” for it to stop is not realistic. Period.

The pain and suffering that results from that agenda may anger American voters to remove Obama’s domestic power base in the 2010 congress elections. That should halt the damage, stop the bleeding. So if I want that to happen I must be hoping for Americans to experience sufficient pain and suffering to turn congress Republican like 1994.

In that sense I want Obama to fail. I want Americans to suffer.

Dunno if Patterico saw that (here or at HotAir) but he posted something similar and assumed that Rush probably wasn't saying that because while it may be defensible it would not be sensible to defend to the public.

Perhaps, but I think that is the problem some have with the Rush statement. It is fine and okay for dimorats to hope for, vote for and falsely claim "failure in Iraq" but we Republicans are supposed to be too prissy to speak without walking on eggshells.

Seems to me if that were a winning strategery Mr McCain would be our current prez.

Another Bob

In fairness to Goldstein, his point is a little larger, and happens to fold into one of his areas of expertise. Said point being that the left has been allowed to redefine anything the right says.

Patterico says 'use terms that can't be redefined', JeffG says (my paraphrase) 'that's debating on their terms, %*$&% that, lets call liars liars'.

We've seen distinct changes in media and the rise of the blogosphere since Reagan, so I'm not sure the comparisons are apt anymore. I'm tending to Goldstein's take on it.

bad

I love our assignment to compare Reagan, a president, to Rush, a radio personality.

Only in America.... Next up

Phil Donahue vs Jimmy Carter

clarice

At what point does demanding that one's allies maintain spotlessly clean togas, leave us all at the mercy of the wolves ?


Rush did formulate it in a deliberately provocative way to catch the listener's attention,and then fully explained it was Obama's policies he hoped would fail.

The media misrepresented what he said,deliberately taking it out of context..

The WH used that misrepresentation to demonize him.

OTOH, Lefty spokesmen used a similar formulaation or worse..were not misrepresented by the MSM, but their provocative, false and polarizing words were never reported by the MSM or used by the Bush administration to demonize its opponents.

Jim Ryan

Rush presented his ideas "in a way intended to antagonize and provoke" hard lefties only. The undecided who listen to his show could not reasonably have misunderstood or taken offense because his meaning was clear. For Rush to apologize would be for him to cede semantic ground to the hard lefties who steal acres of it every day.

How the ceding works: Undecideds who don't hear Rush's show hear about his "remarks" from Katie over breakfast or from the teleprompter Jesus with the semantic acreage already stolen. Backed into a corner, the conservative is asked to kowtow and apologize for not ceding enough acreage. If he has good instincts, like Rush and Jeff, he doesn't cede or apologize. If he's resentful and intimidated, he apologizes to make everything all better, like when you try to be nice to the bully because you're angry and scared.

"Niggardly", anyone? Anybody?

If the question is, Wouldn't Reagan have explained himself in a way that the MSM couldn't spin faster than an elementary particle in a physics lab, the answer is no. No human being can do that. To require that Rush cede ground is to accept the leftist standard that only if the conservative does something semantically impossible will his remarks be acceptable.

Never give in to the wicked. Check your gut.

Caro

I agree with Jeff.

Yeah. They could have gone with “I want Obama”. So? You are on the wrong side. You shouldn’t be concerning yourself with how easy it is to twist things. You should be working to make it less productive to do so.

E. Nigma

I think it would be instructive to see what Reagan did.
Look up "A Time for Choosing", a speech given by Reagan in 1964 during the Goldwater Campaign against LBJ.

Conservatism is something of a philosophical viewpoint. Republican is a political party. Not all "conservatives" are Republicans, and not all Republicans are conservatives (see Specter, Arlen, and Snow, Olympia). And some Republicans are selectively conservative on issues of their choosing. That is, they do it cafeteria style (see Bush, George W., and McCain, John S.).

Any vote or political choice is a compromise. Democracies are made up of compromises, left and right. We are not going to get some "pure" conservative to win against the Democrats and Obama. There ain't no such animal out there.

boris

Oh BTW just to be clear: I have no problem with dimorats saying they hope for, vote for and falsely claim "failure in Iraq" ... hell no ... My only problem is them wanting "failure in Iraq".

Comparable ??? Consider the results ...

(1) Failure in Iraq = Country (Iraq) taken over by Terrorists

(2) Failure of Obama = Country (USA) remains market economy

MayBee

MSNBC has covered this Rush kerfluffle more than they covered the Mumbai terrorist attacks. So I think that says all you need to know about all of it.

Although I have to say, catching Keith Olbermann rant about the horrors of Rush saying "I hope he fails" was one of the highlights of my week.
Truly, the world is upside down.

Rick Ballard

Another Bob,

Good point. Patterico hangs his rather shabby hat on a false understanding of the prog misuse of language. There are no "terms that can't be redefined". Goldstein has a much better (and deeper) understanding of the abuse of language committed by leftists in the pursuit of "progress".

I hope the commie bastard fails to get out of bed.

I could slide over to the Straussian "necessary lie" which got both Cantor and Steele in a little hot water but I'm not a pol, so there is no particular reason to do so.

I've said that I'd like to see Rush draw 30 million but that was before I saw the one week jump to 25 million based upon the Democrat tactical error. Now I'm hoping for 35-40 million. He has a much better chance picking off the midgets on Shetland ponies of the Moronic Muddle than do the "dueling sophists" such as Patterico.

narciso

Mr. Frey, seems to have forgotten everything
about the last six years of covering the L.A. Times, and particularly the last year. I don't know how can it really be done, they lie without consequence, with without restraint, they obscure whole areas of
inquiry like cap n' trade, and it's deleterious effects on the entire economy.

They were rooting for the deaths of our soldiers, at least these last few years, if not from the beginning. They have contempt for words like 'honor, code, country, or God' They put before us a charlatan, a product of an urban machine, and they gild him with the sheen of a reformer. They take a true reformer and they bury her in mud, and other natural effluvium. They try to convince us that the bureaucratic borne disaster of Katrina, for which they were most at fault, happened in a narrow span of days, instead of a long bitter hellish month or two. No lie is too base for them not to try. Rush gave hell of a speech, the kind we should have heard six weeks ago, and
frankly we hopefully wil hear four years from now.

DebinNC

I love Rush. We now know the WH plumbers were coming after him as soon as a twistable quote appeared. Could they have picked an easier one to refute and turn against them? I don't think so. We're going to see a lot more "I am Spartacus Santelli" reenactments. When you lose Whoopie...

Jane

Isn't getting stuck on this playing into the left's hands?

~Walk on by~

MayBee

Bingo, Jane.

SunnyDay

Amen, Jane.

Oldtimer

Personally, I'm thrilled that Rush Limbaugh never backs down...he stares the wolf in the eye and calls him a wolf. I believe Rush intended to plant the seed of truth when he uttered the "blasphemous" words - "I want Obama to fail!" - fully aware that as the months wear on and Obama's omnipresent face, his droning mantras, the continual avalanche of lost jobs and our staggering economy are impossible to escape, millions of people (who don't even listen to his program) are going to wish the same thing and remember Rush's outcry.

Limbaugh's statement could become fashionably acceptable, even by those who voted for the One but won't publicly admit it.

boris

Isn't getting stuck on this playing into the left's hands?

And the quickest way to end the argument is to lose it.

Jane

And the quickest way to end the argument is to lose it.

What's to lose? Anyone paying attention knows what Rush meant and anyone not paying attention doesn't care.

I inquire everywhere if people are seeing Obama supporters getting nervous. I'm finally hearing more "yesses" than "nos".

The next question is: "Is he doing this on purpose or because he is incompetent?" That's where the dialogue should be going, IMO.

DebinNC

This morning I watched a David Letterman monologue from earlier in the week. After bombing with a couple of Cheney jokes, he tried a couple about Rush which fared even worse.. even with Dave laughing, moving toward the crowd, and animatedly clapping to get a response. The biggest laugh by far came with a joke about the $112M NJ lottery winners who "after BO's tax plan will have just about enough to buy another lottery ticket". I was surprised.

kim

The easiest and most constructive spin on this is to ask: "Why does Obama want to fail?"
=====================================

boris

I mean really ...

If some conservatives who happen to be Republican stand up (to dimorats and MSM) for Ruah AND what he said ... then some Republicans who happen to be averse to controversy go after the defenders ... on what basis? oh yeah the defenders and/or Rush are causing the rift ???

C'mon ...

If you really wanted unity you would be able to set aside your personal aversion based on the fact that Rush's comment is defensible regardless of whether you consider it immoderate ... and help win this argument (or at least ignore it). Otherwise you're really just coming up with another excuse why it sux to be associated with angry strident conservatives.

kim

And I agree with Jane at 12:10, because even we can't settle that question, and it is the $64 Trillion Dollar one.
=======================================

Ranger

I am very sure Rush knew exactly what he was doing when he said very clearly, and repeatedly, that "I want him to fail." He knew exactly how the MSM would play it, and I am sure he hoped the White House would be dumb enough to engage him on it.

Now, over the next 4 years Rush can point out all the people who have come to agree with him, like Jim Cramer. There is no way you can read what Cramer wrote about being ready to speak out against Obama's radical policies and not conclude that he now wants Obama to fail as well.

kim

Something like this. It seems, with his proposed solutions, that Obama is leading us into failure. Is it because he wants to fail or because he can't help it?

This puts the focus on his inadequate responses, and plants a seed of doubt as to his intentions.

As his plans fail, this sort of question is going to come to more and more people. Particularly in the context that everyone expected him to want to improve things, when he doesn't do that, and his flim-flammery becomes more and more evident, this is the way dialogue will progress. I don't really see MSM being able to stop those sorts of questions from bubbling to the surface of the polity.
======================================

MikeS

I think that how you say something is sometimes even more important than what you say.

Imagine yourself in an airliner at 30,000 feet gazing out at the beauty of mid-America below. The passenger next to you remarks, "Isn't God great?"
Under the same circumstances you might react differently, if your fellow passenger stands up and shouts, "Allahu akbar!"

I don't understand why Michael Steele was so inflammatory. It was as though he wanted to create his own Sister Soulja moment, with Rush playing her part. Couldn't he just have said, "I love Rush, but I don't agree with everything he says."

I wish Rush would stop making statements that divert attention away from the seeming incompetence and deception of the Administration. On the other hand, I would fight for his right to say whatever he wants.

kim

Yes, incompetence and deception of this administration. It's not really one or the other, it's both together. Not only are they incompetent, but they are crooks, and it cannot be distinguised whether they are messing up on purpose or not.
=========================================

bad

I don't understand why Michael Steele was so inflammatory.

I do. As soon as a Republican becomes prominent and in the public eye, they MUST demonstrate they aren't REALLY a republican. And they prceed to cannabalize fellow republicans.

Dumb asses...

Soylent Red

Check your gut.

Roger that.

A few points to consider:

1. Liberals hate us and do not have out best interests at heart. Yes, hate us. Not pity us, or have concern for us. Because we represent everything they stand against. We cling to guns and religion and don't like abortion and vote for snowbillies and warmongers. Hate us.

2. Liberals would like to silence Rush because he is the kind of conservative they hate the most: an effective one. With 20-25 million listeners daily, and growing, Rush is hardly

3. When liberals are whining about Rush saying he wants Barry to fail, it is not because they are particularly worried about the words, but rather, that someone, anyone, and particularly that one would challenge their moral and intellectual right to power.

4. The Left needs to demonize him in order to reduce his relevance. They need to "scare" people into being afraid of being thrown in with the evil Limbaugh. Limbaugh has to be branded and "enemy of the people".

5. Conservatives, so called, who don't like effective voices distributing conservative principles to the masses, or who assist in demonizing or making irrelevant a leading voice of conservatism (did I mention 20-25 million listeners?) are not conservatives. They are cowards and quislings of the Left. Vichy Republicans.

5. Finally, if you believe in conservatism any further than as a purely political strategy, you will trust in its inherent ability to work and to sell itself. With the daily stumbling and bumbling of Obama, the increased threat from serious enemies bent on our destruction, and the certain collapse of the economy, the message itself is what will return us to prominence. Rush's organization and notoriety will cause ever more people to tune in to hear what that crazy bastard will say next. While waiting for the hate and outrage they have been told to expect, they will find a regular guy who says things that sound, strangely, like what they believe.

So let's stop all this navel gazing and hand-wringing and start having the real conversations about platform and control of the party itself. Let's start holding Steele's feet to the fire and building grassroots organizations. This is all a...ahem, distraction.

Amused bystander

Soylent: Hear, hear.

 Ann

Just goes to show you that the best and brightest are in the U.S. military.

PeterUK

"The easiest and most constructive spin on this is to ask: "Why does Obama want to fail?"

Because he doesn't want to mar a lifetimes record of outstanding unachievement.

SunnyDay

What Soylent said!!!!!

PJK

When I referred friends/relatives to a recent comment of Limbough, I was struck by the loathing and (I think) fear the man arouses in many liberals. I think that's because he demonizes his opponents & expresses his contempt for them-- and they respond in kind.
A political party (like Republicans) must try to win over people, especially in the US, a 2-party country-- it's "us or them", and our situation is hopeless if we are seen as contemptous of "them". Think of a hot argument about politics or religion in which you let your repugnance at a friend's position come across as lack of respect for him or her-- a good way to end a friendship. Even when your arguments are better, it will be "convince a man against his will, and he's of the same opinion still."
And that's why the Republican party must not let Rush be considered its spokesman-- if it ever hopes to regain majority status.

hit and run

Hell, I was going to say it's a good thing that I didn't say what I really hoped for Obama...with the intent of keeping it to myself, but then Rick came up with this...

I hope the commie bastard fails to get out of bed.

And despite my best efforts at self-control, there I go quoting him.

If the urge to quote him again hits later, I won't pretend that it will be easy to resist then either.

Sue

They need to "scare" people into being afraid of being thrown in with the evil Limbaugh.

Well, it backfired. I am more "thrown in with the evil Limbaugh" than I ever was when Bush was president.

Sue

You know, the left puts forth Al Gore who screams at the top of his lungs "he bretrayed our country, he played on our fears" and makes him a keynote speaker at their convention. ::sigh:: I have no desire for Rush to back down.

Sue
And that's why the Republican party must not let Rush be considered its spokesman-- if it ever hopes to regain majority status.

Yeah, it worked much better with a moderate like McCain. We got that squishy middle just loving us to death. 4 years of the left demonizing Bush with no backlash for it from the media or republicans gave us a democratic majority and Obama.

Fran G

Reagan was able to speak over the media to the American people about conservative principals. Rush is trying to tell GOP leaders same. They are afraid to do that now which is not good. Libs and the media have GOP on defense, they need to take offense. How about talking energy policy before oil goes back up. Creating jobs building nuclear plants and drilling.Libs will say no and when oil goes back up,which it will, we have winning hand to play.

Jane

I have no desire for Rush to back down.

Me neither.

I'm telling ya - it's all part of the plan:

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

So what about that Paul Begala?

Jim Ryan

Kim, O doesn't have the brains and knowledge sufficient to understand that what he's doing could ruin this country. So, it's not on purpose.

He has the liberal fascist vision and is pushing all sorts of buttons to try to get there. He doesn't know that these are autodestruct buttons. He doesn't know that there is no way to get there.

O could be a bit Manchurian, with his handlers being long dead by now. They had the brains to understand that pushing these buttons would destroy us. They may have exploited his psychological vulnerabilities in order to implant the liberal fascist monomania. But he has no more comprehension than Raymond Shaw or Johnny Iselin.

You have on the one hand Mrs. Iselin, Lenin, Stalin, Alinsky, Frank Marshall Davis - these people had brains and knew what they were doing. On the other, you have the puppetmasters' useful idiots and prey, such as O. And it doesn't matter whether the puppetmasters are long dead if the instructions have already been given.

SunnyDay

Michael Reagan on the Rush bruhaha

Rick has a way with words, doesn't he? I love it!

matt

Since our unofficial company motto has been "death to our enemies. We will drink from their skulls", I really don't have a problem with Limbaugh's comments, but that's just me. After 6 weeks of this administration and the criminally negligent reporting thereon, Limbaugh has clarified and refined many of the same concerns many of us have. It is now for those in "leadership" positions to refine those arguments into a persuasive whole.

That the democrats are controlling the high ground on the message is deeply insulting. They have always played far better in gutter politics than the Republicans. The republicans need more Dennis Millers to make the point that the emperor has no clothes. Otherwise Obama is going to run his shell game until we are in fact a socialist society.

This is a fundamental usurpation of the core values of the Constitution. After the Bush era "intrusions" (mainly potential) on civil rights because of 9-11, a party as bent on power as the Democrats under Reid and Pelosi can and may well try to use these same powers to silence their opposition.

Limbaugh is correct. This is an elemental fight for the soul of the country, and only by using every tool available to the best of our abilities do we have a chance of success.

MikeS

...when oil goes back up,which it will, we have winning hand to play.

True, but if a Republican wants to be listened to, he should install solar panels and a wind turbine on his/her roof now. Two yeas from now they can stand on their roof and say this (wind and solar) isn't enough!

Rick Ballard

Sue,

How would you tune the message to move the Moronic Muddle?

I lean towards a focus on the facts raised by Ranger the other evening. "He stole from the poor in Chicago to pay back the slumlords and he's stealing from every American to pay back the socialist billionaires who own him. That's your money he's throwing away and you'll never see it again."

Then segue into "Obama is going to double your power bill. Can you afford to pay twice as much to heat or cool your home? Can you afford $4 gas?"

Then finish with the Dem 'Kill Granny' health care plan.

I am wholly uninterested in trying to educate the Moronic Muddle regarding conservative principles. I think of it as prepping fence posts for the SAT exam.

Neo

The circus has come to town .. or is it to the arena ?

The whole Limbaugh thing is great political theater, but it has virtually nothing to do with anything.

I suggest that Democrats hate the guy .. he loves it when they do.

I also hope that the White House obsesses over the guy .. it’s like when Congress is in recess and the stock market goes up in relief.

Bring on the Lions and the Christians …

Soylent Red

I think you may be right Jim.

Where Carter was just intellectually wrong, and Clinton was good naturedly corrupt, Obama is both intellectually wrong and corrupt, without the underlying consciousness of his actions.

Obama is operating on what he has been trained to believe is the right and just course. I don't think he has put forth any thought as to whether or not what he is doing will work or not, just that he knows and feels it is the "right" thing to do. He's been psychologically conditioned to where his default setting for every situation is leftist statism. It's like every problem triggers his "Wouldn't you like to play a game of Solitaire?" response.

Honestly, I don't believe Obama has the intellectual Kelvins to be truly evil. He desires affirmation and affection too much. I think the most evil he could aspire to is to accidentally, and ideologically, set in motion the kind of banal day-to-day evil typical of totalitarian crony kleptocracy. The effect is the same, however, whether there is intent or not.

PD

Jane asks "What's to lose?" by letting this issue go. That's a fair question. I'd say one thing we lose, now that the Administration itself is involved with attempting to marginalize/demonize Rush, is the opportunity to focus people's attention on just how childish, petty, and deceptive Obama and his staff are:

childish: Can't take a little criticism, Mr. President? You have to single out a private citizen?
petty: With the economy in the state it is in, your staff has time to focus on an issue like what a talk show host has to say?
deceptive: The WH is fundamentally misrepresenting what Rush meant. This can't be stressed enough. They are LYING to diminish a U.S. citizen. And this wouldn't be happening if Obama himself did not approve of it.

That last point is what really frosts me. It's one thing for we citizens to respect the president because of the office he occupies. But the current occupant himself does not respect the office, and this is clear from the way he treats it. I, like Rush, want his policies to fail. But further, I want Obama to fail personally because of his shoddy and disreputable treatment of the office. I want him driven from office in disgrace.

bgates

I was struck by the loathing and (I think) fear the man arouses in many liberals.

Yet you don't think their situation is hopeless if they are seen as contemptuous of us.

Maybe it's because politics had been a Garden of Eden, an eternal honeymoon, universal love and brotherhood until Rush Limbaugh got a radio program:
I think that's because he demonizes his opponents & expresses his contempt for them-- and they respond in kind.

Yes, that's how it happened. Remember the good old days, when Johnson ran ads saying a vote for Goldwater was a vote for nuclear war and killing little girls, when the communist sympathizers who now run the Democratic party called Johnson and the entire military baby-killers? It's a pity we've lost that sense of unity in the country, isn't it?

wilky

Ranger, I'd like to read those comments by Cramer. He said on his show Weds. (3/5) that he thinks Obamas polices are the right ones, but the timing is not right.

Soylent Red

I want him driven from office in disgrace.

Preferably on Rail Force 1, in a snappy new suit of tar and feathers.

This is easy. You don't convert more people to Christianity by laying off that whole "Jesus bit". Because, by doing that, what you are converting people to is fundamentally not Christianity.

Moderating and changing conservatism (Crunchy Conservatism, for example) may gain adherents but it is not fundamentally conservatism.

Conservatism is a set of core beliefs that don't change based on political expediency or popularity. They are what they are. Telling people conservatism is something else, what they want to hear, is fundamentally a lie.

The argument is what those core beliefs are, and how they manifest themselves into big picture platform planks. That is the only conversation worthy of engaging in right now, and it is what Rush does nearly every day.

bgates

I'd say one thing we lose, now that the Administration itself is involved with attempting to marginalize/demonize Rush, is the opportunity to focus people's attention on just how childish, petty, and deceptive Obama and his staff are

Oh, you'll get more opportunities to show how disgracefully petty and vindictive Obama is:
Today I received a letter from the IRS that my 2007 tax returns are being audited. Less than one month after launching TaxCheatStamps.com.

Ranger

Meanwhile, Obama and Company are facing some tough times. Drudge is running two stories without links yet. One says that Obama is throwing Holder under the bus over his "Nation of cowards" remark (it must not have polled well). The second says that Obama can not promise the economy will recover by the end of the year (which means he is admitting his entire budget projection is BS), and begging Americans not to 'stuff money in mattresses' (someone must have explained to him how the capital markets really work). Oh, and Ras has his approval dynamic down to +8 today.

Sue

Republicans are their own worst enemy. Look how we handled Trent Lott, and believe me, I don't want to defend Trent Lott, but he says something nice about an old man and we jump on board the demcoratic band wagon to tar and feather him while Obama sits in a congregation for 20 years and really never heard anything. Or Tom Delay, who did nothing illegal, apparently, unlike Rangel, Jefferson, Daschle, Turbo Timmy, and other democrats. What good does it do Republicans when we don't fight for our own? Surely Lott, Delay and Limbaugh aren't as sleezy as Rangel, Jefferson, Turbo Timmy and others.

I am ready to fight with Limbaugh not against him.

Sue

Rick,

How would you tune the message to move the Moronic Muddle?

First, I don't confine the definition of moronic to the middle. Morons inhabit the left, right and middle. The squishy middle I refer to is those that go with the flow. More sheeple than moronic. Though moronic is what I think of sheeple, so you may have a point which I am fast getting to, I promise. I don't think we do anything to get the middle. We get the base back and the middle will follow. JMO, of course.

Soylent Red

The second says that Obama can not promise the economy will recover by the end of the year (which means he is admitting his entire budget projection is BS)

Correct me if my understanding is flawed...

Doesn't Keynesian economics suggest that the infusion of money into the economy have nearly instantaneous effects?

Barry must have been cutting class, smoking weed, and studying Marx when they were teaching that in Economics 101.

Ranger

Ranger, I'd like to read those comments by Cramer. He said on his show Weds. (3/5) that he thinks Obamas polices are the right ones, but the timing is not right.

Posted by: wilky | March 07, 2009 at 02:18 PM

Its actually in the same commentary. Cramer does say he likes the policy ideas, if we had the money to pay for them. But, since we don't they are radical and destructive and shouldn't be attempted until we have the money to pay for them. In that regard, he hasn't changed his "progressive" stripes, he just realizes that attempting this stuff now would be a disaster. The last paragraph is where he says that if the White House wants to make him and enemy, fine, he'll be a general in the fight against the White House.

Jane

"He stole from the poor in Chicago to pay back the slumlords and he's stealing from every American to pay back the socialist billionaires who own him. That's your money he's throwing away and you'll never see it again."

Love this Rick!

I'm with you Sue!

RichatUF

PJK-

A political party (like Republicans) must try to win over people, especially in the US, a 2-party country-- it's "us or them", and our situation is hopeless if we are seen as contemptous of "them".

Yea, it was the make nice democrats that:

1. Wrote a memo to use the Senate Intelligence Committee to gain the political advantage during the Iraq War.

2. Used illegal factoring and fundraising schemes to A) roll over the opposition party with money and B) distort radio ad rate schedules in "safe areas" to bleed out the party at the national level.

3. Distort the Federal Response to the Katrina disaster. The City of New Orleans didn't even bother following their own distaster preparedness plan which was filed with FEMA. The reason the Superdome was unprepared to handle evacuees was becasue the plan specifically said the Superdome was not to be used because of significant danger the roof would collapse. The Federal government's only first responder responsibility was the Coast Guard and they were in the air about 12 hours after the hurricane passed and performed heroicly.

4. Created a "Culture of Corruption" meme, using some easy picking Republicans, federal police powers, and a black-hat pr campaign which would put the best Fenton campaigns to shame.

and on it goes...

Sure the Dems won overwhelmingly because they didn't play the "us or them" card.

caro

Sue

You know, the left puts forth Al Gore who screams at the top of his lungs "he bretrayed our country, he played on our fears" and makes him a keynote speaker at their convention.

I was thinking about this. What conservative could get away with this kind of demeanor?

Ugly? Angry?

narciso

Lott was a fool, mostly because he was too accomodationist, as Majority Leader, not so much with his fraternity back in '62. Frist, a person who didn't have all that baggage was a nice cipher. Delay was one of the strongest foes of Chavez, and the Castro
regime on the Hill. The 'ranch flavored' Fitz, Ronnie Earle cooked up this phoney
indictment to force him out. He was replaced
by the 'gelatinous twinkie' that wasHastert,
which was then toppled by the Mark Foley
brouhaha, which we know what a lie that was.
Porkbusters, well that turned out to be joke
of massive proportions as we see now, we empowered the main appropropriators of the Gravina Bridge, Obama & Biden to office.
The protectors of the CDO's Frank and Dodd
were given full authority

Sue

narciso,

My point exactly. Instead of fighting for Tom Delay, we pushed him out. And what goodwill did we garner for that? Well, nothing actually. Same with Lott. Republicans will be demonized by democrats with the willing help of the press. Somehow, when Republicans act Republican and stand up for their core values instead of trying to get to the squishy middle, they prevail. When we try to act democrat-lite, well we get McCain and lose. We go after the base in a full court press and the middle will follow. They like to vote for popular, not substance.

Pofarmer

True, but if a Republican wants to be listened to, he should install solar panels and a wind turbine on his/her roof now. Two yeas from now they can stand on their roof and say this (wind and solar) isn't enough!

Or, you could just look like an idiot who went along to get along.

The thing is, you're wasting taxpayer dollars on this idiocy. It's unforgivable.

bgates

Soylent - even if that's what Keynesian economics says (and didn't Keynes come out against fiscal stimulus after the 30s?), not much of the money is being spent this year.

PeterUK

"When I referred friends/relatives to a recent comment of Limbough, I was struck by the loathing and (I think) fear the man arouses in many liberals"

Same trick used by the Islamofascist,"Don't upset us or we will get angry".

To paraphrase a great man.

"The liberal is always either at your throat or at your feet."

Which do you prefer?

Sue

caro,

I don't know. I often wonder how a republican even gets elected, but somehow they do. I keep going back to the 2002 midterms when the country was all about goodwill and democrats blamed their loss on not going after Bush. Bingo, their plan was hatched and the demonization of Bush began in earnest. I'm still amazed Bush won in 04, and probably wouldn't have had the democrats ran anyone other than Kerry. It would have surely been Hillary's year, had she listened to Bill who tried to get her to run.

SunnyDay

bgates,

Today I received a letter from the IRS that my 2007 tax returns are being audited. Less than one month after launching TaxCheatStamps.com.

If you're drawing flak you know your over the target.

RichatUF

Ranger-

begging Americans not to 'stuff money in mattresses'

What an idiot Obama is? Next thing he'll be telling us to do is go shop or something equally stupid.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

How would you tune the message to move the Moronic Muddle?

Not by adopting moderate policies or candidates. If so the moderate McCain would be screwing the country up not the radical Obama.
Squishes, by definition, want leadership.
A Republican who is a squish like the moderates is just a Democrat without the tax and spend steroids. Who's going to buy a zircon when you can have a diamond for just a tad more?

Sue

Rich,

LOL. He is trying to not say that, especially after his and Michelle's mockery of Bush for doing just that. You know he wants to though. The only thing that will get the economy going again is spending. Something Bush understood and Obama is learning the hard way.

Gmax

Well the Carville Begala demonization of Rush does not appear to be working. It will just give him a bigger megaphone and a stage to point out all the stuff that does not fit with the promises of Nobama. And they are legion. Where is the post partisan he posed as?

Rasmussen is tracking the trend as more and more catch on that they have been sold a pig in a poke. Go look at the trendline and tell me what it may look like in another 90 days. Jimmy Carter may ultimately come off looking favorable to the current clown show.

Rick Ballard

Jane,

Please steal that one - I'd suggest copying Ranger's comments from the other evening to provide the setup - or backup with which to belabor Dick should he object.

What's the subject this week? Do you set up some sort of file for facts for argument/rebuttal?

You might want to have Bloomie's ‘Obama Bear Market’ on hand.

matt

at the same time, to retain the moral high ground and win, we have to be hard on our own. Peggy Noonan's column today points out the way the Marines handled the crash of the F-18 in San Diego versus the lack of accountability in Washington and corporate America.

They do have to regulate their own, whether DeLay's excesses, Stevens, Cunningham, or anyone else. But behind closed doors.

You can't cast stones and have skeletons in your closet if you're a Republican. It seems to help if you're a democrat. The Republicans have to change the terrain and redefine the message stream to juijitsu the Dems. That is one question they need to answer if they are to regain power.

hit and run

Rick:
He stole from the poor in Chicago to pay back the slumlords and he's stealing from every American to pay back the socialist billionaires who own him. That's your money he's throwing away and you'll never see it again."

I wonder sometimes if Obama isn't willing to plunge our country into debt just to get back at "us" for all the "hardship" he and Micehlle had to "suffer" with their "onerous" student loans.

I tried to fit more scare quotes in there, but there just wasn't any more "room".

E. Nigma

First they came for Rush, and we didn't speak out, because, you know, Rush is kinda obnoxious sometimes, he has several failed marrriages, he was addicted to oxycodone because of his backpain, and he's pretty rich, and yada yada yada...
Then they came for Sarah Palin, because she was a woman, and they said some things about her that were only half true, and out of context, and because she was truly only "middle class", she didn't have the personal wealth to fight back, and some people think she's really weird (Betty White said so on a TV show). So yeah, why fight for her?
And then they came for this guy named Joe in Ohio, who wasn't even a public figure, just an average guy who asked the candidate a question, but you know, he wasn't pure in heart, and had a couple of financial problems that some state employees helpfully dug out and so, why bother to help him?
And then they came for this crazy guy named Cramer (but not from Seinfeld) on CNBC, because even though he voted for the President, he's not sure the guy is doing the right thing. But Cramer is kinda loud and obnoxious at times, and maybe it's just to pump up his ratings, so why defend him?

So then, who is left to speak up, and who will the Republicans or conservatives or Obama opponents actually stand up and fight for?

So why not be like the Republican (cough) governor of California, who says the Obama stimulus package is "great", because it sends billions to his state that helps them (the wealthiest per capita state in America) maintain the government and lifestyle that they are all accustomed to?

So if you're a political party, and you don't stand up and fight for people that agree with you, do others really want to be put in the bulleye with you? Ya know, join that kind of party?
Does that work in advertising? Does Coke say, "Yeah, we're just like Pepsi, but our cans are red, not blue. So what's the difference? We don't even know."

And it's an illusion to think that you, me, or any other so-called conservative, or Republican, is going to persuade many Democrats to change sides in the next election. They are going to have to figure that one out for themselves, and decide in the privacy of the voting booth.

Sue

Matt,

Bascially, democrats can do anything and get away with it because they have no values. Or at least, that is the message I get from their hypocrisy.

caro

bgates, I just ordered one of your stamps. I wonder if google will forward the addresses of all purchasers to the IRS.

hit and run

Me:
Obama isn't willing to plunge our country into debt just to get back at "us" for all the "hardship" he and Micehlle had to "suffer" with their "onerous" student loans.

Oh, and the second part to that is, he thinks he can just "write a couple of memoirs" and make it all go away.

bgates

OT, on Daylight Savings, from the SF Chronicle:
[Benjamin Franklin] proposed a mandatory awakening at 4 a.m. from mid-spring to mid-fall, an idea that laid the groundwork for our twice-a year time change.

Every morning, as soon as the sun rises, let all the bells in every church be set ringing,” he proposed in 1784. “And if that is not sufficient, let cannon be fired in every street to wake the sluggards effectually.”

The sun used to rise at 4am for half the year. Now it barely peeks over the horizon by 6. You know what this means?

Global Darkening!

bgates

I just ordered one of your stamps.

I am not that guy. I agree with that guy, and I wish him the best with his audit. I put up that link because he wanted people who saw his page to spread the word.

I am not that guy.

Jane

Rick,

I start cutting and pasting as soon as the show is over and then some themes emerge. Last week my notes were an inch thick. On Monday nite and again Tuesday AM I reduce it all to an outline. It's hard when you are on air to find notes and quotes and stuff. So mostly once I start, I wing it, which is why I often say things like "Obama is depending on a 4% increase in GDP this year" and realizing I have no clue if that is right, or even in the ballpark. Economics is clearly not my strong suit, so sometimes I hold on for dear life.

Dick sort of rules the day in terms of subjects, altho he's been generous of late in that regard. I need to pay some cursory attention to what is happening in MA because Dick is going to read the Sunday Globe and decide what he is interested in. The Ted Kennedy health care initiative will be on Dick's plate this week, because nothing is too expensive when it comes to Dick and the Kennedys.

Every week is different. This week I've got next to no notes but a bunch of themes are emerging. I'm stuck on "Is he incompetent or doing it on purpose" idea right now because it doesn't leave much room for defense. I want people to make the leap from "maybe this will work" to "uh oh we are cooked".

I copied Rangers remarks in their entirety - thanks for the link, and I hope it is okay Ranger, and I will indeed try and ease into that.

My overwhelming theme is that every politician is a crook, getting richer on our dime, etc and there is no dearth of material in that regard.

PeterUK

"Global Darkening!"

This is the Age of the O man,Global Dorkening.

poul

by the time it all is over, there will be no MSM.

Fresh Air

RichUF--

Yeah, that whole Katrina business still sticks in my craw. The Discovery Channel (IIRC) put up a video on the Coast Guard rescues. It was the single-most successful large scale rescue operation in history. The number of sorties flown was something like 5,000. They put their crews at great risk and performed heroically. No parades for them in Chocolate City, though. The MSM says it was All Bush's Fault.

The only good news about all this, for which I hold the communist lying media responsible, is that the same communist lying media is dying at the rate of about 20,000 journalists a year. The number of operating newspapers will be probably just over half its current level by 2012. Many of them are going to follow the Seattle P-I and try online only (which won't work), thus accelerating their own demise. I like it when these bastards commit suicide instead of making us try them and shoot their asses.

Jim Ryan

Global Darkening!

Good Lord! We need to tax people who leave their lights off by the minute for contributing to this scourge! No, wait, keeping the lights on will contribute to global warming! Argh! I know! Tax both lights on and lights off!

matt

The Telegraph's lead headline is that "Obama Too Tired For Brown". Apparently, Obama has been so worried and has been working so hard he was just plain pooped....

Lessee, Bush had 9-11. Clinton had, well, let's just say his nocturnal activities, GHW Bush had a war, Reagan always took his naps, Truman, Johnson, and Nixon had wars, etc., etc.,etc.

I think Obama was probably hungover from his Wednesday night soiree. What a frickin tool....

Fresh Air

bgates---

Your plea has been heard by Instapundit.

boris

stuck on "Is he incompetent or doing it on purpose" idea

Seems like the wrong question to me. He may not care if his remedy helps or hurts a market economy as long as it helps create the social justice economy he favors. Recall the kind of people that Ayers claimed made him sick. They seem to be the ones losing the largest share of their financial security now.

A better question might be if he would employ a remedy, even if he expected it to work, that didn't advance his social justice economy. Clearly he answered that question in the negative wrt the Iraq war last July.

RichatUF

FA-

Yea, it's just one of those things that still pisses me off. No one has ever bothered to ask-how much effort did ACORN put into keeping people in New Orleans and did they have input into city decision making during the crisis? They are headquartered there, seems like a good probability. And the speed with which the propaganda campaign was rolled out bespeaks they knew well what they were doing.

bgates

Your plea has been heard by Instapundit.

Still not that guy.

Ranger

I copied Rangers remarks in their entirety - thanks for the link, and I hope it is okay Ranger, and I will indeed try and ease into that.

My overwhelming theme is that every politician is a crook, getting richer on our dime, etc and there is no dearth of material in that regard.

Posted by: Jane | March 07, 2009 at 03:19 PM

Jane,

Please us as you see fit. And if you really want to get further into it, you can bring up that the ultimate scam in Illinois for a while was hospitial building, which alows you to reall cash in on both healthcare and realestate development.

Obama was the guy in the state senate that pushed through the bill for Blago to expand the healthcare board that approves hospital construciton. Then Blago and Rezko teamed up to sell the new seats on the board to doctors who would then vote the way Rezko told them to. That meant that anyone who wanted to build a new hospital in Illinois had to grease Rezko and Blago's palms to ensure the project was approved. And the ultimate irony is that one reason for expanding the board was to supposedly dilute the potential of influence pedling.

Jim Ryan

Still not that guy.

Hmm. Are you that guy now?

Jane

Still not that guy.

I wonder how one would go about investigating how that happened. It's another "let's get Joe the Plumber" incident, I'm sure.

I worry about it because of the radio show. I also worry about the trashing of free speech. I just wonder if there is any way to force someone to reveal how he got targeted, and how easy it is go cover that stuff up.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame