The media attack on Rush Limbaugh will take an interesting turn Monday when the March 16 issue of Newsweek hits newstands around the country for the cover story is an astoundingly negative article about the conservative talk radio host written by former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum.
With "Why Rush is Wrong" getting published at Newsweek's website Saturday evening, it is also sure to be fodder for discussion on all of the Sunday political talk shows, as well as Monday's morning programs thereby guaranteeing the article's contents maximum exposure.
To give you an idea of just how much the liberal media are going to devour Frum's words as if the finest champagne and caviar, here's a taste:
Here's the duel that Obama and Limbaugh are jointly arranging:
On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of "responsibility," and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.
And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as "losers." With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we're cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush's every rancorous word—we'll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.
Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined.
But do the rest of us understand what we are doing to ourselves by accepting this leadership? Rush is to the Republicanism of the 2000s what Jesse Jackson was to the Democratic party in the 1980s. He plays an important role in our coalition, and of course he and his supporters have to be treated with respect. But he cannot be allowed to be the public face of the enterprise—and we have to find ways of assuring the public that he is just one Republican voice among many, and very far from the most important.
See what I mean?
We've entered the predictable phase of the media attack on Limbaugh: mainstream news outlets paying well-known conservatives to bash the talk show host.
Who's next?
Post facto thoughts: One thing that strikes me as astoundingly naive in Frum's piece is how much his depiction of Limbaugh -- "his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history" -- is right in line with the media meme, and that he believes this is a problem for Rush and conservatives.
Yet, when the GOP offered as its vice presidential candidate an attractive, in shape, professional and unassuming married mother of five, media and the left tore her apart like she was the devil incarnate.
Doesn't that mean whatever the physical, personal, and marital characteristics of a conservative, he or she once determined as a viable foe will be eviscerated as Limbaugh is now and Palin was after McCain's surprising announcement last August?
Isn't this also the way George W. Bush and every member of his Administration were treated in the past eight years as well as Newt Gingrich in the '90s?
Exit question for Mr. Frum: who was the last real conservative save those in retirement the left and their media minions didn't treat with scorn and contempt?
*****Update: More post facto thoughts. Frum wrote:
Government is implicated in many of today's top domestic concerns as well … But the connection between big government and today's most pressing problems is not as close or as pressing as it was 27 years ago. So, unsurprisingly, the anti-big-government message does not mobilize the public the way it once did.
Of course, we can keep repeating our old lines all the same, just the way Tip O'Neill kept exhorting the American middle class to show more gratitude to the New Deal. But politicians who talk that way soon sound old, tired, and cranky. I wish somebody at the … GOP presidential debate at the Reagan Library had said: "Ronald Reagan was a great leader and a great president because he addressed the problems of his time. But we have very different problems—and we need very different answers. Here are mine."
I wrote that in spring 2007. But you can hear similar words from bright young conservative writers like Reihan Salam and Ross Douthat, and from veteran Republican politicians like Newt Gingrich. Gingrich told George Stephanopoulos on Jan. 13, 2008: "We are at the end of the Reagan era. We're at a point in time when we're about to start redefining … the nature of the Republican Party, in response to what the country needs."
Well, if Reagan's ideas are outdated, and Republicans need to adapt to a new era, why aren't Franklin D. Roosevelt's Depression-era ideas similarly so?
If solutions that worked quite well 28 years ago can't work today, how can those implemented 76 years ago?
Isn't this especially crucial given how Reagan's ideas ushered in almost three decades of unparalleled wealth creation and prosperity in this nation while FDR's did virtually nothing until World War II bailed out the economy?
*****Update II: Another post facto thought is that Newsweek and its editors don't believe for a second that Frum is right about Rush being bad for the GOP or they never would have published this piece.
Think about it: they hate Rush AND Republicans. If he really was hurting the GOP, why would they publish an article about it which would end up just bringing him more listeners thereby making him more money? Wouldn't they just let him continue harming the Party they hate whilst not doing anything that might pad his wallet?
That they gave Frum's article cover status suggests that this is them hoping to create a self-fulfilling prophecy for they want him to BE right, and are willing to risk giving Rush more publicity if it ends up hurting Republicans.
In fact, that's what this whole Emanuel-Carville-Begala-Stephanopoulos cabal is all about. These folks are scared to death that Limbaugh is going to revive conservatives within the GOP, and they want to do everything and anything to stop it before the midterms in 2010 so as not to allow a repeat of their disappointment in 1994.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Only playing into his hand...
March 8, 2009 - 01:47 ET by AgentAmericanAnd when it's over...Rush will be the last man standing.
2010: A GOP Hill
Agent
March 8, 2009 - 01:53 ET by NorthCoasterRush is loud and proud. He certainly is most effective as a goad but in this election cycle he has changed his tactics and actually has offered serious solutions instead of just throwing stones and offering sarcasm. This is why the Dems see him as a serious threat.
hilarious lefties - this
March 8, 2009 - 13:53 ET by TruthMongerhilarious lefties - this article describes obama's admin and supporters - not Rush:)!
who buys snoozeweek anyway? whatta they use it for - outhouse toilet paper?
who's worst prez ever now?!!
Sounds like 'somebody' wants to be popular in NYC...
March 8, 2009 - 22:36 ET by bpjam....apparently, David Frum would like to be more popular on the talkshow/cocktail party circuit in NYC.
One sure way is to trash the most popular Conservative you can find. Or, volunteer to join Carville/Begala/Rahm/George/Greenberg and run the propaganda campaign to help distract America from the socialist stormtroopers in D.C.
Newsweek teaming up w/Frum???
March 8, 2009 - 01:49 ET by thebutlerdiditI'm shocked, I tell ya, just shocked! O.k., I'm not, I was kind of expecting something like this. After all, the MSM depends on those Wimpy Rinos for their fodder. And Frum is the leader of the Wimpy Rinos. I swear, the man is a liberal in conservative clothing. I wish he would just come out of the closet already and get it over with. My fav. event of the week? When Levin smacks him down on the radio, and Frum keeps either giggling like a little girl into the phone, or when he goes off on this rant about he has civility, and how he wants a new "tone" in the party, and he ends up sounding unhinged. Great stuff.
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
Empty headed libs
March 8, 2009 - 03:01 ET by Dont_Like_TheBluesFirst, it's not the Fairness Doctrine it is "die Gerechtigkeitlehre" . Hey, we're all socialists now. Rush has more actual news & talking points in 1 hour than those boneheads have in 10. And it's also an affront to der Komissar Barry that he only has one face.
"The interests of [radical Facist] Muslims and the interests of the socialists coincide in the war against the crusaders[USA]."
Osama bin Laden - March 2003
Why is it that they always
March 8, 2009 - 10:35 ET by ThatDudeWhy is it that they always speak in glowing terms about Obama? So the guy is good at controlling his PR (not hard to do with a compliant media.) I do somewhat agree that Rush should not be considered the face of the Republican party. His name has been dragged through the mud so that most anybody but his listeners automatically think negatively of him. Any and all of his issues are widely known and spread by the lefties as a means to discredit him. Also, his ego is something of an issue here and would take away from his message. I still don't understand how Obama's ego has gone completely unnoticed by most people and that it hasn't reflected on him negatively.
Basically, what we need is to stop relying on an entertainer (he is what he is) to be the voice of conservatism and get some party leaders out there as frequently and voicing the ideology as strongly. Steele should be out there doing what Rush does: explaining conservatism and how it should appeal to everyone. The only difference is that Steele will have to manage public opinion of himself better as politicians do have to maintain it in order to be taken seriously.
Ah, yes...the not-so-subtle duct tape over his mouth approach
March 8, 2009 - 01:58 ET by gopcongressThey probably copied the image from this Newsbuster photo:
http://newsbusters.o...
The Fairness Doctrine in full force here.
______________________
Moderate... Democrat... Liberal... Progressive... Socialist... Communist—The progression is clear as day.
Rush is saying "ENOUGH!" to
March 8, 2009 - 14:02 ET by TruthMongerRush is saying "ENOUGH!" to "news" weak isn't he...?
that's the way it looks to me
makes more sense too
Oh, and the cover's not
March 8, 2009 - 15:47 ET by bretzysdudeOh, and the cover's not biased at all! This is impartial news at its unbiasness!
/sarc
Let me guess he is a RINO huh?
March 8, 2009 - 02:14 ET by shawn228It seems this writer is pointing out something about the fact that independents do not like Rush Limbaugh very much.
Now before a certain someone wants to whine and falsely accuse me of aching to move the party left, that is not what is at issue here.
The GOP needs the independent and youth vote to win elections. The conservative base does not have the numbers to win a election and have to worry about taking back congress in 2010.
It also seems to me that hardly anyone on this site liked McCain, nor do I know of many of this site that voted for McCAin because he was the safest choice.
The Republican party certainly voted for McCain and voted for him in quite convincing numbers after Fred Thompson pulled out. Doe this mean that the true conservatives that are typical of Newsbusters does not represent the thoughts of the Republican party as a whole?
McCain republicanism is not the answer
March 8, 2009 - 03:00 ET by iBlogThe conservative GOP problem is with the lack of a messenger running for office. Notice that the attacks on Rush are not his ideas, but stupid remarks like "fatass" "drugee" etc. Rush's message is sound, now it's up to the GOP politicians to find the right candidate to run on it. It's all about the messenger.
"It's all about the messenger."
March 8, 2009 - 03:25 ET by shawn228"It's all about the messenger."
Your right about that. I do not see anyone that can get that messenge across right now.
I do no see anyone that can beat Obama right now, maybe in 12 but not now.
He had my vote
Ah, you expressed my
March 8, 2009 - 10:40 ET by ThatDudeAh, you expressed my sentiments better and in fewer words than I did. Our problem is getting out the conservative message. If Steele can stick to his guns, I believe he could help bring about that change and turn alot of people towards this side. He's a messenger that I think they're less likely to criticize so vehemently as they feel the need to do with Rush.
No.
March 8, 2009 - 03:09 ET by avenar"Doe this mean that the true conservatives that are typical of
Newsbusters does not represent the thoughts of the Republican party as
a whole?"
It means we need to have the Republican primary all done in ONE day, so that all of us here in Texas would get to VOTE, instead of having our nominee handed down to us by those RINO states.
Well they have been doing this way for quite a while now
March 8, 2009 - 03:22 ET by shawn228So unless they change the rules, you need more than Texas, Utah Missisippi and Kansas.
I believe the Democrat strategy is working, they are making conservatives argue amonst themselves and it seems much of the Republican party is more liberal than most on this site realize's
He had my vote
Doesn't change the fact
March 8, 2009 - 03:33 ET by avenarThat liberalism is wrong.
Sorry, I'm not jumping off a cliff just because everybody else does.
There is plenty wrong with both sides
March 8, 2009 - 03:40 ET by shawn228You have a right to support whoever you want, thats the great thing about the United States of America.
I am saying there is nothing wrong with the author pointing that the GOP's candidate actually has to get elected for the Republicans to have any hope in getting any power back.
That is the cold hard reality, as it stands now Obama will have to fail badly and not be able to blame it on Bush for the GOP to make a comeback, because right now things look quite bleak.
He had my vote
Let me point out that when
March 8, 2009 - 08:24 ET by BDLet me point out that when presented the option of a strong conservative, the Independants have always fell in and voted with them.
But when presented with a moderate in recent history (McCain, Dole, Ford, etc) the independants have fallen out and the conservatives have gone to rest in the shade.
was Bush a strong conservative?
March 8, 2009 - 11:50 ET by shawn228I suppose it can be argued that he is, but the fact that it came down to a few votes in Ohio, I hardly would say anyone fell in love with him, rather they more afraid of national security under Kerry.
Also the reason why many conservatives voted for McCain in the first place is Sarah Palin. For every person she energized in the base, she turned off a independent. I hardly believe independents fell in love with her either.
He had my vote
In 2000 Bush ran as a
March 8, 2009 - 12:03 ET by BDIn 2000 Bush ran as a strong conservative albeit with "Compassionate roots."
No doubt his stance in the GWOT was strong conservative and most conservatives understood that his fiscal policy was based on a desier to have guns and butter during a war. Probably a solid choice since it outflanked the left's potential claim that "For the sake of a day in Afghanistan, we could hire another 75 assistant math tutors" or some such nonsense.
Shawn, You are playing
March 8, 2009 - 13:35 ET by LiberalliesShawn,
You are playing with the American electoral votes here.
Bush won the popular vote by overwhelming numbers against Kerry.
It was the electoral votes that came down to Ohio, not the electoral college.
In fact, it would have been interesting if Kerry would have won Ohio because then it would have happened what too many ignorant Liberals claim that happened in the 2000 election, that Al Gore won the popular vote and Bush won the electoral college and we were told by countless of Liberals that Gore should be President despite who won the electoral college. I wonder if they would have felt the same way had kerry won Ohio.
Anyway, Bush won the popular vote in 2000 and 2004.
and it was not only about national security under Kerry that people were afraid. In 2004 Bush also won because on issues like gay marriage and other social issues traditional Democrats agreed with Bush.
you might want to go look at exist polls and studies done after that election. People being terrified of Kerry was, but one of the reasons he lost.
here is another proof that America is a right of center nation.
the gay "marriage" issue was won by Conservatives in ALL of the States that it came up. States that went for Obama, Conservatives issues on the ballot, referendums, were won by Conservatives.
let us not forget the racist and nasty names that gay activists have called blacks for voting for Obama, but against gay marriage.
It is clear that we are a nation that is right of center. But with a media that cheered for Obama and made him less radical and more centrist than he truly is....what did you expect.
Anyway, your point about Kerry is completly and utterly wrong.
"Anyway, Bush won the
March 8, 2009 - 18:21 ET by shawn228"Anyway, Bush won the popular vote in 2000 and 2004."
Huh, didn't you say in the paragraph before that Gore won the popular vote in 2000?
Futbol I never said that the country was not right of center, I am saying that there is nothing wrong with the author pointing out that Rush Limbaugh does not appeal to independent voters
"Anyway, your point about Kerry is completly and utterly wrong."
What point would that be, that people were scared of him being the President and running national security?
He had my vote
Shawn, You must have read
March 8, 2009 - 22:03 ET by LiberalliesShawn,
You must have read my post wrong. I said that ignorant Liberals claim that Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. He did not!
Bush won the popular vote both times, 2000 and 2004. The election came down to Ohio in 2004 not because of the popular vote, which Bush had in the bad, but because of the electoral college.
You claimed that if the USA was a right of center nation and Bush popular how could the election come down to Ohio. As I said, not because of the popular vote which Bush won by a large margin, but because of the electoral college.
The point about Kerry is that Americans were not only afraid of Kerry's handling of our national security, but also the gay issue, abortion issue and other social issues which Bush carried handedly.
You claim that Kerry lost because Americans were afraid of how he would handle national security, this is ONLY one reason of why he lost.
Liberallies... With all
March 8, 2009 - 22:24 ET by JerLiberallies...
With all due respect, I believe you need to recheck the 2000 popular vote tally.
Thanks.
Jer
Jer, Hmmmm...actually
March 8, 2009 - 22:34 ET by LiberalliesJer,
Hmmmm...actually with all due respect you are the one that needs to recheck it.
Bush won the popular vote in 2000 and 2004. This is a FACT that the main stream media even agreed upon, why?
because countless of newspapers trying to prove that Bush never won the popular vote in Florida did their own recounting of the votes and guess what happened every time to the New York Times, USA Today, Newsweek, Chicago Tribue, Sun-times, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Denver Post, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.....Bush always won the popular vote.
Oh I know ,I know, it is not cool or being part of the pop-culture or the accepted myth to say that Bush won the popular vote in 2000 and 2004, but FACTS are a darn thing that no matter how much Liberals hate, it does not lie like them.
Bush won the popular vote in 2000 and 2004. GET OVER IT!
Will one of the NB conservatives please correct Liberallies...
March 8, 2009 - 22:39 ET by Jerhe apparently doesn't accept the word of a Democrat.
Jer
That wouldd invalidate them
March 8, 2009 - 22:44 ET by nwahsThat would invalidate them as a conservative and probably require an apology to Rush for one reason or another?
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
Nwahs and Jer, Well, I
March 8, 2009 - 23:01 ET by LiberalliesNwahs and Jer,
Well, I stand corrected. I did some research and just read Noel's and Cool Arrow's post. Bush did lose the popular vote in 2000.
I admit to my error and not knowing the facts. Let me eat up all the previous words that I said. I stand corrected as the ignorant fool this one time.
Jer and Noel, thank you for pointing it out and Cool Arrow thank you for the source.
I guess I confused it with Liberals always claiming that BUsh lost the popular vote in Florida.
No Jer, I do not agree with you now because two Conservatives said that I was wrong. i agree with you because a quick search on the net (which I should have done before opening my usual big mouth) proved that I was wrong.
I doubt, Nwahs, that Rush or any other Conservative will demand my apologies for stating what are the facts. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and won it in 2004.
Nwahs, now if you could admit how wrong you are about Rush Limbaugh.
Obamania= Cult.
Remember Nwah, it was Obamabots crying, screaming and fainting at Obama's feet, not CPAC attendees at Rush Limbaugh's.
→ Not a prob
March 8, 2009 - 23:05 ET by Cool ArrowWe've got real-time fish to fry.
Like keeping our American way of life intact.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
No problem, Liberallies
March 8, 2009 - 23:07 ET by JerNo problem, Liberallies (fut)...it's nice to see you posting again.
Jer
Jer, are you kidding? do
March 8, 2009 - 22:47 ET by LiberalliesJer,
are you kidding? do you think because you are a Liberal, a Democrat, I do not agree or believe you? WOW!
don't confuse me with one of your fellow Liberals or Democrats who need to make sure that their decisions and believes are popular before they admit to them.
FACTS are FACTS, Bush won the 2000 and 2004 popular vote. No matter what YOU or any Conservative says.
Liberallies
March 8, 2009 - 22:50 ET by Noel SheppardLib,
Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Bush won the Electoral College.
That said, if Florida hadn't been called for Gore before polls in the western part of that state as well as the rest of the nation hadn't yet closed, who knows what the final tally would have been. ns
Thanks, Noel... And Cool
March 8, 2009 - 22:57 ET by JerThanks, Noel...
And Cool warned me in the nick of time about all those bamboozled would-be voters in western Fla. Whew!
Jer
Jer, Well, there were
March 8, 2009 - 23:07 ET by LiberalliesJer,
Well, there were countless of irregularities that occured during the 2000 election, including counties in the Philadelphia area claiming 100% election registration with 70 to 80 percent voter turn out and the majority going for Al Gore.
It is like today in Minnesota where counties had 100% registration with almost the same amount going to Al Fraken. To any honest observer it is obvious that weird things happened there. Unless of course you come to Chicago, where not only do you get 100% of the votes going Democrat, you also get dead Democrats to vote. TAlk about Democrats being patriotic, right? they take a break from death to come out every four years to vote. :-)
Anyway, see above, I stand corrected-I have taken the foot out of my mouth already and I have cringed with embarrasment over my harsh words to you. I apologize.
I don't tell lies Liberallies
March 8, 2009 - 23:12 ET by shawn228I can't tell you that was not embarrassing for you because it was. I don't mean to be harsh but you take this postion with many of your arguments and have weird reasoning for backing up your points.
I would not even give it a second thought if you were not so arrogant about your postion.
That being said , welcome back :-)
He had my vote
Shawn, Of course it was
March 8, 2009 - 23:24 ET by LiberalliesShawn,
Of course it was embarrasing for me!!! I am a political junkie! I know facts about politics and history that 99% of the population does not know! I should have known this simple fact which was easily researchable.
However, do not confuse conviction, principles, my believe that morality and facts are NOT relative to arrogance. Just because we live in a nation, culture, time that claims that a principled individual who has strong beliefs is a closed minded, arrogant individual, it does not mean that this is the case. People have been taught to be terrified of individuals who have strong convictions and stand up for what they believe in. I did not think you were part of this easily led masses.
I rather have strong convictions, strong beliefs, strong principles and be wrong 1% of the time than constanly waiver on these and never stand up for anything.
I am sorry that you interpret my strong principles, beliefs, morals and convictions as arrogant.
and weird reasons to back up what I believe in? eh? Can't be more weird than you swearing up and down that Obama was the best thing for this nation, right? I am sure that you are one of the people who claim, "well the economy is a disaster, Obama has fumbled our diplomacy with our closest ally and Hillary screwed up with the Russian language....but I still believe Obama is great for this nation!" right?
To reiterate what I posted a
March 8, 2009 - 23:13 ET by JerTo reiterate what I posted a couple of minutes ago:
No problem, Liberallies (fut)...
It's nice to see you posting again.
Jer
Jer, Thank you!
March 8, 2009 - 23:17 ET by LiberalliesJer,
Thank you! hmmm...you are being more graceful thatn Shawn. :-)
yes, it was incredibly embarrasing for me. Believe me, my face got read when I read that I was wrong.
Thanks for pointing out the error of my fact. :-)
Jer
March 8, 2009 - 23:18 ET by Noel SheppardJer,
Yeah, but it's not just Florida. Remember, since it was wrongly called at 7:50 ET, the election was basically over. As a result, many people in the Central, Mountain, and Pacific time zones likely didn't bother voting. Who knows how many that represented. ns
Noel...
March 8, 2009 - 23:32 ET by JerYes, Yes. How could I forget, Noel. Why there must have been two or three hundred Republicans who were foolish enough to leave the polls or not bother to vote in a cliff-hanger election because the state had been mistakenly called for Gore a little earlier.
But, let's not refight Bush vs. Gore. I think it's safe to close the books on that one.
Jer
Jer, Hmmmm...since the
March 8, 2009 - 23:41 ET by LiberalliesJer,
Hmmmm...since the 2000 election was opened up by me...i'll keep it open.
Florida was called at 7:50pm EST. This is 6:50pm CST, 5:50pm MST and 4:50pm PST. This means that the majority of people were at work when Florida was called for Gore and the networks claimed that Gore had won! People in the Pacific and the Mountain States were either working or just getting out of work. Most Americas vote AFTER work...why would you vote if the election is called for one of the candidates?
I agree with Noel, imagine what could have happened if Florida had not been called early.
The numbers, logic points to many more than just 300 to 500 Republicans not voting. And let us not even start about the countless of irregularities that occurred in Democrat controlled cities like Chicago were ballots that showed a person had voted for Bush were found in the basements of AFrican-American churces.
Let us not forget the debacle with the State of Washington and the governor race there where a Republican won and the Democrats went crazy! An activist, Clinton apointee judge allowed for a recount, the first two recounts gave the election to the Republican and all of a sudden Democrats found all these lost ballots which later on was proven that some came from DEAD voters. Yes, the Democrat was given the governorship.
and let me not start with Chicago politics, ok? Where like in many Democrat controlled cities, Democrats are so patriotic they vote from their grave!
It has never ceased me to amaze me how Democrats like you claim voter fraud and they do not look within their own party!
I can tell you as a FACT that illegal immigrants vote in Chicago, LA, San Diego and many other cities! and who do you think they vote for?
Liberallies... I've got a
March 9, 2009 - 00:20 ET by JerLiberallies...
I've got a whole bag full of counterarguments, but what's the point? You guys won fair and square. Let's just leave it at that.
Jer
Exactly right Noel as I am
March 8, 2009 - 23:43 ET by bigtimerExactly right Noel as I am in Mountain Time...I will never forget that call (intentional) as far as I will ever be concerned...I was beyond furious...and knowing other states near-by that must have heard this news that may have planned on voting after work, didn't bother to just because of this call going all over the air-waves.
Right, bt...A cabal of
March 9, 2009 - 00:28 ET by JerRight, bt...A cabal of liberal media kingpins got together and said "Hey guys, here's the deal: We'll say the polls are closed all over Florida, award the state to Gore, and millions of Republicans will fall for it and not bother to vote." [Even though there were many states still undecided in a razor-thin election with the outcome very much in doubt.]
Yeah, I believe that. Not.
Jer
Dang Jer... Don't ever let
March 9, 2009 - 00:32 ET by bigtimerDang Jer...
Don't ever let reality hit you in the arse....you wouldn't be any fun anymore.
bt...
March 9, 2009 - 00:50 ET by JerYou seem to have taken an unusual interest in my arse lately.
Jer
→ Speak Spanish Jer
March 9, 2009 - 00:55 ET by Cool ArrowYou have to learn to roll your arse.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
→ Didn't need to Jer
March 9, 2009 - 00:34 ET by Cool ArrowIn the 2000 election, all major Networks, including FOX, employed the same exit polling service.
Anybody remember the name of the service company?
Obama - Change you can bereave in
Cool...
March 9, 2009 - 00:46 ET by JerAnybody remember the name of the service company?
ElectBush2000 & Co.
Actually, it's on the tip of my tongue. Give me the first letter.
Jer
→ Honest question Jer
March 9, 2009 - 00:50 ET by Cool ArrowAll I remember is that they all used the same one.
Was it Voter News Service? Something like that.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
Cool... That sounds
March 9, 2009 - 00:59 ET by bigtimerCool...
That sounds about right.
Still too lazy too look it up....I think you've about got it pegged though. ;-)
Yes, Cool...
March 9, 2009 - 01:01 ET by JerIt's that or something close to that. I was actually mouthing the words VoteNews before I saw your post, but it didn't sound quite right. And I think it did have the word "Service" in the title.
Jer
Cool Arrow, It is
March 9, 2009 - 01:10 ET by LiberalliesCool Arrow,
It is actually on one of the YouTube videos I posted.
VNS
March 9, 2009 - 01:16 ET by bigtimerCool...
Okay, I broke down and got a link...here it is.
Jer,Here is a Youtube
March 9, 2009 - 00:58 ET by LiberalliesJer,
Here is NBC calling the election for Al Gore at 8pm EST after Gore won Pen. State.
hmmmm....facts are surely speaking against you! :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VS5e8L1lw0&feature=related
Liberallies... I
March 9, 2009 - 02:16 ET by JerLiberallies...
I appreciate the YouTube link. However, I think they make my point more strongly than yours. The national election was not being called--just the state of Florida (mistakenly) in one video and Pennsylvania in the other.
These occurrences meant that Bush needed to virtually run the table in the remaining states whose polls hadn't yet closed or were too close to call. This should have been a huge incentive for the Bush supporters to get to the polls [and take every Bush voter they could find along with them]. The CNN pundit who spoke most negatively about Bush's chances was Ed Rollins, a Republican consultant. CNN not long thereafter pulled back Florida, and an already tight horse race became nose to nose.
In any event, the election was never called by anyone at 7:50 p.m.
Jer
BTW, I have always been amazed at your obvious typing speed and accuracy. Very impressive. And your posts are always informative and well-stated. Of course, we are about 180 degrees apart politically, but I'm use to that at NB.
Gotta call it a night, Jer
Jer, Here is a Youtube
March 9, 2009 - 00:55 ET by LiberalliesJer,
Here is a Youtube showing what happened that night...hmmm...seems that you might be wrong. :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrkhywYX15k
Listen carefully how the media is claiming that with Florida going to Gore it is almost impossible for Bush to win. Listen to words like, "...this is a road block for Bush..."
Cool... No, I don't at
March 9, 2009 - 00:55 ET by bigtimerCool...
No, I don't at the moment..too lazy to look it up ...I remember the outrage, outrage I tell you from all the networks, especially Fox with the outfit....
I could care less, they should all shut-up until the polls close across this land, I get sick of the me first ratings type of BS...same ol' same ol'.
Anyway, it would be common sense to wait until all the polls close nationwide before making any announcements of who they decided won by the many say type of BS.
Jer, It was not a Liberal
March 9, 2009 - 00:49 ET by LiberalliesJer,
It was not a Liberal cabal that got together and said, "we are going to call the election early for Gore to screw the Bush voters."
It was complete and utter media incompetence that did this.
I hope you are NOT denying that the media called the national election at 7:50pm.
I vividly remember watching the 2000 election with my political science club members.....yes, very nerdy of me! :-) and I remember how some in the media started getting hard ons when they called the election for Gore.
However, it was not a media cabal, it was media incompetence. Their Liberal leanings showed, however, on their unwillingness to wait!
Cool Arrow below has a great point!
Cool has a great point?
March 9, 2009 - 00:55 ET by JerCool has a great point? That's a novelty. ;-)
7:50 p.m. Eastern Time?
Jer
Sorry Futbol.
March 8, 2009 - 23:03 ET by shawn228Thank you Noel. I believe the scariest thing is he actually believed it with such conviction ;-)
He had my vote
Shawn, the only reason I
March 8, 2009 - 23:12 ET by LiberalliesShawn,
the only reason I believed it with such conviction was because I confused the Florida popular vote, which the majority of Liberals believe Bush lost, to the national popular vote.
As I said, I stand corrected.
I know Shawn, not often that you have seen me make an error on facts. Show rejoice and enjoy the moment, you won't see it happen again any time soon. :-)
I mean, don't get me started how you believed with such great conviction that Obama was the right guy to vote for. My "Fact" might have been wrong, but at least it does not affect national security or our economy. Your convictions on Obama are already destroying our nation.
Rofllmfao, Stop it Fut your killing me here.!!!!!!!
March 8, 2009 - 23:16 ET by shawn228I am already rejoicing and enjoying the moment already, I did not have to wait long.
" don't get me started how you believed with such great conviction
that Obama was the right guy to vote for. My "Fact" might have been
wrong, but at least it does not affect national security or our
economy. Your convictions on Obama are already destroying our nation.
I voted for McCAin.
ROFL, thx for making the liberals look smart tonight Fut :-)
He had my vote
Shawn228, YOU VOTED FOR
March 8, 2009 - 23:32 ET by LiberalliesShawn228,
YOU VOTED FOR MCCAIN?! really? last I spoke with you...a few weeks before the election, you and I got into a heated debate about Obama and McCain and you told me that there was no way in hell you were voting for McCain? remember? You told me that Obama was the better of the two evils and that we needed change...remember? I am sure that if search it, we could find the exchange.
IF you voted for McCain, well I stand corrected twice tonight.
However, this is not even close to my foot-in-the-mouth comment about the 2000 election since all of the facts I had today until I read your above posts pointed to you voting for Obama which include your own words.
What changed your mind? and what do you think so far of the Obama's first 6 weeks in office?
futbol
March 8, 2009 - 23:38 ET by shawn228If I have been less than gracious about rubbing in the fact that you were wrong on both counts, I apologize.
I just wish you found the time to actually research facts and have a decent memory. I have a pretty good relationship with many of the main posters of NB and I am sure none of them will vouch that I said there was no way in hell I would vote for McCain.
They all know me as a left of center independent except for Unsane, who thinks I'm a socialist.
That is the third time you made assumptions tonight without research or backing things up fut. Seriously think before you type ;-)
He had my vote
Shawn, Once again, the
March 8, 2009 - 23:49 ET by LiberalliesShawn,
Once again, the LAST TIME I SPOKE WITH YOU on NB you and I got into a very heated debate over Obama and McCain. I remember clearly and vividly you telling me that you would not vote for McCain and that Obama represented change.
I remember clearly going after you because you wanted to vote for change.
I am glad you vote for McCain, but be honest. Not once did you ever tell me that you were going to vote for McCain.
As for me not doing research, my friend, I live in the world of politics, I am currently in the process of obtaining a Ph.D. in political science. I live, eat and breath the world!
I do plenty of research! and I can tell you, for example, that it is you the one that has not done research when it comes to the reasons of why Kerry lost the 2004 elections. It is easy for center-left Liberals like you to claim Kerry lost because of national security. That is completly and utterly wrong! and it shows that you are not doing research. This reason is but ONE reason of why he lost the 2004 election. Go look at the exit polls, go look at the studies, go look the referendums of each State, Conservatism won. Kerry lost because of his stand on the gay issue, and other social issues, as well as national security.
This is not the third time that I make a mistake. I made an assumption about who you voted for with all the facts that I had- conversations we had in the past. As for the 2000 election, YES I screwed up. I guess you enjoy reading it, right? However, if you read the post above, I clearly confused it with the Florida recount which papers found that Bush won Florida even though countless of Liberals claim that Bush lost Florida. Plain and simple.
Sorry fut
March 9, 2009 - 00:00 ET by shawn228I swear on my life you are remembering a different conversation, I was undecided until 2 weeks before the election.
Just like what you said about the 2000 election results you are trying to back up a false conversation with convinction.
You obviously have your own pov and back them up no matter what I say, so I am wasting my time here. Thank you for.....um debating me tonight fut, it was really challenging.
He had my vote
Shawn228, I think other
March 9, 2009 - 00:04 ET by LiberalliesShawn228,
I think other NBs can back me when when I say that for a long time before election day, you backed Obama.
Not once did you mention to me that you were undecided until two weeks before the election.
However, that is past.
I am curious to find out what convinced you to vote for McCain and what do you think of Obama's handling of our economy, diplomacy and today's story that N. Korea is threatening war over the Obama's administration's words that if N. Korea launches a missle it will be intercepted.
I have been a member for long time fut
March 9, 2009 - 00:10 ET by shawn228That means I have posted many times. If you can find one post that said I was voting for Obama since he got the Dem nomination I would love to see it.
Good night futbol.
He had my vote
Shawn, Have you noticed
March 9, 2009 - 00:16 ET by LiberalliesShawn,
Have you noticed how you went from enjoying and rejoicing in my wrong fact to now defending your position on McCain and Obama?
You went from the offensive to the defensive.
Don't let me push your buttons so easily! :-)
I stand by what I said until I am shown facts to the contrary.
Anyway, stop it already! if you voted for McCain, great! :-)
I am curious to find out why?
and I am also curious to find out what you think of Obama's first six weeks in office.
→ Fut Shawn
March 9, 2009 - 00:20 ET by Cool ArrowI see you two have narrowed your discussion down to specifics.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
Sorry futbol
March 9, 2009 - 00:20 ET by shawn228Not until you back up what you say :-) I'm not being defensive, just feel this conversation has hit a brick wall and look how skinny it has become. I'm also getting bored. Again have a nice night.
He had my vote
Shawn, It is too late to
March 9, 2009 - 00:26 ET by LiberalliesShawn,
It is too late to search all of Newsbusters for your comments!
What do you think of Obama's first six weeks in office?
Did you read how N. Korea is threatening war thanks to Japan and the USA saying that they will shoot down their "communication satillite" which many believe is a missle test.
c'mon...please, pretty please with lots of cherries on top? :-)
Hey fut.... Know you
March 9, 2009 - 00:45 ET by bigtimerHey fut....
Know you weren't talking to me, but I hadn't heard about this latest news you are mentioning here.
Now this outcome is going to be interesting...as usual.
Hi Bigtimer! Oh no
March 9, 2009 - 01:07 ET by LiberalliesHi Bigtimer!
Oh no problem at all!
So much for Obama's diplomatic skills! I am laughing at Obama's "superiority"
Obama in six weeks has managed to:
1) Be the laughing stock of England by treating the Prime Minster of our closest ally, England, as an idiot.
2) The stock market has dropped faster than during any previous President.
3) Hillary and Obama have insulted the Russians thanks to the wrong Russian word on a ridiculous button.
4) Israel has been pissed-off
5) We are giving 900 million dollars to Hamas
6) Europe is upset at Obama protectionism economic talk
7) N. Korea wants to start a war with the USA and Japan
8) Hugo Chavez is calling Obama his friend and asking Obama to follow in his foot steps.
9) He forced Congress to pass a "stimulus" bill that my great-grandchildren will be literally paying for.
and sadly enough this is what Liberals call a succesful six first weeks. Imagine what they would call an Obama disaster! freaking scary!
Hey fut... I know you are
March 9, 2009 - 01:30 ET by bigtimerHey fut...
I know you are a very busy man...and I am always to so happy to see an old friend post here like you..I hope you will save this link and please listen to it, this is the best interview I have ever heard, sums it all up well with some of us here have known for years, some of us had put in connections/links to some of this here and there over time, but this is the greatest 40 minutes or so I have ever listened to of exactly what is going on in this country and has been with all the ties up to right now...it is well worth your time, and I hope you and hopefully others pass this on everywhere you know it will matter...because it sure as heck spells it out, sums it up and spits it out of exactly what is happening to this country at a break-neck speed with their Marxist/communist/leftist agenda...whatever term you want to use, this is done with class and keeps you listening...you won't get bored.
This is a big hat tip to Clear thinker's site.
Bigtimer, Thanks for the
March 9, 2009 - 01:44 ET by LiberalliesBigtimer,
Thanks for the link! I will listen to it! it sounds very interesting.
The school of thought is becoming more main stream....Obama purposedly destroying our economy to shove socialism and later communism down the throats of America.
Remember, Soviet Union leaders knew it. Americans will never accept communism if bodly shoved down their throats, but with covert activities and slow progress the USA could be converted into a communist nation. It would do well for Americans to read the words of Soviet Union leaders.
Obama is a grave and present danger to America. I fear what is coming and the USA that Obama's Presidency will leave behind.
I was reading an article which used top senior Obama administrations who said Obama was overwhelmed with the economic problems of America and did not have time to properly deal with our foreign policy!
Obama is a scary, scary individual. I fear that what awaits us is worse than what many of us can imagine.
Obama is a President made by the media and elected by a poorly educated and informed electorate. This is the same exact problem that many Latin American nations face and the reason why they are always an economic and political mess.
Fut... Just listen to the
March 9, 2009 - 01:52 ET by bigtimerFut...
Just listen to the link....you will love all the ties to-boot...(not like there aren't plenty we don't know aleady)
O and his team know exactly what they are doing...exactly.
double
March 9, 2009 - 00:12 ET by shawn228.
just a quick fyi futbol
March 9, 2009 - 20:02 ET by shawn228" Once again, the LAST TIME I SPOKE WITH YOU on NB you and I got into a
very heated debate over Obama and McCain. I remember clearly and
vividly you telling me that you would not vote for McCain and that
Obama represented change."
I remember our conversation to be very differnt I believe I said I was undecided and it went a little something like this.
"Like I told you many times, fut, I am waiting for the debates to make
up my mind and yes I am considering voting for Obama, just like I am
considering voting for McCain."
Oh lets not forget about what you said on a seperate thread.
"Don't let me hackle you so much. I know you mean it when you claim you
have not decided yet. I just like to get Liberals all riled up. :-) "
He had my vote
→ No prob, Jer
March 8, 2009 - 22:48 ET by Cool ArrowHere ya go.
On to phase two where y'all argue about the people who gave up because the exit polls were rigged.
Best of luck.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
Much obliged, Cool...
March 8, 2009 - 23:02 ET by JerMuch obliged, Cool...
Would you believe I had that linked 2000 popular vote tabulation posterized, framed and displayed in my office?
Well don't.
Jer
→ Jer
March 8, 2009 - 23:07 ET by Cool ArrowYou're a lib. I'm a conservative.
We're not allowed to engage in civil discourse.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
Cool...I know. What would our children think?
March 8, 2009 - 23:25 ET by JerI know. What would our children think?
Jer
They'll never know
March 8, 2009 - 23:33 ET by Cool ArrowIf my son comes up behind me, I just say, "would you look at what that idiot Cool Arrow just wrote"?
Obama - Change you can bereave in
Cool... I know you have
March 9, 2009 - 00:05 ET by JerCool...
I know you have several siblings: Bowen Arrow, Straighten Arrow, Meaf Arrow, Luke Warm Arrow, Clarenced Arrow, your no good brother Crooked Arrow...
How many young Arrows in the quiver?
Jer
→ Clarenced Arrow
March 9, 2009 - 00:09 ET by Cool ArrowWe disowned him after his monkey trial.
We like to keep it within the species.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
""would you look at what that idiot Cool Arrow just wrote"
March 9, 2009 - 00:06 ET by shawn228"would you look at what that idiot Cool Arrow just wrote"
Great minds.....:-p
He had my vote
→ Shawn!
March 9, 2009 - 00:07 ET by Cool ArrowShhhh!
Obama - Change you can bereave in
oops double.
March 8, 2009 - 13:25 ET by Liberalliesoops double.
Shawn228,1) Long time no
March 8, 2009 - 13:28 ET by LiberalliesShawn228,
1) Long time no talk- This is fultbolisgreat.
2) The only reason you know about the Republican's party bickering is because the media loves to show that the Republican party is not unified. I would challenge you, however, to go out and find out how the Democrat party is in not unified either. The Blue Dog Democrats, right-wing Democrats, are completely displeased with Obama, Harry Reid and Pelosi. However, do you hear about this in the news? Do you read about it in the news? Do you have Times, Newsweek, etc doing pieces about the total lack of respect that Blue Dog Democrats have for their leadership? Of course not!! Why? because the media is desperate to keep Liberals in power.
Furthermore, and to add to this point, far left-wing Democrats are also not happy with Obama. One side is not happy because he is too Liberal, the other side is not happy because he is not Liberal enough. There is greater uneasiness going on in the Democrat party right now than in the Republican party. But you do not know this by reading the main stream newspapers, listening to main stream media and even in the blogsphere you do not see this. I have enough Democrat friends who are honest enough to admit to me two things...1) Obama is an American Idol President who would have not become President had it not been for the media cheerleading for him. 2) Democrats are no where near being unified as the media pretends they are. The individuals that have confessed this to me work for Emanuel, work for the Democrat leadership in Illinois, etc.
3) Regarding Sarah Palin. Just like the media made President Obama, the media destroyed Sarah Palin. It was not about Republicans being too conservative or not liberal enough. It was about the media playing an active role in ramming down Americans' throats who was the candidate we were suppose to vote for. Obama did not become President because of his amazing campaign. He became President because pop-culture and the main stream media shoved him unto our faces and treated him with kid-gloves while treating Sarah Palin very harshly (and I am being nice to the media).
So called Independents did not fall in love with her for the reason stated above, but also because many of the so called Independents are truly Democrats who claim that they do not like labels. I have run into plenty of these in my life time. They speak, talk and walk like Democrats and then turn around and claim they are Independent, complete and utter b.s.Also, and scary enough, many of the Independents that are not Liberal get their news from the half-hour nightly news and from the headlines they read on newspapers as they walk to work.
Many of the real Independents are not into politics at all. They do not start paying attention to elections, etc until about a month or so before the election. They do not do research and are easily swayed by the main stream media. A fact of life. There is one problem that Republican's do have. Today's 20some generation is very socialist, pro-government. These have been brainwashed by university professors and pop-culture into believing that some how government is the answer to all of our problems.
4) Rush Limbaugh....let me give you an example of how the media and Democrats are playing into the ignorance of the American people. My brother-in-law and I were talking politics about three Friday nights ago. Rush Limbaugh's name came up and my brother-in-law said he hated him. Now, my brother-in-law is a Computer system Engineer who graduated top of his class from Northwestern University in 2002. The man is anything, but an idiot. He is literally a genius. Anyway, I asked him if he listened to Rush Limbaugh and he admitted that he has never listened to Rush Limbaugh. So obviously I asked him, how can you hate him. Once again he admitted it is because of what he reads about him, what he hears the main stream media say about him. I challenged him to listen to Rush Limbaugh for the next three weeks and then to tell me if his hate for Limbaugh was well founded. Well guess what happened? The man loves Rush Limbaugh now and he is stunt at how the media and the Democrats misinterpret what he says. He admitted that Rush is eloquent, not full of anger and far from being the bygot and hate-monger that the media and Democrats claim he is.
Now, how many of the people that hate Limbaugh actually listen to him? this is anecdotal evidence, but I have seen polls on this too. The last university I used to work for, I ran into Democrats and Liberals that hated Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. when I asked if they had ever listened to them they ALL admitted they never had!!!!
What is the point? That sadly enough we live in a culture that the main stream media shapes the minds, hearts and souls of people. The media and the Democrat party, with the aid of the media, love to do character assassinations on Republicans and Conservative, Sarah Palin, President Bush, Rush Limbaugh, etc. They take advantage of the ignorance of people and use it against them. This is the party we have in power right now. It terrifies the hell out of me. Call me malodramatic, but I saw in Venezuela what ignorance of politics did to that nation and in the past 6 weeks Obama has confirmed many of my fears about him.
The media made Obama and the media destroyed Palin. The media elected Obama. Without the main stream media cheerleading for Obama, Obama would not be our President today. If the media would have challenged Obama’s personal life half as hard as they challenged Palin’s, Obama would not be our President. Think about it….Do you know Obama’s grades in college? Do you know what he did his thesis on? Do you know his grades in law school? Do you know if the communities that he organized improved or worsened under him? Do you know his medical records? I mean honestly Shawn, how much do we know about Obama?
In a Charlie Rose interview after Obama was elected quite a few main stream media personas admitted that very little is known about Obama! Now the media and the Democrats are trying to destroy Limbaugh while they attempted to shove down our throats real haters and bigots like Al Franken and the rest of the true hate mongers that reside over at AirHead America (which yes I have listened to). And if you do not believe that the main stream media attempted to shove down our throats the hate and bigotry that is spewed in AirHead America, I would urge you to do research on how many puff pieces were written about AirHead America and its hosts versus how many have been written about Conservative talk show hosts.
sorry I bit long, but a lot to say....you know me. :-)
One last thing...if the Bush administration would have screwed so badly with Prime Minster Gordon Brown or given to a Russian diplomat a button with the wrong Russian words on it....what do you think the main stream media in America would be doing and saying about President Bush and his administration? EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
futbul
March 8, 2009 - 17:27 ET by shawn228Hi Fut,
Hope all is well. I don't mind long posts if they are not attacking someone or falsely accusing someone.
I admit I have not read it yet, because I am in and out all day but I will check it out soon.
Thx for putting in the page breaks and putting paragraphs in there when you edited your post, it is now much easier to read ;-)
Edit
Ok fut, I just read your post in its entirely. The point I was trying to make is that Republicans need Independent votes in order to win the midterm elections in 2010 and the general election 2012. That is a fact that there are just as many Democrats as there are Republicans and the swing States are what wins the elections. Florida, PA, MO and Ohio are what decides the race. The scary thing is Obama won Virginia and Indiana two very dependable red states.
Regardless on who the media is in the tank for, the Democrats have almost complete control, they can pass pretty much what they want now, lets face it, they have a fillibuster senate, proof of that is all they needed was 3 votes from moderate Republicans to pass that stupid stimulus bill.
The democrats are in control, not the republicans, so it does not matter if they are united, they are the ones in power and the repubicans need to united in order to win majority back.
He had my vote
I believe you missed the
March 8, 2009 - 22:20 ET by LiberalliesI believe you missed the point of my post. the ONLY reason that Democrats are in control is because the main stream media is in the tank for them.
Additionally, you claim in another post of yours here that Republicans are now only about anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion and social issues. Shawn, I know youa re smarter than this. This is what the main stream media wants you to believe. We are potrait this way by pop-culture and the media. However, you are mistaken if you believe Reagan did not stand up for the pro-life cause and the gay agenda.
Reagan was both a fiscal and a social conservative. What he had going for him is that he found a way to communicate directly with the people despite the hatred he encountered from the American people.
It is very false of you to say that Republicans today ONLY stand up for anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage. This is, but a few of the issues we stand for. You are falling for the charicature that the media paints of a Republican.
Did you know that when Clinton won in 1992 many of the same things that are being said today about the Republican party were said back then? The Reagan era is over, Conservatives do not matter, they Evangelists are weak, social Conservatism does not win elections. Amazingly enough you can find almost word for word many of the same things that are being said today. Republicans and Conservatives also went into retreat and started bickering amongst themselves. Do we keep the social issues? do we just focuse on the economy, etc, etc. What happened? A social and fiscal Conservative became the leader of the party, Newt Gringich. He was eloquent, he spoke to the American people and he stood up for BOTH social and fiscal conservatism.
The way to win TRUE Independents is by standing up for both social and conservative values, not just one.
and do not bring up the old....well what worked then does not work now argument. Obama won the election by stealing the old Republican message of fiscal conservatism which the media gladly claimed he embraced without questioning. He also avoided publicly taking a stand were he stood on social issues. Do you think this was by chance? of course not!
It is like the media claiming that Reaganism is dead and will not work because we are in the 21st century, yet they turn around and support Obama's economic policies which are almost policy by policy what FDR did over 70+ years ago. If you believe you voted for something new, something never seen before in American history, Obama bamboozled America with the help of the American media. Obama=FDR and Carter put together. FACTS! Obama does not represent change and he does not have new ideas.
So, what do you think of his handling of PM Gordon Brown and the foot in the mouth crap that Secretary Clinton did with the Russians? I hope you can admit that if he had been the Bush administration doing it, the media would have been all over it.
Keep in mind that right now, Obama's diplomatic skills are the laughing stock of England and Russia. Not to mention that he is pissing the hell out of the Israelis. So much for being the man that would bring our allies back, eh?
Honestly, how so many AMericans fell for his pretty, empty rhetoric is unexplainable.
Shawn, I finish this post with this point. Venezuela also received hope and change with the 1998 election of Hugo Chavez. Over ten years later Venezuela and Venezuelans are paying dearly for hope and change. I pray that this will not happen in America. However, the last six weeks do not speak well for what awaits us in the next four years.
fut... The last six weeks
March 8, 2009 - 23:31 ET by bigtimerfut...
The last six weeks do not speak well for what awaits us in the next four years...
Indeed...so right you are...and it is far more than worrisome for some of us.
shawn228, why can't more
March 8, 2009 - 23:22 ET by dborschjr68shawn228, why can't more of the non-Conservatives on NB be like you? I find your writing very well done, concise, and relevant. And while I do not agree with you, in a perfect world, I would buy you a beer or cup of coffee and speak with you face-to-face. For what it's worth, and it may not be much coming from a complete stranger, you have as much respect as I can offer to a faceless poster on NB. Well done, sir, well done.
“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” -Winston Churchill.
F**K Socialism. -Me.
Thx dborschjr68
March 8, 2009 - 23:41 ET by shawn228Your check is in the mail ;-P
Pssst make sure your cover is not blown when you report back to KOS :-)
Seriously....thank you :-)
He had my vote
.
May 4, 2009 - 16:30 ET by rexdraconim<edit> wrong spot, sorry
"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H
"I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...every time!" -me
computer issues!-delete
March 8, 2009 - 13:36 ET by Liberalliescomputer issues!-delete
I saw that fut!
March 8, 2009 - 13:57 ET by BlondeLong time, no see.
I hope he fails, too.
Hi blonde! my computer
March 8, 2009 - 14:07 ET by LiberalliesHi blonde!
my computer was having issues! arrghhh....
anyway, I hope with all my heart and soul, for the sake of my children and the future of America that Obama fails and that he fails miserably.
Good idea avenar, works for
March 8, 2009 - 04:40 ET by CTGood idea avenar, works for me in the Peoples Republic of New Jersey.
Us as well
March 8, 2009 - 08:51 ET by general companyIn the great state of LA
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Shawn,
March 8, 2009 - 09:36 ET by R D HelmFrum doesn't even qualify as a RINO as he is more of a Whino.
If I had any money, I'd buy him a one-year subscription to the Cheese o' the Month Club.
-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.
I think you have the concept incorrect.
March 8, 2009 - 10:11 ET by c5thenMcCain was the "safe choice" for moderates and populists. He was in no way a conservative.
This epitomizes the "party first" thinking that I am disgusted with. The Republicans have lost the last two elections because they cannot, as a group, articulate what their principles and values are.
Actually it's the opposite...The Republican party does not adequately represent the thoughts of true conservatives. I would add "anymore".
Many true conservatives cast their votes for someone other than McCain in this past election or even stayed home. While that may have insured Obama a victory, it hopefully gave the GOP a wake-up call. We'll see. So far they appear to have "hit the snooze button" and rolled over.
There are many GOPer who care nothing for principles, conservative, liberal, populist, whatever. Their concern is to get the Party back in "control of things". We saw what good that did with the election of G.W. Bush. We had a Republican in the White House but not a true conservative.
My hope is that the saying "It takes a Carter to produce a Reagan" is true and that we can emerge from this dark time with a strong and conservative government in 2012. One that believes that the government is of the people and for the people, not to rule the people in spite of the people. One that actually believes that the Constitution says EXACTLY what it means and MEANS exactly what it says.
Whatever party puts forth candidates who believe in that idea, gets my vote. They don't even have to be part of a party.
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
www.loyaltoliberty.com
agreed
March 8, 2009 - 17:32 ET by shawn228I like how things wee in the past during the Reagan era. Strong military , low taxes, personal reponsiblity.
Now the party is all about anti abortion,, anti gay marriage and abstinence.
No shawn
March 8, 2009 - 17:42 ET by BlondeYou've confused a few things.
The media is pushing forth that the Republican party is about anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and abstinence.
Granted, those are still things that are important....but not at the fore.
Strong defense, low taxes, personal responsibility are still at the top of our list of requirements, although everything else is still important.
Stop drinking the kool-aid.
I hope he fails, too.
Shawn228, don't blame me...
March 9, 2009 - 13:06 ET by jawebster1I voted for Romney in the Primary and Palin in the General. I treat McCain just like I treat any Liberal or Commercial that appears on Fox. (My Network of choice) I fast forward my DVR. I am also getting sick and tired of listening to Newt lately. Jim Webster
Limbaugh is a politician?
March 8, 2009 - 02:50 ET by iBlogThis is absurd. Rush is not running for office. Maybe these "conservatives" like Frum should stop looking around everywhere for others to blame and start addressing the issues. It's looks to me like we have another Scott McClellan here. Frum plays right into the democrats hands. If he spent half as much effort into putting forth a plan to return the repubs to power than he did eating his own the GOP might get somewhere. I hope this guy enjoys his 15 min of fame. How hypocritical for somebody to criticize self-absorbtion in their article, when that same article epitomizes that very concept, as applied to the writer. Good job Frum, I'm sure MSNBC will give you your own show soon.
If he wasn't before he's a RINO now
March 8, 2009 - 02:51 ET by snaggletoothieThe Democrats are mainly attacking Rush to give the dinosaur media something to focus on besides Obama's, Geithner's, Clinton's and so many other's abysmal failures, And Frum is stupid enough to fall for the okey doke? Maybe it's his regular payment for a column at Time.
Could he be this dumb? He judges Obama's motives and character by his public persona. The only way to judge Obama is to look at the hateful, bitter, dishonest and general go-for-the-throat behavior of his surrogates. But this so called conservative misses the obvious but makes sure to catalogue every negative thing anyone knows about Rush Limbaugh. Yeah, Frum is Mr. Conservative.
Soooo...
March 8, 2009 - 03:26 ET by avenarLet me get this straight.
So. It doesn't matter what Rush said. What matters is that he looked bad saying it. And that's why he's wrong. Just as it doesn't matter what Obama said, what matters is that he looked good saying it.
Heheheh! At least these liberals are consistent.
I believe in this case your
March 8, 2009 - 04:59 ET by JerI believe in this case your beef is with the conservative David Frum and his characterization of Rush. After all, he was the author of the objectionable language.
Although, I'm guessing poor Mr. Frum will now be excommunicated from the religion of true conservatism since he dared to criticize Limbaugh. Interesting to see whether he will be forced to grovel like Steele and Gingrey.
Jer
Jer: Just curious, what
March 8, 2009 - 08:27 ET by BDJer:
Just curious, what part of Limbaughs speech to CPAC do you disagree with an why?
Or what it the typical "Style" argument that you didnot like Limbaugh's STYLE in communicating his message?
BD your missing the point
March 8, 2009 - 08:59 ET by general companyWho cares about what he said, when you can ridicule what he looks like, or his past. BTW this interpretation is only good for conservatives. The Dems have another standard, witch coincidentally enough, also forgoes their words.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
General: Just attempting
March 8, 2009 - 09:15 ET by BDGeneral:
Just attempting some therapy on Jer.
Thanks BD...hope it
March 8, 2009 - 16:05 ET by JerThanks BD...hope it helps.
Jer
when you can ridicule what
March 8, 2009 - 16:04 ET by Jerwhen you can ridicule what he looks like, or his past.
By that, I assume you are referring to ridiculing by someone else, since I have done nothing of the sort.
Jer
No Jer
March 8, 2009 - 16:09 ET by general companyWith his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency
and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush
is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—
Just talking about the subject at hand.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
BD...
March 8, 2009 - 16:20 ET by JerPlenty...but it will have to wait. Have to take my son back to school.
Jer
I heard a caller on the
March 8, 2009 - 04:49 ET by winston smithI heard a caller on the radio this morning say that just the mere mention of Limbaugh to msm types gets them all worked up. It's like you put itching powder down their underwear and gave them a wedgie. But really, it doesn't matter to the media whether your an outspoken Republican/conservative like Rush or more reserved like Sarah Palin --- to the media you are a conservative (bad enough) who dares to verbalize your opinions to the general public! And it doesn't take much of an argument to point out all the bad things that Democrats continually do. This is why Democrats are so obssessed with making sure any oppostion voices are bottled up. All effective voices of conservative opposition must be shamed into silence otherwise some Americans might learn the real truth about Obama and the planned destruction of the American economy and the gradual loss of personal freedoms his puppet masters have in store for us. When the media get all into a lather about Conservative voices of opposition you know we're effectively on message. At least one conservative's doing something right. Thanks Rush and keep it coming. Never let up!
New age of tolerance
March 8, 2009 - 10:17 ET by ReaverI believe you hit on it. The media learned from Reagan, he was the great communicator. He didn’t win elections by moving his policies to the center; he passionately spoke about conservatism and moved voters to the right. The media is not going to make the mistake of underestimating another conservative. Any conservative who displays passion and style and espouses solid conservative values will be attacked without mercy. The examples are legion, Limbaugh, Palin, Jindal, etc. Expect to see the attacks become louder and more vitriolic; expect more heavy handed attempts to crush any voice of dissent, Cramer, Santelli, etc. Welcome to the new age of hope brought to us by the guardians of tolerance and open mindedness on the left.
If stupidity got us into this mess,
then why can't it get us out?
--Will Rogers
Yet, when the GOP offered
March 8, 2009 - 05:23 ET by Jack BauerAnd so, by the way, did David Frum. He pilloried Palin.
Mark Levin dismantled this bombastic "conserfauxtive" when he phoned in to his show last week. He has it posted at his website Mark Levin Show. Scroll down to NOTES OF INTEREST
Frum came across as obnoxiously self-important, and totally unwilling to even TRY to understand anyone who doesn't agree with his brand of Democrat-lite politics.
Frum is one of these please love me Mr Liberal types who essentially despises fly-over conservatives. It oozes out of every bile-filled screed on conservative heroes such as Rush Limbaugh.
What's the point Scott...ah..I mean David?
March 8, 2009 - 05:28 ET by CTDavid Frum claims to be a conservative yet he wrote a democrap talking points hit piece in Newspeak, what's wrong with that picture? Got to wonder who edited the piece, as it appeared almost contradictory save for the calumniate character assassination bits.
Must see "rythms of logic" at PajamasMedia and People's Cube ...
March 8, 2009 - 05:41 ET by Jayke... Someone needs to come up with a "rythm of logic" for "Why Rush is Wrong" like the one about Bush:
Bush and the media:
http://pajamasmedia....
http://thepeoplescub...
Newsweek should have a picture of ME with "ENOUGH" over my ...
March 8, 2009 - 06:14 ET by Jayke... EARS because I am one of those people who agree with Rush. This is an attack on ME becuase I say and think the same things. "The GOAL of Socialism is COMMUNISM" -- Lenin. I'm not stupid either. I'm a network engineer. I solve more problems in 5 minutes than these reporters do in a lifetime. I'm sick of this.
And another on the what's
March 8, 2009 - 06:23 ET by Jack BauerAnd another on the what's wrong with this picture...
David Frum may like to ponder on why it's not a picture of DAVID FRUM on the front of Newsweek.
Maybe he can see the irony of him being paid by an extremely leftwing publication to slash and burn at a fellow "conservative" whom he considers irrelevant to the promotion of conservatism ... but they don't have David's glorious visage to sell the rag.
No they have Rush Limbaugh -- you know David, the guy you think is irrelevant..
Change the Subject
March 8, 2009 - 06:46 ET by Red JeepThis Rush bashing is changing the subject from the bad economy and solutions to Rush and smearing the Republican Party at the same time.
The election for 2010 has started and this arguing over Rush is also an attempt to sway those Americans who don't pay attention to politics, except for the sound bites they hear, to again vote for the party of BarryO and the Obamas.
Is newsweak still
March 8, 2009 - 07:16 ET by 10ksnookerBeing published. I found newsweak irrelevant in the 80s and haven't bothered to read that propaganda rag since.
Who is this insignificant Frum guy? Never read anything he has put out, so why would I want to now. Why does anyone care what he thinks about anything. Heck I can't even get my mouse to click on anything newsweak.
One thing I do know, Rush is right.
This is exactly what we'd expect from Obamaweek, isn't it?
March 8, 2009 - 07:56 ET by CKA in Red State USABefore this ends, they'll be attacking EVERYONE who doesn't agree with them, if they can identify the names.
And, of course, regarding the malicious attacks on Sarah Palin, "[D]oesn't that mean whatever the physical, personal, and marital characteristics of a conservative, he or she once determined as a viable foe will be eviscerated as Limbaugh is now and Palin was after McCain's surprising announcement last August?"
These attacks comprise the weaponry in the Democrats', liberals' and leftists' amoral amory.
Bereft of substantive ideas and with skin thinner than a two-year-old's, they know nothing other than to slander, attack, lie and, yes, whine.
What they're doing now will backfire.
They're just too dimwitted to understand.
And too crazed with bloodlust and darkness of spiritual hearts that they don't care.
But they will.
Please do not visit this
March 8, 2009 - 08:17 ET by casel21Please do not visit this Frum's presumptuously named web site. It will make him money.
You have to admit that the
March 8, 2009 - 08:38 ET by ConservativeRexYou have to admit that the United States version of Pravda is doing it's damndest to take America's eye off the economic ball. So Frum is a RINO big deal, good Lord how many times must we be reminded that every single time the media has something good to say about a Republican true Republican's are fixing to get stabbed in the back. Anyone remember McClelan?
Keep hammering Rush, he is a Conservative, not necessarily a Republican. Rush is like good steel, the more you keep heating and hammering it the stronger it gets.
We don't need moderates or independants shawn. They always vote for the democrats. We don't need to lower ourselves down to their level. When Conservatives run as Conservatives we always win. You will be reminded of this in 2010 and again in 2012. Independants and moderates be damned, they can come along for the ride or be left behind.
Well, at least Newsweak's
March 8, 2009 - 08:48 ET by R D HelmWell, at least Newsweak's readers will have something to keep them occupied tomorrow.
All twelve of them.
-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.
Ramping it up
March 8, 2009 - 08:48 ET by general companyYet, when the GOP offered as its vice presidential candidate an attractive, in shape, professional and unassuming married mother of five, media and the left tore her apart like she was the devil incarnate.
It has nothing to do with looks or how professional and competent they are, it is all about the R. The media , with the full and unabashed support of the Obama administration has switched to overdrive to demean and ridicule anyone whom dares to speak with the conservative label or the R.
Conservatives are being gutted by the very folks they are forced to rely on to get their message out. But not Rush, he has his own voice, and they hate him for it. These are some sick and scary folks, pond scum is ions more advanced then this trash.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Does everyone see the increase in the calls for censorship?
March 8, 2009 - 09:20 ET by c5thenThey are coming from the Democrats, from the useful fools called RINO's and even from some in the media itself. we are not headed down the road to socialism, we've taken a fork in the road and are headed to fascist socialism.
What the liberals want to happen is for the Republican party and conservatives in general to "meet them in the middle". But lets look at that a little deeper. The Democrat pary has shifted in recent years way toward the far left. I don't think anyone will argue with that. The Republican party has also shifted left bringing them more toward the center. I cite the success of John McCain in the recent Republican primary as evidence for that. So, with the GOP just right of center and the Democrats way left of center any "meeting in the middle" would happen some where around the left of center position on the political spectrum.
This is what is behind the attacks on Rush. It's what is behind the vilification of Anne Coulter and what was the impetus behind the liberal boycotting of FoxNews during the primaries.
Conservatives have to stick to their conservative principles first and foremost. No pary is worth compromising on the ideals and values that make us who we are. That is why Rush (and soon others) are seen as dangerous and needing to be censored. They continuously remind us of those conservative principles, values and ideas. That is why John McCain lost the election. He was unable to articulate the ideals and the values that are his driving philosophy. He was only talking about specific policies some of which matched up with conservative ideology and some that didn't. It wasn't until he picked Governor Palin as his running mate that the conservative base got energized. Unfortunately for the GOP, far too late to make up the lost ground. Michael Steele is the epitome of the compromisers. He is willing to move the GOP to the middle so as to "strengthen the party" when in reality all that does is weaken it into a moderate ideology and alienate much of it's past "base". His philosophy of 'the party comes first', the values are second rings hollow with many. The GOP needs to either rediscover what it believes in or it will go away as other political parties have done in this country when they have drifted from the base. I myself no longer equate the GOP with conservative. There are some conservatives still members, but there are almost as many moderates and populists too.
Maybe it's time for a third party to emerge?
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
www.loyaltoliberty.com
Newsweek carrying the Obama
March 8, 2009 - 09:53 ET by GregENewsweek carrying the Obama admins water, offering support and defense wherever needed to ensure that Dear Leader's critics are marginalized. Protecting not only the messiah, but protecting socialist policies that are young and need to get engrained.
We beg to differ, well please at least listen, well at least...
March 8, 2009 - 10:00 ET by JWFHey, who turned off my mike?
Remember the constitution? It took a bunch of guys getting very IN YOUR FACE to bring that about. you know, the Revolution against those dastardly British folks.
Conservatives are all about the Constitution. They see it as the antithesis of collectivism which by the way, the democrats (the President AND Congress) are leading us.
You want soft-spoken and conciliatory, Uncle Dummy has welcome arms.
You want someone screaming STOP IT, well I am listening.
And who the hell is Frum? Didn't he write the really weird comic book?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Who is this "we" Frum is talking about?
March 8, 2009 - 10:00 ET by katiejaneBut do the rest of us understand what we are doing to ourselves by accepting this leadership?
Does he still think that Conservatives think he speaks for them?
newsweek
March 8, 2009 - 10:11 ET by jessieHJessie R. Hamby Newsweek- AKA- National Inquirer!
→ Obammy
March 8, 2009 - 10:28 ET by Cool ArrowRahmbo is the David Copperfield of this Administration. A veritable Rasputin of control.
The peasants have been reduced to mesmerized, drooling loons, staring at the spectacle created between Limbaugh and the Administration.
I'm not sure most of them care their savings are being obliterated by unsound policy. Oh, wait! The drooling loons haven't bothered to save. No skin off their backs.
Something for nothing is the change their leader has promised.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
There is this paragraph
March 8, 2009 - 10:30 ET by nwahs"In the days since I stumbled into this controversy, I've received a
great deal of e-mail. (Most of it on days when Levin or Hannity or Hugh
Hewitt or Limbaugh himself has had something especially disobliging to
say about me.) Most of these e-mails say some version of the same
thing: if you don't agree with Rush, quit calling yourself a
conservative and get out of the Republican Party. There's the perfect
culmination of the outlook Rush Limbaugh has taught his fans and
followers: we want to transform the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and
Reagan into a party of unanimous dittoheads—and we don't care how much
the party has to shrink to do it. That's not the language of politics.
It's the language of a cult.
Dittoheads will always be a subset of conservatism. Whatever appeals to a conservative to transform them to a dittohead ( the sly bigotry? Crassness? Unapologetic gluttony?), it falls into the category of wanting to hit something. Its the need to verbally punch people or things. That appeal is not going pull independents into conservatism, though it may continue to bastardize conservatism "as [Rush] articulates it." Conservatives have changed to relatively small government, strong defense, a little fiscal responsibility , and a big desire to punch people smaller than you.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
While I admit I am not a fan
March 8, 2009 - 10:50 ET by AgnosticWhile I admit I am not a fan of Rush for several reasons
I have listened to his programs on occassion and never come anywhere near the same conclusions that you have drawn about his rhetoric.
I will grant you that if you listen to him with a preset idea of his personality there is much you could warp into fitting your preconceptions but that wouldn't be very open minded of you.
Your right about the change in the Republican party but it seems to me that it is more the politicians that have become more "relatively small government, strong defense, a little fiscal responsibility" and these politicians are the Republicans quickest to criticize Rush. I do think you are giving the current crop of Republicans a little too much credit on 'relatively small government' since they only talk about that topic during election cycles or when Democrats have control of Congress.
I don't see me starting to listen Rush anytime soon but he is much closer to the old definition that you gave for a Conservative than most of the politicians today. If his delivery offends then I would recommend what I've recommended to so many social conservatives - turn the channel and don't support the advertisers.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
And how do you account for
March 8, 2009 - 22:20 ET by nwahsI understand disagreement. This is hate filled disagreement. How do you account for that? There is without a doubt, a cultist quality to this.That line Rush used in his response to politico is eerie. "Conservatism as defined by me."
I'm not for that. No, I'm not signing up for dittoism .
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
→ There you are
March 8, 2009 - 22:32 ET by Cool ArrowBut you'll sign on to defend Joe Biden's bigotry. Or at least ignore it.
Touching.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
As usual, nothing you write
March 8, 2009 - 10:57 ET by Jack BauerAs usual, nothing you write makes any sense. Congratulations on keeping up your excellence at mediocrity.
Jack, please excuse him.
March 8, 2009 - 11:06 ET by cocodrienwahs suffers from chronic constipation of the brain and acute diarhea of the mouth.
Jesus Loves You
coco/botg -- sure, if only
March 8, 2009 - 11:38 ET by Jack Bauercoco/botg -- sure, if only conservatives and Republicans listened to non-coservatives and democrats they'd be assured of electoral success. Becuase those folks have our best interests at heart.
Here's an idea -- how about the Republican party concentrate on attractiving all those conservative voters out there before thinking about "independents" -- a code word usually for Democrats.
If the worst Republican candidate in living memory (man, he made Bob Dole look dynamic) had gathered a few extra per centage points, he'd be sitting in the Oval Office.
If the financial meltdown hadn't "coincidentally" coincided with the McCain uptick after Palin, McCain would be sitting in the White House.
When your political enemies start lecturing you on how to defeat THEM ... well that's funny.
Every rational person knows that the Pelso/Obama/Reid spending lust is going to produce a stagflation economy. Maybe the voters will think that's not so good in 2010. And maybe they'll blame the Democrats.
One thing is for sure THEY WON'T BE BLAMING LIMBAUGH ... no matter how many times ex- Bee Gee Robert Gibbs tries to McCarthy him in his daily Puff Pieces -- formerly known as the White House Press Corps.
Do get a grip Frum, and start acting like a conservative who's against Obama, and not some DC Lickspittle looking for crumbs from the elite's table.
Jack
March 8, 2009 - 11:21 ET by botgi'd nominate bizarro shawn for an EIB award -- excellence in blarney
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Fool cries wolf
March 8, 2009 - 11:23 ET by general companyWhatever appeals to a conservative to transform them to a dittohead ( the sly bigotry? Crassness? Unapologetic gluttony?), it falls into the category of wanting to hit something.
OK I will try once again to ask you to show us all some examples of your accusations. If you cant, then it is you who is the example of this nonsense.
It is obvious that you are a huge fan of our newly elected Gov. demeaning and ridiculing its citizens. The Gov. is using the media and its surrogates to launch attacks, and the best you can do is parrot them, and cheerlead. Your a fool
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Well I know its useless
March 8, 2009 - 12:19 ET by nwahsI'll give you some examples, not that I think it will change anyone's mind. I think Frum is on to something. This dittoism or dittohead thing is more like a cult than an ideology. Its immune to logic so these examples wont do anything. It will be just another post for people to write "you're rino, you're an idiot, you're a liberal, you're [insert anything bad]." It means I'm a blasphemer, an outsider, an infidel. I was looking at the attacks in a narcissistic manner. Its not about me. Its about protecting the cult. Its an immune response. Thats all it is. A simple cult defense function.
Sly bigotry: At the CPAC convention he got to make an Indian joke about Bobby Jindal that got laughs under the guise of illustrating Biden's 7-11 comments. He got to do a sterotypical ebonic filled song with a supposedly black singer doing "The Magic Negro" under the guise that it was supposed to illustrate a reporters racism. He used CBS's ethnicity survivor to throwout every racial dig known to man under the guise of exposing CBS. Whats funny is other people were also voicing outrage at these bigotries, without taking another cheap shot at the group.
Crassness: The need to paint those with afflictions in the worse possible way, whether it be a speech defect or a disease. A lisp makes someone seem weak because its a defect, its a speech defect. The Michael Fox thing , the Kennedy thing etc.
Unapologetic gluttony: 3 marriages, hearing loss arguably attributed to large doses of Vicodin, and a boil on his butt caused from sitting too long and sweating profusely.
But dittoheads are immune to examples. They don't want a different perspective. They want to defend the host- the cult.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
This dittoism or dittohead
March 8, 2009 - 12:31 ET by BDThis dittoism or dittohead thing is more like a cult than an ideology. Its immune to logic so these examples wont do anything.
Sly bigotry: At the CPAC convention he got to make an Indian joke about Bobby Jindal that got laughs under the guise of illustrating Biden's 7-11 comments.
He got to do a sterotypical ebonic filled song with a supposedly black singer doing "The Magic Negro" under the guise that it was supposed to illustrate a reporters racism.
He used CBS's ethnicity survivor to throwout every racial dig known to man under the guise of exposing CBS.
A lisp makes someone seem weak because its a defect, its a speech defect.
The Michael Fox thing ,
the Kennedy thing etc.
Unapologetic gluttony: 3 marriages, hearing loss arguably attributed to large doses of Vicodin, and a boil on his butt caused from sitting too long and sweating profusely.
But dittoheads are immune to examples.
Very good BD
March 8, 2009 - 13:56 ET by general companyNever ceases to amaze me how liberals will always point out supposed bad behavior of anyone they disagree all the while ignoring their own. Not to mention completely ignoring the topic at hand. They cant win the disagreement so they say "hey look" and run from the discussion. It never changes, now even the POTUS is even doing it. No responsibility, just changing the topic. Is it just conservatives, or do ANY liberals ever see the double standard here? They hate Bush, but he NEVER berated anyone personally. This is way scary stuff, and the libs say, well its only Rush, or Jindal, or Palin or? "They did bad stuff toooooo",,,,, truly sad
Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
it's the brain washing -
March 8, 2009 - 14:07 ET by TruthMongerit's the brain washing - quite a shame - a mind is a terrible thing to expose to liberal "edjucation"
who's worst prez ever now?!!
General: All Liberals
March 8, 2009 - 15:01 ET by BDGeneral:
All Liberals have to work against conservatives is "Style or Process" arguments in which they do not seek to refute the logic of conservative positions, but rather say it lacks style or does not follow their accepted process.
Foolishness of the first order....
bd he's not providing
March 8, 2009 - 14:22 ET by TruthMongerbd he's not providing examples for us - these are for him - mantra mantra mantra
typical narrow-minded intolerant liberal
I'll give you some
March 8, 2009 - 13:59 ET by LiberalliesI'll give you some examples, not that I think it will change anyone's mind. I think Frum is on to something. This dittoism or dittohead thing is more like a cult than an ideology. Its immune to logic so these examples wont do anything. It will be just another post for people to write "you're rino, you're an idiot, you're a liberal, you're [insert anything bad]." It means I'm a blasphemer, an outsider, an infidel. I was looking at the attacks in a narcissistic manner. Its not about me. Its about protecting the cult. Its an immune response. Thats all it is. A simple cult defense function.
Nwahs, you are descriging Liberalism and Liberals my friend. Obamaism, in fact, is a cult. There is no amount of logic or reason why people voted for Obama other than...."He will be our first black President!" or "We need change!" you call this logical? please!
With your constant attacks against Rush, it is obvious that you do not listen to him.
Sly bigotry: At the CPAC convention he got to make an Indian joke about Bobby Jindal that got laughs under the guise of illustrating Biden's 7-11 comments. He got to do a sterotypical ebonic filled song with a supposedly black singer doing "The Magic Negro" under the guise that it was supposed to illustrate a reporters racism. He used CBS's ethnicity survivor to throwout every racial dig known to man under the guise of exposing CBS. Whats funny is other people were also voicing outrage at these bigotries, without taking another cheap shot at the group.
You are kidding, right? I know you did not hear or see the CPAC speech. Once again you are claiming what the left wing blogs have said about the CPAC.
Can you give the EXACT words, not your interpretation of them, but your EXACT same words that prove that Rush Limbaugh was taking a racist cheap shot at the racial groups?
Funny how you attack Rush Limbauh, but you stay quiet on Biden's racist comments, the LA Times writer's racist comments, etc.
Crassness: The need to paint those with afflictions in the worse possible way, whether it be a speech defect or a disease. A lisp makes someone seem weak because its a defect, its a speech defect. The Michael Fox thing , the Kennedy thing etc.
You are kidding, right? So, if we use your logic against the attacks that the Liberals, Democrats and the media used against Bush that he was not a good orator, by your standards all of these individuals are crass, correct?
Are you serious with your crassness comment? WOW!
Once again, you are proving that you do not listen to Rush Limbaugh. Not to mention that you are hyper-sensative and LOVE political correctness.
Unapologetic gluttony: 3 marriages, hearing loss arguably attributed to large doses of Vicodin, and a boil on his butt caused from sitting too long and sweating profusely.
I am the first one to say that Rush's personal life is no example for anyone to follow. However, shall we talk about the countless Democrat and Liberals who have done far worse things in their personal lives? President Clinton comes to mine. How about Obama's cocaine usage? just to give you two examples.
Of course, you could care about the latter two, right?
Limbaugh is not a current or past President, the other two are. Who have had more power to change American policies?
Amazing how afraid you are of Rush Limbaugh you attack him, but give a pass to Democrat Presidents who have done far worse.
JFK extra-marital affairs....what do you think?
you want to talk about Liberal politicians unapologetic gluttnoy? or is it too much for you to look straight in the face? eh?
I smell a huge, huge hypocrite and the smell comes from Nwahs.
But dittoheads are immune to examples. They don't want a different perspective. They want to defend the host- the cult.
Ooops, you once again confused dittoheads with Obamabots. No matter how much you proved to these drooling Obambots how bad Obama is, they will defend their President, and the Obamamania cult.
You must have been stuck on stupid when countless of Obama supporters were fainting at the sight of him or while he gave speeches around the nation.
how many CPAC attendees fainted while Limbaugh spoke?
Cult you say? that is Obama's following, a bunch of ignorant, poorly informed, drooling Obamabots who do not waiver regardless of the facts. Who will do anything and everything to destroy your character so that people do not listen to the factual based message against Obama.
Obamamania=cult.
Ok I'm not going to do a 600 word post on this
March 8, 2009 - 17:47 ET by nwahsAs I've finally realized the argument doesn't matter. It can be as simplistic as "Rush is a wiener" to a 3 page Newsweek article from a Bush speech writer arguing Rush is hurting the GOP, your job is to be an antibody and destroy it. You aren't going to entertain it. Your purpose is to kill it.
Rush: "Oh, by the way did you hear about Joe Biden? Joe Biden was mystified
how Bobby Jindal got his shift off at 7-Eleven that night to make the
speech. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Time out. Suspend speech for
explanation. People watching at home. I’m glad this happened. Glad this
happened. You think I just made a joke, an ethnic joke about Bobby
Jindal, don’t you? I didn’t. I made a joke about the bigotry of the
Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden. It was Joe Biden while
walking through the train station he knows so well because he’s such a
real guy, that he made a comment that you can’t go into a 7-Eleven
without seeing some Indian guy behind the counter. They’re all over the
place."
Its told under the guise of being a critique of Biden, yet retells an ethnic joke to a laughing crowd. Sly bigotry. Perhaps if that was only time he's done that, or didn't time it for laughs, you'd have an argument. But neither is the case. In his "critique" of CBS's survivor, he got to make fun of Mexicans.
"Limbaugh stated that "our early money" is on "the Hispanic
tribe" -- which he said could include "a Cuban," "a Nicaraguan," or "a Mexican
or two" -- provided they don't "start fighting for supremacy amongst
themselves." Limbaugh added that Hispanics have
"probably shown the most survival tactics," that they "have shown a remarkable
ability to cross borders," and that they can "do it without water for a long
time, they don't get apprehended, and they will do things other people won't
do."
Yes, isn't it fine that you can make ethnic jokes under the guise of coment. Its sly bigotry, and it appeals to bigots. His Snurgly (sp?) ebonics translations appeal to bigots.
But as I stated, you are immune to that argument or any argument regarding Rush. This post has been a complete waste of time. Dittoheads don't need arguments, they need intervention. They're well past logic.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
Silence!
March 8, 2009 - 17:55 ET by bigtimerLMAO...
Good gawd nw...you're still at it...put some tape over it!
...Enough already!
Seriously though...you really crack me up with laughter...for that I thank you.
nwahs (carbon copy)
March 8, 2009 - 18:05 ET by cocodrieYou need to take a course in reading comprehension and hone up on your listening skills.
I see you still have that brain constipation problem, try ten drops of castor oil in each ear. At the least, it will improve your hearing.
For the diarrhea just keep your mouth closed.
Your sly bigotry and ethnic slurs are obvious in your retelling of these comments.
This is friendly advice from the one you called a "damned liar."
Jesus Loves You
→ Silly nwahs
March 8, 2009 - 18:14 ET by Cool ArrowFrom the Washington Post
Looks like what bothers you nwahs, is that you're stuck defending a racist like Biden by calling Rush a racist.
According to good ol' Joe, If DC could just start off with a bunch of white kids, he wouldn't have to be bothered with a bunch of inferior black kids. Disgusting you would defend Biden.
But you don't care about good ol' Joe's opinion at this point, because you will put up with all sorts of ethnic slurs if it comes from a member of your party.
Obviously Obama will too. He chose Biden just months after Biden called black children inferior.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
Its told under the guise of
March 8, 2009 - 18:17 ET by BDIts told under the guise of being a critique of Biden, yet retells an ethnic joke to a laughing crowd. Sly bigotry.
His Snurgly (sp?) ebonics translations appeal to bigots.
Your point regarding the pointlessness of the subject is a mirror case. No matter how much a disprove your position, you will not admit it so indeed it is a waste of time.
→ Bye Bye nwahs
March 8, 2009 - 18:25 ET by Cool ArrowHe won't resurface again until he thinks the coast is clear.
He's whining that Rush called Joe Biden a bigot.
Nwahs can't defend against proof of Joe Biden's racism, so he'll be slinking for awhile.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
→ nwahs still slinking
March 8, 2009 - 21:34 ET by Cool ArrowSomehow I knew nwahs wouldn't be back to this thread.
Does he respect Joe Biden's racist views?
Party line all the way, even when it comes to liberal views based on white superiority.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
You seen this yet NW
March 8, 2009 - 18:35 ET by general companyGo tell Gary
You (and a few others) have been prooving his point all day
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
"But dittoheads are
March 9, 2009 - 03:44 ET by ckc1227"But dittoheads are immune to examples. They don't want a different perspective. They want to defend the host- the cult."
It's not examples that bother us, it's the revisionist history. My sigline is dedicated....to you.
"Libs never let you down. You don't have to talk to one very long before the stupid comes out."
Still waiting for your apology, ckc.
March 9, 2009 - 03:50 ET by JerStill waiting for your apology, ckc.
Jer
Whatever appeals to a
March 8, 2009 - 11:31 ET by BDWhatever appeals to a conservative to transform them to a dittohead ( the sly bigotry? Crassness? Unapologetic gluttony?), it falls into the category of wanting to hit something. Its the need to verbally punch people or things.
That appeal is not going pull independents into conservatism,
Conservatives have changed to relatively small government, strong defense, a little fiscal responsibility , and a big desire to punch people smaller than you.
Really, BD?
March 8, 2009 - 13:59 ET by Blonde6'7"?
Henceforth and forevermore I shall always see BD and think (really) Big Dude!
I hope he fails, too.
Yes, and it is not me
March 8, 2009 - 15:04 ET by BDYes, and it is not me bragging since if I could I would shrink 3 inches if for no ther reason to fit in the new cars, airline, or theater seats being produced.... Let alone clothes shopping.
And 23 years of running, my knees are SHOT!!!
Trust me, BD
March 8, 2009 - 15:12 ET by BlondeThe airline seats wouldn't be any better....I'm a shade under 5'10", and they're made for someone who's about 5'5".
Plus, you have a perfect excuse for driving a nice big boat.
I hope he fails, too.
Ummm... I live in Sierra
March 8, 2009 - 16:02 ET by BDUmmm... I live in Sierra Vista. Boats are kinda out of the option list this week here...
Let's try this from another
March 8, 2009 - 16:28 ET by fitzfongLet's try this from another angle. Your ignorant, yet condescending references to "dittoheads", your substance-free claims of "bigotry", "crassness" and "unapologetic gluttony" (by the way, if you're a glutton, what the hell difference does it make if you're aplogetic or not?) are merely tired non sequiturs. The "desire to punch people smaller than you" line reads like some lame, veiled Code Pinko anti-war slogan. But through all your self-important lectures on pulling "independents into conservatism", you fail to articulate what specific principles or policies you disagree with Limbaugh (and/or agree with these oh-so-important "independents") on. You're obsessed with his "tone", with perceptions of him and of those who listen to his show (from those who don't). Instead of snivelling and acting as if you're morally superior to Limbaugh listeners because you see them as "crass", why don't you be honest for once in your life and articulate what policies you believe are going to attract independents to the party? But I'll tell you something, if those policies entail the intellectually lazy Brooks/Frum/Kristol model of surrendering more taxpayer money to the government because pandering to market segments is easier than convincing people of effective conservative principles, your problem is not just with Rush Limbaugh...it's with the core of the Republican Party.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
The dem talking point of the coming week.
March 8, 2009 - 10:30 ET by iBlogI admit to reading and watching too much news, but in doing so I find it easy to catch the dem talking points. I can't imagine it's a coincidence that literally the exact phrases and words are uttered on every news channel or other media outlet. Most people catch their news from the same source every day so they are never able to pick out the clear talking points and think there just getting "the news". This is a huge problem for the GOP. The latest example is the attacks on Rush- he is an rich, obese, white man who drive expensive cars, flies private jets, lives in a mansion, has 3- failed marriages and a history of Rx drug abuse. If you perform a simple google search for news stories on Rush you will see a large number of articles, written by different folks, but all with the same language within the first 3 paragraphs. It's truly amazing.
Imagine if the MSM began every story about Ted Kennedy as-the son of a bootlegger, who has never held a job, rode his family name to the senate, with a history of failed marriage and alcohol abuse, which may have been the cause of a car accident that killed a young girlfriend of Teds.
I really don't like
March 8, 2009 - 11:19 ET by ThatDudeI really don't like character assassinations. They only matter when something relevent in their ideology or policy stands in contrast. I would rather not pull character assassinations except, in cases like this, to show the bias. If someone is being hypocritical, they deserve to have it shoved in their faces.
Weren't all these idiots in
March 8, 2009 - 10:44 ET by EugeniaWeren't all these idiots in the media gloating post-election that Rush and conservative radio no longer have any influence and are irrelevent? Now they're in a panicked name-calling, hate-mongering knock-him-down state afraid that he has influence and claiming that he in fact DOES have influence. These libs are so confused. But then so is their ideology.
Eugenia, modern liberalism
March 8, 2009 - 13:19 ET by SmartypantsEugenia, modern liberalism is a failed ideology which survives through the exact methodology you described. These people use invective to silence their opposition and declare "the debate is over" before it ever begins. They cannot point to history to support their claims, so they rewrite it. They cannot use reason and logic to give credence to their agenda, so they use emotional arguments to berate their opponents. They are, indeed, confused but have been successful at confusing the majority of Americans; we will all pay the price for this ignorance.
The most successful war America has ever waged is quickly becoming President Obama's war on capitalism.
Eugenia, GREAT POINT!!!
March 8, 2009 - 13:43 ET by LiberalliesEugenia,
GREAT POINT!!! We were told right after the elections that Rush, Hannity, etc were old, silly republicans that did not matter anymore!
now we are told that they do matter. HAHAHA!!!
I see it the same way as when you read news about thigns that are bad for yoru health one day and 24 hours later we are being told that they are great for our health.
I believe that there is a lot of anxiety and anger brewing in America against Obama that the media is unwilling to report, Tea Parties, as an example.
Obama and his administration are right now the laughing stock in Great Britain, Russia for fumbling PM Gordon Brown's visit and the ridiculous button given to Russia with the WRONG word! Of course the American media is not reporting this, but had it been the Bush administration who had dropped the ball so badly, you know it would be running all day long and SNL would have a thousand skits about it.
Not to mention that Obama is angering the Israelis.
By the way, I read on NRO that a Obama senior administration member in the State Department when asked why the Obama administratio had dropped the ball with one of our closest allies and not given PM Brown an appropiate welcoming, the administration member went crazy with anger and told the press that Britain was not any more special than the rest of the 190 countries on planet Earth! Way to get America's allies on our side, Obama!
God help this nation and the world from this idiot Obama.
So, the liberal media has
March 8, 2009 - 10:44 ET by Chris NormanSo, the liberal media has scooped up a "conservative" never-was-er, bitter about being unknown and ignored by the general conservative voting bloc, and eager to bash one of the conservative figures conservatives pay attention to. This "piece" is so transparently sour grapish as to be laughable. Why do you keep hanging around a movement you so clearly disdain, Mr. Frum? It's time to face facts, drop the "conservative" fiction, and begin calling yourself a "moderate" - then you can write pieces directed towards them - if you can find them.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Why is Rush's mouth covered
March 8, 2009 - 12:59 ET by Mr. MikeWhy is Rush's mouth covered with the word "Enough" on the cover? Uh, isn't that intolerant of the Left? Are they suggesting that Rush as a private citizen cannot freely speak his mind on political matters? This is scary stuff.
Let's see if NEWSWEEK has an unflatterring Obama image on the cover with the words "Bamboozled", "Weak" or "Misguided" over it anytime soon. Yeah, Hell's gonna be a ski resort before that happens!
Free speech? What's
March 8, 2009 - 13:09 ET by wiwfFree speech? What's that?
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Free Speech
March 8, 2009 - 13:11 ET by Free StinkerThat's something that belongs only to Liberals.
If you ask Liberals.
"Gov. Palin has been subjected to one of the most massive and dishonest pile-on smear attacks in the history of liberal media." -- Lowell Ponte
The media just does not
March 8, 2009 - 13:13 ET by SmartypantsThe media just does not like conservatives plain and simple. This cycle reapeats itself endlessly, from Ronald Reagan to Newt Gingrich and Clarence Thomas to Sarah Palin. All of these individuals were eviscerated by the media at one time or another, and generally this was performed with little substance behind it. On the media side, what conservatives have ever been given respect by their peers? Look at how a half-conservative like Elisabeth Hasselbeck is treated. Rush Limaugh is now an easy and most likely target. Meanwhile, zealots like Keith Olbermann and Michael Moore are allowed to spew empty invective ad nauseum and nobody in the media even notices. Heck, Moore is given awards in Hollywood for his tirades.
Anybody who does not see the double-standard in all of this is either a pure partisan themselves or hopelessly ignorant.
The most successful war America has ever waged is quickly becoming President Obama's war on capitalism.
Gauntlet Even More Down
March 8, 2009 - 13:30 ET by rammingspeedThe photo of Limbaugh on the cover Newsweek with his mouth covered is ominous. The left would never show that kind of thing about any of their own representatives who speak strongly against the right.
There have already been unintended consequences for the left. More people have been tuning into Limbaugh because of the brouhaha, and have become fans. Not because they're stupid, the way the left would have uninformed people believe, but because he speaks the truth.
As the Obama administration unveils more and more of its restrictive policies - especially when they push harder for economic redistribution - more and more people will become angry and look for answers. Rush Limbaugh and others on talk radio will provide those answers. Hack publications like Newsweek Magazine have already been discredited, and conservative leaders will expose them even more.
Funny you should say that
March 8, 2009 - 13:37 ET by general companyThe left would never show that kind of thing about any of their own representatives who speak strongly against the right.
Oh the irony, they are the "own representatives" you are refering too. I am wondering just what their thinking is, to want to have a college of theirs silenced. Do they honestly think it will stop with him?
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
My point exactly Ram. A
March 8, 2009 - 14:07 ET by Mr. MikeMy point exactly Ram. A horrid photo with a word covering the mouth. No one on the Left would allow one of their own to suffer this. It would be a hellstorm of lectures concerning free speech.
By the way, Talkers magazine (per RedState) is standing by their story that Rush's listeners have nearly doubled in the last week. MSNBC has been blasting this is not true but it turns out to be very true!
delete
March 8, 2009 - 13:55 ET by cocodriedelete
Totally expected.
March 8, 2009 - 13:52 ET by cocodrieRush's audience has increased continuously while newsweek & Time"s readership have decreased dramatically.
It's time to call for the assassination of Rush's show by the anti-freedom guerillas in Present Obama's cabinet.
What the public doesn't know can't be used against the imposition of socialism and the enslavement of the American people.
Jesus Loves You
Not to worry Noel. Next week, Newsweek will ..
March 8, 2009 - 14:16 ET by Gary HallNot to worry Noel. Next week, Newsweek's cover will spotlight Margaret Carlson declaring that Rush Limbaugh's show is an intellectual treat.
We can dream!
Why Frum is a useful idiot!
March 8, 2009 - 14:40 ET by tomchrisSo another "conservative" tool bites the bait. When Newsweek hits the ground, Emmanual, Carville, and the President who is "soft-spoken and conciliatory" will all be high-fiving it about how perfect their plan to demonize Rush while deflecting any attention to Obama's Gazillion dollar policies is going. You've used all their data and talking points like a trained seal and, of course, us unwashed rubes who enjoy Rush will have to indure all the orgasmic attention this story will have on the MSM. You can hear it now: "many conservatives are now criticizing radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh!" Good job, Frum. It's no wonder you had such high praise for another "good conservative (as the left sees you)" Michael Steele.
But don't count your thirty pieces of silver just yet, Mr Frum. While the left has left money on the night stand for Christopher Buckley, David Brookes, and Peggy Noonan, your services will be needed if another threat to the Messiah is detected (the return of Sarah Palin, for example) whereupon you'll get another shot to hand sanitize-away another conservative you think wouldn't pass muster at a Washington coctail party.
Newsbleak!
March 8, 2009 - 15:07 ET by blazermaniacWhen was the last time that Newsweek was right about anything. 1959?
blazer.. Newsweek? perhaps on April 28, 1975..
March 8, 2009 - 15:21 ET by Gary Hallblazer.. Newsweek? perhaps on April 28, 1975.. when they spoke of the risk of a cooling planet.
(;~> gary
Good one,
March 8, 2009 - 16:10 ET by JerGood one, Gary.
Jer
David Frum, Rush and Republicans...
March 8, 2009 - 15:26 ET by PrairieSkyI've been to Newsweek's site and have read this article...David Frum, a self-described conservative, apparently subscribes to the unfortunate view that what Republicans have to do to regain the ground that they have lost over the past several years is actually quite simple...Republicans must think, act, talk and legislate like Democrats. He disagrees strongly with Rush's (and other's) contention that Repubs/conservatives must stay true to our core traditional and conservative principles. He believes that in order to appeal to to the key electoral groups that are and will be important in future elections, that Repubs must adopt many of the causes/issues and positions that have been traditionally the domains of the Dems, such as healthcare reform. If Republicans and conservatives were to take Mr. Frums's cockeyed advice, there would be little substantive difference between Repubs and Dems. Mr. Frum feels that because the Dems have won the last two elections, they obviously have the winning formula that is appealing to voters, and to become relevant and competitive again, Repubs must follow their example. This is simply a recipe for a sell-out in my opinion...If you're losing, just abandon your principles and do what the winner is doing...Nevermind about what you believe in or stand for.
I couldn't disagree more with Mr. Frum's plan for success for the Republicans/conservatives. Do I think that Repubs must find ways to appeal more to certain electoral groups that, like it or not, are becoming more of a factor in elections? Yes. But I believe that we can do that without abandoning our bedrock beliefs and principles.
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan~ January 20, 1981
Do I think that Repubs must
March 8, 2009 - 21:12 ET by JerDo I think that Repubs must find ways to appeal more to certain electoral groups that, like it or not, are becoming more of a factor in elections? Yes. But I believe that we can do that without abandoning our bedrock beliefs and principles.
Prairie...I'll reread Frum's article since I was half-asleep when I read it late last night, but I thought the above was precisely what he was advocating. Maybe it's a question of emphasis and degree.
Jer
Newsweek and Rush...Is it just me or...
March 8, 2009 - 15:47 ET by PrairieSkyDoes anyone else have a problem with the implicit censorship message in Newsweek's cover of Rush? Here we have a photo of Rush with a banner or a piece of tape with "Enough" written on it, plastered across his mouth. If a magazine, conservative or not, had a similar photo of Ed Schultz, Olbermann, or another of the looney left's mouthpieces on it's cover, the screams of censorship would be deafening.
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan~ January 20, 1981
Spot on, Prairie
March 8, 2009 - 15:53 ET by BlondePost of the week about Media Bias....and it's not even Monday yet.
I hope he fails, too.
Blonde...If ever...
March 8, 2009 - 16:49 ET by PrairieSkythere was any doubt about media bias, this cover, as far as I'm concerned, puts that to rest...The gloves are off, folks...
(And thanks!)
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan~ January 20, 1981
Thank you PrairieSky this
March 8, 2009 - 17:08 ET by Mr. MikeThank you PrairieSky this has bothered me since I saw the cover. This is beyond shameful. The liberals are preparing for war and we're preparing for some garden party luncheon. It's time for the real republicans to take the gloves off and get dirty. They need to come out swinging and take no prisoners.
Mr. Mike...
March 8, 2009 - 17:31 ET by PrairieSky"This is beyond shameful..."
It is beyond shameful, but unfortunately, it is also par for the course for the Dems/libs. While I agree that Repubs/conservatives should fight back against this blatant, rampant bias, I don't agree that we should 'get dirty.' In doing that, we would lower ourselves to their gutter level. The old saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right" applies here. I believe that Repubs/conservatives can be effective at combating this destructive, deceitful bias without sinking to the depths that those on the left are more than willing to descend to.
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan~ January 20, 1981
Sky... The tape over his
March 8, 2009 - 17:15 ET by bigtimerSky...
The tape over his mouth, along with the rest of the leftist propaganda represents silencing him and other conservatives/talk show hosts with the Fairness Doctrine via the FCC (thanks to Durbin and his amendment that passed)...not congress, so the dems protect their butts too and don't have to vote on this, won't be held acountable for any campaign issue in '10 if this came up.
These people are marxists...they have an agenda to fulfill, they are attempting to destroy and silence the conservative root of the re pub party in more ways than one... they are doing their best daily to have members they consider conservative to put Rush down blah blah blah for this very reason, they want the conservative party thinned, skinned and silent.
It is spooky how far they all are succeeding in unison all over the place....
What they are making a big mistake about is the anger that is slowly growing and will continue to do so with the American people.
bt...Agendas...
March 8, 2009 - 17:43 ET by PrairieSky"These people are marxists...they have an agenda to fulfill..."
Exactly...They definitely have an agenda to fulfill, and if they're successful, they will destroy this country. Aside from the simple insanity of the left's ideologies, the fact that the media is a willing accomplice in all this, is making and will make the job of fighting back that much harder. The role of the conservative press, websites, and bloggers has become absolutely crucial in this fight...The MSM has totally abandoned any shred of integrity that they ever had and can't be counted on to offer anything objective anymore.
I think you are 100% right about the rising tide of anger that we are seeing among the American people (it's about time!!) Too bad more of them didn't see things more clearly before the election, but the fact remains that we have a fight on our hands.
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan~ January 20, 1981
2 completely different types
March 8, 2009 - 17:16 ET by bknownstWhat the clown from Weaknews meant to say was Rush is honest, courageous, generous and good while O is a lying commie who broke every promise he made in his first week as dictator.
It's not just the cover, it's the whole debate
March 8, 2009 - 17:36 ET by iBlogThis whole topic re: Rush is troubling. Essentially, the media has treated this whole deal as though they are looking out for and trying to help the GOP. They see it as their responsiblity to ween the mind-numbed robot dittoheads off of Rush, towards a different agenda (though other than the "not-Rush" agenda it remains unclear what exactly this movement stands for).
The bottom line is simple: Rush's relevance is not reflected in terms of GOP house seats, senate seats or presidential vote. He's survived GOP controlled congresses, Dem congresses, Dem Pres and Rep. President. The politicians themselves are the only ones that can be said to have been voted into political silence or irrelevance. Rush's relevance, however, is measured by the number of his listeners, even if they are mind-numbed robots.
What's funny is that nobody asks about Obamas mind-numbed robots. I keep going back to this, but it's true- If Republicans can find someone as charasmatic as Obama to be the public face of "Conservative-Limbaughian" political theory, you'd see an electoral map reflecting Reagan '84 type landslide. Obama took long rejected leftwing policies (this is not meant as a knock, it's simply fact in US poli history) and seemingly made them mainstream. In doing so, he won the presidency and picked up a few "traditionally red" states. Now, imagine (or just look to 1984) for what happens when a charasmatic politician embraces long standing, well-recognized conservative principles. Here's to hoping the GOP can do that soon.
"This president invokes the language of "responsibility," ...
March 8, 2009 - 17:25 ET by Thalpy"This president invokes the language of "responsibility." What? Almost every associate and prospective Cabinet member has either had so much political baggage that confirmation was simply out of the question, or they were certifiable thugs. Mr. Obama's "life epitomizes the ideal of responsibility?" No doubt David Frum has been in the mushrooms again because many of Obama's associates and friends have either been in prison or should have been in prison; many belong to the Socialist Party, SDS, Weather Underground, or some Arab group. So much for Frum's assessent of anything.
Rush isn't and does not claim to be the leader of the Republicans. Had he been, McCain would not have been the candidate and this article would not have been written.
Thalpy... I'm going to
March 8, 2009 - 17:47 ET by bigtimerThalpy...
I'm going to put a link here...I think you will be interested, it is about 40 minutes to an hour of an interview, it is absolutely the best I have heard, so may things to explain so I won't, but if you are interested after you start listening, it sums up all of the agenda with the left/communists/Marxist whatever name you want to use, this has a great chronology and is never boring whatsoever.
I have put different links here over time that pertain to this all, weave into it right up to Obama etc...but this covers so much...incuding Motor Voter, the Clintons, ACORN etc...take too long to explain it...it is a Christian Worldwide Network, (I have never heard of it, but glad I did today.)
This is going to be a link Clear thinker may have here later to click, his site has some great info if you see it...well worth your time.
I know I'm rambling, but this is really great IMHO.
Thank you, bt...
March 9, 2009 - 08:27 ET by ThalpyThank you bt. This is a great link and time well spent. This all brings about flashbacks for those of us who were around "back in the day" when the Cloward-Piven attack on New York City's social services essentially forced NYC into bankruptcy. These people are for real and don't have the good of our country in mind. They are busy implementing many of the social justice ideas that have sprung from the London School and will lead to the micro-management of us all--if we're willing.
POLLS Show GOP Has Little Credibility Outside of Base
March 8, 2009 - 17:43 ET by Rush FanIt's not the media's fault that those on the right, including Rush Limbaugh, conservatives and Republicans are treated with "scorn and contempt." Blame it on the polls! The media is only reporting what the public's opinion is at any given time, and polls are the barometer of that opinion. Don't pay attention to the rapidly descending stock market, or the Wall Street pundits like Santelli or Kramer. Follow the polls. And one poll shows that President Obama has a rating of 89 out of 100.
There is not a day that goes by where the media doesn't tout the latest poll offerings. As all of you at NewsBusters know, opinion polling is fairly accurate and unbiased.
Take for example Zogby International, described byWikipedia as "an independent, non-partisan polling firm." The latest Zogby poll shows: "Right now, Obama's popularity is 15 points higher than when Americans voted him into office, and only 26 percent of Americans think that the Republicans can do a good job."
Since Zogby is independent and non-partisan, the poll must be unbiased and fairly accurate. Right? HOLD IT! This is what John Zogby wrote at U.S. News and World Report:
"On Wall Street, he (Obama) is accused of destroying wealth, and at last weekend's CPAC convention for conservatives, Rush Limbaugh professes his desire that the president fail. Advice to all three: You lost the election, you have very little credibility outside of your base, and you are helping to make the president look even better."
Back in 2007 Zogby International and the Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School did a poll on The Real Reason Rush Limbaugh is Much More Popular than Air America. If you believe the poll, Rush Limbaugh's "popularity may have more to do with preset beliefs in the minds of his listeners than with his presentation skills."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advice: Disregard All the Polls ~ Rush Limbaugh
Polls
March 8, 2009 - 18:01 ET by slickwillie2001Polls on Obammy are not going to be reliable. After all the race-baiting that has been going on, and the 'hope he fails' claims, and the patriotism meme, how many respondents on the telephone will dare to say that they don't approve of Obammy? I say that's worth ten points or so to the Liar-in-Chief.
I also believe that pollsters have recognized this problem and that's why the usual second question is being asked, something like, -'do you approve of the President's programs'. Answers to that question are therefore more meaningful.
Re the pollsters, that's another source of bias; they range from center-left like Zogby, to extreme-left like the moonbats at Pew.
Frum is no Conservative (as if ya'll didn't know)
March 8, 2009 - 18:39 ET by BlueRidgeGirlFrum is smarting from the smack down Levin gave him. He has turned into an elitist snob, tell us we must become liberal in order to save our party. Ha! What a doofus!
All Frum can do to argue with ElRushbo is call him names, talk about his past, and simply smear him. This, my friends, is because Frum has no legitimate arguments against what Rush has stated.
David Frum just needs to turn in his Republican Voting card and come out of the closet as the full fledged Liberal that he is.
What a joke!
BlueRidgeGirl
March 8, 2009 - 18:59 ET by Rush FanHave you heard the audio of David Frum when he attempted to debate Mark Levin? If not, I posted the audio here.
----------------------------------------------------
"We can get women, we can get everybody with a set of core principles that we do not abandon that benefit everybody, regardless the damned color of their skin or their gender!" ~ Rush Limbaugh
Uss BlueRidgeGirl?
March 8, 2009 - 20:26 ET by JWFhttp://www.blue-ridg...
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Frum
March 8, 2009 - 20:07 ET by charlietexasThis guy is a typical northeast so called GOP guy. sounds like he wants to keep his job. They will never learn against Rush. Too bad.
→ Doh!
March 8, 2009 - 21:32 ET by Cool ArrowReposted where applicable
Obama - Change you can bereave in
>>>GOP presidential debate
March 8, 2009 - 21:33 ET by seanrobins>>>GOP presidential debate at the Reagan Library had said: "Ronald Reagan
was a great leader and a great president because he addressed the
problems of his time. But we have very different problems—and we need
very different answers. Here are mine."
Conservatism is not a tactic, an "answer" to a particular problem...it is not simply a way to an end....
Conservatism is a set of principles and values... Principles and values, the enbrace of which leads to solutions to problems. Simply running around alleging that "I am a conservative" therefore, here is what to so.... is meaningless.
Rush understands this... that's what makes him a leader in the conservative movement.
As for the "Republican movement"... that's what I did when I sat down first thing this morning.....
sean robins
blog.seanrobins.com
Frum is another of these
March 8, 2009 - 22:26 ET by NL207Frum is another of these petty mentalities that needs a good 1:1 with Limbaugh in a public forum. He also lacks the stones to neet Limbaugh in a forum where the agenda is not controlled by his team.
Hmm
March 8, 2009 - 22:36 ET by nwahsEr, Campbell Brown has a standing invitation for Rush to debate her publicly, but it seems he saves his skills for world leaders. No minor leagues for him - straight to the majors!
Let me save dittoheads the trouble " You're a strawman rino homosexual liberal whiny diarrhea mouth coward and I hope you die a painful pus filled death!!!"
That should cover it.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
Ummmmm.... As an objective
March 9, 2009 - 08:37 ET by BDUmmmmm.... As an objective journalist, she should have NO views with which to debate.
Since she has challenged to a debate, it means she is willing to debate and ergo has views.
THus she is not an objective journalist.
Thus confirms Newsbusters thesis, that being the journalists of today have a slant...
THANK YOU< CASE CLOSED.
Campbell Brown didn't
March 9, 2009 - 08:38 ET by fitzfongCampbell Brown didn't invite Rush Limbaugh to debate her publicly. She "challenged" him to come on to her show to debate the network's Chief Economic Illiterate, Ali Velshi. And she wouldn't have done that to boost her anemic ratings (hovering around statistcal zero), would she? I'd advise you to get your facts straight, but you never present any. Just...Feelings...nothing more than...feelings...trying to forget those...feelings of love...sing it with me...Feelings. Whoa, whoa, whoa...feelings....
You're a strawman rino homosexual liberal whiny diarrhea mouth coward
Congratulations, nwahs. Recognition of your problem is the first step to treatment. I don't know (nor do I care) whether or not you are "homosexual" (and, really, who are you accusing of lodging that "charge"?), but the rest of that description covers you quite accurately.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
You left out constipated
March 9, 2009 - 08:47 ET by cocodrieYou left out constipated brain.
Jesus Loves You
I heard Frum on the Mark Levin radio talk show...
March 9, 2009 - 12:56 ET by jawebster1Frum called in because he was upset with Levin's harsh defense of Rush from Frum's attacks on Rush. Frum talked rapidly and nervously and would not allow Levin to respond to what he was hysterically trying to say. Levin finally had to take Frum's microphone down so they could have a two way conversation. Frum did not impress me and anything he has to say in the future will be ignored by yours truly, not that he cares other than I will not be among the 25,000 (paltry number) who buys his books. Like many of you who are reading this right now, I have pre-ordered Mark's new book. Jim Webster
What's new? Newsweek wants to...
March 9, 2009 - 13:17 ET by jawebster1take away Rush's freedom of speech and my freedom to listen to him. Newsweek can publish whatever they want to, but when no one is willing to read what they write, then they will eventually go out of business. (Unless of course, they get a "bail-out" because the Libs consider them too big to fail.) Jim Webster