Former CBSer and current media critic Bernie Goldberg issued a strong warning to conservatives on Monday: don't behave like the left did when Bush was president -- avoid Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Following in David Horowitz's footsteps, Goldberg told Fox News's Sean Hannity:
You remember when liberals wouldn't give George Bush credit for anything? If he came up with a cure for cancer, they wouldn't have given him credit for that, and I'm sorry, Sean, I see that on the right now.
Such was the beginning of a fascinating discussion between Goldberg and Hannity Monday evening concerning whether or not it was wrong for the Obama administration to take credit for Captain Richard Phillips's rescue from Somali pirates Sunday (video embedded below the fold with full transcript, h/t Hot Air):
SEAN HANNITY, HOST: And in "Your America" tonight President Obama remained out of the public eye this weekend as the standoff with the pirates unfolded, but now that Captain Richard Phillips has been successfully rescued, the president has decided to step in front of the spot light and even take some credit for authorizing the mission.And here with reaction is the author of "A Slobbering Love Affair," FOX News contributor Bernie Goldberg.
Bernie, it's interesting. I noticed this right out of the box. And that was that, they were very noncommittal, and as soon as the success came in, great, you know, according to reports, it was Rahm Emanuel racing to take credit which is the opposite of the way Captain Phillips handled it.
Your thoughts.
BERNIE GOLDBERG, "A SLOBBERING LOVE AFFAIR" AUTHOR: Well, first of all, I think it was smart for the president not to say anything while these -- while the hostage was being held. If, God forbid, something happened to the captain, that would lessen the stature of the president, and if, God forbid, the president said something provocative and they killed the captain, there'd be a lot of critics blaming Barack Obama for that.
But there's another issue about this that troubles me, Sean, and it troubles me a lot. You remember when liberals wouldn't give George Bush credit for anything? If he came up with a cure for cancer, they wouldn't have given him credit for that, and I'm sorry, Sean, I see that on the right now.
It's like -- I don't want to put Barack Obama on Mount Rushmore for simply being the commander in chief, but we have to stop going out of our way to find fault with every single thing he does.
Look, I think I've got a little credibility on this issue. I don't like his economic policies, I don't like his tax policies, I wrote that book "A Slobbering Love Affair" about how the media slobbered all over him, but I'm just not going to be like the left was with George Bush.
HANNITY: No, I'm.
GOLDBERG: . and criticize everything he does.
HANNITY: I don't want you to misunderstand, but there's an important point here. I think it was very different. There was an orchestrated effort for them to go out there and take credit for this. And that's according to reports.
In other words they wanted the credit. But I think you're right. I think he should have stayed silent, but what we've now discovered is, according to the Politico, is that, in fact, he was legally required to sign on to this. There was no great decision here, in other words.
So -- so I'm seeing the media praise him or overly praise him for something he legally was told by his team he had to do. So the slobbering love affair continues, in other words.
GOLDBERG: Right. I agree with that, but, Sean, were you shocked when you found out that they were gambling in the back room at Rick's Cafe? I mean, of course, the media is going to bend over backwards and see things in the best light for the person that they wanted to be president.
I'm not surprised by that. All I'm saying is -- I'll criticize the media, but what I'm saying is the right has to stop behaving like the left used to behave with George Bush.
HANNITY: You have to show me -- I guess, by definition, if he's -- if I'm discovering here that legally he had to do it, and his PR team led by Rahmbo Emanuel are out there, you know, grabbing credit when the captain is saying, I'm just the byline in the story, I'm saying, wait a minute, there seems to be something wrong, and that that whole story is not being told.
Look, he didn't stop it because he couldn't stop it, apparently, Bernie, so where does he get the credit here?
GOLDBERG: Well, he gets -- if you want to use the word, "credit," I'll use that word.
HANNITY: They're grabbing credit.
GOLDBERG: He gets the credit because -- because he was the commander in chief, it happened on his watch, that's the way it goes in the real world of politics. If something bad happened here, and thank God it didn't.
HANNITY: Thank God.
GOLDBERG: But if something bad happened here, I'll guarantee you, I'll tell you who would have been leading the crusade against him, you, and you may have been right. You may have been right. If something bad happened, you may have said this is because he's seen as soft and they took advantage of him.
HANNITY: The.
GOLDBERG: You might have been right if that happened. But it didn't. Something didn't happen.
HANNITY: Thank God.
GOLDBERG: Look, Sean, the -- that's right. But the good guy is alive and well.
HANNITY: I agree. All right.
GOLDBERG: The bad guys are dead. That's all good. It happened on Barack Obama's watch. He gets.
HANNITY: I'm not, I'm not.
GOLDBERG: If you want to use the word, he gets the credit.
HANNITY: But the only thing is I'm saying here is that they race to grab the credit and apparently we're discovering that legally he had no other option, so there wasn't this -- there wasn't this big effort on his part to -- I'll give him credit when - look, I said Bob Gates was a good choice, OK, for defense secretary.
I think some of the military members that he kept over, national security, but here's the problem. I'm looking at the bigger picture, Bernie, and national security, you know, issues concern me even more than economic issues in the long-term.
GOLDBERG: Right.
HANNITY: Because we can't.
GOLDBERG: Me too.
HANNITY: All right. Overseas contingency operations, we're going to cut back on missile defense. We're unilaterally talking about disarmament. And so, I know that they are raising to bolster his national security credentials, I get that.
But my concern here is, if you've got to take credit for something you really didn't have any choice on, then I think you're manipulating the American people, and that's where I'm running into problems.
GOLDBERG: I don't know what the law says on whether he had to take action. It seems to me just as someone who took a few history and political science courses that he's the commander in chief, he could have taken action or he could not have taken action.
HANNITY: Well.
GOLDBERG: I'm not giving him a great deal of credit.
HANNITY: Let me add one thing to this point, and I promise I'll give you the last word, and I'm not going to interrupt you, but from the Politico it says Obama's involvement in the decision was legally required, officials said, because it was a hostage situation, not combat, and unrelated to the already authorized U.S. effort against al Qaeda.
So I guess the point is, if it's already something he has to do, that does add a different dimension, doesn't it, Bernie?
GOLDBERG: OK, well -- yes, again, but I don't know -- it seems to me a commander in chief can say don't shoot those fellows, they're young men, and then we could criticize him. The commander in chief could say send some food over to them, they must be hungry, then we could criticize him.
I just think -- I think if you want to spend your time, Sean, looking at what he might do in the area of foreign policy and national security, absolutely 100 percent legitimate, and I'm probably going to be on your side on that.
This seems to be petty. The criticism here seems to be petty.
HANNITY: Well, look, Bernie.
GOLDBERG: That's my position.
HANNITY: You're entitled to your opinion, but the only thing I'm saying here is I think the way the captain handled the credit by saying I'm a byline. These Navy SEALs saved my life. I think it was classier than racing to the cameras, you know, and your PR people and trying to convince the world you were responsible for something that you may not have even had an option in is a big difference.
GOLDBERG: One was a captain and the other was a politician.
HANNITY: Good answer, so I won you over? All right.
GOLDBERG: Thanks, Sean.
HANNITY: Appreciate your time.
Who do you agree with: Bernie or Sean?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Hannity
April 14, 2009 - 11:33 ET by allanfI think Goldberg has a point. The only anodyne for Obama acolytes is his inevitable genuine failure followed by rational criticism.
Love ya
April 14, 2009 - 11:37 ET by cvgbuckeyeLove ya Bernie but it is high time that Conservatives quit bringing a ping pong paddle to a gun fight. That is noble thinking but please don't doom us to turning the other cheek again and then looking Chairman Obama right in the back-side.
Enough is enough. It is time to fight like hell or we will not survive as a free nation.
Some things are just worth fighting for; downright, dirty dog fighting for.
Sorry Bernie but you are as wrong as a three dollar bill.
Why not OBS? BDS worked
April 14, 2009 - 11:45 ET by kgWhy not OBS? BDS worked well for the Democrats.
"DumbAssity of Dope"
Say no to ODS
April 14, 2009 - 18:26 ET by Captain KirockBecause it is inherently dishonest, just like BDS. It cheapens valid arguments against Obama.
Agreed, 'Buckeye'...
April 14, 2009 - 12:10 ET by Georgia GirlAnd also, there is another big difference that must be considered, to be fair and just. There are valid reasons for lack of "credit" to what Obama did in this situation with the pirates. The left refused to give credit to Bush for the surge and final results, etc., but who always had faith in the military and was 100% honest and true to the military's purpose and value? Yeah, Bush...
Now with Obama, perhaps the right is reluctant to give him "credit" for the rescue of the captain because of how he has shown his true colors of his poor committment and lack of respect (and funds & policy reflects that) for the miltary. There is a difference.
Plus, who always looks like they are looking for credit and praise (yes, Obama), and who just did what he thought was right and didn't worry about how others felt about him? Yeah, Bush. And yes, it's a judgement call in interpreting the character difference between the two...but I think anybody who is analytical and reasonable can easily track the different between these two men. However, you can't teach someone what truth is, so I realize this is partially a subjective argument. I think Bush is a good man who always tried to do what was right. I think Obama is a selfish man who uses people and situations for his own glory.
Right Again
April 14, 2009 - 13:16 ET by UtherpendYes, again the time for playing fair died with McCains campaign. There is only one winner in a competition, you don't get second place in an election, you LOSE.
"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security."
If your suggestion
April 14, 2009 - 13:57 ET by IamTinmanIf your suggestion is to become that which you hate, I don't see where much has been gained. The republicans in congress became just like their high spending democrat brethren and paid the price in 2006 and 2008. I think it would be a lot better to follow the original principles of the "party of Lincoln" instead of trying to pander to a host of special interest groups and diluting the conservative message. The american people are basically conservative and given a clear message and a leadership that stands by traditional republican principles will reright the ship of state in 2012.
Peace if possible, truth at all costs.-- Martin Luther
"Love ya"
April 14, 2009 - 22:57 ET by DoktorFrankenI agree with you on this one, cvgbuckeye. We have, for too long, played Mr. Nice Guy. And, boy howdy, did that work REAL good for McCain!
We, as Conservatives, have all the right in the world to criticize Hussein. For his secretiveness, his policies, his appointees, his attack on the Constitution and Conservatives, his attempt to privatize banks and car manufacturers, his manipulation of salaries in certain private companies. I could list all of the scary and somewhat illegal reasons Conservatives have to be critical of Hussein but we ALL know them in greater detail than I can go into here.
BDS was based on the idiocy and craziness of the Left's projection. Conservatives have logical arguments for disliking Hussein. There is absolutely no comparison between BDS and what Conservatives say about The WON.
Plus, Hussein deserves the exact same treatment George Bush got from the press and the Left. And anyone denying that is a whiny crybaby. Remember, boys and girls, Hussein WON - and he deserves everything that that victory entails.
And if anyone disagrees with that they can talk to the finger.
Hannity is losing his edge
April 14, 2009 - 11:37 ET by BlondeAs much as I can't believe it, the show is much poorer without the pathetically liberal Alan Colmes.
Hannity's "panel" are pathetic. Don't get me wrong, I like Tony Dungy and Kathy Ireland....but they're not exactly known for astute politcal analysis (how's that for understatement)?
Hannity has become a parody of himself, and it's embarassing. I saw this on the rerun late last night. Hannity overtalked all of his guests in the most boorish way, kept repeating his stupid position (Obama was forced by law to allow the shooters to execute, ergo sum, he deserved no credit) ad nauseum.
Wake up Sean.
I hope he fails, too.
Re Hannity
April 14, 2009 - 11:51 ET by slickwillie2001I have to agree. It was better with Colmes, not because of Colmes, but because it was a better format. All the new features added are insipid, like the Liberal Translations with goofy music, and the all-American panel typically of empty headed celebrities. He needs to go back to the old format and just leave the Colmes chair empty or find an honest liberal to take his place.
I thought highly of Kirsten Powers until she insisted the other day that the Bamster didn't bow to the King of Soddy Arabia, so she won't do, and of course Beckel is a clown. The problem to be honest is that Hannity means well but is not that bright. He can't go toe to toe with a really bright liberal intellectual type.
Me, too...
April 14, 2009 - 11:59 ET by Georgia GirlI don't like the new format either. The reason it worked so well when they had Colmes in there (or more voice from the left) is that it really showed the left to be so wacky and extreme & bad for the country. Now it really has become boring, and without the balance there, it seems weaker and too simple.
Hannity is becoming shrill
April 14, 2009 - 18:30 ET by Captain KirockI also agree. Hannity is trying too much to be a clown. Lose the stupid "Liberal Translation" segment and its irritating music.
Hannity should just be himself and not be afraid to give Obama credit when he deserves it.
I'll second that
April 14, 2009 - 13:54 ET by KC MulvilleOr third or fourth it, depending on where this appears ...
Let the guest talk. Instead, Hannity interrupts to make the same points, over and over. He recites the litany of liberal sins, but he does it as a reflex. We agree with the point, most of them anyway, but the reflex interruptions annoy me.
If you invited the guest on, let them do the job you asked them to do. In response, the guests quickly learn that the only way to get a word in edgewise is to offer a shouted, bumper-sticker version of whatever point they reflect.
It's become unwatchable
April 14, 2009 - 14:17 ET by BlondeSean Hannity is rapidly losing respect.
He was able to "get" many important interviews, but if he keeps this up, that will stop, too (the only reason his show is even remotely interesting for me at this juncture).
I don't know why these "panel" shows haven't come up with the solution of a control strip in front of the host (or in Sean's case, the producer)......and just turn off the mike of the idiot blabbermouth.
I'd love to pull the plug on some of these rude people. Oh, that would be grand to see their faces as they realized their shouting had no effect whatsoever.
I hope he fails, too.
The Johnny Carson method
April 14, 2009 - 15:13 ET by KC MulvilleThey always said that the great thing about Johnny Carson was that he wanted the guest to look good. I don't see that happening here.
To be fair, they all do it these days. Chris Matthews lets you talk only if you agree with him, otherwise he interrupts constantly, O'Reilly is averaging four words before interrupting the guests, even if they agree with him. Charlie Rose tries to complete sentences. Who has interview skills anymore?
KC...the only one that
April 14, 2009 - 15:22 ET by bigtimerKC...the only one that comes quick to my mind at the moment is Larry King Almost Alive...
...because he is only almost alive during his so-called hard-hitting interviews.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Yeah, but ...
April 14, 2009 - 19:29 ET by KC MulvilleI'll watch Larry King on for the sheer humor. If he has one guest on, he's OK. He pays attention. But when he has three or four people on, it gets hilarious. He abandons any pretense of listening, and the questions come from left field, if not the parking lot. You see guests's furrowed brows, trying to figure out what's going on.
I've seen guests say something personal and heart-wrenching, and then Larry responds with, "More when we come back ... "
RE: Hannity is losing his edge
April 14, 2009 - 23:42 ET by DoktorFrankenBlonde,
I stopped watching H&C because I could not stand to hear Colmes whiny, crybaby (my theme for today) repetition of the Left's Talking Points. On and on, yada-yada, a never ending abstruse babbling which, mostly, had no connection with reality.
I haven't watched the new Hannity show so I cannot comment on his format. However, whenever I have listened to Sean's radio show he appears to grind a point down to a nub. The most apparent difference between Rush and Sean is that Rush knows how to 'move on' with a topic. Sean drones on and I lose my interest.
Don't get me wrong, though. Sean is a Good Guy and means only the best for our country. He also attempts to find the facts of a subject - and not the overly condescending way O'Reilly does when he bends over backwards for the Left. Bill O winds up just bending over. But I digress.
Goldberg
April 14, 2009 - 11:43 ET by iveseenitallI commented about this on another post this morning. Goldberg basically warned Hannity to not be "unfair" and to give "credit" to Barry. I'll say it again-- Goldberg has a long way to go in his understanding of modern "liberal" if he thinks being fair to them is necessary. Modern "liberals" are never fair to conservatives. NEVER. No matter how right you are, no matter how logical you are, no matter how "fair" you are to a "liberal", he/she will always wish for your demise. Modern "liberals" are the enemy within. "Gentleman" McCain is a prime example of what being nice will get you. I once saw Bernie being scewered by five libs after the publication of one of his books. And none of them had even read it! Didn't he learn anything from that affair? Until we conservatives learn to fight fire with fire, we'll be bringing up the rear forever. Scheeze!
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
iveseentail
April 14, 2009 - 12:08 ET by MrShy"Gentleman" McCain is a prime example of what being nice will get you.
And let us not forget the gentlemanly, polite pink elephant in the room, by the name of George W. Bush.
W.. Polite and patient in the face of all the crap slung at him by the truckloads during his terms -- and a lot more bipartisan on many fronts than most of us think he should have been -- and it only seemed to get uglier and uglier... to the point that actually crap was slung at him, like shoes. The media and libs adored every moment of it, culminating with the kick-in-the-backside "HEY HEY, GOODBYYYEE!!!" send-off chant along the once-hollowed streets of Washington D.C..
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Yeah I saw this last night and was feeling a bit bad for Sean
April 14, 2009 - 11:45 ET by Lord ErondBUT, I think you see this in general with what I call the old guard media guys like Goldberg and O'Reilly. They just want to play it fair. The reason they look partisan is because there are so many examples of the left wing being UNfair.
I love Hannity but I think I agree with Goldberg here. Sometimes Sean can get carried away but this should not in any way diminish what he does the other 99% of the time. Certainly Sean had a point about Obama grandstanding for something that was inevitable but if I see this the way Bernie is taking it, his point was that Obama was going to get blitzed no matter what. I think Goldberg's point is valid here.
But if you know the libs, they're going to trash Sean all over the place for this. But AT LEAST there is room for dissenting opinion on Sean's show, unlike Olbergoebbels.
"To sin by silence when we should protest, makes cowards of men" -Ella Wheeler Wilcox
I agree with Bernie and it
April 14, 2009 - 11:48 ET by Ruths husband BenI agree with Bernie and it is not, for me, about being pro-Obama or whether or not the liberals will appreciate the jesture. It is about being fair. If our side is to be fair, then let's be fair. Sure Obama is racing to take credit. That is the name of the game in politics. Our side would too.
Obama: "The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers." -Ed Mahmoud
I agree, It doesn't mean
April 14, 2009 - 12:02 ET by okie-pastorI agree, It doesn't mean that I agree with Obama on anything else. It doesn't mean that I like Obama. It doesn't mean that I will vote for Obama, because as a Christian conservative I am directly opposed to everything He stands for. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. He did the right thing, but so did the Navy Seals and the captain.
It's not about being "fair"
April 14, 2009 - 14:38 ET by JeffWeimerThat's a shibboleth.
"Fairness" is what Obama want's to change the tax code to "promote".
It's about being intellectually honest. We can give Obama the benefit of the doubt and credit when it's due - as it is here, he did his job effectively. This will eventually be shown as contrast to how the previous administration was treated. We on the "right" will be vindicated because we did the right thing, not because we played the gotcha game better.
Divided
April 14, 2009 - 12:12 ET by iveseenitallLimbaugh is right when he calls the nation "bi-polar". In my opinion the division began decades ago, during the Vietnam War. The modern "liberal" got a foothold in the media, in the government, and in the educational system and it has been downhill ever since. Immaturity and ignorance has became maintream over the past forty years. As a result, attempting to reason with the unreasonable, be logical with the illogical, be rational with the irrational, and speak truth to liars and hypocrites is a waste of time. Goldberg was wrong in his advice to Hannity. Happy Tea Party Day.
P.S. Read Wittaker Chamber's autobiography, "Witness", and learn about the enemy within. But even he, more than fifty years ago, said that we have lost the war with the socialist/communists and that they will never stop what they do. Scarry.
NEVER, NEVER trust a "liberal"
Just curious...
April 14, 2009 - 12:13 ET by mvfreeman"As a result, attempting to reason with the unreasonable, be logical with the illogical, be rational with the irrational, and speak truth to liars and hypocrites is a waste of time"
What is the alternative? To be as irrational and illogical? To be liars and hypocrites too?
I would think that intellectual honesty demands we continue to do what you think is a waste of time.
The alternative....
April 14, 2009 - 12:51 ET by iveseenitallMV...
Being irrational and illogical or lying yourself are not the alternatives. You can be always be reasonable, logical, and truthful to those who have an open mind. But it will not work with a modern "liberal". What I'm saying is that you should not waste your time with them. They do not see you as a paragon of virtue; most of them do not understand truth and virtue. Just look at them in politics, in the educational system, in the media. It is like telling a dog not to be a dog. Illogic, immaturity, and dishonesty are in the nature of the modern "liberal". Once you understand this, as a guy like Limbaugh does, you can go from there.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
You're certainly entitled to that opinion...
April 14, 2009 - 13:25 ET by mvfreemanI just don't use that broad a brush to paint people with whom I may disagree all the same color.
It seems that a lot of people are turned off by politics because the level of discourse revolves around both sides ceaselessly vilifying each other.
But it obviously does wonders for selling books to the already converted and preaching to the choir on the radio.
And yes, I have listened to Rush. For several years. Even bought his first book. It just got old.
"I just don't use that
April 14, 2009 - 13:36 ET by HelenS"I just don't use that broad a brush to paint people with whom I may disagree all the same color."
Me? I don't paint with a broad brush randomly and indiscriminately. I have one paint booth and there is one person in it (right now) and he is getting all my attention personally and specifically.
I do not believe in generalizing based on groupings unless the majority in them make that assumption inevitable and I will recognize exceptions - if they happen. But when an individual wants to hide his true colors, I will do the favor of painting them back on.
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
Now that he's president O's
April 14, 2009 - 13:58 ET by mvfreemanNow that he's president O's colors are going to be defined by what he actually does. Yes I realize that there will be spin involved, but he's the one in the hot seat now.
Goldberg isn't talking about opposing O on policy, he's saying not to get caught up in trying to make him look bad just for the sake of making him look bad.
Not a "broad brush"
April 14, 2009 - 14:09 ET by iveseenitallMV....
What I say about the modern "liberals" is not painting with a broad brush. I spent my 40+ years career working closely with these people. They live in ignorance and are arrogant in their ignorance. They literally despise anyone with whom they disagree.I have watched this ignorance evolve over time. It is easy to be a modern "liberal" and espouse a relativist philosophy which has as its end the destruction of a society. If we continue down the road we are going, we will not recognize the America which has been a beacon of hope for so many. Modern "liberalsm" is an insidious evil which everyone has a duty to fully understand and to fight for the sake of those who come after us.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
I also agree with Bernie
April 14, 2009 - 12:06 ET by mvfreemanWhy would you want to turn yourself into the same type of rabid hater that liberals were when Bush was in office?
Saw the same sentiment over at LGF...
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33361_To_Everything_There_is_a_Season
We're in this together as americans. The "us versus them"mentality does get old. Since there is more than one voting bloc and ideology in this country compromise is going to have to be part of the process at some point.
I sort of agree with
April 14, 2009 - 12:17 ET by Jack BauerI sort of agree with that.
But laughing at Obama's spin on this is not a good example of what you refernce when you understand the actual facts of the Undocumented Seafarers.
Starting with the absurd position of the President's lawyers who seemed remarakably ill-informed as to the actual legal position of a US commander on the High Seas.
It's all part of the universal deceit by the administartion and their media friends.
The trap
April 14, 2009 - 12:27 ET by iveseenitallThere's the trap, mv. Fighting for what you believe to be right does not make you a "rabid hater". Moreover, the lefties will brand you a "rabid hater" simply because you disagree with them. Name calling is lefty trick. But it works, sad to say. Use it-- fight fire with fire. Don't, as they say in the movie The Untouchables, " bring a knife to a gunfight". BTW, have you seen the lefties ridiculing, or even criticizing each other lately? Not much.
NEVER.NEVER trust a "liberal"
Bernie has a great point
April 14, 2009 - 12:15 ET by The Smokin FrogBernie has a great point, but I haven't seen anything to credit Obama with so far. I see a man, Obama, who is calling political descent , through the Homeland Security Dept., extremist. I see a man who is ruling through gross fear and bringing in fascism. When it appears as unimportant I will be reminded of Bernie's warning. But usually Obama has made every issue critical.
I have more trouble with Hannity than Goldberg. He appears as a hothead for the sake of being a hothead. He doesn't have the depth and reasoning that Rush has.
It's All Dirty Politics
Well, I do NOT
April 14, 2009 - 12:17 ET by RowaneAgree with Goldberg, when you go into a fight you should use all of the opposition's tricks against them. If being a raving moonbat will get rid of the communists I'm game. I'm tired of watching the leftards take the day because they yell loudest.
I don't deny Obama credit
April 14, 2009 - 12:21 ET by Chris NormanI don't deny Obama credit for the sucessful conclusion of the pirate crisis, I just don't see giving him too much credit for something in which he had a more or less passive role. Having said that, I think Goldberg is overstating "ODS" - Hannity is probably the most pugnacious and relentless of the Obama foes.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
I..
April 14, 2009 - 12:27 ET by katainkentnever cared much for Hannity (even with Colmes). He had about a ten talking point merry-go round during the election that just annoyed me.
Re : ODS
If all the information a person collects comes straight from the source and not filtered through someone else's opinion no one can accuse you of being deranged. I give credit where its due, but only when I believe have a suitable amount of accurate information. The "imminent danger" decision the Captain of the Bainbridge made was the key factor in the rescue of Phillips. Keeping to the rules of engagement was all he needed. Obama was trying to build deals via the FBI. Trying to prove "talk works" and quite frankly, he was wrong.
"All I'm saying is -- I'll
April 14, 2009 - 12:32 ET by ckc1227"All I'm saying is -- I'll criticize the media, but what I'm saying is
the right has to stop behaving like the left used to behave with George
Bush."
Hey Bernie, did you miss how well doing that very thing worked out for the Democrats? They now hold majorities in both houses, and managed to get the most unqualified, anti-American president ever elected by doing exactly that.
ckc...
April 14, 2009 - 13:11 ET by iveseenitallRight on. Bernie is an old timer (as am I) and he just doesn't understand the brave new world we are living in. We are in a cultural war with the left. I see where a leader like Dr. Dobson is saying that we have already lost this war. Wittaker Chambers, of Alger Hiss fame, said the same thing in the 50's and it has only gotten worse since then. Just look around. Being "gentlemen" is not working. The only rule seems to be that there are "no rules". We'd better wake up before it is too late. Then again, maybe it is already too late.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
isia... Hear! Hear! The
April 14, 2009 - 13:13 ET by bigtimerisia...
Hear! Hear!
The gloves have to come off...or this country is sunk for good...we are sinking in quick-sand as it is.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Hi, BT...
April 14, 2009 - 13:35 ET by iveseenitallRight on. Look what Schumer said. He basically told anyone with any morality that they are out of touch and that they should give up. After all, those "evil" right-wingers are telling you to be family people, to love the unborn, to be honest and trustworthy and faithful to some basic principles. My goodness, those "radicals" even believe in God. How backward!
If we do not fight now, indeed America is lost.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Dont act like a "LIB"
April 14, 2009 - 12:53 ET by karris56I agree with Goldberg.There is no need for Coservatives go out of their way to praise Obama.It's not like he cured cancer or anything.He basically did what he was supposed to.He did'nt screw up.Fine.All they have to say, when asked, is he did a good job. A fine job.Whatever,just dont belittle him or critisize a good outcome. Acting like "LIBS' will just alienate independents and maybe a few conservatives. After all, if conservatives do the same,the only difference would be what side you pick.The far left are Wackos.They are deranged.But they are a small fraction of America.If,or when Obama really screws up they will just point to conservatives disagreeing no matter what and would have a valid point.At least this way they can be portrayed as 'fair' and would have more credibility with the majority of the nation.
Excellent points
April 14, 2009 - 13:39 ET by mvfreemanThe average voter may identify more with one party or the other but most people don't consider themselves partisan. And it is those independents and moderates that each party needs to win elections.
However many millions of listeners that Rush and Hannity may have, there are many more millions of voters that don't listen to them because they just aren't into partisan politics and/or they feel they can get their own news sources.
We don't want change, we want our money back!
April 14, 2009 - 12:57 ET by CrashYes I agree, we shouldn't act like those with "Bush Derangement Syndrome" for which there doesn't seem to be a cure, even under Mr Hopey-changey. However, when the DHS Secretary warns us of "Right Wing Radicals" and calls terrorists "Man Caused Disaster (enabler's)" I know it won't be easy.
Now, for those of you who thought the patriot act and DHS was a good idea ... my fellow radicals ... we're F*CKED!
Avoid Obama Derangement
April 14, 2009 - 13:02 ET by balboaAvoid Obama Derangement Syndrome? Too late.
Balboa,Okay, I'll bite.
April 14, 2009 - 14:01 ET by Chris NormanBalboa,
Okay, I'll bite. You tell us, what are the things we should be praising Obama for that we're not? Alternately, which conservative crticisms qualify as a "Derangement Syndrome"? Please be prepared to back up your assertions.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Hey, I'm the first to admit
April 14, 2009 - 17:15 ET by balboaHey, I'm the first to admit there isn't much to applaud him for. But there's MORE than enough derangement. Just look at any of buckeye's posts, to start.
balboa, Yes, there are
April 14, 2009 - 17:45 ET by Chris Normanbalboa,
Yes, there are people who truly can't stand this president. However, a few people here is hardly on the scale we're talking about when we refer to "Bush Derangement Syndrome". A whole political movement was built on BDS and it still exists today in the blogosphere and the media.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Well, give yourselves some
April 14, 2009 - 20:30 ET by balboaWell, give yourselves some time, you'll get there. :-)
balboa
April 14, 2009 - 13:54 ET by cvgbuckeyebal; you are correct: I have it, I enjoy it, I will exercise it with pride and gusto and will cheer like a maniac when Chairman Obama and the rest you you weak, liberal, racist, America hating, Marxist, Bush Derangement Syndrome, hypocrites are driven into the sea.
You all hated George Bush because he was an unapologetic Christian President who sacrificed his entire presidency to keep this nation safe so let me be the first Christian to tell you to mount up on your sanctimonious grammer correcting, spelling revisionist high horse and ride it into Hell.
How do you like them apples, you ornery rascal, you?
Buckeye
April 14, 2009 - 23:50 ET by DoktorFrankenYou sweet talkin' devil, you! You put a brand new B in BDS.
Carry on.
ODS is different than
April 14, 2009 - 13:07 ET by mattmODS is different than BDS.
BDS was an irrational, knee-jerk hatred of Bush which pushed already unstable leftards over the edge.
ODS is an irrational, tingly-legged lust of Hussein-Obama which pushed already sycophantic libtards over the edge into orgasmia.
There is nothing irrational or deranged about the real disdain and anger over the socialist and tyrannical policies of this administration, nor revulsion at the naive ignorance and unwarranted arrogance of its head.
sic semper tyrannis
Mattm...
April 14, 2009 - 13:16 ET by iveseenitallYou've nailed it. It seems to be accepted in some quarters that criticism of Obama is the same as BDS. That's exactly what the left wants people to think. They are the enemy within and we shouldn't be playing into their hands.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
two roots from the same tree
April 14, 2009 - 13:23 ET by katainkentaccepting what you're told by the MSM as "truth".
ISIA, The rabid
April 14, 2009 - 14:06 ET by Chris NormanISIA,
The rabid liberals tried to do the same thing in reverse with Bush before Iraq. They tried to equate everything he said or did with "lying", which was payback for the impeachment of Clinton for perjury.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
UN - #%$*#&$^!'ing-
April 14, 2009 - 13:12 ET by HelenSUN - #%$*#&$^!'ing- BELIEVABLE!
Bernie says: "...we have to stop going out of our way to find fault with every single thing he does... I'm just not going to be like the left was with George Bush."
Well good for you, Bernie. You suck up all you want. I, personally, will give BO exACTly as much credit and respect and support as the left gave President George W. Bush. And not one shred more.
And this cringingly, cowardly squeek of a plea for a show of respect for the fraud in chief is as disgusting a show of hypocricy and butt-kissing as anything I try not to see from the left daily.
I can't even begin to express my disgust at this.
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
Helen~
April 14, 2009 - 13:32 ET by Georgia GirlI like your spunk. More need to feel how you do. It really is a battle, and I'm tired of people being passive and looking the other way.
Sometimes you have to take a stand. There were/are points in history when mushy-gushy compromise is not going to work -- and when it's not the honorable thing to do. There is such a thing as righteous anger. Darkness needs to be exposed to the light, and sometimes it takes more than a soft answer or agreeable nature for things to turn around.
Georgia Girl , Helen, Blonde, BT and others....
April 14, 2009 - 13:46 ET by iveseenitallRight on:
The women here are showing alot more spunk than some of the men here. You go, ladies!
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
isia... I'm past furious
April 14, 2009 - 13:46 ET by bigtimerisia...
I'm past furious today with what all is going on...
When I am more than fed up...it shows... ;-)
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
never tic 'm off
April 14, 2009 - 13:54 ET by foolnomoresmart, man (:>
Mama bears~
April 14, 2009 - 14:02 ET by Georgia GirlISIA,
Yes, go girls! :)
Speaking for myself, I'm just sickened that our country is where it is at today. I think of my son growing up into this type of world, and it brings out the Mama Bear in me. And for the females who may not be mamas -- in general, females often have an instinctive sensitivity and will fight hard against....well, utter stupidity!
I knew this Obama guy was bad news. *_*
SOBama was NOT the Controlling Authority
April 14, 2009 - 13:19 ET by Delsaand should be called out for attempting to say he was or is!
April 13th
On Monday’s Mark Levin Show: Mark explains what really happened in the Indian Ocean regarding the Navy SEALs and their rescue of Richard Phillips . He explains what role President Obama had in issuing the order to attack the kidnappers, and how Obama didn’t make any operational decisions. Also, Obama is spending people’s money that haven’t even been born yet. It will be nearly impossible to get out of the trillions of dollars of debt that America is being put into.
http://www.marklevinshow.com/
Bal
April 14, 2009 - 13:28 ET by Delsayou are right! It is too late!
Because of who I am and what I believe, SOBama will have to put his head on backwards and deep-six TOTUS, before I give him credit for a job well done!
If Bernie is so against bias
April 14, 2009 - 13:48 ET by JesseJacksonIVIf Bernie is so against bias in the media, why does he do Hannity's show? Do he only have a problem with bias he disagrees with?
How about reading the artical
April 14, 2009 - 13:58 ET by general companyDo he only have a problem with bias he disagrees with?
Considering the subject at hand, it seems he has a problem with bias. How about you, are you against bias, or just what you dissagree with? BTW he does many shows, not just Hannity.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
But he rails against bias in
April 14, 2009 - 14:09 ET by JesseJacksonIVBut he rails against bias in the liberal media so much. Then goes on show with a clear bias to the other side. Hannity is just as bad as Olbermann, just from the other side.
Bias is bad no matter which side of the aisle your on.
Did you watch the video, or read the text
April 14, 2009 - 14:19 ET by general companyBias is bad no matter which side of the aisle your on.
This is pretty much what Bernie said
Hannity is just as bad as Olbermann, just from the other side.
BS Oberdude is a lier, lies are his tactic. Find where Hannity is lying then get back with me.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
The fact he appears in Fox
April 14, 2009 - 14:22 ET by JesseJacksonIVThe fact he appears in Fox News "Fair and Balanced" promos is a pretty big lie. There is nothing fair and balanced about Sean Hannity.
Big Difference, Bro..
April 14, 2009 - 14:37 ET by GlubberSean Hannity doesn't hide the fact that he is a conservative. And he is not a NEWS show. He is a commentary.
Imagine IF Hannity did the news, slanting it to his view. You would be upset, angry and mad.
THAT is what conservatives see every day, the other way, when we (and IF) watch ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN or MSNBC news.
I just WISH these people would just put the little (D) next to their names, because all know that Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric and the rest are RABID liberals...
It's when they say they are NOT, that bugs conservatives...
Sorry JJ
April 14, 2009 - 14:39 ET by general companyIf it were not for Fox their would not be any balance on TV. Fox gives both sides of every topic, who else does? Nobody that's who. As others have pointed out at least Hannity has opposition on his show, and smart ones also, not the hysterical types (Cafferty, Chrissy Mat, Maddcow, Oberdude, Sanceze, and a ton of others) you get on old media. So I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
You seem to hold FoxNews to
April 14, 2009 - 14:42 ET by Chris NormanYou seem to hold FoxNews to a very high standard for fairness and balance - what do you think of MSNBC? I would say for being a very conservative host, Hannity at least has on some strong liberals, who are well-spoken, for open debate.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
JesseJacksonIV
April 14, 2009 - 14:45 ET by mvfreemanThe difference is that Hannity admits his bias and that his is an opinion show, not a news outlet.
The bias that Goldberg writes about is by a supposedly objective and impartial media and press corps that (with rare exception) was clearly little more than Obama cheerleaders in the last election.
The main problem that
April 14, 2009 - 14:25 ET by Chris NormanThe main problem that Goldberg and we have with bias in the media is bias in what is supposed to be straight reporting. Where we have trouble with bias on political discussion shows, like Hannity or Hardball, is when the panels are so weighted down with one side or the host makes wild claims he can't back up with undistorted facts. By the way, if you read the comments on just this thread alone, you would understand that many conservatives don't like Hannity's show much more than they like the left wing Hardball. However, at least Hannity has on some strong liberals like Bob Beckel or Kirsten Powers to argue the liberal side, unlike Olbermann or Matthews. Matthews features mostly moderate Republicans who are weak debaters and Olbermann has on no opposing views at all.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
However, at least Hannity
April 14, 2009 - 14:37 ET by bigtimerHowever, at least Hannity has on some strong liberals like Bob Beckel or Kirsten Powers to argue the liberal side, unlike Olbermann or Matthews. Matthews features mostly moderate Republicans who are weak debaters and Olbermann has on no opposing views at all.
Chris....
Bingo!
Btw...I like his show better than it was when he first started it...with the exception of what we were pointing out right after it first started ...the Lie -ber- al lies segment...it's childish....needs to go.
Give him time...improvements may come...after-all you can't please everybody...
...like you say... there is no comparison to the fairness with either msnbc or CNN for the guest they have on or no guests with opposing views...unless they stick someone in like Gergen or Smerc to suppossedly represent the right side of the aisle for just two examples here.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Hi bt,Usually I'll watch
April 14, 2009 - 15:31 ET by Chris NormanHi bt,
Usually I'll watch Hannity until I get tired of him repeating his week's talking points (even when the discussion is where they they don't apply). I like him better when he is humorously sarcastic rather than earnest and/or pugnacious. I think Hannity's one track/ subtle as a sledge hammer mind is what led to Goldberg's disagreement with him. By the way, I'll watch O'Reilly until he interrupts his guests one too many times - or until he says, "Look,..., okay?" one too many times.
I've noticed that Fox News has on well-spoken conservatives, many of whom seem to come from the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, or National Review, while CNN and MSNBC have on Republican "strategists" who seem to be second string at best.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
I can't watch or listen to
April 14, 2009 - 15:38 ET by motherbeltI can't watch or listen to Hannity any more except in little bits.
He does tend to repeat his talking points over and over, even to multiple guests in a row (he doesn't even vary the delivery)....and his constant refrain of "criticize, smear, besmirch" (does anyone else in the entire world use the word besmirch?) drives me nuts.
I can't take O'Reilly or Beck any more either. I guess I'm just turning into an old grouch! LOL
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
mb,Nah, not an old
April 14, 2009 - 16:07 ET by Chris Normanmb,
Nah, not an old grouch - just someone who has limits. Hannity's verbal list of what the liberals are doing has become so long he has to speak as fast as Danny Kaye (are you old enough to remember him?) to get it all in. Beck is getting too Moses-like (with that pleading/whining tone to "Wake up America...") and I get tired of his "pox on both sides" accusations - even now, when republicans are beginning to stand up against big spending. Funny, Hannity is too mindlessly partisan for me, Beck is too mindlessly non-partisan and O'Reilly is just too obnoxious and egomaniacal. However, I do like "Diners, Drive-Ins, and Dives" on Food Network... :)
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
CN~
April 14, 2009 - 17:23 ET by Georgia GirlAnd "Good Eats." Don't forget that one. LOL.
I do agree that Hannity comes off as limited these days. That show really needs to be just 30 minutes. I also feel like he needs to do more research -- read more books -- or put on more of an investigative reporter hat. Something's missing. I notice myself almost feeling embarrassed for him, like he is really out of his element. And I probably agree with all his points, so it's rather weird. By the way, what is the deal with him throwing that ball before every break?
Beck is a little Moses-like; I can see what you're saying. But he has an inquisitive mind, so I think he has some interesting questions/good points to make at times. And O'Reilly...well, it's true -- he is quite rude in the interrupting. However, you can see the intelligence there and he's always fully engaged and has good subject matter, so I do find him interesting enough to watch a full hour.
Anyway, that's just my 2-cent's worth.
good eats
April 14, 2009 - 17:26 ET by katainkentlove that show. One of the few redeemable things left on television.
Chris... Well you have to
April 14, 2009 - 15:38 ET by bigtimerChris...
Well you have to know by now with our various posts over time here that I do the same here regarding some of the shows...just depends on the segments and what I am doing at the time....have for years... nothing is going to change that....
With the only exception for me is I rarely if ever go to msnbc now at all during commercials or segments I don't care for...or how they are progressing at the time...I ususally just mute it for the time being.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
bt, I find myself
April 14, 2009 - 15:45 ET by Chris Normanbt,
I find myself watching Lou Dobbs now instead of Hannity. If for no other reason than to marvel that some less-than-liberal-biased reports get on CNN. Now, that he doesn't have Bush to bash (to prove his independent status), I find Dobb's to be more bearable than O'Reilly. Generally, his liberal guests are more tolerale than the ones on other CNN shows. I liked last night when he tore into the city attorney from New Haven, CT over the firefighter reverse descrimination case.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Chris... Same here...I
April 14, 2009 - 16:00 ET by bigtimerChris...
Same here...I watch Dobbs myself, I saw the show last night myself...(by the way, I posted about the FF reverse discrimination lawsuit somewhere here with a link not that long ago, I was glad for the update)
We have different time zones and venues we use to get our television when these shows appear...believe me.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
bt,I like dobbs more
April 14, 2009 - 16:06 ET by Chris Normanbt,
I like Dobbs more since he seems to have cooled off his Howard Beale (sp?) populist rants. Maybe, like a hurricane, he just blew himself out. I did love it when that smooth double talking attorney told him to,"Wait a minute..." and Lou said, "No, you wait a minute...".
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Dobbs~
April 14, 2009 - 18:33 ET by Georgia GirlI like Dobbs as well. I think he has the best of all the qualities of the previously mentioned conservative TV personalities. Intelligent and thoughtful -- well researched and fair. He never gets on my nerves, and he always seems on the reasonable, right side of things.
I've read Goldberg. I've
April 14, 2009 - 13:52 ET by ConservativeRexI've read Goldberg. I've listened to Goldberg. Goldberg is wrong on this.
Frankly, I don't gives a rats butt what a liberal thinks of me, or what I say, or what I write. It doesn't make my argument weaker by pointing out that obama is a jackass, and pointing it out often. I don't even appreciate the suggestion by Goldberg any Conservatve could have that dumb made up "derangement anything".
Hannity speaks for himself. I don't need him to speak for me. I don't have a problem with what he is saying, but he is not my spokesman. I listen to him, but he sinks or swims on his own.
I know I am in the minority
April 14, 2009 - 14:15 ET by general companyBut to some extent, I agree with Bernie. Not that I agree with Obama, I do think it is important to keep the topics front and center. Quite honestly I think this is why the left has been able to dictate the subject matter, and use all of the slight of hand they have been able to successfully.
Giving Obama credit for this is far less important then his domestic agenda or his world view. Lets face it, he did nothing, he did nothing about the Nork's either, so he is batting 500%. Soon this average will drop because he keeps the bat on his shoulder (like voting present). I would like the topic to continue to highlight his agenda, not these distractions. Sorry but his agenda scares me more.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
He got lucky so throw him a bone
April 14, 2009 - 15:04 ET by karris56I dont think anyone here gives a crap what a liberal thinks about them. But if we critisize every thing Obama does it gives them ammo.It also makes them feel as if the derangement they had is justified since the other side is doing the same thing.And it's normal for both sides to hate the other.He is a "socialist " who talks a good game but has no experience.He probably said nothing during this ordeal because he did'nt know what to do.But I think it was the right thing to keep quiet.I heard there was a law that the measures taken had to be done as they were. Again, he probably did'nt have a clue but it worked out great.So,maybe he had no idea what to do but got lucky by doing nothing.It could have been real bad and was not.There are many issues where he is going very wrong.Cocentrate on them and not be petty like the "Far left kooks".
While I think both Sean and Bernie...
April 14, 2009 - 14:10 ET by PrairieSkymade good points and compelling arguments, I have to agree more with Bernie on this one...Sean Hannity, as much as I appreciate his staunch defense of traditional, conservative positions, is showing some signs of becoming the right's version of the irrational, hostile left when it comes to Obama. I am no fan of Obama's...I can't stand him and think he's an incompetent embarrassment as president, but on this issue, I think Sean is reaching a bit with his criticism of Obama and the administration concerning the Somali pirate incident.
I think Sean needs to guard against having an immediate, knee-jerk negative reaction to everything that Obama does or says...I can understand the temptation to dismiss out of hand anything coming from Obama and this adminstration...I've felt the tendency to do this myself, but I try to remind myself to hear their side or point first, consider it, and then make a judgement. After seeing what President Bush had to endure from the irrational, insane looney left and their BDS for eight years, I don't want to see anyone on the right fall into that toxic trap...It doesn't help any of us, and in fact, can become very damaging to all of us.
"...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
City kid
April 14, 2009 - 14:28 ET by iveseenitallMy wife and I were city kids (Brooklyn and The Bronx). When rocks were thrown at us, we picked up a rock and threw it back. We didn't walk away or fear that the one's who threw the rocks in the first place wouldn't like us. They already didn't like us. And neighbohoods mattered. Modern "liberals" think that we conservatives don't belong in their neighborhood (America). Well, this is our neighborhood too. And if you chuck something at us, we're going to chuck something bigger back at you. It's the only thing a bully understands. Barry, the bully, better understand it too.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
ISIA...I completely agree with you 100%...
April 14, 2009 - 16:12 ET by PrairieSkyAnd believe me, I have never been afraid to fight back in my entire life. I believe that when a fight is forced upon you, fighting back isn't so much a choice, as it is a necessity. That said, I just don't want any of us on the right to descend to the level of the gutter dwellers on the left and adopt their twisted, irrational attitudes and hate-filled, vicious diatribes.
"...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
Prairie~
April 14, 2009 - 17:26 ET by Georgia GirlDon't worry, none of us could get that bad! ;)
Georgia Girl...I know, and...
April 14, 2009 - 21:27 ET by PrairieSkyI'm likely worrying more than is necessary, but after seeing and enduring the level of acrimony from the left for the last 8 years, I don't want us (conservatives) to fall into that trap, as unlikely as it may ultimately be.
"...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
Prairie~
April 14, 2009 - 22:15 ET by Georgia GirlI do get what you're saying. You're a good egg. :) I think it comes down to finding the balance of being fired up enough to protect the country's conservative principles and freedoms, while not getting so ticked off that we become totally unglued and hostile.
I know I feel best when we are working toward common goals, i.e., in getting the word out on legislation coming down the pike and getting our input to our state reps...discussing Republican leaders to step up for 2012 and how we can make that happen...even thinking ahead to 2010 and change that can come in flipping seats, etc. We're going to have to be patient, because let's face it, what choice do we have? LOL. It's sort of a watchdog kind of role but also one where we can be resourceful and use our time wisely to make some little changes along the way -- stay empowered and not totally frustrated.
So I guess we get fired up and vent to those who truly understand (like on this site) when it gets too much -- hopefully with humor as well as righteous anger mixed in at times -- but then also remember to maintain our dignity and always keeping in mind that for things to get better, we have to stay disciplined and continue to do the right thing. For myself, I have to keep remembering that the problem I have with the liberal side of things is that I feel like (in general) they expect to get good things without high morality standards or sacrifice.
So I guess we can all keep ourselves in check on that...it's a good reminder, because we don't want to lower ourselves like that.
Good evening Prairie and Georgia
April 14, 2009 - 22:21 ET by cocodrieWE will be fine. Our criticisms are based on truth and facts, not lies and destructive venom like that used by the left.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Cocodrie~
April 14, 2009 - 22:45 ET by Georgia GirlGood point. And besides, we're wonderful, salt-of-the-earth people. What's not to love? ^_^
April 14, 2009 - 14:44 ET by iveseenitallNEVER,NEVER trust a
April 14, 2009 - 14:38 ET by iveseenitallNEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Hannity & Goldberg
April 14, 2009 - 14:19 ET by Edward CropperI hardly watch the new Hannity show. The old one was trying but better than
this sorry botched up mess. Sean never knows when to shut up and consistently
follows a talking points script. He never has an original idea about
anything.
Goldberg for those of you who are not old enough to remember was a CBS
liberal who has found conservative religion of late. He is certainly in no
position to lecture conservatives on any subject.
Difference between BDS and ODS
April 14, 2009 - 14:31 ET by GlubberThe BIG difference is that the left and the Democrats had their all too willing allies in the main stream media to broadcast BDS. They would take one talking point and repeat it on ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN and MSNBC. You could flip the channels and see it.
What needs to be done is to start a concerted effort to HUMILATE the media. Start the mantra,
"Adolph Hitler had Joseph Goebbels to spread his lies, the Democrats have BLANK, (fill in ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN and MSNBC.)"
Repeat it often. Start making armbands with donkeys on them and sending them to ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN and MSNBC news. Send them letters asking them the proper way to stand at attention doing the Obama 'O' sign.
Remark to them if they would have opposed Hitler? Because he gave great speeches too.
I have to agree with Bernie
April 14, 2009 - 15:10 ET by eaglescout1998I have to agree with Bernie on this one. The buck stops at the president's desk. When things go wrong, the president gets blamed. Likewise, when things go right, the president gets the credit.
Hannity is beginning to sound like those fools on the left that went after Bush every time ANYTHING happened.
Credit for What?
April 14, 2009 - 16:18 ET by farstar99If Obama had acted on the first day, instead of negotiating and sending in lawyers, the result would've been the same, if not better. Instead, he played it like Jimmy Carter and put the hostages in greater danger.
All he did was authorize the real heroes to go in. That's a rubber stamp and there is no "credit" for that.
Sory, Bernie, but playing nice ain't gonna cut it.
April 14, 2009 - 15:13 ET by R D HelmIf wehold our verbal fire and wait until this thing plays itself out, there won't be anything left to save.
-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.
This is how Obamites "think"
April 14, 2009 - 15:16 ET by sloerideTheir support for Barry is still strinkingly strong. But their rationale leave a lot to be desired. Cynicism has nearly extinguished all of that hopey change. My little recon into the world of the fully committed brain-washed Flavor-Aiders revealed the following arguments:
"Well all that financial stuff is too complicated, anyway. Who can tell really what the right thing is? But you know, it was all F'd up before Barry got in. So it's a good thing you have a t-secretary who knows how F'd up it is.
And if you take all that financial stuff out of the equation, overall he's done a great job. No one really ever reads every bill they sign, so what's the big deal? Obama's has been doing fine. Small mistakes that are to be expected. Nothing major."
Not saying they're right. Just saying where they are right now. And a lot of these folk can be convinced. Where is Barry vulnerable? Well look, these people voted for him becuase they really thought he would be different. (Ha!) But they may get fatigue of being saddled with their own cynical arguments. After my buddy told me all his sacred believes on Barry, I wanted to ask him, "So when you voted for this turkey in November, where these the excuses you thought you would be having to make in April?"
How can any fair minded person equate...
April 14, 2009 - 15:38 ET by jawebster1the way Bush was treated by the left and the way Obama is being treated by the right? The left lied about Bush and plotted from the day he beat Gore to do all in their power to destroy him. With the help of the main stream media, they were successful in making him unpopular with a majority of the American people but they did not destroy him. Bush has retired with his head held high knowing that he did what he thought was best for his country, regardless of the polls and he kept us safe for eight years. The right does not need to lie about Obama. If the truth doesn't kill his popularity with the American people, as it should, it will be because he was protected by his friends in the main stream media who continue to ignore the truth. Jim Webster
It's not ODS
April 14, 2009 - 16:03 ET by Tom PaineI absolutely believe that conservatives have to become better at fighting back. However in doing so we need to distinguish between BDS, which is characterized by emotionally, irrationally and automatically blaming George Bush for anything real or imagined that has happened vs. using logic and facts to make our arguments.
For example, it is not ODS to recognize that Obama has many radial ties, went to a racist church for 20 years, has never produced a valid birth certificate and bows to the altar of the United Nations at every opportunity. It can be easily proven with a simple spreadsheet that his out of control spending will saddle our children and grandchildren with a national debt that will impoverish them and turn us into a third world nation.
In short – it ain’t derangement if you can prove it.
NO! No More Being the Nice Guys or Following Unilateral Rules!
April 14, 2009 - 16:12 ET by farstar99I've had it.
I intend to spew MORE venom than they did, if that's possible.
Being nice guys lost us the election.
We need our own ACORN, our own media assets, our own billionaires and our own army, like Obama's upcoming one.
i like goldberg. he works
April 14, 2009 - 16:28 ET by right of wayi like goldberg. he works best with glenn beck. i just think they play off each other very well.
Bernie G
April 14, 2009 - 19:28 ET by RacoKevI think he's right. I also agree that we conservatives must network better. We're doing it right here, right now. Gov. Perry looks very impressive.
GOLDBERG:" He gets the
April 14, 2009 - 21:32 ET by MightyMouthGOLDBERG:" He gets the credit because -- because he was the commander in chief, it happened on his watch, that's the way it goes in the real world of politics. If something bad happened here, and thank God it didn't."
If something bad HAD happened you can bet your ass that the Messiah would have NOT been blamed! Period!!
Bernie, wake up!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM... Still part of him
April 14, 2009 - 21:43 ET by bigtimerMM...
Still part of him asleep at the switch.
I mean that kindly too.
Takes some longer than others...actually he has come a long way, he just is going to have to go that extra mile until full reality dawns on him.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Bernie doesn't get it and
April 14, 2009 - 23:13 ET by RR GOPBernie doesn't get it and he's pussing out.
I wouldn't even be here if more Liberals had had that attitude when George Bush was President.
Screw 'em.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
Remember what James
April 14, 2009 - 23:46 ET by Mr. MikeRemember what James Carville said about Bush after he hit his stride after 9/11? Carville sent a memo to all the top Dems and said in effect "enough of this unity BS, take him down or we'll never win in '04!".
Yeah, a real freakin' patriot there!
After the way Bush was treated for eight years there is no giving Obama one ounce of "credit"! The man was raised a communist by his mother and found like-minded comrades in Ayers, Wright and Axelrod (whose mother was a BIG commie too!).
Democrats DO NOT want to show us conservatives ANY form of fair play or deserved credit!!! They want to destroy the republican party, period, end of story!
President Obama Is The Comander-In-Chief Of The Armed Forces...
April 15, 2009 - 00:13 ET by The7Sticks...so yes! I don't care if it's Reagan or Carter or Clinton or Nixon or either Bushes or Obama. They are and were commanders-in-chief, and as such, they command the armed forces of America. So yes, Obama deserves credit if he commands the navy to kill the pirates and rescue the captain. Only good results matter to us. And you people should know better than that.
Never thought I'd see the day that Bernard Goldberg actually made sense. He was always on my enemies' list when he put the creator of The Boondocks on his enemies' list. I never liked that douchebag Hannity anyway, so maybe those two can switch places on the enemies' list.
-"Your bird intelligence is no match for my people intelligence!"
-Peter Griffin, from Family Guy