The religion site Beliefnet – now owned by Fox Entertainment Group – has a variety of bloggers, including a few conservatives. Rod Dreher drew some network attention last year for attacking Sarah Palin as an unserious choice for vice president. On Sunday, Dreher started lobbing bombs at Rush Limbaugh and his fans. He titled his article "CPAC: White kids on dope," with the subheadline "Ah, to be an anthropologist at CPAC, where the kids was smokin' th' political crack." Dreher was very unhappy that a boisterous crowd cheered Limbaugh’s message to the conference, and saw some kind of creepy censorship emerging when Limbaugh warned: "beware of those different factions who seek as part of their attempt to redefine conservatism, as making sure the liberals like us, making sure that the media likes us. They never will, as long as we remain conservatives." Out of that, Dreher wildly swung at Limbaugh’s head:
Anybody who challenges Limbavian orthodoxy is, ipso facto, the Enemy. If you suggest reform, even from the Right, you are a useful idiot for the Media, which are the Enemy, and can never be anything but the Enemy. Limbaughism sounds a lot like Leninism.
The transcript of Rush's speech is here. Dreher concluded with the same thought:
I should say that there's something to like in the Limbaugh speech; I share a degree of his skepticism over the expanding role of the state in American life under Obama, and his confidence that the greater responsibility for our own condition lies in individual and private-sector initiative. But good grief, is this what constitutes popular conservatism in 2009? This ideologically-driven right-wing Rousseauism, with Leninist overtones about the Enemies of the People? If so, then count me as an Enemy, because I want nothing to do with it, as I recognize it as simply a crudely politicized form of philosophical liberalism.
For a reply, consider Jonah Goldberg's withering critique of Dreher's "crunchy conservatism," even calling it "Rousseau in a Russell Kirk mask."
On Beliefnet, Rod could tut-tut at Limbaugh for making jokes about how Larry King went to Heaven and was disturbed to find a large room with a neon sign of Rush Limbaugh, with the punchline, "This is God's room. He just thinks he's Rush Limbaugh." But he seems more defensive about the liberal media elite than he is about the Almighty. (Beliefnet's founder is Steven Waldman, a liberal Newsweek and Clinton White House vet.)
The article began with disgust that Tucker Carlson was booed at CPAC for suggesting The New York Times was careful about fact-finding (ahem, Jayson Blair? The Vicki Iseman story?):
Verily, that's the way to bring the party back: blame the media. I talked to a conservative the other day who assured me that Obama’s success is entirely a creation of the lying biased media, which tricked people into voting for him. The unpopularity of Republican policies has nothing to do with it. [Emphasis by the author.]
This straw man – that conservatives who decry The New York Times believe that Obama’s success is entirely a media creation – was the lead-in to his attack on Limbaugh. He can’t abide the idea that the media certainly "tricked" voters if they suggested Obama would be a cultural moderate or a fiscal conservative. Dreher also missed the point that by nominating John McCain, Republicans tried to please the media by picking someone they thought the media wouldn’t malign, and they found out that strategy certainly did not work.
Another Limbaugh-bashing conservative – on a lesser scale – was David Frum, whose offense was merely suggesting that Limbaugh was ruining the country and the conservative movement for his own narrow self-interest:
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.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Leninism?? too funny
March 3, 2009 - 14:21 ET by sawing battatry again. How about the opposite?
The modern figurehead of central planning is Obama, not Limbaugh. The figurehead of individual liberty and personal responsibility is Limbaugh, not Obama.
Again, they get it 100% wrong.
How to Get Attention
March 3, 2009 - 14:28 ET by allanfThe way for a "conservative" to get attention is to attack Palin, Jindal or Limbaugh. Attacks on Romney's Mormon faith are on hold until 2011.
it works...
March 3, 2009 - 14:40 ET by sawing battawe're talking about it....all press is good press, i'm told.
conservatives, in my experience, have thick enough skin to handle criticism - even from other "conservatives"...and welcome debate on policy.
The message of "Get the government out of the way!" doesnt sound like Leninism. On the other hand, govt control of the means of production, a $3T budget, and central planning do.
I HAVE SAID THIS BEFORE...
March 3, 2009 - 14:34 ET by danybhoyI find it funny how leftists try to tell me...
Rush=Lenin...
GOP=3rd Reich...
Bush/Cheney=Hitler...
Republicans=Facists...
Then I hear/read...
Obama=Lincoln...
Obama=MLK...
Obama=JFK...
Conservatives like Bush, Cheney, El-Rushbo are compared to the worst of leftist politics. Obama is compaired to the 1st Republican President, a conservative Republican civil rights leader, & a conservative Demacrat who would have no place in todays DNC.
Wrong is right, right is wrong, black is white, nothing is what it seems, & nothing is what IT SHOULD BE. Or maybe it's just me.
"The Fairness Doctrine = Jim Crow laws for Conservatives". Jim Quinn from "Quinn & Rose"
we're consumers
March 3, 2009 - 14:41 ET by katainkentand that is what is called brand recognition. At least, that is the hope. Fortunately we actually paid attention in history class.
BAHAHA! Rush Leninism? F'in
March 3, 2009 - 14:29 ET by DavartBAHAHA! Rush Leninism? F'in Please!
It's Comrade Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid et al that are the Leninist.
Leave it to the loons to be ill informed.
http://www.davart.ne...
The Angry White Guy Blog
I hope its not that calculated
March 3, 2009 - 14:32 ET by nwahs"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."
I hope, and don't think, its that calculated. I do believe that is what will happen (as conservatives succeed, Rush will fade), but I think Rush is just putting out a product. People are gobbling it up, so he continues to put out the product. I don't think he is consciously tearing down the GOP to further his career. That's happening, but its not his problem - its the GOP's problem.
The GOP has to take the wheel here, divorce Limbaugh, and move on.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
hm
March 3, 2009 - 14:40 ET by katainkentWhy do you think Obama specifically spoke to Congress telling them not to listen to Rush? And do you think we would have this firestorm of press about Limbaugh at the CPAC if he hadn't?
I think Obama was making a snarky remark
March 3, 2009 - 14:44 ET by nwahsI think the media, without a doubt, is setting Rush up for a huge fall. They are not giving him all this publicity for nothing. Something is comming down the pipe and its going to be a whopper.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
well
March 3, 2009 - 14:49 ET by katainkenthe's not in politics and had no desire for an office. All he has is his listeners. Somehow I don't believe a man who has come back from a drug addiction is concerned about losing face or getting his feelings hurt. A "fall" would have to be a loss of income. what do you think the whopper might be?
No idea
March 3, 2009 - 14:55 ET by nwahsYou responded before I could edit my post. I was going to edit it to say I am not comfortable with the media targeting anyone in that manner. Thats way too proactive for the media to be engaged in. I have no proof, just a gut feeling. He's getting a whole lot of press these days.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
yup he is
March 3, 2009 - 15:14 ET by katainkentbut I don't see that as a bad thing. I believe Limbaugh can not only withstand but thrive in bad press. Who its BAD for is the GOP in that they are seen as being spineless. Not to Limbaugh with the whole 'bow down to the Great and Powerful Rush' image the MSM is trying to create. But spineless because they won't back up their own principles and continue to suck up to the press. You don't agree?
listen kata
March 3, 2009 - 15:23 ET by candanceThis proves once and for all that Backwards Shawn is not a conservative and does not understand the conservative plight. A war is waging for the soul of the Republican party as we speak - the GOP establishment against grassroot conservatives.
Folks like Backwards Shawn think the GOP is the real political engine with all the power. If they wanted to shrug off conservatives and forge on ahead they could. But real conservatives know that we are heart and soul of it all and without us there is no political party.
But acts of kindness and generosity must be free and voluntary; no man has a right to compel another to follow his conscience. This is a concern which lies between a man and his God.
-Richard Fuhrman, pro slave advocate, 1823
I don't see many conservatives abandoning their principles
March 3, 2009 - 15:54 ET by nwahsWell no more than when they threw the "fiscal responsibility" principle out of the window in the Bush administration. Those three principles, small government, strong defense, and fiscal responsibility, weren't perfectly adhered to during the Reagan administration ( which used deficit spending).What I see happened in the Reagan administration, and somewhat in the Bush administration, is those principles were seen as goals but problematic for the time.
Now this idea of a bunch of spineless worm tongue rino's slipping through the pristine conservative halls, well that's a Rush narrative. Its hyperbole.
When did this great conservative wisdom descend on Rush? I mean the guy didn't even register to vote until he was almost 40 (37?). Why was his political conscience so late in arriving? Was he a conservative when he was allowing Carter to win over Ford by not voting? Was he a conservative when he didn't vote for Reagan in 1980? When did he have his epiphany that allows him to select which Republicans are burned as witches?
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
I never said abandoning
March 3, 2009 - 16:13 ET by katainkentI said "backing up" and also mentioned "sucking up to the press" and despite the quantity of text you have there I am not sure you've answered my question.You are diverging from the point I am trying to discuss. Ad hominem attacks on Limbaugh are pointless. I have no vested interest in him and I am not a 'fan' just an occasional reader of his transcripts. And regardless of Limbaugh saying so, it is still a documented fact that Republicans are not backing up their parties principles. You state as much using Bush as an example and even Reagan. I won't argue the details because I would like to stick with a specific point.
You'd like to see the GOP divorce Limbaugh and "move on". I am trying to get at why. He advocates the principles you mentioned. He may do so quite loudly but he would not be seeing this press drama in the first place if Obama had not called him out and his press secretary continues to call him out. I think there is an agenda there. I disagree it was simply being snarky. I distrust anything the media attacks with this much ferocity. It seems to me you're taking the bait without looking any deeper. You seem concerned about 'appearance' much more than content. And I think that is the objective. If conservatives keep 'pruning the tree' of everyone that makes waves there will be nothing left but RINOs.
This is an impasse
March 3, 2009 - 16:26 ET by nwahsI stated no one was abandoning principles, but they found those principles impossible to adhere to at the time, and used the Reagan and Bush administrations as examples. If that doesn't answer your "What do you think about those abandoning party principles?" we are probably at an impasse.
As far as "sucking up to the press" I'm sure thats relative to the size of spitball you want someone to hurl. I see no "sucking up." I see no childish personal attacks, but I see no "sucking up."
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
well that's unfortunate
March 3, 2009 - 16:31 ET by katainkentyou didn't really forward your initial point. I was trying to give you room and opportunity to do so. Ah well.
My children are due home. Ta.
Here is your initial question
March 3, 2009 - 17:07 ET by nwahsBut spineless because they won't back up their own principles and continue to suck up to the press. You don't agree?
Can we agree "not backing up" is tantamount to abandoning? If we can, I answered your question (i.e., I don't see anyone abandoning their principles). If we can't agree that the two are virually the same, you're right, aw well
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
no
March 3, 2009 - 17:51 ET by katainkentThe conservative message needs to get through. Not just the what, but the why, and the how. To heck with 'tone'. Our hands are tied if we try and play by the liberals set of politically correct rules. People are brainwashed and they don't even realize it if they are grasping at tone and trying to moderate the message. The press is going to edit it to fit their agenda anyway so might was well lay it out there. People like myself who ignore the talking heads will hear it and respect it.
But that was not the reason I began this conversation but rather than cause confusion again, I will be direct. Explain again please, why you feel the GOP needs to 'divorce Limbaugh and move on'.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -Edmund Burke
You know, nwahs
March 3, 2009 - 14:52 ET by BlondeI've seen you blather on here today about conservatives, conservatism, and Rush Limbaugh.
Why don't you delineate what you think conservative principles are?
Secondly, why don't you enlarge your premise that Rush is "consciously tearing down the GOP to further his career"...how?
Give it a shot.
It is so very obvious that you don't listen to Limbaugh, you know what you think you know about him from media sources who intentionally distort what he says.
I hope he fails, too.
Small goverment, strong defence, fiscal responsibility
March 3, 2009 - 14:59 ET by nwahsThis
"
Secondly, why don't you enlarge your premise that Rush is "consciously tearing down the GOP to further his career"...how?
Give it a shot.
You need to read that part again. Thats not my premise.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
Okay read it again.
March 3, 2009 - 15:04 ET by BlondeSo I'll change my question to how you think he's tearing down the GOP to further his career, but he's not doing it purposefully.
I hope he fails, too.
That comprises 95% of the
March 3, 2009 - 15:11 ET by Jack BauerThat comprises 95% of the Rush Limbaugh Show right there.
Proving once again that you are here to simply parrot Democrat demonizing caricitures of Limbaugh.
look here Blonde
March 3, 2009 - 15:06 ET by candanceMy dealings with Backwards Shawn thus far have given me some insight into his character. Here are a few pointers:
1) He is quick to offer theories on other peoples' feelings and motives based on nothing but his own assumptions.
2) His knowledge of history is limited to his government education. He has no recollection of how many times the MSM have piled on Rush or what the outcome has always been.
3) He loves to ridicule conservatives and will avoid hard questions when cornered.
But acts of kindness and generosity must be free and voluntary; no man has a right to compel another to follow his conscience. This is a concern which lies between a man and his God.
-Richard Fuhrman, pro slave advocate, 1823
Thx, can
March 3, 2009 - 16:13 ET by BlondeThat's about the size of it....talking points.
I hope he fails, too.
Olenibama...
March 3, 2009 - 14:35 ET by retroconYeah, Dreher is definitely the one on crack!
It was Lenin who owned the press in the soviet union...
"If you suggest reform... you are a useful idiot for the Media, which are the Enemy, and can never be anything but the Enemy."
To equate Limbaugh with Lenin when making a statement like that really shows his ignorance and lack of historical knowledge. Now, if he'd said "a free press," that would be different. But since most of the Media in the USofA today are propogandists for the left, he couldn't honestly say that.
Lenin controlled the press
Obama controls the press
Lenin was a socialist
Obama is a socialist
Lenin personally attacked those who spoke out against him
Obama personally attacks those who speak out against him
Lenin banned guns
Obama wants to ban guns
Lenin partied in the Kremlin while the weathy evacuated, the middle class evaporated, and the poor got poorer
Obama parties in the White House while businesses plan to evacuate, while the middle class evaporates, and the poor get poorer
Olenibama...
This turd is some idiotic philosophy major....
March 3, 2009 - 14:39 ET by Lord ErondAt some stupid leftwing indoctrination factory called college. Maybe one day, he'll grow up, move out of his parents basement and realize what life is really like.
"What you can not enforce, do not command" -Sophocles-
How dare he have an education
March 3, 2009 - 14:41 ET by nwahsHow dare he educate hiself- damn commie
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
Oh Please
March 3, 2009 - 14:50 ET by Lord ErondI've met these rats before. They're the idiots sitting in the philosophy departments with their "Stop the War" bumper stickers on the door and their "No Genocide in Darfur" signs not realizing that no one honestly gives a s--t about their mostly useless opinions. Somehow because they're in a nest with other like minded rats, they've convinced themselves that they are relevant. Then one day, they have to leave the cozy liberal nest and actually get a FRIGGING JOB where they learn real fast that you either produce or take a walk. And then there's no time to sit in the conversation pit having idiotic discussions about what a supposed fascist GWB was.
"What you can not enforce, do not command" -Sophocles-
Lord Erond (apologies for misidentifying up above)
March 3, 2009 - 18:41 ET by UnsaneLord Erond, didn't you know that THE way to world peace is NOT to actually EARN it, but just talk about it, and plaster your car and office with a bunch of "Peace" stickers? Why, if everyone in America just put a "No Genocide in Darfur" bumper sticker on their car, the place would just free itself!!!
:-)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Your values are ALL fake, I fear
March 3, 2009 - 18:42 ET by UnsaneWhich I am doing right now, in spite of, not because of, the sea of Leftists I face every single day on campus.
One of the biggest reasons you get a college education is to learn how to think critically on an even greater scale. In this, from what I have seen of higher education - and I have spent much of the past 10 years there on various levels, it is a flop.
Lord Erond has it dead-on.
For claiming to be a conservative, you sure like to cling to a lot of stereotypes and spouting a lot of talking points.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Wait a second Unsane. You
March 3, 2009 - 18:44 ET by Clear thinkerWait a second Unsane. You are a freakin genius and learned how to think critically so it must work for some people. Or is it because you are one of the few that don't show up to class every day, high as a kite?
Yes We Can
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Once upon a time
March 3, 2009 - 20:30 ET by doug1950I had a buddy of mine go for a job interview and they asked him if he had a degree. He told them he did not and they pressed him. Do you have a degree, any degree, any level, we don't care what it is in. He had vast experience and talents but no degree. They told him the reason they wanted someone with a degree, regardless of the track was that is was an indicatin that "you could be trained". That the person had the "potential and training to learn". College is suppose to teach one how to learn at higher levels and as you stated to learn how "think critically", be able to analyze data and inputs correctly, make the necessary corellations and extrapolate information from any and every resource and use it effectively. Unfortunately, college is now about spring break, getting some and getting the sheepskin, rather than the education.
Liberals are too stupid...
March 3, 2009 - 14:45 ET by Lord Erond...to come up with any other comparisons besides the Nazi's and Lenin.
"What you can not enforce, do not command" -Sophocles-
Those who they go after they see as dangerous
March 3, 2009 - 15:01 ET by c5thenThere is no need to attack someone who you don't see as important.
The Republican leadership in 2008 refused to acknowledge that Alan Keyes was even running for president. They barred him from the debates and refused to allow the Iowa caucuses to report his vote totals. He was run out of the GOP because he was not a moderate. Now they are after Rush Limbaugh. Not because he is wrong and irrelevant, but because he is right and people are listening to him and waking up.
The Republican party has long been taken over and under the control of closet Democrats. How else do you explaine Arlen Spectre, Olympia Snow, Mit Romney and John McCain?
The patern is forming now that any true conservative is denigrated and slandered in the hope that most will not listen and shun them out of fear of being called guilty by association.
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
www.loyaltoliberty.com
What was it I heard
March 3, 2009 - 15:05 ET by Hanoverfistat CPAC that I didnt hear at any Dem. gathering?
Oh yea,
USA
USA
USA
Wait
March 3, 2009 - 15:15 ET by retroconI hear USA all the time from the leftists...
Hate the USA
The USA is dictatorial
The USA is evil
The USA deserved 9/11
The USA is imperialistic
The USA should support the UN
Fredo
March 3, 2009 - 15:30 ET by KC MulvilleRemember Fredo, in The Godfather? When Michael came to Vegas to negotiate with Moe Green, the negotiations started badly. Fredo tried to intervene and get Michael to play the game by the other guy's rules.
That's the problem here. If people think that Rush represents the conservative movement, OK, we can debate about that. But I don't like the idea that we need to take the "road back to power" by playing the game by liberal rules. First, if the road to power means selling off principles, I'm not for it. Second, only a fool thinks that playing the game as liberals do will work for conservatives.
But there's another reality here. Step back and think. Have the ideologies changed over the last five years? Has Obama represented a breakthrough political philosophy? No. What's the difference?
All the talk about liberal and conservative principles and policies are secondary. They shouldn't be, but they are. If we need to advance the ideology, we need an attractive leader. We don't have one yet.
Sarah Palin?
March 3, 2009 - 15:52 ET by Scout FinchIntelligent, down-to-earth, capable leader, and can hold her own with the big boys. And some kinda think she's sorta pretty, too.
That's why they tried to destroy her
March 3, 2009 - 17:11 ET by KC MulvilleI like Palin myself, but it was too soon.
I'm still holding out for a Petraeus, or someone like that. Lots of experience, knows how to handle politics, but who has a seriousness of purpose and discipline of mind. The only problem is, he's dull as paint.
As always, KC, you've got me thinking
March 3, 2009 - 17:35 ET by BlondePetraeus....dull as paint.
I really liked Steve Forbes too, and I wish he'd spent some of his millions on some decent plastic surgery. I think people didn't take him seriously because he just looks so goofy, but he's obviously got some serious brainage in that head of his.
So what you have me thinking is this. Obama was the "perfect storm"...the coming together of all things necessary to thrive in the current environment, unfortunately for the other side.
Furthermore, looking into the near future, once people understand that Obama lied through his teeth to get where he's going shall cause a monstrous wail of outrage.....so we need to add "ethical candidate" into the mix.
So we require principaled, tough, smart, experienced, ethical, media savvy, disciplined, and pleasant looking. The only person who comes marginally close to that definition is Mitt Romney. But has he been damaged (and will this continue to be a problem?) by his religion? Can George Allen make a comeback? Can Palin grow in her areas of deficiency? Is Bobby Jindal tough enough?
I hope he fails, too.
Yeah, I know - who will it be?
March 3, 2009 - 19:02 ET by KC MulvilleBut don't worry. It wasn't that long ago that you couldn't say "liberal" in public. This too shall pass. Who, in 2000, could have predicted that a pretentious, young, ex-community organizer could emerge from the primordial soup of Chicago politics to become the messiah?
Somebody will come along, because the ideology is too good to waste.
Welcome to "1984"!
March 3, 2009 - 15:34 ET by robert108Welcome to "1984"! Newspeak at its finest.
Leninism'?
March 3, 2009 - 16:26 ET by Army BratThat's quite a jump...
I have a choice. I can be/remain conservative and embrace those values that define conservatism...or I can practice appeasement... I must conclude that appeaement is a bad thing, having looked at how it has worked in the past.
I'll not attempt to define those values...though some are quite obvious and need no definition. Smaller government, strong defense...
Happy Trails...
What?
March 3, 2009 - 16:55 ET by Rod Patrick"Limbaughism is Leninism" is tantamount to saying that Conservative Christians are the Anti-Christs, Liberals are God-fearing atheists, Bin Laden is an American Hero, Hussein is a Martyr, and the Anti-Christian Drive-by Media people are the Roman gods and goddesses (if not the Catholic Saints.)
The them in common: NON-SENSICAL comparison.
WOW
March 3, 2009 - 17:15 ET by bknownstThis guy is obviously another suckup to comrade president obama. In who's opinion is this clown a conservative? Is this comparative conservatism - say compared to princess pelosi, dingy harry, blarney frank and comrade 0 he is conservative?
oops
March 3, 2009 - 17:49 ET by katainkentintended to be a reply. delete me! :)
A comparison
March 3, 2009 - 18:49 ET by UnsaneLimbaugh as Lenin? Really?
Last time I checked, Limbaugh hasn't opened up a Gulag on the Ostrovii Solovetskii full of people who refuse to listen to his program. Nor is he forcibly usurping power from a legitimate government.
Nor does he back a philosophy that involves the systematic theft from other people, primarily the most successful ones.
Nor has he responded to the election of the Shahinshah with anything worse than doing what is done in democracies - analyzing and critiquing His policies. He certainly has not launched a civil war anything like that between the Reds and Whites.
Hell, I don't think he has written anything NEAR as inflammatory as "What Is To Be Done?"
Once again, a demostration that Leftist simply don't have any grasp whatsoever on history.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
R. Lee Ermey would have
March 3, 2009 - 20:15 ET by RR GOPR. Lee Ermey would have given these Commies massive coronaries if he had spoken at the CPAC.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Who's sounds like Lenin?
March 3, 2009 - 21:24 ET by CobraManWho's sounds like Lenin, Rush or Dreher? Let's ask Lenin:
Dreher, you apply dialectics quite well when comparing Rush to Leninism. Lenin would be proud!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Some Pseudo-Conservatives lean more to the left than the right.
March 3, 2009 - 22:33 ET by Rush Fan"Moderate conservative" David Frum also wrote this in that same article: "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."
----------------------Some related articles--------------------
A note to David Frum, Ross Douthat, David Brooks and every other self-important, self-designated savior of the Republican Party… PLEASE STOP.
So. Any other Republican Party studs care to besmirch Rush?
Where Rush Limbaugh Went Astray At CPAC?
Leninism?!
March 3, 2009 - 23:31 ET by grevalCan you say projection?