The above headline isn't even the half of it.
After the attacks were known to all, James Carville told assembled Washington reporters at a hotel conference room breakfast where he and Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg spoke (photo is from the May 20, 2004 Christian Science Monitor) to "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"
The assembled press apparently understood that as something each and every one of them should take to the grave.
Bill Sammon of Fox News has the story (HT Hot Air):
Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."
Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.
"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.
The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."
Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"
The press followed Carville's orders, never reporting his or Greenberg's desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party's top strategists, that Bush should fail.
That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail.
Limbaugh's status as the nation's top radio talker is hardly an explanation for the disparity between his antagonistic treatment at the hands of the media compared to Carville and Greenberg. In 2001, Carville was still an A-List star for his "It's the Economy, Stupid!" management of Bill Clinton's victorious 1992 presidential campaign. Greenberg had been the Democrats' leading pollster for many years (though, "strangely enough," at a human resources conference I attended in September 1996, where he told the assembled audience in essence that "Bill Clinton will be re-elected, get over it." I don't recall him disclosing his close ties even then to the party).
A revelation that either one of these two wished failure on the president, especially after 9/11, might have been just as damaging to Carville and Greenberg's reputations as those currently attacking Limbaugh hope theirs might be on his influence.
Sammon's report demonstrates just how actively opposed to George W. Bush the establishment press were, and clearly continued to be, during his entire term. In what you might expect to be the supposedly competitive environment of journalism (but it obviously isn't), no one in the entire group thought this newsworthy of reporting for all this time.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
the source
March 11, 2009 - 23:18 ET by mom_roxDid Bill Sammon hear this firsthand as one of the "Washington reporters" or did he get this from another source? His article was not clear on that. If he was there, it makes it harder for Carville to deny the statement. (You know, when CNN asks him about it ;)
What is the purpose of changing Carvilles quote
March 11, 2009 - 23:29 ET by nwahsI'm not fond of using a headline that states someone said something they never said. I think its unethical. Whats wrong with "Carville IMPLIED he wanted Bush to fail etc." Same story and ethical.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
Zheesh
March 11, 2009 - 23:57 ET by Tom BlumerThere are no quotes in the headline.
Do I need to remind you that the opposite of "succeed" is "fail," and that the headline is thus quite correct?
You're quibbling over literally nothing.
Yea and synonyms of fail are
March 12, 2009 - 07:36 ET by nwahsSynonyms of fail are :
abort, back wrong horse,
backslide, be defeated, be demoted, be found lacking, be in vain, be ruined,
blunder,
break down, come to naught, come to nothing,
decline,
deteriorate,
fall, fall flat, fall short, fall through*,
fizzle,
flop,
flounder,
fold,
founder,
go astray, go down swinging, go down*, go downhill, go up in smoke, go
wrong, hit bottom, hit the skids, lose control, lose out, lose status,
meet with disaster, miscarry,
miss, miss the boat, play into, run aground,
slip, turn out badly
http://thesaurus.ref...
"Rush says he wants Obama to lose control"
"Rush say he wants Obama to meet with disaster"
"Rush say he wants Obama to be demoted"
Why not just put in the headline what someone actually said, and not color it?
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
nwahs
March 12, 2009 - 13:37 ET by Macaroon2003Nwahs,
How much are you being paid by the democrat party or ACORN.
Seriously.
You're a paid troll -- that much is obvious.
Not only that, you are a liar. Anyone who intends to mislead is lying. You are deliberately taking Rush's comments out of context. His comment wasn't a blanket desire for Obama to fail. His comment was he wanted Obama to fail in promoting his socialist agenda. .
That's a BIG difference.
Personally, I want him to fail in that as well. Of course you don't care, you are a paid liar. Why don't you tell your bosses the American people would prefer they do their jobs instead of trying to distract them with this Rush Limbaugh - Saul Alinsky bullshit.
How could I possibly be taking him out of context?
March 12, 2009 - 13:43 ET by nwahsI posted his entire initial statement. The context is there. Him challenging the media to headline his sound byte, is there. How is it misleading? Rush's entire initial statement is posted.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
Troll Alert
March 12, 2009 - 13:42 ET by nofateAs this idiot probably is aware, on the exact same linked page he gave for synonyms of "fail", is the following:
Well, what do you know. Success! "Succeed" is right there!
Know what else, Troll? If you do a search (I used Yahoo!, but I'm sure even you can get similar results on whatever you choose) on "antonym: success", a whole list of sites was returned offering an opposite definition of "success". Guess what? The first five sites checked used the word "FAIL" as the very first opposite meaning for "succeed". I only looked at five because I really get tired of us all having to do homework the trolls can't do themselves. I get tired of us having to bail you out. Go crawl back under your bridge and see if you can find another scab to pick at until you come back out to pester us again.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Trolling for homework
March 12, 2009 - 21:16 ET by Sergeant ROCKIt's hard to find a 'troll' that will do his own homework!
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
As anyone with a grasp of
March 12, 2009 - 09:57 ET by cjones27As anyone with a grasp of logic can tell you, "not succeeding" is not the same as "failing."
Statement X could be not true, but that doesn't make the statement's opposite true.
Grasp of Logic?
March 12, 2009 - 10:59 ET by JimboI have a grasp of logic and I can tell you that you are wrong. While I suspect your argument may hold some validity in some other arguments, it holds no water here. The metric of succeed and fail are relative to a specific goal. You either attain that goal, or you don’t. By extension, you either succeed, or fail. The “almost succeeded” ground you are grasping for is the liberal way of refusing to admit failure when specific goals are not attained.
So he did not want Bush to
March 12, 2009 - 11:25 ET by MrSnugglesSo he did not want Bush to succeed, but he also did not want Bush to fail. What exactly DID he want then? For Bush to resign?
Its really hard to believe
March 12, 2009 - 12:34 ET by nwahsIts hard to believe that people on a site dedicated to media bias would argue for unethical journalism. If a person never said a phrase, don't put in the headline that he did say that phrase. If he implied that phrase, say he implied that phrase.When did it become ethical journalism to put words in someone's mouth?
You'll find logic takes a back seat to bullying, posturing, and childish insults. After a while you can smell the aroma of sheep poo and you instinctively skip over it.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
~So that's why it's so hard
March 12, 2009 - 13:48 ET by choselife3xto track you, you're skipping. Now there's a mental image....
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
That was me about 30 years ago
March 12, 2009 - 16:53 ET by nwahsyea right :) If I did that my heart would explode.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
Unethical? In who's world?
March 12, 2009 - 13:52 ET by CobraManBackwards Shawn, you DO know what the verb "fail" means, right? Fail: To be unsuccessful.
If you don't want someone to be successful, then you must want them to fail. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
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
And up above
March 12, 2009 - 20:16 ET by nwahsYea, Carville never uses the phrase "I want Bush to fail" but its in the headline and thats ok with you. In Tim Graham's article above, he's upset the AP headline is""President Barack Obama says human cloning is ‘dangerous, profoundly wrong’ and has no place in society." TimGraham says " Obama said no such thing."
So what did Obama say?
This is what Obama said "And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use
of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong
and has no place in our society, or any society."
Somebody let the coo coo out of the clock .
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
Wait, so Obama actually did
March 12, 2009 - 20:21 ET by balboaWait, so Obama actually did say what the AP said he said?
As far as I can tell
March 12, 2009 - 20:24 ET by nwahsThe two articles held side by side are so bizarre, its hard to comment.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
In the post above
March 12, 2009 - 20:37 ET by nwahsIn the post above, I mistakenly wrote "Tim Graham says Obama didn't say that" or something like that. Tim Graham is quoting the article. The author of the article said that.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
Tit for Tat
March 12, 2009 - 07:05 ET by jdlybrandIt won't wash.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Two sets of rules. (Two Americas)
Go ahead and try to defend the indefensible.
The Verb Police.
March 12, 2009 - 07:50 ET by SickofLibsThe Verb Police.
CS Monitor blog on Carville
March 11, 2009 - 23:39 ET by IcarusHere's the take of Dave Cook, of the Christian Science Monitor's The Vote Blog, on Jame's Carville's statements at a September 11, 2001, Monitor breakfast.
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/03/11/limbaugh-versus-carville-on-hoping-presidents-fail/
There may be media bias. But the lower profile treatment of Carville’s breakfast comments compared to those by Limbaugh certainly does not prove it.
[snip]
Carville started speaking at 8:00 a.m. on September 11, 2001. Word of the terrorist attacks that morning came right as the breakfast ended. Upon hearing the news, Carville said, “Disregard everything we just said. This changes everything.” Carville’s comments about the latest political polling obviously were lost in the flood of coverage of the first major attack on the US since Pearl Harbor.
Limbaugh spoke when there was not a competing news story of magnitude of the September 11 attacks.
[snip]
While Carville is often animated in the extreme and given to fast, blunt talk, what he said at the 2001 breakfast was far less strong and colorful than comments Limbaugh has been making.
The former breakfast moderator, Godfrey Sperling Jr., was hosting on the day in question. He asked the three Democratic analysts if the Bush presidency was vulnerable. Here is what Carville said: “I don’t care if people like him or not, just so they don’t vote for him and his party. That is all I care about. I hope he doesn’t succeed, but I am a partisan Democrat. But the average person wants him to succeed. It is his country, his life or their lives. So he has that going for him.”
Carville continued, “There is a lot that is going to happen between now and next November. It is not that people don’t like him. It is not that people don’t want him to succeed, but it is also not that he doesn’t have some serious underlying problems.”
It seems that at least Carville's 2001 comments were tame and more tempered than what Foxnews.com's Bill Sammon's article would have the reader believe. Carville seems to be analyzing polling data, concluding that "the average person" wants then-President Bush to succeed, and then contrasting that with his as a "partisan Democrat".
I think fighting bias media
March 11, 2009 - 23:44 ET by nwahsThanks for another take on the story. I think fighting biased media with biased media is ridiculous. When do you win? When you become as corrupt as those you complain about, or worse?
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
Try this
March 12, 2009 - 08:45 ET by cvgbuckeyenwahs; as in WAHHH!! Let me instruct you; only if you are not as dumb as you appear to be is it possible.
1. Media bias in pursuit of slavery is not just wrong, it is EVIL.
2. Clearly, liberalism, as being pursued in America today, is closer to EVIL as it is to an alternate, harmless political alternative.
A. At what level of taxation does income redistribution enslave the wage earner?
B. At what level of recieving the redistribution does the reciever become enslaved to the state?
C. What percentage of controlled behavior of citizens, brought about by a Nanny State, define slavery?
3. What parts of Marxism, espoused by the majority of the democrats today, was envisioned by the Founding Fathers and conversly, what parts of the Constitution must we allow them to cut out to satisfy their appetites for enslaving Capitalism to enhance the Proletariat?
4. When we turn on our televisions, every night, and see NOTHING but leftist policies (it now goes beyond bias) espoused, it goes beyond irritating, it goes beyond broken journalism, it crosses the line into outright EVIL.
Words are wasted, usually, on numbskulls like you that are still hung up in the morass of your inexperience and youth. You obviously have little appreciation of the EVIL forces at work in this nation, today, (Yes a Pravda Media and a Marxist President) that are intent upon undoing 250 years of the greatest experiment in Democracy in the history of the world. Black Liberation Theology was borne of Marxism and espoused by Chairman Obama until he got caught and was then cleansed by an adoring EVIL MEDIA. Had this been a Republican espousing such radicalism, he would have been run out of the country by the same EVIL MEDIA.
Chairman Obama, dem controlled congress, a sick educational system and uninformed people like you are making up a force for EVIL that will cause the rest of us a lot of effort to turn back.
BUT WE WILL
You're an idiot
March 12, 2009 - 09:25 ET by nwahsExcuse me if I don't wade through your drivel.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
wade
March 12, 2009 - 10:45 ET by cvgbuckeyeYou are not fit to wade through my drivel sonny BOY. I was serving in The United States Marine Corp to give you the right to be an idiot while you were home hiding behind your mommy's skirt, whimpering. For years, I have run my own business, providing good jobs in a free society to make America a better place for punie little punks like you to sit in your full diaper and whine.
This is the idiot that you are speaking to. Lets take a vote on this web-site as to who the idiot is.
Semper Fi!! Pacifism is a
March 12, 2009 - 23:59 ET by James2306Semper Fi!!
Pacifism is a luxury bought with the blood of the valorous
cvg... Just saw this
March 13, 2009 - 00:07 ET by bigtimercvg...
Just saw this all...
You win hands down!
No ifs, ands or buts about it.
Good Old Newt
March 12, 2009 - 11:09 ET by nofateA politician's politician. Pushing his own agenda since getting elected to congress. Cutting his friends off at the knees at his convenience. What ever happened to term limits? Newt's conservatism is like Jello- jiggly.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Typical & Predictable
March 12, 2009 - 11:11 ET by JimboTypical. When faced with a series of facts, liberals have an opportunity to either try to debate those facts, or call the person who took the time to articulate the points an “idiot”. Thanks for enlightening us as to the liberal preference.
Sorry
March 12, 2009 - 12:42 ET by nwahsI don't read past the 1st insult. If he thinks fighting media bias with media bias is a good solution, he can articulate that without blowing spit bubbles. If you think integrity in media is a liberal idea, that's your problem. I think its an ideal, and be happy to argue the point with you free of insults.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
old media bias
March 11, 2009 - 23:44 ET by Jason AslingerSo we're not just finding media bias - now we're finding media bias that's 7 1/2 years old. I think Carville's in that category of "will do or say anything." Nothing surprises me about that guy.
I love the part where Carville says "disregard everything," and they do!
That is by far ....
March 11, 2009 - 23:53 ET by Tom Blumer.... the most important point.
"That is by far the most important point."
March 12, 2009 - 00:16 ET by JerYou're right about that. As soon as Carville found out, just minutes later, about the emergency suddenly facing the nation as a result of the terrorist attacks, he withdrew his comments and rallied behind President Bush, as did the overwhelming majority of Democrats.
On the contrary, with the nation facing a dire economic crisis, Rush kneecapped Obama before he was even sworn into office.
Jer
Oh Stop It
March 12, 2009 - 06:38 ET by Tom BlumerCarville and Greenberg weren't rallying around Bush. They were covering their a**es, and their lapdog buds let 'em get away with it. THAT is the most important point.
And poor, poor baby Barack, with the awesome powers of the presidency, and with fawning hero-worship from virtually every establishment media outlet, is soooooo helpless that he (and you, apparently) blame a talk show host for his administration's incompetence.
EXACTLY RIGHT, TOM!!! Thanks for a great commentary!
March 12, 2009 - 09:51 ET by Cape ConservativeIt is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. ~ Sam Adams
Carville and Greenberg
March 12, 2009 - 16:49 ET by JerCarville and Greenberg weren't rallying around Bush. They were covering their a**es, and their lapdog buds let 'em get away with it. THAT is the most important point.
And you have divined that exactly how? Did all those Congressional Democrats who were on the Capitol steps singing God Bless America have their fingers crossed behind their backs? Were the Clintons who were out publicly rallying support for the President just doing it for a photo op? Did the 90% who were supporting the President after the 9/11 attacks not include any Democrats--even though less than a year earlier Bush had received less votes than Gore?
I hold people accountable for their mistakes. That goes for talk show hosts as well as politicians--Republican or Democrat.
Jer
I don't have to "divine" anything.
March 13, 2009 - 07:12 ET by Tom BlumerWhen someone says -- "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!" -- They are BY DEFINITION covering their a**es, regardless of their motivation. It's not arguable.
Since the lapdog media, perhaps with the exception of Sammon himself about a year later (see much later comment below from Icarus), didn't report it for 7-1/2 years, they let the pair get away with covering their a**es. That's not arguable either.
What other people did or didn't do is irrelevant to the content of the post.
I still disagree, Tom...
March 13, 2009 - 19:58 ET by JerWhen someone says -- "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!" -- They are BY DEFINITION covering their a**es, regardless of their motivation. It's not arguable.
It is indeed arguable, and has everything to do with timing and context. It may very well be true Carville and Greenberg wanted their asses covered, but that doesn't mean it was their only motivation. So why aren't other potential motivations relevant? Wouldn't a desire to show unified, bi-partisan support for the President in a time of crisis be laudable conduct? And why wouldn't that highly distinct possibility be worthy of even speculative reporting just as much as any suggestion of ass-covering.
How do you think Rush would have reacted under similar circumstances i.e. in the middle of his "I hope he fails" soliloquy there were to occur a surprise and devastating terrorist attack? Do you think he would withdraw or amend his comments to "cover his ass"? If he did so, would you ascribe such conduct to cynical motivations, or applaud him for his patriotic display of support. [I do know how conservative talkers Neal Boortz and Kim Peterson reacted on the very afternoon of 9/11: They thundered "it's all Bill Clinton's fault. The blood of the American dead are on his hands." I heard them say it, and it was repellent.]
As far as the lapdog media's failure to report, I would imagine the breathtakingly stunning events of 9/11 overshadowed any passing remarks of a couple of Democratric strategists. One might ask why even the Democrat-bashing Sammon waited a year to bring them up.
My problem with Rush is not just what he said, but even moreso with its timing [two days before Obama's inauguration while the nation was gripped by a dire economic emergency]. I thought then and continue to think, under those circumstances, it was a highy inappropriate "headline"--yet one he literally implored the media to report.
Jer
I'm sorry,
March 13, 2009 - 21:24 ET by Tom Blumeryou have no argument that can be taken seriously on this.
If a person is covering his or her a** and want to avoid owning up to what he or she said, no other motivations can be trusted, or even matter. Discussion over; there's nothing to discuss.
Well, I'm sorry, too, Tom...
March 13, 2009 - 21:43 ET by JerWell, I'm sorry, too, Tom...
You really haven't even advanced an argument, other than making unsupported subjective inferences.
And with respect to covering my ass and owning up to what I said, I don't even know what you're talking about. Please advise.
Jer
I expect such drivel from Sargent Rock
March 13, 2009 - 22:20 ET by nwahsI don't expect if from a NB writer. That response was inexcusable. The response was moronic. Ban me, do whatever, but that response is idiotic, and I got to say it was.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
Sorry guys
March 13, 2009 - 23:07 ET by Tom BlumerI changed my response above to reflect that it wasn't personally directed at Jer, because it wasn't meant to be. I apologize for expressing it in a way that had the potential for being taken personally. That has been fixed.
As to Carville and Greenberg, whose behavior and the media coverup of said behavior are the sole subjects of this post -- Absent admitting to the fact that they said what they originally said, admitting to the fact that they asked those to whom they spoke to cover up for them, expressing genuine public remorse for having done those two things, and personally apologizing to the reporters involved for asking/demanding (assuming they wanted future access) that they do something they should not have been asked to do, every other point made by Jer as to their other motivations is totally irrelevant.
And until they do those things, that is objectively inarguable.
Any comparisons of their behavior to others is similarly irrelevant, because until they do the things they must do to set things right, they are not worthy subjects for comparison to anyone else, period.
This is not complicated, and responding in this manner sure as heck isn't less than professional, no matter how many times anyone claims otherwise. Rather, responding as I have merely points out the dreadfully obvious.
I apologize as well
March 13, 2009 - 23:24 ET by nwahsI just thought it was a reasonable argument, and I probably went overboard in expressing that. Most of what I wrote was uncalled for.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
I read what Jer posted
March 13, 2009 - 22:30 ET by nwahsIf you don't acknowledge he posted a reasonable argument, you sir are brain dead. And I know you're not because you have a reasonable use of predicates and nouns. So is this "media bias" site really a sham? You are not that dumb. Why are you acting that dumb? Are you cultivating the flinging of sheep crap? Jer gave you a damn good reply and you post drivel?Were you drunk when you posted that?
Your reply was extremely insulting and form letter type, to a post that was obviously thoughtful.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
Jer - I usually do not respond to liberals who post on this site
March 13, 2009 - 22:32 ET by Rush Fanbecause it is a waste of my time. I am old and retired, so you can understand why time is important to me.
But I have read many of your posts, and am under the impression that you are intelligent and reasonable at times, especially compared to other libs, such as nwahs, who post at NewsBusters.
My point of this post is to ensure that when you comment on what Rush Limbaugh says, you understand what Rush Limbaugh meant when he said: "I hope he fails." To do this, I'm going to use Rush's own words, and provide you the links:
RUSH: This morning, CNN, they have a beat reporter on me. Her name is Carol Costello. I'm her beat. Coanchor Kiran Chetry, introduction to... Wait a minute. This is not about Green Bay. This is about the Last Man Standing. This is about I want Obama to fail. I don't want Obama to fail; I want the country to succeed! I want Obama's policies to fail. But Obama's failure to implement his policies is good news, the best news possible for this country. That's all I'm saying.
Rush: He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.
Rush: Folks, those of you who are out there thinking Obama's way is going to solve this and you want him to succeed because you think it's patriotic to support the president, I support the president, too. I just don't support his policies here. .....I want everybody to prosper in this country. I want everybody to have success. I want everybody that wants one to have the job they want, not the only job they can get -- and that's a 20-year history of this program. ...... My hope for Obama's policy failures is based solely on the fact that they won't work, they won't create permanent, good jobs
Lastly, Jer, here is a transcript of a portion of a recent Rush show titled The Founders Wanted Presidents to Fail If They Deserved To Fail
I don't expect you to agree with Rush, but perhaps you will at least understand what he meant when he said: "I hope he fails"
regards
Rush Fan... I appreciate
March 13, 2009 - 23:26 ET by JerRush Fan...
I appreciate the compliment. I likewise have read many of your posts and the feeling is mutual.
After reading the material you linked, I'll comment on that, the views you have posted above, and elaborate a little more on my postion as well. However, it will probably be either late tomorrow or sometime Sunday.
Thanks again.
Jer
For About One Day!
March 12, 2009 - 10:46 ET by nofateAnd they were never "behind" Bush as in backing his policies and actions. They were behind him so that they could backstab him every chance they got. The only reason they gave the appearance of "backing" Bush was the overwhelming approval he had with the voters at the time, which they went to work on right away, but were unable to sway in time to prevent him from a 2nd term.
And as far as Rush kneecapping Obama, who started going after who? I was listening the day he said that he wanted Obama to fail, meaning his socialist policies, because it is antithetical to the constitution and the system of government that the founders set up for us, i.e. to protect us from the government. I don't have access to a transcript right now, but I know that this is more "phony soldiers" type bullcrap. Rush kneecap Obama? LOL! You have the president of the most powerful nation in the world and all his metrosexual sycophants and comrade Reichhhhh with all the power Obama has bestowed on them all, and they choose to go after one influential private citizen and you have the balls to come on this site and tell us that Rush is trying to kneecap Obama??? Even Camille Paglia would have something to say to that, Jer. This is a thinking person's board, not a kneejerk site.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
nofate... I know you
March 12, 2009 - 17:13 ET by Jernofate...
I know you disagree with me, but mine is not a kneejerk reaction. I printed out the entire transcript of Rush's remarks, and have probably read it at least three times, and parts of it more than that. I recorded his CPAC address and have watched it twice from start to finish.
You're damn right I have the balls to come on this site and state my opinion. I have never attacked Rush personally. I think his preinaugural remarks about Obama were extraordinarily imprudent and "kneecapping"--in the figurative sense that I was obviously using the term--is precisely what I believe Rush was doing. And that assessment is not even one tenth as strident as the scores of comments I read here every single day about Obama in particular or liberals and Democrats in general. Rush had every right to do it, and you have every right to agree with him. I trust I'm permitted to disagree.
By the way, I read the whole series of transcripts on the phony soldiers "controversy". It was overblown.
Jer
Who's Kneecapping Who?
March 14, 2009 - 22:10 ET by nofateIf there's any kneecapping going on, it's Obama doing it to not just the U.S. economy, but the whole system of republican government. There is no doubt that Obama is a socialst:
There is a plethora of information out there making the case and if our main stream "journalists" were still honestly doing their job, they could find it in only a couple of hours of digging. If you have gone so far as to read the transcript of Rush's show and his speech, then I'm sure you are aware of the evidence.
Of course you are allowed to disagree. That is what our system is built on. But the socialists/communists, whatever one wants to call them are out to utterly circumvent the constitution and overwhelm public services in an attempt to create a crisis atmosphere that will allow Obama and team to step up and "solve" the crisis, as they are attempting to do at the moment. Obama is only the public face of the strategy laid out by Cloward and Piven in a "The Nation" article in 1966 and could be summarized as
For Rush to call for the failure of this attempt to circumvent the constitutional process is not even close to "kneecapping" Obama. Obama has the power of the entire federal government at his disposal. And rather than using it wisely, he is wielding his power capriciously by going after a private citizen who happens to have at least 20 million citizens that agree, in varying degrees, with him. Shades of Alice Palmer, who was on his team (or rather he was on hers), or Joe the Plumber. Who's kneecapping whom?
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Jer -- I'm sorry but you're
March 12, 2009 - 11:53 ET by Jack BauerJer -- I'm sorry but you're not serious. This is thin gruel.
To compare an economic downturn, which most actual conservatives think you should essentially leave to the market anyway... to compare that with 9/11 is... well, dude... Grotesque. IMHO.
I'm disapopointed. I know this is the brazen Democrat talking point. But it's absurd. I can't believe you believe that, in your heart.
Jack... I'm sorry to have
March 12, 2009 - 16:03 ET by JerJack...
I'm sorry to have disappointed you (because you know I like you), but I stand by my comment.
If I thought this were just a run of the mill "economic downturn", I wouldn't be making such comparisons. If I thought the dire assessments made by many financial analysts were misguided, I wouldn't be making such comparisons.
It's not that I'm suggesting the exigencies are perfectly analogous, nor do I have any intent to minimize or diminish the horrific drama and tragic deaths of 9/11, but there are sufficient general similarities--both events constituting a grave national threat--that I think a concerted and co-operative response would be desirable.
Jer
Jer, in substance I agree
March 13, 2009 - 08:45 ET by AgnosticBut after 9/11 both sides agreed on how what must be done, though temporarily, and both sides had a solid knowledge of what happened, who did it and what needed to be done.
In these ways 9/11 is completely different from the current crisis. The mere fact that they can't agree on how we got into this mess means that the method of getting out of this crisis is going to be contended.
I don't believe Rush should have said what he did at such an early stage. He voiced a concern many have but the truth is, like many have said, we don't know enough about our current president to know what he is going to do. We, speaking as part of the opposition, made inferences from what little we knew about him and that either came from his books or past aquaintances but that was really all we had. His website was a joke and when I read his policies and speeches I was left with feeling that I just wasted moments of my life reading nothing repeated several times. The media did not help in this regard so I don't blame the public for making inferences but I'm trying not to be too critical but I don't have much to work with. President Obama is not to blame for all our troubles but he supported much of what I believe got us into this crisis and those policies were socialistic in nature. I'm losing what little faith I had everytime he speaks but there is still a sliver left and I truly hope it grows.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Rush is right
March 12, 2009 - 00:34 ET by koorangkooIf telling the truth about Obama's misguided and counter-productive economic "policies" is knee-capping, I'll take knee-capping anyday. Does Obama (and his defenders) really expect all of us to drink the Kool-Aid with him?
What surprises me the most about James Carville after listening
March 12, 2009 - 03:34 ET by Rush Fanto him for many years is how his wife of more than 15 years, Republican strategist Mary Matalin, can stand to live with him. Carville comes across as a sneaky, manipulative and unethical SOB, while Mary Matalin appears to be sincere, straightforward and reasonable. Combining the two of them is similar to combining oil with water.
It seems Groucho Marx was correct when he said: "Politics doesn't make strange bedfellows, marriage does."
----------------------------------------
Support the ACLU ( terrorist have rights also)
-------------------------------------------------------
“They are using the law. They are using government to advance a cause that is un-American. We are going to use the power that the left is centralizing in the federal government to punish them, to break 'em up, and to make them pay for this. It's time for tit-for-tat. Nice guy playing by the rules when they don't, is over. It's time they got a taste of their own medicine, and it's going to happen, folks, because they're not going to hold power forever.” ~ Rush Limbaugh
An odd couple indeed! I sure couldn't do it!
March 12, 2009 - 09:57 ET by Cape ConservativeIt is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. ~ Sam Adams
I Find it Strange Too
March 12, 2009 - 11:12 ET by nofateLook what happened to Arnold and Greenspan. Hang in there Mary. Don't let the snake bite you.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
IN OTHER NEWS...
March 12, 2009 - 03:45 ET by danybhoyWater is wet...
Football is violent...
Porno contains nudity...
Rock concerts are loud...
Hippies stink...
Hell is hot...
& if I keep going, this will get old fast.
"The Fairness Doctrine = Jim Crow laws for Conservatives". Jim Quinn from "Quinn & Rose"
As if this should surprise anyone
March 12, 2009 - 06:57 ET by theduck6If it weren't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all.
This shows who the cold,
March 12, 2009 - 08:34 ET by mattmThis shows who the cold, calculating political sharks really are! (as we already knew).... "everything's different..."???
No James, it wasn't different...everything was the same...we were still in a bad situation that needed to be dealt with....economically and militarily, domestically and internationally - Bush did it, you Leftards joined with the enemy. You opposed the tax cuts that stimulated the growth we had from 2002 though 2006, and you opposed the tightening of the regulations that would have prevented the current financial mess...you also tried to undermine our war efforts...which makes you a traitor.
Using your mentality, with the current mess, you should be saying "everything is different now, so we have to cut taxes, cut entitlements, loosen environmental regs and get tough on the terrorists...."
But far be it from you, or the likes of you, to do anything that is actually right or that would actually benefit anyone....other than yourself, that is.... There's a special place in Hell for people like you, Jimbo....
Greenberg and Carville - the OTHER 9/11 plot
March 12, 2009 - 08:51 ET by ekslibThe pollster and the strategist,
Gave a talk in town.
Their topic of oration
Was pushing Dubya down.
They hadn't made Bush tumble yet,
'Cause polled folks weren't compliant.
The duo knew that newsmen's help
Was useful and reliant.
The men implied their audience
Could help them with their power.
Then tried to hide their bad intents,
When Atta struck the tower.
james carvel and Sandy Berger
March 12, 2009 - 09:13 ET by JIMMY1660are these the same two who let the Rangers in Somalia, be killed with no help sent. is this the same Carvel who he and bill clinton had Osama in their sights and let him go on. Funny how the left's memories are so short and distorted.
55 months of growth, fighting with the left every inch of the way. Bill Clinton amassed million of dollars while GWB was in office, how did that happen?
BHO- ill equipped to lead America
New Rules
March 12, 2009 - 09:17 ET by exLibI hate to use a phrase that has already been perverted by a pervert but it fits.
1st - Those who can't see a difference between wanting a President who is fighting a war to fail, or not succeed for those verbally challenged among us, and those who want a President's economic policies to fail in the short run is either stupid or partisan to the extremem.
Clearly, if someone opposes a war as vocally as those two Reps or Senators who went to Iraq and basically said they trusted Saddam Hussein and not GWBush that is TREASON, but they got mostly positive press, even though many Conservatives denounced them as traitors, the media certainly didn't pile on the way they are going after Rush these days.
Pelosi and Reid both went after the President on the war and clearly gave the enemy much verbal ammo to keep up the fight.
It's amazing to me that with the help of the media constantly framing the war debate that the prolonging of the war was laid at Bush's feet and he was regularly criticized for trying to keep the troops moral high by not admitting defeat himself. The media constantly got on GWB's case for "not being honest" about how the war was going. Had he done that, he would have done a grave disservice to our fighting men and women and sent a bad signal to the enemy that he wasn't serious about their defeat. Signal the Democrats and MSM carried on TV almost daily.
As for the economy:
If you constantly report negative stories about how bad the economy is doing, even when it's pretty good, then play democrats comparing the 2004 economy to the great depression and no "journalists" raised so much as an eyebrow - you gotta wonder.
Still, there's a huge difference between opposing a war - especially while it's ongoing - and opposing an economic policy.
Finally, lest we forget the title of my post. We were told before this election that this election was "different" that the consequences of failure for "whomever was elected" were too great and that they "had to succeed".
So a new rule was put into effect. In otherwords, when Bush was President it was "OK" to be hyper-partisan because Bush and the Republicans in power were partisan and deserved what they got.
Now that "the one" is President, he is too big to fail and we "can't be partisan" any longer, we must "work together now".
The irony of course is that nothing has changed except who is in power. When the GOP was in power they should have given in to the demands of the Dems and "worked together" (Even though they did, it wasn't enough). Now that Dems are in power, everyone again must go along with what they want or be seen as "partisan". Either way, you do want the Dems want.
"...Either way, you do want the Dems want."
March 12, 2009 - 09:55 ET by Cape ConservativeNow you're getting it ;-) B I - P A R T I S A N S H I P as defined by the Democrat Party! I have NEVER believed one word out of the lying cajun's mouth!
It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. ~ Sam Adams
The sad part, cape
March 12, 2009 - 10:05 ET by exLibThe sad part, cape, is that the media carries that water.
They always frame the debate from the Democrats point of view but too many people I know think that is "news" and not opinion.
Yet, you have guys like Hannity, Rush, O'Reilly, et al who the Liberals and their media water carriers have framed as news makers, even though they clearly define themselves as opinion givers.
You're trying to have
March 12, 2009 - 10:17 ET by doccom.....an honest debate with a couple of people who
will tie themselves in knots over what the meaning
of the word 'is' is..............much less what the antonym of
succeed is.
Calling Lib Troll, how did
March 12, 2009 - 10:44 ET by GlennCalling Lib Troll, how did Rush kneecap the chosen one? I thought Rush didn't have any power? That Rush was yesterdays news and that he did not have any influence. Please make up minds where you stand and for once stick with it. Oh and I thought dissent was patriotic??? Or is that only when a Republican is in office? Again, please make up you minds and STICK WITH IT.
As far as hacks(liberals) like Carville "rallying".....that lasted what? A month?Two at the most. We had that clown Senate majority leader telling everyone that the war was lost and that the surge had failed, even though it had not got under way and while WE HAD TROOPS IN THE FIELD.
Knock off the BS
March 12, 2009 - 11:22 ET by JimboAgreed Glenn. The liberals NEVER rallied behind President Bush. NEVER. Not on 9/11, not on 9/12, NEVER! True, there were times when they tried to give the appearance of being unified behind him, but the sole driver of that charade was for their own political convenience.
Let’s call a spade a spade and knock off the BS!
Did they ever support Bush
March 12, 2009 - 11:59 ET by exLibI think one of the worst miscarriages of the oxymoron "journalistic ethics" was in 04 and beyond when the media decided to "go with" the DNC talking point that the Dems were "always" with Bush on Afganistan and that the "world was united behind Bush as well. But when Bush pushed for Iraq, everyone was "lied to".
Ann Coulter took that one out for a spin and got tons of quotes and media reports that attacked Bush for invading Afghanistan and the anti-war demonstrations (did they even have any when Obama sent 17K extra over there?) got tons of exposure. All forgotten in order to try to help Kerry win.
exLib...tons of attacks on Bush for invading Afghanistan? When?
March 12, 2009 - 16:08 ET by JerexLib...
Could you please provide the approximate date of those "tons of quotes and media reports attacking Bush for invading Afghanistan."
Jer
-
March 12, 2009 - 16:34 ET by Jer[double post]
Can' take back words
March 12, 2009 - 12:14 ET by ricklailYou can't take back words or disregard them as Carville said. He said it and meant it. Just because things happened a little later, the damage was done. Can he go out in the ionsphere and grab those words? He didn't apologize so he meant it.
Did anyone watch the lastest episode of House? They were treating this guy because he would blurt out what was on his mind. That was Carville.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. RWR
Carville and Limbaugh
March 12, 2009 - 12:50 ET by IcarusAgain, let's compare the comments of James Carville and Rush Limbaugh back-to-back to see if they are the same or if one is worse or better than the other. Also, context matters, so I'll provide that. Carville's up first.
In response to a question about whether President George W. Bush is politically vulnerable, Carville said: "I don’t care if people like him or not, just so they don’t vote for him and his party. That is all I care about. I hope he doesn’t succeed, but I am a partisan Democrat. But the average person wants him to succeed. It is his country, his life or their lives. So he has that going for him. ... There is a lot that is going to happen between now and next November. It is not that people don’t like him. It is not that people don’t want him to succeed, but it is also not that he doesn’t have some serious underlying problems."
In response to the question, "Do you want [President Obama] to succeed?", Limbaugh said: "If he gets nationalized health care, I mean, it's over, Sean. We're never going to roll that back. That's the end of America as we have known it, because that's then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated, or provided. Why would I want that to succeed? I don't believe in that. I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future; it's not what made this country great. So I shamelessly say, 'No! I want him to fail.' If his agenda is a far-left collectivism -- some people say socialism -- as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?"
Do you have Limbaugh's initial "fail "comments?
March 12, 2009 - 13:00 ET by nwahsThat looks like the comment from the Hannity interview when it was toned down a little. He made the comment on his show first and if I remember, it was even before the inauguration. I'd like to compare the initial comment, not the comment after he began nuancing it.
I'm looking for it now.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
I forgot about Limbaugh's
March 12, 2009 - 13:23 ET by IcarusI forgot about Limbaugh's eariler "I hope Obama fails" comment. In those comments, Limbaugh explicitly says, "I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: 'Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.'"
Okay, so why is one of Bill Sammon's beefs that the news media is headlining Limbaugh's comments?
Here's the quote (the first two paragraphs):
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html
Compare and contrast that to Carville's comments.
Well I think
March 12, 2009 - 13:31 ET by nwahsWell I think the fact that Limbaugh begs the media to take the bombastic sound byte and run with it, and the fact Carville says to forget or ignore his comments in light of a US attack, pretty much deflates the media bias argument.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
nwahs...
March 12, 2009 - 16:13 ET by JerYou should know better than to spoil a good pile-on with inconvenient facts.
Jer
Thats the thing
March 12, 2009 - 17:00 ET by nwahsThe facts won't stop the pile-on. The facts will make the pile-on more feverish. Can you see any of the people behind this story print a clarification of the real sequence of events? Nope. This story isn't about media bias, this story is media bias.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
Right, nwahs... The
March 13, 2009 - 00:23 ET by JerRight, nwahs...
The account was anything but comprehensive. It was as if Sammon's notes had been ripped into about eight pieces, and then sometime later maybe half of them were picked up off the floor and pasted together for the report.
It's possible Sammon's has it exactly right, but his bias is well-established. ["Corporal Cueball"? Now that's really impressive journalism.]
Jer
Here's the initial comment.
March 12, 2009 - 13:21 ET by nwahsI found it, its from January 16th, before the inauguration.
"
January 16, 2009: Limbaugh: ‘I Hope Obama Fails’
January 16, 2009: Limbaugh: ‘I Hope Obama Fails’
sEL('1626004942-63001','63001')
Conservative
talk show host Rush Limbaugh has already launched attacks on
President-elect Barack Obama, including attempting to blame him for the
global recession even though he has not yet taken office (see November 5-12, 2008).
Today he tells his listeners that he hopes Obama’s administration is a
failure. (Limbaugh’s words are publicly reported by the liberal
organization ThinkProgress; his remarks are carried on his Web site,
but are accessible only to those who pay for access.) Limbaugh says, “I
disagree fervently with the people on our [Republican] side of the
aisle who have caved and who say, ‘Well, I hope he succeeds.’” Limbaugh
says “a major American print publication” has asked him to write a
brief statement on his “hope for the Obama presidency.” Limbaugh’s
response: “So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, ‘Okay, I’ll send you
a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.”
When Limbaugh is interrupted by someone in the studio laughing, he
continues: “What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody
thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, ‘Oh, you can’t do
that.’ Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair
about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem.
Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here.
Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is.
[Limbaugh often refers to the mainstream media as the ‘drive-by
media.’] I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day
long: ‘Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.’ Somebody’s gotta say it.” [Think Progress, 20 January 2009.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Think Progress, 1/20/2009]
"
http://www.historyco...
That would be the context to compare to Carville's remarks, not the repaired version given on the Hannity show.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
It's those kinds of comments
March 12, 2009 - 13:39 ET by balboaIt's those kinds of comments that point out that Limbaugh is not for America. He is for conservative America.
Hi boa... Of course he is
March 12, 2009 - 14:18 ET by bigtimerHi boa...
Of course he is for conservative America...as well he should be...he speaks for us... we are the base of the repub party.
Good deduction there Dick Tracy!
What I mean is he would
March 12, 2009 - 14:36 ET by balboaWhat I mean is he would rather see America fail if a Democrat is in charge. Limbaugh would never want America to succeed under a Democrat.
I'd rather see America thrive, regardless of political party.
There you go again, assuming
March 12, 2009 - 14:42 ET by CobraManThere you go again, assuming that if the President fails, the entire country fails along with them. America has, and will, survive no matter what happens to a President. Our country isn't dependent upon the presidency, or any particular President, to maintain America's existence. What makes you think otherwise?
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
What makes you think
March 12, 2009 - 15:01 ET by balboaWhat makes you think otherwise?
Oh, I don't know, you guys predicting the end of America under Obama? The end of capitalism, the end of free speech, the end of free religion, and on and on, because of Obama.
You guys?
March 12, 2009 - 15:13 ET by CobraManYou guys? So, it's a "well you guys say it too" excuse, correct? Yea, that's a good excuse, NOT! America will survive even if Obama succeeds in some, or most, of his policies.. He has, at the most, 8 years as the President. I hardly think America will self-destruct in 8 years. He could, though, cause a lot of problems from now until he's out of office through his short-sighted policies.. That's WHY I want him to fail. I don't want America to suffer more than it's already has.
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
I guess the way people have
March 12, 2009 - 15:19 ET by balboaI guess the way people have been talking about Obama destroying America, I've started lumping all conservatives in that faction.
Like you, I've maintained that the president can't do that. But as I said in my original point, Limbaugh doesn't want any Democrat to succeed. He doesn't want America run by a Democrat to be successful, except that means he can continue to yappity-yap.
Once again, so what?
March 12, 2009 - 16:03 ET by CobraManOnce again, so what? Rush is not in control of the election process. Rush is not in control of the Government. Rush is not in control of ANY political party. Rush can hope that the moon will crash into the earth and it won't make a single bit of difference! Rush is only one man, why can he actually do?
Just like with Rush and the Democrats, there are plenty of prominent Democrats that doesn't want Republicans to succeed at all. Where's your consternation about those outspoken Democrats? Where's your mock outrage? Why is it only reserved for Rush?
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
I just disagree with that
March 12, 2009 - 16:14 ET by balboaI just disagree with that viewpoint, that's all. I'm not saying Rush can make anything happen.
We're talking about Rush. That's why I made the comment about Rush. I don't think Carville is right for saying what he said, either.
It's not "mock outrage". I just disagree.
No, it's outrage
March 12, 2009 - 16:39 ET by CobraManNo, it's outrage, alright. That's why you keep telling us that Rush want's America to fail when he actually want's Obama to fail. Yo want US to be as outraged as you are, but you have to misinterpret what Rush was saying as to attempt to invoke that outrage in us. Guess what? We're not falling for it.
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
I'm not really talking about
March 12, 2009 - 16:58 ET by balboaI'm not really talking about what Rush said at CPAC. I understand he doesn't want Obama's "socialism" to fail.
I don't think Rush wants America to fail, as long as it succeeds under conservative govern.
boa... I've got to hand
March 12, 2009 - 17:01 ET by bigtimerboa...
I've got to hand it to you...you are doing a heck of a job playing today...been along time, you must be getting completely back on your usual track little bro'.
Twisting The Night Away
March 12, 2009 - 17:02 ET by cocodrieTwisting The Night Away.
Jesus Loves You
That's not twisting. That's
March 12, 2009 - 17:03 ET by balboaThat's not twisting. That's clarifying.
Just like "muddy"
March 12, 2009 - 17:07 ET by cocodrieJust like Maxine Muddy Waters you make things as clear as s--t.
Jesus Loves You
~I believe you misspoke there
March 12, 2009 - 17:08 ET by choselife3xI understand he doesn't want Obama's "socialism" to fail.
You must've meant "I understand he wants Obama's "socialism" to fail.
If you listened to him or read the transcript you'd know that what he actually said was that he 'hoped Obama would fail at "implementing" socialist policies, because socialism always fails'.
I'm not really talking about what Rush said at CPAC.
What he said at CPAC is a synopsis of everything he stands for. Actually READING IT would clear some things up for you.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
BTW
March 12, 2009 - 15:15 ET by CobraManBTW, you just proved that Rush wants America to succeed by hoping that Obama fails. Thanks for disproving your own argument.
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
Bal...predicting failure
March 12, 2009 - 14:53 ET by motherbeltBal...predicting failure and hoping for it are two different things.
The Democrats even wanted us to lose in Iraq because it would have made Bush look bad! They wanted gas prices to skyrocket and the country to go into a recession because it would make better campaigning for them!
Oh, nevermind. It's pointless.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
"I hope he fails." Rush
March 12, 2009 - 14:58 ET by balboa"I hope he fails."
Rush doesn't want to see America succeed. He only wants it to succeed if Republicans are responsible.
I hope HE fails
March 12, 2009 - 15:07 ET by CobraMan"I hope he fails."
How does this mean that Rush hopes AMERICA fails? Obama is NOT America. Stop describing our Country as a dictatorship. It's a Union of Republic States. Obama's administration can fail completely and the States will survive, just as they have throughout America's entire history.
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
~Seriously
March 12, 2009 - 15:24 ET by choselife3xREAD what he said.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
"Rush doesn't want to see
March 12, 2009 - 17:27 ET by QueenMum"Rush doesn't want to see America succeed. He only wants it to succeed if Republicans are responsible. "
Aha! balboa, this is the crux of the argument. Rush is first and foremost a conservative. Those of us who believe in conservative principals want to see America succeed as it has been doing for more than 200 years. The concept of America only works when we remain true to our founding principals. Once we begin to stray into the sort of political ideology that defines Barack Obama, we become something other than what the founding fathers intended.
I offer this for your enlightenment.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
mb - and no one can tell me Chuckie Schumer wasn't being
March 12, 2009 - 16:39 ET by Cape Conservative'pro-active' in creating a banking crisis with his release of that CONFIDENTIAL IndyMac information - just to make sure President Bush left office under a cloud! I don't think he had any idea of the horrors that have sprung forth since he opened his Pandora's Box - but Americans across the country are paying the price for his political hijinks!
What trashy politicians we have...TERM LIMITS FOR ALL, not just for the president!!!
It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. ~ Sam Adams
What you really mean is that you lie
March 12, 2009 - 14:55 ET by CobraManWhat you really mean is that you lie about Rush because you want everyone to think that Rush want's America to fail, but Rush never said that. Rush said he want's Obama to fail, not America. Why do you feel the need to LIE to us about what Rush said?
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
boa
March 12, 2009 - 15:12 ET by bigtimerHow do you know that for a fact boa?
Hmmmm?
If it were a democrat like Give 'em Hell Zell Miller...I would bet you a dollar to a doughnut he would be totally behind this patriotic democrat.
Unfortunately, your side of the aisle has very few of these great dems left...the radical far left have taken over....and I know you know this.
Rush doesn't care for
March 12, 2009 - 15:23 ET by balboaRush doesn't care for anything that isn't in line with the Conservative Way.
So?
March 12, 2009 - 15:31 ET by CobraManSo? Why do you have such a problem with this? EVERYONE has their own political beliefs and ideologies. I don't know ANYONE that doesn't want their "way" to succeed over all others, Obama (and yourself) included.
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
I don't think anyone should
March 12, 2009 - 15:46 ET by balboaI don't think anyone should seriously want America to fail unless THEIR political party is the reason for the success. As I said before, if America thrives under a Republican or Democrat, I don't care.
Stop lying about Rush
March 12, 2009 - 16:35 ET by CobraManStop lying about Rush. He want's OBAMA to fail,, not America, just like I do. But I guess that distinction is too difficult for you to comprehend, isn't it?
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
I'm not lying; I'm stating
March 12, 2009 - 16:43 ET by balboaI'm not lying; I'm stating an opinion. Rush would never be happy with a successful Democrat president.
distracting sidebar: For America, not the president. Is that the converse of for the troops, not the war?
You ARE lying
March 12, 2009 - 16:47 ET by CobraManYou ARE lying every time you say that Rush wants America to fail. You've made that statement several times here just in this one thread. That's a false statement and you know it. That means you are are LYING!
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
No, I don't think it's a
March 12, 2009 - 16:52 ET by balboaNo, I don't think it's a false statement. I believe the statement.
Then prove it
March 12, 2009 - 16:56 ET by CobraManThen prove it. Show me where Rush stated that he wants America to fail. You'll never find that quote, so I don't know how you can justify your 'belief" that Rush hope that America fails.
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
It's not one statement; it's
March 12, 2009 - 17:00 ET by balboaIt's not one statement; it's the combination of having listened to him over a number of years. All liberal ideas are wrong. All conservative ideas are right. Even if something liberal works, it's false success, not real success, or actually the result of something conservative. You really think if a Democrat were successful he'd be happy? C'mon.
Oh Puhleeze!!!
March 12, 2009 - 17:05 ET by bigtimerOh come on boa...
Name one single liberal idea that has been right!
ONE!
I have to get for a bit...but I'll be back... ;-)
Twisting in the wind
March 12, 2009 - 17:07 ET by CobraManNow you're twisting in the wind. You know that Rush want's America to succeed and not fail. You just don't like the idea that he want's the Democrats, especally Obama, to fail. Well, guess what, America isn't dependent upon any single party or single "leader," so the failure of of any party, even all parties, will not lead to the failure of America. There will always be someone available to take control of Government, correct?
That's the biggest reason that our Founding Fathers made America a Union of States instead of a kingdom or other type of single government structure . With several State governments to rely upon, the chance that a failure of any single government destroying America is almost zero, even if it's the federal government itself that fails completely.
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
~Evidence
March 12, 2009 - 17:14 ET by choselife3xAll liberal ideas ARE WRONG.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
~You are so incredibly full of it
March 12, 2009 - 17:43 ET by choselife3xRead what Rush actually said in the link I provided you with.
"We want everybody to succeed. [Applause] You know why? We want the country to succeed, and for the country to succeed, its people -- its individuals -- must succeed. Everyone among us must be pursuing his ambition or her desire, whatever, with excellence.
I'm not saying it just because I believe it. This is a core. I want the best country we can have. We want the most prosperous people. We want to be growing. We want to lead the world. We want everybody to come here legally. We want this country to be so damn great and we just cringe to watch it -- basically capitalism be assaulted and our culture be reoriented to where the people that make it work are the enemy. That's not the United States of America. The people that make this country work, the people who pay on their mortgages, the people getting up and going to work, striving in this recession to not participate in it, they're not the enemy. They're the people that hire you. They're the people that are going to give you a job. They're the people that are going to give you a raise, the people that need you to do work for them. [Applause]
President Obama, and take your pick of any Democrat, love to say we've tried it your way. Meaning Reaganism. We've tried it your way. We tried it your way in the '80s and it didn't work. We tried it your way eight years, the last eight years and it didn't work. Excuse me. Excuse me. Have you ever noticed those of you watching around the world in my first international address to the world, Fox is on some international satellites. They're watching this in the UK right now going (cringing). When Obama talks about past economies, he somehow always leaves out the recession of the '80s as worse than this one. Why does he leave it out? Because you know why he leaves it out, America? He leaves it out because we got out of that recession with tax cuts. [Applause] For those of you watching at home, I'm not nervous it's just really hot in here. These people are wired. We got out of the 1980s recession with tax cuts. Do you know that President Obama, in six weeks of his administration, has proposed more spending than from the founding of the country to his inauguration? Now, this is not prosperity. It is not going to engender prosperity. It's not going to create prosperity and it's also not going to advance or promote freedom."
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
The Troops, for the constitution
March 12, 2009 - 16:53 ET by CobraManAn answer to your sidebar: The troops swear loyalty to the Constitution. They also swear that they will obey the orders of the president, but their loyalty belongs to the Constitution. I know because I took that oath myself.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
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
Since America is not going
March 12, 2009 - 16:41 ET by NL207Since America is not going to thrive under Democrat ideology, you must care.
8 years under Clinton seemed
March 12, 2009 - 16:43 ET by balboa8 years under Clinton seemed OK. 8 years under Bush seemed OK.
Every President seemed Ok
March 12, 2009 - 17:30 ET by CobraManAmerica under every President seemed to do ok, right? Too bad for you that most of those Presidents DIDN'T follow Liberal ideology, yet America thrived for over 200 years, and counting. The death of Liberalism will not be the death of America, despite you're baseless fears in this matter.
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
Good lord, I don't have any
March 13, 2009 - 11:17 ET by balboaGood lord, I don't have any fears over the death of liberalism. I think a balance of both liberal and conservative tendencies is the way to go.
How were the years under
March 13, 2009 - 07:56 ET by NL207How were the years under Carter?
boa... You missed my
March 12, 2009 - 15:37 ET by bigtimerboa...
You missed my point in response to your post to me above...intentionally me thinks.
I'm moving on, I've known you little brother since you've been here...you won't answer what I asked you about a real patriotic democrat and Rush supporting such a person or not...since you are the one who brought it up.
Carry on...catch ya later
I don't think Rush would
March 12, 2009 - 15:49 ET by balboaI don't think Rush would care if it was Zell Miller or someone similar.
boa...IMO you would be
March 12, 2009 - 15:53 ET by bigtimerboa...
IMO you would be so wrong...you must not listen to Rush all that much.
btw boa...Let us just say Zell ran against McC in the last Prez election....you had better believe he would have just about carried every state...and I would have voted for him in a second flat...anytime, anywhere.
me, too bt - and Rush would probably have been leading
March 12, 2009 - 16:44 ET by Cape Conservativethe parade!!! McCain is NOT nor has he ever been a CONSERVATIVE - I consider myself a Conservative first. There are far too many Republican politicians who fail to adhere to Conservative principles and do not have my respect.
It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. ~ Sam Adams
Howdy CC... Yeah, I just
March 12, 2009 - 16:54 ET by bigtimerHowdy CC...
Yeah, I just watched McC vote for David Ogden to be confirmed under Holder in the Justice Dept. a few hours back...along with the other limp-wristed 'R's...including Kyle, who has really disappointed me in the last two years, but that is another story.
Wonderful...wonderful.
Somedays, I just can't take anymore...and this is one of them.
Radio and television are off/at least the sound is on mute...for now.
Good idea, bt - that mute button ;-) Other than Rush & Glenn,
March 13, 2009 - 13:31 ET by Cape ConservativeI've decided to let Newsbusters do the 'dirty work' for me - I'm sticking to quilting/gardening shows for a while for some peace of mind ;~)
It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. ~ Sam Adams
Personally, I have found
March 13, 2009 - 14:01 ET by JerPersonally, I have found the Food Network to be a nice diversion.
Jer
Good evening Jer
March 13, 2009 - 14:10 ET by cocodrieThe Food Network and RFD were my favorite channels before I cancelled Direct TV.
A little more common ground here.
Jesus Loves You
Good evening Bal
March 12, 2009 - 16:49 ET by cocodrieYou twist so much, when you die they're going to have to screw you into the ground.
Jesus Loves You
Ba-dum...bum?
March 12, 2009 - 16:54 ET by balboaBa-dum...bum?
"Good deduction there Dick
March 13, 2009 - 10:18 ET by Texasteacher"Good deduction there Dick Tracy"
I can't believe you said that. I almost died laughing because I almost got fired for saying that to a kid during my first year of teaching. The child did not know who Dick Tracy was...
obama's notion of bi-partisanship is telling conservatives to shut up and do what he wants.
What the text of his initial
March 12, 2009 - 17:09 ET by nwahsWhat the text of his initial comments does, is show he wasn't taken out of context and the media wasn't picking on him. He purposely, and thoughtfully ( through his own admission) coined a bombastic four word sound byte "I hope he fails!" He absolutely engaged the media to spread that 4 word sound byte. So what was all that crying last week about poor misunderstood ElRushbo?
The answer is in the question ;)
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
Let him fail
March 12, 2009 - 17:16 ET by CobraManRush wants Obama to fail, what's the big deal? America isn't a dictatorship, so the failure of the President won't affect us much. America will continue no matter who's sitting in the White House.
I want Obama to fail too, does that mean I want America to fail? Of course not, and it's foolish to insist that I (or Rush) want's America to fail simply because I want Obama to fail as President. Just like Rush, I know that America is far stronger than ANY President or ANY political party.
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
Obama IS a failure
March 12, 2009 - 13:56 ET by CobraManI hope Obama fails too, completely. I don't want his socialist policies to work, I want them to fail so badly that America will never again try such a stupid idea in the future.
Guess what, even when Obama fails, and he will, America will survive and will become even stronger. Just like we did after Carter failed.
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
What a Rat!
March 12, 2009 - 13:47 ET by LoqiYou know, James Carville has always looked like a rat. I you walk like a rat, look like a rat, you're probably a rat.
At least Rush had the testicular fortitude to say it on TV and not try to hide in a rat hole like Carville.
Everytime Rush opens his yap
March 12, 2009 - 14:04 ET by goldbarEverytime Rush opens his yap he hurts his own party. If Carville made such a statement, which no doubt he did, this is the first anyone heard of it and it took the right a month and a half to even find it. Rush repeats his failure demand on a daily basis and is even proud of it. I say give him and Coulter and your NEW female republican leader--Victoria Jackson their own cable channel where they can spew all day long. They're all freaks and do nothing but help the democratic party cause.
gb... You're just the cutest
March 12, 2009 - 14:15 ET by bigtimergb...
You're just the cutest by half little troll we have here.
Of course you are always wrong...but what the heck...you're fun for a few posts now and then.
goldbar: It's all about
March 12, 2009 - 14:42 ET by QueenMumgoldbar: It's all about context, isn't it? The angst against Bush began with the 2000 election. The left just could not accept that he was duly elected. Limbaugh has clearly stated that he wants Obama to fail in his attempt to move the U.S. closer to all-out socialism. If you want to make a valid comparison, please explain in exactly what aspect of his defined policies Carville wished for G.W. Bush to fail.
"If Carville made such a statement, which no doubt he did, this is the
first anyone heard of it and it took the right a month and a half to
even find it."
Do you think this is some sort of indictment of conservative media? LOL
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
Rush's Party?
March 12, 2009 - 15:24 ET by CobraMangoldbar, you may no realize this, but Rush doesn't have his own party. I mean, really, where's the Limbaugh Party headquarters located? What's their web address? Where do I donate?
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
Send Rush a check
March 12, 2009 - 16:25 ET by JerWhere do I donate?
Mail your check to:
Obama Bail Out fund
March 12, 2009 - 16:33 ET by CobraManI was going to send that check to the Obama Bail Out Fund. I figured that he'll need those funds after he get's the boot in 2012. But, hay, now that I think about it, he'll just work the lecture circuit and make MILLIONS, just like Clinton, so I guess Rush will get that check after all.
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
"Carville made such a
March 12, 2009 - 17:52 ET by NL207"Carville made such a statement, which no doubt he did, this is the first anyone heard of it"
An explict admission the MSM is so biased it can't see straight. It took the pajama media to look for what was obvious. Carville is not the only prominent Dem mouthpiece that hoped Bush would fail. The same may be said for nearly all the Dem leadership.
The rank bias in the MSM goes even further: When Carville and other prominent Dems made such statements, no one in the MSM thought these were outrageous or provocative. Why is Rush's desire that Obama fail in his policies any more outrageous than these earlier expressions by Libs and Dems about Bush?
You can't help but surrender a point every time you open your mouth. Point mine, Ensign.
LATEST RASSMUSSEN POLL ON
March 12, 2009 - 14:51 ET by Jack BauerLATEST RASSMUSSEN TRACKING POLL ON JAMES CARVILLE
54% think Carville's already a failure
25% have no idea who Carville is
21% thought Carville was already dead at the hands of the Clintons
Jack.... I love
March 12, 2009 - 15:06 ET by bigtimerJack....
I love it!
Especially the last line....hehehee
Old snake head sends his
March 12, 2009 - 15:17 ET by Jack BauerOld snake head sends his regards, bt
All you Rush bashers
March 12, 2009 - 15:54 ET by justathotI am so tired of everyone getting all bent out of shape because of Rush's comments. It has been debated ad nauseum.
The only ones who want the country to fail are the marxists that are trying to destroy our way of life.
It was okay for broadcasters on the left to wish President Bush assassinated. Where were all you whiners then? Where was the media? You didn't hear Bush calling anyone out publicly or his staff creating a media circus over it. This is juvenile compared to that.
In case you'd like the source.....Michelle Malkin's blog categorized under "assassination chic". Posted it before but maybe you haven't seen it. It's despicable. And where was the outrage? The left is nothing but a bunch of hippocrites. Here is the quote in case you're interested:
Well it's quite clear that
March 12, 2009 - 15:59 ET by balboaWell it's quite clear that Randi Rhodes is an idiot.
balboa
March 12, 2009 - 16:28 ET by justathotI could think of alot of other things to call Rhodes but I won't.
However, as I asked in my post.........where was the outrage? Just last week the other Air America Airhead called for Rush to be executed for treason while on Larry King live. Nobody batted an eye. But let a conservative say something much less offensive and it's hate speech. They want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine? Oh Puleeeeeeze. These people get pass after pass.
O-B-A-M-A.........Oh Boy, A Marxist America!
Maybe people in the media
March 12, 2009 - 16:38 ET by balboaMaybe people in the media realize she's an idiot that doesn't need to be paid attention to?
~She's THEIR idiot!
March 12, 2009 - 16:42 ET by choselife3xIf someone on the right said the same thing about a prominent liberal talker would the media ignore it?!
Do you have the stones to answer my question?
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
I do, I do... Prominent
March 12, 2009 - 17:24 ET by JerI do, I do...
Prominent talkers on the right call prominent liberal talkers that and worse all the time and the media ignores it.
Tune in O'Reilly just about any night of the week.
Jer
~They call for their assassination?!
March 12, 2009 - 17:28 ET by choselife3xHope and Change= Despair and Socialism
choselife...
March 12, 2009 - 17:38 ET by JerOkay, back up a sec. Maybe I was in too big of a hurry to brag about my "stones". What exactly is the issue here?
Jer
~Happens to every guy sometimes....so I've heard
March 12, 2009 - 18:04 ET by choselife3xComparing Bush and his family to the Corleones of
“Godfather” fame, Air America host Randi Rhodes reportedly unleashed
this zinger during her Monday night broadcast: “Like Fredo, somebody
ought to take him out fishing and phuw. ”
Rhodes then imitated the sound of a gunshot.
I've heard that some lib talkers have suggested Rush be executed for treason, but I'll have to look for a link.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
choselife... Conservative
March 12, 2009 - 18:07 ET by Jerchoselife...
Conservative talker Bob Grant opined that Hillary Clinton should be "put down".
Ann Coulter joked about having a clear shot at Clinton but didn't take it because it wouldn't have been a good career move. She also made comments hoping for the death of Justice Stevens.
Syndicated conservative talker in Atlanta, Kim Peterson, [his show was streamed overseas] accused Clinton of treason and lamented that there weren't firing squads around any longer to take care of him. He also guffawingly agreed with a caller who suggested they commandeer a C-130, fly it over the White House and put an incendiary shell up that boy's [Clinton's] ass.
I don't think Rush ever called for Clinton's assassination, but he has accused him of murder.
Jesse Helms announced that Clinton better never step foot in North Carolina without a bodyguard.
I'm not sure about Jesse, but to my knowledge, none of the others ever apologized (as did Rhodes) for their statements. [Although I think Grant may have been sacked as a result of his comment.]
Jer
~Wow!
March 12, 2009 - 18:13 ET by choselife3xJesse Helms announced that Clinton better never step foot in North Carolina without a bodyguard.
When was that? Did a sitting Senator say that about a sitting President?!
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
Yes, ma'am...sometime
March 12, 2009 - 18:24 ET by JerYes, ma'am...sometime during Clinton's first term--I don't remember the year. I'll guess 1995. I'll see if it's googleable.
Jer
~I'd defintely like to see that
March 12, 2009 - 18:43 ET by choselife3xIt's quite a shocking statement!
I found a reference to it, but I can't find the original quote in context.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
Jer...I loved it when that
March 12, 2009 - 18:42 ET by bigtimerJer...I loved it when that same sitting Senator took on Kofi and the UN....before the UN itself...a first btw.
Now that is what I called precious...too bad to few repubs had the guts he did.
I miss him, along with Lauch Faircloth.
I'll say this for Jesse, bt...
March 12, 2009 - 18:54 ET by JerI'll say this for Jesse, bt...
He took on both sides...blocking nominees of GOP administrations as well as Democrat. If you were to the left of Ghengis Kahn, you were in big trouble.
Jer
Helms was a real peach of a
March 12, 2009 - 19:01 ET by balboaHelms was a real peach of a senator, especially when it came to race.
boa... Oh give it a
March 12, 2009 - 19:03 ET by bigtimerboa...
Oh give it a rest...I'll match your BS with KKK Byrd.
True, and I'm no Byrd fan.
March 12, 2009 - 19:22 ET by balboaTrue, and I'm no Byrd fan. But Byrd renounced his racist past, right?
No hes always been a
March 13, 2009 - 00:20 ET by James2306No hes always been a Democrat
Pacifism is a luxury bought with the blood of the valorous
James... Wow...Pow...that
March 13, 2009 - 00:33 ET by bigtimerJames...
Wow...Pow...that was right to the kisser!
...Good One!
[groan] That's about as
March 13, 2009 - 11:18 ET by balboa[groan]
That's about as funny as Helms' "White Hands" ad.
Yes he was
March 12, 2009 - 19:08 ET by cocodrieAt least he was open and honest about it, not like the present gang of DEMOCRATS.
Jesus Loves You
~Balboa
March 12, 2009 - 19:26 ET by choselife3xFiction: Helms is racist and has opposed the progress of African-Americans.
Truth: From his childhood Senator Helms was taught to respect all people and to understand that all
Americans had as their birthright life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In his earliest correspondence, Jesse Helms rejected the doctrine of white supremacy and as manager of WRAL-TV he hired both minorities and women in responsible positions, even proposing to set up a department at WRAL for the sole purpose of training minority candidates for significant career opportunities. As a US Senator he was known and appreciated by the Capitol workforce for his genuine friendship and interest in them. Individuals like James Meredith and Claude Allen have recounted their staff experiences with Senator Helms many times. In fact, Senator Helms was responsible for the hiring of Claude Allen in 1985 as the first African-American to serve on the Republican or Democratic professional staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The archives of WRAL editorials from the 1960s include Jesse Helms’ high praise for African-Americans such as Rev. Leon Sullivan, Asa Spaulding and others whose leadership demonstrated that dreams matched by diligence could offer any American a better future. These editorials make clear the Senator’s respect for those who wanted to better their lives through their own labors and his frustration over those who preferred the free ride of government handouts. That frustration had nothing to do with color and everything to do with a failure to appreciate all that America had to offer anyone who was willing to pursue their goal. An editorial praising the way in which a young architecture student by the name of Harvey Gantt integrated Clemson University illustrates Jesse Helms’ support of progress that was genuine and sustainable.
In his memoir Here's Where I Stand, Senator Helms said:
“It has always been my belief that people of goodwill on all sides of an issue can resolve their differences without the intervention of the government. We will never know how integration might have been achieved in neighborhoods across our land, because the opportunity was snatched away by outside agitators who had their own agendas to advance. We certainly do know the price paid by the stirring of hatred, the encouragement of violence, the rise of suspicion and distrust. We do know that too many lives were lost, that businesses were destroyed, and millions of dollars were diverted from books and teachers to support the cost of buses and gasoline. We do know that turning our public schools into social laboratories almost destroyed them.”
Upon the Senator’s retirement Walter Russell Mead wrote in the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section:
“… If Mr. Helms can be seen as one of the great conservative figures of American history, calling the nation to remain faithful to traditional values in the midst of rapid social change, he also deserves to be remembered as one of a handful of men who brought white Southern conservatives into a new era of race relations.
This was not my initial impression of Mr. Helms, when as a young boy in North Carolina during the civil rights movement I listened to his anti-integration, anti-Martin Luther King commentaries on WRAL-TV. But once the civil-rights legislation of the 1960s was enacted, Mr. Helms--along with some of his erstwhile segregationist colleagues like South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond--did something very revolutionary for Southern white populists.
He accepted the laws and obeyed them.
This is not how Southern politicians responded in the 1870s and 1880s. Populists like South Carolina's "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman did not just fulminate against civil rights laws. They led movements of armed, organized resistance, intimidating black voters at the polls, defending racial lynchings and, in Tillman's case, being directly and openly involved in the murder of black political leaders.
Even as the passions of the civil-rights movement were at their height, Messrs. Helms and Thurmond (whose father was Ben Tillman's lawyer) shunned violence. Without ever losing their credentials as hard-core defenders of Southern values, they hired African-American staffers and gave African-Americans the same level of constituency service they gave whites. Even their opposition to affirmative action is based on their claim that these principles violate what ought to be a color-blind stance on the part of the government.
That is something no white Southern politician, and especially one representing Mr. Helms' core supporters of farmers and small-town whites, would have ever said before Jesse Helms came along. It is something they all say now.
Mr. Helms could have followed the Tillman path and led the white South into violent resistance; he also could have failed to carry his supporters with him into grudging acceptance of the new racial order. He disciplined and tamed the segregationist South even as he represented it to a hostile nation. We are all better off because he managed this difficult high- wire act.”
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
WOW
March 13, 2009 - 00:38 ET by sherylsimsNow THAT was what happens when you give a gal a computer. (No more little Blackberry posts, eh?)
~sheryl
March 13, 2009 - 09:42 ET by choselife3x;-)
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
I didn't remember who it was
March 12, 2009 - 18:44 ET by nwahsI do remember them vetting it to see if should be considered a threat against the President.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
nw... Gosh...and what was
March 12, 2009 - 18:51 ET by bigtimernw...
Gosh...and what was the outcome of that so-called vetting?
That it wasn't a threat
March 12, 2009 - 20:03 ET by nwahsThat it was just a quip.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
googleable?
March 12, 2009 - 18:51 ET by RukusLOL! Maybe you should google "gooogleable"! I say you should get a © for that one!
Gary
Sorry Al, I've used up my allotment of "give a crap!"
Gary...
March 12, 2009 - 18:56 ET by JerI can type it, but I can't pronounce it. You try.
Jer
I did try...
March 12, 2009 - 21:22 ET by RukusThen the wife came in and wanted know what hell was so funny! I tried to explain but kept cracking up, she thinks I'm coo-coo! LOL!
Gary
Sorry Al, I've used up my allotment of "give a crap!"
chose...
March 12, 2009 - 18:46 ET by JerHere is an excerpt from answers.com:
Helms was an outspoken critic of President Bill Clinton. The Republican takeover of Congress in November 1994 gave him chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee....Almost immediately, he blasted the president as unfit to conduct foreign policy and warned that Clinton "better have a bodyguard" if he planned to visit North Carolina military bases. Politicians from both parties denounced the remark, which came on the anniversary of the assassination of President John f. Kennedy. Helms called his statement a "mistake" but refused to apologize.
So, apparently, there were at least some areas of North Carolina where the life of the Commander-In-Chief wasn't in dire peril.
Jer
Humorous Jer...nothing like
March 12, 2009 - 18:59 ET by bigtimerHumorous Jer...nothing like the msm at work now is there, or was there back then 24/7...and they haven't changed a lick either.
Wow...what an outcome eh?
...yet Bush was Hitler blah blah blah....
~Jer
March 12, 2009 - 19:22 ET by choselife3xAfter much searching.....
Fiction: Senator Helms statement, "Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down
here. He'd better have a bodyguard."
Truth: A Clinton reference that was run without the joke that preceded it.
Excerpt from an interview with the magazine Law and Order
"When Senator Jesse Helms talked with a reporter from the Raleigh News and Observer and mentioned Bill Clinton's unpopularity on military bases in the state, he illustrated his point with an anecdote about a Southern sheriff who had just been defeated in an election. 'He had this big fella with him, about 6 foot 7and 270 pounds,' said Helms. 'Somebody asked, 'Who's that?' The sheriff answered. Any body who can't get more votes than I did better have a bodyguard.' Helms then added: 'Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He better have a bodyguard.' The News and Observer ran just the Clinton reference without the entire joke that preceded it, and the Associated Press picked up the story. Soon the media were reporting that the Secret Service was investigating Helms' comments, and the editorial page of the New York Times called for Helms to step aside as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
chose...
March 12, 2009 - 19:50 ET by JerThanks for the link, but it's hardly surprising that the Jesse Helms website is trying to put his remark in the best light possible.
They label the quote "FICTION" and then we learn that well, yes, those were the EXACT WORDS HE UTTERED--only that he had told a joke which referred to a "bodyguard" before delivering the admonishment about Clinton. It didn't change the context at all.
I have to go grocery shopping. Back later.
Jer
~And it's hardly surprising that a liberal source
March 12, 2009 - 20:02 ET by choselife3xWould put the worst construction on it. This was the only source that gave the full quote in context. All the others I found referred to the original quote obliquely and didn't give any context at all.
Edit: I do think that their phrasing was clumsy, but in context it seems to me that Sen Helms was using a local joke to illustrate how unpopular Clinton was with the military, rather than making a direct threat.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
I said I have to go to the store, 3x.
March 12, 2009 - 20:14 ET by JerI said I have to go to the store, 3x. Evem JesseHelms.com didn't produce a first person explanation from Jesse. Now maybe there is a link with Helm's take on the matter, but all you have shown me is a splurb from a law enforcement mag reprinted by the Helms website.
But, more important, as I mentioned earlier, even if we accept the joke as fact, it doesn't change the context of his statement afterwards.
Look, I never thought Helms was delivering any sort of official warning or threat to Clinton. Nor do I think Randi Rhodes was actually calling for the assassination of Bush. Both statements, however, were in very poor taste. Rhodes, a liberal radio talker/entertainer? apologized. Helms a conservsative United States Senator refused to.
Jer
~I answered you when I had the time
March 12, 2009 - 20:29 ET by choselife3xI didn't preface it with-
you must answer this before you leave!
And I think she apologized because she was serious. You apologize for doing something that was wrong, not because you told a joke that was taken out of context.
And this is all a side note from the point of my post you answered, which was simply that if a conservative talker openly called for
Obama to be shot the collective sh!tstorm would be epic.
And if you're still here reading this before you go to the store....get off the d@mn computer and go to the store! ;-)
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
I still have't gone. And
March 12, 2009 - 20:48 ET by JerI still have't gone.
And I think she apologized because she was serious. Oh, please, you know better than that
And this is all a side note from the point of my post you answered, which was simply that if a conservative talker openly called for Obama to be shot the collective sh!tstorm would be epic. Objection, your Honor. Hypothetical and sheer speculation. And please instruct counsel for plaintiff to stop batting those baby blues at me. Objection sustained.
Now, I'm outta here. I swear.
Jer
~Look again
March 12, 2009 - 21:04 ET by choselife3xThey're green. *flutter*
I wouldn't know Randi Rhodes if I bumped into her on the street, I was going on the sheer level of open, unabashed liberal hate I've seen towards Bush. They made a movie about him being assassinated, for goodness sake!
And the reason my opinion about the media's response to a conservative calling for Obama's assassination is hypothetical.....is because none of them have.
Now please bring me a Cadbury milk chocolate bar from the store. *flutter*
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
I'm back, 3x...
March 12, 2009 - 22:25 ET by JerGreen, huh? Mine too. But I'm a striking blonde.
I'm going to find the details of the Rhodes episode, including her mea culpa and lame-ass excuse. Probably not tonite.
Too late on the Cadbury reqest. They had a special on Reese's, so that took up half my basket. I did get a package of Ghirardelli dark chocolate squares with raspberry filling. Come on over.
Jer
~Leaving now
March 12, 2009 - 22:42 ET by choselife3xHope and Change= Despair and Socialism
cl3x
March 12, 2009 - 22:28 ET by botgyou'd more likely trip over her on the street than bump into her
just sayin....
http://gawker.com/news/too-drunk-to-duck/randi-rhodes-i-was-watching-football-at-an-irish-bar-312970.php
Who are you to tell a successful and consistently interesting satirist what he should or shouldn't do in order to get across the point he's trying to make?
~Buttercup
March 12, 2009 - 22:44 ET by choselife3xI almost said that exact thing, but didn't want to come across as too harsh.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
Sounds like a fun girl.
March 12, 2009 - 22:58 ET by JerSounds like a fun girl. Can you imagine Malkin doing a faceplant on the sidewalk?
Jer
14 bloodymarys?
March 12, 2009 - 23:06 ET by botgMichelle would be in the hospital
Who are you to tell a successful and consistently interesting satirist what he should or shouldn't do in order to get across the point he's trying to make?
So why bash Rush?
March 12, 2009 - 16:44 ET by CobraManIf Randi is just "an idiot that doesn't need to be paid attention to" because of the negative things she says about Republicans and Bush, as you state, then why do you and other people continue to bash Rush for saying similar things about Democrats and Obama? That's a double standard.
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
Well, first, I don't think
March 12, 2009 - 18:06 ET by balboaWell, first, I don't think I'm bashing him.
Rush attracts a lot of attention. He's a loud garrulous guy. He's very successful and he makes LARGE statements. That invites criticism.
Right, bal... But at
March 12, 2009 - 16:31 ET by JerRight, bal...
But at least the idiot apologized. Being the "Last Republican Standing" means never having to say you're sorry.
Jer
Hey Jer
March 12, 2009 - 16:48 ET by justathotExactly what we teach our kids today. You can do or say anything, just as long as you say you're sorry. Even something as inflammatory as calling for assassination of the POTUS. Then everythings okay. "I apologized, didn't I? Jeeez, lighten up, chill out. I didn't mean it." No consequences. (Recent examples-----Michael Phelps and Chris Brown.)
Let me be clear, justathot...
March 12, 2009 - 17:31 ET by JerLet me be clear, justathot...
I'm neither defending nor justifying the behavior. I've said before and I'll say again now: "Rhodes conduct was contemptible and deplorable."
But, I have heard conservative talkers make comments similar to Rhodes', apparently with no remorse.
Jer
Thanks for clearing that up , Jer
March 12, 2009 - 18:51 ET by justathotI always enjoy your posts even thought I don't always agree with you. I misunderstood and didn't hear your comment before on Rhodes.
I can also say I have heard offensive comments from conservative talkers. But nothing so vile as Rhodes' remarks.
Again however, the point I was making earlier was the lack of media outrage when it's a lib making the statement. Can you imagine if Limbaugh had said about Obama what Rhodes said about Bush?
A fair point, justathot...
March 13, 2009 - 00:44 ET by Jerand thanks very much for the kind words.
Can you imagine if Limbaugh had said about Obama what Rhodes said about Bush?
Yes, and the resultant media explosion would register about a 5.8 on the Richter. But that would largely--although not entirely--reflect the disproportionate power and influence wielded by Rush compared to Rhodes.
Jer
New news on Carville
March 12, 2009 - 17:07 ET by IcarusAccording to an October 7, 2002, Washington Times article by Bill Sammon, James Carville's reasons for abruptly changing his mind and asking the reporters at the breakfast to disregard all the stuff he just said about President Bush was out of concern for his wife and daughters.
Mr. Greenberg's phone rang, then Mr. Shrum's again, with the news that a second plane had hit the other tower. It looked like a coordinated attack by terrorists.
Before anyone else could leave, Mr. Carville was on his feet.
The cynical strategist, who had just described Washington as "a city that operates on fear," suddenly felt a stab of worry about his wife — in the White House this very moment — and their two young daughters across town.
"Disregard everything we just said," Corporal Cueball [Carville] commanded. "This changes everything."
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bush_booker_washtimes.html