Mar 09 2009
If Johnny Liberal Jumped Off A Bridge …
As should be well known, folks on the right have found clear evidence of liberal democrats wanting President Bush to fail. Heck, I can find evidence of Amnesty Hypochondriacs on the right wanting Presidente Bustrada -Ze Traitor – Â to fail as well. No shocker here, except for those crazy souls who think only Rush Limbaugh has dabbled in the absurd act of wishing ill will would come to America to prove them right.
Which brings me to my main point – so far the right has been rationalizing their zealotry by pointing to the zealots on the left and claiming ‘they did it too!”. This is not providing a clear choice of a better direction for the country, one which MOST people could rally behind. Rush got his ratings hit, the GOP got a black eye for defending the absurd. Instead of even mentioning failure (we seem to be neck deep in it right now) what people need to present are ways out of failure. We don’t need to be praying for more of what we have.
Addendum: You know what is wrong with the conservative movement? Look at the comments section. I simply point out Rush is not helping the image of conservatism and this is seen as an attack. Look folks, we either grow some back bone and face our problems or let the liberals tank the country. Stop being so defensive. Rush is not going to collapse just because I find his recent antics counter productive. On average Rush is a net positive, but he is by no means the epitome of conservatism. As I pointed out many times, he has his own warts which simply make him another conservative voice, not the second coming.
Geez!
Never once has Rush Limbaugh wished for ill to come to America.
Never once.
That’s a false accusation AJ and it is far below you to engage in such.
I think that wanting Obama’s domestic economic package to fail, given that its success would mean a Euro style socialist state, is neither irrational nor wrong. It is not in any way comparable to wanting the nation to loose a WAR and wanting to inflict the results of that failure on the Iraqi people.
NOT…EVEN…CLOSE…
That being said…
It was an irresponsible thing to say knowing that it would be picked up on by the media. Rush has thrown his bomb and boosted his ratings and left the republicans holding a big stinky bag of poo just as Coulter did with her idiot John Edwards remark.
I suggest simply moving on.
There is a good post on this over at ACE’s
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/283984.php
Money quote:
” You guys say you want to oppose everything Obama does — how about starting by opposing the menu of conversation topics he’s cooked up for you?”
The one good thing I see is that Obama’s poll numbers are dropping, which is due significantly to the failure of his policies. I’m afraid we have to go through this in order to awaken the voting public, otherwise we give this socialist another four years.
AJ = it’s becoming increasingly frustrating to come on here and see you attacking Rush, when obviously you can’t grasp the context of what he said, nor the feigned reaction from the media,the Left, and the Obama camp. Rush has said it countless times on his show; he spoke about it extensively at the CPAC convention; and you can go to his website and read his developed thought on this whole topic. The context is this: Obama has made it unambiguously clear that he wants to redistribute the wealth of the country from the “rich” to the poor. His policies penalize the producers of our nation’s wealth and rewards the non-producers; i.e., he seeks to greatly increase the welfare state.
My point is, Rush has made it perfectly clear that he wants Obama’s policies of socialism to fail; and Obama has made it rather clear that he wants to pursue socialistic policies. Ergo, Rush hopes he doesn’t succeed. Why? For the good of the country.
Not too many of us would want to see this happen to our country in any condition (because socialism has ALWAYS failed in every other instance), but Obama’s policies are especially destructive in the current economic environment.
Not only that, Rush has consistently offered up a prescription for success – which, in a nutshell, is following the economic principals that Reagan applied. Rush has offered specific solutions, and he has offered to debate such solutions. Instead of a public discourse, the Left is trying to marginalize him.
Which brings us to the reason for this post. It’s not “if everyone jumped of a bridge…” It’s to show the hypocrisy of the left and of the media. It’s also to show that those on the left are feigning their shock and hurt (as if we didn’t already know that.)
I respect that you may have a different opinion than Rush. I respect that this is your blog and you can write whatever you want. I’ve always enjoyed your insights, but your insistence on ignoring the context in which Rush referred the Obama’s failure makes me question your integrity. There is too much annotation for someone to miss the point. I think you are being disingenuous – at best.
I think the Republican House members have presented a way out of failure. There was a clear vote against Mr. Obama’s ‘stimulus package’. No one voted for it. How much clearer could that be? Besides, how would you characterize the current market, success?
I for one am not rationalizing anything, I do not wish for Socialism to take foot in the US, and I really could care less what code pink or any liberal thinks. Do I want Mr. Obama’s crazy hatred of the status quo to succeed, NO.
Stephen,
Rush is not helping at the moment. Is saying that an attack?
Rush has a thick skin and can handle himself. But he is also not the be all, end all of conservative thinking.
I agree that Rush is not the be-all, end-all of conservative thought.
But where’s the Republican officeholder out there articulating a consistent, understandable, principled opposition to Obama? It sure ain’t Michael Steele, and no one is listening to anyone in either house of Congress now.
Who, who, who on the right has any credibility and a coherent plan or idea of where they want to go or what they want to do?
AJ,
Here’s what you said:
I pointed out to you that your assertion was false in the first comment on this thread.
Then, in your addendum to your post you say:
It seems to me, a casual observer, that Rush is the one displaying “backbone” here.
He came right out and said that he wants the policies to fail.
The Media Spin Machine has taken four of his words and spun them.
Some, including some in the Conservative and Moderate camps, have fallen hook, line, and sinker for the storyline because they haven’t taken the time, or put forth the effort to see what Rush really said.
Those of us who know better aren’t falling for what is being shoveled out to us by the MSM or anyone else.
Those of us who know better can see through the efforts of Frum, et al, and all of the others who are casting aspersions on Rush at this moment.
If you want to disagree with Rush or whoever, that’s fine but please don’t accuse Rush of wishing America ill when that is entirely untrue.
I’ve been a reader here for a long time and I have to say your path on this has been disappointing.
BGG,
Rush wished for failure just like the dems wished Bush would fail in Iraq. Still fail to see any important distinction.
You are peddling precision without any purpose. That never sways me. I did not like Rush’s approach from day one, no MSM needed to influence me.
Rush never once wished ill for America.
That is what you falsely accused him of.
Rush was very, very clear in his statements that he wanted the attempts at socialism, and the associated liberal policy plans to fail.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html
Here’s the 1/16/2009 transcipt (emphasis added):
It couldn’t be more clear.
Whether the Dems wished the same for Bush or not is irrelevant to me. I truly wouldn’t expect anything different.
What I do expect, however, is for anyone who wants to have a discussion regarding Rush, or anything else, at least be honest about what was said or not said.
BGG,
What was wrong was Rush’s deliberate inflammatory approach. We don’t wish the President to fail, we hope the nation will stop him from making mistakes.
It was a headline grabbing PR act – and it backfired. Get over it. He screwed up.
AJ,
Again, you haven’t addressed the root of my criticism.
But, that’s OK. I won’t push that issue since you don’t wish to clear it up.
In other words, we hope that President Obama will fail to get the policies he has in mind implemented.
Precisely what Rush was saying.
Precisely what I’ve been saying.
See, we agree.
BGG,
We agree if you agree Rush totally bungled the message. Which has been my point.
I think what Rush was saying, and it was pretty obvious from the context surrounding the remark, was that he wanted Obama to fail in his policies of massive bailouts and government ownership of banking and industry. Personally, I don’t want policies like that to succeed either.
But there is a bigger cultural point and to understand it you maybe have had to have raised a kid from age 9 to age 18 as I did during the Bush years. The liberals are NOT shy about saying horrible things about the Republicans. Look at cultural input kids get from things like MTV award shows, general music lyrics, TV show portrayals of Republicans, etc. Add to all of that the celebrity status given to various liberals in the main cultural media.
The sum of all of these parts is a generation of Americans who believe it is *highly* uncool to like *anything* about Republicans and who eat the bashing and foul talk up. They love it. They pile on and it makes them feel like part of the “cool crowd”. When Republicans either fail to answer in a wide distribution things such as the falsehoods being spread about Palin, the impact is to make those falsehoods “truth” in the minds of many people because that is the only thing they hear. The media never reports as widely that the story turned out to be false as they did the initial falsehood, they simply go quiet on the story so the last thing people heard about Palin on that issue is what they remember.
For the past 8 years we heard terrible things about Dick Cheney, George Bush, Karl Rove, etc. My stepson still believes that “Scooter” Libby was convicted for “outing” Plame when he was convicted for NOT outing her when he thought he might have. I am not saying it is okay to play the same game, just that it is understandable that some might want to react in the same way that has proved to be *very* effective for the left.
How many people between the ages of 18 and 25 in this last election voted Republican? If we got 10% of that demographic, I would be shocked. And that becomes roughly the 18-30 demographic in 2010.
The problem isn’t what pundits say on talk radio or on political blogs because that speech is aimed at the choir. The problem is in the cultural portrayal of Republicans in general. Sitting there “taking it” isn’t going to work. Some other way needs to be found for Republicans to look like they have some backbone because by not saying anything in response, it is tacit admission in the minds of those watching that it is correct.
A case in point was either Nickelodeon or Disney Channel (can’t remember which now) coverage of the post election celebration that Obama won. It was all smiles and “yay” is if the side that all the kids wanted to win did win. So it isn’t so much the mainstream media as it is the mainstream cultural outlets that portray Democrats as the good guys and Republicans as evil grouches. The kids respond to that. It even went so far as one of the stars of a kids tv series who appears to be a “tweener” pumping his fist and saying “Yes we can!” after the election.
This sends a very subtle message without actually articulating it in words. The message is “Democrat good, celebration, smiles, yay”, Republican bad, grouch, mean, kills people”.
Kids don’t always understand the words being used but they can read emotional reactions well. That is part of how they learn what is good and what is bad … by watching other people’s reactions. To portray always good reactions to Democrats and always bad reactions to Republicans (on no reaction at all), the message to them is quite clear. Talk to the Democrat with a smile and upbeat voice and say positive things … talk to the Republican with a neutral expression, only mention bad things (war, etc). It is quite effective in programming children about who the “good guys” are.
Rush wished for failure just like the dems wished Bush would fail in Iraq. Still fail to see any important distinction.
You can’t tell the difference between hoping a Lib doesn’t tank the economy and reduce us to a 2nd world nation, and hoping for America’s defeat on the battlefield?
Rush isn’t hoping for tens of thousands of dead Americans, killed on the battlefield.
Rather than a litany of criticisms at Democratic proposals (negative) maybe the Republicans should put forth alternatives and hammer and hammer and hammer at these alternative (with smiles and hope and a sense of purpose … positive) and make the Democrats do the criticizing and generate the negative input.
That is exactly how Reagan did it. He spent much more time an energy laying out an alternative vision that people could get behind and move forward with than he did attempting to rally people to block what the Democrats were doing. You don’t try to stop their train, you offer a different train to a better destination and the Democrats are left with nobody on board.
I really don’t want to belabor this conversation on Rush Limbaugh. But AJ, you insist on being insulting. “You know what’s wrong with the conservative movement….”
You respond to commentors, and reiterate in your addendum that you’re SIMPLY trying to point out Rush is not helpful. But here is the quote I was referencing in my earlier post when I said “attacking Rush”
“…souls who think only Rush Limbaugh has dabbled in the absurd act of wishing ill will would come to America to prove them right.”
My whole point was to say that Rush has never wished ill would come to America!! In fact, his reasoning for wanting Obama to fail is that he thinks Obama’s goal will harm the country.
It’s not a matter of thin skin. It’s not a matter of Rush wanting attention or needing a bigger audience (it’s the biggest already).
I never said Rush was the end all of conservative voices. I’m just saying that you continue to misrepresent what Rush said – which changes the debate on whether he should have said “it” or not.
I don’t see why you have to add an addendum with “You know what’s wrong with conservatives…”
It seems to me that it’s mostly conservatives who read your blog (at least judging by the comments)
It also seems that most of us on this post desire the same results – regardless of the degree of conservative we are.
AJ,
No, the message was not bungled just because Begala, Carville, Emanuel, and a complicit media machine have decided to take four of Rush’s words and run with them.
No, the message was not bungled just because some have chosen to take four of Rush’s words and twist them to fit their purposes.
No, the message was not bungled because some are hearing media accounts of what Rush said and are then accusing him of something he never said, simply because they are either:
a) too lazy to research the truth,
b) too partisan to care about the truth,
c) accidentally or purposely misleading,
d) one or more of a, b, or c.
Quite simply, the transcript of Rush’s words is very, very clear.
The only “bungling” going on is being done by those who are misinterpreting the words, either by accident or by design.
The elected officials of this country, those who voted for the war before they voted against it wanted Bush to fail, hoped he would fail, tried to cause failure. Many Americans also wanted Bush to fail. How is Rush different? He doesn’t have a platform on the Senate or House floor. He can’t call people in front of a panel and publicly castigate them for all the world to see. He does not sit on an intelligence committee and leak information to the New York Times, to the detriment of our fighting forces or our country.
I will say it again, he leads his own program on a radio station. If people choose to listen to him they can. If they don’t like him and all his warts they can listen to music. If Republicans want to lead they had better choose some issues and make their voices heard, or they can continue their little mouse routine and let Rush be a loud voice. Every one has a choice here.