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!
AJ, I love your blog, and I look forward to reading it every day. However, my opinion on the Rush vs Rahm issue is that in reality, it’s not Rush that fumbled, it’s we Republicans that did, in the way we chose to respond to what was actually a rare high-profile golden opportunity. It’s not often you can get the nation’s attention like this. Sometimes, yes, you have to shoot up a flare that might hurt some people’s eyes.
Instead of acting defensive and feeding into the false narrative that Rush actually wants the country to fail, or that he wants our President to be a failure, we should of all recognized Rush’s nod and used the opportunity as a springboard to engage the country in a debate. Point out that Obama’s policies are counter-productive and will only prevent or at best delay economic recovery. Instruct people to listen to Rush’s show in its entirety and in context, and not rely on maliciously selected sound-bites in the media. When people actually listen to Rush, they’re converted and persuaded. I know I was, many years ago. At first I shook my head and thought, listen to this idiot. But he was entertaining, and before not two weeks, I had changed from a Democrat to a Republican, and realized he wasn’t an idiot.
It was a “teachable moment”. Some used it brilliantly, like Mike Pence (gosh I wish he’d run for President) and even John McCain did pretty good on it.
Michael Steele fumbled fabulously.
In short, whatever advantage the Democrats were able to score from all this is only due to OUR fumbling of the issue. The Democrats don’t do this to themselves. One of their big guns, like Harry Reid, can proclaim “Iraq is a miserable failure”, “the surge is a failure”, and his people will say: “You see that means Harry only wants the best for Iraq and the United States. He deeply loves the troops.” (and of course the media doesn’t play clips of him endlessly, either) They don’t go distancing themselves from him and letting us score points in the way they have with this Rush thing, even though what Harry said was truly reprehensible.
I would urge you to correct the record on this. Don’t let your erroneous statement “….only Rush Limbaugh has dabbled in the absurd act of wishing ill will would come to America to prove them right.” stand in perpetuity.
Okay, Rush is to blame for taking the very provocative step of in a few high-profile instances using the abbreviated “I want him to fail,” in place of his fully articulated position: that he wants Obama to fail at turning America into a socialist country.
But the latter is NOT a controversial position, or one that is at all hard to defend. It is not at all like the indefensible Democrat desire, and all out effort for the last 6 years, to see AMERICA fail by losing the war in Iraq.
If one disapproves of this shorthand use by Rush, the answer is to cite his full position, not to pretend that he wants to see America fail.
Personally, I don’t think his use of shorthand is bad political strategy at all. It lays a trap for Democrat critics to fall into, accusing him of wanting America to fail, at which point the trap closes: “No, I want OBAMA to fail at destroying America. Wanting AMERICA to fail was the DEMOCRAT position on Bush and Iraq.”
How we are managing to turn such a softball into an out is beyond me.
AJ:
Unfortunately, this is what happens what your party begins to expect unquestioning lockstep followers as not just “the norm”, but as an absolute requirement. Reagan’s 11th Commandment has been taken to an extreme, and it is really killing the GOP’s ability to fix itself.
I truly think it would do many conversatives a lot of good if they realized that it was possible for another human being to disagree with them, and NOT be an idiot. (Not that all conservatives are that way – but all of the ones who seem to be causing trouble recently certainly are.)
Concerning this exact subject – I would suggest that when you can state your concern with one simple sentence, and everyone else needs four or five paragraphs to explain the “nuance” of Rush’s comments, that this may not be an argument worth continuing.
“Concerning this exact subject – I would suggest that when you can state your concern with one simple sentence, and everyone else needs four or five paragraphs….”
Good in principal, except in this case, AJ’s one simple sentence was simply erroneous. “Fixing things” is all fine and good, but you can’t fix things using bad information. In fact you’re enabling the other side to fix your side according to their sabotaging specifications.
I don’t think Rush wants to see America fail, but I do think that is how most Americans heard what he said. And Rush was more interested in getting attention than he was in helping the GOP.
There is a reason that Obama has gone to such lengths to go after Rush, it is because he has high negatives and Obama wants Americans to look at Rush and think that is the GOP. In fact a recent poll says that most Republicans do not think of Rush as a leader.
But Rush should have known how his words would be used against Republicans. He said he wanted Obama to fail. America heard Rush wants me to lose my job.
Are the Democrats hypocrites? Yes, of course they are.
So far, this little dustup has helped Rush, it has given the Democrats someone to demonize and has helped them. It has hurt the GOP. The GOP are the only people who can really stop Obama.
And during the last election a lot of pundits like Rush were not exactly enthusiastic when it came to supporting the GOP. And here we are. With Obama.
Guy:
Speaking of lockstep followers the Democratic Party is turning into the Obama cult. Watch out, he might want you to slip a little something in your kid’s koolaid if it looks like he is not going to get a second term.
aerawls:
You are right, the latter is not a controversial position, which is exactly why Rush did not put it like that. If he had he would not have gotten nearly so much attention.
But he would have been right. I hope Obama fails to turn the United States into France. See. That was not hard.
gary:
What golden opportunity? Sanford and Jindal both put the thoughts into words, just like you said. But all people wanted to talk about was how Rush is hoping for failure so that his side can win.
He just sucks all the oxygen out of the room and puts the RNC chairman into the position where he has to carry water for a talk show host. If they fire Steele for failing to cover for Rush, who will replace him and what will happen the next time Rush says something designed to get him ratings? A revolving door at the head of the RNC will only humiliate Republicans.
And yes the Democrats did do this to themselves, there is a post over at Hot Air right now about Operation Rushbo…carried out from the White House.
Let’s be somewhat clear, Terrye: no Democrat made Rush say, “I hope he fails.” No Democrat made Steele say what he said on CNN, and no Democrat made Steele go back and apologize. No Democrat made Rep. Phil Gingrey call into Rush’s show and apologize. No Democrat made Gov. Mark Sanford say, “Anyone who wants [President Obama] to fail is an idiot”, and no Democrat made his office backpedal after Rush heard about it.
Those people all did those things themselves. Democrats have mostly just been watching with a big grin on their faces. It’s called “schadenfreude”.
GUY…….the Rush thing was set up from the White House……….Rush said what he said, and the Republicans walked right into the set up. Yes they did……..I say what dopes!
Really, kathie? Pray tell – what exactly did “the White House” do?
And don’t give me the “Rahm and Carville talk on the phone sometimes” spiel – tell me what specific actions the White House did to “set up” this situation.
GUY……The New York Times, March 8th, google Axelrod and Rush, you will find it.
This is one paragraph (cut and paste)
He also helps decide which fights to pick and which ones to avoid, making him a leading voice in setting the political tone in Washington. The recent back-and-forth with Rush Limbaugh, for example, was explicitly authorized by Mr. Axelrod, who told aides that it was not a moment to sit quietly after Mr. Limbaugh said he hoped that Mr. Obama would “fail.â€
Terrye,
“What golden opportunity? Sanford and Jindal both put the thoughts into words, just like you said. But all people wanted to talk about was how Rush is hoping for failure so that his side can win.”
Like I said, there were some exceptions. But the problem is that too many on our side were too squeamish or perhaps too misinformed to respond properly to what they surely must/should have known was a trap set by the White House and distributed by the Dem-dominated media. I know people wanted to talk about the one line Rush said, but you don’t have to go along with that. Use it as a springboard, instead of a brick wall.
“If they fire Steele for failing to cover for Rush, who will replace him and what will happen the next time Rush says something designed to get him ratings? A revolving door at the head of the RNC will only humiliate Republicans.”
That’s the thing. There was no need to “cover” for Rush. Steele more than most should have been better able to respond to this line of questioning he surely must have known would be employed. This is not rocket science. You don’t throw someone who has helped you and defended you in the past under the bus so easily. Especially someone who has great influence with the party. (and to be fair, Steele may truly have simply become a little confused and didn’t mean to say what he did) You BUILD on what Rush said, you point out the whole context, and you easily win the point. You make the host look misinformed for missing the context. Instead, Steele came off as wimpy and MISinformed. He’s gotta do better than this, not only regarding this issue, but all the ones to come along in the future. (I think he’s actually pretty sharp and really pretty good at debating most of the time. I think this incident was an invaluable learning experience for him.)
If nothing else, perhaps we can ALL use this as a learning experience. Be more informed, less wimpy, and a little more savvy when dealing with a media you know in most cases is pulling for your defeat. Don’t be fooled into thinking that they will like you because you say what you think they want you to say. They will only use it against you, if they can.
If it wasn’t Rush, it would be someone/something else.
kathie:
So, your proof that the White House set this up is… the fact that an advisor suggesting taking advantage of it – AFTER it happened?
Do you know what the words “set up” actually mean?
Rush said what he said, he said the same thing on the radio many times before the C-SPAN televised thing. Axelrod heard about it and planned an attack, he represents the White House. Politics operates out of the White House against private citizens. Just like Obama operated on “Joe the Plumber”, a private citizen. No wonder the guy is so tired!
# AJStrataon 09 Mar 2009 at 1:04 pm
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.
How, AJ?
As far as I know their are only three ways to stop him before 2012: (1) impeachment – unlikely with a democrat congress
(2) milatary coup – also unlikely (3) assassination – he has a total bullet proof hierachy: Biden, Pelosi, Clinton. No assassinator worth his salt would want Obama succeeded by one of them. If you know of another way, please tell. Oh, maybe we can toke control of both house of congress but that won’t stop him as far as the war, foreign policy or the economy is concerned. He would just veto all iniatives the did not fit his agenda.
As far as Rush Limbaugh is concerned, please tell me why it is that every time a prominent republican speaks out he is denigated by his own party? They don’t Like Rush. They don’t like Coulter. Who do they like? Members of congress who don’t open their mouths? michael Stelle flubbed badly. (1) by going on that program. We can just write off blacks voting for us. They never will with all the freebies the dems are giving them.
(2) he should have just laughed the comments off saying Rush is an entertainer but doesn’t speak for the party and for god’s sake he should have defended us from being called nazis. I don’t know about Steele. Is he a mole of the dems? That would answer the wuestion of his words. I agree with Rush. I want Obama’s policies to fail. He is doing everything he can to destroy this country. We made a bad mistake electing this guy with an invisible resume. He is in over his head and doesn’t know the basic premises of foreign policy and neither does the rest of his administration.
“Axelrod heard about it and planned an attack, he represents the White House.”
See, that is the major problem I have. I don’t care what Rush said, we have a right to say what we want. That the White House has designated an individual to go after someone whose opinion they don’t like is the real story here. The administration had better be careful here or they could have a civil rights suit on their hands. The executive branch can not target someone just because they don’t like what they were saying.
Can you imagine if Nixon publicly assigned someone to go after Woodward? That the President of the United States would create an office for no other purpose than to “get” an outspoken citizen who is critical of their policies is just amazing. What is even more amazing is the press and a lot of other people are playing that up like it is Rush’s fault. I just don’t understand how a President can DO that to begin with.
Just look at what happened when Bush was accused of doing this very thing to Joe Wilson. How can Obama get away with this?
How can Obama get away with this? Very simply because somewhere around 8 out of every 10 “journalists” vote Democrat.
You won’t see Katie leading off her news broadcast with a serious toned report about the active monitoring of a private citizen’s broadcast to pick out a morsel of misspeak with which to use to pit him against their opposition party. Roles reversed, and this would be a horrible scandal to them.
And every single media entity that leans right has been successfully demonized in the minds of way too many people, Limbaugh chief among them.
At least let’s not help them by falling into their rather easy to understand little Limbaugh trap.
In the long run, urge your little right-wing son or daughter to consider a career in journalism.