Rush Limbaugh and the mortality of a movement
In his speech at the Conservative Political Action Convention, Rush Limbaugh referred repeatedly to what he called “the conservative movement.” It’s an accurate description. The conservatives do have a movement, and the liberals do not. If you Google the two terms — “conservative movement” and “liberal movement” — you get far more hits for “conservative movement”, while the top responses to “liberal movement” refer to a minor South Australian political party of the ’70s or a movement within Judaism.
In 21st century America, liberals have a party; conservatives have a movement. (While the Republican Party exists, it does so largely as a vehicle for the conservative movement.)
So what does all that mean? A party can be defined as a collection of groups and interests motivated by many different goals but loosely committed to working together. A movement, by contrast, is motivated by an ideology, a central goal or collection of goals to which its members pledge loyalty. In Limbaugh’s words, “Conservatism is what it is and it is forever. It’s not something you can bend and shape and flake and form.”
Now, each form has its advantages. A movement, by definition, has a passion and energy and a direction that are useful in politics. It inspires, and requires, deep loyalty and discipline from its members; deviation from the approved path is frowned upon. Limbaugh, the enforcer of party discipline, again puts it well:
“Conservatism is a universal set of core principles. You don’t check principles at the door.”
A party, on the other hand, lacks a powerful internal energy and cohesion, and at times that lack of defining cause can leave it wandering aimlessly through the political landscape. However, its amorphous nature also makes it more flexible, more adaptable to changing times. It is less concerned about issues such as disloyalty and more open to experimentation.
Today, the American conservative movement faces two problems, one large but temporary, the other existential.
As we saw over the last eight years, a movement tends to lose its discipline and sense of mission once it achieves power. It quickly becomes what it was trying to change, a phenomenon that has repeated time and again through history. It happened to Republicans, it happened in the French Revolution, it happens always.
The process is captured perfectly in that scene from Orwell’s “Animal Farm.” The animals, motivated by a core set of principles such as “four legs good, two legs bad,” have driven away their human bosses. Victory is theirs; their movement has succeeded. Then one day the animals peer through the farmhouse window and are shocked to see the leaders of their movement, the pigs, walking about on two legs and acting just like the human enemy they had ousted.
“Four legs good, two legs better,” the pigs tell them.
Today, the rank and file of the conservative movement feel they have been similarly betrayed by their leaders, and for good reason. And their leaders — now that they have been banished from the luxuries of the farmhouse — are trying to learn to walk on four legs again, and are once again joining in the chants of “four legs good, two legs bad.”
That’s what the unanimous House GOP vote against the stimulus package was all about — a gesture of contrition by leadership to their followers, and a sign of renewed devotion to movement ideology. That kind of behavior has already begun to repair the rift within the movement.
The second problem is more difficult to resolve. Limbaugh aside, movements are not eternal. They have an organic lifespan. They rise out of a particular time and place, they make their impact, and then one of two things happen. Either they find within themselves the ability to change with changing times, or they wither.
That is challenge facing the conservative movement. Times have changed and have changed dramatically. Economically, politically, socially, demographically, this is a very different America from the country that gave birth to the conservative movement. The Cold War is over and forgotten; the ’60s are over and forgotten. The Baby Boom generation is beginning to pass from the stage, and we have our first post-Boom president.
Movements cannot survive such change without changing themselves. Those conservatives who understand that reality are trying to find new applications and meaning in their core principles, but that reinvention is difficult and takes time. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, for example, told the CPAC convention that while it is important to “continue to honor and respect and remember Ronald Reagan,” it’s also time to move on.
“We need to develop new Ronald Reagans and new reference points,” Pawlenty said in an interview after addressing CPAC. “It would be as if Barack Obama was going around and constantly talking about Truman or LBJ. It’s just become a reference point that isn’t as relevant for young people.”
Somehow, I doubt the conservative movement has the flexibility to accept that message in all its complex meanings. Neither does Limbaugh, because he addressed it head on at CPAC:
“The era of Reagan is over? When the hell do you hear a Democrat say the era of FDR is over? You never hear it. Not only that, the President of the United States today thinks he’s FDR, thinks he’s Abraham Lincoln, and sometimes, Tuesday night, thinks he’s Ronald Reagan. Our own movement has members trying to throw Reagan out while the Democrats know they can’t accomplish what they want unless they appeal to Reagan voters. We have got to stamp this out within this movement, because it will tear us apart.”
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2009 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
222 comments Add your comment
mike
March 4th, 2009
9:31 am
Further evidence that this whole Rush Limbaugh storyline is a transparent political tactic from Democrats and their supporters in the partisan liberal media:
“Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House.
The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans, especially younger voters. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19596.html
Looks like Jay got the memo.
I Report/ You Whine
March 4th, 2009
9:34 am
Look at the lib projecting his problems on us-
As we saw over the last eight years, a movement tends to lose its discipline and sense of mission once it achieves power. It quickly becomes what it was trying to change, a phenomenon that has repeated time and again through history. It happened to Republicans, it happened in the French Revolution, it happens always.
Here you go Bookman, name one campaign promise that Oblahma has kept.
You can’t, because he campaigned as Rush Limbaugh Junior, a Conservative.
But that ain’t the way he is governing, and Limbaugh is right, as is Evan Bayh and all the other democrats surprised by the extreme left wing agenda they knew nothing about.
“The administration is enabling me,” he wrote in an e-mail to POLITICO. “They are expanding my profile, expanding my audience and expanding my influence. An ever larger number of people are now being exposed to the antidote to Obamaism: conservatism, as articulated by me. An ever larger number of people are now exposed to substantive warnings, analysis and criticism of Obama’s policies and intentions, a ‘story’ I own because the [mainstream media] is largely the Obama Press Office.”
Thanks for helping us get the message out, by the way.
RW-(the original)
March 4th, 2009
9:38 am
Wow! An attack on Limbaugh and conservatism. Who saw that coming?
Yawn
I’m still amazed that a failing business pays somebody to write the very same thing day after day after day and can’t figure out why it’s failing.
mm
March 4th, 2009
9:40 am
It’s a movement alright. A bowel movement.
mike
March 4th, 2009
9:42 am
Anyone wonder why our “news” media have all decided that the “Rush Limbaugh is the head of the GOP” story is the most important news story at a time when there are so many more important things to discuss?
It’s because Rahm Emmanuel and a bunch of Democratic strategists have determined that it is the best method to attack Republicans as a group. The liberal media is just doing its part to pitch in.
So much for “speaking truth to power” and “dissent is patriotic”, right? All the media is demonstrating is its slavish devotion to the partisan cause.
CommunistAJC
March 4th, 2009
9:43 am
Bookman, you really do suck.
EIB/RNC Management
March 4th, 2009
9:45 am
Jay, this topic is so old. So over.
la la la I can’t hear you.
CommunistAJC
March 4th, 2009
9:45 am
The Tired War on Rush Limbaugh
by Jonah Goldberg
Here we go again. Rush Limbaugh is public enemy No. 1.
Liberal bloggers and media chin-strokers are aghast at Limbaugh’s statement that he hopes Barack Obama fails.
Well, given what Obama wants to do, I hope he fails too. Of course I want the financial crisis to end — who doesn’t? But Obama’s agenda is much more audacious. Pretty much every major news outlet in the country has said as a matter of objective analysis that Obama wants to repeal the legacy of Ronald Reagan and remake the country as a European welfare state. And yet people are shocked that conservatives, Limbaugh included, want Obama to fail in this effort?
What movie have they been watching? Because I could swear that opposing the expansion of big government is what conservatives do. It’s Aesopian. The scorpion must sting the frog. The conservative must object to socialized medicine.
Besides, since when did hoping for the failure of ideological agendas you disagree with become unpatriotic? Liberals were hardly treasonous when they hoped for the failure of George W. Bush’s Social Security privatization scheme.
http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2009/03/04/the_tired_war_on_rush_limbaugh
mike
March 4th, 2009
9:46 am
RW –
“I’m still amazed that a failing business pays somebody to write the very same thing day after day after day and can’t figure out why it’s failing.”
Well in this case, the failing business is owned by one of the largest Democrat donors in the country, so it makes sense that they pay Jay to regurgitate Democratic talking points.
I Report/ You Whine
March 4th, 2009
9:49 am
AmVet March 4th, 2009 9:37 am Andy, per your amspec piece – yet yesterday I alone, must have provided dozens of individual, discrete simple facts that no one in the “right-wing” could either intelligently refute or disprove. And, of course, virtually NONE were provided in return, excepting ones that proved my point or were ridiculously off mark.
AmVet: You were provided indisputable proof that NASA had incorrectly interpolated their own temperature readings and that they had even admitted to their own mistake. It is not my problem when you offhandedly reject the facts.
Three of the five leading scientists contend that recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity, as political activists argue.
Kanya Kusano is Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC). He focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Using undiplomatic language, Kusano compares them to ancient astrology. After listing many faults, and the IPCC’s own conclusion that natural causes of climate are poorly understood, Kusano concludes:
“[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis,” he writes.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/
Read and weep.
fed up
March 4th, 2009
9:50 am
Come on Jay, can’t you write about something else. How about what’s going on in Washington and all these bail outs. There’s plenty there to blog about. Rush must really be happy about all this free publicity.
Rage Against The Machine
March 4th, 2009
9:50 am
F U Jay!
Redneck Convert
March 4th, 2009
9:50 am
Well, I couldn’t figure out Bookman’s point so I got in touch with my buddy Jim Earl and read him Bookman’s piece over the phone. Jim Earl said it sounded like Conservatives can’t be real Conservatives no more and have to act more like libruls of the 1970s if they’re going to survive. Well, I like to spilt my grits all over my coveralls. I thought to myself, You mean we have to do protest marches and use all kinds of drugs and go for this free You Know What just to be able to fight the libruls of today? The more I thought about it the more I got down. By the time I was ready to leave for work I would of needed a stepladder to touch a snake’s belly.
Anyhow, it sure sounds like Bookman is saying we can’t talk about going back to the 1800s no more if we’re going to get people to vote for us. What’s happening to us? We’re out in the wilderness and can’t even get back to some kind of civilazation unless we’re ready to be old-timey libruls. Was that why they elected one of Those People to head up the Republican party? And it sure sounds like Bookman is saying old Rush ain’t got the chance of a dodo bird of making it too much longer.
Anyhow, this sure will be news to Raghead, RW the Original, Sister Dusty, and the whole bunch of Conservatives that flock to this blog. They will need to buy some sandals and grow scraggly beards and say things like pot is groovy. Except for Sister Dusty. All she’ll need is some beads and maybe throw away her bra. Even then the kids won’t vote for a Conservative. They’ll see them as old-fashioned and way out of date.
Anyway, I sure am bumfuzzled today. Have a good day everybody.
RW-(the original)
March 4th, 2009
9:53 am
mike,
They could post links to thousands of blogs that say the same thing Jay B does every single day for free and still get the same message out, but I’m not trying to give them any ideas. Frankly Jay B is becoming something of a hero to me in a Maynard G Krebbs sort of way.
mike
March 4th, 2009
9:53 am
Redneck Convert -
How long does it take you to peck out so many words in order to say absolutely nothing?
Mrs. Godzilla
March 4th, 2009
9:55 am
From: I Report/You Whine
Here you go Bookman, name one campaign promise that Oblahma has kept.
To: I Report/ You whine
Here’s 16 (Thanks Politifact!)
No. 15: Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners
Create a $10 billion fund to help homeowners refinance or sell their homes. “The Fund will not help speculators, people who bought vacation homes or people who falsely represented their incomes.”
>>More
No. 40: Extend and index the 2007 Alternative Minimum Tax patch
Extend and index the temporary fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax that was passed in 2007
>>More
No. 58: Expand eligibility for State Children’s Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP)
“Expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function.”
>>More
No. 125: Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq
On “my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war”.
>>More
No. 134: Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan
“As Obama removes our combat brigades from Iraq, he will send at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan, where the Taliban is resurgent. He will also provide our armed forces with the reset capability that they need. He will replace essential equipment, and he will ensure that our men and women in uniform get the care and support they have earned.”
>>More
No. 239: Release presidential records
“Will nullify the Bush attempts to make the timely release of presidential records more difficult.”
>>More
No. 241: Require new hires to sign a form affirming their hiring was not due to political affiliation or contributions.
“Will issue an executive order asking all new hires at the agencies to sign a form affirming that no political appointee offered them the job solely on the basis of political affiliation or contribution.”
>>More
No. 278: Remove more brush, small trees and vegetation that fuel wildfires
“Will place a high priority on implementing cooperative projects to remove brush, small trees and other overgrown vegetation that serve as fuel for wildfires. Barack Obama will focus the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management’s efforts on working with local communities on hazardous fuels projects to make communities safer and forests healthier.”
>>More
No. 307: Create a White House Office on Urban Policy
“Will create a White House Office of Urban Policy to develop a strategy for metropolitan America and to ensure that all federal dollars targeted to urban areas are effectively spent on the highest-impact programs. The Director of Urban Policy will report directly to the president and coordinate all federal urban programs.”
>>More
No. 327: Support increased funding for the NEA
Will “support increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, the support of which enriches schools and neighborhoods all across the nation and helps to promote the economic development of countless communities.”
>>More
No. 411: Work to overturn Ledbetter vs. Goodyear
“Obama will work to overturn the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that curtails racial minorities’ and women’s ability to challenge pay discrimination.”
>>More
No. 427: Ban lobbyist gifts to executive employees
“Barack Obama will issue an executive order banning registered lobbyists or lobbying firms from giving gifts in any amount or any form to executive branch employees.”
>>More
No. 452: Weatherize 1 million homes per year
“Will make a national commitment to weatherize at least 1 million low-income homes each year for the next decade, which can reduce energy usage across the economy and help moderate energy prices for all.”
>>More
No. 458: Invest in all types of alternative energy
“We’ll invest in research in every form of alternative energy – solar, wind, biofuels.”
>>More
No. 503: Appoint at least one Republican to the cabinet
Interview with Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes”: Question: “Will there be Republicans in the Cabinet?” Obama: “Yes.” Question: “More than one?” Obama: “You’re not getting any more out of me.”
>>More
No. 507: Extend unemployment insurance benefits and temporarily suspend taxes on these benefits
“Obama and Biden believe Congress should immediately extend unemployment insurance for an additional 13 weeks to help families that are being hit hardest by this downturn. In addition, they believe we should temporarily suspend taxes on unemployment insurance benefits as a way of giving more relief to families.”
>>More
For the promises broken, compromises, stalled and in the works
check here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
Hugs for you newly monikered same old guy.
mike
March 4th, 2009
9:56 am
RW –
I actually wish they would. The AJC actually does serve a role in providing local news coverage. Unfortunately they are stuck with Bookman, Tucker and a hyper-partisan newsroom as dead weight.
I’d love to see the AJC wake up and realize that they need to focus on what they offer that is unique to the market and dispense with the undifferentiated twaddle provided by Bookman et al.
nowhereman
March 4th, 2009
9:57 am
Modern conservatism goes back to Edmund Burke in the 1700’s. That may not be ‘eternal’, Jay. But don’t you think it goes back far enough to shoot your whole premise out of the water? Of course you don’t.
Wynn
March 4th, 2009
10:01 am
Here’s a wedgie for you Bookman.
Reagan Democrats supported Reagan for much more ordinary reasons: they disapproved of the performance of President Carter, especially with regard to the economy. This kind of behavior — retrospective voting based on the performance of the national economy — is well-documented and, well, a lot more pedestrian than prevailing theories either then and now.
Obama is Carter II.
Read it and weep!
Paul
March 4th, 2009
10:02 am
[[In 21st century America, liberals have a party;]]
Really? What party would that be? I went to the DNC web site and searched in vain for the word “liberal.” Took a look at the Democratic Party’s Charter – ‘liberal’ wasn’t mentioned. I read what they say they’re for – in many instances, it sounds a lot like what Republicans say they’re for. Even conservatives.
But if the point is people who think of themselves as conservative or moderate don’t have a place in the Democratic Party (sorry, Blue Dogs)and liberals don’t have a place in the Republican Party (sorry, McCain) well, we’re the poorer for it.
From the statement “A movement, by contrast, is motivated by an ideology, a central goal or collection of goals to which its members pledge loyalty” some would say there is a liberal movement. Time-worn example – look at any Democrat who bucked the liberal money powerhouse organizations over Iraq. That was an ideological battle – illustrated no better than the fact that when circumstances changed, the ideological message didn’t. Just this last week we saw news reports of Republicans praising Pres Obama’s Iraq withdrawal plan and Democrats/Liberals highly critical. Liberal Ideology, applied to specific actions within the framework of a rigid doctrine, in motion.
Mrs. Godzilla
March 4th, 2009
10:03 am
Secret Republican Apology Machine here:
http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry
Joey
March 4th, 2009
10:05 am
Jay; This is an excellent article. This is exactly why the AJC should keep you and let Cynthia Tucker go. She could never hope to write something like this.
Almost all of it is prapaganda crap from a Leftwing Attack Artist, but clever and a good read none the less. Yes, almost all crap, but because you are good enough to include a few truths and a marginal amount of accuracy, some unsure readers will be convinced that the total article is truth. It will win a few people over to your side for a while. And your choir will rejoice in these, in your, words. Hail, Bookman!
If only your audience was even 1/1000th the size of Limbaugh’s, you just might have made a difference. Alas, that is not to be. But, really, it is a very good article.
TnGelding
March 4th, 2009
10:07 am
Good analysis, Jay. They just don’t get it. They can’t govern once elected. That said, I’m disappointed in O! up to this point myself. The appointees with the tax problems should have been jettisoned posthaste, especially Geithner. The federal budget is so huge the wealthy can’t fund it alone without continuing to borrow mind-boggling amounts. Increasing military spending is totally unacceptable.
getalife
March 4th, 2009
10:07 am
Libs do have a movement. It is called the progressive movement to elect better dems. CNN said it gives the dems a headache. They donate and volunteer to run better dems in the primary.
If the cons did this, they would challenge some gop in the primary. Except those that cower to their entertainer .
Bosch
March 4th, 2009
10:08 am
I’ve always found it laughable that so many people here try to put themselves into some kind of political “faction.” The truth is, both parties have become so meshed within one another that they are neither differentiated.
There hasn’t been a fiscally responsible politician in years, and the old adage of GOP=tax cuts and less spending while the Dems=tax and spending is just non-existant today. Both parties have turned a blind eye to corporate America and let them rape and pilage our prosperity, while we as consumers have demanded less quality and more quanity as we think it is a measure of our success and worth.
The word “liberal” in its most basic form means “change” while “conservative” in its most basic form means “stay the same.”
That’s why in some ways I’m very conservative while others I’m very liberal.
I’m guilty of blame just like most here on the blog, but I try to blame both parties, and put most blame of what is wrong with this country on consumerism and corporatism – in other words it’s everyone’s fault.
Gordon Plumber
March 4th, 2009
10:08 am
Rush Limbaugh has *no idea* what a “Conservative” is. Certainly the GOP has exhibited exactly *zero* evidence of actual conservatism. Under Reagan and both Bush regimes, the government *grew* enormously, the debt soared, and the government also allowed the Church to interfere, stifling science.
Actual Conservatives abandoned the Repubs in disgust during the election. Buckley, Frum, etc — and were summarily vilified. You idiots are willing to let a college drop out millionaire dope addict, thrice divorced bigot with a single digit IQ define what a “Conservative” is?
LOL! Go Rush!
MikeB
March 4th, 2009
10:08 am
Here……. Let me be the bad guy and put this on the table………
The Democrats want to position Rush as the leader, because he fits the ethnic profile. While the newly installed leader of the Republican party does not………
Michael Steele is an intelligent leader who is looking for traditional and nontraditional ways to rejuvinate the Republican Party. Much like the process Obama undertook to kick start his presidential campaign.
Nothing wrong with that.
The dems in congress would have you focus on Rush tho because it helps avoid the fact that their are 2 intelligent men of color in key positions leading both partys. It goes counter to how the Liberal Dems think the game should be played, so they make new rules to play with, just like every administration.
BTW: Anyone believe that stories circulating about friction between Obama and Pelosi?
Not for a second……… This is just a tactic to make Obama look bipartisan to the uninformed. In order to get the benefit of the doubt from some of the fence sitters, he has to appear to be “rolling up his sleeves” within his own party……Must be out of the trick bag of Rahm Emmanuel.
If he comes off as having fun with Earth Wind and Fire and Stevie Wonder while the avg. American’s 401k tanks to nothing it will be fireworks for sure….. Just blame it all on Rush tho. Who’s Michael Steele BTW????
Bosch
March 4th, 2009
10:12 am
Oh, and Jay, if you see Luckovich in the hallway today – tell him
“Great job” from Bosch.
That cartoon really got me going this morning.
Daedalus
March 4th, 2009
10:14 am
Wow. Criticizing Rush really brings the dittoheads out in full hysteria. When the head of the RNC and Georgia’s own GOP Congressmen have to get on bended knee and apologize for hurting Rush’s feelings for speaking their minds — its news and its clear that dissent is no longer an option on the right. Either you follow Rush blindly or you are not a true Republican.
Its amazing that all the dittoheads on this post can swoon over a guy who has been divorced three times (family values); abuses drugs (and then blames the media for it); takes advantage of an illegal immigrant to force her to buy drugs for him (oh, the irony); and uses name calling and insults instead of reason or anything like civility.
Its not the democrats who are making Rush look like the head of the GOP –its the GOP Congressmen and Chairman who’ve done that.
How about a Rush/Newt ticket in 2012? That will appeal to moderates and be a sure thing for the GOP. Not.
G
March 4th, 2009
10:14 am
It’s interesting watching the GOP implode. To annoint Pillboy as their leader shows not only how crazy Rushpublicants are, but how incredibly far out of touch they are with the rest of America.
This man is morally bankrupt and symbolizes everything that is wrong with conservatives. RE: his recent interview with Barbara Walters in which she asked him doesn’t he feel a tinge of guilt over signing a new multi-million radio contract when the rest of the country is suffering through a recession, including many of his listeners. He replied, “What recession? There’s no recession for me.”
That speaks volumes about his character and is a reflection of the GOP at large.
Bosch
March 4th, 2009
10:16 am
And BTW, I hate Microsoft 2007!
Earl
March 4th, 2009
10:17 am
I saw my first anti-Obama bumper sticker yesterday that said ” I am sorry I voted Democratic”. Get use to buyers remorse, it’s coming. I couldn’t beleive Obama actually stood in front of a camera and told Americans not to worry about the stock market. Huh? Mr. Obama, do you realize what our 401’s are predicated on, it’s called the stock market. Perhaps if this man would use the say calming tone he uses toward Iran and Russia to Wall Street things may get better. He doesn’t have to continue to use the same doom and gloom scare tactics now that he used to get himself elected. The election is over. God save us from thsi man and his Congress, we’re tanking faster than anyone expected, he is less qualified to lead this nation than I thought. God save us until 2012 !!!
I Report/ You Whine
March 4th, 2009
10:18 am
Mrs. Godzilla March 4th, 2009 9:55 am No. 15: Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners
Create a $10 billion fund to help homeowners refinance or sell their homes.
Duhzilla: The very first item on your list ahs grown to be 90 Billion dollars.
Try again.
Red
March 4th, 2009
10:18 am
Such big words and convoluted concepts to consider dear learned newsman. However will the conservatives who are reading this board ever understand? Let me assist and further the point ‘mm’ made earlier: I had a big conservative movement this morning before leaving the house and it felt good to finally get rid of it. We’ll be waiting for your apology to the great pill addled One before the end of the day, sir.
I Report/ You Whine
March 4th, 2009
10:23 am
Did George Bush go after Bill Maher or Air American or Keith Olbermann when almost daily they slandered his character? Did he serially evoke Michael Moore? To have done so by name, would have demeaned his office. Worry about refuting conservative ideas, and governing the country, rather than dueling over the airways with those who get paid for only that. The country wanted a Lincoln, not another Nixon going after Dan Rather at a press conference. So far your administration resembles the latter, not the former.-VictorDavisHanson
Ditto.
CommunistAJC
March 4th, 2009
10:25 am
Daedalus,
go back and look at how many blogs Jays written about Rush in the past couple of days. After you do so please come back with a more thought out analysis.
Citizen of the World
March 4th, 2009
10:26 am
Limbaugh’s statement that conservatism “is what it is” and is not something you can “bend and shape and flake and form” recalls a line from Gone With The Wind, where one of the characters, an old lady, says “. . . We’re not wheat, we’re buckwheat! When a storm comes along it flattens ripe wheat because it’s dry and can’t bend with the wind. But ripe buckwheat’s got sap in it and it bends . . . . We’re mighty limber when a hard wind’s blowing, because we know it pays to be limber . . . That’s the secret of survival.”
The rigidity of the so-called conservative movement will eventually do it in.
CommunistAJC
March 4th, 2009
10:27 am
Bosch,
I concur. Microsoft sucks, period. Macs are 100% better. Oh, an Auburn grad is supposed to take over when Steve Jobs passes away. WAR EAGLE!
CommunistAJC
March 4th, 2009
10:32 am
Bookman does the bidding of Bacrock Osama.
Rush Job: Inside Dems’ Limbaugh plan
By JONATHAN MARTIN | 3/4/09 4:04 AM EST
Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House.
The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans, especially younger voters. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise.
Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.
Limbaugh is embracing the line of attack, suggesting a certain symbiosis between him and his political adversaries.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19596.html
AmVet
March 4th, 2009
10:33 am
Lordy, lordy, lordy…
The final score of the past two national elections?
Non Neo-cons – 61; Republiconneds – 4.
Stupid is as stupid does…
Solution Seeker
March 4th, 2009
10:33 am
Rush is a very successful talk radio personality. He is not the voice of the republican party or spokes person for conservatism except though self appointment. He has never been elected to office and does not speak for any political group. He has a large, narrowly focused audience who generally represent a fraction of the republican part. It is a mistake and a distraction to treat him as more. Yet Rush has captured the attention and energy of the Republican party. He has hijacked national attention and is using it to further his own ambition.
Is there such a vacuum in the Republican Party that we believe Rush will lead us back into power?
danjonglee
March 4th, 2009
10:33 am
Our Dear Leader targets private citizen. Thank you anti revolutionary Drudge Report.
I Report/ You Whine
March 4th, 2009
10:34 am
Limbaugh democrats, Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha-
Moderate and conservative Democrats in the Senate are starting to choke over the massive spending and tax increases in President Barack Obama’s budget plans and have begun plotting to increase their influence over the agenda of a president who is turning out to be much more liberal than they are.-Politico
demwit
March 4th, 2009
10:35 am
It’s all Rush’s fault!!
CommunistAJC
March 4th, 2009
10:36 am
More liberal stupidity.
Should hunters switch to ‘green’ bullets?
(CNN) — Three years ago, Phillip Loughlin made a choice he knew would brand him as an outsider with many of his fellow hunters:
Non-lead bullets are gaining visibility, but hunting and gun groups oppose banning lead from ammo.
He decided to shoot “green” bullets.
“It made sense,” Loughlin said of his switch to more environmentally friendly ammo, which doesn’t contain lead. “I believe that we need to do a little bit to take care of the rest of the habitat and the environment — not just what we want to shoot out of it.”
Lead, a toxic metal that can lower the IQs of children, is the essential element in most ammunition on the market today.
But greener alternatives are gaining visibility — and stirring controversy — as some hunters, scientists, environmentalists and public health officials worry about lead ammunition’s threat to the environment and public health.
Hunting groups oppose limits on lead ammunition, saying there’s no risk and alternatives are too expensive.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/03/04/green.bullets/index.html
demwit
March 4th, 2009
10:37 am
Kill the Capitalists..
zeke
March 4th, 2009
10:39 am
The point from Rush is this, conservative values are still the values of a large majority of Americans. Personal responsibility for your self and your family are the backbone of the USA! When those elected according to these principles abandon those principles they will be voted out! The problem here is that over the last 7 or 8 decades democrat liberals from FDR to Obama have been able to install programs and voting rights to those that constantly receive handouts from them, which is only vote buying to keep them in office! When they try to enshrine voting as a Constitutional guaranteed right, they are lieing to us and in turn assuring their continued election by those least qualified to make an intelligent decision with their vote! They have allowed welfare recipients to vote on programs increasing their take from the fed and in turn from those of us who contribute and become successful! There is a constant banter of class warfare from the liberals, democrats, media and radical activists groups that those of us who are successful are evil and criminal because we work hard, risk money, persevere and in turn become successful! WE ARE NOT EVIL! WE ARE THE AMERICAN DREAM! However, democrat liberals continue to try to transform us into the failed USSR, Cuba, Venezuela or CHina! China only appears to be a success because THEY HAVE ALLOWED CAPITALISM TO FLOURISH OVER THE LAST 15 TO 20 YEARS GIVING A FALSE IMPRESSION THAT THEIR SOCIALIST COMMUNISM IS WORKING! IT IS NOT! My only fear is that Obama and his democrat minions will put in place so much entitlement and socialist absurdity that we may not be able to correct it with our next CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS! IF THAT HAPPENS, AMERICA AS A GREAT NATION IS LOST!
Mrs. Godzilla
March 4th, 2009
10:43 am
IR/YW
Your response does not make your earlier post acccurate.
But hugs to ya’.
WhoCares
March 4th, 2009
10:45 am
Now if Rush could just find an intern to act as his own personal “humidor” he would be the darling of the Democrats. If Rush is so bad for the Republican party why are the Democrats so scared of him?
RW-(the original)
March 4th, 2009
10:46 am
Mrs G,
Last I heard the mortgage bailout was about 275 billion, but even if we use Andy’s 90 billion it’s not keeping a campaign promise when you grotesquely exceed your campaign promise anymore than it is if you just abandon the promise.
gttim
March 4th, 2009
10:47 am
Late this afternoon,… Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) issued the following statement:
“I’m sorry Limbaugh called for harsh sentences for drug addicts while he was a drug addict. I’m also sorry that he’s bent on seeing America fail. And I’m sorry that Limbaugh is one sorry excuse for a human being.”
Oh yeah!
Ray
March 4th, 2009
10:48 am
The truth of Obamanomics will soon become clear to the electorate. He is encouraging the taxpayer to spend our way out of this economic mess so that we might “stimulate” the economy. Wasteful spending, too much debt, no responsibility for financial decisions and improper regulation of the street….. and we are asking the people who caused the problems in the first place to fix it. Doesn’t that make you feel good?
“I will read every bill, line by line, and make sure that earmarks do not become a part of the stimulus of this nation”. Guess who said that? So far to date, close to 18B in pork that your grandchildren will have to pay for. That’s one promise, Mrs G, that he has not kept. “I want more transparency in government”. Is that why one Senator has found it necessary to file suit in court to force disclosure of where this money is going”? Change we can believe in.
I Report/ You Whine
March 4th, 2009
10:48 am
Duhzilla: The best you can do is a total lie.
Show me where he campaigned on the Lilly Ledbetter act.
One Republican on the cabinet?
Huh?
G
March 4th, 2009
10:49 am
Face it.
Pillboy is the GOP’s leader.
Live with it.
Bosch
March 4th, 2009
10:50 am
I see many good ideas and liberals emerging in the GOP party – yes I wrote “liberals” in the GOP because they are the real leaders who are trying to sway their party back into what it’s core principles are and CHANGE (hence the term “liberal”)the way their party operates.
But traditionally, the GOP has been business friendly, and in today’s environment, when most Americans have seen what being business friendly leads to, the GOP is going to have to totally re-think and re-organize it’s platform.
Democrats as well, and to be honest, I don’t think the Democrats have done anything to re-organize or re-structure it’s platform. The Democrats are in power now simply and solely because people were sick to death of the Rush Limbaugh type GOPers and George Bush/Darth Cheney.
When the GOP re-organizes, which I hope they do – and the neo-con, Rush Limbaugh types out there are throw away to the waste side as the irrelevant dittoheads they are (which, in my opinion is a large majority of the Southern GOPs – hate to say it) the GOP will come back like the Democrats did.
But the Democrats didn’t re-organize their core principles, they just rode in on the shirt tails of the failures of the past administration, ans that can not last.
CommunistAJC
March 4th, 2009
10:50 am
Is President Obama planning to have the military swear an oath to him rather than to the Constitution?
Will soldiers and officers be required to pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of the president instead of the Constitution as this news report suggests?
Military to Pledge Oath To Obama, Not Constitution
Conservative News and Reporting
“News for the Rest of Us”
Michele Chang
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is extremely frustrated with orders that the White House is contemplating. According to sources at the Pentagon, including all branches of the armed forces, the Obama Administration may break with a centuries-old tradition.
A spokesman for General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, states that the Obama Administration wants to have soldiers and officers pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of the President, and no longer to the Constitution.
“The oath to the Constitution is as old as the document itself.” the spokesman said, “At no time in American history, not even in the Civil War, did the oath change or the subject of the oath differ. It has always been to the Constitution.”
The back-and-forth between the White House and the Defense Department was expected as President George W. Bush left office. President Obama has already signed orders to close Guantanamo and to pull combat troops from Iraq. But, this, say many at the Defense Department, goes to far.
“Technically, we can’t talk about it before it becomes official policy.” the spokesman continued. “However, the Defense Department, including the Secretary, will not take this laying down. Expect a fight from the bureaucracy and the brass.”
Sources at the White House had a different point of view. In a circular distributed by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the rationale for the change was made more clear.
“The President feels that the military has been too indoctrinated by the old harbingers of hate: nationalism, racism, and classism. By removing an oath to the American society, the soldiers are less likely to commit atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib.”
“We expect a lot of flak over this,” the classified memo continues. “But those that would be most against it are those looking either for attention or control.”
The time frame for the changes are unknown. However, it is more likely that the changes will be made around the July 4th holiday, in order to dampen any potential backlash. The difference in the oath will actually only be slight. The main differences will be the new phrasing. It is expected that the oath to the Constitution will be entirely phased out within two years.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_president_obama_planning_to_have_the.html
AmVet
March 4th, 2009
10:54 am
Yeah Andy at 9:49,
I proffer that the six hottest years since the late 1880s (when record keeping began) are, in descending order 2005, 1998, 2007, 2002, 2003 and 2006.
I also cited that the 14 hottest years on record have occurred since 1980.
Your “refutation”?
1934 was the hottest year on record. (It did in fact eclipse 1998 by 0.02 degress Celsius)
But the reading was in the United States ONLY.
We are not discussing the hottest years on record for Smyrna. Or Tucumcari. Or even the Unites States of America.
We’re talking about GLOBAL warming and GLOBAL heat recordings, ninny.
Keep trying though, tis fun to see your enormous reverence for scientific facts…
Mrs. Godzilla
March 4th, 2009
10:55 am
RW,
Thanks and hugs for your opinion on what does and does not constitute “keeping a promise” on 1 of the 16 promises Obama has kept.
Needless to say, we think you are wrong.
Glad to see you feel the need to be back-up for IR/YW. It makes me think perhaps, just perhaps, the huge divide in the 26% of Americans who identify as Republicans isn’t as deep as it appears.
Good work RW. Keep the team together!
More hugs for you!
basementfrog
March 4th, 2009
10:55 am
Mr. Steele just got his first lesson.
Big fat white man tells black token to shut up, so black man appologizes.
All this in front of the world media. Did Mr. Steele think the republican party got its support from white southerners in the 1960s and 70s by supporting equal rights, integrations, etc.?
A little history lesson comes home and the Republican party increases its white membership in the process.
CommunistAJC
March 4th, 2009
10:56 am
AmVet,
as a veteran, what would you think if Obama had the military to swear an oath to him?
CommunistAJC
March 4th, 2009
10:57 am
basementfrog,
sounds like you hate white people.
Jay
March 4th, 2009
10:57 am
Just a note to remind you all that any post with more than two links gets kicked out by our spam filter.
Mrs. Godzilla
March 4th, 2009
11:00 am
IR/YW
If you question veracity of The St. Petersburg Times you can contact them here:
obameter@politifact.com
Huggies for you too!
Tommy Lee Maddox
March 4th, 2009
11:02 am
Don’t you just love how liberals like to quote Rush Limbaugh? They won’t quote Obama, but they’ll quote Rush.
Me thinks they protesteth too much…
CommunistAJC
March 4th, 2009
11:02 am
Bookman,
oh yeah, I forgot, you don’t like talking about REAL issues. You’d rather write articles attacking a private citizen. Maybe Obama will appoint you Janitor CZAR or maybe CZAR of sewage since you are so good at writing crap.
CommunistAJC
March 4th, 2009
11:03 am
How China will destroy America.
China to increase defence spending by 15 per cent
China is to increase official military spending by almost 15 per cent this year as it seeks to upgrade its smart technology and improve the living standards of its soldiers.
By Richard Spencer in Beijing
The 14.9 per cent rise to 480.7 billion yuan (£50 billion), up 62.5 billion yuan from 2008, was announced in advance of the annual meeting of the rubber-stamp parliament, the National People’s Congress.
It is slightly smaller than the increase in recent years, suggesting that the government is focusing its spending on boosting the wider economy.
But after rises of 17.8 per cent in 2007 and 17.6 per cent in 2008, it still amounts to a rise of more than half since 2006.
In addition, the United States claims that real spending is significantly higher, as many costs, including major arms purchases, are kept off the officially announced budget.
This claim was rejected by Li Zhaoxing, a former foreign minister acting as spokesman for the Congress.
He said that China had signed up to the United Nations code for reporting military expenditure in 2007.
“There is no such thing as the so-called hidden military expenditure in China,” he said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/4936931/China-to-increase-defence-spending-by-15-per-cent.html
lovelyliz
March 4th, 2009
11:03 am
The Neo-cons are confusing being self-righteous with righteousness.
AmVet
March 4th, 2009
11:03 am
Commie, firstly it’s hard to believe.
Secondly, IF what you assert is true, I’d tell that imperious asshat to put that oath where the sun don’t shine.
Leavenworth, here I come!
CommunistAJC
March 4th, 2009
11:04 am
Mrs. Godzilla,
The St. Pete times are in worse shape than the AJC.
Jim Dandy
March 4th, 2009
11:04 am
I love Rush L., Joe the P., Sara P., Ann C., and the other conservative leaders. Watching and listening to them is like watching cartoons only more amusing. The brilliant political tactic of the Obama administration has more and more painted the picture of a Republican party that is led by comedians and showman who are even attacking one another. This approach allows the American people to see the joke that people who call themselves conservative have become. Enormous egoity and lust for attention and money fuels these people who are the Republican and conservative leaders. It is so much fun to watch. Keep it up!
fearless fosdick
March 4th, 2009
11:04 am
Commie…Only you would believe the drivel of your comment at 10:50 am.
Here for anyone who is sane is a capsule of who Michele Chang is..and even what he/she said about the nonsense printed above by Commie.
Notwithstanding the fact that hordes of far-right conspiracy nuts have reprinted the above as factual, it is false. The putative author, “Michele Chang,” doesn’t exist. The actual author, a New York college student named Matthew Avitabile, published the piece on his blog, Jumping in Pools, on January 28, 2009. It was tagged as “satire,” a detail that fell by the wayside as the text made its way from blog to blog and inbox to inbox in the days that followed.
Keep throwing Commie something might stick!
CommunistAJC
March 4th, 2009
11:06 am
AmVet,
nothing Obama does surprises me. He’s a socialist and no one can deny that now. He’s weeks away from totally destroying capitalism. He’s against national security and has already caved to Russia. He’s basically everything Reagan was not. A coward, inexperienced and likes to attack private citizens that don’t make policy. IF he tried to do this I could probably safely say he’d either have a military coup come against him or he’d be attacked by the public. Literally.
G
March 4th, 2009
11:07 am
I had the misfortune last night of watching idiot Tom DeLay and Nicolle Wallace on Hardball. The subject was, of course, Pillboy.
I can understand how conservatives are lost and clueless in their own party. Their speakers are bullies, they come out immediately on the defensive. There’s no room for discourse, it’s a ‘my way or the highway’ sort of thing. They appear to be totally unclear on the concept of what they want their party to collectively represent. The only faction of the Rushpublicant party that seems to have any cohesion is its destructive ‘base’, which is the most marginalizing part of their politics.
They are having a public identity crisis meltdown.
CommunistAJC
March 4th, 2009
11:07 am
fearless fosdick,
your comments are pretty funny considering you have NOTHING important to say. You bow at the feet of Bookman and trash Limbaugh, a private citizen. I will continue to post what I find in order to wake people up to the monster that plagues the White House.
RW-(the original)
March 4th, 2009
11:08 am
Mrs. G,
Let’s say you’re giving me some money so you hand me your purse. I’ve promised to take only ten dollars but I really take 250. Have I kept my promise or have I robbed you?
Off to the forest. See y’all on one of the future Limbaugh threads upstairs for happy hour.
Later!
CommunistAJC
March 4th, 2009
11:09 am
G,
you are one of only 100,000 people who watch Chris Matthews. That blow hard is barely gasping for air right now.
Mrs. Godzilla
March 4th, 2009
11:11 am
IR/YW
That may be the case, I have not investigated their financial state.
Would you care to elaborate on you statement about there “worse shape”?
Are you comparing circulation? Balance sheets?
Also, please tell us how any of that affects the validity of the
Politifact series on the status of Obama’s campaign promises?
fearless fosdick
March 4th, 2009
11:12 am
Commie…Just debunking the crap you wrote concerning the military having to swear an allegiance oath to Obama. I understand the truth is sometimes hard to swallow…but, try it once and you may like it!
I Report/ You Whine
March 4th, 2009
11:14 am
Mrs. Godzilla March 4th, 2009 11:00 am IR/YW If you question veracity of The St. Petersburg Times you can contact them here:
Duhzilla: I already know the answer to my question but are you trying to say that all information put out by any organization is inherently correct, including Rush Limbaugh?
Mrs. Godzilla
March 4th, 2009
11:18 am
Thanks RW for summing up your opinion yet again!
And such a simple analogy!
Great teamwork big guy!
DB, Gwinnettian
March 4th, 2009
11:21 am
Back for a bit.
About this “Republicans, bow before your Lord and Master Rush” business? Honestly? I file this under “be careful what I wish for.”
I had always hoped that I’d see a high level Democratic strategist capable of playing the corporate media and pitting the opposition against one another as skillfully — nay, with seeming effortlessness! as naturally as breathing or excreting, if you will! — as had Rove or the late Lee Atwater. I see my wish has come true.
To paraphrase the precocious online stock-trading baby from the commercials, who’d hired the clown? — I had seriously underestimated the creepiness factor.
DB, Gwinnettian
March 4th, 2009
11:22 am
“Report/Whine” asked:
“Show me where he campaigned on the Lilly Ledbetter act.”
Wherever Obama was when he OK’d the actual Lilly Ledbetter as a speaker at 7.20pm, August 26, 2008, in an intimate, little-publicized campaign gathering called “the Democratic National Convention” in Denver.
AmVet
March 4th, 2009
11:22 am
Commie, perhps Obama, McCain, Chambliss, Bush, Cheney et al are socialists.
Nader says he learned from his dad that “Capitalism will always survive, because Socialism will always be used to save it.”
Ralph also said, “the biggest difference between Republicans and Democrats is the speed at which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on the door.”
marko
March 4th, 2009
11:23 am
Russian scholar, Igor Panarin suggest that America will collapse next year. He goes on to boldly predict that China and Russia will become the top dogs of the new world order. You’d think think that kind taunt would annoy the supply side Jesus crowd, but instead they seem intent on doing every thing in their power to make it so. For America failure is not an option. If Obama does’nt cut the mustard we’re all learning Mandarin Chinese boys and girls. as Bob Dylan once said,”your old road is rapidly agin. Get out of the new one if you can’t lend a hand for the times they are a changin.”
Mrs. Godzilla
March 4th, 2009
11:24 am
IR/YW
Nope.
Would you like me to get you the editors e-mail address?
I’d be happy to assist you in contacting the paper so you may have your
concerns addressed! I’m sure they are interested in your opinions.
Now, after all that, you offer an alternate opinion on one of 16 promises considered kept. When might we expect either the other 15 alternate opinions or your admission that your statement that Obama has not yet kept any campaign promises was in error?
mike
March 4th, 2009
11:27 am
Wow! The AJC is really listening to Rahm’s orders. Look at the front page which is dominated by the Limbaugh story.
Nice to see the AJC is focused on what is really important: partisan propaganda directed straight from the White House.
Keep on “speaking truth to power”, AJC! LOL
CommunistAJC
March 4th, 2009
11:27 am
AmVet,
the only reason socialism is able to survive is because of capitalism. We both agree on that one. But just think for a second, how would the military and America in general react to an Obama pledge if he did that? We’d be looking at Rome 2. Hail Caesar.
Norris Hall
March 4th, 2009
11:28 am
According to Rush, anyone who doesn’t subscribe to all his political, social, religious and cultural views are RINO’s.
That’s a problem for the more moderate wing of the Republican party. If they speak out to be more inclusive they are going to get cut down.
It’s similar to what is going on in the Muslim world. Instead of trying to adapt to a changing world, fundamentalist want to take Islam back to the days of the Prophet
Fundamentalist are drowning out to voice of moderate Muslim’s by branding them traitors to Islam.
And that’s just what Rush is doing to conservatives who don’t subscribe to his ideological views.
Bad for the Republican party. Good for Democrats
CommunistAJC
March 4th, 2009
11:31 am
AmVet, I am not denying that Bush helped pave the way for Obama. As did all the spend at any cost republicans. We need more third parties more than ever. Look at how Nadar was treated by the democrats when he ran. Also look at how Ron Paul was treated by the republicans. It’s amazing how far off this country has gone from where it began over 200 years ago. I sometimes go back and reread the Constitution and some of the other earlier writings. It’s so fascinating to see how eloquently people wrote back then. I mean the newer generations can barely put a complete sentence together.
GA Values
March 4th, 2009
11:32 am
Pretty funny how all these Republican crybabies are protesting the focus on Lardass Limbaugh. It would be very simple to prove that he isn’t in charge of their party – just show some guts and stand up to the fat bully. But that would take courage, wouldn’t it?
Bosch
March 4th, 2009
11:32 am
Commie,
First of all, you really shouldn’t believe everything you read. And secondly, can you tell me how Obama is being a Socialist?
Like I’ve said previously, if anything he is trying to get capitalism up and running again. Sure, there is talk of “he’s going to do this” and “he’s going to do that” but none of “that” has happened, and if it did it is a temporary solution.
So, can you please provide specifics on how it is that Obama is a Socialist?
Drew
March 4th, 2009
11:32 am
The AJC was 40 pages thin this morning. Bookman is a leading indicator why.
How his opinion about the GOP should matter to anyone is beyond me.
CommunistAJC
March 4th, 2009
11:34 am
Norris Hall,
the same can be said of Nancy and Harry. I’ve spoken with some blue dog democrats who’ve taken hell for voting against the stimulus bill. If Rush was the leader of the republicans then the democrats would not be in office. Republicans left conservatism just like the democrats left the JFK model. JFK would probably leave the democrat party today. I can also speculate that MLK would never speak to Jesse Jackson or any other so-called civil rights leaders of today.
DB, Gwinnettian
March 4th, 2009
11:34 am
“When might we expect either the other 15 alternate opinions or your admission that your statement that Obama has not yet kept any campaign promises was in error?”
You know what I hate? Cleaning up the scat from those flying pigs…
Bosch
March 4th, 2009
11:34 am
Commie,
And you also must remember that with capitalism, there must always be some form of socialism mixed in as well – as J.K. Rowling so eloquently put it – “Neither can live, while the other survives.”
caz1158
March 4th, 2009
11:36 am
Mr Bosch-10:08 blog, I applaud you for that blog!!! Now if everyone would sit back,take a deep breath,and truly open there eyes. They would see what you say is true!! Thank you again!!!
mike
March 4th, 2009
11:36 am
“So, can you please provide specifics on how it is that Obama is a Socialist?”
Well wealth redistribution in the name of “fairness” is a Socialist concept. How will the new “fairer” tax program create jobs?
I don’t think Obama is an old-school Socialist, but he definitely supports socialist programs.
The Eighth
March 4th, 2009
11:37 am
How about a column on the incompetence of the President in his appointments to date to say, oh i don’t know, the Secretary of Commerce? No? Figured. Question G: If Rush should apologize and be remorseful about his income, do we also need to start questioning athletes, actors, directors, singers, etc. on how much money they earn? What about doctors and lawyers? How about Presidents of universities and colleges? We already know that “corporate” CEO’s are deemed unworthy, even if their company earns profits and returns for their shareholders, so what about others? What is the amount that is deemed “acceptable” in the eyes of those who hate higher income earners? Where is the ceiling?
The Age of Obama: Punish Prosperity. Demonize Achievement.
Sean Culliton
March 4th, 2009
11:37 am
This is a great example of why the internet and America are so great. There is a well written article on a divisive topic and the readers get to contribute to the discussion. It is a microcosm of the larger political process where the voters get to decide who will carry forth political ideas.
CommunistAJC
March 4th, 2009
11:37 am
Bosch, this should answer your questions.
On The Road To Socialism? We’ve Arrived!
By PATRICK J. BUCHANAN
ber of the Senate.
Barack has no mandate for this. He was even behind John McCain when the decisive event that gave him the presidency occurred — the September collapse of Lehman Bros. and the market crash.
Republicans are under no obligation to render bipartisan support to this statist coup d’etat. For what is going down is a leftist power grab that is anathema to their principles and philosophy.
Where the U.S. government usually consumes 21% of gross domestic product, this Obama budget spends 28% in 2009 and runs a deficit of $1.75 trillion, or 12.7% of GDP. That is four times the largest deficit of George W. Bush and twice as large a share of the economy as any deficit run since World War II.
Add that 28% of GDP spent by the U.S. government to the 12% spent by states, counties and cities, and government will consume 40% of the economy in 2009.
We are not “headed down the road to socialism.” We are there.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=320977608242634