Don't you hard-right Liti-Cons realize you are undermining the Republican Party?

[off2bed]

How does that follow? Socialists in general are a highly schismatic bunch, and especially in the U.S. Of the American third parties currently in existence listed here, at least 12 are openly socialist, using the word in their name or formulation of doctrine. If they all merged into one big party it might be at least as big a deal as the Libertarians, but they never seem to move that way.

Then The_Trouser is wrong...

 

[KingOrfeo]

geez

when the COMMIE PARTY endorsed BAM

with the exact words

you didnt have a problem

didya?

Actually, the Communist Party endorsed Obama while acknowledging he was not in any way a "left" candidate.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Then The_Trouser is wrong...

In saying that the American right is less schismatic than the left? No, that does not follow either.

 

[off2bed]

I don't know who can make that call, honestly.

Here are a few parties to pick from http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

 

[busybody..]

I don't know who can make that call, honestly.

How about

what I call him

QUEER ORAFARCE

 

[KingOrfeo]

And denial is a river in Egypt.

Did it ever occur to you to check the original source of the Rush quote and verify for yourself what he actually said? It's not that difficult.

The original quote (from back in January) was:

So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.

And, when pressed for clarification:

Okay, as noted below, I somehow ended up in an extended email exchange with Rush Limbaugh. In it, Rush repeatedly insisted that his desire for President Obama to fail didn’t mean he didn’t want the country to “succeed.”

I asked him if Obama’s policies did succeed in fixing the economy, then would that be good for the country? He refused to answer. Here’s our exchange.

After I asked Rush a question about the Michael Steele fight, Rush replied:

[P]lease, Greg, try to stand out from the MSM chorus and NOT distort, as they all are, on behalf of the Obama Admin, my meaning on wanting him to fail. I want the country to SUCCEED, as I have said until I am blue in the face.

I answered:

Rush, if I could ask a follow-up question, if Obama’s policies are designed to help the economy, and those policies fail — as you’ve said you want — doesn’t the economy, and by extention [sic] the country, suffer as a result?

Rush replied:

Obama’s policies are NOT designed to help the economy, and they won’t. That is why I want them to fail. Take a look around, Greg. We have been stimulating and spending for a year now and wealth is vanishing from Wall Street, people are losing jobs and savings. His policies stimulate only government and attack wealth, producers and achievers. Obama’s policies are not new, they are not hope, they are not change. They are page 1 of the standard liberal playbook. Tax and spend. And they have not generated econ recovery or private sector growth in all of history.

I asked:

I understand that you don’t think Obama’s policies are destined to succeed. Reasonable people can disagree about that. However, putting aside the question of what the policies are destined to do, is it true that if they succeed in their stated goal of righting the economy — however far-fetched that may be to you and others — then would that be good for the country?

Or, alternatively put, putting aside the question of what the policies are in your view destined to do, is it true that if they fail in their stated goal of righting the economy, won’t the country suffer further as a result?

Rush answered:

I reject your premise, especially since you are rejecting my answers. I will not put aside the question of what the policies are destined to do because that IS THE POINT.

At that I thanked Rush for the time, since his noon show was approaching. The takeaway here seems clear: Rush won’t say that it would be good for the country if Obama’s policies do succeed in righting the economy.

In this instance "rejecting the premise" is a euphemism for "dodging the question." In any case, it is clear enough Rush would not want economic growth at the expense of success for Obama's economic agenda.

One could take him a bit more seriously if he were willing to openly defend that position on "Devil's bargain" grounds, on the grounds that some prices are too high to pay even for general prosperity and a new New Deal or whatever is one of them; but he won't.

That was essentially the position, or a position, of the right wing, you know, in the first three-quarters of the 20th Century: They argued that Communism/Socialism/Liberalism/The New Deal/The Great Society (few if any distinctions between those things being allowed for) could not work; but they also argued in the alternative that it might well work and that would be even worse, that the moral and social and spiritual cost would be too high. When William Buckley declared that a conservative's duty was to "stand athwart history and shout 'Stop!'" he was assuming that history really was on the side of the left -- but also asserting that that did not, in and of itself, settle the argument.

 

[TurdFergeson]

Toeing the party line now means repeating the mantra:

"CRA...Fannie and Freddie....CRA ..Fannie and Freddie...etc...etc..."

It reminds me of this famous quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

They're known liars and will say anything to achieve their goals, even they have to compromise and accept the next best thing. get a clue.

[shrug] I wouldn't try to defend the CPUSA's honesty (in fact, I've never even known anybody who was a member and I've known some Marxists, believe it), but the endorsement in question makes perfect sense in its own terms.

 

[Slowlane]

Anybody can put their support where ever they chose and for what ever reasons the choose. That doesn't mean they are affiliated or even close. It doesn't even mean that the receiver wants such support nor that they wouldn't decline it if they could.

Trying to make some sort of obscure point with no more to go on than that is utterly ridiculous.

If you want to pin some associations on somebody don't forget who started the KKK. Don't forget which party's members were the most vocal against integration in the 1960s and don't forget that the only member of congress who was ever a member of the kkk was, and still is, a member of that party and is voted in repeatedly. If you want to talk about guilt by association start there.

 

[off2bed]

Yadda yadda yadda

What don't you understand about Rush wanting to prevent more liberalism?

 

[off2bed]

Anybody can put their support where ever they chose and for what ever reasons the choose. That doesn't mean they are affiliated or even close. It doesn't even mean that the receiver wants such support nor that they wouldn't decline it if they could.

http://www.exposebarackobama.com/image/che.jpg

 

[Le Jacquelope]

What don't you understand about Rush wanting to prevent more liberalism?

The part where he tries to find a Conservative-run country that is in any reasonably good shape...

 

[The_Trouvere]

What don't you understand about Rush wanting to prevent more liberalism?

What don't you understand about that fat windbag being an unappealing spokesman for conservatism? According to a Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 4-5, 2009, Rush Limbaugh has a 27% favorable rating:
http://www.pollingreport.com/l.htm#Limbaugh

 

[Slowlane]

The "fat windbag" earns huge sums of money. Mostly because the left hates him (much as they do everything). I would guess that he has as many listeners from the left as he does the right. If they don't listen they might miss something useful - even if it's something they can try to turn against him.

 

[busybody..]

James Carville Wants the President to Succeed (Sometimes)
By Simon Scowl

Categories: Crazy People and U.S. Left-wing Politicos

Here’s Carville on CNN’s The Situation Room, 2/25/2009:

BLITZER: We should know, James, sooner rather than later, if all this money being spent will work or not work, because the folks’ bottom lines, their pocketbooks, will be directly affected.

CARVILLE: Well, I don’t know about soon. It will take a while for it to work. As I point out, the most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed. So at the very top of the Republican Party, he’s not being wished well here.

Here’s Carville on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001:

Just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: “I certainly hope he doesn’t succeed.”

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

“We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I’m wanting them to turn against him,” Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: “They don’t want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails.”

How silly!

 

[Slowlane]

James Carville Wants the President to Succeed (Sometimes)
By Simon Scowl

Categories: Crazy People and U.S. Left-wing Politicos

Here’s Carville on CNN’s The Situation Room, 2/25/2009:

BLITZER: We should know, James, sooner rather than later, if all this money being spent will work or not work, because the folks’ bottom lines, their pocketbooks, will be directly affected.

CARVILLE: Well, I don’t know about soon. It will take a while for it to work. As I point out, the most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed. So at the very top of the Republican Party, he’s not being wished well here.

Here’s Carville on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001:

Just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: “I certainly hope he doesn’t succeed.”

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

“We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I’m wanting them to turn against him,” Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: “They don’t want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails.”

How silly!

Don't pick on the democrats, please. When they do it it's fine. It's only bad when Rush does it.

Rush must make some good points (I should listen to him more often) The left is scared shitless of him.

 

[busybody..]

(And of course Mr. Caville only postponed his anti-Bush campaign for about a week.)

 

[The_Trouvere]

How Radio Wrecks the Right

February 23, 2009 Issue
Copyright © 2009 The American Conservative
By John Derbyshire

"Taking the conservative project as a whole—limited government, fiscal prudence, equality under law, personal liberty, patriotism, realism abroad—has talk radio helped or hurt? All those good things are plainly off the table for the next four years at least, a prospect that conservatives can only view with anguish. Did the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Savages, and Ingrahams lead us to this sorry state of affairs?

"They surely did. At the very least, by yoking themselves to the clueless George W. Bush and his free-spending administration, they helped create the great debt bubble that has now burst so spectacularly. The big names, too, were all uncritical of the decade-long (at least) efforts to “build democracy” in no-account nations with politically primitive populations. Sean Hannity called the Iraq War a 'massive success,' and in January 2008 deemed the U.S. economy 'phenomenal'...

"Thus a liberal like E.J. Dionne can write, 'The cause of Edmund Burke, Leo Strauss, Robert Nisbet and William F. Buckley Jr. is now in the hands of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity. … Reason has been overwhelmed by propaganda, ideas by slogans.' Talk radio has contributed mightily to this development."
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/feb/23/00006/



The majority of Americans have fortunately never responded favorably to the politics of anger and hate. Ronald Reagan was known for his smile and his optimism. Joe McCarthy, Barry Goldwater, George Wallace, and now Rush Limbaugh never appealed to more than marginal populations.

 

[Slowlane]

February 23, 2009 Issue
Copyright © 2009 The American Conservative
By John Derbyshire

"Taking the conservative project as a whole—limited government, fiscal prudence, equality under law, personal liberty, patriotism, realism abroad—has talk radio helped or hurt? All those good things are plainly off the table for the next four years at least, a prospect that conservatives can only view with anguish. Did the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Savages, and Ingrahams lead us to this sorry state of affairs?

"They surely did. At the very least, by yoking themselves to the clueless George W. Bush and his free-spending administration, they helped create the great debt bubble that has now burst so spectacularly. The big names, too, were all uncritical of the decade-long (at least) efforts to “build democracy” in no-account nations with politically primitive populations. Sean Hannity called the Iraq War a 'massive success,' and in January 2008 deemed the U.S. economy 'phenomenal'...

"Thus a liberal like E.J. Dionne can write, 'The cause of Edmund Burke, Leo Strauss, Robert Nisbet and William F. Buckley Jr. is now in the hands of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity. … Reason has been overwhelmed by propaganda, ideas by slogans.' Talk radio has contributed mightily to this development."
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/feb/23/00006/



The majority of Americans have fortunately never responded favorably to the politics of anger and hate. Ronald Reagan was known for his smile and his optimism. Joe McCarthy, Barry Goldwater, George Wallace, and now Rush Limbaugh never appealed to more than marginal populations.

He sure has you attention doesn't he?

 

[KingOrfeo]

He sure has you attention doesn't he?

What that article actually calls attention to is the cracks emerging in the conservative coalition. The American Conservative is Pat Buchanan's paleocon organ, and since its founding has been consistently critical, not only of liberals and moderates, but of neocons and of everything associated with the Bush Admin.

 

[Slowlane]

What that article actually calls attention to is the cracks emerging in the conservative coalition. The American Conservative is Pat Buchanan's paleocon organ, and since its founding has been consistently critical, not only of liberals and moderates, but of neocons and of everything associated with the Bush Admin.

You might want to read the first paragraph again.

 

[off2bed]

What don't you understand about that fat windbag being an unappealing spokesman for conservatism? According to a Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 4-5, 2009, Rush Limbaugh has a 27% favorable rating:
http://www.pollingreport.com/l.htm#Limbaugh

Pot/kettle/black. Ever read your own unappealing windbag posts?

 

[The_Trouvere]

[shrug] I wouldn't try to defend the CPUSA's honesty (in fact, I've never even known anybody who was a member and I've known some Marxists, believe it), but the endorsement in question makes perfect sense in its own terms.

I've known a number of members of the American Communist Party. I have liked each of them.

 

[unregistered]