1 Patterico is a total pussy who should switch parties to the Democrats if he truly believes all of that bullshit tripe.

2

I'll say one thing about Hot Air. The site is aptly named.

3

I hereby accuse you of something or other!

But seriously, taking Obama's flamebait over Rush, a non-elected, officeless pundit, while President Manchild is selling America into an apocalyptic debt during a depression is sort of like arguing over Curly vs. Shemp while Japan is conquering the Pacific.

4 I pledge my allegiance to Rush.

The rest of the lot can walk the plank.

5 Rush is not the head of any political movement; he is a reflection of it, just like Ace is the public face of hobo-rollers, Valu-Rite swillers, and hopelessly mired armored vehicles everywhere. 

6 I'm tired of being told I have to couch my comments a certain way so as not to offend the liberal mindset when making a point.

Where are the calls for liberals to be more "thoughtful" and "clear" in what they say?  Less incendiary?  It's bullshit to play by their rules while they violate them at every turn and we continually get hammered by the double standard.  We always will if we keep trying to play nice with libs whose sole intent is to distort and misrepresent what conservatives say.

The gloves need to come off when dealing with libs, plain and simple.  We've heard eight years worth of the most careless lies and incendiary, damaging BS while they tried to derail this country and undermine its place in the world based solely on their clinical derangement over W.  Now they are in power as a direct result and "the way forward" is supposed to be overly pleasant dialogue, curbing of legitimate dissent and required genuflection before Obama and his socialist policies?  He is trashing America as we know it!  Change our beliefs to fall more in line with what liberals think in order to "expand the tent"?  That is what got us here.  No thanks.

7

8 Oh, and morons that can't reset their clocks.  Or close tags.

9 I agree with #7 by Rocks.

10 "If only I could figure out how to make the air smell like bacon...."

11

Sorry, I couldn't read the whole thing.

I got to the "drug dependency" part and stopped. Limbaugh had surgery; I always thought that his drug dependency was a result of pain he suffered following the procedure. The doctor says Take these pills, and by the time the doctor says Stop the patient is hooked. It happens.

The same thing happened to Bret Favre. So if Mr. Frum wants to imply that Rush Limbaugh was having good times and fun with his drugs, he can also say that Bret Farve is a sissy who can't take a little bit of pain. Then he can look around for people who take him and his fancy wordsmithing seriously.

12 I think Rush rules. I dont know why the right is not taking his side more. Why should we not all say what we believe.  Fuck 'O" and his communist ways, I hope he fails too. Miserably !!

13 I'm tired of being told I have to couch my comments a certain way so as not to offend the liberal mindset when making a point.

Especially given the left isn't couching with things like "rush should be executed" and Libermann blackfaced. They aren't tiptoeing.

14 A further critique from Five Feet of Fury about Frump and Patteico.

15 Also, Frum looks fat to me.

16

Oops. I missed an "R" in "Patterico". (And, no, that wasn't an editorial comment in disguise.)

17 Rush is the aircraft carriers that were not at Pearl harbor on Dec 07, 1941.

The Imperial Democrat Navy is desperate to sink them.

18

I don't always agree with everything Rush Limbaugh days, but Rush isn't an elected anything of the Republican party, he's a private citizen and should be free to speak his mind on any issue he choses.
If his opinions alienates some voters, ok, so what? I thought this was America (for now at least) and if you don't like someone's ideas. challenge them, offer a different opinion or solution.
The problem though is that the Democrats can't do that, since all of their ideas have been proven to fail time and time again. So their only recourse to kill the messenger.
What infuriates me is that many people calling themselves conservative, like Frum, are enablers of this Democrat strategy. Worse still, they put more energy into going after Rush, when their focus should be on the kleptocrats in the White House.
I want to shout out "Be friends you Republican fools be friends! We have Democratic quarrels enow! But that would be lame, so instead I say that Patterico and Frum can blow me.

19 Is Patterico getting called in as reinforcement for Allah's similar viewpoint?

I notice AP hasn't posted much in a few days.

20
Patterico can blow me. Fucking faggot has to stipulate his argument against Frum with a slam against Rush Limbaugh -- fuck him.

Patterico is nothing, nothing compared to Rush Limbaugh. And he's as much of a pussy as Frum and all the other dinks in the GOP who are embarrassed by the base of our party.

21 Frum:  With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party.

Nothing like the good-ole ad hominem  [ http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html ] attack to bolster your argument, eh, Davey?

Did you go to school at Cornell (the communication dept. in the ag school, perhaps:  Dang, see now you've got me doin' it, Davey - shame on you!

22 @ #6, pboilermaker
+1

23
I don't always agree with everything Rush Limbaugh [says]...

oh for fuck's sake, no fucking shit.

Are you afraid if you didn't preface your comment with the above that people might think you're just a stupid dittohead?

Look, I don't mean to pick on you; I'm sure you're a fine fellow. But it's this kind of tiptoeing through the tulips that makes us toothless against our political enemies.

24 This is all very productive as President Overwhelmed throws the levers of government to Full-Speed-Amarxist.

25 Rush has the MSM, all RAT people, and the White House, against him, and he is still going strong, not retreating, and adding listeners, and he is the loser?  Hello! He should be tapped for a seat on the WH economy-recovery board.  Hell, one has been/never been made the RNC leader hide under a desk.

26 QUIETIST!!!

27

Mendacious…

A word  that Patterico should reacquaint himself with. The opposition is far beyond intellectual dishonesty and ignorance. They are using language as a weapon, and “being careful” instead of challenging them gives them a heavy hand up in the debate, or better yet for them, stifles the debate.

What Rush and Jeff G. at PW understand explicitly is that conservative politicians must first understand and vigorously challenge the false premises of the left. And in this court, the judge (media) has been bought-off by the mob…

28
Howard Dean made a living going around the country slamming our country, its citizens, our military, and the war effort and he was never criticized by the Left as much as Rush is criticized by the assholes on the Right.

29 Patterico is usually spot on with his criticisms of the LA Times. It saddens me that he can't make the obvious connection that those are exactly the people and exactly the mindset he's worried about us 'alienating.'

You can't be nice to bullies. You can only get up and knock them down.

30 Frum:  With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party.

At least he's doing it with his own dough, which I more than I can say about a lot of folk (I'm looking at you, too-many-of-the-52%).  I hope Rush keeps living in a great big way - Living well is the best revenge.

31 Brit Hume told me this would be over by Friday. It is now Sunday. When will this end? Brit why have you lied to me?

And to answer Crusty's question.
I like Curly. He was the most memorable.

32 It is a little disappointing to see Patterico vilified so thoroughly on this site. I am a long-time reader of both blogs (although if push came to shove, I would give Ace the nod), and I think that we should be able to disagree on issues without being called a "pussy", a "faggot", or being told to "blow me." On balance, Patterico is a thoughtful, measured critic of President Obama and his policies. Like most people on this site, I disagree with his take on El Rushbo, but I think that we can be a bit over-defensive on some of these things. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, and let's not alienate people who should be our allies just because we have occasional differences of opinion. (cf social conservatives vs libertarians).

David

33 "In sum, Patterico and others have said that he does not want Rush Limbaugh to be the de facto head of either the Republican Party or the conservative movement because he is too controversial."

For anyone who thinks this, there's a simple solution:

get more Republicans to follow you than Rush

Oh, what?  No one gives a shit what Frum and other Rush-bashers think?  You don't say...

34

This is what we see with folks whose livelihoods depend on ratings. Coulter, Limbaugh, Malkin, I'm looking at you.

Blow goats, Gabe. Your rating is homing in on zero.

35 I disagree, Gabriel.  It's not about message, or who ought to be the standard-bearer for conservatives.  It's about the right of individuals to say what they mean in the manner they see fit with the intention that they have and be able to expect that it won't be deliberately warped by partisan jackasses who work out of the post-political White House on our tax dollars, in order to be mau-maued into submission for the guilt of having been said to say something they never did.

36 I'm still trying to figure out what Rush says that's so horrifyingly controversial. I'm a moderately conservative Canadian and I have yet to find anything he says all that shocking. Just sounds like basic conservative thinking.

37 If Rush is not the leadership, who is?  It certainly isn't Michael Steele - "CPAC was a bunch of Nazis." 

Our problem is that we have no leadership, and any visible conservative becomes the defacto leader.  We have allow conservative leadership to be marginalized: Palin, the Great White Trash of the North, Jindal, Slumdog Millionaire, Sanford,. who knows who the heck he is.

How about our great congressional leadership, boehner or McConnel.  Cantor stood up in the House, and he is getting the Palin/Jindal treatment.  So the only vocal and visible conservatives are the pundits.

38 From the quoted newsweek article
> (Frum) With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party.

You know, for all the criticism I throw at President Obama, I've never sniped at his cocaine abuse. But, if hack commentators are going to throw Limbaugh's oxycontin abuse around they why not bring up Obama's cocaine?

If, during some Limbaugh related debate, his drug abuse is mentioned, if you make a loud sniffing sound - maybe mumble "not as bad as cocaine" - isn't that fair play?

Also, "With his private plane ...".
At least Limbaugh pays for his private plane.

39 Definitely Curly.  All others were pretenders to the throne.

40 Gabe, you're missing why a lot of people are pissed off at Patterico.

It's really simple:  Barry and his media sycophants are trying to defeat the right in detail by attacking Rush and offering dhimmi deals to weak sisters like Frum.

At this juncture, you're either with Rush or with Obama.  Keep your bitching to yourself -- if you have a better idea, offer it as your own.

41 The MSM said Reagan was too controversial for moderate voters too and we saw how that went.

42 @  35:  Word.

43 But it's this kind of tiptoeing through the tulips that makes us toothless against our political enemies.

No, that's our strength, we can disagree with each other's opinions while still supporting each other and our common cause against big government, socialism and loss of liberty.

What Frum and his ilk want to do is create an idiologically pure fiscal conservatism movement devoid of social conservative core values. And that divides us, which is exactly what the Dems want.

Oh, and I'm sure you're fine as well

44 Or to put it more succinctly,

Why is Patterico joining the (attempted) high-tech lynching of the most uppity conservative?

45 Patterico's a pussy?  Because he thinks that there was a way to convey exactly the same meaning without using language that can easily be misinterpreted in a way that could damage the conservative movement's image in the eyes of the general public?

Oh, and fuckwads: It isn't about 'offending the liberal mindset'.  It's about not doing the liberal spin-doctors' jobs for them.  If you want to say [x], don't say something that might mean [x,y,z].  Especially if [y] or [z] are counter-productive or damaging.

And Frum was an ass for the gratuitous personal attacks against Limbaugh.  At least Patterico was making (or trying to make) a pragmatic point about strategy.

46

We're talking about the same stupid voters who will vote against someone because of what Rush says on the one hand, but on the other hand were more than willing to vote for Obama because some [insert your favorite MSM douchenozzle here] told them how great and historic it would be.

Short of knee-capping these people outside the polling booths on election day, I'm not sure what we can do about them.

47 Where is Frum fiscally conservative?

48

Darling rocks!!!!

 Are the rest of you pussies whining about accommodating communist cocksuckers? Yeah, don't ask don't tell.

49
Coulter, Limbaugh, Malkin, I'm looking at you.

hahaha, they don't care what you think.

We have people, who claim to be conservative,  trying to either muzzle or change the only way have for our voices to be heard.

Imagine a world without Limbaugh, Coulter, ...

Tell me who would speak for us?

50 Patterico has joined the ever growing coalition of Republicans who butter their bread attacking Republicans who aren't ashamed to be Republican.  Good luck making that work for you.

51

CliveStaples

Queer as a three dollar bill.

 

52
Imagine a world without Limbaugh, Coulter, ...

Tell me who would speak for us?

Huh.  I thought it was the liberals who relied on an elite to speak and think for them.

53 "folks whose livelihoods depend on ratings"

like Ace!

this no-balls crap is far from the necessary and popular hoisting of the black flag

54 What a stupid argument and waste of time. Limbaugh is the "head of the Republican party" for precisely two reasons.

1) It is a concerted strategy by the donks and the MSM because they want to have us chasing our tails instead of Obama's shit proposals.

2) No other Republican leader has stepped forward to take the mantle.

Rush is an entertainer for shit's sake. He makes his living, gee, I wonder how he can afford a private jet and a lavish lifestyle, by tossing red meat to the faithful in an over the top manner. He's not the leader of anything accept his radio show.

55 The only reason I bother with Hot Air is Michelle Malkin and now Ed Morrissey. 

I popped over to read Patterico regularly -- great writer and thinker -- but no more.  I don't fault him for a one-blog criticism of Rush -- but a whole damn week WITH poll???  Has he ever gone to such trouble to criticize James Carville??? Forest and trees ... forest and trees ... further proof you can talk yourself into any corner with enough education. And it tells me Patterico doesn't really know what he believes.

LGF and AP seem obsessed with proving "No-God" or trying to claim victim status because, you know, they're some of them newfound "atheists" and/or "evolutionists" who are being hung up on a cross for their ... er, non-belief? (dang if I know anymore). There is a reason the term "sophomoric atheist" was created.  It's been in use since Plato sat at Socrates' feet and long before that. But to read some of these idots, they've "discovered" non-belief and boy are they going to make sure you know it. Don't you want to be enlightened like them?  (Pssst -- they don't believe in a "Supreme Being" in case you missed one of their thousands of posts on the topic).

Freedom of speech, I know.  But there's another line in that First Amendment that is very difficult to see unless you lean really, really close -- it says "Freedom to not read."

When I want some warm, fuzzy Rush-Hate or obscenity-laced diatribes against "BusHitler" I'll just mosey on over to DailyHairball or HuffPo. I don't need it from "conservative" pundits. Some of you must be retired and have all day to read blogs.  I'm not and I don't.

The liberals have been bashing the conservatives for decades.  Decades.  Anyone recall a phrase in a popular song "Ronald Rayguns"?  The smirk on Democrat pundits when they reminisced, on camera, about "dirty tricks" they played on Nixon?  BushHitler, anyone?  According to Cher, you have to be insane or depressed to be a conservative. One could put together an encyclopedia of insults directed at conservatives over the many years.
They really care about phrasing their statements in the spirit of mature debate, don't they?

But one "nebulous" comment from Rush Limbaugh gets a whole week of analysis -- not from James Carville but a "conservative" pundit???

For the record:  I hope Obama and his policies fail and with a great and loud crash.

56 Divide and conquer. We waste breath and energy fighting over what a private citizen thinks (one that they have crowned king of republicans) while the stuff their pockets and sell out allies. People like Patterico swallow it hook, line, and sinker. He's O's bitch as much as Chris Matthews, he just don't know it.

57 Patterico has joined the ever growing coalition of Republicans who butter their bread attacking Republicans who aren't ashamed to be Republican.  Good luck making that work for you.

He was attacking Rush's particular choice of words as being unnecessarily vague, not because it was so scary-accurate about Conservative philosophy.

58 There is a fifth option

5) That the words of Rush Limbaugh were purposefully removed from any meaningful context by the Democrats and MSM, that the conservative critics like Frum or Patterico either refuse to discuss the context or are ignorant of it, and that by using the misquote as the heart of their argument they surrender the languge of the argument to the left.

In other words, the left sought to define the argument based on a deliberate distortion of what Rush said and people like Patterico swallowed the bait without question.

Language is important and we should be fighting back against people who want to warp it. We need to reclaim the ability to say something without having to make sure every word is slathered in caveats nor without having to carefully formulate every phrase to make it bulletproof. Paterico, Frum, et. al. seem a lot more willing to fight other conservatives than they are willing to suspect a leftist trick.

That this entire controversy was cooked up by James Carville, Paul Begala, George Stephanopoulos, and Rahm Emmanuel should have been a big clue that there was monkey business afoot. Shame on them for doing the Dems dirty work without much hesitation.

59
I thought it was the liberals who relied on an elite to speak and think for them.

Way to read, fuckface.

60 At this point in time, if we had to choose between two individuals to go forward and lead this Country, and those two were Obama and Rush, I would surely choose Rush. 

61 This is what we see with folks whose livelihoods depend on ratings. Coulter, Limbaugh, Malkin, I'm looking at you.


Gabe, it's ok to make money by advocating Freedom and resisting Tyranny. Rush's enemies are your enemies, too.

62 And Jimmie is right, the more we try to caveat and make sure that no one is offended by what we say the less that we end up saying. We look like limp dick weasels trying to "triangulate". Not a successful strategy.

63 This is what we see with folks whose livelihoods depend on ratings. Coulter, Limbaugh, Malkin, I'm looking at you.

And I just get pissed off. If not for people like you we could all be having intelligent arguments and reading the Seattle PI.

This whole thing is the stupidest thing I have seen in awhile. We are back to the VRWC in everything but name. This time it's to cover up a President's inability to man up and do his job as opposed to being oversexed and getting someone to give him a job.

64 With his private plane and his cigars Kools, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk arrogance, not to mention his tangled Klingon marital history, Rush Barry is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. fits the Marxist fuck.

FIFY, PatioFurniture.

65 Wow. 

It's still the same old story -- the Northeastern-esque, elitist, blue-blood, big-government, pro-bailout, Rockefeller Republicans versus the small-government, pro-entreprenuer, free-market conservatives. 

Guess which side owns the national media.  They get to define the debate, and pussies like Patterico play their game, by debating issues defined in their favor.  Just like Goldstein said.  Debating the extent to which Limbaugh's perfectly legitimate statement ("I hope he fails") is offensive, guess what, guys -- you've already lost!  That's a rigged game, and you're too stupid to know it. 

And if these Beltway fuckwits ever stopped to actually listen to Limbaugh's show, not just his nationally-televised speeches, they'd know Limbaugh is a small-government, free-market conservative. 

If, after losing so intensely, so thoroughly, with big-government assholes like McCain, then sticking Steele in as the head of the RNC, the party is STILL not ready to lose its RINO ways, then fuck it.

Seriously, fuck 'em all. 

Burn. The Fucker. Down.

66 The real problem is being soft and letting someone ELSE define the message. And that's exactly what we're doing by conceding that "I want Obama to fail" is controversial.

No, it isn't. According to the MSM it is, and we cannot allow them to define that for us.

Lastly, maybe we need to be a little less sensitive about "alienating voters". What voters ? For what election ? There isn't an election for another 18 months and if you learned anything this past election, you know that if times are bad, whoever is in power will lose. End of story. So worrying about offending voters 18 months before an election that will likely not be affected at all by such trivialities, is insanity.

67 Rush is a private citizen.
Just like Joe the Plumber.
Just like Palin's kids.
Fuck assholes who can't tell shit from shinola, or politicians from private citizens.

I swear, we deserve what's coming.

68 Just as a show of hands thing - Anybody on the fence about any of this? B/c I, for one, am past the point of being persuaded by any further articles and think more of the same ain't gonna change anything

69 Show me an inflammatory Limbaugh quote, and I will show you a quote from a 'respected mainstream' liberal/democrat that is way more so.

70 Discussion has been most exquisitely lively over at Jeff Goldstein's place...you know, Protein Wisdom.  I don't know whether you had that filed under "some," "some," "some," "other," or "some," but it's one of those places so nice most people ask for it by name.

71 What has Rush said that's so offensive?

Calling the MSM "butt boys"?  Hell that's true - and I muse here - what pray tell was the MSM's reaction to Michael Moore's obscenities against Bush and the Conservatives?  What was their reaction to the whole Palin-bash where "anything" was allowed - oh right - I forgot - THEY perpetrated that one didn't they?  Now Maha-Rushie has hurt their wittle feewings - please give me a moment to wipe the tears from my keyboard.

Let's assume for a moment - that Rush wasn't taken out of context (which he WAS) when they quoted him as saying that he wants Obama to fail.  And let's assume that he wishes ill on the country (which he doesn't - but they're claiming anyway).

Where in the fuck were they when Harry Reid and the democrats attempted to LOSE a war because a Republican President was in charge of it?  Where's the expose's and condemnation against MoveOn.Org - which called General Petraeus ... "Betrayus" ...

I have a crying towel for the administration and MSM - get the fuck used to it.  Dissent is the new patriotism.  OOpsie!  Who came up with that statement?  Oh yeah right - a Democrat who opposed the Bush administration.

72 Exactly right, Phinn

73

#36, Rush is controversial because the MSM said so, it's that simple.

The Left in America are deadly afraid of Rush because he is an effective communicator who gives voice to the millions and millions of the Silent Majority.  Labelling him controversial is their way of dividing and conquering the Right. 

The only conservatives acceptable to the Left are those squishy National Review types, with the notable exceptions of Steyn and Hanson.  These Rhino are just elites of a different stripe.  Associating with the rank and file is so beneath them hence their reactions to Palin.

The truth is Rush wouldn't have been seen as the official or unofficial conservative spokesman if there are anyone on our side who have the courage to take up the challenge of opposing the One.  And until a credible candidate rises to the occasion, Rush and his legions of fans are doing the grunt work.  

74 Divide and conquer. We waste breath and energy fighting over what a private citizen thinks (one that they have crowned king of republicans) while the stuff their pockets and sell out allies. People like Patterico swallow it hook, line, and sinker. He's O's bitch as much as Chris Matthews, he just don't know it.

You've gotta be fucking kidding me.  Part of being successful as a movement is being able to cogently express and extol your philosophy.  Patterico thought Rush could have done it better.  Now, instead of having a discussion about how to more effectively communicate Conservative ideas, we're having a discussion about the Rush-Hot Air-Patterico discussion.  Or having a discussion about having a discussion about the Rush-Hot Air-Patterico discussion.

Get the fuck over your surprise that Conservatives might disagree with each other about something and actually say something about it.  This is just a retarded application of Obama's "distraction" bit--"If you aren't talking about the Obama administration, You're A Distraction."

75 damn sockpuppet grumble mutter mutter preview button grumble site sucks ass

76 Everyone keeps saying, "Rush is an entertainer."

I don't think of him that way.  He's a political analyst to me and I listen and evaluate the content of what he says.  That's all.

Maybe his message is scaring people because his analyses are correct.  Excellent.  That means they're listening, at least, even if they don't always understand or agree.

77 Bullshit Clive.  If plainly stating that you hope that the socialist free for all that's pushing the economy further into the tank fails is too strong for you then you're too weak.  Laying fetal at the feet of the MSM isn't a strategy.  It is transforming yourself into Arlen Specter for convenience's sake.

78

Strong opinions alienate voters. Any strong opinions.

However there's also a reason congress is at 12% approval rating.

Now, it depends on what you mean by "alienate voters". If he's saying (and I'll assume the more reasonable less argumentative choice here) that people with conservative opinions, and strong ones, are alienated by his rhetoric, that's probably because they've never listened.

Nobody who listens to his show thinks he's outrageous or a bomb thrower. He makes jokes sometimes, they're rather tame. He's got a large Bible-Thumpin audience, the guy will excuse himself if he lets "crap" slip.

The problem is alot of peoples opinion of Rush Limbaugh doesn't come from Rush Limbaugh, it comes from the MoveOn portrayal of him.

Which we don't defend at all. He's on his own. He can handle it fine and doesn't need our help. But it doesn't help anyone other public conservative to 'distance himself' from Rush. They need to defend him and destroy the lies and the fake charicature about him. Not for his sake, for their own sake, because disassociating won't work.

79

Yes, a bunch of liberal pussies claiming to be conservatives while playing to that "middle of the road" voter who really doesn't exist.

The allowed the media to pick their candidate in 08 and they allow the media to misquote Rush.

The Communist(D) Party doesn't need an election stragist, they have the media.

80
Only an asshole would think we need to PC-ify the conservative message to win hearts and minds. We need to become more like the Democrats if we want to win.

Gee, I wonder what gave them that idea? They've been brainwashed by the liberals and they don't even realize it.

81 You Curly fans ignore the important work Moe did with Paul Simon.

82 How about - President Mau-Mau ?

83

Everyone keeps saying, "Rush is an entertainer."

He is an entertainer.

He's also as much of a pundit and an analist as any of those other goobers.

He's also a news reporter.

David Brooks is also an entertainer. Charles Krauthammer is an entertainer

84

Everyone keeps saying, "Rush is an entertainer."

He is an entertainer.

He's also as much of a pundit and an analist as any of those other goobers.

He's also a news reporter.

David Brooks is also an entertainer. Charles Krauthammer is an entertainer in t

85 >>You Curly fans ignore the important work Moe did with Paul Simon.

You start dissing Curly and it's on like Donkey Kong.

86

WTF.

Screw you guys, I'm going home.

87 Comatus,

Chevy Chase was even better than Moe.

88 Patterico should just say he won't make his points in the same style Rush does and move the fuck on. Who the Hell is he to police the language Rush chooses to use? Tend to your own garden, Patterico.

89

We certainly don't have to hope for The Vapid One° to fail. The evidence has already been gathered.

He has no idea what makes this country what it is. He's admitted he didn't want to be seen as a "sellout", so he sought out radical friends, friends whose skewed vision of America borders on the psychotic.

He's now surrounded himself with people who don't have the foggiest notion of how our economy works.

And it shows.

90
Jack, you took the words out of my mouth.

Never, never, never forget that it was Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama who anointed Rush as the "leader" of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. They did it in part to divert Republicans into quarrelling over Limbaugh instead of uniting against him ("divide and conquer"), and in part to use the Limbaugh boogyman to scare moderate and centerist voters away from conservatives. At the same they, they portray Limbaugh as some kind of extremist, the sort of person whom it is embarrassing to be associated with.

It's a clever strategy, and so far it's working like a charm. The only way to respond is to deny the premise: Limbaugh is an interesting, popular speaker and certainly influencial on the right, but a leader? No. No way.

I think that this will recoil against Obama, because in picking a fight with a radio personality, Obama is undercutting his own prestige: as the Romans said, "The eagle doesn't hunt flies," but Obama isn't just hunting flies, he's picking nits, and in time it must diminish him in the public's eyes. But in the meantime, this quarrel over Limbaugh's role in our party is just doing Obama's work for him.

91 Bullshit Clive.  If plainly stating that you hope that the socialist free for all that's pushing the economy further into the tank fails is too strong for you then you're too weak.  Laying fetal at the feet of the MSM isn't a strategy.  It is transforming yourself into Arlen Specter for convenience's sake.

Did you even read Patterico's argument before you rejected it?

There are two interpretations: 1, that Rush wanted Obama's initiatives to fail to be enacted, because Rush knows they would be counter-productive; 2, that Rush wanted Obama's initiatives, once enacted, to fail to save the economy.

So Patterico basically says, "If you meant [1], why didn't you just say [1]?" 

Patterico's entire fucking point is that Rush should have just said "I hope that the socialist free-for-all that's pushing the economy further into the tank fails", instead of "I hope that the measures being taken to recover the economy fail."

92

Cantor was just as willing to throw Rush under the bus as Steele was, McConnell? are you joking? you can't be serious, Boehner? who the hell is that? (i know who he is) never seen the guy or heard him speak, don't have a clue what he believes, the problem with our Party is the leadership not the base.

93 Comment #6 summed it up for me perfectly.  Pussies like Patterico and Allahpundit need to understanding something.  NO MATTER WHAT WE SAY OR WHO ON OUR SIDE SAYS IT THE LIBS WILL DEMONIZE US!  If they can't cherry-pick some comment out of context, THEY WILL JUST MAKE SHIT UP!  THAT IS WHAT THEY DO.

For people on "our side" to be wringing their hands over this shit after we had 8 years of the libs OPENLY undermining not only the president but the country while we were at war is so fucking pussified I can't stand it.  Hot Air is dead to me, Morrisey engages in this pussification on occasion but Allah takes the cake.  He undermines daily what Malkin is about yet she owns the site.

People talk about leaders?  The reason the Repubs don't have a strong leader is because we let the libs run them out of town like they did with Gingrich and Delay. Meanwhile the libs have actual hard core criminals on their side and they are not only still in power, they are praised.

94
I'm an entertainer.

95 #38 not to mention Obama's other various vices, including being addicted to other people's money.  I guess after buying the best steaks for himself he felt the need to conserve and gave the Brit a bunch of DVDs.   Probably fist-bumped him at dinner time.

The millions Rush has raised and donated to charity stand in stark contrast to the giving of Obama and Biden ...and the stranglehold this administration is now putting on charitable donations.  I think Rush can hold his own when it comes to class.

96

I read the whole piece. This is just another so-called conservative writer anxious to distance himself from Limbaugh so 'moderates' will like him and he can sound really smart. Fuck that. Rush Limbaugh espouses hardcore conservative values- by hardcore I mean basic, no compromises, 'this is what we believe and we mean it'. That's why I'll stick with him. You don't sidestep away from your people when the mud flies, just so you won't get some on you.

And the writer is falling into the Democrat's trap: to marginalize Limbaugh and his message. The more this 'attack Rush' strategy can manage to split conservatives away from Limbaugh, the easier it is to discredit the entire conservative movement. We should be closing ranks with conservative commentators like Limbaugh in a 'you mess with one of us, you mess with ALL of us' strategy.

We should not be letting the Democrat party define conservatism. By cooperating with the 'get Rush' attacks, we allow that to happen.

This is a good time to remember that you have to stand for something (conservatism) or you'll fall for anything (Obama).

97

If Patterico, whoever he is, has nothing better to do than write a piece about David Frum then he is irrelevant, as is David Frum.

The fact that they are playing right into the hand of team Obama illustrates how shallow their thinking is.

If Obama wants to wage war on a private citizen let him.  People will grow weary of this and eventually it will backfire in Obama's face.  He's not doing himself any favors either kneecapping his supporters like Jim Cramer.

Perhaps they should focus a little more attention to the details of what kind of gifts they should give visiting dignitaries and less time trying to destroy people who disagree with them.

98 The Republicans tried the moderate route since 2004 - essentially hoping to appease the left on domestic issues enough to get them to lay off their treasonous anti-war activities.

It didn't appease them and it didn't win over the electorate.

What the Republicans need to do is claim to be moderates for public consumption and then work hard on pushing the conservative agenda whenever possible. This is the Clintonian approach and it works. It works better when the media is working for you, but I think it can work without it to.

Oh, and the whole infinite hate thing the left pushed worked too. Looking back on Bush's record there is plenty to disagree with, but he pushed a moderate line on pretty much everything with a much more honorable administration then the one that had proceeded him, so it is hard to understand the hate except as a political strategy.

Looking at Obama, he is in the process of collapsing our economy via his hard left policies, though the question of whether is malicious or incompetent is an open one. Either way, there is a strong opening for treating him the way the left treated Bush. Remember, Bush 43 was *much* more popular then Obama and yet the left still managed to drag his name through the mud.

99 Funny, though the folk that aren't willing to let this thing die are the folk who've decided to ride their way into power in the Republican party on Limbaugh's corpse.  Big tent, yeah fer sure.

100 Ever notice that Democrats never work themselves into bouts of anxiety over being too controversial?  Screamin' Howard Dean said "We have met the enemy and he is George W. Bush," and not one Donk batted an eye or lost a night's sleep over Dean's comment. No one criticized the Hildabeast for the idea of a "Reset" button being a cheap shot at Bush.  They don't care if they're controversial.  So why should we care if Rush or Coulter or anyone else is?

101 People like Patterico really don't understand what American conservatism is all about. So....

We want to conserve the letter and spirit of the US Constitution whenever and wherever possible.

In terms of political speech, that means (too paraphrase a commie) "let a million flowers bloom". We like the marketplace/battlefield of ideas and there are many ways to get to the same point. This is called the Big Tent.

That we have people even arguing about this means that we have people who aren't totally comfortable with people running their own lives their own way. Everybody needs to remember Reagan's 11th Commandment - Thou shalt not criticise a fellow Republican With rinseandspit's addendum - Especially we we have zero fucking power and we're trying to get back in the game.

Dims rarely criticize one another. They always turn the question back on the Republicans. Is that so fucking hard?

But, but, but rinseandspit, rinseandspit Rush isn't nearly so nuanced and subtle as my opinions are. Fine, keep reading.

The new reply to asshole who ask whether or not you agree with Rush should go something like like this:

"Hey, unlike the democrats we have a Big Tent with many opinions and Rush is one voice. But this is all a distraction(use BO's favorite words against him) from the real issue which is President Obama's policies are destroying the middle class, the people who work hard, play by the rules and make this country work."

When pressed you can say something like:

"You know, (interviewers name), President Obama is a Democrat. Both the House and the Senate are run by Democrats and their policies are RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK destroying the life savings of hard working Americans. We know because the Obama White House admitted it, that this Rush thing is just a distraction from their heartless(see what I did there?) destruction of people's lives."

So, Patterico, you be subtle but block their demonizing efforts. Rush, you go hard but block their demonizing efforts. The marketplace of ideas will show what's effective. Yeesh.

102 And I know just where I stand.

103

Patterico's entire fucking point is that Rush should have just said

Patterico WRITES. He puts his shit down, he looks at it, he mulls it over for half an hour, he puts it through spellcheck, he hits post.

Then he goes back (if he pleases) and edits it or updates later to clarify.

Nobody can talk for 3 hours and sound even remotely human without saying something that takes common sense and context to interperet. You can't go around talking like a lawyer all the time.

And even Patterico, despite writing instead of talking, I bet still has had his own works mischaracterized by leftists who want to slander him. (Assuming only, that they care enough about Patterico to want to - no offense, that's not a slam).

104 Pussies like Patterico and Allahpundit need to understanding something.  NO MATTER WHAT WE SAY OR WHO ON OUR SIDE SAYS IT THE LIBS WILL DEMONIZE US!  If they can't cherry-pick some comment out of context, THEY WILL JUST MAKE SHIT UP!  THAT IS WHAT THEY DO.

Which reinforces Patterico's point: We shouldn't needlessly couch our ideas in terms designed not to convey our meaning the most clearly, but to be ambiguous enough to draw controversy.  We've got so many people working against us; why make their job easier?

Did any of you tards calling Patterico a "pussy" actually read what he wrote?  It's like talking to a liberal about Milton Friedman.

105

The Rats and Pubs have joined up to attack Rush.  Why?  Because the only movement in America that is strong enough to take down both parties, is the Conservative movement.   Most taxpayers are living very conservatively right now, and they see that Bush (his last year especially) did not, and O is definitely not.  Remember, voters usually vote for those whose actions parallel their own.

That is why I am voting for this guy: http://tinyurl.com/d6o3x4

 

 

106

I'll go out on a limb and say there are more conservatives in this country than there are liberals/progressives. It's just that too many of us have lost sight of what that means.

My rupee's worth: They're about changing the world; we're about living our lives. They vote to make a difference; we vote because it's our civic duty. As to the last, we've been shirking it.

I'm not saying that everyone who considers themselves conservative has to enlist in the Army or join the Rotary Club -- but stop making a stink about getting out of jury duty when you get a summons, and go vote whenever there's an election. Doing what you ought to do is a basic conservative value, and this is one such thing.

(And Rush: Shame on you for suggesting that anyone stay home on Election Day.)

107

#40

ding, ding, ding, give the man a cigar!

could not have said it better

108 People can talk about how so and so is" oh so gauche", and that it really is "beyond the pale" in attacking this president and blah, blah, blah.
Issues aside, it's about approach- either you're Bob Michael  or Newt Gingrich.
One was a hell of nice guy, the other not so much.
Who achieved political victory?
Cause frankly, I'm not interested in much else going forward.

109

Since Chairman Zero’s Administration has declared Rush Limbaugh “People’s Enemy No. 1,” his radio listenership has increased by 11 million people.

So why would the most powerful man in the world go after a talk-show host to begin with? Forget your Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals, this is pure middle school: Pick out one kid and gang up on him so you and your friends feel superior.

Which is why lefties don’t attack what Rush says, (e.g. “Socialism has failed every where it’s been tried.”) but they make juvenile attacks based on:

Physical appearance (”Rush is a fat, old white guy”)Social status (”Rush doesn’t have a college degree”)Malicious gossip about past misdeeds (”Rush is a drug addict”)Placing him as an outsider. (”M0st Americans love Obama and hate Rush. You’re not one of the cool kids if you don’t hate Rush, too.”)

Rush won this fight because he didn’t do what the popular kids wanted him to do. He didn’t run home crying and lock himself in his room. He didn’t renounce his principles and beg for their acceptance. He stood up to the middle school bullies, he beat then, and 11 million more Americans are learning the truth. This can’t be good for Dear Leader.

110 Rush isn't the head of any political party...but he is currently the standard-bearer for the conservative philosophy, just like Reagan was in his time.

Actually, I think there are a few of them out there...but Rush seems to be the one who's most readily recognized as such.

But unlike the Democrats, we don't need a savior figure for the party...we just need to adhere to the exact same principles espoused by Goldwater, the Gipper and El Rushbo, etc. etc.  The Constitution...personal liberty...reverence of life...personal responsibility...limited government...strong national security...free markets...those standards are our leader, not a psuedo-messiah.

111

This is just another so-called conservative writer anxious to distance himself from Limbaugh so 'moderates' will like him and he can sound really smart.

I haven't read Patterico in a while but (at least last I saw him) he was fairly smart and conservative.

I don't want to attack him - he's just wrong.

112 Clive, I am perfectly able to understand nuance, unlike democrats, and I understand where people like you and Petterico are coming from. We won't win anyone over with hatred and craziness (although that seemed to work mighty damn well for the dems). And yes, conservatives can disagree. The problem is we are letting the libs decide what is acceptable as far as speech goes. Everytime they see a rallying point for conservatives they try to marginalize it and make it controversial. Palin, Joe, Rush, Bush, etc. They take one bit out of context, gin up a controversy, then unleash the hounds. They sit back and laugh as we tear each other to pieces. Is there a better way for Rush to have siad what he did? Maybe. Maybe not. But do we jump every time they tell us that what was said was "out of bounds"? When do we draw the line? Remember, this was not a big deal until the mainstream got a hold of it. I dont remember anyone saying it was a bad idea before they pimped the story. Maybe they did. Point is, we didn't listen to the media before, why do we give two shits now?

113 Patterico has become Moby.
When has he ever been so pervasive and prolific on any topic?
Moby I sez.

114 This all started over the "I hope he fails" comment. The left is in an attempt to polarize the Republican party, with the ultimate goal of fully demonizing the conservative movement. Well, given every indication about policy decisions of the Obama administration indicate that he intends to socialize the United States of America, I join Rush's sentiment in hoping the Obama fails. And no that does not incur a failure of America, quite the opposite. Now it seems the left would have us take an oath to a single man rather than to our country, (Very Chavez/Castro/Hitler esque) and those that refuse to do that are branded as with the conservative iron by the media, with the steered public preception that we would rather watch the country crumble, than follow Obama policy. When in actuality, our stong belief is that these policies, whether in his presidency or in those to follow, will uterly destroy the United States.  Patterico's hot air is just so, and just what liberals want. An abondonment of principaled opposition by the Republican party. A return to the Republican party of the 30's in which the party did not oppose the direction of the administration, merely argued that they could steer the same direction better than the Democrats, and as a result lost all semblance of power and almost doomed their party. What we need from conservatives and Republicans is an unabashed rejection of socialism and entitlement, and the policies and direction of the administration which take us further down that road.

115 I read the whole piece. This is just another so-called conservative writer anxious to distance himself from Limbaugh so 'moderates' will like him and he can sound really smart

Dude, if you really think Patterico gives a shit about 'moderates' liking him, you've clearly never read his blog.

Nobody can talk for 3 hours and sound even remotely human without saying something that takes common sense and context to interperet. You can't go around talking like a lawyer all the time.

And even Patterico, despite writing instead of talking, I bet still has had his own works mischaracterized by leftists who want to slander him. (Assuming only, that they care enough about Patterico to want to - no offense, that's not a slam).

And Patterico runs a blog.  He covers political news.  Rush's comments became political news.  Patterico gave his take on it. 

And now the tards are off their leashes, excommunicating Patterico for having dared utter his critical opinion about the particular formation Limbaugh used, and how it formed the basis of the controversy.

Nevermind that Patterico has argued consistently and persuasively for Conservative positions on his blog for years.  Nope, since he thought Rush's language was ambiguous, he's obviously a pussy/'moderate'/upper-crust (hah!)/nancy boy.  What a black hole of fail.

116 "Did any of you tards calling Patterico a "pussy" actually read what he wrote?  It's like talking to a liberal about Milton Friedman."

No, you are missing the point.  What Patterico is saying, and I guess you haven't read ALL of his posts on this, is that we need to tone down our language and for that he IS a pussy.  It is not a question of making the libs job easier, you are saying we should allow them to decide what can be said and by whom. 

It doesn't matter in the end, they will just conjure up some nonsense out of whole cloth and their minions in the MSM will duly report it as fact.  We need to be STRONG and not fall for this nonsense.  People will not give power to a bunch of pussies who cower in their boots no matter how sick of Obama they get.

117

We shouldn't needlessly couch our ideas in terms designed not to convey our meaning the most clearly, but to be ambiguous enough to draw controversy. 

God damn. He's nitpicking a phrase FFS. Like he's never written any phrase on his whole damn blog that wasn't ambiguously controversial stripped completely naked of context.

It wasn't ambiguous at all, within context.

In the mean time, effectively, what this griping amounts to is a lot of people want us to couch our ideas in terms designed not to convey our meaning most clearly in order to avoid controversy.

If you're gonna slam someone for 'couching his ideas in terms that aren't clear" when it comes to conservative philosophy, Rush ain't that dude. Sheesh.

118 #55, prairiemain.

Dittos to the max.

119 > 86
WTF.
Screw you guys, I'm going home.
Posted by: Entropy at March 08, 2009

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out!

120 Clive.

That is what he said you supercilious twit.  You're just worried that the halo you've hung on yourself will slip to one side if you deign to agree with him.  This entire debate has not one thing to do with Limbaugh and everything to do with class.  The folk that consider themselves the upper-echelon, smarter-than-the-rest-of-the world power brokers in the GOP, and who have screwed the pooch sideways and backwards in the last couple of elections, see their grip on the party fading and are pitching an ugly and pathetic conniption. 

121 The problem is we are letting the libs decide what is acceptable as far as speech goes. Everytime they see a rallying point for conservatives they try to marginalize it and make it controversial

Of course.  And following Patterico's advice isn't going to change that. 

More precise and effective articulation of conservative ideals are exactly the ideals that Rush has been pursuing throughout his career on his radio program.  Patterico thinks his particular formulation lent itself easily to misinterpretation.  Is the conservative community so devoted to Rush that it can't bear any criticism?

"He could have said that better" means you're Obama's bitch?  You've gotta be kidding!

122 Patterico cannot be so swamp dumb as to fail to understand Goldstein on this matter.
Yet he writes, every damned where, as though he's too ignorant to handle the ideas.
After first having pointedly ignored Goldstein on Goldstein's own comments section.
When called out on that trollishness Patt then addressed Jeff's positions as though Patt were half-a-'tard.
Moby I sez.
Can't be that dumb in real life.

123 >>This all started over the "I hope he fails" comment.

Wrong. This all started years ago, during the Clinton administration to be exact. The same three guys, Begala, Carville and Emmanuel are doing the same damn thing they did then.

Go read the reporting. Do you know that Begala, Carville, Emmanuel and even Stephanoplus speak every morning? Do you think it's a shock that every donk and every MSM talking head is running with this Rush is the head of the Republican party? Fuck no, it's a plan. And people like Paterrico are walking right into their trap.

They were doing polling on Limbaugh as far back as last fall and had determined that he was very unpopular and very polarizing with a large segment of the population. Their strategy has always been to frame Limbaugh as the face of the Republican party because they are trying to marginalize us and keep us fighting amongst ourselves so nobody pays attention to the shit Obama is doing.

If Paterrico wants to be a valuable opinion maker then he should say something valuable. Going on and on about stupid infighting is counterproductive.

124 Kinda funny... All these conservatives, moderate-conservatives, crunchy cons, etc who wish to marginalize Limbaugh can't seem to stop talking about him.

125 I think one of the biggest problems in politics today is the lack of truth and accountability. People know this, and that's why they turn to Rush. Our political leaders are so intent on "getting along to go along" that they put integrity on the back burner. Oh, they'll clean they're own house, they have to, the media won't hesitate to slam ethically challenged conservatives. But when it comes to standing up against Democratic corruption Conservative leaders are pathetically quiet. If Cold Cash Jefferson hadn't lost the run off, he'd still be in Congress. The fact that Rangle, Frank and Dodd are still in Congress and not in jail should shame Republicans.
On the other hand Rush calls out Democratic malfeasance. Yes theoretically he has less to lose than a politician. But on the other hand he's got a 400 million dollar contract, so he's got a lot to lose if he pisses off his fan base.
Republicans lost because they pissed off their fan base. Why do you think there are so many blue dog dems in this congress? Because they ran to the RIGHT of the Republicans. Americans don't mind a good fight. We like winners and losers. The press harps on the "Why can't we get along" stories because:
1. Its easier than actually reporting on the differences in policies and philosophies
2. It allows them to frame the debate as the "Victimized well meaning Dems vs. "The Meannie partisan Repthuglicans".
Let's be honest, if the media actually did do their jobs and explained the issues to the American people, Democrats would have a much harder job getting elected.
And alot of people are missing the point. Its alot easier to fight amongst ourselves, than it is to do the heavy lifting of fighting the libtards.
Every conservative should wake up thinking "How can I hurt the liberals today"
Not "How can I score points on Limbaugh with the Wine and Brie Crowd". The fact that this is not happening should be very troubling to the conservative movement. One of the biggest complaints about the last election was the lack of fire from the Republicans. McCain wouldn't hit Obama. Congress critters wouldn't slam libtard scandals. In short they didn't fight. And America doesn't like wimps.
The conservative movement has already picked its standard bearers in Palin, Jindal, and Limbaugh. It seems some pundits can't wrap their pointed heads around that one.
Personally I'd like to see Palin and Jindal start writing op-eds on conservative philosophy, but that can wait.

126 It is a pretty dark day when fucking Politico has more balls to call out the White House on the "BLAME RUSH" strategy than those who claim to be bona fide conservative pundits like Pussico.

Politico says:

Yes, Rush Limbaugh is a double-edged sword for conservatives as they try to retake power, but that doesn't justify the administration's ham-handed and too public attempt to anoint him head of the GOP.

The reason: it's a betrayal of one of the core tenets of Mr. Obama's candidacy.

For two years he promised the country that he'd govern in a new way.


He pledged a break from the old divisions and the old games.

An end to the name-calling and petty bickering.

This was a staple of his stump speech and of his appeal, particularly to independents soured on politics as usual and the Washington gotcha games, and to the young people who gave the Obama campaign so much of its energy and person-power.

The goofiness of the last week was a betrayal of all of that.

A nationally-prominent Democrat - granted anonymity to speak freely - put it this way:

"[Rahm Emanuel] is the chief of staff to the president, not the hatchet man who once worked for President Clinton. He hasn't recognized that he's in a different role now."

Former Congresswoman Connie Morella of Maryland, a moderate Republican known for her work across the aisle, expressed her disappointment this way:

"We all expected the White House to rise about this kind of pettiness and name-calling."

She quickly added: "Rush Limbaugh does not represent the Republican Party."

Republican leaders are right to point out the hypocrisy in the White House role in all this, though given their weakened standing, the damage may be done. The administration should certainly hope so.

But if the president is wise, he'll tell his people "enough."

The answer Emanuel should have given last weekend was this: "I don't know who speaks for the Republican Party, because they themselves don't seem to know. Our focus right now is solving the many challenges we face, and doing so in as bipartisan a manner as possible."

127

Listen to Rush daily.... love the analogy of Pearl H...  made me think of the beginning of the movie In Harm's Way with JOHN WAYNE...   Oo Rah!

( ^{I know, he wasn't on an aircraft carrier... but I thought of it anyway )}

128 Goldstein Is a clever guy. Twitterico never saw the day he could compete with him.

129 Oh, sweet maple sugar Jesus on buckwheat pancakes.  I'd love to fisk the top of this thread, but it's not worth my time, and you guys commenting are all over it with the thoroughness of a rottweiler licking his dinner bowl.  Just three of the best responses:

30 Frum:  With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party.

33 "In sum, Patterico and others have said that he does not want Rush Limbaugh to be the de facto head of either the Republican Party or the conservative movement because he is too controversial."
For anyone who thinks this, there's a simple solution:
get more Republicans to follow you than Rush

58 There is a fifth option
5) That the words of Rush Limbaugh were purposefully removed from any meaningful context by the Democrats and MSM, that the conservative critics like Frum or Patterico either refuse to discuss the context or are ignorant of it, and that by using the misquote as the heart of their argument they surrender the languge of the argument to the left.

I went Roman on Frumpy The Fairy yesterday, so I won't again here.  But people, please remember this is about substance and Frump brings very little to the table.  Let me add only this:

Frum:  Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party.

That's highly self-serving, Davy my pole-smoking laddie.  Which very prominent person got a house in a tony neighborhood with a crooked land deal, and lots of cash to stuff his campaign coffers from the man who cooked up the deal?  Which prominent person's wife whines that you can't buy a set of decent earrings for less than $600, and had a sinecure job paying $300k per year; such a sinecure that her vacant position hasn't been filled?  Which prominent person serves $100 per pound wagyu steak on the taxpayer's dime while he lectures the rest of us about austerity?  Which prominent person indulged himself with a combination of taxpayer money and private campaign funds to throw himself an inauguration party costing $160 million dollars, four time more than any other inauguration ever?  In a time of economic crisis?

The only self-indulgent person here is Davy Frump, indulging in public masturbation.  Spank it in the closet, sissy boy.

130 "Folks who believe the first alternative should consider that the Democrats won in spite of their feces flinging rather than because of it."

It doesn't matter:  they still won.  All this respectability stuff is bullshit.

Bottom line:  get over yourself, you pussies.  You're the first ones to invoke Reagan's 11th commandment when your asses are on the fire, so follow it.

131 That is what he said you supercilious twit.  You're just worried that the halo you've hung on yourself will slip to one side if you deign to agree with him.  This entire debate has not one thing to do with Limbaugh and everything to do with class.  The folk that consider themselves the upper-echelon, smarter-than-the-rest-of-the world power brokers in the GOP, and who have screwed the pooch sideways and backwards in the last couple of elections, see their grip on the party fading and are pitching an ugly and pathetic conniption.

I agree with Rush more times before 9 AM than most people do all day!

I have nothing against Rush.  I like listening to his program, and I agree with his take about 99% of the time.

In fact, I even agree with his take this time.  But by using the phrase "I hope Obama fails", he sent a gift to liberal spin doctors everywhere.  He could have said it better.  Would the controversy still have developed?  Most likely.  Would Patterico have written this article?  Not if Rush had used a less ambiguous phrase.

If you're gonna slam someone for 'couching his ideas in terms that aren't clear" when it comes to conservative philosophy, Rush ain't that dude. Sheesh.

Yeah.  Except when he said "I hope Obama fails."  Yeah, the context redeems and illuminates the meaning.  So what was the fucking point of the sentence??  If the context tells you all you need to know, why throw in a gratuitous sure-to-cause-controversy line?

No, you are missing the point.  What Patterico is saying, and I guess you haven't read ALL of his posts on this, is that we need to tone down our language and for that he IS a pussy.  It is not a question of making the libs job easier, you are saying we should allow them to decide what can be said and by whom.

Patterico said nothing of the sort.  He did say that he thinks Rush is overly bombastic when he calls liberals "deranged", and he's right.  Some liberals are, but I personally know some who aren't, and last time I checked, "Liberals are deranged" wasn't a point of Conservative philosophy.

132

I remember Rush in the beginning of all this, he was tired of hearing people say that they wanted O to succeed for the good of the contry and economy.  And he sort of instinctively said the reverse.  He first said, why wouldn't I want him to fail?  They tried for 8 years to sink Bush even in wartime just to make him fail.  Rush didn't start out with a grand plan as he usually doesn't, he just reacted to what he was hearing.  But the immediate response was so huge that he refined it to: I want his Liberal policies to fail.

Conservatives should always tell it like it is, no matter what anyone says.  The closer we describe reality, the better we can deal with it.  Duckspeak is for Liberals, who in, fact depend upon us to reign in their wild insanity and always have.  Conservatives are the parents to the naughty children who keep acting out in destructive ways and it is up to us to keep them under control, or we get this kind of mess.  And bending under their weight will only squash us.  Remember Goldwater in 1964 led to Reagon 1980 and the end of the Cold War.

133  Patterico, whoever he is, has nothing better to do than write a piece about David Frum then he is irrelevant, as is David Frum.

The fact that they are playing right into the hand of team Obama illustrates how shallow their thinking is.

Bravo.  Precise and right on the money.

Patterico is being played for a fool.

Me, if Rush is The Leader then count me a follow because, unlike the Left and Lawyers, Rush Limbaugh wants me and all America to be prosperous and living in Liberty.

All the Left and Lawyers do is find ways and means of stealing individual  freedom and prosperity; fuck that and fuck off Lawyers.

I also agree with Shakespeare on Lawyers.

134 There are two Rush Limbaugh's being discussed: the one the Dems/MSM are pumping up and putting out as the head of the VRWC, and the real one who's on the radio everyday for three hours.

If these dumb-asses(Republican pussies) would listen to the radio, and use all of Rush's argument when they are faced with the out-of-context Limbaugh snippets, we'd start winning arguments--and elections.

135

>They were doing polling on Limbaugh as far back as last fall and had determined that he was very unpopular and very polarizing with a large segment of the population.

Limbaugh is unpopular with the same people he has ALWAYS been unpopular with. And I'm not surprised that a pushpoll slapped together by Carville and Begala determined that Rush has low poll numbers. Wow- didn't see that coming, eh?

Bottom line to me is: the other side plays dirty, and plays for keeps. They have the White House and Congress and the press, so clearly it's an effective strategy. They are now trying to define what we are in the minds of millions of voters.

We can cooperate, or we can push back. In the context of this current fight about Limbaugh, Patterico is cooperating.

136 Wouldn't it be nice to take back Congress and the Presidency?  Why?  We had it for several years and squandered our chance at leadership.  We didn't control the narrative, have little chance of controlling the narrative (media, academia, public schools, hollywood - you know, our INSTITUTIONS) and now we are losing our pretty little country.  It does not matter how we say it or what we say - the conservative, classical liberal story is filtered through these institutions.  Rush is on the front lines.   However he profits from it, good for him, but I know I wouldn't want to be in the direct sites of this enemy.  He has my prayers.

137 Clive,

You agree that you want Obama to fail.  You just wish no one had freaking said it?  Or had freaking said it some way that no one was really sure of what he was talking about?  Holy spit dude, we've got Obama to lie to us.  Why are you attacking a man for telling the truth and agreeing with you?  The Republican party isn't the stupid party.  It is the freaking retarded party.  It needs  the courts to appoint a guardina ad litem to handle its affairs. 

138

Whoa. You haven't missed the boat by this much in a loong time Gabe. You didn't even get the three right. One is that Democrats and the MM control the dissemination of the message. Two is Democrats and MM control the interpretation of the message. Three is Democrats and the MM have manipulated Republican articulation of the message.

Hey. Remember when the whole fricking LIPOR (or whatever the hell it was called) came down, and it was only you (supported by a few of us neanderthals) who called out something is foul-smelling about this? And you ended up more correct than the Pimps for The Plan? (They ALL got it wrong. All of 'em. Across the board, flat-out, missing in action wrong.)

Well, that was then, now is now. And you just stepped in it. And I know why.

You don't listen to Rush much, Gabe. (Or maybe, long enough, closely enough.)

Because this ain't about Rush being the King o' Conservatism. Oh no.

It is about Frum and his ilk being clueless (about the political landscape AND the message). Flat out clueless. (And maybe being a bit jealous of Rush's ability to capture the base, week in, week out. And I'm looking at you, too-much-of-NRO.) 

The Beltway pundit's ability to analyse the political heart of the people of this country just flat-out sucks. They're Beltway people, and they've no more idea of what actually motivates We The People than they have of why 20M plus listeners (dude: listeners not viewers ...which implies an intellectual difference of such gargantuan vastness that they should do some serious reflecting thereupon) keep listening to the Old Curmudgeon.

They ...don't get out much ...to the "out here" in the vast wasteland of suburbia and the rural wilderness. They're blind-sided (not stupid) by their urban gestalt, if you will.

Get this: Rush has has only ONE relevant political message.

Which is this: when conservatism is ably and articulately presented to the electorate it wins elections every time.

(Because MOST people in this country - even people with less than phenomenal innate abilities at beltway analysis - recognize conservatism as pretty much the same thing they believe.)

That's it. That's all. Everything else Rush says to fill in his three hours is irrelevant to this single political observation. That's what he has to say. That's all he has to say.

The rest of his Rush's shtick is just ...patter. Funny patter. Interesting patter. Healthy patter. Honest patter.

Oh, he certainly has his thoughts about what conservatism is. But those are the dessert, not the meat. And he's pretty big tent (if you will) about listening to other ideas.

Rush's contention is that this ain't a 50-50 nation. It's more like a 70-30 nation ...but a bunch of the 70 don't/won't/can't pay attention. And so they're left to the tender mercies of the left-wing noise machine (aka the mainstream media) ...because the "conservative media" is just damn near extinct.

Right now I am not being convinced that the Republicans are aware anymore of the importance of articulating and practicing conservatism. First they give me McCain. Now I find out that the new head of the RNC thinks ...calling us Nazi's is okay? And now they seem unable to understand Limbaugh?

No. I'm not okay with that.

But I am pretty okay with not apologizing for Understanding and Agreeing with Rush Limbaugh. And being appreciative (actually amazed) that his voice remains free of the fog of the Beltway pundits who seem to have forgotten how to win elections. And for his continuing populist presentation of conservatism.

 

139

#112

"Everytime they see a rallying point for conservatives they try to marginalize it and make it controversial. Palin, Joe, Rush, Bush, etc. They take one bit out of context, gin up a controversy, then unleash the hounds. They sit back and laugh as we tear each other to pieces."

 

so, so true and their enablers amoung us have names like Frum, Brooks and Sullivan and all those who have come to the "thoughtful and reasoned" conclusion that Sarah Palin is uppity trailer trash and Rush is a bomber-thrower and the Party has to distance itself from them

you are the Enablers of Rahm

[insert string of your favorite foul language here]

140

I hope Obama and the libtard democrats fail!  I hope the american communism party fails.  I hope socialism in america fails and can be retarded where it's manifested itself.  I hope our nanny-state, BIG-Government overlords are outed, ridiculed and banned from office.

words.... just words?  Hope.  I hope all of this leads to more people whom think Rush is polarizing to listen to his show and become inlightened. 

Here's to you Rush and to Ace and the bunch!  Thanks for being a little light in the dark days we've found ourselves in..

Viva Rush!  Vivia Ace!  Ayayaeeeeee!

141 Can I get two scratches for my homeboy Jesus?

142 1) The left has been trying for DECADES to control the language of the conversation. Now that they've succeeded, we had better all start looking for somewhere else to live, like Mars.

2) Does anyone really think we can "sit down at a table and work out a winning coalition"with people like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, and the rest? Seriously? I mean really seriously?

You don't compromise with a circling shark on what's for dinner, you can't win that game. I don't know whether we've really always been at this place and just had an illusion that we could cross the aisle, or whether today's left is really different from yesterday's, but it just isn't on.

143 94
I'm an entertainer.
Posted by: Darling at March 08, 2009 12:57 PM (k79Vj)   I am "I've Seen The Face of Satan", and I am an Entertainer.  There I've said it   (weeping uncontrollably) Darling, I too feel your pain.  I thought I could comment here and be a pundit, but it's just not possiible.    We're all in fucking denial.  Remember, the healing process can't begin until we acknowledge our condition.  Please join me and others in Entertainers Anonymous.

144 I'll add it's time for people like Patterico and especially Eeyorepundit to decide why they even associate with conservatives or libertarian types.  I'm certain they find the "social cons" nothing but a millstone, and since Patty and Allah's Catamite both accept the MSM's portrayal of the Right, why stay?  I wouldn't if I believed the MSM.

I read that Eeyore recently admits he doesn't know much about economics, and that both left-wing and right-wing approaches seem more like religion than anything else...

Well, if Eeyore doesn't know anything about economics, perhaps he shouldn't be talking about it at all.

Now go join all the cool parties and soirees, all the cool twitter pages with real pundits that have cool attitudes.  You know, the ones who don't embarrass like that fat drug addict Rush.  Hang out with Amanda Marcotte, Kos, Olberman... hell, even Ward Churchill is back in the news.  You'll love it over there.

145 David Frum is like Phillip in Braveheart.  You know, the prissy know-it-all who just wants to play nice with his best friend: King Longshanks' son.  The prince( in this case will be Christopher Buckley) brings great shame upon his father just as Chris Buckley has done to the great WFB.  What would WFB do if he saw his son parading around with moderate-squishy types like High Counselor Phillip?  He'd throw him out the damned window.

Then, after Frum is finally gone, WFB would proceed to give Chris Buckley an old-school conservative beatdown.

146 I just thought of something.  Since this debate started, the Arlen Specter is my hero crowd have chosen Frum.  Most of the people that in the past have voted Republican but now aren't so sure there is much point any more have chosen Limbaugh.  Patterico has chosen to crawl under his desk and whimper at both sides. 

147
The GOP is divided into those who want to fight win and those who want to acquiesce.

Armies who keep ceding ground never win.

148 Hey, anyone check out Pooterico?

149 You agree that you want Obama to fail.  You just wish no one had freaking said it?  Or had freaking said it some way that no one was really sure of what he was talking about?  Holy spit dude, we've got Obama to lie to us.  Why are you attacking a man for telling the truth and agreeing with you?  The Republican party isn't the stupid party.  It is the freaking retarded party.  It needs  the courts to appoint a guardina ad litem to handle its affairs.

When you say "You want Obama to fail", you and I understand that to mean "Knowing that his plans will do more harm than good, I hope that they do not come to pass."  Other observers might interpret it differently.

Have you ever used a racial epithet in a joking manner?  I have.  Not because I'm racist, but because I think the word sounds funny.  Would I ever say it on public?  On national radio?  Of course not.  Because it would make me sound like a racist.  Even though I know I'm not.

I'm not attacking Rush for telling the truth.  I'm attacking Rush for telling the truth in such a way that facilitates a false interpretation.

He's got three hours to say things.  Three hours to present his arguments.  He can go into quite a lot of depth.  If my problem was with Rush "telling the truth", I'd have a problem with his entire radio program, not his word choice in expressing a particular idea.

150 What a waste of time. Patterico starts from the idea that the democrat premise is true, that conservatives want Limbaugh to be the head of the Republican party, which shows just how out of touch he is. Conservatives like Limbaugh because, unlike people like Patterico and Frum, Limbaugh actually stands up for conservatives. So of course conservatives return the favor by standing up for Limbaugh. It doesn't mean they want him to be the head of the Republican party, they're just not going to sit idly by while he gets attacked by the media, democrats and their useful idiots like Frum. And seriously, quit complaining that Limbaugh does things to gain attention for himself, everyone can see that people like Paterico and Frum are jumping into the Limbaugh nonsense to gain attention for themselves.

151 I'll add it's time for people like Patterico and especially Eeyorepundit to decide why they even associate with conservatives or libertarian types.  I'm certain they find the "social cons" nothing but a millstone, and since Patty and Allah's Catamite both accept the MSM's portrayal of the Right, why stay?  I wouldn't if I believed the MSM.

Erm, because they're Conservatives?

You know, you don't actually get to decide who is or is not Conservative.  That's not how it works.

152 This is what we see with folks whose livelihoods depend on ratings. Coulter, Limbaugh, Malkin, I'm looking at you.

I guess Malor is a proud supporter of the Fairness Doctrine, then. That will shut those conservative blow-hards up.

Additionally, individuals who do not work and play well with others, that is, compromise, will have little success re-taking Congress and the White House.

Yeah, that's working real well in congress now, isn't it? The dhimmicrats aren't even bothering to talk with the republicans, let alone compromise with them. Sounds like Malor wants us to compromise (i.e., give up on our principles) rather than fight for what we believe in.

As Cartman says: "Weak!"

153 being true to conservative principles does not require that a person be offensive. Ur-example: William F. Buckley.

What the fuck are you talking about?  Mr. "Listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi, or I'll sock you in the goddamn face and you'll stay plastered" wasn't offensive?  William F. Buckley was gleefully offensive, or, better, didn't give a shit if he offended you, and if you didn't like it, cancel your own goddamn subscription.




Limbaugh's original "I hope he fails" comment was placed in a significant broader context.  It's the soundbite that carries with it the baggage of being too anti-Obama, and guess who spun it that way?  Attacking Limbaugh because you don't like how he says things, at least on this front, is a non sequitur, because he DIDN'T say it that way.  If you want to attack him for saying things the wrong way, at least go after the "Housing Queen" parody song or something like that.

154 "Armies who keep ceding ground never win."

That would be news to George Washington.

155 #138

Thank you.  If I could insert riotous applause here I would. It cannot be written or explained better.  I don't have much faith they'll "get it" but bravo. Do you have a blog somewhere?

156 "He could have said that better" means you're Obama's bitch?

No.  Patterico's (and Allah's, and Frum's, etc. etc.) "He could have said that better" means they are unuseful idiots, using the very limited real estate conservatives get in the media to criticize their closest allies, rather than give the White House-led Rush-bashing the "you've got to be kidding me" it deserves and then move on to more important things.

So Rush could have "said it better"?  So frickin' what.  For every time a Dem said something like "This is the first time I've ever been proud of my country," a liberal would say (1) that's just a snippet taken out of context, and (2) that's not what s/he meant, and then MOVE ON and steer the conversation back to whatever they wanted to talk about.  Not once do I remember column inches in the NYT, or segments on Hardball, being devoted to navel gazing about whether Michelle Obama or Keith Olbermann or Howard Dean were an embarrassment to the Democratic Party, or should parse their words better, or needed to adopt a more conciliatory tone.  And what most "undecideds" walked away with was the impression that it was all just a tempest in a teapot and anybody who dwelt on it was harping on a "distraction."

Not us, no sir.  When the White House sends its hit men to start a meme, we have bright lights like Patterico and Frum to turn it over like a bug and dissect it to death, to the point where everyone thinks this really was the most important thing to happen all week.  Unlike, say, the Dow dropping another 300 points or Obama admitting that he's so far in over his head he didn't realize we should be nice to the Prime Minister of the UK.

Gee, thanks.

157 This whole thing has been set up for decades, and is now fully realized. Liberals set out to define what could and could not be talked about, said, etc, and HOW any views could be verbalized, years and years ago. They invented PC, and face it or not, most everyone falls victim to it. Most everyone follows THEIR parameters, and regurgitates THEIR opinions as to who is guilty or not. THEY decided what rendered one a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, etc. And now, conservatives play right along. They scream about the first amendment, even as they play useful idiot to the liberals and their PC standards and double standards.

158 What a waste of time. Patterico starts from the idea that the democrat premise is true, that conservatives want Limbaugh to be the head of the Republican party, which shows just how out of touch he is.

From the article:

But many of you consider Limbaugh to be the spokesman of the conservative movement — and if our spokesmen regularly say stuff like that, we’ll alienate voters.

Look at Patterico's summation:

Rush has many of the above qualities ["clarity, vigor, integrity, perspective, and a lack of pettiness"] — but when he calls liberals “deranged,” I think he lacks perspective. And when he said “I hope he fails,” I think he sacrificed clarity for controversy.

See?  He didn't say that Rush "got too close to telling the truth"; just the opposite.

159 Well we are well and trully screwed if this is how it'll be for the next four years. forget 2010, we're too busy yelling at each other (present company included) to put together any kind of coherent message. Then over at the Other McCain we've got older conservatives bashing younger conservatives. Meanwhile O! can simply keep working as a hard leftist with a united party. Sad days, people, sad days.

160 Bah.  Patterico banned me just for calling allahpundit gay like 6 or 8 times.

And I meant it in a good way!  No thanks.

161 Clive,

Except he didn't use a racial epithet and he didn't say anything that could be misinterpreted ( expect by those, like you, who were going to willfully misinterpret anything he said to improve their own footing in their party of choice) other than that you're right on the money.  Buddy, do you read this stuff after you type it?  Cause if you don't ( and it sure as hell doesn't appear that you do) it's sort of inhuman of you to force the rest of us to.

162

135 Jones  Bottom line to me is: the other side plays dirty, and plays for keeps. They have the White House and Congress and the press, so clearly it's an effective strategy. They are now trying to define what we are in the minds of millions of voters.

We can cooperate, or we can push back.

Precisely! Rush must continue to speak the truth as he sees it, as we must too.  We just lost an election partially because McCranky pulled his punches several times, and Bush never had the skills to fight in the UFC and suddenly found himself in the Octogon.  Well, Rush knows how to fight no holds barred and he has the guts to do it. 

Rush is shifting the entire debate to the right, and even distorted through the media his message is cutting through the clutter...  They have made a tactical error that they will regret royally, and soon too.

163 >>When you say "You want Obama to fail", you and I understand that to mean "Knowing that his plans will do more harm than good, I hope that they do not come to pass." Other observers might interpret it differently.

No, Clive. Nobody with a functioning brain would interpret in any other way. You're attached to a losing argument. No matter what Rush said, they would have found a way to take his words, out of context or twisted them, and jumped all over him as a hater. You might try reading the actual transcript of what Rush said and you will see that the words "I hope Obama fails" were taken out of a long, very detailed explanation of why he wants him not to be succesful.

http://tinyurl.com/9dgs7v

The donks decided after the election to target Rush and make him the face of the Republican party. Even some of the less mendacious reporters are starting to call them and Obama specifically on this.

You, Paterrico and anyone else who can't see this are just helping them.

164 I'm like Gabe. This is so tiresome. Rush is not exactly trying to do party-building -- he's not a politician. Neither is Hannity or Levin or Ingraham. Each of these radio hosts has a different style, and their common bottomline is ratings and advertisements. That's their business.

While the pols are going to have to deal with whatever media-generated controversy of the day is to distract from other things, neither Rush nor the other radio hosts are actually party leaders. What I think they're good at is focusing action on a particular issue, such as the amnesty bill. But for electoral results, the party has to do something else entirely.

FWIW, when I was in college, I thought Rush a risible figure...until I started listening to him, and I found him extremely entertaining, though I didn't agree with him. Rush is nowhere near as inflammatory as many other radio hosts, whether conservative or liberal, but yes he has a penchant for punchy phrasing that can easily be flared up into some hoo-hah. And yes, he does it deliberately. It's his biz. But I agree that it's not good politics, in terms of getting particular people elected.

165 Rush Limbaugh is one of many conservative voices out there.  Only one.  It angers me that the left and the media (is this redundant?) are forcing this one voice to be the 'leader' of the party.  Good grief.

Don't let them set the agenda or the terms for us.

We should be unapologetic about Mr. Limbaugh.  He is one of the voices - he is not the 'leader', but a valued member of the team. 

166 You know, you don't actually get to decide who is or is not Conservative.  That's not how it works.

Yes it is; I can look at a worthless cocksucker like Andrew Sullivan when he spouts his lies about being a conservative and call bullshit on that crock.

167 You know, you don't actually get to decide who is or is not Conservative. That's not how it works.
Posted by: CliveStaples

Ahem. I can decide so if I please. There are folks out there who claim to be Conservatives, but they are not. When I see an ass-kissing phony like Frum , Brooks, or Patterico, I can and will call them so.

168 The fact that the national press is essentially an arm of the democrat party is the real issue. It should be pretty fucking obvious to every fucking body on our side that everything gets twisted and filtered by them to the benefit of their glorious party.

I'll start listening to the likes of cockholster Frum and a growing list (yeah a list) of castrati Republicans when they build their own network of 20,000,000 people from the ground up in a free marketplace where you don't have to sell your mouth to your enemy to be considered "successful". A place where one can speak freely without looking over their shoulder. It used to be called the United States of America.

Until then my money and mindshare is with Rush, even if he is 'unsuccessful' at being a whore for the new marxists and their pack of deciders. Live free or die!

As it is right now I sometimes listen to Rush but I will always cling to my guns, my right to say whatever I fucking I politically want, and my right to worship whatever it is I choose to call my higher power.

Step the fuck up conservatives! The Dems are making us play Soccer.

169 No.  Patterico's (and Allah's, and Frum's, etc. etc.) "He could have said that better" means they are unuseful idiots, using the very limited real estate conservatives get in the media to criticize their closest allies, rather than give the White House-led Rush-bashing the "you've got to be kidding me" it deserves and then move on to more important things.

And thus you miss the entire fucking point.

Patterico is trained in rhetoric.  He's a prosecutor.  He has to convince people for a living.  Conservatives might be well-served by actually listening to what other Conservatives have to say.

Criticism isn't ipso facto bad.  It can actually be constructive; it can help identify flaws and thus highlight potential improvements.  If our language needs tightening up, someone should speak up and say so.  Which is precisely what Patterico did.

170 Ahem. I can decide so if I please. There are folks out there who claim to be Conservatives, but they are not. When I see an ass-kissing phony like Frum , Brooks, or Patterico, I can and will call them so.

Frum and Brooks I grant you, but whose ass was Patterico kissing?  Because he dared to say that Rush Motherfucking Limbaugh could have phrased something better?  Yeah, what would a lawyer know about effective rhetoric.  Pssh.

171

What the fuck has this blog turned into?

*Obama voice: * This is not the hobo-killing cheap-ass-vodka-swilling blog I knew.

In any case, the bottom line for me is this: Wouldn't it be nice to win back Congress and the White House?

Yes, that would be nice. It would also be nice for big-titted, apple-assed redheads to give me free lapdances until I have an aneurysm.

None of this shit is going to happen.

A balls-out club-them-over-the-head-with-conservatism Republican wasn't the candidate that you bunch of I-heart-abortion-and-gay-marriage-and-Schiavoing-grandma milquetoasts propped up to run against President Lightworker. It was a love-me-because-I'm-not-like-the-other-Repugs-I'M-A-MAVERICK Dem-wannabe candidate - the candidate that you rolled over every other stronger candidate to get. And surprise of surprises, he lost.

Enough of you little crybaby shits have become Democrat wannabes, selling your souls and your mothers and every vertebrae you ever possessed to political realism, not comprehending that "realism" is an ideology like getting dragged behind a truck is transportation.

 

The current argument does not help us do that. So, for the love of Pete, can we please get over it?

That's what the Dems are going to tell you for the next 70 years as they're assraping you. I'll tell you what I'm going to tell them - eat a bowl of dicks. Horse dicks. On fire.

172 From the article: But many of you consider Limbaugh to be the spokesman of the conservative movement — and if our spokesmen regularly say stuff like that, we’ll alienate voters. Yeah, he starts from the democrat/media premise just like i said. Rush has many of the above qualities ["clarity, vigor, integrity, perspective, and a lack of pettiness"] — but when he calls liberals “deranged,” I think he lacks perspective. And when he said “I hope he fails,” I think he sacrificed clarity for controversy. See? He didn't say that Rush "got too close to telling the truth"; just the opposite. No, what he said is "i'm going to pretend i didn't understand what Limbaugh said because i don't like him".

173 Conservatives who attack Rush are doing Obama's bidding not because an attack on Rush is an attack on conservativism, but because Obama wants the discussion to be about Rush. Thus, all of these tools attacking Rush make Rush the issue and damage the conservative cause. Those who cannot see this are true idiots and should be in no position of prominence in the conservative movement or the GOP.

174 Funny, there have been a couple of different hang outs for the Frum crowd.  The first was that Limbaugh was evil for wishing Obama would fail to ruin the American economic system and establish a welfare state.  When that became an untenable position they fell back to thier current postion...which is,  "Rush is a close personal friend of mine and I agree with him unreservedly, but he didn't say it just right so he should never be allowed to say anything again.  Just listen to me."  This is really laughable crap.

175 I can't seem to format here for some reason, sorry for the bunched up comments.

176

Oh shit, were you arguing for kicking Dem ass? If so, disregard above statement and send to whomever it was who wants to shut Rush up.

177 Why are the enemies of Obastard, whom I want to fail utterly, still arguing about this teapot of tempests?  If it was just about the MSM bashing Rush, we would have moved on long ago.  The MSM always bashes him, whenever he says something that makes people sit up.

I think maybe it's this.  Conservatives have found, amidst the nearly universal fawning and cooing over the loveliness of our new Presidential Dreamboat, someone unwilling to go along with the pernicious euphoria.  Rush said "The Emperor has no clothes."  Well and good.  But allies we assumed were ready to oppose Obastard, vigorously, are scolding Rush for saying it.  "Don't talk about naked people, it's not nice!  If you talk about naked people, others will think you're a pervert!"  This is coming from people who should know better, and when your friends or family turn on you, it's worse than when your enemies do.

At any rate, Rush has done us a favor in unmasking some serious differences.  Furthermore, we need a real examination about what conservatives will do with politics in the Nation Below Canada.  Is there any longer an intersection between classical liberal (now known as conservative) values and the GOP?

178 155? - Thanks; appreciate it. I like Gabe, but for some things, he has trouble seeing past his paradigm. And while I'm not sure the Frum's of the world are reachable (especially after totally missing it on Palin - maybe the only Republican party politician the DNC actually fears - and still not understanding the McCain disaster), I think Gabe's gonna be OK (he's still pretty young).

179 No, Clive. Nobody with a functioning brain would interpret in any other way.

Ah, so you're ignoring Patterico's evidence, not his argument:

The responses — primarily from conservative readers with no desire to misread Limbaugh’s words — were all over the map:

“It was #1, and no doubt about it.”

“Patterico, I think it is very clear that Mr. Limbaugh means #2″

“#1 obviously.”

“Of course Limbaugh meant #2.”

If conservatives are this confused about Limbaugh’s message, then he didn’t express it clearly enough. And given the visibility of his CPAC speech, and the controversial nature of his remarks, he needed to be clear.

180 #171
I like angryoldfatmen.  Let's you and I send a bowl of horse dick flambée to Messrs. Frum, Brooks, Eeyore and Frump.

181 >>Ah, so you're ignoring Patterico's evidence, not his argument:

No, I'm ignoring Patterico.

Did you know that Rush's numbers have doubled since this little kerfuffle started and he has sold out his annual advertising already? His popularity is going up, Obama's is going down. You don't need to be a math major to figure out that this is not working for the Dems as well as they thought it would.

Oh, and I want Obama to fail. Do you?

182 Its a simple and old strategy that Obama's playing - make small attacks and goad the opposition until we get so sick of it that we can't take it any further. When we find that hill to die on, he destroys us. None of these arguments are taking place in the public eye. The public will see Obama's heavy hand as slapping down a rabid dog and judge it as deserved. Attack NOW. Don't let this shit develop as he wants it to.

183 but whose ass was Patterico kissing?


Whatever ass his cowardly heart thought best. Clive, Rush and what Rush says and the way Rush says things are not the problem.

Fear is the problem. Weakness is the problem. Too many people are too afraid to say what they think, and are too weak to do anything about it.

Rush is not afraid of the Left and all its minions. Too many Americans can not make the same claim.

184 And thus you miss the entire fucking point.

I took a poll and it was decided that this was more insulting than it needed to be and unlikely to win converts to your position.  Also, you could have phrased this in a more persuasive way.  Please change how you speak from now on in order to avoid this interpretation.

Patterico is trained in rhetoric.  He's a prosecutor.  He has to convince people for a living.  Conservatives might be well-served by actually listening to what other Conservatives have to say.

I'm an attorney trained in rhetoric who has to convince people for a living too.  And I'll let you in on a secret.  When I write a brief or give an oral argument for a client, I do not use it as an opportunity to to attack my own position so that I can appear "moderate" to the judge or jury. 

Patterico and others like him should go back to using their finely-honed persuasive skills arguing why conservatism's ideas are right and the other side's are wrong.  I do not care if he has a point about Limbaugh using impolitic words or not.  His sights are trained on the wrong target.

That's my point.  It's immaterial to me if it's yours or not.  Unlike Patterico and Frum and Allah, I don't cede to people I disagree with the right to decide the terms of the debate.

185

As far as I am concerned we should have room for all kinds of styles in the party, as long as the beliefs are reasonably conservative.  David Frum, please do not comment negatively on other conservatives on matters of style, because in doing so you give ammunition to our enemies.  If you think that your rights of free speech are more important than that, go ahead and criticize, but realize you are hurting us and helping them.

As for Limbaugh and Coulter, they have one thing we lack, and that is they are celebrities who can command media attention.  Coulter is the only one that even approaches the defacto standard for left-wing comedians (and news commentators).  Limbaugh is much tamer and quite thoughtful most of the time, as he was at CPAC.  I wish he would dial back the self-centeredness a bit, but hell, it is not necessary to be perfect to have some damn good points to make.

Here is a comment I saw at HA and I think it is worth considering:

javamartini on March 8, 2009 at 10:09 AM

Rather than offering advice to someone who does not need it( Rush), the conservative media should slap down every liberal who tries to twists anyone’s words out of context…this would save a lot of time having to worry about how you say anything…

In essence, why not stick together as a solid front when confronting liberals and their childish word games. If you want to discuss strategy, then you all should get together in secret as opposed to public debates that are used to divide the movement…

186

#170

ppl hate lawyers because they talk like politicans...

187

So why the hell are we playing Obama's game?

Gabriel, you finally reached the correct anaylsis in that one short question.

There needs to be a circular firing squad every once in a while, but why are we all -- Rush and his supporters and Frum, et al, and their supporters -- taking our orders from Obama, Carville, Emanuel, et al.?

188 It's not that I want Obama's policies to fail.  It's that I know they have been proven throughout history to be failures.  It's a foregone conclusion.  We are just waiting for the idiots of the world to come to realization.  AGAIN.

189 I guess the reason that Patterico, Frum, and others did not pick up the phone and call Rush so that their concerns could be voiced privately is that they were afraid he wouldn't take their calls.

Otherwise, why would anyone who is supposedly concerned about what is best for the Party criticize one of the conservative movement's most effective voices in public? I'm sure it's not because these losers wanted the publicity, right?

190 No, I'm ignoring Patterico.

Did you know that Rush's numbers have doubled since this little kerfuffle started and he has sold out his annual advertising already? His popularity is going up, Obama's is going down. You don't need to be a math major to figure out that this is not working for the Dems as well as they thought it would.

Depends.  If Obama successfully brands Rush as the head of the Republican party, it might have all sorts of deleterious effects on the already rather fractious Republican faction of the Senate.

So you don't think there's any way that Rush deliberately chose that phrase to spark controversy?  It's just not possible?  Not that there's anything wrong with that--the Obama administration is already getting knocked on its tactics, and Rush nets a hefty profit (which is a good thing).

Oh, and I want Obama to fail. Do you?

I know he'll fail.

191 Patterico was wrong about Limbaugh and should be refuted, but he doesn't merit the nasty slurs. The Obamites must be rolling in the aisles as their opponents tear each other to pieces.

192 Gabriel M, Your last "update" paragraph is the only sensible takeaway from any of this.

It's a false dichotomy, and what Limbaugh says reflects on Limbaugh, and any attempt of the left to count him "king goof" and conservatives his goof followers isn't anything but shenanigans.

193 "Armies who keep ceding ground never win."

That would be news to George Washington.

I doubt it.  Without the aid of the French army Washington would have kept losing until he ran out of food and men.

194 >>I know he'll fail.

Then have the courage of your conviction and stop worrying about what a radio entertainer says.

195 Clive, fuck your mother, every other welfafre recipient has.

196 I'm an attorney trained in rhetoric who has to convince people for a living too.  And I'll let you in on a secret.  When I write a brief or give an oral argument for a client, I do not use it as an opportunity to to attack my own position so that I can appear "moderate" to the judge or jury. 

Neither did Patterico.  He didn't suggest that Rush "moderate" his opinions.  He suggested that Rush express his Conservative ideas with more clarity.

There needs to be a circular firing squad every once in a while, but why are we all -- Rush and his supporters and Frum, et al, and their supporters -- taking our orders from Obama, Carville, Emanuel, et al.?

I thought people were mischaracterizing Patterico's argument--see above--which is why I'm banging my head against the wall in here.  Patterico's a good advocate of Conservative ideas, and I'd hate to see him alienated because people assumed he was Frum, Jr. (Did anyone even read the part where he criticized Frum, and praised Limbaugh?)

197 I call for Rush to soften his tone as soon as DAilyKos and the rest soften their rhetoric.  Until then, damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!

198

Oh, and I want Obama to fail. Do you? 

Obama has already failed, and as the old song says: "it's all over but the cryin."  Do I want him to fail?  No I'd rather have unicorns and free money falling out of helocopters actually save us all!  But that cannot happen, and I don't want to become Cuba.  So, yes I want him to FAIL!

199 Clive, do you want Obama to fail?

I do. How about you?

200 This current kerfuffle doesn't start with Limbaugh, it starts with Alinsky.

Guys like Frum, Allahpundit and Patterico think that statements can be massaged so as to render them bullet-proof from distortion or Democrat attack.

They're wrong.  Even if all Rush ever did was approach the microphone and say "the" in a neutral voice, by that evening the Left would be attacking it.

The Left and the MSM (but I repeat myself) is dishonest.  They lie and distort at every opportunity, and it is a waste of time trying to pre-empt that.

201
Then have the courage of your conviction and stop worrying about what a radio entertainer says.

Why should I 'worry'?  My convictions, and my courage thereof, have never been at issue.  What has been at issue is the willful misinterpretation and ridiculous sectarianism directed at Patterico, which I found repugnant.

Clive, fuck your mother, every other welfafre recipient has.

I don't have a mother.  Me and my dad share yours.

202 Weren't we assured by the "play nice" crowd that the bile and vitriol regularly spewed by Dean, Kos, Huffpo, Keefums, Matthews, the Hollywood phonies, and the other countless BDS sufferers would "turn off" the vast moderate middle of the road voter?

That really worked out for us in 2006 and 2008, didn't it..

The Republoweenies like Frum think a winning strategy is to politely object to the bully kicking sand in our faces. Rush and Annie Baby know that the best defense is to bulk up, come back and beat the shit out of the bully.

203 I'm also sick of this line that "Rush just says anything to get ratings and cash."

This is so stupid only an incipient libtard could think of it.  It smacks of a signal symptom of liberal thought: Judging someone on the basis of assessing motives or intentions, not actions and results.

Frum has no ratings and little following, yes?  Rush has 20 million listeners and an enormous following, yes?  What keeps the millions listening to Rush?  Is it his "outrageousness?"  You know, he could be outrageous and interview silicone-buttressed strippers and talk about bukkakke.  He could be outrageous, co-host with David Duke and tell racist jokes that skirt the line of acceptability.  He could be outrageous and hold on-air classes of Women 101, teaching righetous dudes how to really deal with women.  He could be outrageous and talk all day about oxycontin addiction and have pathetic tear-jerker guests with tragic stories of substance abuse, and then give them cars.  I've got an even better stunt to generate ratings:  Start praising Obastard and defending his fascist rule.  Have on pro-Obastard guests, and start saying he wants Steele to fail, Palin to fail, the GOP to fail.  I guaranteed with platinum codicils that millions would tune in who haven't before.

But Rush doesn't do that.  Why?  Hint:  He doesn't do what he does to have millions of listeners.  He has millions because he does what he does.

There's no end to the ways he could generate ratings, but he wouldn't keep nor expand the audience he has if he started changing his message.  If you lose sight of what he's saying and only look at what others say about him, you'll never understand his success, and why so many of us stand by him.

204 Yaaay, Kensington.

205 Clive, do you want Obama to fail?

I do. How about you?

How many fucking Shibboleths do I have to go through?

His name is Robert Fucking Paulson, okay?

206 "Frum looks fat to me."

That's just his head.

207 Shut up gabe.

208 "What Frum and his ilk want to do is create an idiologically pure fiscal conservatism movement devoid of social conservative core values."

See Schwarzenneger, Arnold, for an example of how well that works.

209 For someone who professes to be weary of this, you sure can go on and on about it.

Rush is offensive?  What a spineless bunch we conservatives have become.  It's unfortunate that conservatives are so eager to surrender. 

We've become the French of American politics.  Viva la France!

210

er...that kudo was for post 200, K'. Very on-point.

211 Forget Obama and forget about Rush!

As a Conservative and a Dittohead, what I want most is a presidential candidate that I believe in (Sarah). But whomever this candidate is, they will need to have a broad enough personality to appeal to a very large percent of the Republican party.

Is the Republican party really broken or is this just another left wing attack?

Fixing the party talk, in my mind, is the left giving us a "busy" task to keep us from focusing on what is really important. Better to find the right candidate who can bring the party together and have steel you know what's to be able to withstand the attacks from the left.

212 "Imagine a world without Limbaugh, Coulter, ...
Tell me who would speak for us."

Brooks.

213 The Republicans need to start making actual arguments for their policies and positions. Bush rarely did it, especially in the second term, and McCain, in the debates, didn't really do it either. They need to make principled arguments.

214

212. BWA-HA-HA.

yer on FIRE, dude!

215 Clive, just say yes or no.

216 100 Ever notice that Democrats never work themselves into bouts of anxiety over being too controversial?  Screamin' Howard Dean said "We have met the enemy and he is George W. Bush," and not one Donk batted an eye or lost a night's sleep over Dean's comment. No one criticized the Hildabeast for the idea of a "Reset" button being a cheap shot at Bush.  They don't care if they're controversial.  So why should we care if Rush or Coulter or anyone else is?

Posted by: Reiver at March 08, 2009 12:59 PM (gDQD0)

Exactly. You keep getting "extreme" ideas out there and they do have an effect on the mushy middle. So we need to keep pushing the O-cession meme. The corruption in his administration line is a good secondary attack. And depending on the situation you can be as subtle as you need to be.

Surrounded by liberals? "Wow, I didn't think the market would be this bad - its lost a decade of growth!" or "I'm thinking of not paying my taxes this year - that way if I get laid off I can always go work for the government."

If it is mushy moderates you find yourself around then start blaming Obama. "Everytime that guy speaks my 401k loses money." Or, "I can't believe how much debt Obama is putting on our kids with his giveaways".

217 Those of you trying to read Patterico out of the conservative movement need to calm down a bit.  Just because you've got a disagreement with him doesn't mean he isn't a conservative or he's operating in bad faith.  The guy is a prosecutor, he's used to using very precise language in an effort to avoid misunderstanding.

That said, I think he's wrong.  Oh, it's true if Rush had phrased that particular sentence differently this whole thing could have been avoided.  But if he had the Democrats would have just moved on to the next most easily pilloried sentence.  What Patterico maybe isn't considering is how easy it is for people to misunderstand you when they're actively trying to misunderstand you.

Language is a means of communication.  It's abundantly clear what Limbaugh was trying to say in context, and we should draw the battle line at the meaning of what he said, not at the words.  Drawing the line where Patterico is drawing it just concedes too much - it sets us up for further defeats down the line.

And Frum?  Frum definitely falls on the Parker/Brooks axis.  He's no conservative.

218 >>Posted by: Entropy at March 08, 2009 12:52 PM (cok/k)

Entropy, I respect your right to have any lifestyle you prefer. But when it shows up in your IP hash, it is a bit creepy.

219 Every time Rush is brought up by the pundits,they should be reminded Al Sharpton is a member in good standing in thier party.And while he may not be considered it's leader,that alone should be embarrassing  enough to make them STFU.If not,why would anyone take them seriously?

220 >>What has been at issue is the willful misinterpretation and ridiculous sectarianism directed at Patterico, which I found repugnant.

And yet, as has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, what the left has done is willfully misrepresented what Limbaugh said and you can't seem to work up the same level of indignation. I might not be a fancy pants trained prosecutor skilled in the arts of rhetoric but I do understand the meaning of irony.

221

Gabriel:

There is a new medication for depressed gays, like youself. It is called:

Tripussyagain

Try some!

222

>> That would be news to George Washington.

Not to mention MacArthur.  Chester Nimitz.  or Matt Ridgeway.

 

Well, except I did.

223 Clive, just say yes or no.

Yes or no. ba-dum *tsh*

224 213 The Republicans need to start making actual arguments for their policies and positions. Bush rarely did it, especially in the second term, and McCain, in the debates, didn't really do it either. They need to make principled arguments.

Posted by: gaping Asshole at March 08, 2009 02:13 PM (JhnX4)

They do, and Bush didn't, but I would say the bigger need is a coherent attack strategy. The mushy middle doesn't care much about what your plan might be, after all Obama didn't mention what his actually way. But they will pay attention to what is wrong with the other guy's plan if you put it in the right way. "Obama's giveaway" "Government of the crooks, by the crooks, for the crooks", etc. 

225

 Folks who believe the first alternative should consider that the Democrats won in spite of their feces flinging rather than because of it. There was a little bit of an Iraq War Slump in 2006 and an economic meltdown in 2008 that more readily explains their victories

Folks who believe the above statement should consider that said feces flinging contributed in no small part to the "Iraq War Slump in 2006 an an economic meltdown in 2008".  It's a chicken/egg thing Malor.  Or self-fulfilling prophecy, if you like.

226 Here it comes. Another week of talking/writing/pissing/moaning about Limbaugh and/or his detractors. Never mind that Barack "This President Shit Has Me Tired as Fuck" Obama is about ready to drift off into slumber land at the wheel. Love him or hate him, I know that Limbaugh will be going after Barry like a motherfucker this week. Frum, Brooks, and Allah? Who the fuck knows. +1 for Limbaugh.

227

It is so lame that the big brains in the republican party, from RNC chair down to your favorite blogger feel the need to step in piles of shit. The Dems/Media lay one down on the sidewalk and "our" guys cheerfully walk right into it.

This is made up crap, if it wasn't Rush it would be something else. The moderates are turned off by Limbaugh? But Moore, Wright, Pelosi, Reid and on and on are just A-OK? The half-assers haven't had a reason to think, but their getting reasons now. So when they wake up, Lets have a real place they can go.

Note to dimwit Repubs, When asked about this stupid Rush shit. Just say, Limbaugh can not do anything to anybody, you can even turn him off if you like.

228 <i>So why the hell are we playing Obama's game? We should not pretend that our only options are to support Obama or to support Limbaugh.</i>

Heavens.  No one says that.  In fact, we're saying what McLuhan said years ago.  The medium is the message; but the message is also the medium.  Methodology is inseparable from the message.  When Rush condensed his spoken word radio talk show message into "I want him to fail," he is well aware of the methodology.  And only a poison-tipped lance like that can break through the universal adolescent adulation of the MSM.  He's got us talking, and that is good.

What should he have said?  "I want him to succeed, although I oppose every single policy and philosophy of this man?"  Yeah, that's a real winner, there.  Real clear and pointed.  Nothing contradictory about it.

This election marked a real turning point in this nation.  It's no longer possible to dance gracefully around issues.  The MSM is playing the music, it's a lousy tune, and the only thing to do is either quit dancing or start playing your own music.

229 And yet, as has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, what the left has done is willfully misrepresented what Limbaugh said and you can't seem to work up the same level of indignation. I might not be a fancy pants trained prosecutor skilled in the arts of rhetoric but I do understand the meaning of irony.

The Left is always going to do that.  Why give them help?

230 Imagine for a moment if Rush were a Leftist and a remarkably effective, persuasive advocate for liberal values.  And I'm not talking about him being a dishonest douchebag like Michael Moore, just a Leftwing Rush Limbaugh.

If that were the case, the Left would be celebrating him every day.  They would have his back, and they would treat him with all the respect and support he deserved.  They would be grateful for him.

Sometimes, I don't think we deserve Rush Limbaugh.

231 Clive, how did it feel when you pulled the lever for Obama?

Did you feel a tingle?

You still have not answered the question about wanting Obama to fail.

You are not what you claim to be.

232 Ditto #226

233 All this "we have to win them back with POLICY talk would be fine if the voting public voted based on policy. They didn't vote for Obama because of policy, they voted for him based on his sonorous teleprompter voice, his sales pitch of Hopenchange, and his amazing ability to be black.

We could produce volumes of policy wonkery, and it'll be the question of "if Helen Keller is alone in the woods and she falls down, did she make a sound".

Listen to Hannity's "Man on the Street" segments or John Ziegler's "Media Malpractice", and you'll find confirmation that the vast majority of Obama voters have no clue what he really wants to do except "change".

Rush and Annie Baby's books are hot sellers in the bookstores again, while you probably have to spend quite a while trying to find David Frum's book, if you can find an average voter who even knows who David Frum is.

15,000 people showed up in Fullerton CA yesterday for John and Ken's Tea Party. If you've listened to their show on KFI, these guys are loud and in your face, not polite policy wonks.

Anyone here think David Frum or David Brooks could get 15,000 Southern Californians to jam into a town without sufficient parking?

234

The left wing and their media cohort's are a cabal and disinormation engine, we all know that. They are framing the debate and quite a few on the right are swallowing it hook, line and sinker. The fact that there are those on the right that would even argue over this and go all apeshit and inflammatory toward's one another is epic fail for conservatives and nothing but win-win for the left.

Last time I checked, noone was going after anyone in the popular leftist media over any of the outrageous comment's and accusation's they make on a daily basis, when the proper response could have been, does Randi Rhodes, Bill Maher , Al Franken [or insert any other leftist media figure here and libelous slanderous statement they had made] speak for or represent the whole of The Democratic party and it's voter's? Turn the tables on em'.

People, our silence on this issue would be deafening. Unfortunately, we have let ourselves become the bitches of Emmanuel, Axelrod, Carville, Begala, Steph and the D.U. and Kos kiddies. They are all no doubt slapping each other on the back and having one hell of rip-snorter atour expense.

Until the leadership in The GOP grow's a pair and stand's ready and willing to battle for conservtism, instead of high-tailing it at any sign of a fight and they stop joining the left in their attack's on other conservatives and it's consituency, then I have no problem letting a fat, cigar chomping neo-con nazi hatemonger speak for me.

A wise man once said:

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

235 Those of you trying to read Patterico out of the conservative movement need to calm down a bit.

Second that.  My beef is far more with Frum, Brooks and AllahPander.

236 Neither did Patterico.  He didn't suggest that Rush "moderate" his opinions.  He suggested that Rush express his Conservative ideas with more clarity.

Yeah, I know.  And my question is:  why is he writing articles and guest columns suggesting what Rush say and how he says it at all?  Is this the most pressing topic of our time?  Is this really the best strategy for NOT letting the White House decide what is worth talking about (look over there!  Rush Limbaugh!  He's fat and loud!!) and what isn't?

Do you realize that when Obama and his hit men started this meme, nothing in the world could keep it going if people just said "This is bullshit, not worthy of discussion" and moved on?  Does Patterico?

There's nothing so mind-bogglingly ironic than conservatives with microphones letting the White House and its hit men decide WHAT we should be talking about all week, thinking that they're accomplishing something by fruitless arguments about HOW we talk about it.  Once you let them choose the topic, we've already lost.

237 >>let's not alienate people who should be our allies just because we have occasional differences of opinion. (cf social conservatives vs libertarians).

If Instapundit is a good representative of Libertarians, I do not think he is turned off by social conservatives. If my reading of him is correct, he realizes that Libertarians and social cons have differences, but must unite to defeat Obama's statism.

And Insty never criticized Rush, AFAIK.

238 The "moderates" are turned off by Rush's fail comment because the press tells them to be turned off by the simulacrum of what Rush said.

That is the problem. Hell, that's the problem in any [aspiring] totalitarian system.

239 This "we have to work with the Frums and Brooks" types is a one way street. Do the Republoweenies in turn say 'we have to respect Rush and Annie Baby's following among the base conservatives"? No, the Dinner Party set says that we have to drive out the Limbaughs, Levins, Coulters, and Hannitys because it upsets them when their liberal elite friends bring it up at the parties.

240 Clive, how did it feel when you pulled the lever for Obama?

Did you feel a tingle?

You still have not answered the question about wanting Obama to fail.

You are not what you claim to be.

eman, you're a fuckin clown.  I wanted Thompson to get the nomination, but we got saddled with McCain.  Who I voted for anyway.

"You are not what you claim to be."  Oh, you got me, Helo!  I'm a fucking Cyliberal with nothing better to do that defend Patterico's Conservatives bona fides.  It's all part of my nefarious plan.  All the pieces are falling right into place.  MWAHAHA!!

241 What part of the concept of "standing on principle" doesn't Gabe get?

Here's an excerpt from a speech from '06 by John Taylor of Tertium Quids
.

As parents we know that we cannot discipline children without first explaining:


what the rules are, and


what the consequences will be for inappropriate behavior.





With a national election one week behind us, and the entire General Assembly up for reelection in November of next year, now is the perfect time to explain to our elected representatives:


what the rules are, and
what the consequences will be for inappropriate behavior.


1st principle - Never, Never, Again.


I will never go to the polls again to vote for someone who does not share, and who is not actively advancing, my principles and values.




I will never go to the polls again because this candidate is slightly more competent than that candidate.




I will never go to the polls again because, "Sure my candidate stinks, but he's a [add the name of a political party here]."


Let's get something straight. It is not our job to support political candidates. It is their job to earn our support. Period.

242 ...and thank you too for playing in this little game.

Sincerely,
"O"

243 Clive, you are the one who is fixated on nuance over principle.

Answer the question.

244 Yeah, I know.  And my question is:  why is he writing articles and guest columns suggesting what Rush say and how he says it at all?  Is this the most pressing topic of our time?  Is this really the best strategy for NOT letting the White House decide what is worth talking about (look over there!  Rush Limbaugh!  He's fat and loud!!) and what isn't?

Do you realize that when Obama and his hit men started this meme, nothing in the world could keep it going if people just said "This is bullshit, not worthy of discussion" and moved on?  Does Patterico?

There's nothing so mind-bogglingly ironic than conservatives with microphones letting the White House and its hit men decide WHAT we should be talking about all week, thinking that they're accomplishing something by fruitless arguments about HOW we talk about it.  Once you let them choose the topic, we've already lost.

He posted an article at Hot Air.  Is the standard really "Is it the most pressing topic of our time"?  It was a controversy that he was apparently interested in enough to do a scant bit of data collection and write a short piece on.  It's not like he nailed 95 theses on the EIB studios door.

You really think Patterico was interested in this because Barack Obama told him to be?  How simpleminded can you possible be?

245 Patterico is actually engaging in a form of "friendly fire."  He needs to re-acquaint himself to who the enemy is.

246 183
"Fear is the problem. Weakness is the problem. Too many people are too afraid to say what they think"

Because "conservatives" have bought into liberal PC thought/ speech hook, line and sinker. You can say anything you want. But if it is not prefaced with some PC BS qualifying statement, or followed with same, what happens? Are you asked to explain, or clarify, or support? Nope, you're demonized with the same shit Liberals pour all over everyone.

This thing is not winnable. When conservatives are no longer able to speak their mind without being attacked by (supposedly) their own kind, it's end game.

Obama skated to his win in no small part due to "conservatives" being good little useful idiots, playing by liberals rules of engagement. Not going "there" or "there" or "there".

The first amendment now comes with a disclaimer. Not because of liberals, but because of "us"...

247 gabe, you are wrong

248

Folks who believe the first alternative should consider that the Democrats won in spite of their feces flinging rather than because of it.

Dead wrong. The dirtiest stuff was so bad that you let the merely nasty slide. The left spent 8 yrs calling Bush, "Hitler" so that when they said, "Lied us into war" it sounded like civil discourse. It was all part of the same play: Tar the other side like mad and some will stick.

We need to be as tenacious as they. Lay into every single policy, personality and scandal. And we don't need to lie.

249 >>The Left is always going to do that. Why give them help?

We aren't. You are.

I can see you just aren't going to get it but I will give it one final chance. By your own admission, the left will always twist our words, find a target, make us demons. It's what they do. It's what they have always done and will always do in the future.

What Limbaugh said, in context, was not controversial but the left took it out of context to try and start a controversy because they know he is a lightening rod. A manufactured crisis, and they would have found something to use no matter what he said. Now we can either point this out or we can play the game the left wants and react by condemning Rush and his words.

I choose the former, Patterico chooses the latter. Rush is not helping them and he's not going to play their game. He is going to continue to fire broadsides at Obama and I am going to enjoy every minute of it.

250 How many years do you want to wander in the wilderness?

I don't care, but when the pendulum swings back toward Republicans, I want the DeMint-Sessions wing in charge of the party, not the Snowe-Collins-Specter-McCain wing.

251

Patterico is actually engaging in a form of "friendly fire

 

It ain't friendly fire if you can see who your shootin' at.

252 Topic for all of next week's posts.  "We agree with Rush completely, but wouldn't we be better off if he were thin, like Obama and had really dreamy arms like Obama's wife?"

253

"Even though I don't agree with Patterico on this issue, I do realize that a successful resurgence of Conservatism in America will require a truce between the Protein Wisdom and Patterico's Pontifications factions of the movement. Even though Patterico thinks that Rush Limbaugh made a mistake here, he's still "one of us" and we should be trying to convince him that his position is mistaken rather than firing up the rhetorical wood chipper that we use on apostates.

And the commenters who are lighting up Gabe for his post?

Three words, baby. Lighten up, Francis."

Gabe deserves to be "lit up."  It's patently dishonest to adopt this adolescent "I'm so tired of all this nonsense why can't we just be awesome like me" attitude and then proceed to devote several paragraphs to the subject when he's so totally over it.  If you're really that above it all and tired of it, drop it.  Otherwise quit pretending at the style for coolness points.  As I said to Pat, I see what you did there, and you're not that clever.

But regardless, many MANY attempts have been made to convince Patterico.  He just evades and plays dumb.  It's enough to drive one mad.  Of course, when one considers that he thinks that Obama is such a terribly a good and decent man, it all starts to click.  Really getting tired of the transparently facile crap from attorneys.

254 Clive, you are the one who is fixated on nuance over principle.

Answer the question.

I'm not fixated on nuance.  I'm fixated on correcting you morons about Patterico's argument.  Which, incidentally, is not about choosing nuance over principle; rather, it's about choosing clarity over controversy.  Patterico argues that Rush's language needlessly traded clarity to achieve controversy.  Now, whether or not you agree with that argument, there is no reasonable interpretation of Patterico's claims that could possibly lead to the conclusion that he wanted to 'moderate' Rush's opinions, or for Rush to be less 'principled'.

Do I actually want Obama to fail?  No.  I want him to succeed.  Which means that he'll need to abandon this Socialism crap and read some F.A. Hayek and some Friedman.

255 And the week after... "Yeah, Obama has wrecked the American way of life but he said all the right things while he did it.  So it's cool."

256 Frum:  With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party.

A retarded troll tried to make that same point on my blog the other day. I'm sorry, but anyone who takes the Frum, Patterico, Brooks side of this has their head up their ass, and are taking the White House's bait, hook line and sinker. This unfighting is exactly what Obama/Emanuel want in order to distract us from his blunders, destructive policies, and bad appointments.

Did you know that Obama has already appointed more "policy Czars" than any other President?

He has 'super aides' for healthcare, the economy, energy and urban issues, with more to come -- prompting some lawmakers and groups to worry that he may be concentrating power and bypassing Congress.

This is causing concern even on the Democrat side:

Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) became concerned enough to send a cautionary letter to Obama last week. At times, he said, past White House staffers have assumed duties that should be the responsibility of officials cleared through the Senate confirmation process. He cited President Bush's naming of homeland security czar Tom Ridge as an example.

"They rarely testify before congressional committees and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege," Byrd wrote of past czars and White House staffers in similar positions. At times, he said, one outcome has been to "inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability."

"The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances," Byrd said.

Anyway, everyone knows that Rush is right, 98.7% of the time. And he gets his point across with great humor, and flair. The problem the Republican party has is that there aren't more like him.

257 Any conservative that spends a lot of time being bashed by the MSM, Obama, or fake conservatives is a dangerous (able to connect with average joe american) person to the liberals, that's why they do it.

Any conservative bashed by those folks needs to be supported in full by ad revenue, readership, listenership, votes and campaign donations.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

258 Bringing up the Oak Paneled conservatism of William F Buckley was fine in its day, but that was when liberals could debate issues, not fling shit like deranged monkeys.

Do a quick survey on your street. Ask people who give you a minute to ask if they've heard of the following

Rush Limbaugh
David Brooks
Sean Hannity
David Frum
Ann Coulter
Peggy Noonan
Elisabeth Hasselback
Michelle Malkin
Laura Ingram
Mark Levin
Larry Elder
Kathleen Parker
Christopher Buckley

259 Touche, Russ. Your point is spot on.

260 As far as being in the wilderness, Gabe? As long as it takes. As long as it takes for a principled conservative to emerge to lead us out of that wilderness; who is not afraid to say what needs to be said.

Moderates are cowards. They want to have it both ways, and as a result, will not take a stand on principle. They are worthless and they are in my fucking way. I have no use for moderations, because, quite frankly, the center will never hold. It will only delay.

If winning elections means becoming a whore, then, Gabe, Ace, et.al., you're well on your way. Remember to leave your tattered dignity in the closet. You won't be needing it anymore.

261 And in April there will be an entire series of posts entitled.  "The MSM, wrong, but wrong in the right way, which should be close enough for us."

262  A retarded troll tried to make that same point on my blog the other day. I'm sorry, but anyone who takes the Frum, Patterico, Brooks side of this has their head up their ass, and are taking the White House's bait, hook line and sinker.

Reading comprehension, Deb? Patterico writes a post calling Frum petty, lacking in integrity, and not a "true conservative" and yet you lump them in together.

You have accepted Obama's false dichotomy that we must stand with Obama or stand with Limbaugh.

263 Clive, Rush's clarity is abundant and powerful.

That is why his enemies fear him.

Thank you for answering the question. BTW, Obama can no more abandon Socialism than a cobra can become a herbivore.
What sort of Conservative wants the impossible?

264

Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) became concerned enough to send a cautionary letter to Obama last week. At times, he said, past White House staffers have assumed duties that should be the responsibility of officials cleared through the Senate confirmation process. He cited President Bush's naming of homeland security czar Tom Ridge as an example

 

Byrd is right as rain here. Funny thing is, I've seen alot of the nutroot's all of a sudden bring up Der Kleag-miester's past affiliation with the Klan when he raised a stink over this.

Funny,.........never bothered them before.

265 Patterico's Pontifications.


Now that pretty much says it all.

266 We aren't. You are.

I can see you just aren't going to get it but I will give it one final chance. By your own admission, the left will always twist our words, find a target, make us demons. It's what they do. It's what they have always done and will always do in the future.

What Limbaugh said, in context, was not controversial but the left took it out of context to try and start a controversy because they know he is a lightening rod. A manufactured crisis, and they would have found something to use no matter what he said. Now we can either point this out or we can play the game the left wants and react by condemning Rush and his words.

I choose the former, Patterico chooses the latter. Rush is not helping them and he's not going to play their game. He is going to continue to fire broadsides at Obama and I am going to enjoy every minute of it.

I look at the calculation a bit differently, I suppose.  What is the cost to frustrate the Left's design, even ever so slightly?  If all it takes is slightly different word choice, then why not? 

We fight crime, even though crimes will always continue to occur.  Similarly, even though liberal spin doctors will always twist our words, we should choose the words that most clearly and effectively communicate our ideas.  I don't think "I want Obama to fail" did that very well.  You may disagree. 

But we are not disagreeing about whether Rush should be voicing his opinion; we both agree that he should.  The question is about the effectiveness of his language, not the viewpoint it espoused.

267 Clive,

So like a battered spouse you don't want to leave the administration that is ruining you, you want to fix it, even though you know it has no desire at all to be fixed.  Someone said it a long time ago during the Enquirer- John Edwards dust up, but it still applies.  "Dude, the moron blog thing is supposed to be a joke."

268 Rush is controversial because the MSM doesn't like him. Throwing him under the bus for that reason is nothing but cowardice and surrender. Newt was "controversial" for the same reason. The MSM went after him with a vengence, and once the polls came through that said they successfully demonized him, the moderate repubs threw him under the bus.

The fact is, the liberals control the terms of the debate already. They invented "red state blue state" when in fact liberals were ALWAYS reds (or pinkos). To hand them ANY gift, including the diminution of our most powerful conservative voice, is foolish.  Those of you who choose to do that, you may as well just go to work for ACORN, because you are on the same team.

269

If I were Obama, I wouldn't want to talk about the real issues either.

I'd also stop being so damned metrosexual.  What are the odds this guy's had a penis inserted into a hole or two in his day?  He's a degree or so too fancy.

Then I'd have sex with his wife's arms.

270 I'm not going to read the comments above this until later--I want to make this suggestion unbiased.

There are a host of groups ripping our side (what ever that turns out to be named--"Our Side" will do for me).

We do not need people on Our Side ripping us up.

There is speaking individually now) only one person on the entire planet whose behaviour you can control in any meaningful way.

271 JackStraw, exactly right.

TheUnrepentantGeek:
"Gabe deserves to be "lit up."  It's patently dishonest to adopt this adolescent "I'm so tired of all this nonsense why can't we just be awesome like me" attitude and then proceed to devote several paragraphs to the subject when he's so totally over it."

This deserves to be repeated.  Honestly, it's the rest of us who are over it -- this thread is only here because Malor would rather launch this late salvo than, say, discuss the mind-blowing aftermath of DVDgate.  We won the flame wars, he (and Patterico) doesn't like that...  Too bad.

272 Reading comprehension, Deb? Patterico writes a post calling Frum petty, lacking in integrity, and not a "true conservative" and yet you lump them in together.

Not reading comprehension, just laziness. I didn't read the full Patterico post, I was commenting on a comment. But I have been following the argument, and think that Patterico is wrong.

You have accepted Obama's false dichotomy that we must stand with Obama or stand with Limbaugh.

No, I'm saying that we shouldn't be taking his bait, and throw Rush under the bus because people are (sometimes willfully) misunderstanding what he says.

273 You have accepted Obama's false dichotomy that we must stand with Obama or stand with Limbaugh.

Yeah, but you're forgetting people who stand in the middle of the road get run over.

Look these guys aren't being honest with themselves. They actually believe in this myth of bi-partisanship. Until they realize that the libtards don't want to get along, they just want to destroy us, they're not gonna get anywhere.

274 Patterico argues that Rush's language needlessly traded clarity to achieve controversy.  Now, whether or not you agree with that argument, there is no reasonable interpretation of Patterico's claims that could possibly lead to the conclusion that he wanted to 'moderate' Rush's opinions, or for Rush to be less 'principled'.

Do I actually want Obama to fail?  No.  I want him to succeed.  Which means that he'll need to abandon this Socialism crap and read some F.A. Hayek and some Friedman.

Posted by: CliveStaples at March 08, 2009 02:34 PM (ZSoVK)

Do you honestly believe that Rush intentionally chose that exact wording instead of the 'Monday Morning Quarterback' wording that Patterico is now saying he should have?' That's really fucking stretching it!

 

275 So like a battered spouse you don't want to leave the administration that is ruining you, you want to fix it, even though you know it has no desire at all to be fixed.  Someone said it a long time ago during the Enquirer- John Edwards dust up, but it still applies.  "Dude, the moron blog thing is supposed to be a joke."

...huh?  I can't "leave" an administration that I never 'joined' in the first place.

I want Obama to succeed.  I want Obama to see the error of his ways.  I also want to fuck Jessica Biel six ways from Sunday.

Do I expect any of these things?  Of course not.  But I wasn't asked about what I expect.

276 This whole steaming pile is based on accepting The One's premise that Limbaugh speaks for the GOP and granting the left the privilege of deliberately spinning a comment that Rush rather thoroughly explained.

So Limbaugh said something that pissed off The One. Who the fuck cares?

277 Gabe is already tired?

Politics is a constant fight, it's warfare without gunfire. Is Gabe going to be the crying guy in the ward that Patton had to slap?

If you're tired after a few months into this Gabe, perhaps it's time for you to do catblogging, foodblogging, or carblogging.

278 Do I actually want Obama to fail?  No.  I want him to succeed.  Which means that he'll need to abandon this Socialism crap and read some F.A. Hayek and some Friedman.

Posted by: CliveStaples at March 08, 2009 02:34 PM (ZSoVK)

Succeed at what, exactly?  What are the things he is he doing (or proposes to do) that you wish him success for?  You acknowledge that he needs to abandon "this Socialism crap..." yet you say, in the same paragraph, that you want him to succeed?   Sounds to me like you can't wrap your head around the fact that he needs to personally fail with his demonstrably socialist and reckless policies for the good of this country.  You aren't being concise and clear...you are leaving room for interpretation.

Here's something that is lost (intentionally or not) on Obama supporters of all ilks:  He can fail miserably as a president and America can actually be better for it if what he is doing as president is bad for America.  See how that works?  This country's success isn't directly linked to Obama's ability to implement socialist policies successfully.

I know that might be a lot to digest, Clive, but think about it before you say you want Obama to succeed. 

279 @271

You have articulated some of my thoughts on the matter perfectly.

280 The greatest irony to me is that all these needledicks who fret about Rush like to hold out William F. Buckley as the epitome of the gentleman intellectual, yet Buckley LOVED Rush.

281 Do you honestly believe that Rush intentionally chose that exact wording instead of the 'Monday Morning Quarterback' wording that Patterico is now saying he should have?' That's really fucking stretching it!

Yes, "think before you say things that will be broadcast on national radio" is really fucking stretching it.

No, I'm saying that we shouldn't be taking his bait, and throw Rush under the bus because people are (sometimes willfully) misunderstanding what he says.

Patterico hasn't suggested that Rush be thrown under the bus.  Seriously, go read his piece before commenting on it.

282 #150, #156, #184 - Kudos.

Clive, you keep arguing for clarity.  OK, fair enough.  What Rush said was absolutely clear to me and most other people, including those who are now trying to hang him.  EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT HE ACTUALLY MEANT.  SOME PEOPLE ARE PRETENDING IT MEANT SOMETHING ELSE TO FURTHER THEIR AGENDA.  Is that clear enough for ya? You are arguing that we should play their game whether you admit it or not.

The Libs are out there saying that they are basically enjoying this crisis because it allows them to cement their power and further their agenda.  Are the media and the Lib pundits wringing their hands over that?  No.  THEY AGREE WITH IT.  They want to win, which by definition to them is that WE LOSE. 

283 "They actually believe in this myth of bi-partisanship.


Amen to that. When I hear a republican talk about bi-partisanship I gird myself for the inevitable punch in the kidneys, liver and spleen.

That is something else RUSH is right about; bi-partisanship to democrats is republicans giving up their ground.

284 Succeed at what, exactly?  What are the things he is he doing (or proposes to do) that you wish him success for?  You acknowledge that he needs to abandon "this Socialism crap..." yet you say, in the same paragraph, that you want him to succeed?   Sounds to me like you can't wrap your head around the fact that he needs to personally fail with his demonstrably socialist and reckless policies for the good of this country.  You aren't being concise and clear...you are leaving room for interpretation.

I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's making a good-faith attempt to revive the economy.  Wrong, not stupid.  Well, maybe both.

I want him to successfully help the economy.  I want him to be a successful president.  I sure as sh*t don't expect it to happen, but I'd like it if it did.

285

Clive, I read what Patterico said.  I will say it again.  Patterico is being a Monday Morning Quarterback about what Rush said.

286 No, I'm saying that we shouldn't be taking his bait, and throw Rush under the bus because people are (sometimes willfully) misunderstanding what he says.

Nice Deb, Patterico has not thrown Limbaugh under the bus. Saying "Rush Limbaugh does not speak for me" is not throwing him under the bus. Writing, as Patterico did, that the Republican party could use a better figurehead is not throwing Limbaugh under the bus, especially since Limbaugh himself has said that he is not the figurehead of the Republican party.

If you're tired after a few months into this Gabe, perhaps it's time for you to do catblogging, foodblogging, or carblogging.

kdabear, I said I was tired of this Limbaugh spat. Sheesh.

287 Clive, you keep arguing for clarity.  OK, fair enough.  What Rush said was absolutely clear to me and most other people, including those who are now trying to hang him.  EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT HE ACTUALLY MEANT.  SOME PEOPLE ARE PRETENDING IT MEANT SOMETHING ELSE TO FURTHER THEIR AGENDA.  Is that clear enough for ya? You are arguing that we should play their game whether you admit it or not.

I don't give a sh*t what game anyone wants to play.  This is a pragmatic, strategic question: Was the avoidable ambiguity of Rush's phrasing worth the cost of facilitating the left's spin doctors?

So you're alleging that the people who responded in the poll were deliberately lying in furtherance of their own agenda?  Perhaps the joos?

288 I want Obama to succeed.  I want Obama to see the error of his ways.  I also want to fuck Jessica Biel six ways from Sunday.

At this point I think we can discern that the latter is far more likely than the former. Obama is blowing full steam ahead to enact socialism and government control of every aspect of life. It's who he is and always has been. He's no more likely to see the error of his ways and become Milton Friedman than Jesse Jackson is to become Thomas Sowell.

I liken your attitude sincere as it is to the wife who on discovering that her husband is an alcoholic abusive lecher who can't manage his finances, but still convinces herself to stay in the marriage because "people change". People do change, but only after they've faced the awful consequences of their ways, not because others enabled them to continue the bad behavior because they hoped they would some day see the light.

289 I can't top #55, except to say Patterico's the same guy who got into it with Goldstein early on about "giving Obama a chance." Right, well, he's had his chance, and look where the hell we are, less than two freaking months after the crowning of the king. Point, set, and match to Goldstein.

Don't people like Patterico and AP have anything -- a 401K, a retirement account, a mortgage, kids, parents, a job -- that's in jeopardy right now, that they can afford all this G-D sophistry while Rome burns?

Really, who the hell cares what they think? When they get an audience of 20 million+, like Rush, and can articulate the anger/frustration of ordinary working Americans, let us know. Right now, both of them aren't doing much more than trolling for hits with their pseudo-sophisticated crap.

290 As long as we're fighting each other, it's good to remember that the Democrats have NO RIGHT to claim the moral high ground on the issue of the President's success: see here.

291 I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's making a good-faith attempt to revive the economy.  Wrong, not stupid.  Well, maybe both.

I want him to successfully help the economy.  I want him to be a successful president.  I sure as sh*t don't expect it to happen, but I'd like it if it did.

Posted by: CliveStaples at March 08, 2009 02:58 PM (ZSoVK)

Actually helping the economy and being a "successful president" are different things entirely.  One is wishing well for the country, the other is wishing him personal success with policies that you have acknowledged are "Socialist". 
How much damage do Obama and the Dems who are in power have to cause before you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt?  Why do you give Obama the benefit of doubt about the direction he wants to take this country when he has explicitly defined that direction and it goes against everything this country was founded on?

292 I don't give a sh*t what game anyone wants to play.  This is a pragmatic, strategic question: Was the avoidable ambiguity of Rush's phrasing worth the cost of facilitating the left's spin doctors?

So you're alleging that the people who responded in the poll were deliberately lying in furtherance of their own agenda?  Perhaps the joos?

Posted by: CliveStaples at March 08, 2009 03:03 PM (ZSoVK)

 

So is there an ambiguity clearing house that Rush and the rest of us can start funneling all our comments through?  Is Patterico the CEO of it? 

293 At this point I think we can discern that the latter is far more likely than the former. Obama is blowing full steam ahead to enact socialism and government control of every aspect of life. It's who he is and always has been. He's no more likely to see the error of his ways and become Milton Friedman than Jesse Jackson is to become Thomas Sowell.

I liken your attitude sincere as it is to the wife who on discovering that her husband is an alcoholic abusive lecher who can't manage his finances, but still convinces herself to stay in the marriage because "people change". People do change, but only after they've faced the awful consequences of their ways, not because others enabled them to continue the bad behavior because they hoped they would some day see the light.

Are you that fucking thick?

I don't think Obama will change.  I don't think that the possibility is so remote that it is negligible.  Nevertheless, I want it to happen.

Your analogy is idiotic.  I'm not in a "marriage" to Obama.  I didn't vote for him.  I don't like him.  Still, I want him to change.  Just as I want al Qaeda terrorists to change.  Just as I want Arlen Specter to change into a Conservative.

Are any of these things anywhere in the realm of "likely"?  No.  But still, I want them to happen.

294 Actually helping the economy and being a "successful president" are different things entirely.  One is wishing well for the country, the other is wishing him personal success with policies that you have acknowledged are "Socialist". 

Wrong, idiot.  A President who enacts Socialist legislation is not a "success" in my book.

How much damage do Obama and the Dems who are in power have to cause before you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt?  Why do you give Obama the benefit of doubt about the direction he wants to take this country when he has explicitly defined that direction and it goes against everything this country was founded on?

The only benefit of the doubt I grant Obama is that he genuine wants to help the nation.  He is pursuing Socialism because he thinks it works, not because he knows it will ruin America.

That is the only benefit of the doubt I grant to him.  I do not grant to him the benefit of any doubt I may have that Socialism fails, because I have none.  It does, and it will.

But I was asked what I want.  Not what I think will happen, not what I think might happen, not what I expect to happen.  What I want.  I want Obama to be Reagan.

295

Gabe,

What you are saying seems reasonable yet it is insane. Let’s take WW2 as an example it fits nicely here. We had 2 different generals. Patton and Bradley. Both were good generals in the eyes of Americans and to the troops. They had different styles. Patton’s mouth got him into all kind of trouble. Bradley was more low key but he got the job done the same as Patton.

Now what good would it have done the Americian war effort if Bradley would have went to the press everyday ande complained about Patton’s mouth. It would have helped no one but the Germans. The fact is that both Patton and Bradley won battle after battle. Each in their own way. IKE also had a different way of fighting then either of those two. Yet somehow all 3 where able to put aside their difference on little issues like a person’s mouth, his social class etc and concentrate on fighting and winning the war.

The ideas are the story here. Not what or how it was said. The idea that Obama’s policy are against our core principles are the story. That non matter how much we love our country and its founding ideas we can not support the implementation of Obama’s policies because they are against everything we believe to be truth. There is no way to square that circle and say you then hope for Obama not to fail. It is an impossibility. You either want limited gov or you want Obama to succeed. You either want low taxes or you want Obama to succeed. You either want personal freedom or you want Obama to succeed. You either want private healthcare, strong military, lower debt, less abortions etc or you want Obama to succeed. Therefore if you want none of those things you by definition want Obama to fail. There is no getting around that. Yes it seems heartless. Yes you want your fellow Americians that were dumb enough to vote for the idiot to experience pain and economic hardship for their bad choice. Yes you are prepared to go thru that hardship with them. But that is the choice you have. Just like in WW2 are choice was to win or learn German. Today our choice is to win or learn to worship Lenin, Mao Stalin, Che and Obama teachings. If a big mouth like Rush can rally my troops so much the better I will leave it to other generals to fight other battles in their own way. If Rush can out flank the enemy at imes so much the better. If a Palin comes out of No where and leads a charge to wacks the enemy on their front lines I will cheer and supoort her. If a McCain give a rousing speech and asks us to fight with him I am there until he lets me down like I know He will. If a Gen Jindal can go toe to toe on policy with Obama in a debate I will cheer that vicotry too. We are an army and any army needs many generals. And as long as the General wins the war I am not too concerned about which battles he chooses to fight and not fight. Except those that help the enemy and hurt us. Like Bush and immigration. It was the wrong battle at the wrong time against the wrong enemy.

 

 

296 kdabear, I said I was tired of this Limbaugh spat. Sheesh.

As a member of an Irish family, let me tell you that you need stamina in any argument. The matter may be dropped temporarily but you can bet your ass that it'll be brought up again.

I really think that Frum and other Dinner Party Republican obsession with Rush is their own obsession with remaining relevant. The DPR's could have very well ignored and should have ignored Rush as an issue and instead focused on the ongoing train wreck that is Obama. With the newspaper business tanking just like every other one, there is more than a little bit of status anxiety going on with the DPRs. Frum's personal call to Mark Levin the other day indicated to me that Frum is not so much scared for his interpretation of conservativism but for his continued seat at the elitists table.

That said, I understand your weariness at a petty spat and your wish to move on. I apologize for the misunderstanding of your interpretation.

297 So is there an ambiguity clearing house that Rush and the rest of us can start funneling all our comments through?  Is Patterico the CEO of it?

Nowhere did I (or Patterico, for that matter) suggest that you surrender your thoughts and impressions about the clarity of Limbaugh's language to someone else.  You are free to disagree. 

But people did more than disagree with Patterico's assessment; they accused him of not being a Conservative--because he thought Rush could have chosen language with better clarity!

298 Saying "Rush Limbaugh does not speak for me" is not throwing him under the bus.

Yes it is, in a way. Obviously Rush doesn't speak for any of us. We all have minds of our own. We simply agree with him most of the time, and appreciate him for speaking out the way he does. So when you say "Rush Limbaugh doesn't speak for me", you're really trying to passive aggressively state that you find him mortifying and embarrassing to the party - throwing him under the bus.

But, no, I still haven't read the full piece by Patterico - I'm in the middle of a game of  Apples to Apples.

299 Clive,
It seems to me that instead of going after Rush for a lack of clarity, Patterico's time would be better spent batting down the notion that Obama's success is the same as America's success.

300 I'm in the middle of a game of  Apples to Apples.

I love Apples to Apples!

301 The Brittney Spears card is our favorite.

302

CliveStaples

 

You are either part of the solution or part of the problem.  The problem is we lost.  Anything that advances our message is good.  the message is that ObaMama is against us.

303 Are you that fucking thick?

Are any of these things anywhere in the realm of "likely"?  No.  But still, I want them to happen.

Shit, I want lush green hillsides year round, no traffic on the freeways, low taxes, and full employment. No earthquakes and no wildfires would be nice too. I want them to happen but I have to live with the world as it is, not how I want it to be. I want to look in the mirror and see Brad Pitt's face looking back at me, but I have to work with the reality of what I have. I want Unicorns that shit Skittles too, but I have to deal with what is, not my fantasy wish list.

So who's being fucking thick here

304 What I want.  I want Obama to be Reagan.

Posted by: CliveStaples at March 08, 2009 03:13 PM (ZSoVK)

Wow.  

As far as calling me an "idiot", way to practice what you preach about elevating discourse.  Here, let me try to be just as enlightened and nuanced as you with my response:  Have fun wishing Obama was Reagan while this country suffers.  Now go fuck yourself, Clive.

305 >>>>Was the avoidable ambiguity of Rush's phrasing worth the cost of facilitating the left's spin doctors?<<<<<

If you use it as an opportunity to point out that "One Nation, One People, One Leader" is a fascist concept antithetical to American politics, then absolutely it is.

Or you can just shoot the one guy that had the spine to deliver the "I hope Obama fails" message.

306 What the fuck are you talking about?  Mr. "Listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi, or I'll sock you in the goddamn face and you'll stay plastered" wasn't offensive?

Not to me.  Frankly, having a faggot tell me how glorious it is to bow to European opinions of America should result in a good ass kicking of said faggot.  And he'd stay plastered, too.  Politics is a contact sport, my light-in-the loafers friend.  Fuck you.

307 Herr Morgenholz, I can disagree with what Gabe says but I think your comment on his sexual preference is way out of line. Cut the shit or find yourself a nice Aryan Brotherhood forum.

308

I think an overarching issue here is that conservatives have been let down by the squishy middle of the GOP for years. The slide started right after Reagan with "Read My Lips" #41 and continued full bore with "Compassionate Conservative" #43, McCain, Specter, Lott, and the rest of the herd of congressional RINOs.

Sure they did some good things, but for every tax cut there's a Medicare Drug benefit. For every spirited defense of American values there's a wide stance in a bathroom; for every claim that the GOP is the party of the rule of law, there's de facto amnesty and lax border enforcement. Conservatives expect more than "yeah but it would have been worse if the other guy had won" as our standard for success.

Then we have the additional insult of the ParkerFrumBrooksBuckleyNoonan  Obama lovefest/Palin hatefest on the rank-and-file conservatives all over the country both knew who Obama truly was and also strongly identified with Palin.

Through all this there has been one conservative voice that has never wavered. That voice is Rush Limbaugh.

It's very understandable for the conservative grassroots to be absolutely fucking pissed off and reactionary in protecting one of our own after years of taking the high hard one from people who are supposedly on our side while watching not just garden variety liberals but far, far left commielibs take over the government in the process.

309 kdabear:

I've got a brown little hole on my ass you can kiss.  The reference to faggots was to Gore Vidal, via the infamous clip of Buckley v. Gore. And thank you for the reference to the Aryan Brotherhood.  You have beclowned yourself with Godwin.  Fuck you, you ignorant shit.

310 I think he's referring to Gore Vidal

311

Proper focus:

I cannot recall the last time a private citizen garnered such animus from an administration.

Proper conclusion:

People who want to join in that particular jam-pile need to step back and really think about what is going on.

312 Rush is right on this issue, & I don't see where there is so much debate about it.

One of the things our side needs to do is study communication & engagement skills. Conservatives are often good at being positive, but poor as far as fighting liberal negativism is concerned.

For example, I understand that President Bush thought that the president should be above junior-high partisan bickering; but, as such, he should have hired someone to make the negative case for him. Ari did it, Tony Snow, Dana Perino, etc.--but you need more than lone presidential spokemen.  Point being, when you're effectively frozen out of the media, defending themselves on Whitehouse.gov [as they continuously did] isn't going to cut it. Political junkies like me are the only people that read that stuff, anyway. 

Rush is effective in part because he can do both.  

313 kdabear:

I meant Chuckles Johnson, not Godwin.  My mistake.

314 Some folk really want Obama to succeed and they think somehow he'll see the light and become Ann Coulter. He's no more likely to take on her political leanings than he is to take on her physical appearance. The only thing they'll ever have in common is that they were both born in 1961.

315 my light-in-the loafers friend.

wasn't referring to Vidal.

316 my light-in-the loafers friend.

wasn't referring to Vidal.

Posted by: Nice Deb at March 08, 2009 03:40 PM (MHx40)

No, THAT was a slap at the commenter, who wasn't Gabe, our gay-moron-in-residence, whom we all adore.

317 313 kdabear:

I meant Chuckles Johnson, not Godwin.  My mistake.

So was telling me to kiss your rectum and telling me to go fuck myself.

Now go home and get your fuckin' shine box

318 Okay...sorry, I'm multi-tasking, here. I give up!

319 As Malor's post demonstrates, the moderates are in trouble, and they know it.

Their candidate, McCain, was a complete disaster and despite their attempts to ignore and parse away that inconvenient truth, their influence within the Republican Party has been severely damaged.

Look at how they're attempting to marginalize Rush Limbaugh:

Malor and Patterico can't challenge him on substance so they have to attack his "tone" and "style", a dead giveaway to how weak their arguments are.

Rush, for all his bravado and attacks against Obama, centered his speech on his vision of conservatism and why it was the best answer for the Republican Party.  Like it or hate it (and moderates hated it), he argues on substance and attacks specific Obama policies to 20 some million conservatives every day.

Patterico and Malor can't hold a candle to Rush Limbaugh's arguments or his credibility.  Again, a part of that is the embaressment of McCain and the moderate insistence that we were in danger of making Obama the socialist boogeyman he wasn't like the Left did with "warmongering chimp" Bush.   These moderates (such as Patterico) include people who openly "hoped" and endorsed Obama's early promises after inauguration, or cowered on the fence with neutral positions so as not to be called "racist" or be seen as the new "right-wing hicks".  Most just didn't have the confidence to voice their own "convictions", as if they had any to begin with; didn't want to take a position because they were afraid of looking "uncool" (the common denominator of any moderate).  When you get right down to it, a moderate HAS no convictions beyond their own "personal image" as a moderate.

Now after everything that has happened (and will happen), after wagging their self-righteous fingers at conservatives like me who didn't support McCain and never "gave Obama a chance" ... after all the things Obama is doing to "change" America, the only thing they want to talk about is Rush Limbaugh's tone.

Pathetic.

Patterico and Malor's last refuge, of course, is their attempt to "personlize" the argument against their conservative enemies like Rush. 

As if Rush was President and not Obama.

As if conservatives were controlling both houses of Congress.

Question:

Who votes with the Democrats to undermine ANY opposition to Obama's bills and agenda?  Who runs the Republican leadership that has taken the Party away from conservatives?  Who are the most celebrated media darlings against conservatives because they're allowed to demonize "right-wing extremists" while conservatives are told they're not allowed to demonize them back?!

Answer:

Moderates!  Like Specter, Snowe, Mitchell, Steele, Patterico and Malor!

These people aren't interested in opposing Obama and representing conservatism as much as they're interested in keeping positions of power and influence.  Because if conservatives ever nominated a conservative leader, if they could eliminate "moderates" from voting in their primaries, the conservatives would achieve a landslide victories ...

And that would expose the Big Lie that conservatives needed "moderates" (nihilistic libertarians) to win elections.  No wonder they're more scared of Limbaugh than Obama.  No wonder they're busy attacking people like me while their representatives in government give Obama just enough votes to pass his agenda.  Meanwhile the rest of their colleagues (who's votes wouldn't make a difference) can pretend to be against the very same agenda that moderates falsely claim they're against. 

And they'll claim that conservatives are the REAL problem.

I don't think it will work just as it didn't work in the last election.  Bullying conservatives and telling them they're not smart enough to articulate their own arguments isn't simply arrogant or wrong; it's also a lousy way to get them to vote for your candidate. 

That, and nobody is under any illusion that either Patterico or Malor would last 5 seconds in a debate with Rush.

320 Shit, I want lush green hillsides year round, no traffic on the freeways, low taxes, and full employment. No earthquakes and no wildfires would be nice too. I want them to happen but I have to live with the world as it is, not how I want it to be. I want to look in the mirror and see Brad Pitt's face looking back at me, but I have to work with the reality of what I have. I want Unicorns that shit Skittles too, but I have to deal with what is, not my fantasy wish list.

So who's being fucking thick here

Who's being fucking thick?  How about the jackass asking what someone "wants" and then issuing a lecture about having to "deal with what is, not my fantasy wish list."

If I had been asked about things that I want that have a reasonable possibility of actually occurring, I would have given a different response.  But that's not what I was asked.  I was simply asked what I wanted.

321 So was telling me to kiss your rectum and telling me to go fuck myself.

Now go home and get your fuckin' shine box

Posted by: kbdabear at March 08, 2009 03:44 PM (miw86)

Well played, my moronic friend.  Well played.  Shine?

322 "I cannot recall the last time a private citizen garnered such animus from an administration."

I can; Bill Clinton attacked Rush Limbaugh, too.  Somehow, the Republicans got the White House back again, twice, and with a guy who was considered a social conservative at the time.

323 Damn it!  I've looked in shoe stores all over town and I just can't seem to find the brand "light-in-the-loafers"  No problem finding the "Penny Loafers" type.

324 I think Patterico is one of the good guys, even though I think he's wrong about Rush. (And at this point, he's seeming a bit obsessed.)

325 I want Annie Baby to wrap that long blonde hair around my dick while she gives me a hummer. Not bloody likely, but still far more likely than hoping, wishing, praying that Obama reads Rand, Friedman, and Hayek and decides that Marx, Alinsky, Keynes, and Krugman are full of shit.

326 I want Annie Baby to wrap that long blonde hair around my dick while she gives me a hummer.

Anyone who can improve on this gets 20 bucks.

327 Shine Box

328 Posted by: kbdabear at March 08, 2009 04:01 PM (miw86)

Trust me.  The full force of the reference was heard.  Fuckin' beautiful shot. 

329

Gabe, I'm going to say the smae thing to you that I said to Patterico over on his blog- don't get your panties all in a wad over Obama's success. Don't worry about what this right-winger or that right-winger says. Concentrate on the disasterous policies the Democrats are pushing on the country.

As for the Frums and Brookses, forget 'em. They've lost credibility with the base, and the MSM doesn't give a shit about them, except when they use them to skewer the right. We really don't need to engage them because they aren't offering a viable alternative to conservatism.

There will be a lot more appreciation for conservative governance once the damage Obama is doing becomes apparent. It's important to for us to keep our eye on the ball and insist that Obama live by the standards he preaches. He can't and he won't. Rush Limbaugh is not the leader of our movement, even though he deservedly holds a large influence.

Finally, let's find someone who's capable of re-building the Republican party organization. The current guy is obviously in over his head.

330 As for the Frums and Brookses, forget 'em. They've lost credibility with the base, and the MSM doesn't give a shit about them, except when they use them to skewer the right

That's how moderates are. They want everyone to love them, and their talent is discerning who is "up" and "down" for the moment. When you're "up" they'll be your friend, take your side, and let the world know they're your BFF. When you're "down" though, they'll side with your enemies, albeit weakly and with loads of caveats. When you're "up" again they'll reference all the nice times you had together when you were previously up.

They are fucking useless as allies, friends, coworkers, soldiers. They'll run away from you when you need your back covered, they'll rat you out to protect themselves in a heartbeat, and the whole time they'll try to act reasonable and above it all.

Once again overusing a Goodfellas reference, I give you Paulie's thoughts on that..

"You looked me in the eye and lied to me. You treated me like I was a fucking jerk, like I was nothing to you.... Now I gotta turn my back"

331

Gore Vidal gets reamed by William F. Buckley, and smiles.

http://tinyurl.com/2ktbnz

332 unseen@295:

If a big mouth like Rush can rally my troops so much the better I will leave it to other generals to fight other battles in their own way.

Bingo.  The Dems have their smooth talkers and their fire breathers.  The one thing they didn't do is fling poo at each other.

Obama can be smooth and conciliatory because he has Olbermann, Sharpton, and Begala.  Notice he never takes them to task for their language; he just laughs it off and enjoys the fruits of it. 

The more voices saying the same thing to different audiences the better.  Wasting time and space attacking each other -- ludicrous.

333

1968 Democratic National Convention:

GORE VIDAL: You must realize what some of the political issues are here. There are many, even in the United States [who] happen to believe that the United States policy is wrong in Vietnam and the Viet Cong are correct in wanting to organize their country in their own way politically. This happens to be pretty much the opinion of Western Europe and many other parts of the world. If it is a novelty in Chicago, that is too bad, but I assume that the point of the American democracy…

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY: And some people were pro-Nazi, too, some people were pro-Nazi.

GV: …is you can express any point of view you want. Shut up a minute.

WFB: No I won’t. Some people were pro-Nazi, and the answer is they were well-treated by people who ostracized them, and I’m for ostracizing people who egg on other people to shoot American Marines and American soldiers. I know you don’t care, because you don’t have any sense of identification…

GV: As far as I am concerned, the only sort of pro- or crypto-Nazi I can think of is yourself. Failing that,…

MODERATOR: Let’s not call names.

GV: …I would only say that we can’t have the right of assembly…

WFB: Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi…

MOD: Let’s stop calling names and let’s get…

WFB: …or I’ll sock you in the goddam face and you’ll stay plastered.

MOD: Gentlemen, let’s…

WFB: Let the author of Myra Breckenridge go back to his pornography and stop making any allusions of Nazism…

MOD: I beg you to…

WFB: …to someone who served in the infantry in the last war and…

GV: You were not in the infantry, as a matter of fact, you didn’t fight…

334

"So why the hell are we playing Obama's game? "

Patterico has never explained that - I'm also curious how anyone could get suckered into a debate on Rahm's terms.

335 Good grief.  350 comments on a retarded subject.  Damn you Gabe. 

Was Rush right in what he said?  of course.  And given the context, he said it fine.  Hell, he even said that if Obama suddenly changed into a Reagan, he would hope that he would succeed.  Should we state our opinions better (which I think clive and patterico were attempting to get at, albeit remarkably feebly in Patterico's case), of course.  That is how we win - by not alienating the retards out there who dont care enough to actually think for themselves but still vote.  But does that mean we have to sacrifice principles?  hell no.  one does not nullify the other.  That doesn't even suggest we imitate the deceptive bullshit that comes out of the left.  All we need to do is put out there the statements and actions the libtards do.  The only thing that really pisses me off about the conservative movement is that we do not have more Rushes that get out there and do a good job communicating ideas and tear apart the b.s. that comes out of the left and the media echo chamber.  If we have to circumvent the media, then we should.  Reagan did.  There is so much juicy material out there to use, we could have a new ad each week on the level of the obama=moses ad from a year ago.  But to jeff/PW's point, when they say b.s., we fuckin hammer them.  Take em to the arctic canadian coast and dress em up like baby seals.  Like the supplied wfb clip that was earlier posted.  In fact, I would suggest going even further than that, by turning it around to point out that the left are the nazis.  Hence, choosing our words better. Anyone happen to notice that the obamanation was off his game for awhile after the obama=moses ad?  There is a diference between hitting them really hard and insipid vitriol that only alienates.  The venom from the left worked for the past several years because it was not countered.  Bush never did, nor really did anyone else.  I suppose he figured everyone out in retardia would see them for the liars/traitors/etc. they were.  But to quote the babelicious Rose McGowan in Scream, "you can only hear the Richard Gere-gerbil story so many times before you start to believe it."

Meanwhle, Frumpy et al. can kiss our individualistic asses b/c what he and his ilk are acting like regarding Obama is identical to those who expect to win the lottery to fund their remaining years.  It's been patently obvious ever since Benito Moses first hit the public eye that though he may attempt a more moderate appearance, his word selection was steeped in Marxism.  Sure we can hope Obama changes into a Reagan, or even something palatable.  But it aint gonna happen, just like winning a big lottery jackpot...  And counting on it is imbecilic.

336 Clive = naive.

337 this shit is retarded.  let it die the death it deserves.  much more important things to talk about.

338 I'm confused... but haven't read all these comments before posting --I'm uncouth that way. I thought the lowbrow method (ratings) was just cutting to the quick of the matter like us masses are wont to do while the highbrow method (cocktails) always stalled the intelligentsia. Why can't we have both? We can. The only problem seems to be we haven't had a highbrow that likes to be associated with lowbrow masses since someone preferred a phone book list of government over Ivy League.

Adding to my confusion, it seems the highbrow once deflected the leftist, marxist, socialist, communitst, scabs et. al. intelligentsia from attacking the unwashed masses but not any longer as they join in the attack. Seems personal to many. No, no, "It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business." Not personal my ass. "Go to the mattresses." 

339 Gabe is an assmuch.

340 Politics is a contact sport, my light-in-the loafers friend.  Fuck you.

Lick the underside.  I think WFB should actually have hit him; the point is, Gabe bringing up WFB as an example of "nonoffensive" conservative punditry is laughable, considering what he actually was.

Either learn to read between the lines, or perform your intellectual masturbation a little more silently.

341 A.G. said: "this shit is retarded.  let it die the death it deserves.  much more important things to talk about."

I agree it's "retarded" in the sense that Patterico and Malor wanted to pick this kind of a fight.

It's an incredibe miscalculation given that our "moderates" have much to be humble about.  Hearing them lecture reminds me of the British attitude towards American servicemen OEF and OIF.  

It's insufferable, but attitudes like that are indicative of deeper problems within the GOP.   It's time to address those problems, especially since Patterico and Malor seem so eager point their fingers in my people's direction.

It is long past due to have this kind of debate within the Republican Party.  Forget Rahm;  the Obama administration wouldn't have to change the subject from the current national wreckage if they had their act together; like moderates, they're not as smart as they pretend to be, especially when they try to talk down to people who are capable of talking back. 

This kind of debate is necessary to burn out the refuse and find out what's wrong with our Party and how we'll take it back.  The prominent position of moderates within the GOP is now in question, has been since the election, some say long before that.

A good place to start might be the difference in appeal of a moderate like McCain (lack of appeal more like it) versus a conservative like Palin who even as a VP posed a greater threat to Obama than McCain ever did.  So why was McCain the Presidential candidate when he was so obviously weak?

There's something seriously wrong here.

342 "Three words, baby. Lighten up, Francis."

Moderates all over the country are either getting "lit up" or they're keeping their heads down to avoid confrontation.  If Gabe can dish it out, he better be ready to take it.

As all moderates should learn (not to mention children, for god's sake) it's thin gruel to say the debate should end just because you're losing.

Grow up.

343 Posted by: INCITEmarsh at March 08, 2009 07:43 PM (9sxv5)

Who are you, and why the fuck am I supposed to care, please?

344 Well, I'm nobody, but saying "Fuck you" because you think I consider politics too dirty for my dainty little hands was a bit much, considering that wasn't the point I was making.

345 I don't see why people think the Rush Limbaugh debate between Patterico and Jeff G is a problem.  When did the GOP become the Party of People Who Can't Debate issues, tactics or strategy?

346

Crude and rude are code words for those who can't talk straight, can't handle the truth nor can convey it.

 

Buckley was a gentleman.  He was also a man who understood words have meanings and the difference between honest talk and snakeoil salesmanship.

 

In 1968 on public tv noted queer Gore Fidal (hope I spelled that right) called Buckley acrypto fascist.  Buckley in his usually smooth and cultured voice responded in front of millions:

"Say that again and I'll punch all your teeth down your throat you flaming fag."

 

Buckley loved Limbaugh.  I believe his views on those who were afraid to stand up for their principles were well known.

I'll stand with Russ.  The Moran's, Patterico, Sullivan, can go along with Specter and Snowe and Powell.

Pathetic.

 

 

347 Too bad Patterico's little concubine wasn't so active in getting him to answer Goldstein directly.  Then they might have some credibility.

I said a couple years ago that Sarah Palin was a rising star BUT should be allowed to gain state level experience before being thrust upon the national stage.  I was right about that.  Doesn't mean I don't like her and won't defend her against the outrageous attacks, both from known enemies and purported friends. 

Not that she OR Rush Limbaugh need me to support them; they are adults.

When anyone plays into the Left/Media's hands by jumping on the bandwagon against them, I am going to call them on it.  "Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out."

Do not be a tool of the Left/Media.  Maybe you can't help being gullible, but you could just remain silent.  Think about it:  Rush Freakin' Limbaugh is being criticized for being controversial or confrontational or "insensitive" to tender liberal egos.  What does Rush DO for three hours a day, five days a week, 46 weeks a year (+/-), for the last 20 years or so?

But Rahm Emmanuel and Paul Begala plant the story in the MSM, create the "controversy" out of whole cloth, and watch the dufuses on the right fall for their trap like a ton of bricks.  Now, it's not so much a shock with the likes of Frum, Chris Buckley, or Parker:  their politics had never been of the conservative mainstream.  But Ace, Allahpundit, and Patterico are basically stand-up conservative guys (well, Allah's a little queer for Libertarians, but who shall cast the first stone?).  How do nominally sentient beings such as these get suckered like hicks at a traveling carnival?

348

Gabe has, as he sometimes does, lost his way on this one. He is young, and a lawyer, which explains, but does not excuse, his position.

My real gripe is with this CliveStaples fellow, who parses words so fine that they turn into a kind of mush, which he hopes will go down easily, never realizing that a bland and flavorless goo, while unlikely to be spat out because of its taste, will ultimately gag those forced to make a meal of it.

I suspect him to be a lawyer, too, or a lawyer wannabe, given the reverence he expresses for the rhetorical training of Patterico.

His "magical thinking" about hoping that The One™ succeeds — even while acknowledging that "Obama can no more abandon Socialism than a cobra can become a herbivore" (well said, eman!) — is probably not a true sign of mental illness, but merely a means of weaseling around the crux of the discussion here.

(Yes, Clive, I know you think the crux of the discussion is" "It's not what we say, but how we say it." You are wrong.)

John Adams said: "Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery of party, faction, and division of society."

349 Here's a solution to your problem, Gabe:

Lead, follow or get the frack out of the way.

If Steele wants to be the face of the Republican Party, then he needs to nut up and lead.

350 How do nominally sentient beings such as these get suckered like hicks at a traveling carnival?

Because they are hicks at a traveling carnival?

351 <i>......he's still "one of us" and we should be trying to convince him that his position is mistaken rather than firing up the rhetorical wood chipper that we use on apostates.</i>

The same should go for Rush Limbaugh. The man spends three hours a day defending the conservative position and promoting, quite articulately, our beliefs.
He certainly deserves our loyalty....and to take one or two comments and soundbites out of all that to claim "he doesn't speak for me" is wormy and fickle.

I don't agree with my husband 100% of the time but 100% of the time he's on my side.

Stop throwing our cheerleaders under the bus.
Wishing he didn't say that is one thing, but publicly turning your back on him for it is shitty and shows poor character.

Makes it easier to pick the kind of friends you want to have though......

352 'In any case, the bottom line for me is this: Wouldn't it be nice to win back Congress and the White House? The current argument does not help us do that. So, for the love of Pete, can we please get over it?'

Uhhh, not if the people that we elect by forming 'a winning coalition' are going to behave in exactly the same manner as the Democrats. I'd rather have the Democrats saddled with the results of such actions.

-OMB

353 A minor quibble:

Winning back Congress and the White House might be nice, if we got some real red-meat conservatism out of it. Otherwise, it's a waste of time. I'm not interested in voting for another coalition of K-Street-and-Country-Club swine who will whore any vision of true American governance away for popularity and the chance to appear "compassionate" and "reasonable". Frum and his ilk are interested in doing nothing else.

If the left can win in spite of the vitriolic rage, why cannot we? Worked nicely in '94 as I recall it. This isn't about Rush, and it's not about Steele either. It's about getting good and mad, and RESISTING. Fire and passion has a strength all its own, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but eventually people pay attention to your noise.

Instead of chiding Rush for being inelegant or whatever, the DPR's should be doing what center-lefties do for the Kossacks, i.e. saying "Well, I don't know that I'd put it that way, but you have to appreciate the rage that Limbaugh is tapping into at the President's failed policies." It's amazing what you can make defensible and legitimate if you treat it as defensible and legitimate.

354 Late to the party, but who cares.

My problem with this 'debate' is that I think we're (conservatives) allowing the 'debate' to be framed in a way that absolutely detracts from the message.  Like him or not - and I do most of the time - he (Rush) IS an important voice for an extremely important portion of the Republican party AND the conservative movement.  I'm intelligent enough to pick up on his occasional bullcrap, and true, not everyone is.  But that doesn't mean we alienate those who DO like him all of the time, and rely on him to shape a message they may not otherwise be able to articulate.  Frankly that seems the type of condescending thing that democrats would do. 

We need those people, like it or not.  If you want the Republican party to stay (or go back to being) center-right, you need both.  But don't forget that you have to consider as best you can what ramifications your compromises will have in the future.  The 50-yard line has moved to the left over the years and the GOP is going with it. 

We've accepted the false premise that the regulatory culture of government over the last 8 years was 'lassiez-faire' so we can have more control by government than we already have - I've heard 'conservatives' on news shows implicitly accepting this premise by stooping down and arguing all of the straw-man arguments out there and stepping AROUND the real debate...weak.  Can you really say that the 'economy' was like the 'wild-west' as the democrats frame it and we implicitly accept by not rejecting it?  Really?  With SarbOx, high corporate taxes (which trickles to YOUR pocket), and the myriad of SEC regulations, bureaucracies, environmental restrictions, and other federal schemes, how can you say so?  But we do anyway by not addressing these things and instead focusing on the democratic-led discussion on how much to freaking bail-out. 

We've allowed this debate to go way too far down the left road so we now cannot effectively argue what we should be arguing because the answer is 'Oh, you conservatives and your ideology.  We're past that; people are hurting out there.'  And conservatives look like heartless ghouls 'stuck' in some 'backwards' mode of thinking.  The democrats have successfully parried everything, and have beaten us to the punch in every debate point; thereby shaping all of the debates and couching the language in that which THEY can control.  We've actually been duped into debating whom government picks as winners and losers!  This is a LEFTIST argument and as UN-conservative as it gets!  We've been duped into arguing 'socialism' when it's FASCISM we're trying to prevent!

So how does this happen?  Excessive compromise and equally un-conservative emotional responses to events like a 'banking crisis.'  Guess what?  I'm buying a house this month, and I have no problems whatsoever getting money.  Zero problems.  I bought a car 3 weeks ago; again, no problems.  Sure, that's only me, and there are 'real people' hurting out there (that's what the news tells me), but truly, I'm not being adversely affected.  I'm not rich (the combined income of my wife and I is about $55,000 a year), but I'm not particurlarly having a tough time.  I don't panic when other people start yelling that the sky is falling.  I ignore most of what is said, because whatever they say on the news, it's not MY life.  I control my life, nobody else does.  This is the essence of conservatism - coupled with keeping the freaking government OUT of the way.  You may not like the 'method' of Rush's delivery, but THIS is what he stands for, and you cannot ignore that. 

Let the talking fat-heads take a few lines out of context.  I don't care; though it does irritate me to a certain degree.  But when you actually listen (most of the people that are currently denigrating him in the news DO NOT listen to him so I dismiss them out of hand) and hear him praise individuals that are succeeding in a climate where all that is talked about is failure, it redeems any flaw in the 'method.'  Pure and simple.  The source of the denigration of Rush Limbaugh is FEAR of him.  Consider:  he does NOT call people names on the phone, he does NOT hang up on callers unless he has to dump them, he is not rude or callous.  He is not a liar.  He is no more hypocritical than anyone reading this blog site.  His parodies and satire are clean and most of the time funny.  Compare him to any other talk show host; both left and right.  What exactly about his 'method' is distasteful?  Yet the 'method' is what is in question here.  Why?  Because once again the debate has been shaped by those who would like to see him go away.  But there's no real SUBSTANTIVE reason to dismiss Rush Limbaugh; other than fear.  When you legitimize that fear of Rush Limbaugh by assisting with his marginalization, you are aiming the shotgun right at your own foot.  Don't think you're legitimizing the fear?  What is this 'foam at the mouth' descriptor?  It paints quite the picture of people IN YOUR CORNER and has the whiff of the disgusting elitism that permeates the democrats. 

No, 20,000,000 people (dittoheads) aren't going to win an election outright; that's a childish notion and a straw-man argument.  But that 20,000,000 (minus liberal listeners and those that don't fall lock-step with him of course) people that listen to Rush constitutes a large base that currently believes it is being systematically shut out.

During the election I feared that the Republicans and conservatives within the party we're chugging down that road to factional, identity politics that the democrats use to splinter us.  The democrats currently - and increasingly effectively in 3 election cycles - gel their factions with emotion and class-envy.  Ideology, tradition, and reason used to bind us and serve as a weapon, but we've also bought into the 'post-ideological' arguments from the left (designed to hurt us!  They understand us more than we know) so we've been disarmed and there's no glue for us anymore; and emotion is a WEAPON AGAINST reason.  The GOP truly is in trouble when we attack our ideology and reason with emotion like we have been (remember Terry Schiavo?  The GOP, and especially Conservatives, were played like a fiddle and a fissure developed and widened.  Think that was a coincidence that that happened in 2005, in between election cycles?  Right after the 'values voters' put Bush back in office to the ire of the media?  THINK, people!).  Now we're starting to ape the democrats with the factionalism; if only mildly now - but more closely later if nothing is done.  We're following their lead; and without some kind of glue to bind us and no weapon in our hands, I fear to our doom. 

I haven't been a Republican since 2003 and the debates over the Prescription Drug entitlements.  But the GOP is where my sympathies lie because on the big stage it's still the best vehicle for the conservative movement - libertarians cannot get out of their own way. 

Perhaps, contrary to what is said, if more people had stuck to principles and ideology rather than compromise, the bailouts wouldn't have happened, the Prescription Drug entitlements wouldn't have happened, and the free-spending democrats may not have been elected because we could have enacted policies that actually worked and PROVEN conservatism is the best way. 

We can plug the phone lines when it comes to amnesty (truly important, don't get me wrong), but there was nothing when it came to voting for the Drug coverage stuff, nothing when it came to Bush's Bailouts, and nothing when it came to Obama's Bailouts and Earmark Festival.  Because of compromise, we're stuck with this stuff; and people want to talk about more compromise.  Instead of looking just forward and trying to predict the future with no data, why don't we try looking at the past results of compromise?  Since when is it bad to use history as a predictor of the future?  This seems to run contrary to the popular phrase about forgetting history and then the repeating thereof.  I'm not saying never compromise, but we certainly can give reasoned and measured compromise and slow this freaking train down a little.

Quit playing the game and keep the debate where it should be.  Rush is not the issue here in any way shape or form.  The GOP and the conservative movement isn't even the issue; it's THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT, and STOPPING FASCISM.  We stand at a pivotal time here people.  We're actually being duped into debating whether or not the conservatives have a home in the GOP.  This is not new; it has been happening just under the surface for over a decade.  The more democrats steer and control the debates (and the less we see that they do), the more the conservatives will be moved out of the GOP.  Whether it is by being pushed out literally, by reaction to the climate, or by getting sick of the constant debate countering democrat points instead of putting our own out there FIRST, remains to be seen.  Either way it doesn't matter; the democrats win becasue focus has been successfully taken OFF the issue.

Francis

355
Runescape Gold  
Runescape Money 
Cheap Runescape Money  
Wakfu Kamas  
Dofus Kamas 
Maple Story Mesos  
Buy Maple Story Mesos  
Cheap Maple Story Mesos  
Buy Gaia Gold  
Gaia Gold 

356 Yes I do think so. The original Ugg Shoes. UGG is an age old generic term for this style of Australian-made UGGs. UGG is made of plush fleece.We provide fashion Ugg Boots, Our Ugg are skillfully hand crafted. in addition Ugg Australia Class Boots include UGG Sundance 2, UGG Nightfall and UGG Classic Cardy. Discount ugg is also bring a ray of warmth for this winter! Buy our discount ugg, There are plenty of Ugg Sale, and Cheap Ugg here.
GlassesShop particularly pride ourselves on the quality of our eyeglasses lenses and coatings that we offer on all our prescription glasses.

357 convert dvd mac is an excellent conversion software specially designed for Mac users. As a multifunctional conversion software, it can rip DVD and convert video with high conversion speed on mac os x. Almost all popular video formats are supported as output profile like MP4, MKV, MOV, M4V, AVI, FLV, 3GP, 3GPP, 3G2, MPG, ASF, VOB, etc.

358 货架 货架 托盘 托盘 货架

359 tiffany jewellery

tiffany jewelry

tiffany

tiffany uk

tiffany jewellery uk

tiffany jewellery sale

tiffany jewellery london

silver jewellery

tiffany jewellery sale

Tiffany Bracelets

Tiffany Sets

Tiffany Rings

360 ed hardy ed hardy
ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing
ed hardy shop ed hardy shop
christian audigier christian audigier
ed hardy cheap ed hardy cheap
ed hardy outlet ed hardy outlet
ed hardy sale ed hardy sale
ed hardy store ed hardy store
man ed hardy man ed hardy
woman ed hardy woman ed hardy
kid ed hardy kid ed hardy

361 nike sb high
nike dunk high
nike dunk low
nike dunk sb
air force one
nike air
air force nike
six rings shoes
Jordan Six Rings
air jordan six
NBA Shoes
Nike Kobe IV Shoes
Nike LeBron VI Shoes
supra shoes
supra skytop
discount puma shoes
puma sandal
prada shoes
prada men shoes
gucci shoes
women gucci shoes
discount gucci men
obanma shoes
lacoste shoes
ATO Matsumoto Shoes

362 Now, every household has notebook computer, bound for a long time, the battery will not use, so you want to buy Laptop Battery Onsale, look here, there are a lot of articles about notebook batteries, hope to be useful to you.

363 wedding dresses wedding dresses wedding dress shops wedding dress shops discount wedding dress discount wedding dress wedding dress stores wedding dress storeswedding dress designer wedding dress designer informal wedding dress informal wedding dress casual wedding dress casual wedding dress wedding gown dress wedding gown dress modest wedding dress modest wedding dress maternity wedding dress maternity wedding dress vintage wedding dress vintage wedding dress lace wedding dress

364 Wholesale rolex watches,tag heuer watches and replica rolex watches,replica watches replica breitling watches breitling watches,chanel watches chanel watches replica patek philippe patek philippe watches,replica audemars piguet watches replica montblanc watches from China.Tag heuer fake watches and replica watches replica tag heuer watches,buy replica rolex watches and replica rolex breitling watches breitling watches at lowest price for you.

365 Replica rolex watches,tag heuer watches and replica rolex watches,replica watches replica breitling watches breitling watches,chanel watches chanel watches replica patek philippe patek philippe watches,replica audemars piguet watches replica montblanc watches for men and women.

366 Replica fake watches and replica watches brands,rolex watches rolex watches, replica rolex: replica rolex,replica rolex: breitling watches,replica tag heuer: tag heuer,replica cartier watches: cartier watches,replica omega watches: omega watches,replica panerai watches: replica panerai watches,replica armani watches: replica armani watches,replica audemars piguet: replica audemars piguet,replica bvlgari watches: replica bvlgari watches,replica chanel watches: replica chanel watches,replica gucci watches: replica gucci watches,replica movado watches: replica movado watches,replica montblanc watches: replica montblanc watches,replica patek philippe: replica patek philippe sale.Replica rolex watches and tag heuer watches, rolex watches,Replica Watches replica watches,patek philippe patek philippe Watches,audemars piguet audemars piguet,Omega Watches: omega watches,replica Cartier Watches cartier watches,Breitling Watches breitling watches,Chanel Watches: chanel watches,armani watches: armani watches,iwc watches iwc watches,mont blanc watches montblanc watches.

367
This is very useful for me,
thank you very much,
I think you will be successful！

368 徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信

369 As an updated version of Tag Heuers replica watches original Carrera watch, Tag Grand Carrera watch is one of the most highly replica rolex revered sporty watches on the market. The TAG Grand Carrera emphasis on breitling innovation and style when it was first launched. A high performance watch-the TAG cartier Grand Carrera can be considered the performance vehicle. After all, TAG Heuer also good at making cars. A marriage of omega sophisticated design and highly advanced movements, they are amazingly good.As with all of Tag Heuer watches the Carrera is in panerai watches the classic style and you can chose from a few different straps. While TAG Heuer armani watches may not be the trendiest of watches they are always classic and classic never goes out of style.When reading the TAG Grand Carrera you audemars piguet can have a second time zone, chronograph time and even the bvlgari watches small seconds. You can wear this in water up to 100 meters so no matter the weather the watch will perform. This watch is very practical as it gucci watches can be worn all the time, no matter if you are movado watches hiking in the wilderness or attending a black tie event.The TAG Grand Carrera was built to last and is very durable besides looking good. As with all of montblanc watches TAG Heuer watches they are durable patek philippe and long lasting. This is also one of the most luxurious watches currently available and only the finest craftsmanship went into the design and construction.

370 Moreover, the watch model is replica watches limited produced and only 200 pieces be available.Seiko Spring Drive-the Winning Watch of 2008.The replica watches Seiko Watches timepiece that presented above is one of rolex watches Seiko's award winning watches. In 2008, this timepiece has won the Golden Balance Wheel breitling watches Award. It seems this timepiece has already precious and wonderful enough with the award. However, the watch deserves more since it tag heuer could be much more excellent with the wonderful functionality cartier watches and stylishness. The Seiko Spring Drive is crafted with omega watches polished stainless steel case replica watches together with the leveled bezel and crown. It also has an alligator leather strap to match the superior glow of its case. Apart from this, this watch has a multilevel dial highlighted rolex watches in black. The deeper part of this dial holds the power reserve indicator placed on the 7 o'clock position while the upper part holds the time and the moonphase indicator. This breitling watches power reserve indicator particularly the moonphase indicator gives life to the dial with their exquisite stainless steel sub dials. This Seiko also is tag heuer designed with a glowing stainless hour markers and hands which are just so attractive.There is no doubt that the price of the Seiko Spring Drive watch is certainly quite cartier watches high. And it can be much more omega watches expensive for the winning of the 5,000 Euros watch category.

371 ghd hair ghd hair GHDS GHDS nba jerseys nba jerseys NFL Shop NFL Shop nfl jerseys nfl jerseys reebok easy tone shoes reebok easy tone shoes mbt shoes mbt shoes skechers shape ups skechers shape ups Cheap NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys NFL Jerseys NFL Jerseys cheap nhl jerseys cheap nhl jerseys

372

Posted by: hangbagsonlinesale at April 26, 2010 05:27 AM (JGdeO)

Posted by: hair straightener at May 14, 2010 08:36 PM (F+00B)

Posted by: Frank at May 30, 2010 01:53 PM (j6TRK)

Posted by: aaa123 at June 01, 2010 03:13 AM (zP6vM)

Posted by: cheap handbag sale at July 15, 2010 12:32 AM (bGGyN)

Posted by: cheap handbag at July 16, 2010 12:55 AM (lKUL1)

Posted by: Kraans at July 16, 2010 04:58 PM (UrZ9Z)

Posted by: Kred at July 16, 2010 05:44 PM (UrZ9Z)

Posted by: dsfsd at July 26, 2010 11:04 PM (so/HX)

Posted by: replica watches at August 21, 2010 05:05 AM (pZTyO)

Name: *

Email: *

URL:

Comments:

Processing 0.13, elapsed 0.1331 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0142 seconds, 390 records returned.
Page size 372 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.