Obama and the 9/11 and Cole families
Debra Burlingame, sister of the pilot of doomed Flight 77, says that Obama paid only lip service—and hardly even that—to the concerns of 9/11 and Cole bombing families in a February meeting about the closing of Guantanamo and the slowness of the grinding wheels of justice.
Obama wanted to hear a “diversity of views?” Offered remarks “full of platitudes?” “Glossed over the legal complexities? Gave a “vague summary” of what he might do about it? Hardly surprising.
He also was his usual dismissive and arrogant self [emphasis mine]:
Many family members pressed for Guantanamo to remain open and for the military commissions to go forward. Mr. Obama allowed that the detention center had been unfairly confused with Abu Ghraib, but when asked why he wouldn’t rehabilitate its image rather than shut it down, he silently shrugged. Next question.
But Obama’s formidable people skills were also on display, and he provided enough reassurance, vague though it might have been, that many of the families were hopeful:
“I did not vote for the man, but the way he talks to you, you can’t help but believe in him,” said John Clodfelter to the New York Times. His son, Kenneth, was killed in the Cole bombing. “[Mr. Obama] left me with a very positive feeling that he’s going to get this done right.”
“This isn’t goodbye,” said the president, signing autographs and posing for pictures before leaving for his next appointment, “this is hello.” His national security staff would have an open-door policy.
Believe . . . feel . . . hope.
We’d been had.
A mere seventeen days after the hopey-changey meeting, Obama released one of the terrorist suspects against the families’ protests. And that open-door policy for the families was about as phony as you might expect:
…the White House liaison to 9/11 and Cole families refused to answer questions about the circumstances surrounding the decision to repatriate Mohamed, including whether he would be freed in Great Britain.
Kirk Lippold, commanding officer of the USS Cole and leader of the Cole families group, had this to say to Burlingame about President Obama: “At best, he manipulated the families. At worst, he misrepresented his true intentions.”
I don’t see that there’s a whole lot of difference between the two, actually. And I have very little doubt that both are true.
Subsequent and more recent events have only continued the pattern that alarms Ms. Burlingame and the other family members. Obama is bent on releasing more detainees, and plea bargaining with others, and is giving the families’ concerns short shrift. Ms. Burlingame and the group are sadder but wiser:
Given all the developments since our meeting with the president, it is now evident that his words to us bore no relation to his intended actions on national security policy and detainee issues. But the narrative about Mr. Obama’s successful meeting with 9/11 and Cole families has been written, and the press has moved on.
The Obama team has established a pattern that should be plain for all to see. When controversy erupts or legitimate policy differences are presented by well-meaning people, send out the celebrity president to flatter and charm.”
That’s a pretty good summary of this adminstration’s modus operandi. It’s certainly not limited to dealing with terrorists and terrorism, either. It bears repeating:
It is now evident that Obama’s words bear no relation to his intended actions.
More of the same reported on my blog. Thousands of broken promises in just the first hundred days.
Bingo. So now what?
We must make headway against a celebrity-obsessed culture where feelings and symbols are held to be more important than facts. In some ways, this is the result of a society that has become rich enough for opinion leaders to be insulated from the consequences of their choices. We should expect to see an ever increasing gap between the “official truth” and the reality of what is going on. In addition, the government-media-legal complex is in the hands of people who channel all their spiritual passions into the exercise of power. In short, we, like Carroll’s Alice, will encounter a lot of choleric Red Queens who have instructed their servants to paint the roses red.
I saw 1984 with Burton and Hurt on the tube last night. Poor Winston Smith spends his days at MinRec changing the facts of history to fit the political agenda of the present. Orwell knew.
Perhaps, this is where the opportunity arises. Margaret Thatcher famously said, “The facts of life are conservative.” Those of us who oppose the direction of this administration will need to be tireless in learning the facts, sharing the facts, and making people face the contradictions between the facts and what the progressives say. In this, facts and logic are our friends; emotion is the enemy. The moment the argument becomes emotional, the advantage passes to the people who make their living exploiting the ways that emotion clouds thinking.
Implication: the facts are on the ground, and we need to get out to win on the ground. That means not wasting time bewailing how Obama gets a pass–he always has gotten a pass and he always will, for reasons that don’t have much to do with him. It means not spouting off wild rhetoric, which will only allow the progressive regime to label you as extremist. It does mean getting out and volunteering to build the opposition party or parties and institutions, even if that only means putting up yard signs or going door-to-door. It means getting involved with progressive-controlled organizations, because it is the testimony from within that is hard to refute, as we are seeing in today’s WSJ article about voter registration abuses within ACORN. We must stay fearlessly, civilly, and cheerfully engaged.
Pingback:Best of Weekend Blogs | Conservative Political Report
This is pretty much the same way liberals have always acted, in my experience.
“This is pretty much the same way liberals have always acted, in my experience.”
I’m pressing 62 (this summer), and don’t remember them turning this far hard left, even during Carter and Johnson. I’m getting redundant here, but, Obama is, quite simply, a full-blown traitor, along with his enablers from top to bottom. From 9/11 to Israel, the manchurian candidate and the Obamatoads are working for the enemy. As somebody said in a previous post, “We’ve been had.” Buy more guns, join the NRA, the combination sends a unique message to the left…
Oblio,
Yes, there has been a change in the audience, and yes, he has gotten a pass. But I do think it has something to do with him. There is a disconnect in Obama that far exceeds that of the normal crooked, narcissistic, or whatever pol. It makes him less predictable and more dangerous. His history is one of betrayals. Someday, someone (I’m thinking international here) may not respond in a way that’s good for us.
“I did not vote for the man, but the way he talks to you, you can’t help but believe in him,”
I just don’t get this. Once you discover the guy you’re talking to spent 20 years in a racist church, how does his vocabulary, tone, demeanor, sincerity and charm even break the 2% mark when weighing observations about who he is?
Obama is not the problem. So many Americans and their unwillingness or inability to accurately apply sound judgement to this man simply because of his skin color is the problem. And its turning into western civilisations problem. Just incredible.
But the good news is the press is keeping track of all this and highlighting prominently all the lies he’s telling so the American* people will be well informed voters at the next election, right? Of course, one of the things that makes this country work is a free press that has the integrity to report on politics without fear or favor. So everything will be fine.
Meanwhile, back in this universe, we’re screwed, because the press has simply abandoned any pretense of professionalism and gone AWOL on the integrity front. I find their behavior truly shocking these days and I wouldn’t be terribly suprised if future historian looked back on this era as the turning point in the health of democracy in this country. I just can’t figure out which will disappear first, democracy or prosperity, because there is an assault on both.
* That was a typo, I meant to say Gylaxian people.
Anyone who did any homework before the elections new all this. His past performance was known well enough.
For the “some of” and “all of” people who were fooled, we also knew that was going to happen.
Who I’m pissed at are those who knew better, had a gut feeling, and voted for him anyway. And especially pissed at those who stayed home.
This is America, for crying out loud. We are unlike any other nation in the world. Who in this country would WANT to be like any other nation in this world is beyond my comprehension. Outside of a natural wonder here and there, and a few old buildings worth a gape and a visit, there is nothing outside our borders I can possibly think of that interests me. Most of all, forms of government and ways of life.
Perfected Dem,
Cappy was referencing the lies, not so much the policy. The lie is the core of the liberal method of operation. Election campaigns are nothing more than slander fests against the GOP. Governance works the same way. Pelosi’s lies about CIA briefings are just a routine example.
Every major Democratic special interest constituency operates on the BIG LIE. Go through the checklist —
3 million homeless, pay discrimination vs. blacks and women, global warming, national health care will reduce costs (!), unions strengthen the economy, inner city schools just need more money, 1 in 5 kids go to bed hungry, Bush’s jobless recovery, tax cuts for the rich, 5 million green jobs, deregulation caused the rescession —
It’s just one ridiculous crock of BS after the next.
Ben Wattenberg, a White House advisor for LBJ, wrote a book 25 years ago titled, “The Good News is, the Bad News is Wrong.” He showed that all the standard left-wing “facts” about pay discrimination, etc. were wrong, even then.
The three million homeless lie is particularly instructive. A lefty activist simply made up the number. Everyone with a brain knew it was BS. Yet the MSM and Democratic politicians repeated it for years and years. Just your standard Democratic crock of crap.
As David Horowitz explained, liberalism is based on a lie. And the standard method operation is to lie. Without the lie (and its more vicious version, the slander), what would be left of the left?
“”And especially pissed at those who stayed home.””
Amen. I call those the all or nothings. They all stayed home and America’s left with nothing.
My favorite is the “hunger in America” meme, when in fact we have an obesity explosion most pronounced…among the poor.
To hear (other) liberals tell it, the poor are the most obese because they can’t afford “healthy” food and gym memberships (the horror!), but only McDonald’s (not cheap). I often wish the “hunger in America” types could be locked in a room with the “poor can’t afford healthy food” types so they can get the Party line straight.
Obama’s shuck and jive act will get old eventually. I am thinking that there are going to be people in his administration or close to it who will be maltreated, betrayed, lied to, etc., who will eventually come forth and tell the world what a cabal of evildoers these people are.
We have to hold firm. Right now Axelrod and Soros are working furiously to slander and smear Obonga’s opponents. This started before the Tea Parties. That Rasmussen poll that tracks the difference between “strongly approve” vs. “strongly disapprove” has them in a panic. The Alinsky tactic of “freezing the opponent and personalizing it” is being employed with abandon.
The interesting thing about Obonga and the oligarchs behind him is that they sure do show no reluctance to wage political war in the nastiest ways. But real war against America’s real enemies is something altogether different and alien to them.
Make no mistake about it: we are in the midst of a growing, simmering civil war in this country. It will either be resolved when the people get educated and vote for traditional, classical liberal values, or it will be a sanguinary event for the ages. Take your pick. I prefer the former, but am prepared for the latter (just in case).
Perfected democrat Says:
“I’m pressing 62 (this summer), and don’t remember them turning this far hard left, even during Carter and Johnson. ”
Not just how far left, but been so good at hiding what they are. Obama is the master of acting like a centrist and sounding like one. They he goes off to do something far left instead and hardly anyone notices.
I don’t remember where I first saw it, but the phrase “Cold Civil War” has stuck in my mind for the last few years. I believe that aptly describes the situation in America for some time now. The Cold Civil War was already underway before the 2000 election, but I don’t know what you could call the starting point. Maybe the Clinton impeachment, or Waco? 1968? I don’t know.
The fear, of course, is that the Cold Civil War is about to turn hot.
Thomass,
On this forum, and elsewhere, even during the primary season last year I was trying to tell people how far Left Obonga is. I called him a Marxist and people would try to tell me to moderate my stance, “He’s not that bad.” No one believed me. Neo did pick up on some of his background, and she looks at it from the angle of a psychologist. I look at things from the perspective of a philosopher. Context: the history of ideas. So, I label him as I see him.
Perfected Democrat,
I was a lifelong Democrat and left the party in 2002 and registered as a Republican. By no means an uncritical one. When I left the Left back in ’87 I felt liberated. And then after the Cole bombing and then 9/11 I took one more look at the Left, spat on the ground, and told myself I was burning my bridges for good. Not going back. Ever.
There’s an additional problem. Those people who were fooled were fooled in the face of the most obvious evidence, in the face of the most explicit and detailed facts told to them by, in many cases, people they knew and trusted such as friends and family.
Yet they supported and voted for O.
It will be easier for them to insist that anything he does is ALL GOOD than to admit they were not only wrong, but massively wrong, and wrong while chin-deep in evidence they were wrong, wrong while sneering and laughing at those who tried to warn them.
They cannot come back.
It is now evident that Obama’s words bear no relation to his intended actions.
Amen.
Pay attention to what he SAYS about his upcoming SCOTUS appointments, the opposite will be true. He will say what people want to hear and the press will dutifully report it. When you try to point out what he is doing you will have the press’s “truth” thrust at you as proof that he is centrist and doing the right thing.
Nothing is farther from the truth.
When will people awaken from this stunned, frozen mode, and react against what they know is wrong? Our system of checks and balances is failing us – and he is targeting any critics for destruction. We are the enemy, as far as he is concerned, not the terrorists.
How has this happened so fast?
@Richard Aubrey
If they do turn against Barack, they will turn HARD against him. I supported Bill Clinton. When I finally saw him for narcissist and hypocrite he was, I turned HARD against him. Decisively. With a deep conviction of disgust.
gco.
Good for you. But did you sneer at your in-laws and claim they were ignorant when they tried to tell you?
IOW, did you burn your bridges?
In the case of O, many, many people burned their bridges.
Can’t figure out the link.
Google up “Miliatry Child” “Brittanny Wallace” See the news release from Lockheed Martin.
Then think of who we have in government.
We can do better.
Perhaps people are waking up, in their ones and twos, and not saying much about it:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_ballot/generic_congressional_ballot
They should’ve avoided meeting Obama. He was simply looking for a rubber stamp given that he had already made up his mind ahead of time. That’s how he apparently operates. Meet with a ‘diversity of opinions’, claim success, and then do whatever he gas going to do anyway. A contemptable approach but all too expected from a liberal Democrat.
I still have a hard time understanding how center-right folks like Megan McArdle, Ann Althouse, and John McWhorter went for Obama.
McArdle and Althouse write critically of Obama but I’m not sure if they have any remorse about their votes. I haven’t checked into McWhorter since.
Israel
FredHjr, you approach these matters as a philosopher. I approached this election as a student of history. I agree with those who say no one should have been fooled by Obama. And I suspect no one would have been fooled (always excepting those who wished to be fooled) if the MSM hadn’t appointed themselves unpaid campaign flacks. Yes, much was hidden, but much couldn’t be hidden, such as the execrable Jeremiah Wright. Anyone who was paying attention should have seen it.
Okay, here’s where I go out on a limb. In 1944 John T. Flynn defined fascism as:
1. Anti-capitalist, but with capitalist features;
2. Economic demand management…
3. …through budget deficits
4. Direct economic planning, reconciled with partial economic autonomy through corporatism;
5. Militarism and imperialism;
6. Suspension of rule of law.
We have seen samples of all but #5. Could it be that they’re experimenting to see what the American people will accept?
I’ve been to Althouse twice since the election, only to ask if she regretted voting for Obama. As far as I know she never answered. So I haven’t been back. And probably won’t go back. I just don’t know if or when she is sincere now. At the end of the day, she voted for Obama. Being a professor at a large university, perhaps she voted in a manner necessary to survive.
Huxley: In addition to journalists who have made their viewpoints fairly clear over the years, I have trouble understanding how folks in the same income bracket as me, who live in the same size house and neighborhood as me, have kids at the same school as me, who have similar stories about college life/job experiences as me, complain about the same teachers and public services as me, have parents/children with the same problems as my parents and kids…..could support Obama?
It boggles this poor conservative’s mind. It occurs to me that most of these people do not raise their children or run their own household according to Obama’s principles. For example, how many times would you let your child or your child’s teacher off the hook for poor performance or choices by blaming the teacher he had the year before? If your family needed or wished it had things that it could not afford, would you simply buy them and hope for the best? If your child was in the company of a bully, would you counsel him to simply apologize and accept responsibility for any perceived offense to avoid conflict? I realize that national governance is much more complicated than what I have set forth here….but what is the message we are sending?
“It is now evident that Obama’s words bear no relation to his intended actions.”
Seems to me that everyone here is aware of this.
However, as any con man will tell you, there’s no such thing as an un-willing victim. I think that Obama is a cipher to many, who see in him what they want to see instead of what’s really there. A sad commentary on the desperation of our leftist progressive ‘reality based’ community in my opinion.
Perhaps that is because whether a person is libertarian, conservative, moderate, independent or somewhere within that area of the spectrum, they tend to base their assumptions on reason and an underlying philosophy based upon individual rights, limited government and the rule of law. For the left, it’s more of a religion. That’s why we see such a cult of personality surrounding Obama. In my opinion anyway.
However, Obama’s ability to continually lie and get away with it only exist because the main-stream media allow him to get away with it. As everyone here knows, no republican administration could have gotten away with even a fraction of this. To wit, he has continued many of the Bush policies that the left railed against, but as everyone knows, the left was never concerned about morality or ethics, it was all just about political advantage.
I do not think Obonga is a leader. He is doing someone else’s bidding. They are international oligarchs who want to put the United States under U.N. government and transform it into a society like the Euro-socialist model. That means his meeting with the survivors of the U.S.S. Cole bombing and the 9/11 survivors was all show. There is nothing he could do to further their requests because their interests clash with his masters’.
Fred, you mean like Maurice Strong. Without moving into black helicopter territory, I am afraid you are right. You state it baldly, and I don’t think that many if any of them would frame their objective in quite that way. But when you get down to the substance of what they propose with a straight face, that’s what it adds up to: 2% of GDP tax to benefit developing countries, transnational courts making up international law, SCOTUS consideration of foreign statutes and policies in their reasoning, carbon caps, and a Security Council that can declare US defense actions illegal. But again, the purpose is not to get power to the UN itself, but to the alliance of Euro-socialists and Third World National Socialists that run it.
It will be interesting to see how the power dynamics change in the next 100 days, when more and more leaks about “torture” and the like drip out (no pun intended). Obama’s ethically unsustainable administration reminds me of Carter’s.
Rose: This did not happen “so fast”. It’s been a 50 year plan (at least). The Leftists took over the schools and universities, took over the press and judiciary. They institued speech codes and revisionist history and dumbed-down the schools. They divided us and pitted groups against each other. They made right into wrong, up into down. They used “The Big Lie” and we on the Right never made much of an effort to stop it.
The Left is relentless. We must be as well.
what else does a puppet do but follow the strings?
oh what they tend to do when they realize that the string holders dont really have power to control him once he is there.
I’ve got no strings
To hold me down
To make me fret, or make me frown
I had strings
But now I’m free
There are no strings on me
I’ve got no strings
So I have fun
I’m not tied up to anyone
They’ve got strings
But you can see
There are no strings on me
You have no strings
Your arms is free
To love me by the Zuider Zee
Ya, ya, ya
If you would woo
I’d bust my strings for you
You’ve got no strings
Comme ci comme ca
Your savoire-faire is ooh la la!
I’ve got strings
But entre nous
I’d cut my strings for you
Down where the Volga flows
There’s a Russian rendezvous
Where me and Ivan go
But I’d rather go with you, hey!
It is now evident that Obama’s words bear no relation to his intended actions.
IOW – They’re just noise.
–
“Obama’s ethically unsustainable administration reminds me of Carter’s.”
Me, too, except not enough. He has the makings of a Carter, but unfortunately it seems he has slightly more talent at sweet talking people and might be able to get away with much more before people turn against him, as they turned against Carter. And, of course, he has the press much more firmly in the tank (he doesn’t have that whole “Southern” thing to deal with, either, which removes one more barrier to the MSM feeling like he is and will ever be “one of them”).
I don’t know if the backlash against him will happen before the point of no return, or after, and that’s what I find worrying. If we’re lucky, he’ll fail as spectacularly as Carter did and thus give the American people the chance to do a gut check and decide if they made a mistake going that direction in the first place. If they decide they didn’t, then I’m afraid I’ll have to place myself in the long-term pessimist camp, as we throw away everything that made the country successful and admired and workable for the last 200 years. The rule of law is not something to be cast aside lightly.
Make no mistake about it: we are in the midst of a growing, simmering civil war in this country. It will either be resolved when the people get educated and vote for traditional, classical liberal values, or it will be a sanguinary event for the ages. Take your pick. I prefer the former, but am prepared for the latter (just in case).
Nope. Ain’t gonna be no shootin’ war except in the fevered imaginations of the bitterly disappointed. I understand, sympathize and join in on the writer’s despair but let’s keep it within the bounds of reality.
The fear, of course, is that the Cold Civil War is about to turn hot.
Ditto my first comment.
I still have a hard time understanding how center-right folks like Megan McArdle, Ann Althouse, and John McWhorter went for Obama.
The only one I look into on occasion is Althouse. The only explanation I’ve ever seen from her for voting for Obama is something to the effect that she just didn’t consider McCain ‘right’ for the job. Maybe there’s been other comment from Althouse regarding her vote – if so I would be interested to know what reason(s) were given.
At the end of the day, she voted for Obama. Being a professor at a large university, perhaps she voted in a manner necessary to survive.
Could be, could be. Peer pressure should never be discounted. Althouse has never impressed me as someone with an excess of courage. Does anyone know whether she has tenure? Career is an important thing for most folks, Althouse is probably not an exception to that rule.
Another thought along these lines: Althouse could have actually voted for McCain but prefers to have certain colleagues, friends and bosses think otherwise. The secret ballot still obtains for political elections.
But it may be something so simple as that the propaganda had an effect on her. I’ve heard propaganda can be effective even though the victims know it is occurring. All those comics on TV making jokes about the ‘doddering’ McCain …
They divided us and pitted groups against each other.
Yep. And then there’s also those conservatives like Limbaugh and Coulter that exhorted us to vote Democratic or not vote at all. Anyone who ever urges folks not to vote is pissing on the graves of millions of brave souls who died to give us that right. “We have seen the enemy and[to a certain extent] they are us …”
grackle, you have a bee in your bonnet about Coulter and Limbaugh. What is that about?
grackle, you have a bee in your bonnet about Coulter and Limbaugh. What is that about?
I think my comment was fairly clear in it’s meaning but let me elaborate:
Limbaugh urged folks not to vote at all because he was mightily disturbed that McCain was about to win the Republican nomination. He had “no horse in this race” is how he put it. Heard it myself.
Someone commented on one of Neo’s recent posts that the difference in the last Presidential election was merely 3%. Quite a few conservative-minded voters hang on Limbaugh’s every utterance. I wonder about the outcome if Limbaugh had managed to find some enthusiasm for McCain.
Furthermore, huge sacrifices have been made by many to insure our right to vote. Exhorting voters to stay home is the height of idiocy and is virtually spitting on the graves of the many patriots who died to insure we have the right to vote. .
Coulter and Laura Ingraham both urged a vote for the Democratic candidate because they hated McCain so much. Played right into Obama’s hand. Coulter reiterated that opinion a day or so ago on TV. Saw it myself.
I respect the conservative point of view but these three are nothing more than scum.
Two points:
First, I am sick of supposedly Republican politicians who “go along to get along,” and worship at the alter of “bipartisanship,” even if this means that they get screwed every time, and who are deathly afraid that they might take some conservative stand that would mean they would be less popular with voters, and would not get reelected to again feed at the trough in Washington, D.C..
I believe that Conservatives who want to be elected to Congress should stand for and espouse conservative positions–up front, in unmistakable terms, and at top volume and that they should aggressively defend those positions. I believe we should be for a few non-negotiable, core beliefs, which I suggest should be; the rule of law, strict adherence to the Constitution as written, as small and as un-intrusive a government as possible, with a correspondingly small budget and low taxes, states rights, the maximum freedom for the individual, personal responsibility, and a strong national defense. If candidates cannot accept and enthusiastically run on a platform like this, then they should try some other party.
I say, get rid of the whole way too well dressed, comfortable and fat, the whole slimy crew in Congress, and start over again.
Second, people should have figured out by now that Obama is a congenital liar, a man so full of lies that his first impulse is always to lie. His whole life is a self constructed lie, a black hole that has devoured any real truth that might have been there to begin with; at this point he can hardly tell the truth, even if he wants to.
grackle, I agree that no one who urged conservatives to stay home in the last election was doing the Republic any good. Still I think it would be a mistake for conservatives to tear at each other over social issues. Those are not my issues, but for conservatives to hurl polemics at each other only helps the progressives validate their narrative about the dangers of the Religious Right. It doesn’t help the team, and if it leaves the social democrats (i.e. socialists) in power, then it is bad for all conservatives. The same is true for complaints about excessive spending under Bush.
What fun! I have scanned the comments and have this for ya’ll.
Those who saw The 0bamanation for what he is know they were right. Those like Colin Powell, Althouse, Chris Buckley and others who thought that The 0bamanation would govern as a centrist were just deluding themselves. They are now largely quiet as he dismantles the Republic from the extreme Leftist point he always occupied. The list of the transgressions and omissions grows daily.
The 0bamanation told us what he was. He never denied it.
At the end of days, the predecessor to the anti-Christ is to be one such as The 0bamanation. He lies with skill and has the ability to be what others would project on him. He is The Deceiver. He will rule for 42 months before being killed and then resurrected as the anti-Christ.
Now before all you enlightened ones get all huffy, realize that it is very likely the stories told by John in Revelations are just parables and not to be taken literally. You can believe what you need to believe.
But, The Deceiver is very like The 0bamanation. Peoples wants and needs can be projected on him and he can deceive them in their own minds. (“I am the one we have been waiting for…”) He will say he is loving when he is full of hate. He will rain destruction on the world while saying all he wishes is peace. The examples are endless.
Just sayin’ is all. The man is at the least, dangerous to the Republic. At worst he is evil.
I’ve been to D.C. numerous times over the course of my life to visit the Smithsonian. My parents are buried in Arlington National Cemetery. No one in their right mind would actually want to live there. It is a town filled mostly with moochers, looters, and bandits. Cynics are made, not born.
It would be interesting to find out the reasons for voting dem or staying home to teach the republicans a lesson.
A lesson in what? Hell, nobody’s agreed on the lesson.
Bill Whittle recently took Evan Thomas’ supposed 15% media benefit for dems and subtracted it from the last election. Under that, O gets Vermont and DC for a total of six electoral votes.
Thomas later said it was 5%. I’m trying to work the figures, but I expect O would still lose if we took 5% out of his totals in every state.
From that lesson, it follows that the republicans need to stifle the media’s game. Has nothing to do with politics or issues.
Now, that might be doable.
Or, that the republicans need to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. They are not the latter now, but their social conservatism is overrated. In effect, they’re neither, with redneck fundy bluenose social conservatism hung on them by the media who–maybe–know better. Republicans used to be far more socially conservative.
So. What’s to be done? IMO, fixing the media problem is far more doable than coordinating strategies when people promoting a strategy as “electable” really mean “I prefer this.” and other people will prefer purity to being elected.
grackle, I agree that no one who urged conservatives to stay home in the last election was doing the Republic any good. Still I think it would be a mistake for conservatives to tear at each other over social issues. Those are not my issues, but for conservatives to hurl polemics at each other only helps the progressives validate their narrative about the dangers of the Religious Right. It doesn’t help the team, and if it leaves the social democrats (i.e. socialists) in power, then it is bad for all conservatives. The same is true for complaints about excessive spending under Bush.
Let me see if I am understanding the writer’s point by paraphrasing:
If members of the Republican Party disagree with each other the undecided folks within the general public will see this as proof of the untruths which the “progressives” have hurled at the “Religious Right” and this will not only hurt the Republican Party but all conservatives as well. I ask the writer to correct me if this is wrong.
But what has hurt the Republican Party, in my opinion, is that the Republican Party is now commonly thought of by many as the Religious Right Party. Not the Limited Government Party, or the Free Market Party or the National Defense Party; indeed these hallowed principles seemed to have been all but forgotten by the Republican Party. They are given a little bit of lip service when election time rolls around but it’s faint and muffled at best.
Should a political party be pushing religion to the exclusion of other, in my view, more appropriate products? Isn’t promoting religion the job of the churches? Shouldn’t it be up to the individual and his place of worship to deal with religious issues?
What the general public pays attention to is not some infighting between groups within Party but the spectacle of the leaders of the Republican Party getting on their knees to kiss El Rushbo’s butt. Talk about harmful perceptions!
grackle, I was talking about the mistake of adopting a polemical tone, not about disagreeing. Everybody is free to do that. When your rhetoric becomes wild, however, reasonable people will conclude that you are riding a hobbyhorse for reasons best known to yourself. The readers here deserve more explanation and less free-floating emotion.
grackle, I was talking about the mistake of adopting a polemical tone, not about disagreeing. Everybody is free to do that. When your rhetoric becomes wild, however, reasonable people will conclude that you are riding a hobbyhorse for reasons best known to yourself. The readers here deserve more explanation and less free-floating emotion.
I have been offering the opinion that the Republican Party over a period of time has de-emphasized some good political principles(limited government, free market economy, strong national defense) in favor of rather strict social and moral requirements from its candidates and members(religion, family values, etc.) and have contended that this tendency is not good for the Party. If this is “wild” rhetoric then I plead guilty.
But the writer goes even further and ascribes an unnamed but definitely sinister motive to my comments, asserting that I am “riding a hobbyhorse for reasons best known” to myself. I have tried to keep my “reasons” transparent. Is criticism so hard to swallow that evil intent must always be imputed to it?
More extravagant rhetoric, grackle. I didn’t ascribe motives, sinister or otherwise. I am giving you credit for having some reasons why you seem to stay so fussed about Limbaugh et al. You haven’t explained what those reasons are. Perhaps you are particularly sensitive to their messages on immigration, abortion, same sex marriage and perhaps other “social issues” so that you pick up on what they say and are offended by it when other people would simply ignore them. Or perhaps not. You aren’t saying, although I wish you would. Or maybe you just like affecting the polemical style.
Throw us a bone, man.
More extravagant rhetoric, grackle. I didn’t ascribe motives, sinister or otherwise.
I quote the writer:
… reasonable people will conclude that you are riding a hobbyhorse for reasons best known to yourself.
The writer obviously accuses me of concealing my “reasons” for believing as I do. I see no other way to interpret his words.
I have no “reasons” other than I believe the Republican Party is regretfully headed down the road of sure defeat. It used to be a great political party but these days it is simply a losing organization whose leader Michael Steele, in order to keep his job and save his career, is forced to make an abject public apology to Rush Limbaugh. I vote Republican but am relieved not to be a Republican Party member for I would be ashamed if I were. O how far the Grand Old Party has fallen.
I am giving you credit for having some reasons why you seem to stay so fussed about Limbaugh et al. You haven’t explained what those reasons are.
My reasons for holding Limbaugh in contempt? Here’s a couple:
In one of the more important elections in our history he bashed the Republican Party’s nominee incessantly, from the nomination on through the campaign. This knave has a huge following and no doubt contributed significantly to Obama’s victory.
To vote or not is every citizen’s personal decision. To encourage others NOT to exercise this right, especially when the gullible hang upon your every word, is despicable. The millions who have died to create and defend our right to vote must be turning over in their graves.
I have other “reasons” as well but want to make comment — not write a book.
Perhaps you are particularly sensitive to their messages on immigration, abortion, same sex marriage and perhaps other “social issues” so that you pick up on what they say and are offended by it when other people would simply ignore them.
Did Michael Steele “ignore” Rush Limbaugh? Unless you can believe that publicly kissing Limbaugh’s butt is ignoring Limbaugh I don’t see how it can be reasonably believed that anyone can “simply ignore” Limbaugh’s knavery. His presence is much too large on the political stage.
I do not “ignore” such violations of trust as encouraging folks to throw away their right to vote and abetting Obama’s victory. I despise it and delight in exposing it.
grackle, I can’t find a link to stories about Limbaugh telling voters not to stay home during the general election. There are lots of links to his Operation Chaos last March. If you know of a link, please supply it.
Steele called Limbaugh’s comments “ugly” and “incendiary” when he didn’t need to, and he didn’t specify which comments he meant. Any recent examples would have been sufficient. By my lights, Steele was in the wrong on that count, and it was appropriate for him to apologize.
Limbaugh might be guilty of something; I don’t know because I don’t listen to him. But let’s ring him up on the right charge. As it is, this feels like an Alinsky campaign to personalize, polarize, and freeze a target. It might only get bigger, because Limbaugh is not inhibited by political correctness, and he can metaphorically shoot back.
grackle, I can’t find a link to stories about Limbaugh telling voters not to stay home during the general election. There are lots of links to his Operation Chaos last March. If you know of a link, please supply it.
One day while listening to Limbaugh on the radio I heard him offer in reference to the upcoming general election the opinion that he(Limbaugh) no longer had a candidate in the race that he(Limbaugh) could vote for. This was either just before or just after McCain won the nomination.
So I went to Limbaugh’s website, which has archives of his programs, keyed ‘McCain’ into the site’s search engine and got almost a 1000 hits! El Rushbo LOVES to talk about McCain, always in a negative manner of course. Reading through 996 transcripts of his radio program would be the equivalent of reading a long bad book so I read through 3 or 4 pages of hits and got this. It’s not the same crapola that I heard that day but it’s close enough. In it Limbaugh says to a caller, “I can see possibly not supporting a Republican nominee” in reference to John McCain.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012408/content/How_Rush_Chooses_Candidates_.guest.html
Limbaugh is a master at insinuation. There’s no doubt that Limbaugh is entertaining, even ‘riveting’ would not be too strong of a description of his style and until a few years ago I was somewhat of a fan myself.
It was thrilling to hear someone talk back to the Lefties in contrast to the usual MSM fawning, to hear someone with a big following who seemed to be mainlining my own thoughts and even bringing up points I might never have thought of on my own.
But something brought my admiration to a halt. Limbaugh started implying that the Clintons had murdered Vince Foster, a member of their administration that had committed suicide. Oh, he was cagey enough not to put it bluntly, as in ‘The Clintons murdered Vince Foster.’ A direct statement like that would have surely brought a lawsuit and perhaps unfavorable publicity so he took/takes the coward’s route, implication and insinuation, mainly with veiled references to “Fort Marcy,” the park where the unfortunate man took his life.
After that I started listening with a more critical ear and realized what he was: a clever blowhard – who in recent years has managed to appoint himself as the unofficial gatekeeper of the Republican Party.
Steele called Limbaugh’s comments “ugly” and “incendiary” when he didn’t need to, and he didn’t specify which comments he meant. Any recent examples would have been sufficient. By my lights, Steele was in the wrong on that count, and it was appropriate for him to apologize.
Judging from my visit to his site almost any Limbaugh broadcast is “ugly” and “incendiary” so I don’t think Steele was under any obligation to quote Limbaugh. Anyway, attempting to so would have only have prolonged the firestorm and would probably have gotten the poor man into even more trouble with Limbaugh’s listeners. Better a quick abject apology, hat in hand, and try to move on without angering the Grand Poobah even further.
Besides, the writer has been presented with several of what I believe are “ugly” and “incendiary” aspects of Limbaugh just in our little exchange on this thread. Does it have to come from Steele’s own mouth in order for him to let the hapless, obviously frightened Steele off the hook? I invite the writer to peruse the transcripts of Limbaugh’s broadcasts — they are all available at Limbaugh’s website — to satisfy himself whether Steele’s comment was justified or not.
Limbaugh might be guilty of something; I don’t know because I don’t listen to him. But let’s ring him up on the right charge. As it is, this feels like an Alinsky campaign to personalize, polarize, and freeze a target. It might only get bigger, because Limbaugh is not inhibited by political correctness, and he can metaphorically shoot back.
I don’t get what the writer is driving at with the above. Is Limbaugh going to “shoot back” at me? This is kind of funny, if that is the writer’s meaning(I’ve had to guess at the writer’s meaning a couple of times during this exchange). Dear readers, I am not important enough for Limbaugh to bring me within his baleful crosshairs. El Rushbo hunts for big game, not insignificant grackles.
grackle, I am talking about Limbaugh answering his critics, and not addressing you personally.
I am saying that what is going on with the Limbaugh exchanges, starting with the White House, and including David Frum, Wanda Sykes, Colin Powell, Michael Steele, and Roberta McCain goes way beyond you, and I expect that Limbaugh will fire back as he has the motive, the means, and the requisite lack of inhibition.
Mentioning Limbaugh’s name provokes near hysteria in some quarters. That must mean something. I’m wondering exactly who is feeling inflamed and might start to act on their righteous indignation. These may be straws in the wind announcing a dispute, perhaps over race, that will get ugly indeed.
I will take your advice and go back to the Limbaugh website to see for myself.
grackle, I looked at your link, and you need a better one to make your case.
First, look at the date: January 2008, during the period before McCain was nominated. Finding fault with him at that point doesn’t add up to suppressing conservative turnout in the general election, which was your main beef.
Second, I failed to see anything ugly or incendiary in the transcript. There was nothing that was clearly over the line.
Perhaps some people will get inflamed if you even talk about immigration and abortion, no matter what you say or how you say it. I don’t think that any good can come out of going down that road. It suppresses thought at the bidding of emotion. There is no way that we can get good policies on contentious issues without serious thought, or by excluding or ignoring the opinions of people who strongly disagree.
grackle, I am talking about Limbaugh answering his critics, and not addressing you personally.
I am saying that what is going on with the Limbaugh exchanges, starting with the White House, and including David Frum, Wanda Sykes, Colin Powell, Michael Steele, and Roberta McCain goes way beyond you, and I expect that Limbaugh will fire back as he has the motive, the means, and the requisite lack of inhibition.
Agreed.
Mentioning Limbaugh’s name provokes near hysteria in some quarters. That must mean something. I’m wondering exactly who is feeling inflamed and might start to act on their righteous indignation. These may be straws in the wind announcing a dispute, perhaps over race, that will get ugly indeed.
But the mention of almost ANY name, right or left, that is prominent in the political sphere “provokes near hysteria” from some segment or another of the political population. That fact, in and of itself, proves nothing. Hysteria abounds at both ends of the political spectrum. Mention Dick Cheney at Daily Kos and you’ll get hysteria. Mention Obama at some conservative blogs and the same is likely to result.
BTW, on the whole, my unscientific, entirely anecdotal opinion is that the Conservative blogosphere is more tolerant than the Liberal blogs.
I want to always keep this dictum in mind: The opposition may actually be right on some issues, albeit usually for the wrong reasons.
I used to be all for abortion, now I’m not. My mind was not changed by hysterical, religious-based ultimatum, but by thoughtful debate.
I like this blog because the posts are never hysterical and the comment on the posts is usually thoughtful. I learn things here and have adjusted my thinking on many issues because of the posts and comments.
As for the possibility of things getting more “ugly,” short of shooting real bullets at each other I don’t see how the situation with the extreme Right and extreme Left could get any uglier.
I will take your advice and go back to the Limbaugh website to see for myself.
Take a barf bag with you. You’re going to need it. Key “Fort Marcy” and “Michael Fox” into the site’s search engine and read what you get.
Peace be with you, Oblio. Your heart’s in the right place.